Case Summary (G.R. No. 199133)
Introduction to the Case
The petition for review on certiorari challenges the November 30, 2010 decision and September 28, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cebu City, which dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession and damages due to the plaintiff's failure to allege the assessed value of the disputed property.
Background Facts
On March 13, 1995, Esperanza filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Samuel in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The complaint asserted ownership of Lot No. 1880-A and detailed the respondent's unauthorized occupation of a portion of it for over ten years. Esperanza sought recovery of possession, damages, and sought to address the respondent's refusal to vacate the property.
Procedural History
The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. After a lengthy trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on June 3, 2002, ordering the respondent to return possession of the property and awarding damages.
Appellate Proceedings
Samuel appealed to the CA, claiming a lack of jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to allege the assessed value of the property in her complaint. The CA sided with the respondent, nullifying the RTC's decision and stating that jurisdiction should be based on the material allegations in the complaint rather than the defendant's defenses.
Legal Principles Applied
The CA's ruling highlighted that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, the RTC's jurisdiction over civil cases involving real property requires the assessed value to exceed ₱20,000. The CA acknowledged the attached Declaration of Real Property to the complaint, which indicated an assessed value of ₱20,790. However, it dismissed the complaint without prejudice, determining that the lack of an explicit allegation in the complaint regarding the assessed value sufficed for dismissal.
Key Arguments from the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the respondent could not challenge the RTC's jurisdiction because he actively participated in the proceedings for over seven years. She also argued that the dismissal was unwarranted given the attached evidence showing the assessed property value.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, ruling that the CA's dismissal of the complaint was erroneous. It reaffirmed the principle that jurisdiction is conferred by law and that the allegations in a complaint determine it. The Court emphasized that factual documents attached to the complaint could aid in establishing jurisdiction.
Consideration of Attached Documents
The Supreme Court noted that the failure to state the assessed value was rectifiable by considering the attached Declaration. The assessed value of ₱20,790 sufficed to invoke the RTC’s jurisdiction. It cited precedents where courts allowed consideration of integral parts
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199133)
Introduction
- The case revolves around a petition for review on certiorari filed by Esperanza Tumpag, now represented by her son Pablito Tumpag Belnas, Jr., against Samuel Tumpag.
- The focus is on the dismissal of a complaint for recovery of possession and damages by the Court of Appeals (CA) due to the failure to allege the assessed value of the disputed property.
Background of the Case
- On March 13, 1995, the petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 666) against the respondent in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental.
- The complaint outlined the following key points:
- Petitioner is a widow, of legal age, and a resident of Barangay Tuyom, Cauayan, while the respondent is also of legal age and a resident of the same barangay.
- The petitioner claims ownership of a parcel of land (Lot No. 1880-A) measuring 12,992 square meters, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70184.
- The respondent occupied a portion of the land (at least 1,000 square meters) for more than ten years with the petitioner's tolerance but refused to vacate when requested.
- Previous legal actions have taken place, including a civil case filed by the respondent against the petitioner, which was dismissed.
- The petitioner sought damages for the respondent's refusal to vacate the property.