ft-0

3L\epuhlic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme <!Court
~aguio <!Citp

SECOND DIVISION

ALONA G. ROLDAN, G.R. No. 214803

Petitioner,
Present:
- versus -
CARPIO,* J., Chairperson,
SPOUSES CLARENCE I. PERALTA,
BARRIOS and ANNA LEE T. PERLAS-BERNABE,
BARRIOS, ROMMEL CAGUIOA, and
MATORRES, and HON. JEMENA REYES, JR., JJ.
ABELLAR ARBIS, in her capacity
as Presiding Judge, Branch 6, Promulgated:
Regional Trial Court, Aldan,

x--~----------~-~--~~~~~-~~~~~:----------~--------~-~~-x
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari assailing the Order 1 dated

July 22, 2014 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6,
Kalibo, Aklan as well as the Order2 dated August 18, 2014 denying
reconsideration thereof.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On February 3, 2014, petitioner Alona G. Roldan filed an action3 for

foreclosure of real estate mortgage against respondents spouses Clarence I.
Barrios and Anna Lee T. Barrios and respondent Romel D. Matorres,
docketed as Civil Case No. 9811. She alleged the following:

2
Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
Per Presiding Judge Jemena Abellar Arb is; rollo, p. 37.
Id. at 41.
Id. at 10-11.
f
Decision -2- G.R. No. 214803

xx xx

2. That on October 13, 2008, defendants borrowed from plaintiff the

sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00), Philippine
Currency, payable within the period of one (1) year from said date, with
an interest thereon at the rate of 5% per month; and to secure the prompt
and full payment of the principal and interest, defendants made and
executed on October 13, 2008 a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of
plaintiff upon a parcel of land and improvements thereon described as
follows:

A parcel of land (Lot 5891-A-4) situated in Baybay, Makato,

Aklan, containing an area of four hundred seventy-eight (478) square
meters, more or less x x x declared in the name of Spouses Clarence
Barrios and Anna Lee T. Barrios, assessed in the sum of P13,380.00, tax
effectivity for the year 2008. Said land is covered by OCT No. P-5561 pt.

xxx

3. That the condition of said mortgage, as stated therein, is such, that

if within the period of one year from October 13, 2008, the defendants
shall pay or cause to be paid to the plaintiff, her heirs and assigns, the said
sum of P250,000.00 together with the agreed interest, then the said
mortgage shall be discharged; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and
effect, to be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

4. That the time for payment of said loan is overdue and defendants
failed and refused to pay both the principal obligation and the interest due
starting from February 2011 to the present notwithstanding repeated
demands;

5. That there are no other persons having or claiming interest in the

mortgaged property except Romel D. Matorres whom plaintiff recently
discovered that the defendants mortgaged again to the said person the
same property subject of this suit for One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos,
(t!l50,000.00) on June 11, 2012 x x x The said Romel D. Matorres is
however a mortgagee in bad faith.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that upon due notice and

hearing, judgment be rendered ordering defendants SPS. CLARENCE I.
BARRIOS and ANNA LEET. BARRIOS:

1. To pay unto the court within the reglementary

period of ninety days the sum of P250,000.00 together with
the stipulated interest at five percent (5%) per month
starting from February 2011 to the present, plus the
additional sum of P25,000.00 the total amount due for
attorney's fees; litigation expenses and costs; and that in
default of such payment, the above-mentioned property be
ordered sold to pay off the mortgage debt and its
accumulated interest;

2. To teach the defendants a lesson for having

rl
mortgaged the property subject of this suit without
 ·· ..... -

Decision -3- G.R. No. 214803

plaintiffs consent or knowledge, the defendants be ordered

to pay the plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages.

3. That plaintiff be granted such other relief in law and

equity. 4

Respondents spouses Barrios filed their Answer5 with Special and

Affirmative Defenses contending that the computation of their alleged loan
obligation was not accurate; that they had filed with the RTC a petition for
rehabilitation of a financially distressed individuals under Special
Proce.~ding No. 9845, thus there is a need to suspend the foreclosure
proceed1ngs. On the other hand, respondent Matorres filed his Answer6 with
Special and Affirmative Defenses admitting that the subject land was
mortgaged to him; that he had also filed a judicial foreclosure case against
respondents spouses Barrios pending with the RTC of Kalibo Aldan,
Branch 6, docketed as Civil Case No. 9642; that petitioner had no cause of
action against him as they did not have any transaction with each other; and
prayed for damages and attorney's fees, and cross-claim against respondent
spouses for moral damages.

On July 22, 2014, the RTC issued the assailed Order as follows:

Civil Cases Nos. 9642 and 9811 are complaints for Foreclosure of
Real Estate Mortgage that involved the same property, Lot 5891-A-4,
situated in Baybay, Makato, Aklan, owned by Spouses Clarence Barrios
and Anna Lee Barrios.

·~ · " It appearing from the complaint that the assessed value of the
property mortgaged is only Pl3,380.00 and the instant cases being a real
action, the assessed value of the property determines the jurisdiction.

The assessed value of the property involved being below

P20,000.00, it is the first level court that has jurisdiction over the cases.

Premises considered, for lack of jurisdiction, Civil Cases Nos. 9642

and 9811 are ordered DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 7

Petitioner and respondent Matorres filed their respective motions for

reconsideration.

4
Id.
(/
...JJ.. at 16-18.
6
Id: at 25-30.
Id. at 37.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 214803

In an Order dated August 18, 2014, the RTC denied petitioner's

motion as follows:

xx xx

Petitioner in her Motion argued that foreclosure of real estate

mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction
lies with the Regional Trial Court.

Petitioner's argument is devoid of merit.

A petition for foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a real action

and the assessed value of the property determines jurisdiction while
location of the property determines the venue.

Premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 8

... Respondent Matorres' motion for reconsideration was also denied in

an Ord~t9 dated September 1, 2014.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse
of discretion committed by the RTC when it ordered the dismissal of her
foreclosure case without prejudice and denying her motion for
reconsideration. She argues that foreclosure of mortgage is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation which is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the RTC.

In his Comment, respondent Matorres joins the position and

arguments of petitioner that the cause of action of the foreclosure cases is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence, falling within the jurisdiction of
the RTC.

Respondents spouses Barrios filed their Explanation and Comment

alleginithat petitioner violated the Tax Reform Act of 1997 for her failure
to issue official receipts on the payments made by them; that she failed to
show any proof of authority from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas relative to
her money-lending activities.

{I
Id. at 41.
9
Id. at 65.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 214803

The issue for resolution is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the foreclosure cases filed with it on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction.

Preliminarily, we need to point out that generally a direct recourse to

this Court is highly improper, for it violates the established policy of strict
observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts. Although this Court, the
RTCs and the Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted
freedom· of choice of court forum. This Court is a court of last resort, and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by
the Constitution and immemorial tradition. 10 However, the judicial hierarchy
of courts is not an iron-clad rule. A strict application of the rule of hierarchy
of courts is not necessary when the cases brought before the appellate courts
do not involve factual but legal questions. 11 Since petitioner raises a pure
question of law pertaining to the court's jurisdiction on complaint for
judicial foreclosure of sale, we would allow petitioner's direct resort to us.

The R TC dismissed the foreclosure cases finding that being a real

action and the assessed value of the mortgaged property is only P13,380.00,
it is the first level court which has jurisdiction over the case and not the
RTC.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine
cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is
conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by
the parties. 12 To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action
and of the relief sought. 13

Batas Pambansa Big. (BP) 129 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA)
7691 pertinently provides for the jurisdiction of the RTC and the first level
courts as follows:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

10
Mangaliag v. Judge Catubig-Pastoral, 510 Phil. 637, 645, citing Ouano v. PGTT International
Investment Corporation, 433 Phil. 28, 34 (2002); Vergara, Sr. v. Sue/to, 240 Phil. 719, 732 (1987).
11
SSgt Pacoy v. Hon. Cajigal, 560 Phil. 599, 607 (2007); Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 510 Phil.
637, 647 (2005).
12 -.IJ.ejrs of Valeriano Concha, Sr. v. Sps. Lumocso, 564 Phil 581, 592-593, citing Republic v.
Sangalang; 243 Phil. 46, 50 (1988).
13

CJfl
Id., citing Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 106 Phil. 591
(1959), citing p_,k;ns v. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 ( 1941 ).
Decision -6- G.R. No. 214803

1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is

incapable of pecuniary estimation;

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
(PS0,000.00) 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.

and

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:

xx xx

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.

From the foregoing, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction

in civil actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or
possession of, real property or any interest in it where the assessed value of
the p~operty involved exceeds 1!20,000.00, and if it is below 1!20,000.00, it
is the first level court which has jurisdiction. An action "involving title to
real property" means that the plaintiffs cause of action is based on a claim
that he owns such property or that he has the legal right to have exclusive
control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. 14

The allegations and reliefs sought in petitioner's action for foreclosure

of mortgage showed that the loan obtained by respondents spouses Barrios

14
He;,, ofG enem.w Sebe, et al. v. //d,.rnf Vemn;ca SevU/.a, et al.., 618 PhH. 395, 407 (200~
Decision -7- G.R. No. 214803

from petitioner fell due and they failed to pay such loan which was secured
by a mortgage on the property of the respondents spouses; and prayed that in
case of default of payment of such mortgage indebtedness to the court, the
property be ordered sold to answer for the obligation under the mortgage
contract and the accumulated interest. It is worthy to mention that the
essem;e.-of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been
identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor
as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to
answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment. 15
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage
indebtedness. 16 In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not
paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to
have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to
the payment of the obligation. 17 Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real
action so far as it is against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a
property debt, and an order for the sale of the res. 18

As foreclosure of mortgage is a real action, it is the assessed value of

the property which determines the court's jurisdiction. Considering that the
assessed value of the mortgaged property is only P13,380.00, the RTC
correctly found that the action falls within the jurisdiction of the first level
court-~er Section 33(3) of BP 129 as amended.

Petitioner cites Russell v. Vesti/ 19 to show that action for foreclosure of

mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We are not persuaded. In the Russell
case, we held:

In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:

[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of

which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
.. tQ.~idental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation

15
Equitable PC/ Bank, Inc. v. Fernandez, et al., 623 Phil. 343, 349 (2009), citing China Banking
Corporation v. Court ofAppeals, 333 Phil. (1996).
16
Id. at 349-350, citing Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 417 Phil. 646, 656
(2001).
17

u/IV
Id., citing Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court ofAppeals, 370 Phil. 837, 846-847 (1999).
18
Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, 928-929 (1918).
19
364 Phil. 392 (1999).
 .. -
·· ,..

Decision -8- G.R. No. 214803

may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively

by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for

specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of
judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a
deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission,
which is a counterpart of specific performance.

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable
by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property
involved does exceed P-20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located
elsewhere. If the value exceeds P-20,000.00 or PS0,000.00 as the case may be,
it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2).
However, the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a
document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION. 1120

Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while civil actions which involve
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also
incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the
court's jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property
involved.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED as we find

no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
6, Kalibo, Aklan in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

20
·.kl-at 400-401. (Citations omitted)
Decision -9- G.R. No. 214803

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Chairperson

w.iw./
ESTELA M. /{>i}:RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ANDRE~YES, JR.
Asso1i~irJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

Ck:=l~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice