BF CITILAND CORPORATION V. MARILYN B.

OTAKE
NATURE: Petition for review of the Resolutions of CA
under RULE 45
FACTS: BF Citiland Corporation is the registered owner
of a lot in Paraaque City, with an assessed value of
P48K. (based on Tax Declaration).
On 24 February 1987, respondent Merlinda B. Bodullo
bought the adjoining lot.
However, records show respondent occupied not just
the lot she purchased. She also encroached upon
petitioner's lot.
On 13 October 2000, petitioner filed in the
Metropolitan Trial Court a complaint for accion
publiciana praying:
1) that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to
vacate the subject lot;
2) that respondent be ordered to pay P15,000.00 per
month by way of reasonable compensation for the
use of the lot.
The MeTC ruled in favor of BF Citiland (except rent was
P10K/month), even ordering Bodullo to pay P20K attys
fees & costs of the suit.
The MeTC also issued writ of execution & granted the
motion for special order of demolition.
Merlinda Bodulla filed in the RTC a petition for
certiorari under RULE 65, seeking dismissal of the case
in the MeTC for lack of jurisdiction.
RTC reversed the MeTC case dismissed, for lack of
jurisdiction; alleging that a suit for accion publiciana
fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
BF Citiland claimed Bodullon was estopped
participating in all the proceedings of the MeTC.

for

court which rendered the judgment or final order

appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. x x x
(b) PETITION FOR REVIEW. - The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional
Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
accordance with Rule 42. (Emphasis supplied) x x
x
However, in numerous cases, this Court has allowed
liberal construction of the rules when to do so would
serve the demands of substantial justice.
Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is
frowned upon.
Thus, notwithstanding petitioner's wrong mode of
appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have so easily
dismissed the petition.
2.) MeTC Under BP 129, as amended, jurisdiction
even in accion publiciana cases is determined by the
assessed value of the property.
With the modifications introduced by REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 7691, the jurisdiction of regional trial courts has
been limited to real actions where the assessed value
exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the action is filed
in Metro Manila.
If the assessed value is below the said amounts, the
action must be brought before first level courts.

SEC. 33. JURISDICTION OF METROPOLITAN

TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS IN CIVIL
CASES. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
xxx

Bodullon countered: lack of jurisdiction can be raised

any time.
BF Citiland filed a petition for review under RULE 42:
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
CA dismissed case - saying the proper appeal from the
RTC decision is by way of notice of appeal.
Hence, BF Citiland filed this Petition for Review in the
SC.
ISSUES:
1) What is the proper mode of appeal from the
decision of the RTC?
2) Who has jurisdiction on the accion publiciana case?
HELD:
1.) Notice of Appeal because the RTC decided the
case in the exercise of its Original Jurisdiction.
i.e. The case filed in the RTC was an Original Action for
Petition for Review on Certiorari under RULE 65.
RULES OF COURT:
RULE 41: APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
SECTION 2. MODES OF APPEAL (a) ORDINARY APPEAL. - The appeal to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions

which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value1 of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes, the value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of
the adjacent lots. (Emphasis supplied)

The subject lot, with an assessed value below the

jurisdictional limit of P50,000.00 for Metro Manila,
comes within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
MeTC under BP 129, as amended.
DISPOSITION:
petition.

WHEREFORE,

we

GRANT

the

We SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated 28 July 2005

and 5 July 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 88995.

We REINSTATE the 25 April 2003 Decision and the 20

June 2003 Order of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(Branch 77) of Paraaque City in Civil Case No. 11868.

Costs against petitioner.