Meaning of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation

What is meant by a civil action in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation? Before defining an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, it might be worthwhile to
define first an action which is capable of pecuniary estimation.

An action capable of pecuniary estimation is one wherein the

primary or principal relief sought is a claim for a sum of
money or the assertion of title to or possession of personal or
real property. In such a case the action is capable of
pecuniary estimation based on the amount of the monetary
claim or the value of the personal or real property.
Conversely an action incapable of pecuniary estimation is one
wherein the primary or principal relief sought is not a claim
for a sum of money or the assertion of title to or possession
of personal or real property but some other primary or
principal relief which cannot be valued in monetary terms.
An action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a real action since it involves title to real
property. The purpose of the action is to foreclose upon the mortgagor’s and junior
encumbrancers’ right to the real property and to vest it in the purchaser. Hence a foreclosure suit
is not one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction would thus depend upon the
assessed value of the foreclosed realty. (Roldan v. Barrios, 23 April 2018).
Nature of the action test
How does a bar examinee determine if a bar question deals with an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation? I recommend two tests for the bar examinee. The first one is what I would call the
nature-of-the-action test. If a bar exam question mentions merely the action or remedy which by
its nature is incapable of pecuniary estimation without mentioning any pecuniary relief sought by
the plaintiff, then it would be the RTC which would have subject-matter jurisdiction.
The bar examinee would do well to know the following actions which by their nature are incapable
of pecuniary estimation: specific performance, rescission or annulment of contract, injunction,
declaratory relief, reformation of contract, revival of judgment, citizen’s suit, and abatement of
nuisance.
Illustration:
“Q Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa
City a Complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay
San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City,
has an assessed value of ₱19,700.00. xxx
“Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
xxx
“[b] The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving real property
with an assessed value of ₱19,700.00; exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial
Court where the defendant resides;
xxx
“Rule on the foregoing grounds with reasons.” (2009 Remedial Law Bar Exam Question No. 3[b]).
Comment
Here the bar question mentions only the action filed or the remedy availed of, that is, rescission of
sale of land but without mentioning that Amorsolo was asserting title to or possession over the land
as against Brigido. The action is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus falls within the
RTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction. The assessed value of the land is irrelevant.
Ultimate objective test
The action or remedy mentioned in the bar question may be one which by its nature is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; however the facts show that the ultimate or principal relief sought by the
plaintiff is to claim a sum of money or to assert title to or possession over personal or real
property. In such a case the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction would then be
based on the amount of the monetary claim, the value of the personal property, or the assessed
value of the real property.
Illustration:
“Q A filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila an action for specific performance against
B, a resident of Quezon City, to compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a
parcel of land situated in Quezon City having an assessed value of P19,000.00. B received the
summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January 2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction contending that the subject matter of
the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the motion.
“[a] Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct?” (2003 Remedial Law Bar
Exam Question No. 3).
Comment
The action filed is for specific performance which by its nature is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. However analysis of the bar question reveals that the ultimate or principal relief sought
by A is to assert title over the land by compelling B to execute a deed of conveyance over it.
Hence the action is capable of pecuniary estimation, to be more precise, a real action. Jurisdiction
is thus vested in the MTC since the assessed value does not exceed ₱50,000. (Ruby Shelters
Builders v. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914, 10 February 2009; Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491
[2001]).
Take note however that even if the bar problem mentions that the plaintiff is seeking pecuniary
relief but such relief is only incidental, or in other words is not the principal or ultimate objective,
the action would still be one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Illustration
“Q Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over a commercial building
where the former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others,
a monthly rental of ₱50,000.00 for a four-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On
January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of the estate
of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013
despite King Kong’s written demands.
“Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission
of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013.
“(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is without
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only ₱300,000.00?” (2014 Remedial Law Bar Exam
Question No. 10[a])
Comment
At first blush, one may conclude that the RTC is without jurisdiction because King Kong is
asserting a pecuniary relief, that is, damages of ₱300,000, and hence it is the MTC which has
jurisdiction because the claim does not exceed ₱300,000.
However a more circumspect analysis would show that the claim for the damages is only incidental
to the principal relief sought, that is, the rescission of the contract. Hence the action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation and thus within the RTC’s jurisdiction.
Conclusion
This short note provides the bar reviewee only with rules of thumb. Questions dealing with the
determination of whether an action is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation are devilishly
tricky. The difficulty is in determining whether the pecuniary relief sought is a principal one or
merely incidental. The ideal solution of course is for the reviewee to be well-versed in leading
jurisprudence on the matter. If the reviewee is unaware of such jurisprudence, then the rules of
thumb would at least allow him to present a logical and lawyer-like argument.
For instance, an action for interpleader would by its nature be one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. After all, the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the interpleader or has an
interest which is not disputed by the conflicting claimants and thus not the subject of the litigation.
 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has held that jurisprudence over such action would depend upon
the value of the property subject of the interpleader. (Makati Dev’t Corp. v. Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA
401 [1969]).
An examinee who however applies the rules of thumb and concludes that the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation would still get credit for his answer since he has tackled the relevant issue
and presented a logical argument.
-oOo-

Real Action vs. Personal Action

Venue0 Comments







● An action is 'real' when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest

therein (Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court). All other actions are personal action (Sec. 2, Rule 4,
Rules of Court).

● In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an
action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property. (Paderanga vs. Buissan,
G.R. No. L-49475, September 28, 1993)

● An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate, which means that the
realty or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action. The issues involved in
real actions are title to, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or
condemnation of real property. Not every action however, involving a real property is a real
action because the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit. To be a
`real' action, it is not enough that the action must deal with real property. It is important
 that the matter in litigation must also involve any of the following issues: title to,
ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or condemnation of real
property.

An action for damages to real property, while involving realty is a personal action because
although it involves real property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned. An
action to recover possession of real property plus damages is a real action because
possession of the real property is involved.

● The distinction between real action and personal action is important for the purpose of
determining the venue of the action. A real action is “local”, which means that its venue
depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. A personal action is
“transitory”, which means that its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff.

●The venue of real actions shall be the proper court which has territorial jurisdiction over
the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue of
personal actions is the court where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (Rule 4, Rules of
Court)

Examples of Personal Actions:

1. Action for collection for sum of money
2. Action to recover possession of a personal property
3. Action for a declaration of the nullity of marriage
4. Action for annulment of marriage
5. Action for damages
6. An action for specific performance is a personal action as long as it does not involve a
claim of or recovery of ownership of real property. Where the allegations as well as the
prayer of the complaint do not claim ownership of the lots in question or ask for possession
of the same but instead seeks for the execution of a deed of sale by the defendants in
favor of the plaintiff, the action is a personal action. However, where a complaint is
denominated as one for specific performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a
deed of sale for a parcel of land for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of the land, its
primary objective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and thus, is deemed
a real action.
7.
Where an award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an action that
seeks to annul the cancellation of the award over the said house and lot is a personal
action. The action does not involve title to, ownership or possession of real property. The
nature of the action is one to compel the recognition of the validity of the previous award
by seeking a declaration that the cancellation is null and void.
8.
9. Action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment of the mortgage debt and to release
the mortgage is a personal action. (Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena, G.R. No. L-29791
January 10, 1978)
10. Action to annul a contract of loan with an action to annul a real estate mortgage (Chua vs.
TOPROS, G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2005)
11. Action to annul a foreclosure sale whether judicial or extrajudicial

Examples of Real Actions:

1. Ejectment
2. Accion publiciana
3. Accion reinvindicatoria
4. Where the action to annul or rescind a sale of real property has as its fundamental and
prime objective the recovery of real property, the action is real.
5. Where an award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an action that
seeks to annul the cancellation of the award over the said house and lot is a personal
action. The action does not involve title to, ownership or possession of real property. The
nature of the action is one to compel the recognition of the validity of the previous award
by seeking a declaration that the cancellation is null and void.
6. Action to foreclose a real estate mortgage is a real action
7. Action for the recovery of possession of the leased premises and for the payment of
accrued rentals is a real action
8. Action for partition
9. Action for condemnation of real property