WILFREDO DE VERA VS. SPS.

EUGENIO AND ESPERANZA SANTIAGO

G.R. No. 179457
June 22, 2015

PONENTE: PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

On February 14, 2000, petitioners filed an action for reconveyance of ownership or possession with
damages against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bolinao, Pangasinan,
alleging that they are the owners of certain portions of a subdivided land located at Barangay Patar,
5

Bolinao, Pangasinan, denominated as Lot No. 7303, Cad. 559-D, Bolinao Cadastre, with an area of
about265,342 square meters. They also alleged that they been in actual and continuous possession
and occupation of the said portions of land for at least 30 years prior to the issuance of Free Patent
Titles in the names of respondents. To support the said claims, petitioners attached to their
complaint the copies of their respective tax declarations.

Respondents specifically denied the allegations of the petitioners' claiming that they are the owners
of the subject land and insist that their acquisition of titles over it was done in accordance with law as
shown in their titles and tax declarations. They further alleged that the MTC has no jurisdiction over
the case as the combined assessed value of the disputed land is more than ₱20,000.00, the case is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19, paragraph 2 of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129 (B.P. Blg. 129), known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691.

The issues having been joined and the pre-trial conference having been terminated, the MTC went
on to try the case and rendered its Decision on November 9, 2001, DISMISSING the complaint filed
by the petitioners and DECLARED respondents as the lawful owners and possessors of the land in
question

Dissatisfied with the MTC Decision, petitioners filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Branch 64 which rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners,
10

REVERSING IN TOTO the findings and decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Bolinao,
Pangasinan.

Aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, respondents filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule
42 of the Rules of Court.On May 29, 2007, the CA granted the petition for review, and annulled and
set aside the Decisions of both the RTC and the MTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction claiming
that the RTC has no authority to declare the Original Certificates of Title (Free Patents) registered in
the name of respondents as null and void because the said titles were issued four (4) years prior to
the filing of the petitioners' complaint.

On August 22, 2007, the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its Decision. Hence,
the petition for review on certiorari, raising the sole issue:

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ANNULLING THE DECISION OF

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN, BRANCH 54 FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION. 12

Petitioners contend that while the MTC of Bolinao, Pangasinan, is without jurisdiction to act upon the
action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages, involving a land with an
assessed value of more than ₱20,000.00, the RTC of Alaminos, Pangasinan, nonetheless correctly
assumed jurisdiction thereon on appeal pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules8 of Court, as
amended. Thus, the RTC Decision should not have been nullified as a result of the MTC's lack of
jurisdiction over the case. They also point out that even if the CA ruled that the nullification of the
Decisions of both the MTC and the RTC is without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate action
before the proper court, such would result in multiplicity of suits. This is because the trial court where
such action will be filed anew will just repeat the task already done competently by the RTC.

For their part, respondents counter that Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court is not applicable in
the case at bar, as it refers only to cases where the lower court (MTC) dismissed a case filed with it
without trial on the merits, and an appeal to the RTC was taken from the order of dismissal. In which
case, according to respondents, the RTC may reverse the dismissal and, if it has jurisdiction, shall
try the case on the merits as if the case were originally filed with it. Respondents further argue that if
petitioners were indeed unlawfully deprived of their real right of possession and ownership of the
disputed property, they should have filed an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria with the RTC, and
not before the MTC. Theyalso insist that the RTC has no jurisdiction to declare as null and void the
free patent titles in their names because of the principle of indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of
titles after the lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of a decree of registration.

The petition is meritorious.

In resolving the issue of whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction,
the Court is guided by the well-settled rule that "jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as
well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained
in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon
all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the
relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint,
jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon
all or some of the claims asserted therein." 13

The jurisdictions of the RTC and the MTC over civil actions involving title to, or possession of real
property or interest therein, like petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession
with damages, are distinctly set forth under Section 19 (2) and Section 33 (3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.– Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or
for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts;

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in civil cases.– Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does
not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No.
7691)

A careful perusal of the allegations in their complaint for reconveyance of ownership and possession
with damages, would show that petitioners failed to indicate the assessed value of the subject real
property. At any rate, based on the Tax Declarations14 attached to their complaint, the disputed land
located in Bolinao, Pangasinan, has a total assessed value of ₱54,370.00. In line with the above-
quoted statutory provisions, therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioners' civil action involving
title to a real property outside Metro Manila with a total assessed value in excess of ₱20,000.00.

Thus, while the CA is correct in ruling that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case for
reconveyance and recovery of ownership and possession of a land with an assessed value over
₱20,000.00, the same cannot be said of its ruling with respect to the RTC. Under Section 8, Rule 40
of the Rules of Court, if the MTC tried a case on the merits despite having no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, its decision may be reviewed on appeal by the RTC, to wit:

Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction.

If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the
merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. Incase of affirmance
and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if
it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it.
In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but
shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of
amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. 15

In Serrano v. Spouses Gutierrez, the Court explained that the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 40
16

contemplates an appeal from an order of dismissal issued without trial of the case on the merits,
while the second paragraph deals with an appeal from an order of dismissal but the case was tried
on the merits. Both paragraphs, however, involve the same ground for dismissal, i.e., lack of
jurisdiction. Verily, the second paragraph refutes respondents' contention that Section 8, Rule 40
refers solely to cases where the MTC dismissed a case filed therein without a trial on the merits and
an appeal to the RTC was taken from the order of dismissal. Therefore, the RTC correctly
proceeded to decide the case on the merits despite the MTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.

In contrast, the CA erroneously reversed and set aside the RTC Decision for lack of
jurisdiction. Indeed, the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the case and its decision should be
1âwphi1

deemed promulgated in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The RTC’s appellate jurisdiction, as
contrasted to its original jurisdiction, is provided in Section 22 of B.P. Blg.129, as amended, thus:

SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.–Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over
all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin such memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or

The above-quoted provision vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly then, the amount involved is immaterial for purposes
of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction; all cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the
RTC irrespective of the amount involved. Hence, the CA grossly erred in nullifying the RTC
17

Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and in declaring as moot and academic the factual issues raised in
the respondents' petition for review when it should have proceeded to review on appeal the factual
findings of the RTC. This is because the RTC not only has exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages, but also appellate
jurisdiction over the MTC Decision itself.

On a final note, it bears emphasis that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.
This restriction of the review to questions of law has been institutionalized in Section 1, Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, the second sentence of which provides that the petition shall raise only questions
of law which must be distinctly set forth. Indeed, in the exercise of its power of review, the Court is
not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions, it does not normally undertake the
reexamination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial. In certain exceptional cases,
18

however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, viz.: (a) When the findings are
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g) When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs,
are not disputed by the respondent;

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; or

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 19

Not one of those exceptions was shown to obtain in the instant case as would justify a liberal
interpretation of procedural rules and a determination of factual issues by the Court. A perusal of
petitioners' sole assigned error would readily show that the only issue raised is one of law. There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and
which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-
litigants. Undeniably, the issue whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of
20

jurisdiction is a question of law. The resolution of such issue rests solely on what the law [B.P. Blg.
129, as amended] provides on the given set of circumstances as alleged in petitioners' complaint for
reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages. Meanwhile, the factual questions
necessitating a review of the evidence presented by the parties are raised in the respondents'
petition for review filed with the CA. An issue is factual when the doubt or difference arises as to the
truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence,
considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the
situation. Without doubt, the following issues duly raised before the CA but it failed to resolve are all
21

questions of fact which are beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Decision dated May 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated August 22, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No.
79769 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for the
prompt resolution of the factual issues raised in the respondents' petition for review of the Decision
dated June 14, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Branch 64.