G.R. No. 192649 March 9, 2011HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.R-II BUILER! INC., a"# NATIONAL HOU!INGAUTHORITY, Respondents.D E C I S I O NPERE$, J.:Primarily assailed in this petition for review filed pursuant to Rule4 of the !""# Rules of Civil Pro$edure, is the De$ision dated %!&anuary%'!'rendered(ythe)ormer )ifteenthDivisionof theCourt of *ppeals +C*, in C*-..R. SP No. !!!!/,! the dispositiveportion of whi$h states as follows012ERE)ORE, thepetitionfor$ertiorari andprohi(itionishere(yDENIED.3heassailedOrders, dated4ar$h/, %''"andSeptem(er %",%''", of the Re5ional 3rial Court of 4anila, 6ran$h %% are here(y*))IR4ED.Conse7uently, the in8un$tion earlier issued on De$em(er 4, %''",restrainin5 the pro$eedin5s in Civil Case No. '-!!/4'#, is here(yDISSO9:ED.%3he )a$tsOn !" 4ar$h !""/, a &oint :enture *5reement +&:*, was enteredinto (etween respondents National 2ousin5 *uthority +N2*, and R-II 6uilders, In$. +R-II 6uilders, for the implementation of theSmo;ey 4ountain Development and Re$lamation Pro8e$t +S4DRP,.*mended and restated on %! )e(ruary !""4/ and !! *u5ust!""4,4 the &:* was aimed at implementin5 a two-phase $onversionof the Smo;ey 4ountain Dumpsite Inturn, R-II6uildersopposedthefore5oin5motion%# and, onthetheorythatthe*ssetPool wasstill indan5erof dissipation, filedanur5entmotion to resolve its appli$ation for the appointment of a re$eiverand su(mitted its nominees for said position.%@On %" Septem(er %''", respondent R3C issued its se$ond assailedorder whi$h +a, denied 2.CEs motion for re$onsideration? +(,5ranted R-II 6uildersE appli$ation for appointment of re$eiver and,for said purpose0 HiI appointed *tty. Danilo Con$ep$ion as Re$eiverand, HiiI dire$ted R-II 6uilders to post a (ond in the sumof P!',''','''.''.%"Imputin5 5rave a(use of dis$retion a5ainst theR3Cfor not dismissin5the$aseandfor 5rantin5R-II 6uildersEappli$ationfor re$eivership, 2.Cfiledthe Rule >petitionfor$ertiorari and prohi(ition do$;eted as C*-..R. SP No. !!!!/(efore theC*/' whi$h,thruits)ormerSpe$ial)ifteenthDivision,rendered the herein assailed %! &anuary %'!' de$ision,/! upon thefollowin5 findin5s and $on$lusions0a, Irrespe$tiveof whether it isreal or onein$apa(leofpe$uniary estimation, the a$tion $ommen$ed (y R-II6uilders indu(ita(ly falls s7uarely within the 8urisdi$tion ofrespondent R3C?(, )rom the alle5ations of R-II 6uildersE ori5inal$omplaintand amended $omplaint the $hara$ter of the relief primarilysou5ht, i.e., the de$laration of nullity of the D*C, the a$tion(efore respondent R3C is one where the su(8e$t matter isin$apa(le of pe$uniary estimation?$, R-II 6uilders need not pay any defi$ien$y in the do$;etfees $onsiderin5 its withdrawal of its *mended andSupplemental Complaint?d, *re$eiver may(eappointedwithout formal hearin5,parti$ularly when it is within the interest of (oth parties anddoes not result in the delay of any 5overnmentinfrastru$ture pro8e$ts or e$onomi$ development efforts?e, Respondent R3CEs a$t of $allin5the attentionof the4anila Re5istrar of Deeds to R-II 6uildersE Fr5ent EA-Parte4otion for *nnotation of 9is Pendens is well-within itsresidual power to a$t on matters (efore it? andf, 3he withdrawal of R-II 6uildersE *mended andSupplemental Complaint dis$ounted the forumshoppin5imputed a5ainst it (y 2.C./%2.CEsmotionfor re$onsiderationof thefore5oin5de$ision// wasdenied for la$; of merit in the C*Es resolution dated %! &une %'!',hen$e, this petition.3he Issues2.Cur5estheaffirmativeof thefollowin5issuesinur5in5the5rant of its petition, to wit0

3he CourtEs Rulin51e find the petition impressed with merit.&urisdi$tionisdefinedastheauthoritytohearanddeterminea$ause or the ri5ht to a$t in a $ase./# In addition to (ein5 $onferred(y the Constitution and the law,/@ the rule is settled that a $ourtEs8urisdi$tion over the su(8e$t matter is determined (y the relevantalle5ations in the $omplaint,/" the law in effe$t when the a$tion isfiled,4' and the $hara$ter of the relief sou5ht irrespe$tive ofwhether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the $laimsasserted.4!Consistent with Se$tion !, Rule !4! of the Revised Rulesof Court whi$h provides that the pres$ri(ed fees shall (e paid in full

petition for $ertiorari and prohi(ition do$;eted as C*-..R. SP No.!!!!/,4@ 2.C $orre$tly faults the C* for not findin5 that 6ran$h%4 of the 4anila R3C had no authority to order the transfer of the$ase to respondent R3C.4" 6ein5 outside the 8urisdi$tion of Spe$ialCommer$ial Courts, the rule is settled that $ases whi$h are $ivil innature, li;e the one $ommen$ed (y R-II 6uilders, should (ethreshedout inare5ular $ourt.' 1ithitsa$;nowled5edla$;of8urisdi$tion over the $ase, 6ran$h %4 of the 4anila R3C should haveordered the dismissal of the $omplaint, sin$e a $ourt withoutsu(8e$t matter 8urisdi$tion$annot transfer the$asetoanother$ourt.! Instead, it should have simply ordered the dismissal of the$omplaint, $onsiderin5 that the affirmative defenses for whi$h 2.Csou5ht hearin5 in$luded its la$; of 8urisdi$tion over the $ase.Calle8av.Panday,% whileonfa$tstheother wayaround, i.e.,a(ran$hof theR3CeAer$isin58urisdi$tionover asu(8e$t matterwithin the Spe$ial Commer$ial CourtEs authority, dealt s7uarely withthe issue01hether a (ran$h of the Re5ional 3rial Court whi$h has no8urisdi$tion to try and de$ide a $ase has authority to remand thesametoanother$o-e7ual Courtinorderto$urethedefe$tsonvenue and 8urisdi$tion.Calle8a ruled on the issue, thus0Su$h (ein5 the $ase, R3C 6r. @ did not have the re7uisiteauthorityorpowertoorderthetransferof the$asetoanother(ran$h of the Re5ional 3rial Court. 3he only a$tion that R3C-6r. @$ouldta;e on thematter wastodismiss thepetitionfor la$;of8urisdi$tion.Certainly,thepronoun$ement of 6r.%4, theSpe$ial Commer$ialCourt, in its &oint Order of % &anuary %''@ that the $ase is not anintra$orporate$ontroversy,amplifiedinits Order of !)e(ruary%''@ that it to wit0!. 3he do$;et fees of the ori5inal $omplaint has (een paid,thus, the Court already a$7uired 8urisdi$tion over the instant$ase. 3he admissionof the *mendedandSupplementalComplaint, is su(8e$t to the payment of do$;et feespursuanttotheOrderof thisCourtdated4ay!@,%''@.3henon-payment of thedo$;et feesstatedintheOrderdated 4ay !@, %''@ will result only in the non-admission ofthe*mendedandSupplemental Complaint, whi$hmeansthat theOri5inal Complaint remains. 2owever,sin$ethe*mended and SupplementalComplaint is(ein5 withdrawnand in lieu thereof a new *mended Complaint is sou5ht to(e admitted, there is no more need to pay the do$;et feesas provided for in the said Order.%. It is settled that on$e 8urisdi$tion is a$7uired and vestedin a Court, said Court maintains its 8urisdi$tion until8ud5ment is had +*rue5o, &r., et al. vs. C*,. Su$h a$7uired8urisdi$tion is not lost (y the amendment of a pleadin5 thatraises additional=new $ause+s, of a$tion. 3he 8urisdi$tion ofa Court is not even lost even if the additionaldo$;et feesare re7uired (y reason of the amendment.Indeed, theSupremeCourt heldinPNOCvs. Court of *ppeals+..R. No. !'#!@, O$to(er @, !""@, that0'','''.'' as its $laim for dama5es in its amended $omplaint.3hus, evenonthe assumptionthat additional do$;et fees arere7uiredasa$onse7uen$eof anyamended$omplaint, itsnon-payment will not result in the $ourtEs loss of 8urisdi$tion over the$ase.#Distin$tly, the prin$ipal referen$e remained to (e the /1ith R-II6uildersD in$orporation of a $ause of a$tion for $onveyan$e of titleto and=or possession of the entire *sset Pool in its *mended andSupplemental Complaint,>4 on the other hand, no less thanrespondent R3C, in its !" 4ay %''@ order, dire$ted the assessmentand payment of do$;et fees $orrespondin5 to a real a$tion.*dmittedly, this Court has repeatedly laid down the test inas$ertainin5 whether the su(8e$t matter of an a$tion is in$apa(le ofpe$uniaryestimation(ydeterminin5thenatureof theprin$ipala$tionor remedysou5ht. 1hile a$laimis, onthe one hand,$onsidered $apa(le of pe$uniary estimation if the a$tion is primarilyfor re$overy of a sum of money, the a$tion is $onsidered in$apa(leof pe$uniary estimation where the (asi$ issue is somethin5 otherthan the ri5ht to re$over a sum of money, the money $laim (ein5only in$idental to or merely a $onse7uen$e of, the prin$ipal reliefsou5ht.> 3o our mind, the appli$ation of fore5oin5 test does not,however, pre$lude the further $lassifi$ation of a$tions into personala$tions andreal a$tion, for whi$happropriate do$;et fees arepres$ri(ed. In $ontrast to personal a$tions where the plaintiff see;sthe re$overy of personal property, the enfor$ement of a $ontra$t,or the re$overy of dama5es, real a$tions are those whi$h affe$t titleto or possession of real property, or interest therein.>>1hilepersonal a$tions should (e $ommen$ed and tried where the plaintiffor any of the prin$ipal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant orany of the prin$ipaldefendants resides, or in the $ase of a non-resident defendant where he may (e found, at the ele$tion of theplaintiff,># the venue for real a$tions is the $ourt of the pla$e wherethe real property is lo$ated.>@*lthou5h an a$tion for resolution and=or the nullifi$ation of a$ontra$t, li;e an a$tion for spe$ifi$ performan$e, fall s7uarely intothe$ate5oryof a$tionswherethesu(8e$t matter is$onsideredin$apa(le of pe$uniaryestimation,>" wefindthat the $auses ofa$tion for resolution and=or nullifi$ation of the D*C was erroneouslyisolated (y the C* from the other $auses of a$tion alle5ed in R-II6uildersD ori5inal $omplaint and *mended and SupplementalComplaint whi$hprayedfor the $onveyan$e and=or transfer ofpossessionof the*sset Pool. In.o$hanv..o$han,#' thisCourtheld that an a$tion for spe$ifi$ performan$e would still (e$onsidered a real a$tion where it see;s the $onveyan$e or transferof real property, or ultimately, the eAe$ution of deeds of$onveyan$e of real property. 4ore to the point is the $ase of Ru(yShelter 6uilders and Realty Development Corporation v. 2on. Pa(loC. )ormaran III#! where, despite the annulment of $ontra$ts sou5htin the $omplaint, this Court upheld the dire$tive to pay additionaldo$;et fees $orrespondin5 to a real a$tion in the followin5 wise, towit0A A A HIIn Siapno v. Manalo, the Court disre5arded thetitle=denomination of therein plaintiff 4analoDs amended petition asone for Mandamus with Revo$ation of 3itle and Dama5es? andad8ud5edthesameto(ea real a$tion, thefilin5feesfor whi$hshould have (een$omputed (ased on the assessed value of thesu(8e$t property or, if there was none, the estimated value thereof.3he Court eApounded in Siapno that0In his amended petition, respondent 4analo prayed that N3*Ds saleof the property in dispute to Standford East Realty Corporation andthe title issued to the latter on the (asis thereof, (e de$lared nulland void. In a very real sense, albeit the amended petition is styledas one for "Mandamus with Revo$ation of 3itle and Dama5es