Case Digest (G.R. No. 209014)
Facts:
The case involves Nieves Turgo Jader and the heirs of Alfredo Turgo, namely Zenaida Turgo Basco and Lucia R. Turgo, as petitioners against the heirs of Evelyn Turgo Allones, represented by Nicasio Allones and Michael Turgo Allones, as respondents. The central matter stems from the death of Mariano Turgo on October 23, 1924, who left behind six children: Nicolas, Filemon, Alfredo, Abreo, Trinidad, and Juan. The siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement on September 30, 1960, partitioning their father's estate, which included a 1,125-square-meter parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration 3276.
As years progressed, the land was divided into two tax declarations: Nos. 9795 and 9796, each covering 563 square meters. The land in question pertains to Tax Declaration No. 9796. Various changes occurred in the land's tax declaration status over the years, including road widening reducing the size to 373 square meters. In 1985, Nicolas executed a Relinquishment of Right
Case Digest (G.R. No. 209014)
Facts:
- Background and Succession of the Deceased
- Mariano Turgo died intestate on October 23, 1924, leaving behind six children: Nicolas, Filemon, Alfredo, Abreo, Trinidad, and Juan.
- The division of the estate was initiated through an extrajudicial settlement executed on September 30, 1960, whereby the siblings agreed on the partition of a land area measuring 1,125 square meters originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 3276.
- Partition and Subsequent Division of the Property
- In 1963, the original Tax Declaration No. 3276 was split into two separate declarations (Nos. 9795 and 9796), each covering 563 square meters.
- Tax Declaration No. 9795 was allocated among Abreo, Trinidad, and Juan, while Tax Declaration No. 9796 was divided among Nicolas, Filemon, and Alfredo.
- The subject matter of this case pertains specifically to the land under Tax Declaration No. 9796, involving the descendants of Nicolas, Filemon, and Alfredo.
- Changes in Land Coverage and Title Developments
- Over the years, the tax declaration underwent several modifications, cancellations, and replacements.
- At one point, the property was documented under Tax Declaration No. 14-001-0188-R, reflecting a reduction in area to 373 square meters due to road widening.
- In 1985, Nicolas executed a Relinquishment of Rights in favor of his daughter, Evelyn, for a lot in Brgy. Comon, Infanta, Quezon, covering 373 square meters.
- Evelyn subsequently filed for and was granted a free patent (Free Patent No. IV-8-2187) and was issued Original Certificate of Title P-9980.
- Adverse Claim and Possession
- Nieves Turgo Jader, daughter of Filemon, filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the Quezon Register of Deeds asserting her right to part ownership.
- In 1993, Nieves, represented by her son and attorney-in-fact, Carlito Jader, occupied a portion of the property and constructed a house, with Evelyn’s consent due to recognition of Nieves’ ownership rights.
- In 1999, following an eviction by Evelyn's husband, Nicasio, the house was rented out for a monthly fee of P1,500.00.
- Litigation and Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- In 2009, Nieves (through Carlito) filed a complaint for partition of the property along with damages and litigation costs before the RTC of Infanta, Quezon (Civil Case No. 785-1), later amended to include co-plaintiffs Zenaida Turgo Basco and Lucia Turgo.
- The plaintiffs subsequently moved for summary judgment under Rule 35, but on April 14, 2011, the RTC treated the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 and denied it.
- The RTC identified two pivotal issues: (a) the dispute centered on the ownership (title) versus mere partition of the property, and (b) jurisdictional concerns arose since the assessed value of the property (or its relevant part) fell within the purview of the first-level court.
- The RTC determined that the real issue concerned the title to two-thirds portion of the 373-square-meter land (valued at P8,703.33) and ruled that the case fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level court pursuant to BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691).
- Based on these findings, the RTC dismissed the complaint and denied subsequent motions for reconsideration and the Notice of Appeal, citing non-jurisdiction and the mischaracterization of the issue.
- Petition for Certiorari and Grounds for Appeal
- Plaintiffs elevated the case through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
- Petitioners sought to set aside several RTC orders, particularly focusing on the May 24, 2013 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order.
- The petition argued that the RTC’s decision was erroneous for treating the real issue as one of title rather than partition and that the court had improperly exercised its jurisdiction.
- Evidentiary and Procedural Deficiencies Leading to Dismissal
- The Court highlighted that petitioners failed to comply with the filing requirements under Rule 65, notably by not submitting a certified true copy of the May 24, 2013 RTC Order (opting for a mere photocopy instead).
- This non-compliance, coupled with insufficient and unsubstantiated allegations of grave abuse of discretion, formed the basis for dismissing the petition.
- The RTC’s earlier orders were noted as being clear, well-substantiated by applicable law, and consistent throughout the proceedings.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Disputes and Subject Matter
- Whether the RTC had proper jurisdiction over an action primarily concerning title and ownership issues, given that the assessed value of the property (or the portion in dispute) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts.
- Whether the recharacterization of the dispute from a partition case to a title (ownership) dispute was proper and correctly determined the jurisdiction.
- Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Whether the RTC committed grave or gross abuse of discretion in ruling on the petitions for summary judgment, reconsideration, and dismissal of the complaint.
- Whether the alleged discretionary abuse amounted to lack or in excess of jurisdiction warranting the issuance of a certiorari.
- Compliance with Procedural Requirements
- Whether the petitioners’ failure to attach a certified true copy of the relevant RTC order (relying instead on a photocopy) was a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition under the Rules.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)