Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* FIRST DIVISION.
355
356
BERSAMIN, J.:
The non-payment of the prescribed filing fees at the time
of the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading
fails to vest jurisdiction over the case in the trial court. Yet,
where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees
assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns
out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction
over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the
deficiency assessment.
Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) appeals the
decision promulgated on August 20, 2004,1 whereby the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on
August 28, 1998 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
150, Makati City, in favor of the respondent.2
Antecedents
357
_______________
3 Id., pp. 12-31.
4 Id., p. 21.
5 Id., pp. 9-11.
6 Id., p. 10.
7 Id., pp. 2-3 and 63.
8 Id., p. 32.
9 Id., pp. 33-45.
358
359
_______________
15 Id., pp. 1-8.
360
361
_______________
19 RTC records, Volume II, pp. 1116-1128.
20 Rollo, pp. 31-41.
21 Id., pp. 6-29.
362
Ruling
_______________
22 Id., p. 13.
23 Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) vs. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-
38, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 274, 285.
24 Tacay vs. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao Del Norte, G.R.
Nos. 88075-77, December 20, 1989, 180 SCRA 433, 443.
25 Rivera vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 144934, January 15, 2004, 419
SCRA 626, 635.
26 Lu vs. Lu Ym, Sr. et al., G.R. No. 153690, February 15, 2011, 643
SCRA 23; Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation vs. Alonzo-Legasto,
G.R. No. 169108, April 18, 2006, 487 SCRA 339, 350.
363
_______________
27 Ballatan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125683, March 2, 1999, 304
SCRA 34; citing Tacay v. RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte, G.R. Nos.
88075-77, December 20, 1989, 180 SCRA 433, 444; Sun Insurance Office,
Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989, 170
SCRA 274, 285.
28 Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
88353, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 652; Pantranco North Express, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477.
29 G.R. No. 144934, January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 626, 634-635.
30 G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 274.
364
II
_______________
31 Section 2. Fees in lien.·Where the court in its final judgment
awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more than that
claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees
which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien.
The clerk of court shall assess and collect the corresponding fees. (n)
32 Resolution Amending Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court;
effective March 1, 2000.
33 Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation vs. Alonzo-Legasto, G.R.
No. 169108, April 18, 2006, 487 SCRA 339, 350.
365
_______________
34 Original records, Volume I, pp. 367-369.
35 Id., pp. 308-311.
36 P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 158758, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 784, 793.
37 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. ALS Management & Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 151821, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 564, 575.
366
III
In upholding AgcaoiliÊs right to suspend the payment of
his monthly amortizations due to the increased interest
rates imposed by FDC, and because he found FDCÊs
cancellation of the contract to sell as improper, the CA
found and ruled as follows:
367
the Maceda Law. The policy of law, as embodied in its title, is „to
provide protection to buyers of real estate on installment
payments.‰ As clearly specified in Section 3, the declared public
policy espoused by Republic Act No. 6552 is „to protect buyers of
real estate on installment payments against onerous and oppressive
conditions.‰ Thus, in order for FDC to have validly cancelled the
existing contract to sell, it must have first complied with Section 3
(b) of RA 6552. FDC should have refund the appellee the cash
surrender value of the payments on the property equivalent to fifty
percent of the total payments made. At this point, we, find no error
on the part of the lower court when it ruled that:
„There is nothing in the record to show that the
aforementioned requisites for a valid cancellation of a
contract where complied with by defendant FDC. Hence, the
contract to sell which defendant FDC cancelled as per its
letter dated August 17, 1987 remains valid and subsisting.
Defendant FDC cannot by its own forfeit the payments
already made by the plaintiff which as of the same date
amounts to P263,637.73.‰ (RTC Rollo, p. 81)38
_______________
38 Rollo, pp. 37-38.
39 W-Red Construction and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 122648, August 17, 2000, 338 SCRA 341, 345.
40 Durano vs. Uy, G.R. No. 136456, October 24, 2000, 344 SCRA 238;
Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001, 351
SCRA 44.
368
_______________
41 TSN, September 5, 1994, pp. 6-8.
42 Original records, Volume I, pp. 32-45.
43 TSN, September 5, 1994, pp. 10 and 21.
44 TSN, November 4, 1994, p. 24.
45 TSN, February 15, 1995, p. 10.
46 Original records, Volume I, pp. 4-6 and 63-70.
369
SO ORDERED.