Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tacay V RTC of Tagum Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kirsten Rose Boque Concon
    38 views1 page
    The Regional Trial Court of Tagum denied motions to dismiss filed by three defendants in cases for recovery of possession of property brought by Godofredo Pineda. The defendants argued the complaints should be dismissed for not specifying amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages claimed or the assessed value of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the RTC's rulings, finding that while specification of damages amounts is relevant to determining jurisdiction over those claims, the RTC had properly acquired jurisdiction over the actions involving the real property itself upon filing and payment of requisite fees. The damages claims without amounts specified were correctly expunged by the RTC from the complaints.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    332788940 Tacay v Rtc of Tagum Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Regional Trial Court of Tagum denied motions to dismiss filed by three defendants in cases for recovery of possession of property brought by Godofredo Pineda. The defendants argued the complaints should be dismissed for not specifying amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages claimed or the assessed value of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the RTC's rulings, finding that while specification of damages amounts is relevant to determining jurisdiction over those claims, the RTC had properly acquired jurisdiction over the actions involving the real property itself upon filing and payment of requisite fees. The damages claims without amounts specified were correctly expunged by the RTC from the complaints.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views1 page

    Tacay V RTC of Tagum Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kirsten Rose Boque Concon
    The Regional Trial Court of Tagum denied motions to dismiss filed by three defendants in cases for recovery of possession of property brought by Godofredo Pineda. The defendants argued the complaints should be dismissed for not specifying amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages claimed or the assessed value of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the RTC's rulings, finding that while specification of damages amounts is relevant to determining jurisdiction over those claims, the RTC had properly acquired jurisdiction over the actions involving the real property itself upon filing and payment of requisite fees. The damages claims without amounts specified were correctly expunged by the RTC from the complaints.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tacay vs RTC of Tagum

    GR Nos. 88075-77
    December 20, 1989

    MAXIMO TACAY, PONCIANO PANES and ANTONIA NOEL, petitioners, vs.


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM Davao del Norte, Branches 1 and 2, Presided by Hon. Marcial
    Fernandez and Hon. Jesus Matas, respectively, PATSITA GAMUTAN, Clerk of Court, and
    GODOFREDO PINEDA, respondents.
    G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989

    FACTS: These were two separate cases originally filed by Godofredo Pineda at the RTC of Tagum for
    recovery of possession (accion publiciana) against three defendants, namely Antonio Noel, Ponciano Panes,
    and Maximo Tacay. Pineda was the owner of 790 sq. meter land evidence by TCT No. T-56560. The previous
    owner of such land allowed the three defendants to use or occupy the same by mere tolerance. Pineda having
    himself the need to use the property, demanded the defendants to vacate the premises and pay reasonable rental
    therefore, but such demands were refused. The complaint was challenged in the Motions to Dismiss filed by
    each defendant alleging that it did not specify the amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages, nor the
    assessed value of the property, that being a ground to bar the determination of the RTC’s jurisdiction in
    deciding the case. The Motions to Dismiss were denied and the claims for damages in the complaint were
    expunged for failure to specify the amounts. Thus, the defendants filed a Joint Petition for certiorari, mandamus
    and prohibition, as well as a temporary restraining order against the RTC.

    ISSUE: WON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE
    PROPERTY ARE RELEVANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION IN
    A CASE FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY.

    HELD: Yes. Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the legal fees
    shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total amount of related damages
    sought. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
    the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the
    time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course,
    prescription has set in the meantime. But where-as in the case at bar-the fees prescribed for an action involving
    real property have been paid, but the amounts of certain of the related damages (actual, moral and nominal)
    being demanded are unspecified, the action may not be dismissed. The Court undeniably has jurisdiction over
    the action involving the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of the complaint or similar pleading and
    payment of the prescribed fee. And it is not divested of that authority by the circumstance that it may not have
    acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying claims for damages because of lack of specification thereof. What
    should be done is simply to expunge those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated, which is what
    the respondent Courts did, or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for the amendment of the complaints so as to
    allege the precise amount of each item of damages and accept payment of the requisite fees therefore within the
    relevant prescriptive period.

    You might also like