Case Digest (G.R. No. 202836)
Facts:
First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.On June 19, 2002, First Sarmiento obtained a P40,000,000 loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) secured by a real estate mortgage over 1,076 parcels; the loan was later amended (March and September 2003) to a P100,000,000 principal. On January 2, 2006, PBCOM filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure alleging nonpayment and proceeded to set an auction sale. PBCOM claims it sent demand letters; First Sarmiento claims it never received loan proceeds.
On December 27, 2011, First Sarmiento attempted to file a Complaint for annulment of the real estate mortgage but the Clerk of Court refused to accept it because tax declarations (for assessing docket fees) were absent. On December 29, 2011, the Executive Judge and Vice-Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, granted First Sarmiento’s urgent motion to treat the subject matter as not capable of pecuniary estimation, effectively allowing filing on that basis; that same day the auction was held and PBCOM was the highest bidder.
First Sarmiento formally filed its Complaint on January 2, 2012, paying a filing fee of P5,545.00 and prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to enjoin the Ex‑Officio Sheriff from registering the certificate of sale. The trial judge issued an ex parte 72‑hour TRO and, on January 4, 2012, ordered the parties to observe the status quo ante. The Ex‑Officio Sheriff issued a certificate of sale to PBCOM on January 24, 2012.
PBCOM opposed, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the action was a real action and proper docket fees should be computed on the fair market value of the properties; it also argued the RTC improperly extended the TRO beyond the allowable period. On April 3, 2012, Branch 11, RTC, Malolos City dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction for failure to pay the proper filing fees, relying on Home Guaranty Corporation v. R-II Builders, Inc.; the RTC denied reconsideration on July 25, 2012.
First Sarmiento filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on August 17, 2012, contending its complaint was incapable of pecuniary estimation and pointing to En Banc precedents such as Lu v. Lu Ym and Bunayog v. Tunas. The Court required comment from PBCOM and both parties filed memoranda. The sole...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court acquire jurisdiction over First Sarmiento’s Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage given the docket fees paid (i.e., was the action capable of pecuniary estimation)?
- Did the Regional Trial Court lawfully extend the 72‑hour ex parte temporary restraining order by directing the parties to observe the status quo ante indefinitely?
- Should the doctrine in *Home Guaranty Corporation v. R‑II Builders, Inc.* govern or be revisited insofar as it looks beyond the principal relief sought to unmask the true ob...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)