FERNANDA GEONZON VDA. DE BARRERA AND JOHNNY OCO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF VICENTE LEGASPI, REPRESENTED BY PEDRO LEGASPI, RESPONDENTS.

Barrera versus Heirs of Legaspi

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Fernanda Geonzon vda. de Barrera and Johnny Oco, Junior against the Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, represented by Pedro Legaspi. The respondents sued to recover possession of a small irrigated farmland in Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental, after the petitioners allegedly forced their way into it and destroyed the standing crops. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it fixes the assessed value, not the alleged market value, as the jurisdictional element in real actions, and it reminds us that the nature of an action and the court's jurisdiction are determined by the facts alleged in the complaint.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for reconveyance of possession with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City, Branch 16. The petitioners answered, set up ownership as a special affirmative defense, and only in their memorandum questioned the trial court's jurisdiction, pointing to an assessed value of eleven thousand one hundred sixty pesos. The trial court ruled for the respondents, ordered the return of possession, and held that jurisdiction is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint, not in the answer. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed both the ruling on jurisdiction and the decision on the merits, finding that the respondents and their predecessors had been in peaceful, continuous, public, and actual possession even before the year 1930, and stressing that in an accion publiciana the only issue is possession de jure. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

On the first of October 1996, Johnny Oco, said to be a peace officer connected with the Philippine National Police, accompanied by unidentified members of the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit, forced his way into the respondents' farmland. After dispossessing the respondents, Oco and his companions used a tractor to destroy the planted crops, took possession of the land, and had since tended it.

The respondents traced their possession to their predecessor-in-interest Vicente Legaspi and his wife Lorenza, who had occupied, possessed, and cultivated the land since 1935. After a subdivision survey in November 1976, they discovered that the land formed part of the titled property of Andrea Lacson, but they never filed any action because they were left undisturbed in their possession, until the events of October 1996.

The petitioners, for their part, claimed that the land formed part of a three-hectare property covered by a certificate of title issued in 1956 in the name of Andrea Lacson, who sold a two-hectare portion to Eleuterio Geonzon, who in turn sold a portion to his sister, the petitioner Fernanda. The respondents filed their complaint on the seventh of February 1997.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint, given that the assessed value of the land is eleven thousand one hundred sixty pesos.
• Whether or not the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court depend on the facts alleged in the complaint.
• Whether or not ownership and title may be considered in determining who has a better right to the portion litigated.

Applicable Provisions

Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act Number 7691, provides:

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in 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: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

This provision fixes the jurisdictional threshold and makes the assessed value, not the estimated or market value, the measure of the first level courts' exclusive original jurisdiction over real actions.

Ruling

The Court resolved the jurisdictional issue first. It held that the first level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed the statutory amounts, and that the jurisdictional element is the assessed value. The Court defined assessed value as the worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied, which commonly does not represent the true or market value. Since the subject land had an assessed value of eleven thousand one hundred sixty pesos, as reflected in a tax declaration that was a common exhibit of the parties, the case fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. The respondents' bare claim that the land had a value of fifty thousand pesos failed, and the Court held it was error for the trial court to take cognizance of the complaint based on an allegation of estimated value handwritten on the printed pleading, because estimated value, or fair market value, is entirely different from assessed value.

The Court also held that lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even if not pleaded in the answer or a motion to dismiss, so the petitioners were not in estoppel for raising it only in their memorandum. On the second issue, the Court affirmed that the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court are determined by the facts alleged in the complaint. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction, all its proceedings and its decision were null and void, and the complaint had to be dismissed. That made it unnecessary to dwell on the issue of ownership. The Court added, by the way, that accion publiciana was the wrong mode, since the dispossession took place in October 1996 and the complaint was filed only four months later, so the exclusion had not lasted more than one year.

Doctrine

First, the jurisdictional element in civil actions involving title to or possession of real property is the assessed value of the property, not its estimated or fair market value. Second, the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court are determined by the facts alleged in the complaint, not by those alleged in the answer. Third, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or in a memorandum, and is not barred by estoppel. Fourth, accion publiciana lies to recover possession de jure where the dispossession has lasted more than one year; where it has not, the proper remedy is the summary action for forcible entry.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City was declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction, with the complaint dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is the assessed value, not the market value, that fixes jurisdiction over real actions. Examiners like to use this case to test jurisdiction over accion publiciana and the distinction between assessed value and estimated value.