Title
Agusto vs. Abing
Case
G.R. No. L-16732
Decision Date
May 29, 1962
Residents sued Barrio Council for unauthorized road construction damaging their lands; claims dismissed as individual damages under P2,000 barred jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16732)

Background of the Case

On June 5, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against the members of the Barrio Council, alleging that the council passed a resolution seeking the construction of a road through their lands. The plaintiffs contended that the council falsely claimed their consent to the right of way and that this led to damage to their properties without any legal proceedings for expropriation. The plaintiffs quantified their claims as actual damages, moral damages, and attorney's fees, seeking a total recovery that exceeded the jurisdictional amount of P2,000.

Jurisdictional Challenge

On June 25, 1958, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction since the amount claimed by each individual plaintiff was less than the P2,000 threshold. The plaintiffs opposed this motion, arguing that their collective claim, which included actual damages, moral damages, and attorney's fees, should be viewed as a single action where the total exceeded the jurisdictional limit, thus granting the court the authority to hear the case.

Court's Reasoning on Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals referred the issue of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for clarification on whether jurisdiction should be determined by each plaintiff's individual claim or the aggregate of all claims. The appellants maintained that since their cause of action arose from a common grievance against the defendants, the total claim should be considered. However, the Supreme Court cited a precedent case, Cajilig et al. vs. Co, highlighting that in situations where multiple plaintiffs have distinct claims against a common defendant stemming from the same transaction, it is each individual claim that dictates the jurisdiction.

Decision and Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, agreeing that jurisdict

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.