Title
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi
Case
G.R. No. 205966
Decision Date
Mar 2, 2016
BSP challenged a dumpsite construction in Norzagaray, Bulacan, alleging unauthorized land use. SC upheld RTC jurisdiction, ruling BSP's private counsel representation valid under Monetary Board authorization.
private law firm
jurisdiction
complaint
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205966)

Factual Background

The BSP filed a Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate, and damages, with application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, concerning an alleged BSP-acquired titled property in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan. The complaint alleged that the subject land was covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent No. 257917 and attached, among other documents, a tax declaration showing assessed value and zonal values. Defendants included Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon, Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., Ex-Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi, and Feliciano P. Legaspi.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC issued an Order on May 13, 2008, mandating preliminary injunction and enjoining defendants Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr. and Feliciano P. Legaspi, and persons acting for them, from pursuing construction, development, or operation of a dumpsite or landfill on the property. Feliciano P. Legaspi moved to dismiss on August 15, 2008, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction because the suit was unauthorized and the BSP counsel lacked authority, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege the assessed value required for RTC jurisdiction and was initiated without Monetary Board authorization and without the Office of the Solicitor General’s signature. The BSP opposed, asserting Monetary Board Resolution No. 8865 and verification by Geraldine Alag as authorization, and claimed authority to engage private counsel.

RTC Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in its January 20, 2009 Order. The court held that it acquired jurisdiction over the person when the BSP filed the complaint. The RTC found that the Monetary Board may authorize the Governor to represent the BSP personally or through counsel, including private counsel, and that representation may be delegated to officers such as the Director of the Asset Management Department. The RTC relied on the complaint’s verification by Geraldine C. Alag and a Secretary’s Certificate attesting to Monetary Board Resolution No. 900 approving engagement of the private law firm Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law Offices (OKMA Law).

Motion for Reconsideration and Additional Jurisdictional Contest

In a motion for reconsideration, Feliciano P. Legaspi argued that the RTC lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not state the assessed value of the property on its face, a requirement for real actions to vest the RTC with exclusive jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended. The BSP replied that the attached tax declaration showed assessed value in excess of Twenty Thousand Pesos and that it was inconceivable that a property of 4,838,736 square meters would have an assessed value below that threshold. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in its April 3, 2009 Order.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Feliciano P. Legaspi filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition in its Decision dated August 15, 2012, set aside the RTC Orders of January 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009, and dismissed the BSP complaint. The CA held that courts could not take judicial notice of assessed or market value absent proper recordation of such values on the complaint, and that a government-owned corporation like the BSP must be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, not by private counsel, absent clear statutory authorization.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The BSP raised two primary issues in its Rule 45 petition: first, whether the RTC of Malolos City had exclusive original jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 209-M-2008 because the assessed value of the property exceeded Twenty Thousand Pesos; and second, whether the BSP lawfully engaged and was lawfully represented by private counsel pursuant to Monetary Board authorization and delegation of authority.

Parties' Contentions

The BSP contended that the tax declaration attached to the complaint established an assessed value in excess of P20,000 and that attachments are part of the complaint for purposes of determining jurisdiction. The BSP further contended that Republic Act No. 7653 authorized the Governor to represent the Monetary Board and the Bangko Sentral, that the Monetary Board may authorize representation through counsel including private counsel, and that the Governor may delegate representation to other officers. Feliciano P. Legaspi maintained that the complaint was unauthorized, that the counsel who filed the complaint lacked authority to bind the BSP, and that only the OSG or OGCC should represent a government entity in litigation.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 15, 2012 and Resolution dated February 18, 2013, and affirmed the Orders of the RTC dated January 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Jurisdiction

The Court held that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions involving title to real property where the assessed value exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos. The Court treated the tax declaration attached to the complaint as part of the complaint and therefore as evidence on record that the assessed value exceeded P20,000. The Court relied on precedent holding that attachments to a complaint are to be considered in determining the sufficiency of a cause of action, citing Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd. and Jornales, et al. v. Central Azucarera de Bais, et al. The Court further reasoned that a court may take judicial notice of its own records and of public records that are on file, and that because the tax declaration was attached to the complaint and thus on file, the trial court properly took judicial notice of the assessed value. The Court rejected reliance on Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals because, unlike that case, the assessed value in the present case appeared on record.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Representation

The Court examined Republic Act No. 7653, Sec. 18, and concluded that the Governor of the BSP is the principal representative of the Monetary Board and of the Bangko Sentral and may represent the BSP either personally or through counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board, and that the Governor may delegate his power to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms