Digest/Noriza Jean Daga/HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMELY: TERESITA CONCHA-PARAN, VALERIANO P. CONCHA, JR., RAMON P. CONCHA, EDUARDO P. CONCHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P. CONCHA, ALBERTO P. CONCHA, BERNARDO P. CONCHA and GLORIA vs. SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO and BIENVENIDA GUYA, CRISTITA J. LUMOCSO VDA. DE DAAN, AND SPOUSES JACINTO J. LUMOCSO and BALBINA T. LUMOCSO

 HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMELY: TERESITA CONCHA-PARAN, VALERIANO P. CONCHA, JR., RAMON P. CONCHA, EDUARDO P. CONCHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P. CONCHA, ALBERTO P. CONCHA, BERNARDO P. CONCHA and GLORIA, petitioners,

vs.

SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO and BIENVENIDA GUYA, CRISTITA J. LUMOCSO VDA. DE DAAN, AND SPOUSES JACINTO J. LUMOCSO and BALBINA T. LUMOCSO, respondents.

 G.R. No. 158121             December 12, 2007

 

Facts:

            Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be the rightful owners of various lots all situated in Cogon, Dipolog City.  Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso, Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan and Jacinto Lumocso are the patent holders and registered owners of the subject lots which was claimed by the petitioners.

            The records show that Valeriano Sr. and his children, herein petitioners filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against "Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought to annul Free Patent and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title issued in the name of "Gregorio Lumocso".  On September 3, 1999, two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners, this time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" and "Spouses Jacinto Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso".

            Respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints; (b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance; (c) prescription; and (d) waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel. On the issue of jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00.

            The RTC denied the motion to dismiss by the respondents which was reversed by the Court of Appeals, hence this petition.

           

Issue:

            Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the complaints considering the assessed value of each of the subject lots are less than 20,000.

 

Ruling:

            Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one's title, the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 provides: Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x (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;

            In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00.  Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.  In a number of cases, it was held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."

R.A. No. 7691 in 1994 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs." Therefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed that the RTC has no jurisdiction of the case.