Case Digest (G.R. No. 208232)
Facts:
Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. Bautista, Namely: Epifania G. Bautista and Zoey G. Bautista v. Francisco Lindo and Welhilmina Lindo; and Heirs of Filipina Daquigan, G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the surviving heirs of Alfredo R. Bautista (Epifania and Zoey). Respondents are several vendees of portions of a free-patent land in Poblacion, Lupon, Davao Oriental, including Francisco and Welhilmina Lindo and numerous heirs of Filipina Daquigan who received Transfer Certificates of Title after cancellation of the original OCT. Bautista inherited the land in 1983, subdivided it and executed notarized deeds of absolute sale on May 30, 1991; the OCT was later cancelled and TCTs were issued to the vendees.
On August 5, 1994, Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase (redemption) under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental, docketed as Civil Case No. (1798)-021. Respondents answered, raising lack of cause of action, estoppel, prescription and laches. During the proceedings Bautista died and was substituted by Epifania.
Two respondents, Francisco and Welhilmina Lindo, later entered a compromise with petitioners surrendering a 3,230 sq.m. portion; the RTC approved the compromise in a Decision dated January 27, 2011. Other respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 4, 2013, asserting that the complaint failed to state the value of the property and that the total selling price was only PhP16,500—below the PhP20,000 jurisdictional threshold for RTCs under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) as amended. They therefore contended the proper forum was the municipal trial court.
Acting on that motion, the RTC (Presiding Judge Emilio G. Dayanghirang III) issued an Order dated April 25, 2013 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction for failure to allege that the property’s value exceeded PhP20,000. The court held that a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be filed at any...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC err in dismissing the complaint for repurchase for lack of jurisdiction?
- Were respondents estopped from raising lack of jurisdiction after actively participating in the RTC proceedings?
- Is an action to repurchase land under Section 119 of CA 141 a real action capable of pecuniary estimation, or is it an action incapable of pecuniary estimation ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)