-04-

MANCHESTER DEVT. CORP. v. CA

G.R. No. L-75919 | 07 MAY 1987
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET. AL., vs COURT OF APPEALS, CITYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
petitioners STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDREW LUISON, GRACE LUISON and JOSE
DE MAISIP,
respondents
Petition to review CA decision
Justice Gancayco
 Present case is an action for torts and damages and specific performance with prayer for temporary
FACTS

restraining order, etc. ---i.e., petitioner MDC filed a complaint for specific performance against City
Land to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Sale in favor of the former.

 Petitioner also alleged that respondent City Land forfeited their tender of payment for a certain
transaction thereby causing damages amounting to P78,750,000.00
o Said amount was alleged in the BODY of the complaint but was not reiterated in the PRAYER.

 Petitioner paid a docket fee of P410.00 based on the allegation that their action is primarily for
specific performance and is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

 The Court ruled that there is an under-assessment of docket fees, and thus ordered petitioner to
amend its complaint.

 With leave of court petitioner complied and lowered the amount of claim for damages to P10M,
which was again not state in the PRAYER (but stated in the BODY).

NOTE: The designation and prayer of the present case clearly show that it is an action for damages and
specific performance. Hence the docket fee should be assessed by considering the amount of
damages as alleged in the original complaint.
ISSUE

Whether jurisdiction is acquired when correct docket fee has not been paid.
HELD

No. Motion for reconsideration is DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT.

 As setted in the Magaspi case: “a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee
RATIO

regardless of the actual date of filing in court.”

 The Court held that in the present case, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the
payment of P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the amendment of the complaint vest jurisdiction
upon the Court.
 For all legal purposes, there is no original complaint that was duly filed which could be amended.
 The order admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken by
the trial court are null and void.
 CA was correct in ruling that the basis of assessment of the docket fee should be the amount of
damages sought in the original complain and not in the amended complaint.

 Henceforth, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to
comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from
record.

 The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less
the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.