Posted by Roque H. Rios Jr. on 24 July 2018
FACTS:
Ruby Shelter, herein petitioner, obtained a loan amounting to P95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo) secured by real estate mortgages consisting of five (5) parcels of land in the name of the petitioner. After several negotiations and despite the extension granted by Tan and Obiedo, petitioner still wasn't able to pay. Tan and Obiedo, by virtue of real estate mortgages, executed Deeds of Absolute Sale in their favor consisting the five parcels of land. It is provided for in the Memorandum Agreement that if petitioner fails to pay the loaned amount, five Deeds of Absolute Sale would be executed in favor of Tan and Obiedo.
On March 16, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court for declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale and damages believing that respondents' action was one which was incapable of pecuniary estimation. Upon filing its complaint, petitioner paid docket fees amounting to P13,644.25 as assessed by the Office of the Clerk of Court. It was stated that it only wanted to annul the deeds of absolute sale, so therefor, no issue of title or recovery of possession is present to classify it as a real action.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, there was a provision which states that if Ruby Shelter brought suit against respondents, it would be amounting to P10,000,000.00 as liquidated damages inclusive of costs and attorney's fees. Tan and Obiedo moved to dismiss the complaint contending that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over the case since the case involved recovery of real property making it a real action which requires payment of docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the land amounting to P720,392.60.
RTC and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Tan and Obiedo ordering Ruby Shelter to pay additional docket fees. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ruby Shelter should pay additional docket fees to acquire jurisdiction
HELD:
Yes.
Payment of Docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. In Manchester Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 562, the court explicitly pronounced that, the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. "Hence, the payment of docket fees is not only mandatoty, but also jurisdictional.
A real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. No matter how fastidiously petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations and reliefs it sought in its complaint in Civil Case no 2006-0030 appears to be ultimately a real action, involving as they do the recovery by petitioner of its title and possession of the five parcels of land from respondents Tan and Obiedo. A real action is one which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in what is now section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of court, a real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.
The docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead on relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the real properties ( as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.
FACTS:
Ruby Shelter, herein petitioner, obtained a loan amounting to P95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo) secured by real estate mortgages consisting of five (5) parcels of land in the name of the petitioner. After several negotiations and despite the extension granted by Tan and Obiedo, petitioner still wasn't able to pay. Tan and Obiedo, by virtue of real estate mortgages, executed Deeds of Absolute Sale in their favor consisting the five parcels of land. It is provided for in the Memorandum Agreement that if petitioner fails to pay the loaned amount, five Deeds of Absolute Sale would be executed in favor of Tan and Obiedo.
On March 16, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court for declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale and damages believing that respondents' action was one which was incapable of pecuniary estimation. Upon filing its complaint, petitioner paid docket fees amounting to P13,644.25 as assessed by the Office of the Clerk of Court. It was stated that it only wanted to annul the deeds of absolute sale, so therefor, no issue of title or recovery of possession is present to classify it as a real action.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, there was a provision which states that if Ruby Shelter brought suit against respondents, it would be amounting to P10,000,000.00 as liquidated damages inclusive of costs and attorney's fees. Tan and Obiedo moved to dismiss the complaint contending that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over the case since the case involved recovery of real property making it a real action which requires payment of docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the land amounting to P720,392.60.
RTC and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Tan and Obiedo ordering Ruby Shelter to pay additional docket fees. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ruby Shelter should pay additional docket fees to acquire jurisdiction
HELD:
Yes.
Payment of Docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. In Manchester Devt. Corp. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 562, the court explicitly pronounced that, the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. "Hence, the payment of docket fees is not only mandatoty, but also jurisdictional.
A real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. No matter how fastidiously petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations and reliefs it sought in its complaint in Civil Case no 2006-0030 appears to be ultimately a real action, involving as they do the recovery by petitioner of its title and possession of the five parcels of land from respondents Tan and Obiedo. A real action is one which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in what is now section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of court, a real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.
The docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead on relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the real properties ( as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.
