Professional Documents
Culture Documents
aw it fit to ascertain the nature based on the surrounding circumstances and facts because
were not alleged in the complaint (such details such as transfer of TCT,
n, etc.)
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
284
284
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
now Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting
title to or recovery of possession of real property.
Same; Same; Same; In computing the docket fees for cases involving real
properties, the courts, instead of relying on the assessed or estimated value,
would now be using the fair market value of the real properties (as stated in the
Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.A
real action indisputably involves real property. The docket fees for a real action
would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real property
involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable
value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the
courts, instead of relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be
using the fair market value of the real properties (as stated in the Tax
Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.
Page 2 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
285
Page 3 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
286
286
Purchase Price
P 9,340,000.00
P 28,000,000.00
P 12,000,000.00
P 1,600,000.00
P 1,600,000.00
Redemption Price
P 25,328,939.00
P 35,660,800.00
P 28,477,600.00
P 6,233,381.00
P 6,233,381.00
In the event that petitioner is able to redeem any of the aforementioned parcels of land, the Deed of Absolute Sale covering the
said property shall be nullified and have no force and effect; and
respondents Tan and Obiedo shall then return the owners duplicate
of the corresponding TCT to petitioner and also execute a Deed of
Discharge of Mortgage. However, if petitioner is unable to redeem
the parcels of land within the period agreed upon, respondents Tan
and Obiedo could already present the Deeds of Absolute Sale
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 4 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
covering the same to the Office of the Register of Deeds for Naga City
so respondents Tan and Obiedo could acquire TCTs to the said
properties in their names.
287
287
Page 5 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
288
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 6 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 53-62.
289
289
Page 7 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
13 Id., at p. 58.
290
290
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
(b)Restraining the Register of Deeds of Naga City from entertaining moves
by the [respondents] to have [petitioners] certificates of title to the mortgaged
properties cancelled and changed/registered in [respondents] Tans and
Obiedos names, and/or released to them;
(c)After notice and hearing, that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
imposing the same restraints indicated in the next preceding two paragraphs
of this prayer; and
(d)After trial, judgment be rendered:
1.Making the injunction permanent;
2.Declaring the provision in the Memorandum of Agreement requiring the
[petitioner] to execute deed of sales (sic) in favor of the [respondents Tan and
Obiedo] as dacion en pago in the event of non-payment of the debt as pactum
commissorium;
3.Annulling the Deed[s] of Sale for TCT Nos. 29918, 38374, 38376, 39225
and 39232, all dated January 3, 2006, the same being in contravention of law;
4.Ordering the [respondents] jointly and solidarily to pay the [petitioner]
actual damages of at least P300,000.00; attorneys fees in the amount of
P100,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per court attendance of counsel as appearance fee;
litigation expenses in the amount of at least P10,000.00 and exemplary
damages in the amount of P300,000.00, plus the costs.
[Petitioner] further prays for such other reliefs as may be proper, just and
equitable under the premises.14
Page 8 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 60-62.
15 Id., at pp. 65-71.
291
291
Page 9 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
into the personnel of respondents Tan and Obiedo causing melee and
disturbance. Moreover, by the execution of the Deeds of Absolute
Sale, the properties subject thereof were, ipso jure, delivered to
respondents Tan and
292
292
Page 10 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
correct and accurate docket fees pursuant to Section 7(a), Rule 141 of
the
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 69-70.
293
293
Page 11 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
No. 35-2004 within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order to the Clerk of
Court, Regional
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 74-79.
18 Id., at p. 75.
294
294
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
Trial Court, Naga City and for the latter to compute and to collect the said fees
accordingly.19
Page 12 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
19 Id., at p. 78.
20 Id., at pp. 80-84.
21 Penned by Judge Novelita Villegas-Llaguno; id., at pp. 85-88.
295
295
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
one incapable of pecuniary estimation, however, as argued by the [respondent
Tan], the issue as to how much filing and docket fees should be paid was never
raised as an issue in the case of Russell vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.22
Page 13 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
296
Page 14 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
25 Rollo, pp. 118-119.
26 Id.
297
297
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
No. 104796, March 6, 1998, not to mention the fact that if the said judgment
is allowed to stand and not rectified, the same would result in grave injustice
and irreparable damage to herein petitioner in view of the prohibitive amount
assessed as a consequence of said Orders.27
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 15 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
27 Id., at p. 27.
28 G.R. No. L-75919, 7 May 1987, 149 SCRA 562, 569.
29 G.R. Nos. 79937-38, 13 February 1989, 170 SCRA 274, 285.
298
298
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
collect the additional fee.
In the Petition at bar, the RTC found, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed, that petitioner did not pay the correct amount of docket
fees for Civil Case No. 2006-0030. According to both the trial and
appellate courts, petitioner should pay docket fees in accordance with
Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Consistent
with the liberal tenor of Sun Insurance, the RTC, instead of
dismissing outright petitioners Complaint in Civil Case No. 20060030, granted petitioner time to pay the additional docket fees.
Despite the seeming munificence of the RTC, petitioner refused to
pay the additional docket fees assessed against it, believing that it
had already paid the correct amount before, pursuant to Section 7(b)
(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Relevant to the present controversy are the following provisions
under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-204-SC30 and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No.
35-200431:
SEC.7.Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.
(a)For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counterclaim,
CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or
for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-inintervention, if the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS,
PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND
ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases
involving property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in
litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT
ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 16 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
299
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE
STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE
CLAIMANT, is:
[Table of fees omitted.]
If the action involves both a money claim and relief pertaining to property,
then THE fees will be charged on both the amounts claimed and value of
property based on the formula prescribed in this paragraph a.
(b)For filing:
1.Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated
2.Special civil actions, except judicial foreclosure of mortgage,
EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, PARTITION AND QUIETING OF TITLE
which will
3.All other actions not involving property
[Table of fees omitted.]
The docket fees under Section 7(a), Rule 141, in cases involving
real property depend on the fair market value of the same: the
higher the value of the real property, the higher the docket fees due.
In contrast, Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes a fixed or flat rate of
docket fees on actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.
In order to resolve the issue of whether petitioner paid the correct
amount of docket fees, it is necessary to determine the true nature of
its Complaint. The dictum adhered to in this jurisdiction is that the
nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the body of
the pleading or Complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading.32
However, the Court finds it necessary, in ascertaining the true
nature of Civil Case No. 2006-0030, to take into account significant
facts and circumstances beyond the Complaint of petitioner, facts
and circum-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 17 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
32 Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 501; 372 SCRA 256, 263-264 (2001).
300
300
Page 18 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
301
301
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 19 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
302
302
Page 20 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
303
303
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
ture of the action which is to recover real property. (Inton, et al. v.
Quintan, 81 Phil. 97, 1948)
An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real
property is a real action. Its prime objective is to recover said
real property. (Gavieres v. Sanchez, 94 Phil. 760, 1954)
An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no
different from an action to annul a private sale of real property. (Muoz
v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950).
While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the
recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his
action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are
closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building
which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the
recovery of which is petitioners primary objective. The
prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or
rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the
fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which
is to recover said real property. It is a real action.
Unfortunately, and evidently to evade payment of the correct amount of
filing fee, respondent Manalo never alleged in the body of his amended
petition, much less in the prayer portion thereof, the assessed value of the
subject res, or, if there is none, the estimated value thereof, to serve as basis for
the receiving clerk in computing and arriving at the proper amount of filing fee
due thereon, as required under Section 7 of this Courts en banc resolution of
04 September 1990 (Re: Proposed Amendments to Rule 141 on Legal Fees).
Even the amended petition, therefore, should have been expunged from the
records.
In fine, we rule and so hold that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction
over its Civil Case No. Q-95-24791.36
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 21 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
304
304
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 22 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
305
305
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
complaint the assessed value of his real properties in controversy, the correct
docket fee cannot be computed. As such, his complaint should not have been
accepted by the trial court. We thus rule that it has not acquired jurisdiction
over the present case for failure of herein respondent to pay the required
docket fee. On this ground alone, respondents complaint is vulnerable to
dismissal.38
Page 23 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
306
306
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III
Article 886 of the Civil Code and/or violation of the terms and conditions of the
said contract.
2.Declaring void ab initio the Deed of Absolute Sale for being absolutely
simulated; and
3.Ordering defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiffs (private respondents)
attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00.41
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 24 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
_______________
41 Id., at p. 537.
307
307
Page 25 of 26
1/26/16, 12:17 AM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015279930a113e289d52003600fb002c009e/p/AQM007/?username=Guest
Page 26 of 26