Case Summary (G.R. No. 181622)
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2004, claiming the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the assessed value of the subject property was P11,990.00, which is below the P20,000.00 threshold set for the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). On September 29, 2004, the RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. However, the respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which the RTC granted on March 17, 2005, reversing its initial order. This prompted petitioners to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was subsequently dismissed on July 11, 2007. The CA held that the respondents' complaint involved issues incapable of pecuniary estimation, affirming the RTC's jurisdiction. The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January 10, 2008.
Core Issue
The primary legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court is whether the CA erred in concluding that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case given the petitioners' contention that the main cause of action for the recovery of shares over the property falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC due to the assessed value.
Jurisdictional Assessment
The Supreme Court highlighted that while the respondents’ complaint included claims regarding title, possession, and interest in the disputed property, it primarily sought a declaration of nullity of certain documents. The complaint detailed that the extrajudicial settlement and corresponding sale executed by some of the respondents' co-heirs was conducted without the knowledge or consent of the other heirs, thereby rendering it voidable.
This need for a declaration of nullity for documents inherently indicates an action that is incapable of pecuniary estimation, aligning it with the jurisdictional provisions of the RTC, as established under Republic Act No. 7691. The Supreme Court clarified that the nature of the principal action or the primary relief sought must guide the determination of jurisdiction, rather than incidental claims.
Application of the Law
As per the provisions of the law, the nature of the primary relief being sought—a declaration of nullity—places the complaint under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The Court referred to its prior rulings, emphasizing that if the main issue at hand is not primarily ab
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 181622)
Case Background
- The case is an appeal from a decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding a dispute over property ownership among the heirs of Roman Ebarasabala.
- Respondents filed a complaint seeking a declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of shares, partition, damages, and attorney's fees against the petitioners.
Jurisdictional Issues
- The petitioners contended that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction over the case, arguing that the assessed value of the property was below P20,000.00, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
- The RTC initially granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction, referencing the assessed value of the property.
- Respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing that their complaint included causes of action that were incapable of pecuniary estimation.
RTC Rulings
- The RTC later reversed its initial ruling, concluding that the primary relief sought was for the declaration of nullity of documents, which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus falls under its jurisdiction.
- The RTC noted that while the case involved claims of title and possession over real property, the primary cause of action was for annulment, which was not limited by the assessed