Title
De Vera vs. Spouses Santiago
Case
G.R. No. 179457
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2015
Petitioners claimed ownership of land, alleging fraud in respondents' Free Patent Titles. MTC dismissed; RTC reversed, declaring titles void. CA annulled both, citing jurisdiction issues. Supreme Court ruled RTC had jurisdiction, remanded to CA for factual resolution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45685)

Land Description and Tax Declarations

– Total area: approximately 265,342 sq. m.
– Petitioners’ tax declarations (issued 1990) reflect assessed value: P54,370.00.
– Respondents’ tax declarations correspond to titled portions under their OCT (FP) numbers.

Procedural History

  1. Petitioners filed Reconveyance of Ownership or Possession with Damages (Civil Case No. 939) before MTC Bolinao on February 14, 2000.
  2. Respondents answered, denied allegations, asserted their titles’ indefeasibility, and counterclaimed for fees and damages.
  3. MTC tried the case on agreed issues: superior right, ownership, fraud in patent issuance, prior possession, entitlement to damages.

MTC Decision

Date: November 9, 2001
Outcome: Complaint dismissed. Defendants (respondents) declared lawful owners and possessors under OCT (FP) Nos. 15818–15820, 15754–15756. Plaintiffs (petitioners) ordered to pay P50,000 attorney’s fees and costs.

RTC Decision on Appeal

Date: June 14, 2002
Outcome: MTC Decision reversed in toto. Free patents declared void; respondents ordered to reconvey entire titled areas to petitioners. Damages awarded (P20,000 moral, P20,000 exemplary, P5,000 actual each). Petitioners directed to divide reconveyed land among themselves.

Court of Appeals Decision

Date: May 29, 2007 (Resolution denied August 22, 2007)
Ground: Lack of jurisdiction both in MTC and RTC.
Ruling: Annulled and set aside MTC and RTC decisions. Held that:

  • MTC lacked jurisdiction (assessed value > P20,000).
  • Assuming RTC had jurisdiction, it could not void four-year-old free patents due to Torrens system’s indefeasibility and incontrovertibility after one year from registration.

Issue on Jurisdiction

Whether the CA gravely erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction despite the RTC’s appellate and original jurisdiction over real estate actions involving land valued above P20,000.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution (property and judicial authority)
– B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 19(2): RTC exclusive original jurisdiction in real property actions with assessed value > P20,000.
– B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 22: RTC appellate jurisdiction over all MTC decisions.
– Rule 40, Sec. 8, Rules of Court: RTC may decide on merits where lower court tried case without jurisdiction.
– Rule 45, Sec. 1, Rules of Court: Review on certiorari limited to questions of law.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Jurisdiction: Petitioners’ complaint alleged assessed value > P20,000; RTC had original jurisdiction. MTC lacked jurisdiction but its decision could be reviewed by the RTC under Rule 40, Sec. 8(2).
  2. Appellate Authority: RTC possessed appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions regardless of amount in controversy (Sec. 22, B

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.