Case Digest (G.R. No. 217755)
Facts:
Elmer Montero v. Santiago Montero, Jr. and Charlie Montero, G.R. No. 217755, September 18, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Elmer Montero filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Branch 2 (Civil Case No. 3107) a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Affidavit of Adjudication, Cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 5289 and OCT No. P-14452, Reconveyance, and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against respondents Santiago Montero, Jr. and Charlie Montero, and nominally against the Municipal Assessor of Pilar, the Provincial Assessor of Abra, and the Registrar of Deeds of Abra in their official capacities.
Petitioner alleged that the subject parcel was originally owned by Dominga Taeza, who held Free Patent No. 27941 (issued January 11, 1939) and whose possession passed to her heirs on her intestate death in 1975. In 1989 an Affidavit of Adjudication was executed by which the property was (according to respondents) adjudicated to Santiago, and Tax Declaration No. 5289 and OCT No. P-14452 were later issued in his name; petitioner claims this was based on misrepresentation and that the true heirs (including petitioner as heir of Alfredo Montero) retained ownership and possession. Petitioner also alleged threats and acts of occupation by respondents and sought reconveyance and demolition of structures they erected.
Respondents moved to dismiss before the RTC on grounds that the assessed value of the property (P3,010.00) placed the action within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan/Municipal/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129), and further argued the complaint constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a Torrens title under PD 1529. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss by Order dated September 3, 2013, and denied reconsideration on November 8, 2013, concluding the cause of action was incapable of pecuniary estimation and apparent equitable reconveyance was sought.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC's denial. In CA-G.R. SP No. 133658 the CA, by Decision dated November 28, 2014 ( penned by A.M. Lazaro-Javier, J.), granted the Rule 65 petition, set aside the RTC Orders of September 3 and November 8, 2013, and granted the Motion to Dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the action principally involved title or possession of real property and the assessed value was below P20,000. Petitioner’s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner Elmer’s Complaint involve the title to, possession of, or interest in real property (thus falling under the monetary jurisdictional limits of BP 129), or is it an action incapable of pecuniary estimation (thus within the exclusive original jurisdi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)