FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 189789. September 16, 2013.]
THE HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUSTIN CALIGUIRAN AND MARIA SINGAYAN, NAMELY: OSCAR, RICO, ROMILIO, LITA AND ROMEO, ALL SURNAMED CALIGUIRAN, ET AL.vs. HON. JEZARENE C. AQUINO, PRES. JUDGE RTC-TUGUEGARAO CITY, BR. 5, HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES CANDIDO APOSTOL AND ENGRACIA PAGULAYAN, ET AL.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 189789 (The Heirs of the Spouses Agustin Caliguiran and Maria Singayan, namely: Oscar, Rico, Romilio, Lita and Romeo, all surnamed Caliguiran, et al. vs. Hon. Jezarene C. Aquino, Pres. Judge RTC-Tuguegarao City, Br. 5, Heirs of the Spouses Candido Apostol and Engracia Pagulayan, et al.). — This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure wherein petitioners seek to annul and set aside, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, the Order 1 dated August 13, 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 5 in Civil Case No. 6285 for Reivindicacion or Reconveyance, Quieting of Title with Damages.
The assailed Order dismissed without prejudice the aforementioned civil suit on the ground that the value of the subject property was below the minimum assessed value of P20,000.00, which would bring a real action under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Thus, petitioners filed the present petition arguing 'whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' complaint pending before his sala since December 23, 2003, after petitioners rested their case, and the private respondents had already presented two (2) witnesses merely because the assessed value of the properties subject of the case is less than P20,000.00 without considering the allegations of the complaint.' 2
A thorough examination of the merits of this case would reveal that no grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction was committed by respondent Judge when he issued the assailed August 13, 2009 Order.
Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. 3
In this case, none of the attendant circumstances that characterize grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the act of respondent Judge in issuing the assailed August 13, 2009 Order. Instead, respondent Judge properly applied the applicable law on jurisdiction after hearing both parties. Particularly, Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, which defines the jurisdiction of the RTC over real actions, provides as follows:
(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) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts[.]
An action for quieting of title is a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property.
The following pronouncement in Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr., 4is instructive:
The mortgage of the subject property to the Bank of Commerce, annotated on the Spouses San Pablo's TCT, constitutes a cloud on their title to the subject property, which may, at first, appear valid and effective, but is allegedly invalid or voidable for having been made without their knowledge and authority as registered owners. We thus have established that the case filed by the spouses San Pablo before the MTC is actually an action for quieting of title, a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property. The assessed value of the subject property located in Mandaue City, as alleged in the complaint, is P4,900.00, which aptly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Well-settled is the rule 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. 5 Moreover, Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the claim, to wit:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. (Emphases supplied.)
The total assessed value of the subject lots in the case at bar is only P11,300.00 as evidenced by the tax declarations covering the said lots which were submitted by petitioners themselves in court. 6 Thus, respondent Judge properly dismissed the civil suit for lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Order dated August 13, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 5 in Civil Case No. 6285 is AFFIRMED."
SO ORDERED."BERSAMIN, J., on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1537 (Revised) dated September 6, 2013. VILLARAMA, JR., J., on leave; MENDOZA,J., acting member per S.O. No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 49-50.
2.Id. at 12.
3.City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 102, 116-117.
4.550 Phil. 805, 818 (2007).
5.Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Fontana Development Corporation, G.R. No. 187972, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 461, 473-474.
6.Rollo, pp. 161-171.