Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No.

119347, March 17, 1999

Posted by Pius Morados on November 28, 2011
(Civil Procedures Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation)
Facts: Petitioners discovered a public document, which is a declaration of heirs and
deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the land
executed by and among the respondents whereby respondents divided the property
among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are entitled thereto as legal
heirs also.
Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND
PARTITION against defendants with the RTC claiming that the document was false
and perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral
partition of the property whatsoever had been made between the heirs. The
complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order be issued
to partition the land among all the heirs.
Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subject land
is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC has
jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the nature of the civil case.
Held: Yes. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
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).
The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the
document in question. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property,
this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the
document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of

a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and
the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all
or some of the claims asserted therein.
Spouses Huguete vs Spouses Embudo, GR No. 49554, July 1, 2003
Posted by Pius Morados on November 29, 2011
(Civil Procedure Jurisdiction, Real Action)
Facts: Petitioner spouses filed a complaint for the annulment of deed of sale and
partition of the 50-square meter portion of land against respondent spouses in the
RTC.
Respondent spouses filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that the action is one for
annulment of title and the total assessed value of the subject land was only
P15,000.00 which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC, pursuant to Sec
33(3) of BP Blg 129, as amended by RA 7691.
Petitioner spouses filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss alleging that the
subject matter of the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, is
cognizable by the RTC, as provided by Sec 19(1) of BP 129, as amended.
Issue: WON the civil action is one in which the subject matter is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Held: No. The argument that the present action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation considering that it is for annulment of deed of sale and partition is not welltaken.
What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it
are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought (Caiza vs
CA).
And in Singsong vs Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
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
the 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).
The principal purpose of the petitioners in filing the complaint was to secure title to
the 50-square meter portion of the property which they purchased from the

respondents. Their cause of action is based on their right as purchaser of the subject
land from respondents. They pray that they be declared owners of the property
sold. Thus, their complaint involved title to real property or any interest therein. The
alleged value of the land which they purchased was P15,000.00, which was within
the jurisdiction of MTC.
The annulment of the deed of sale, were prayed for in the complaint because they
were necessary before the lot may be partitioned and the 50-square meter portion
subject thereof may be conveyed to petitioners.
Copioso vs Copioso, 391 SCRA 325; GR No. 149243, October 28, 2002
Posted by Pius Morados on November 28, 2011
(Civil Procedures Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation)
Facts: Respondents filed with the RTC an action for specific performance of
reconveyance of two parcels of land having an assessed value of P3,770.00.
Respondents alleged that they together with their deceased brother were co-owners
of the subject property having inherited the same from their parents, and that through
fraud and machination the deceased had the property transferred to his name and
that of spouses Doria who subsequently sold the same to third parties. Thus, they
are praying for the reconveyance of the property by virtue of their being co-owners
thereof.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground that it was the MTC and
not the RTC that had jurisdiction considering that the assessed value of the property
was lower than P20,000.00 (Section 33 [3] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
by R.A. No. 7691). Petitioners argue that the complaint for reconveyance cannot be
resolved unless the trial court delves upon the issues of title, possession and
interests of each of the stakeholders over the subject parcels of land.
Respondents claim that the instant complaint for reconveyance is a case of joinder of
causes of action which include the annulment of sale and other instruments of false
conveyance incapable of pecuniary estimation thus within the legal competence of
the RTC ( Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended).
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss holding that since the subject matter of
the action was beyond pecuniary estimation it was properly within its jurisdiction.
Issue: WON denial of the motion to dismiss was correct.
Held: Yes. Although the assessed value of the two parcels of land involved is
P3,770.00, which is within the jurisdiction of the MTC, the action filed by the
respondents is for specific performance of reconveyance, annulment of contracts and
claim for damages, which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus properly
within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

If the action affects the title to or possession of real property then it is a real action
and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property. It is within the
jurisdiction therefore of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Manchester Development Corporation vs Court of Appeals GR No. 75919 May 7,
1987
Facts:
This was originally a case of an action for torts and damages and specific
performance with a prayer for temporary restraining order. The damages were not
specifically stated in the prayer but the body of the complaint assessed a P78.75M
damages suffered by the petitioner. The amount of docket fees paid was only
P410.00. The petitioner then amended the complaint and reduced the damages to
P10M
only.
Issues:
When
Does
an

does
amended

a
complaint

court
vest

acquire
jurisdiction

in

jurisdiction?
the
court?

Ruling:
The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not
thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based
on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.
Sun Insurance Office Ltd. vs Hon. Asuncion and Manuel Uy Po Tiong GR No. 7993738 February 13, 1989
Facts:
Sun insurance filed a case for the consignation of premiums on a fire insurance
policy with a prayer for the judicial declaration of its nullity against private respondent
Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Private respondent as declared in default for failure to file the
required answer within the reglementary period. Meanwhile, the Respondent Manuel
Tiong also filed a case against Sun Insurance for the refund of premiums and the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, seeking the payment of actual,
compensatory, moral, exemplary and liquidated damages, attorneys fees, expenses
of litigation, and costs of suit, but the damages sought were not specifically stated in
the prayer, although it may be inferred from the body of the complaint that it would
amount to about P50M. In the body of the original complaint, the total amount of
damages sought amounted to about P50 Million. In the prayer, the amount of
damages asked for was not stated. The amount of only P210.00 was paid for the
docket fee. On January 23, 1986, private respondent filed an amended complaint

wherein in the prayer it is asked that he be awarded no less than P10,000,000.00 as

actual and exemplary damages but in the body of the complaint the amount of his
pecuniary claim is approximately P44,601,623.70. Said amended complaint was
admitted and the private respondent was reassessed the additional docket fee of
P39,786.00 based on his prayer of not less than P10,000,000.00 in damages, which
he
paid.
On April 24, 1986, private respondent filed a supplemental complaint alleging an
additional claim of P20,000,000.00 in damages so that his total claim is
approximately P64,601,620.70. On October 16, 1986, private respondent paid an
additional docket fee of P80,396.00. After the promulgation of the decision of the
respondent court on August 31, 1987 wherein private respondent was ordered to be
reassessed for additional docket fee, and during the pendency of this petition, and
after the promulgation of Manchester, on April 28, 1988, private respondent paid an
additional docket fee of P62,132.92. Although private respondent appears to have
paid a total amount of P182,824.90 for the docket fee considering the total amount of
his claim in the amended and supplemental complaint amounting to about
P64,601,620.70, petitioner insists that private respondent must pay a docket fee of
P257,810.49.

Issue:
Whether or not the court acquires jurisdiction when the correct and proper docket fee
has
not
been
paid?
Ruling:
Manchester ruling applies, with modification. Statutes regulating the procedure of
courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and in that
respect.
The Court dismissed petitioners motion and ordered the Clerk of court to re-asses
the
docket
fees.
Personal
Observation:
The case is different in Manchester because the respondent herein has shown
compliance by paying docket fees upon reassessment and has also paid the docket
fees on its amended complaint increasing the claim for damages. Furthermore, there
is no substantial evidence that the respondent has the intention of deliberately
defraud the court or evaded the payment of docket fees.