1.) Heirs of Concha vs. Sps.

Lumocso applications over the lots despite their full knowledge that
petitioners owned the lots;
G.R. No. 158121 December 12, 2007
i) that the geodetic engineers who conducted the original
Facts: survey over the lots never informed them of the survey to
give them an opportunity to oppose respondents'
Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha,
applications;
Sr., claim to be the rightful owners of certain lots situated in j) that respondents' free patents and the corresponding OCTs
Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141. were issued "on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
Respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso, Cristita Lumocso
misrepresentation"; and
Vda. de Daan, and Jacinto Lumocso, are the patent holders
k) that the lots in question have not been transferred to an
and registered owners of the subject lots.
innocent purchaser.
On August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr. and his children On separate occasions, respondents moved for the dismissal
(petitioners) filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or of the respective cases against them on the same grounds of:
Annulment of Title with Damages against "Spouses
(a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters
Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought to
of the complaints;
annul Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and the corresponding
(b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance;
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22556 issued in
(c) prescription; and
the name of "Gregorio Lumocso" covering Lot No. 6195. (d) waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel.13 On the
The case was raffled to the RTC of Dipolog City, Branch 9. issue of jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section
On September 3, 1999, two separate complaints for
19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each
Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners, this
case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than
time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a one- P20,000.00.
hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and "Spouses Jacinto
Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso" for a one-hectare
Petitioners opposed,contending that the instant cases
portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A. The two
involve actions the subject matters of which are incapable
complaints were also raffled to Branch 9 of the RTC of
of pecuniary estimation which, under Section 19(1) of B.P.
Dipolog City.
129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTCs. They also contended that
The three complaints commonly alleged: they have two main causes of action: for reconveyance and
a) that on May 21, 1958, petitioners' parents (spouses
for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents.
Concha) acquired by homestead a 24-hectare parcel of land
Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which,
situated in Cogon, Dipolog City;
if computed, allegedly falls within the exclusive original
b) that since 1931, spouses Concha "painstakingly
jurisdiction of the RTC.
preserved" the forest in the 24-hectare land, including the
excess four (4) hectares "untitled forest land" located at its The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of
eastern portion;
respondents. The respondents filed a Joint Motion for
c) that they possessed this excess 4 hectares of land
Reconsideration, to no avail.
"continuously, publicly, notoriously, adversely, peacefully,
in good faith and in concept of an owner since 1931”;
Dissatisfied, respondents jointly filed a Petition for
d) that they continued possession and occupation of the 4- Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction with
hectare land after the death of Dorotea Concha on Prayer for Issuance of Restraining Order Ex Parte with the
December 23, 1992 and Valeriano Sr. on May 12, 1999;
CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59499. In its Decision,
e) that the Concha spouses "have preserved the forest trees
the CA reversed the resolutions and order of the trial court.
standing in the subject lots to the exclusion of the
It held that even assuming that the complaints state a cause
respondents or other persons from 1931" up to November of action, the same have been barred by the statute of
12, 1996 (1st case) or January 1997 (2nd and 3rd case) when limitations. The CA ruled that an action for reconveyance
respondents, "by force, intimidation, and stealth forcibly
based on fraud prescribes in ten (10) years, hence, the
entered the premises, illegally cut, collected, and disposed"
instant complaints must be dismissed as they involve titles
of 21 trees, 22 trees or 6 trees;
issued for at least twenty-two (22) years prior to the filing
f) that "the land is private land or that even assuming it was
of the complaints. The CA found it unnecessary to resolve
part of the public domain, plaintiffs had already acquired the other issues.
imperfect title thereto" under Sec. 48(b) of C.A. No. 141;
g) that respondents allegedly cut into flitches the trees felled
Issue: Which court has jurisdiction over the current
in Lot No. 6195 while the logs taken from the subject lots in
complaints for Reconveyances?
the other complaints were sold to a timber dealer in
Zamboanga del Norte;
Held: MTC has jurisdiction over the cases.
h) that respondents "surreptitiously" filed free patent
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and
an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the
parties. To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case, it is important to determine the
nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.
The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve
actions for reconveyance. An action for reconveyance
respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but
seeks the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in other persons' names, to its
rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have a
better right. There is no special ground for an action for
reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved party has a
legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered
owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands
of an innocent purchaser for value. These cases may also be
considered as actions to remove cloud on one's title as they
are intended to procure the cancellation of an instrument
constituting a claim on petitioners' alleged title which was
used to injure or vex them in the enjoyment of their alleged
title.
Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to
remove cloud on one's title, the applicable law to determine
which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as
amended.
In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are
situated in Cogon, Dipolog City and their assessed values
are less than P20,000.00 hence, the MTC clearly has
jurisdiction over the instant cases.
The original text of Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 as well as its
forerunner, Section 44(b) of R.A. 296,47 as amended, gave
the RTCs exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions
which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MTCs." Thus,
under the old law, there was no substantial effect on
jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of
which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section
19(1) of B.P. 129 or one involving title to property under
Section 19(2).
The distinction between the two classes became crucial with
the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994 which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level
courts to include "all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value 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."
Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases
the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of,
real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of
B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level
courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved
as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to
"unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would
result in the speedier administration of justice.
The cases relied upon by the petitioners, are inapplicable to
the cases at bar. Raymundo involved a complaint for
mandatory injunction, not one for reconveyance or
annulment of title. The bone of contention was whether the
case was incapable of pecuniary estimation considering
petitioner's contention that the pecuniary claim of the
complaint was only attorney's fees of P10,000, hence, the
MTC had jurisdiction. The Court defined the criterion for
determining whether an action is one that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and held that the issue of whether
petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and
Declaration of Restriction of the Corporation is one that is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The claim for attorney's
fees was merely incidental to the principal action, hence,
said amount was not determinative of the court's
jurisdiction. Nor can Commodities Storage and ICE Plant
Corporation provide any comfort to petitioners for the issue
resolved by the Court in said case was venue and not
jurisdiction. The action therein was for damages, accounting
and fixing of redemption period which was filed on October
28, 1994, before the passage of R.A. No. 7691. In resolving
the issue of venue, the Court held that where the action
affects title to property, it should be instituted in the RTC
where the property is situated.
Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the
subject properties constitutes "any interest therein" that
should be computed in addition to the respective assessed
values of the subject properties is unavailing. Section 19(2)
of B.P. 129, as amended, is clear that the RTC shall exercise
jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)." It is true that the recovery of the value of the
trees cut from the subject properties may be included in the
term "any interest therein." However, the law is emphatic
that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only
the assessed value of the realty involved that should be
computed. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed
values of the subject properties as shown by their tax
declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction
over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the
MTC.