A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC - IN RE: Roxas

Case Summary (A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC)

Procedural History

Petitioner filed the complaint before the MTC in 1998. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent Monzon to reconvey 4,415 square meters, and to pay damages and costs. Respondents appealed to the RTC. The RTC issued an October 22, 2003 order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction and, invoking Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, took cognizance of the case and directed parties to present additional evidence. The RTC (through a different judge) issued a May 4, 2004 Resolution reversing the MTC. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and sought review in the CA by ordinary appeal. Respondents moved to dismiss the ordinary appeal as the improper remedy; the CA dismissed the appeal (May 31, 2006) and denied reconsideration (September 22, 2006). Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Key Dates

Complaint filed: 1998. MTC judgment: June 11, 2001. RTC October 22, 2003 order and May 4, 2004 Resolution. Notice of Appeal filed May 4, 2004. CA resolutions: May 31, 2006 (dismissal) and September 22, 2006 (denial of MR). Supreme Court decision: June 17, 2013. Applicable constitutional framework for analysis: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is after 1990).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Primary statutory and procedural provisions applied: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) as amended by R.A. No. 7691 (defining jurisdictional boundaries of RTCs and trial courts); Section 8, Rule 40 (procedure when a lower court has tried a case without jurisdiction); Rule 41 (ordinary appeal from RTC in original jurisdiction); Rule 42 (petition for review to the CA from RTC in appellate jurisdiction); and Section 2, Rule 50 (dismissal of improper appeals to the Court of Appeals). The decision applies the principle that jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be conferred by judicial pronouncement or party consent.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s ordinary appeal given the RTC’s October 22, 2003 ruling that the MTC lacked jurisdiction and the RTC’s subsequent disposition; and 2) Whether the correct appellate remedy from the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 or a petition for review under Rule 42.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The Court examined the complaint and the attached Declaration of Real Property showing an assessed value of P12,400 for the disputed parcel. Under BP 129 as amended, the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000. Because the assessed value fell within the MTC’s jurisdiction, the RTC’s October 22, 2003 proclamation that the MTC lacked jurisdiction was erroneous. Jurisdiction being a question of law conferred by statute, the Court emphasized that neither courts nor parties can unilaterally expand or alter statutory jurisdiction.

Determination of the Mode of Appeal

The Court reiterated the settled distinction: when the RTC acts in its original jurisdiction, relief is obtained by ordinary appeal under Rule 41; when the RTC acts in its appellate capacity (reviewing MTC judgments), the proper recourse is a petition for review under Rule 42 filed with the Court of Appeals. The dispositive criterion is the jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC in the challenged decision. Here, despite the RTC’s earlier pronouncement, the May 4, 2004 Resolution was in substance an exercise of appellate jurisdiction: the new RTC judge expressly characterized the matter as “an appeal from the Judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court,” discussed the merits, reversed the MTC, and remanded residual issues to the MTC. Because the RTC, in fact and in law, exercised appellate jurisdiction in issuing the May 4, 2004 Resolution, the proper mode of recourse to the Court of Appeals was a petition for review under Rule 42.

Legal Effect of an Improper Mode of Appeal

Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court mandates dismissal of appeals erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from an RTC exercising appellate jurisdiction. The Court held that an appeal erroneo

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC)

Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture

Supreme Court, Second Division, G.R. No. 174908, June 17, 2013; reported at 711 Phil. 274.
Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution dated May 31, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 83365, which dismissed petitioner Darma Maslag’s ordinary appeal to the CA as an improper remedy.
Petition also assails the CA’s September 22, 2006 Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Petition prays that the CA be ordered to take cognizance of petitioner’s appeal.

Parties

Petitioner: Darma Maslag.
Respondents: Elizabeth Monzon, William Geston, Registry of Deeds of La Trinidad, Benguet (referred to in some parts of the source as Registry of Deeds of Benguet).

Factual Antecedents

In 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of original certificate of title (OCT) against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.
Petitioner alleged long, open, continuous, notorious and exclusive possession of the disputed property since the 1940s, including participation in a 1987 subdivision survey and contribution to a common fund for surveying and titling.
Petitioner alleged that when titles were finally issued, the title covering 18,295 square meters was issued solely in the name of Elizabeth Monzon and William Geston, and that the name of Darma Maslag was fraudulently omitted.
Primary relief sought: reconveyance of the portion of the property fraudulently included in Monzon’s title; essentially, recovery of ownership of real property.
A Declaration of Real Property dated November 12, 1991 (marked as petitioner’s Exhibit “A”) showed an assessed value of the disputed property at P12,400.

Judgment Below — Municipal Trial Court (MTC)

After trial, the MTC found respondent Elizabeth Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over petitioner’s property.
MTC ordered reconveyance of the portion of the property to petitioner, and awarded damages and costs of suit.
The fallo of the MTC Judgment read, in part:
- “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and hereby orders the defendant Elizabeth Monzon, as follows:
  1. To reconvey that portion of the property now covered by OCT P-3034, belonging to the plaintiff with an area of 4415 square meters as shown in Exhibit ‘F-2’, which was fraudulently included in her title;
  2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of Five Thousand [P5,000.00] Pesos as exemplary damages and Five Thousand [P5,000.00] Pesos as attorney’s fees;
  3. Costs of this suit.
    SO ORDERED.”

Proceeding Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) — Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet

Respondents appealed the MTC Judgment to the RTC.
On October 22, 2003, Acting Presiding Judge Fernando P. Cabato issued an Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over petitioner’s cause of action, citing that the case was “incapable of pecuniary estimation,” and directed that the RTC would take cognizance of the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Section 8, Rule 40 (as quoted in the source) reads in essence:
- If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.
Both parties acknowledged receipt of the October 22, 2003 Order but neither presented additional evidence before the new judge (Judge Edgardo B. Diaz De Rivera, Jr.).
On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De Rivera issued a Resolution reversing the MTC Decision. The dispositive portion read:
- “WHEREFORE, the Judgment appealed from the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet is set aside. [Petitioner] is ordered to turn over the possession of the 4,415 square meter land she presently occupies to [Monzon]. This case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings to determine whether [Maslag] is entitled to the remedies afforded by law to a builder in good faith for the improvements she constructed thereon. No pronouncement as to damages and costs. SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner’s Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution, seeking reversal of the RTC and adoption of the MTC Decision. Prayer before the CA stated inter alia:
- “WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of La Trinidad, Benguet, appealed from be reversed in toto and that the Honorable Court adopt the decision of the Municipal Trial Court. Further reliefs just and equitable under the premises are prayed for.”
Respondents moved to dismiss petitioner’s ordinary appeal to the CA as an improper remedy, asserting that the proper mode of appeal was a Petition for Review under Rule 42 because the RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its appellate jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Motion for Reconsideration

The CA dismissed the appeal on May 31, 2006, holding that the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution had set aside an MTC Judgment; therefore, the proper remedy was a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing, for the first time, that the RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its original jurisdiction, relying on the October 22, 2003 Order.
On September 22, 2006, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration, affirming the May 31, 2006 Resolution in toto and reiterating that the RTC took cognizance of the MTC case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; thus the proper remedy was Rule 42 petition for review.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner, considering the RTC’s earlier October 22, 2003 Order declaring the MTC decision was rendered without jurisdiction and ordering that the case be decided pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40, and whether the RTC in rendering the May 4, 2004 Resolution acted in its original jurisdiction (permitting an ordinary appeal under