HEIRS OF ELIAS JUAN, REPRESENTED BY DELFIN JUAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. EFREN JUAN, GODOFREDO JUAN, JOVITO PABLO AND HILARIO TATTAO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Heirs of Elias Juan versus Juan

The Case

This is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court brought by the Heirs of Elias Juan, represented by Delfin Juan, against Efren Juan, Godofredo Juan, Jovito Pablo, and Hilario Tattao. The heirs filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria, that is, recovery of ownership and possession of a portion of a registered agricultural lot, with damages and a prayer for injunction. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint outright, not on the merits, but on the ground that it had no jurisdiction because the assessed value of the property was never alleged. The case matters because it fixes a single, unforgiving rule of procedure: in a real action, the assessed value of the property must appear in the complaint, and without it no court can be shown to have jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The heirs filed their complaint for accion reivindicatoria and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Pata, Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11. The trial court, in a decision dated September 17, 2012, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the assessed value of the lot did not appear in the complaint and could not be gathered from the attached tax declaration. The heirs moved for reconsideration, arguing that since the one-year period for forcible entry had lapsed, it was the Regional Trial Court that had jurisdiction regardless of assessed value. The trial court denied the motion in a resolution dated May 30, 2013, holding that the action had become one for publiciana, over which jurisdiction depends on assessed value. The heirs then filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court gave due course, and the case rose to the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

Facts

Spouses Elias Juan and Gliceria Juan died intestate, Elias in 1965 and Gliceria in 2000, leaving eight children including Delfin Juan. During his lifetime Elias was the registered owner of an agricultural lot covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2712, Lot No. 1609, situated at Aquib, now Villareyno, Piat, Cagayan, with an area of about 55,238 square meters. He possessed and cultivated the land openly and peacefully, and after his death his children continued that possession. Real estate taxes were paid under Tax Declaration No. 99-5413 for the year 2000.

In 1997 a relocation survey was made to partition the land among the heirs, but the partition did not push through because the heirs discovered for the first time that the defendants had, through strategy and stealth, encroached upon the western portion of the lot, about two hectares. The heirs demanded restoration of possession. A cousin of the defendants returned about a quarter hectare, but the rest refused to vacate. In March 2002 the heirs demanded again, and a survey by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office confirmed the extent of the encroachment. In March 2003 the heirs filed a complaint for forcible entry before the Municipal Trial Court of Piat, Cagayan, but it was dismissed on the ground that the dispute was really a controversy over the actual extent of the respective lots, with no evidence of force, intimidation, stealth, or strategy.

On August 4, 2004, the heirs filed the present complaint for accion reivindicatoria and damages before the Regional Trial Court. The defendants answered that Lot No. 1609 was once part of Lot No. 1608, which belonged to the parties' grandfather Castor Juan, who had applied for homestead patent in the 1930's and entrusted the titling to Elias. They claimed that the western portion of Lot No. 1609 and all of Lot No. 1608 had been in their possession and that of their predecessors for almost seventy years, bounded by old living trees, and they raised prescription, estoppel, laches, and failure to refer the dispute to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. At trial the heirs presented Delfin and offered documentary evidence including the certificate of title, tax declarations and receipts, sketch plans, the forcible entry decision, and the certification to file action. The defendants presented witnesses but failed to file their formal offer of documentary evidence and were deemed to have waived it.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the assessed value of the property was not alleged in the complaint.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court, instead of dismissing the complaint, should have remanded the records to the proper Municipal Circuit Trial Court for disposition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provides:

Sec. 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 (PhP20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) 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.

This provision makes the assessed value of the real property the jurisdictional element, so that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over an accion reivindicatoria only where that value exceeds the stated thresholds, and the first level courts have it otherwise.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative, holding that the Regional Trial Court did not err. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the material allegations in the complaint. The complaint was one for accion reivindicatoria, a suit for the recovery of possession of real property as owner. Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, such an action was brought before the Regional Trial Court, but since 1994 the jurisdiction of that court over real actions is limited to those where the assessed value exceeds 20,000 pesos, or 50,000 pesos in Metro Manila, with the first level courts having exclusive original jurisdiction where the value does not exceed those amounts. The jurisdictional element, therefore, is the assessed value of the real property.

The Court found that nowhere in the complaint was the assessed value of Lot No. 1609 ever mentioned. The tax declaration attached showed only the market value, not the assessed value. The Court distinguished the two, explaining that assessed value is the worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied, and commonly it does not represent the true or market value of the property. Since the assessed value was absent, the trial court could not determine whether it had jurisdiction, and its dismissal was correct.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled in the negative. The heirs invoked the Malana case, where the Supreme Court ordered the complaint remanded to the court of proper jurisdiction. The Court distinguished it: in Malana the assessed value was readily stated in the tax declaration, so it was clear that the first level court had jurisdiction. Here the tax declaration did not contain the assessed value at all. The Court held that absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value, it cannot readily be determined which of the two trial courts has original and exclusive jurisdiction. Since it cannot be ascertained which court has jurisdiction, the trial court properly refrained from remanding the case. The Court stated the governing principle:

Indeed, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.

Corollary to this, any judgment, order, or resolution issued without jurisdiction is void and cannot be given any effect, so the Court could not pass upon the merits of the case.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the material allegations in the complaint. Second, in a real action such as accion reivindicatoria, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the real property, not its market value, and that assessed value must be alleged in the complaint. Third, absent such allegation, it cannot be determined which court has jurisdiction, and the court before which the action is filed has no power other than to dismiss it. Fourth, a remand to the court of proper jurisdiction is proper only where the assessed value is readily ascertainable from the record, as in Malana; where it is not, no remand may be made. Fifth, any judgment, order, or resolution issued without jurisdiction is void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the Regional Trial Court, without reaching the merits.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in an accion reivindicatoria, the assessed value of the property must be alleged in the complaint, for it is the jurisdictional element, and without it the only power of the court is to dismiss. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between assessed value and market value, and to test when a remand to the first level court is proper and when it is not.