7/27/2019 Tacay vs RTC- Jurisdiction

1/1

G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989

MAXIMO TACAY, PONCIANO PANES and ANTONIA NOEL, petitioners, vs. REGIONALTRIAL COURT OF TAGUM Davao del Norte, Branches 1 and 2, Presided by Hon. MarcialFernandez and Hon. Jesus Matas, respectively, PATSITA GAMUTAN, Clerk of Court, andGODOFREDO PINEDA, respondents.

Facts:Respondent Pineda instituted an action for recovery of possession against Tacay, Panes

and Noel at the RTC of Tagum Davao del Norte.

Facts show that Pineda is the owner of the land measuring 790sq meters and that theprevious owner allowed the defendants to occupy such by mere tolerance. When Pineda came inneed for the use of the land, he demanded them to vacate the land and to pay rentals but thelatter refused. Pineda then instituted a complaint praying that he be declared the owner of theland and that the defendants pay monthly rentals since February 1987 as well as nominal, actualand moral damages and attorneys fees and that Pineda be granted further reliefs and remedies.The defendants then filed for dismissal alleging that the Trial court did not acquire jurisdictionover the case for the reason that the complaint failed to specify the amounts of damages and forfailure to allege the basic requirement as to the assessed value of the subject lot in dispute.

The motion to dismiss was later on denied by Judge Matas. The motions to dismiss inCivil Cases 2211 and 2209 were also denied declaring that since the "action at bar is forReivindicatoria, Damages and Attorney's fees ... (d)efinitely this Court has the exclusivejurisdiction," (b) that the claims for actual, moral and nominal damages "are only one aspect ofthe cause of action," and (c) because of absence of specification of the amounts claimed asmoral, nominal and actual damages, they should be "expunged from the records." Thedefendants later on filed a joint petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer forTRO praying that the orders be annulled on the ground of grave abuse of discretion and re-asserts that the court did not acquire jurisdiction.

Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction.

Held: Yes. The petition of the defendants should be therefore dismissed. The motion for dismissalfails to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judges inrendering the Orders complained of or, for that matter, the existence of any proper cause for theissuance of the writ of mandamus. On the contrary, the orders appear to have correctly appliedthe law to the admitted facts.

The actions are not basically for the recovery of sums of money. They are principally forrecovery of possession of real property, in the nature of an accion publiciana. Determinative ofthe court's jurisdiction in this type of actions is the nature thereof, not the amount of the damagesallegedly arising from or connected with the issue of title or possession, and regardless of thevalue of the property. A real action-may be commenced and prosecuted without anaccompanying claim for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary damages; and such an action wouldfall within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction inter alia over "all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, realproperty, or any interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer oflands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts."

14The rule applies regardless of the

value of the real property involved, whether it be worth more than P20,000.00 or not, infra. Therule also applies even where the complaint involving realty also prays for an award of damages;the amount of those damages would be immaterial to the question of the Court's jurisdiction.