Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 Foronda-Crystal v. Son
01 Foronda-Crystal v. Son
DECISION
REYES, JR., J : p
The Case
Challenged before this Court via this Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02226 promulgated on March 12, 2015, which
affirmed in toto the Decision 2 dated November 24, 2006 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55 of Mandaue City. Likewise challenged is the
subsequent Resolution 3 promulgated on October 19, 2015 which upheld the
earlier decision.
Aggrieved, petitioner herein elevated the case to the CA. The material
allegations that she presented included the following: (1) the RTC rendered
its decision with undue haste considering that the same was promulgated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
even before the expiration of the period within which the parties' respective
memoranda were to be filed; (2) the respondent was not able to prove that
the lot she acquired from Arias was Lot No. 1280; (3) the respondent failed to
prove that she was in actual physical possession of the subject property
whereas the petitioner was able to do so since 1972; (4) the RTC erred in its
order to cancel OCT No. OP-37324 and to issue, in lieu thereof, a new title in
herein respondent's name; and (5) the action filed by the respondent was
already barred by prescription and laches.
On March 12, 2015, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, which
affirmed the RTC decision. The fallo of CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55,
Mandaue City dated November 24, 2006 in Civil Case No. MAN-3498,
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13
The Issues
The petitioner anchors her plea for the reversal of the assailed decision
on the following grounds: 15
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THIS CASE
ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE RTC OF
MANDAUE CITY OVER THIS CASE AS THE ASSESSED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THIS CASE IS P1,030.00 AND THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COMPOSTELA, CEBU.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE
PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE
RTC AS VOID.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING ARTICLE 434
OF THE CIVIL CODE TO THE CASE AT BAR.
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT LOT NO.
1280 WAS A PUBLIC GRANT TO WHICH EDDIE FORONDA WAS
ISSUED A FREE PATENT.
V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
ACTION IS BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION.
VI. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
ACTION IS BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION (SIC).
VII. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
VALIDITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTC IS
QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS RENDERED WITH UNDUE
HASTE.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
The foregoing assignment of errors could be summarized in three main
issues: (1) whether or not the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the case,
and whether or not the RTC decision was void ab initio; (2) whether or not
the Original Certificate of Title issued under the name of petitioner's father
should be canceled and set aside on the strength of the respondent's
allegations of ownership over the same; and (3) whether or not the action is
already barred by prescription.
Time and again, this Court has continuously upheld Heirs of Concha,
Sr.'s ruling on this provision of law. 25 In fact, in Malana, et al. v. Tappa, et
al. 26 the Court said that "the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word 'shall' and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or
possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00." 27
To determine the assessed value, which would in turn determine the
court with appropriate jurisdiction, an examination of the allegations in the
complaint is necessary. It is a hornbook doctrine that the court should only
look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is
within its jurisdiction. 28 According to the case of Spouses Cruz v. Spouses
Cruz, et al., 29 only these facts can be the basis of the court's competence to
take cognizance of a case, and that one cannot advert to anything not set
forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to determine
the nature of the action thereby initiated. 30
It is not a surprise, therefore, that a failure to allege the assessed value
of a real property in the complaint would result to a dismissal of the case.
This is because absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value
of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. Indeed, the
courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the
land. 31 This is the same ratio put forth by the Court in the case of Spouses
Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, et al., 32 where the case was dismissed partly on the
basis of the following:
The complaint did not contain any such allegation on the
assessed value of the property. There is no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of petitioners.
Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value
of the property, it cannot be determined whether it is the RTC or the
MTC which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners'
action. 33 (Citations omitted)
I n Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, 34 the Court had no qualms in
dismissing the case for failing to allege the assessed value of the subject
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
property. Similar to Spouses Cruz, 35 Quinagoran 36 held that: "Considering
that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the assessed value of
the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the motion to
dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the
CA erred in affirming the RTC."
This is not to say, however, that there is no room for a liberal
interpretation of this rule. In Tumpag v. Tumpag , 37 the Court, through
Justice Brion, provided for an instance when an exception to the strict
application could be allowed. It said:
Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in
the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction.
There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule
may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's
substantial right. 38
In that case, there was also no allegation of the assessed value of the
property. However, the Court pointed out that the facts contained in the
Declaration of Real Property, which was attached to the complaint, could
have facially resolved the question on jurisdiction and would have rendered
the lengthy litigation on that very point unnecessary. 39 In essence, the
Court said that the failure to allege the real property's assessed value in the
complaint would not be fatal if, in the documents annexed to the complaint,
an allegation of the assessed value could be found.
A reading of the quoted cases would reveal a pattern which would
invariably guide both the bench and the bar in similar situations. Based on
the foregoing, the rule on determining the assessed value of a real property,
insofar as the identification of the jurisdiction of the first and second level
courts is concerned, would be two-tiered: SDAaTC
Having laid out the essential rules in determining the jurisdiction of the
first and second level courts for civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, the Court now shifts
focus to the specific circumstances that surround the current case.
In here, the respondent failed to allege in her complaint the assessed
value of the subject property. Rather, what she included therein was an
allegation of its market value amounting to P200,000.00. 47 In the course of
the trial, the petitioner asserted that the assessed value of the property as
stated in the tax declaration was merely P1,030.00, and therefore the RTC
lacked jurisdiction.
The question thus posed before this Court was whether or not the RTC
should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and in the affirmative,
whether or not the RTC decision should be rendered void for being issued
without jurisdiction.
As discussed above, settled is the requirement that the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, required the allegation of the real
property's assessed value in the complaint. That the complaint in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
present case did not aver the assessed value of the property is a violation of
the law, and generally would be dismissed because the court which would
exercise jurisdiction over the case could not be identified.
However, a liberal interpretation of this law, as opined by the Court in
Tumpag, 48 would necessitate an examination of the documents annexed to
the complaint. In this instance, the complaint referred to Tax Declaration No.
16408A, attached therein as Annex "B," which naturally would contain the
assessed value of the property. A perusal thereof would reveal that the
property was valued at P2,826.00.
On this basis, it is clear that it is the MTC, and not the RTC, that has
jurisdiction over the case. The RTC should have upheld its Order dated
November 8, 2006 which dismissed the same. Consequently, the decision
that it rendered is null and void.
In the case of Maslag v. Monzon, 49 the Court had occasion to rule that
an order issued by a court declaring that it has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has
none cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction
which cannot be countenanced. Since the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, as amended, already apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC and the
RTC in cases involving title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner
could alter or disregard the same.
In yet another case, Diona v. Balangue, 50 the Court ruled that void
judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. No legal rights can
emanate from a resolution that is null and void. As said by the Court in
Cañero v. University of the Philippines: 51
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a
valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared
inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.
It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any
place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to
enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to
enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and
the situation is the same as it would be if there was no judgment. 52
Thus, considering the foregoing, it would be proper for the Court to
immediately dismiss this case without prejudice to the parties' filing of a new
one before the MTC that has jurisdiction over the subject property.
Consequently, the other issues raised by the petitioner need not be
discussed further.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision in CA-G.R.
CV No. 02226 dated March 12, 2015, and the Resolution dated October 19,
2015 of the Court of Appeals, as well as the Decision dated November 24,
2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55 of Mandaue City, are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for being issued without jurisdiction. This is
without prejudice to the filing of the parties of the proper action before the
proper court. SDHTEC
5. Id. at 103-104.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 104-105.
8. Id. at 115.
9. Id. at 116.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 127-128.
13. Id. at 79.
17. Id.
18. Id., See Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic , 679 Phil. 508
(2012), citing Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Villon, 482 Phil. 894, 900
(2004).
19. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (1980), as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 (1994).
20. Id. Sec. 19 (2).
21. Id. Sec. 33 (3).
22. According to the case of Geonzon v. Heirs of Legaspi (586 Phil. 750, 751
[2008]), assessed value is understood to be the worth or value of property
established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied.
It is synonymous to taxable value and could be computed by multiplying the
fair market value with the assessment level ( Hilario v. Salvador , 497 Phil.
327, 336 [2005]).
28. Tumpag v. Tumpag , G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014, 737 SCRA 62, 69.
29. 616 Phil. 519 (2009).
30. Id. at 523-524.
31. Hilario v. Salvador , supra note 22, at 336.
32. Supra note 29.
41. G.R. No. 204970, February 1, 2016, 782 SCRA 578, 591.
42. Barangay Piapi v. Talip , supra note 40.
51. 481 Phil. 249 (2004), as cited in Imperial v. Armes , G.R. No. 178842, January
30, 2017.
52. Cañero v. University of the Philippines, id . at 267.