Piramide v. Heirs of Piramide

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228408. June 30, 2020.]

AVENESCIO A. PIRAMIDE, AS AN HEIR OF NAPOLEON N. PIRAMIDE, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF IRENEO PIRAMIDE, NAMELY: JAMES P. DAYAGBIL AND PHIL BASSANIO P. DAYAGBIL, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 228408 — AVENESCIO A. PIRAMIDE, AS AN HEIR OF NAPOLEON N. PIRAMIDE, petitioner, versus HEIRS OF IRENEO PIRAMIDE, NAMELY: JAMES P. DAYAGBIL AND PHIL BASSANIO P. DAYAGBIL, respondents.

An action for quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. It is a real action on which jurisdiction depends on the assessed value of the property as alleged in the complaint. 1 Corollarily, the silence of the complaint on such value is a ground to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. 2

Here, the petitioner's complaint did not contain any averment of the assessed value of the property. This failure left the trial court bereft of any basis to determine which court could validly take cognizance of the cause of action for quieting of title. Thus, the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the complaint because the Regional Trial Court (RTC) could not proceed with the case and render judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Lastly, the respondents are not estopped from questioning the RTC's jurisdiction. It is settled that estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. Moreover, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time. 3

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 31, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 04185 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Bank of Commerce v. Spouses San Pablo, Jr., 550 Phil. 805 (2007).

2.Salvador, et al. v. Patricia, Inc., 799 Phil. 116 (2016); see also Malana v. Tappa, 16 Phil. 177 (2009).

3.La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 306 Phil. 84 (1994); Lozon v. NLRC, et al., 310 Phil. 1 (1995); Metromedia Times Corp. v. Pastorin, 503 Phil. 288 (2005); Spouses Vargas v. Spouses Caminas, et al., 577 Phil. 185 (2008); Figueroa v. People, 580 Phil. 58 (2008); Atwel, et al. v. Concepcion Progressive Ass'n, Inc., 574 Phil. 430 (2008); Machado, et al. v. Gatdula, et al., 626 Phil. 457 (2010); Sps. Erorita v. Sps. Dumlao, 779 Phil. 23 (2016).