G.R. No. 174908 - Maslag vs. Monzon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174908)

Relevant Dates and Procedural History

1998: Petitioner filed a complaint for reconveyance and nullity of original certificate of title (OCT) before the MTC.
June 11, 2001: MTC rendered judgment finding Monzon guilty of fraud, ordering reconveyance of 4,415 sqm, payment of damages and costs.
2003: Respondents appealed to the RTC.
October 22, 2003: RTC, through Judge Cabato, declared the MTC without jurisdiction, invoked Section 8, Rule 40, and directed submission of additional evidence.
May 4, 2004: New RTC judge issued a resolution reversing the MTC judgment and remanding residual issues.
May 31, 2006: CA dismissed petitioner’s ordinary appeal for being the wrong mode of appeal.
September 22, 2006: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
June 17, 2013: Supreme Court rendered decision on petition for review.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (jurisdiction over civil cases)
Rules of Court: Rule 40 (Section 8), Rule 41 (ordinary appeal), Rule 42 (petition for review), Rule 50 (Section 2, dismissal of improper appeals)

MTC Proceedings and Decision

Petitioner alleged open, continuous, notorious, and exclusive possession of land since the 1940s, contributed to surveying costs in 1987, but the resulting OCT was issued solely in Monzon’s and Geston’s names, omitting petitioner’s interest. The MTC found fraud, ordered reconveyance of 4,415 sqm to petitioner, exemplary damages of ₱5,000, attorney’s fees of ₱5,000, and costs.

RTC’s Jurisdictional Determination

The RTC initially ruled that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the subject was “incapable of pecuniary estimation,” thus invoking Section 8, Rule 40 to assume cognizance and allowing additional evidence. The parties submitted memoranda without further evidence.

RTC’s Appellate Resolution

In its May 4, 2004 resolution, the RTC reversed the MTC judgment, ordered petitioner to vacate the land, and remanded for determination of builder‐in‐good‐faith remedies. Petitioner filed a notice of ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA dismissed the ordinary appeal, holding that the RTC’s May 4, 2004 resolution was issued in its appellate jurisdiction over the MTC judgment and that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 42. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC resolution was rendered in original jurisdiction, permitting an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
Whether the proper mode of appeal is an ordinary appeal or a petition for review under Rule 42.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction

Title‐to‐property actions, where assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000 (₱12,400 in this case), fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC (BP 129, Secs. 19, 33).
The RTC’s October 22, 2003 order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction was a jurisdictional usurpation and void. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by court order or party conduct.
The RTC’s May 4, 2004 resolution, in fact and law, was an appellate decision under Section 8, Rule 40, reviewing the MTC judgment.

Supreme Court’s Analy