Title
Montero vs. Montero, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 217755
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2019
Petitioner Elmer Montero sought nullity of an Affidavit of Adjudication and reconveyance of land, but the Supreme Court ruled the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the property's assessed value below P20,000, affirming the MTC as the proper forum.
nullify documents
reclaim parcel of land
lack of jurisdiction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217755)

Factual Background

Petitioner Elmer Montero alleged that the subject parcel of land in Pilar, Abra had been originally covered by Free Patent No. 27941 issued in the name of Dominga Taeza, who died intestate in 1975, and that her successors-in-interest had been in actual, exclusive, open, continuous, and notorious possession of the land. Petitioner claimed that in 1989 an Affidavit of Adjudication was executed which resulted in Tax Declaration No. 417 in Dominga’s name being cancelled and replaced by Tax Declaration No. 5289 in the name of Santiago Montero, Jr., and that Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-14452 was subsequently issued in respondent Santiago’s name. Petitioner asserted that respondents threatened and dispossessed family members of petitioner of portions of the residential area, that respondents refused to reconvey the property to Dominga’s heirs, and that petitioner had repeatedly sought to pay taxes only to discover the transfer of ownership.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner Elmer Montero filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Affidavit of Adjudication, Cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 5289 and OCT No. P-14452, Reconveyance, and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Branch 2 (Civil Case No. 3107). Respondents Santiago Montero, Jr. and Charlie Montero moved to dismiss on the ground that the RTC lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the assessed value of the property was P3,010.00, an amount below P20,000.00, and that under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 jurisdiction therefore lay exclusively with the Metropolitan, Municipal, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; they also invoked Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 against collateral attacks on Torrens titles. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss by Order dated September 3, 2013, concluding that the cause of action was incapable of pecuniary estimation and that the complaint constituted a direct attack on the title and sought equitable reconveyance; the RTC likewise denied reconsideration on November 8, 2013.

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

Respondents filed a petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition. The CA set aside the RTC Orders dated September 3, 2013 and November 8, 2013, and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The CA held that the principal controversy was “who between the contending parties is the lawful owner of the land, and thus, entitled to its possession,” and that the action therefore involved title to, or possession of, real property, jurisdiction over which was determined by the assessed value. Because the assessed value was P3,010.00, below P20,000.00, the CA found that the RTC did not have jurisdiction.

The Parties' Contentions on Appeal

Petitioner Elmer Montero asserted before the Court that the complaint was primarily an action to cancel certain documents — the Affidavit of Adjudication, Tax Declaration No. 5289, and OCT No. P-14452 — and that the principal relief sought rendered the subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the RTC. Respondents maintained that the complaint was fundamentally a dispute over title and possession of real property with an assessed value below P20,000.00 and that the RTC therefore lacked jurisdiction under BP 129, as amended.

Issue

The singular issue presented was whether petitioner Elmer Montero’s Complaint involved title to, possession of, or interest in real property, such that jurisdiction was determined by the assessed value of the property, or whether the action was primarily for cancellation of documents and therefore incapable of pecuniary estimation, vesting jurisdiction in the RTC.

Ruling of the Court

The Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Complaint involved the title to, possession of, and interest in the subject real property, which indisputably had an assessed value below P20,000.00, and that the Regional Trial Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the case.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that jurisdiction is conferred by law and that subject matter jurisdiction depends on the general class to which the proceedings belong. Under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00. The Court reiterated that the nature of an action is determined not by the caption but by the allegations and the principal reliefs sought. The Court found that petitioner Elmer Montero expressly sought to have respondents “respect the right of ownership and possession” of the heirs of Dominga and prayed for reconveyance and demolition of structures built by respondents. Thus the ultimate objective was to establish and confirm ownership and possession of the land; the cancellation of the certificate of title was a consequential remedy that would follow a determination of lawful ownership. The Court relied on prior jurisprudence, including Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla and related authorities, which di

...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