ROBERTO Y. PONCIANO, FORMERLY TERESITA GAMBOA-ESTACIO, REPRESENTED BY AMBROCIO G. YULO, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
On February 28, 1999, Teresita Gamboa-Estacio, the original applicant-appellee, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Taguig an application for registration of title over the subject land. Pertinent allegations of the application read:
1. That applicant Teresita Gamboa-Estacio is of legal age, Filipino, widow, with residence and postal address at Freedom Boulevard, Silay City, represented herein by Mr. Ambrosio G. Yulo, x x x;
2. That applicant is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, covered by Tax Declaration No. D-017-02026 issued by the Municipal Assessor of Taguig, Metro Manila, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
3. That value of said parcel of land at the last assessment for taxation purposes was P23,910.00 and the corresponding realty tax for 1999 has been paid as evidenced by a certificate of non-delinquency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila. A copy of the said certification is hereto attached as Annex “C”;
4. That applicant acquired by inheritance the said parcel of land from her deceased husband Benjamin Estacio as evidenced by an “Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of the Estate of the Deceased Benjamin Estacio” and a Decision dated April 20, 1978 attached hereto as Annexes “D” and “D-1”, respectively;
x x x x x x x x x
5. That by way of tacking of possession, herein applicant and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, actual, public, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owners of the subject parcel of land even before the war broke out in 1941 or more than fifty-seven (57) years to-date;
x x x x x x x x x
13. That the following documents are attached hereto and made as integral parts of this application:
Annex “A” – Special Power of Attorney
Annex “B” – Tax Declaration No. D-017-02026
Annex “C” – Certificate of non-delinquency
Annex “D” – Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of Teresita Gamboa-Estacio
Annex “D-1” – Decision dated April 20, 1978
Annex “E” – Approved plan Csd-007607-000224-D
Annex “F” – Approved technical descriptions
Annex “G” – Geodetic Engineer’s Certificate[2]
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its notice of appearance on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, as well as the deputation of the Provincial Prosecutor of Taguig, Metro Manila who was authorized to assist the OSG in the case.[3] Neither the OSG nor any private party filed an opposition to the application.
In the initial hearing on August 5, 1999, jurisdictional requirements as to publication, posting and sending of notices were presented.[4] Thereafter, applicant-appellee presented her witnesses and documentary evidence which included tax declarations, tax clearance, technical description and deed of sale, among others.[5]
In a Decision dated September 7, 2001,[6] the trial court granted the application as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the allegations in the application to have been sufficiently established by the applicant’s evidence, this Court hereby confirms the title of applicant Teresita Gamboa-Estacio, of legal age, Filipino, widow, with residence at Freedom Boulevard, Silay City, Negros Occidental over the subject parcel of agricultural land designated as Lot 3132-B, Mcadm-590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping under Conversion-Subdivision Plan Csd-007607-000224-D, situated at Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila consisting of Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One (2,391) square meters and hereby order the registration thereof in her name.
After the finality of this Decision and upon payment of the corresponding taxes due on the said lot, let an order for the issuance of decree of registration be issued.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On September 27, 2001, original applicant-appellee Teresita Gamboa-Estacio filed a motion for leave of court to re-open proceedings and to substitute Roberto Ponciano for Teresita Gamboa-Estacio as applicant,[8] which the trial court granted in an Order dated October 17, 2001.[9] Applicant-appellee Roberto Ponciano thus presented additional evidence and filed his formal offer of evidence.
On June 18, 2002, the trial court rendered an Amended Decision, granting the application in favor of applicant-appellee Roberto Ponciano as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the allegations in the application to have been sufficiently established by the applicant’s evidence, this Court hereby confirms the title of applicant ROBERTO Y. PONCIANO, of legal age, Filipino, single, with residence at Chateau Verde, Valle Verde 1, E. Rodriguez Ave., Pasig City, Metro Manila over the subject parcel of agricultural land designated as Lot 3132-B, Mcadm-590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping under Conversion-Subdivision Plan Csd-007607-000224-D, situated at Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila consisting of Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One (2,391) square meters and hereby order the registration thereof in her (sic) name.
After the finality of this Decision and upon payment of the corresponding taxes due on the said lot, let an order for the issuance of decree of registration be issued.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Hence, appellant Republic of the Philippines filed this appeal which is premised on the lone assignment of error that:
THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF TAGUIG, METRO MANILA ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF APPELLEE’S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE OVER THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SAID APPLICATION.[11]
THE ISSUE
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction over the application for original registration of title filed by applicant-appellee.
THE COURT’S RULING
At the outset, there is no denying that the jurisdictional requirements of publication, posting and sending of notices were complied with. Appellant, however, faults the Metropolitan Trial Court in assuming jurisdiction over the application and argues that while the application filed by the original applicant-appellee Teresita Gamboa-Estacio showed the value of the subject land at P23,910.00, the deed of absolute sale dated August 24, 2001 (Exhibit “Y”) executed by her in favor of the present applicant-appellee showed that the land was sold at P1,500,000.00. Moreover, the tax declaration (Exhibit “Z”) for the year 2002 reflected a fair market value of P119,500.00, while the Certification Authorizing Registration dated January 16, 2002 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue showed the market value of the land at P478,200.00.[12]
The argument is unfounded.
Basic are the provisions of Section 34, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, on the delegated jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts in land registration cases. Thus:
Section 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decision in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
The present application for land registration dated February 28, 1999 was filed on March 15, 1999 and at the time, the assessed value of the land was P23,910.00, as alleged in the application and as shown on the tax declaration and the corresponding realty tax payment for 1999, copies of which were attached to the application as Annexes “B” and “C”. Thus:
2. That applicant is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, covered by Tax Declaration No. D-017-02026 issued by the Municipal Assessor of Taguig, Metro Manila, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
3. That value of said parcel of land at the last assessment for taxation purposes was P23,910.00 and the corresponding realty tax for 1999 has been paid as evidenced by a certificate of non-delinquency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila. A copy of the said certification is hereto attached as Annex “C”;[13]
It was only after more than two (2) years from the time the application was filed and the Metropolitan Trial Court had exercised jurisdiction over the application, that the value of the property was shown to have increased, per deed of sale dated August 24, 2001 executed by the original applicant-appellee Teresita Gamboa-Estacio in favor of the present applicant-appellee Roberto Ponciano showing the selling price of the land in the amount of P1,500,000.00.
Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Moreover, if the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction is retained up to the end of the litigation. Apropos is Velasquez vs. George,[14] wherein the Supreme Court held that:
x x x Clearly, the lower court had jurisdiction over the controversy. The fact that the plaintiffs-appellants subsequently questioned the legality of the constitution of the board of directors of the corporation did not divest the court of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. What determines jurisdiction of the court are the allegations in the complaint. If from the same, the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction is retained up to the end of the litigation. (See Lat v. Phil. Long Distance Co., 67 SCRA 425)
Thus, the trial court cannot be faulted in taking cognizance of the subject application as the value of the land at the time the application was filed was well within its delegated jurisdiction. As correctly noted by the trial court:
When the said application was filed, the subject parcel of land is declared in the name of Benjamin Estacio under Tax Declaration No. D-017-02026 (Exh. R). Its assessed value, according to the said tax declaration, is P23,910.00. Said value is well within the amount under the delegated jurisdiction of this Court. (Sec. 34, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691; SC Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A dated November 15, 1995).[15]
Inasmuch as appellant raised no further issue as to the merits of the application, there is no occasion for the Court to pass upon the same.
WHEREFORE, the Amended Decision dated July 18, 2002 of the trial court is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
De Los Santos, (Chairman) and Dimaranan-Vidal, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 340-346
[2] Records, pp. 1-4
[3] Records, p. 30
[4] Records, pp. 36-37, 38, 41 and 224
[5] Exhibit “J”, Records, pp. 241-242, Exhibit “O”, Records, pp. 257-260,Exhibits “P”, “P-1” to “P-7”, “Q”, “Q-1” to “Q-2” and “R”, Records, pp. 261-284, Exhibit “S”, Records, p. 285, Exhibit “U”, Records, p. 287 and Annex “A”, Records, pp. 312-313
[6] Records, pp. 302-307
[7] Records, p. 307
[8] Records, pp. 308-311
[9] Records, p. 318
[10] Records, pp. 345-346
[11] Rollo, p. 16
[12] Rollo, pp. 25-27
[13] Records, p. 2
[14] 125 SCRA 456 (1983)
[15] Rollo, p. 29