Case Digest (G.R. No. 175914)
Facts:
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v. Hon. Pablo C. Formaran III, G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation obtained a loan of P95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan and Roberto L. Obiedo, secured by mortgages on five parcels of land in Triangulo, Naga City (TCT Nos. 38376, 29918, 38374, 39232 and 39225). When petitioner failed to pay, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated 17 March 2005 extending payment until 31 December 2005, condoning interests/surcharges allegedly amounting to P74,678,647.00, and providing for execution of Deeds of Absolute Sale as dacion en pago dated uniformly 2/3 January 2006 (with stated purchase and redemption prices) should petitioner fail to pay.
On 3 January 2006 petitioner’s president executed the Deeds of Absolute Sale, notarized by respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes; on 8 March 2006 respondents Tan and Obiedo presented those deeds to the Register of Deeds and obtained new TCTs in their names. Petitioner alleged the deeds were executed only as security (pactum commissorium), that acknowledgments were falsified and that respondents, with armed men, forcibly took possession and began demolishing improvements; petitioner sought annulment of the deeds, return of possession, damages and injunctive relief in a complaint filed with the RTC (Civil Case No. 2006‑0030) on 16 March 2006 and paid initial docket/other legal fees of P13,644.25. The complaint prayed, inter alia, for a TRO/preliminary injunction and annulment of the Deeds of Sale.
Respondent Tan filed an Answer and counterclaim and moved in the RTC that the case involved real property and that docket fees should be computed under Section 7(a) (cases involving property) — not Section 7(b)(1) (actions incapable of pecuniary estimation) — of Rule 141, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04‑2‑04‑SC and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35‑2004. The RTC (Branch 22, Naga City) granted the motion in Orders dated 24 March 2006 and 29 March 2006, ruling the action to be a real action and ordering petitioner (and respondent Tan on his counterclaim) to pay additional filing fees computed under Section 7(a); the Clerk computed an outstanding additional fee of P720,392.60.
Petitioner sought partial reconsideration in the RTC, which was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 94800), arguing grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction for failure to pay proper docket fees. On 22 November 2006 the Court of Appeals den...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioner to pay additional docket/filing fees computed under Section 7(a), Rule 141, as amended?
- Was petitioner’s complaint a “real action” requiring computation of docket fees under Section 7(a) (based on fair market value) rather than an action incapable of pecuniary esti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)