Tacay V RTC of Tagum Digest
Tacay V RTC of Tagum Digest
GR 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.