Posted by: Roque H. Rios Jr. on 23 July 2018
FACTS:
On October 1, 1996, petitioner Johnny Oco Jr. (Oco), representing to be a peace officer connected with the Philippine National Police (PNP), accompanied by unidentified CAFGU members, forced his way into a 0.9504 hectare of irrigated farmland located at Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental and owned by the heirs of Vicente Legaspi (heirs of Legaspi) and dispossessed them of the property, destroyed the planted crops using a tractor, and took possession of the land, and had since tended it.
On February 7, 1997, the heirs of Legaspi, respondent, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tangub City for Reconveyance of Possession with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages against petitioners. Respondent asserted that the land was occupied, possessed, and cultivated by their predecessor-in-interest Vicente Legaspi and his wife Lorenza since 1935; after a subdivision survey was conducted, it was found out that the land formed part of the titled property of Andrea Lacson and despite of their discovery, they never filed any action to recover ownership thereof since they were left undisturbed in their possession until petitioners forced their way into it.
Petitioners raised the issue of ownership as special affirmative defense. In their Memorandum, however, they questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the complaint, the assessed value of the land being only P11,160, as reflected in Tax Declaration No. 7565.
On the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the trial court, was not persuaded by the defendants' arguments, stating that what determines the nature of the action as well as jurisdiction of the court are the facts alleged in the complaint and not those alleged in the answer of the defendants.
Petitioners' thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's disposition of the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The appellate court emphasized that in an accion publiciana, the only issue involved is the determination of possession de jure.
ISSUES:
HELD:
The petition is meritorious.
Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the plenary action of accion publiciana was to be brought before the Regional Trial Court. With the modifications introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the first level courts has been expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000, P50,000 where the action is filed in Metro Manila. The first level courts thus have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed the aforestated amounts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the property.
Assessed value is understood to be worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied. Commonly, however, it does not represent the true or market value of the property.
The subject land has an assessed value of P11.160 as reflected in Tax Declaration No. 7565, a common exhibit of the parties. The bare claim of respondents that it has a value of P50,000 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the allegation that the present estimated value of the land is P50,000, which allegation is, oddly, handwritten on the printed pleading. The estimated value, commonly referred to as fair market value, is entirely different from the assessed value of the property.
FACTS:
On October 1, 1996, petitioner Johnny Oco Jr. (Oco), representing to be a peace officer connected with the Philippine National Police (PNP), accompanied by unidentified CAFGU members, forced his way into a 0.9504 hectare of irrigated farmland located at Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental and owned by the heirs of Vicente Legaspi (heirs of Legaspi) and dispossessed them of the property, destroyed the planted crops using a tractor, and took possession of the land, and had since tended it.
On February 7, 1997, the heirs of Legaspi, respondent, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tangub City for Reconveyance of Possession with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages against petitioners. Respondent asserted that the land was occupied, possessed, and cultivated by their predecessor-in-interest Vicente Legaspi and his wife Lorenza since 1935; after a subdivision survey was conducted, it was found out that the land formed part of the titled property of Andrea Lacson and despite of their discovery, they never filed any action to recover ownership thereof since they were left undisturbed in their possession until petitioners forced their way into it.
Petitioners raised the issue of ownership as special affirmative defense. In their Memorandum, however, they questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the complaint, the assessed value of the land being only P11,160, as reflected in Tax Declaration No. 7565.
On the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the trial court, was not persuaded by the defendants' arguments, stating that what determines the nature of the action as well as jurisdiction of the court are the facts alleged in the complaint and not those alleged in the answer of the defendants.
Petitioners' thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's disposition of the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The appellate court emphasized that in an accion publiciana, the only issue involved is the determination of possession de jure.
ISSUES:
- I. Whether or not the RTC or MTC had jurisdiction over the case.
- II. Whether or not the value to be considered for purposes of determining jurisdiction is the assessed value or the fair market value.
HELD:
The petition is meritorious.
Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the plenary action of accion publiciana was to be brought before the Regional Trial Court. With the modifications introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the first level courts has been expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000, P50,000 where the action is filed in Metro Manila. The first level courts thus have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed the aforestated amounts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the property.
Assessed value is understood to be worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied. Commonly, however, it does not represent the true or market value of the property.
The subject land has an assessed value of P11.160 as reflected in Tax Declaration No. 7565, a common exhibit of the parties. The bare claim of respondents that it has a value of P50,000 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the allegation that the present estimated value of the land is P50,000, which allegation is, oddly, handwritten on the printed pleading. The estimated value, commonly referred to as fair market value, is entirely different from the assessed value of the property.
