Posted by: Riyani Marie M. Nartea on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
On October 25, 1976, respondents' father, Atty. Lorenzo C. Gella (Atty. Gella), executed a private document confirming that he has appointed Severino Cabrera (Severino), husband of Araceli and father of Arnel as administrator of all his real properties located in San Jose, Antique9 consisting of about 24 hectares of land described as Lot No. 1782-B. When Severino died in 1991, Araceli and Arnel, with the consent of respondents, took over the administration of the properties. Respondents likewise instructed them to look for buyers of the properties, allegedly promising them "a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration" thereof. Accordingly, Araceli and Arnel introduced real estate broker and President of ESV Marketing and Development Corporation, Erlinda Veñegas (Erlinda), to the respondents who agreed to have the said properties developed by Erlinda's company. However, a conflict arose when respondents appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated Araceli's and Arnel's services.
Araceli and Arnel, through counsel, wrote respondents and demanded for their five percent commission and compensation to no avail. Hence, on September 3, 2001, they filed a Complaint for Collection of Agent's Compensation, Commission and Damages against respondents before the RTC. Attached to their Complaint is a copy of the tax declaration for Lot No. 1782-B. Respondents averred that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction on the complaint?
HELD: No.
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
It can be readily seen from the allegations in the Complaint that petitioners' main purpose in filing the same is to collect the commission allegedly promised them by respondents should they be able to sell Lot No. 1782-B, as well as the compensation for the services rendered by Severino, Araceli and Arnel for the administration of respondents' properties. Captioned as a Complaint for Collection of Agent's Compensation, Commission and Damages, it is principally for the collection of a sum of money representing such compensation and commission. Indeed, the payment of such money claim is the principal relief sought and not merely incidental to, or a consequence of another action where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. In fact, petitioners in this case estimated their claim to be equivalent to five percent of the purchase price of Lot No. 1782-B. Therefore, the CA did not err when it ruled that petitioners' Complaint is not incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The Court cannot also give credence to petitioners' contention that their action involves interest in a real property. The October 25, 1976 letter39 of Atty. Gella confirming Severino's appointment as administrator of his properties does not provide that the latter's services would be compensated in the form of real estate or, at the very least, that it was for a compensation. Neither was it alleged in the Complaint that the five percent commission promised to Araceli and Arnel would be equivalent to such portion of Lot No. 1782-B. What is clear from paragraph 4 thereof is that respondents instructed petitioners to look for buyers of their properties and "were promised by respondents a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration of all the said properties." Also, petitioners' allegation in paragraph 6 that respondents failed to pay them "in cash or in kind" of what is due them negates any agreement between the parties that they should be paid in the form of real estate. Clearly, the allegations in their Complaint failed to sufficiently show that they have interest of whatever kind over the properties of respondents. Given these, petitioners' claim that their action involves interest over a real property is unavailing. Thus, the Court quotes with approval the CA's ratiocination with respect to the same:
As to their weak claim of interest over the property, it is apparent that their only interest is to be compensated for their long-term administration of the properties. They do not claim an interest in the properties themselves but merely payment for their services, such payment they compute to be equivalent to five (5%) percent of the value of the properties. Under Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. Plaintiffs-appellants' interest is obviously not the one contemplated under the rules on jurisdiction.40
Petitioners' demand is below the jurisdictional amount required for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, hence, the RTC concerned in this case has no jurisdiction over petitioners' Complaint.
FACTS:
On October 25, 1976, respondents' father, Atty. Lorenzo C. Gella (Atty. Gella), executed a private document confirming that he has appointed Severino Cabrera (Severino), husband of Araceli and father of Arnel as administrator of all his real properties located in San Jose, Antique9 consisting of about 24 hectares of land described as Lot No. 1782-B. When Severino died in 1991, Araceli and Arnel, with the consent of respondents, took over the administration of the properties. Respondents likewise instructed them to look for buyers of the properties, allegedly promising them "a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration" thereof. Accordingly, Araceli and Arnel introduced real estate broker and President of ESV Marketing and Development Corporation, Erlinda Veñegas (Erlinda), to the respondents who agreed to have the said properties developed by Erlinda's company. However, a conflict arose when respondents appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated Araceli's and Arnel's services.
Araceli and Arnel, through counsel, wrote respondents and demanded for their five percent commission and compensation to no avail. Hence, on September 3, 2001, they filed a Complaint for Collection of Agent's Compensation, Commission and Damages against respondents before the RTC. Attached to their Complaint is a copy of the tax declaration for Lot No. 1782-B. Respondents averred that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction on the complaint?
HELD: No.
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
It can be readily seen from the allegations in the Complaint that petitioners' main purpose in filing the same is to collect the commission allegedly promised them by respondents should they be able to sell Lot No. 1782-B, as well as the compensation for the services rendered by Severino, Araceli and Arnel for the administration of respondents' properties. Captioned as a Complaint for Collection of Agent's Compensation, Commission and Damages, it is principally for the collection of a sum of money representing such compensation and commission. Indeed, the payment of such money claim is the principal relief sought and not merely incidental to, or a consequence of another action where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. In fact, petitioners in this case estimated their claim to be equivalent to five percent of the purchase price of Lot No. 1782-B. Therefore, the CA did not err when it ruled that petitioners' Complaint is not incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The Court cannot also give credence to petitioners' contention that their action involves interest in a real property. The October 25, 1976 letter39 of Atty. Gella confirming Severino's appointment as administrator of his properties does not provide that the latter's services would be compensated in the form of real estate or, at the very least, that it was for a compensation. Neither was it alleged in the Complaint that the five percent commission promised to Araceli and Arnel would be equivalent to such portion of Lot No. 1782-B. What is clear from paragraph 4 thereof is that respondents instructed petitioners to look for buyers of their properties and "were promised by respondents a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration of all the said properties." Also, petitioners' allegation in paragraph 6 that respondents failed to pay them "in cash or in kind" of what is due them negates any agreement between the parties that they should be paid in the form of real estate. Clearly, the allegations in their Complaint failed to sufficiently show that they have interest of whatever kind over the properties of respondents. Given these, petitioners' claim that their action involves interest over a real property is unavailing. Thus, the Court quotes with approval the CA's ratiocination with respect to the same:
As to their weak claim of interest over the property, it is apparent that their only interest is to be compensated for their long-term administration of the properties. They do not claim an interest in the properties themselves but merely payment for their services, such payment they compute to be equivalent to five (5%) percent of the value of the properties. Under Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. Plaintiffs-appellants' interest is obviously not the one contemplated under the rules on jurisdiction.40
Petitioners' demand is below the jurisdictional amount required for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, hence, the RTC concerned in this case has no jurisdiction over petitioners' Complaint.
