G.R. No. 199133 - Tumpag vs. Tumpag

On March 13, 1995, Esperanza Tumpag, acting as petitioner (and later substituted by her son, Pablito Tumpag Belnas, Jr. after her death), filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Samuel Tumpag before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental.
The complaint alleged that the petitioner is the absolute owner of a parcel of land (identified as Lot No. 1880-A, Cauayan Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70184 dated April 27, 1983) containing 12,992 square meters located in Barangay Tuyom, Cauayan, Negros Occidental.

The petitioner asserted that the defendant had occupied a portion of not less than 1,000 square meters of the property for more than ten (10) years with the petitioner’s tolerance, but later refused to vacate despite repeated demands.
It was also alleged that, in an effort to hinder the recovery of possession, the defendant had involved his relatives in filing a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 400 in 1988) seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s title against her.

The civil case filed by the defendant in 1988 was dismissed by the RTC through a resolution dated October 11, 1989, which was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA-G.R. No. CV-25699, with finality achieved after appellate review.
Prior to the RTC’s decision, on March 3, 1995, the petitioner sought conciliation through the Office of the Barangay Captain of Barangay Tuyom; however, the defendant persisted in his refusal to return the property.

The petitioner claimed actual damages of at least ₱10,000 per annum, moral damages of no less than ₱50,000, exemplary damages of not less than ₱25,000, and additional litigation and attorney’s fees.
A Declaration of Real Property, attached to the complaint, stated the property’s market value as ₱51,965 and its assessed value as ₱20,790.

The defendant, in his answer (amended later), moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of failure to state a cause of action, prior judgment issues, and lack of jurisdiction.
The RTC denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and proceeded with trial. On June 3, 2002, the RTC ordered the defendant to return possession of the disputed portion and to pay damages as specified.
On appeal, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s complaint based on the technical deficiency that the assessed value of the property was not explicitly alleged in the complaint—even though the attached Declaration of Real Property disclosed it.
The petitioner argued that the defendant, by actively participating in the proceedings, should be estopped from later contesting the RTC’s jurisdiction and that the attached document clearly established the property’s assessed value.
The CA, however, maintained its dismissal ruling (first on November 30, 2010, and then in a subsequent resolution on September 28, 2011), leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint for recovery of possession by the CA on the ground of failure to allege the assessed value of the disputed property was proper despite the attached Declaration of Real Property.
Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter, given that the complaint did not contain a direct allegation of the assessed value but was supplemented by an attached document showing such valuation.
Whether the respondent (Samuel Tumpag) is estopped from contesting the RTC’s jurisdiction after having actively participated in all stages of the proceedings and consistently raising the issue of jurisdiction.