SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203789. July 31, 2013.]
ERLINDA BRIONES CARANGAN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES PACENCIO DUNGCA AND ALMAMED M. DUNGCA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 July 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 203789 — ERLINDA BRIONES CARANGAN, petitioner v. SPOUSES PACENCIO DUNGCA and ALMAMED M. DUNGCA, respondents.
In a Resolution 1 dated January 30, 2013, we denied petitioner Erlinda Briones Carangan's petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93244 to warrant this Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and for raising substantially factual issues.
In the present motion for reconsideration 2 dated April 5, 2013, the petitioner insists that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had no jurisdiction over the complaint for specific performance filed by the respondent spouses Pacencio Dungca and Almamed Dungca against her because it failed to allege the assessed value of the property involved.
The present motion must be denied for lack of substantial argument as it raises arguments already considered by this Court in dismissing the petitioner's petition for review on certiorari.
In any event, we uphold the RTC's jurisdiction in this case. The basic rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. 3 The primary relief sought by the complainants in the action for specific performance was the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of title, which is within the RTC's jurisdiction because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. EcICSA
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 80-81.
2.Id. at 82-92.
3.Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, 367 Phil. 438, 445 (1999).