FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240797. October 17, 2018.]
HEIRS OF POTENCIANO ABANGAN, NAMELY: RUEL A. GETUABAN, ESTRELLA A. UNABIA, LIGAYA CANSANCIO, RAMIL CONSANCIO, MITCHEL CANSANCIO AND JOSE A. OBERES, JR., petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF SABAS ABENDAN, NAMELY: SOFRONIO PARAISO, LEONARDO PARAISA, CAPITALINA CELIN AND EUGENIA SEPALYA, FELIX DELANTAR, ARTURO DELANTAR, WILFREDO DELANTAR, AVELINO DELANTAR, AND GREGORIA DELANTAR LARGO; DEL SOCORRO HEIRS REPRESENTED BY: GUADALUPE DEL SOCORRO, ROSALINDA DEL SOCORRO, AND JULIET DEL SOCORRO SILVA; HEIRS OF ROBERTO CABALUNA, NAMELY: PABLO CABALUNA, SEBASTIAN CABALUNA, APOLINAR CABALUNA, AND DIONISA CABALUNA OBERES; MICHAEL O. BERNARDINO, JESSICA O. BERNARDINO, AND FERDINANT O. BERNARDINO; GENZON HEIRS REPRESENTED BY: HAMILTON GEONZON, JERWIN GEONZON AND ROGER GEONZON; AURELIA REPUELA, MILAGROS MONASQUE, LEONILA PARDILLO, AND JUANITA LASPUN; BOLO HEIRS REPRESENTED BY: SERGIO BOLO, FERNANDO BOLO AND REY BOLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 17, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240797 — Heirs of Potenciano Abangan, namely: Ruel A. Getuaban, Estrella A. Unabia, Ligaya Cansancio, Ramil Consancio, Mitchel Cansancio and Jose A. Oberes, Jr., Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Sabas Abendan, namely: Sofronio Paraiso, Leonardo Paraisa, Capitalina Celin and Eugenia Sepalya, Felix Delantar, Arturo Delantar, Wilfredo Delantar, Avelino Delantar, and Gregoria Delantar Largo; Del Socorro Heirs represented by: Guadalupe Del Socorro, Rosalinda Del Socorro, and Juliet Del Socorro Silva; Heirs of Roberto Cabaluna, namely: Pablo Cabaluna, Sebastian Cabaluna, Apolinar Cabaluna, and Dionisa Cabaluna Oberes; Michael O. Bernardino, Jessica O. Bernardino, and Ferdinant O. Bernardino; Genzon Heirs represented by: Hamilton Geonzon, Jerwin Geonzon and Roger Geonzon; Aurelia Repuela, Milagros Monasque, Leonila Pardillo, and Juanita Laspun; Bolo Heirs represented by: Sergio Bolo, Fernando Bolo and Rey Bolo, Respondents. CAIHTE
Acting on the Motion for Extension of Time filed by the petitioners seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on July 22, 2018 within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 05330 committed any reversible error.
As correctly explained by the Court of Appeals, petitioners' action involved title to and possession of real property, the ultimate objective in their action before the trial court is the recovery of their alleged realty. A perusal of their complaint shows that they sought reconveyance of their alleged shares, "so that their rights, interest and participation over subject real property may be reflected in the certificate of title." 1
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts for this action is provided under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, which amended Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), thus:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) x x x
Jurisdiction is based on the allegations of one's complaint. Only facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for determining the nature of the action and the court's competence to take cognizance of it. 2 In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action. 3 DETACa
In the case at bench, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the complaint, and this is where petitioners failed which warranted the dismissal of the case since it cannot be determined which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the action.
Lastly, as cogently reasoned out by the Court of Appeals, an amendment cannot be allowed when the court had no jurisdiction over the original Complaint and the purpose of the amendment was to confer jurisdiction on the court. 4
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed October 27, 2017 Decision and June 14, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 05330.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018. HEITAD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Alleged in number 14 of petitioners' Complaint.
2.Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, et al., 616 Phil. 519, 524 (2009).
3.Quinarogan v. CA, 557 Phil. 650, 659 (2007).
4.Siasoco v. CA, 362 Phil. 525, 535 (1999).