SABITSANA vs.

MARTUEGI

FACTS: On September 2, 1981, Alberto Garcia executed

an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of respondent
Juanito Muertegui6 over a 7,500-square meter parcel of
unregistered land. Juanito’s father Domingo Muertegui, FIRST SARMIENTO vs. PBCOM
Sr. and brother Domingo Jr. took actual possession of
the lot and planted thereon coconut and ipil-ipil trees. FACTS: On June 19, 2002,4 First Sarmiento obtained
They also paid the real property taxes on the lot for the from PBCOM a P40,000,000.00 loan, which was secured
years 1980 up to 1998. On October 17, 1991, Garcia by a real estate mortgage5 over 1,076 parcels of land.
sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer, petitioner On January 2, 2006, 10 PBCOM filed a Petition for
Atty. Sabitsana, through a notarized deed. The sale was Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. It
registered with the Register of Deeds on February 6, claimed in its Petition that it sent First Sarmiento
1992. When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied several demand letters, yet First Sarmiento still failed to
for registration and coverage of the lot under the Public pay the principal amount and accrued interest on the
Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141. Atty. Sabitsana loan. This prompted PBCOM to resort to extrajudicial
opposed the application, claiming that he was the true foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, a recourse
owner of the lot. Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact granted to it under the loan agreement. On December
Domingo Jr., for quieting of title and preliminary 29, 2011, the mortgaged properties were auctioned and
injunction, against herein petitioners Atty. Sabitsana sold to PBCOM as the highest bidder. On January 2,
and his wife, Rosario. In their answer, petitioners 2012, First Sarmiento filed a Complaint for annulment
insisted that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the of real estate mortgage and its amendments, with
case, which involved title to or interest in a parcel of prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order
land the assessed value of which is merely P1,230.00. and preliminary injunction. Judge Francisco issued
an ex parte temporary restraining order for 72 hours,
ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN enjoining the registration of the certificate of sale with
NOT HOLDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DID the Registry of Deeds. PBCOM asserted that the
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE IN VIEW OF Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over
THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE SUBJECT First Sarmiento’s Complaint because the action for
LAND WAS ONLY P1,230.00 (AND STATED MARKET annulment of mortgage was a real action; thus, the
VALUE OF ONLY P3,450.00) filing fees filed should have been based on the fair
market value of the mortgaged properties. RTC
RULING: On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under
dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
the Rules that an action for quieting of title may be
instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value Petitioner contends that its Complaint for annulment of
of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of the real estate mortgage has a subject incapable of
Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real property pecuniary estimation because it was not intended to
or remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the recover ownership or possession of the mortgaged
appropriate RTC. It must be remembered that the suit properties sold to respondent during the auction sale.58
for quieting of title was prompted by petitioners’ It insists that it had ownership and possession of the
August 24, 1998 letter opposition to respondent’s mortgaged properties when it filed its Complaint;
application for registration. Thus, in order to prevent30 hence, it never expressly or impliedly sought recovery of
a cloud from being cast upon his application for a title, their ownership or possession
respondent filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to obtain a
declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is one ISSUE: Whether the RTC obtained jurisdiction over First
for declaratory relief, which properly falls within the Sarmiento Corp’s complaint for annulment for real
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules. estate mortgage.

RULING: YES. Jurisdiction is “the power and authority of

a court to hear, try and decide a case” brought before it
for resolution. Courts exercise the powers conferred on
them with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction in real property where the value does not exceed
over: “(a) the cause of action or the subject matter of P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the real property is situated
the case; (b) the thing or the res; (c) the parties; and (d) in Metro Manila. Second level courts then assume
the remedy.” Jurisdiction over the thing or the res is a jurisdiction when the values involved exceed the
court’s authority over the object subject of litigation. threshold amounts reserved for first level courts or
The court obtains jurisdiction or actual custody over the when the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
object through the seizure of the object under legal estimation. First level courts were also conferred with
process or the institution of legal proceedings which the power to hear the relatively uncomplicated cases of
recognize the power and authority of the court. forcible entry and unlawful detainer, while second level
Jurisdiction over the parties is the court’s power to courts are authorized to hear all actions in admiralty
render judgment that are binding on the parties. and maritime jurisdiction with claims above a certain
threshold amount. Second level courts are likewise
The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs when
authorized to hear all cases involving the contract of
they file their initiatory pleading, while the defendants
marriage and marital relations, in recognition of the
come under the court’s jurisdiction upon the valid
expertise and probity required in deciding issues which
service of summons or their voluntary appearance in
traverse the marital sphere. Section 19(1) of Batas
court. Jurisdiction over the cause of action or subject
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial
matter of the case is the court’s authority to hear and
Courts with exclusive, original jurisdiction over “all civil
determine cases within a general class where the
actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
proceedings in question belong. This power is conferred
of pecuniary estimation. A careful reading of
by law and cannot be acquired through stipulation,
petitioner’s Complaint convinces this Court that
agreement between the parties, or implied waiver due
petitioner never prayed for the reconveyance of the
to the silence of a party.
properties foreclosed during the auction sale, or that it
Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, with ever asserted its ownership or possession over them.
Congress given the plenary power, for cases not Rather, it assailed the validity of the loan contract with
enumerated in Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution, real estate mortgage that it entered into with
to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of respondent because it supposedly never received the
various courts. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, or the proceeds of the P100,000,000.00 loan agreement. This
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by is evident in its Complaint.
Republic Act No. 7691, provided for the jurisdictional
division between the first and second level courts by
considering the complexity of the cases and the
experience needed of the judges assigned to hear the
cases. In criminal cases, first level courts are granted
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear complaints on PUNSALAN vs. VDA DE LACSAMANA
violations of city or municipal ordinances and offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) FACTS: Petitioner Punsalan, was the former registered
years. In contrast, second level courts, with more owner of a parcel of land consisting of 340 square
experienced judges sitting at the helm, are granted meters. He mortgaged said land to respondent PNB in
exclusive original jurisdiction to preside over all other the amount of P10,000.00, but for failure to pay said
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of amount, the property was foreclosed on December 16,
any other court, tribunal, or body. The same holds true 1970, PNB was the highest bidder. However, the bank
for civil actions and probate proceedings, where first secured title thereto only on December 14, 1977. While
level courts have the power to hear cases where the the property was still in the alleged possession of
value of personal property, estate, or amount of the petitioner and with the alleged acquiescence of
demand does not exceed P100,000.00 or P200,000.00 if respondent PNB, petitioner constructed a warehouse
in Metro Manila. on said property then leased the warehouse to one
Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting
First level courts also possess the authority to hear civil January 1975. On July 1978, a Deed of Sale was
actions involving title to, possession of, or any interest
executed between respondent PNB and respondent elsewhere within the same city or town. (Tabora vs.
Lacsamana over the property. The sale included the Veloso, 117 SCRA 613.)
building and improvement thereon. Petitioner
Petitioner’s preference to file its petition for annulment
commenced suit for “Annulment of Deed of Sale with
of the reconstituted title in the CFI branch in Bacolod
Damages” against herein respondents PNB and
City, which is more accessible, rather than Himamaylan,
Lacsamana before respondent Court of First Instance
is granted. (Register of Deeds of Negros Occ. vs.
essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the
Mirasol, Jr., 75 SCRA 52.) Venue is not a jurisdictional
building. Respondent PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on
matter. (Tantoco vs. Court of Appeals, 77 SCRA 225.)
the ground that venue was improperly laid considering
that the building was real property under article 415 (1) The venue of personal actions is at the residence of the
of the New Civil Code and therefore section 2(a) of Rule plaintiff. (De Guzman vs. Genato, 89 SCRA 671.)
4 should apply. Petitioner contended that the action for
annulment of deed of sale with damages is in the nature
of a personal action, which seeks to recover not the title
nor possession of the property but to compel payment
of damages, which is not an action affecting title to real
property. The CFI dismissed the complaint on the
ground of improper venue.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent court erred in

dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper
venue.

RULING: No. While it is true that petitioner does not

TORRES vs. TUASON
directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the
property in question, his action for annulment of sale FACTS: Since prior to 1813 to his death, one Telesforo
and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with Deudor was the sole owner of a parcel of land situated
the issue of ownership of the building which, under the in Matalahib, Tatalon and Masambong, Quezon City,
law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of with an area of 50 quiñones.
which is petitioner’s primary objective. The prevalent
The Manila Court held that it “has no doubt that the
doctrine is that an action for the annulment or
action really concerns title of real property which is in
rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to
Quezon City”, and on 20 January 1962 dismissed the
efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature
complaint on the ground of improper venue. Plaintiff
of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a
duly appealed.
real action. Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in
dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue The appellant insists that her action is one of specific
(Section 2, Rule 4), which was timely raised. performance, and, therefore, personal and transitory in
nature.

ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the complaint for

NOTES: In the absence of a written agreement, the
improper venue is proper.
venue of contract of sale is at the place of the execution
of the contract or the place where there was a meeting RULING: Yes. The Court reiterated its decision in the
of the minds of the parties and consummation of the case of Ruiz vs. Tuason where it held that Although
contract. A purchase order is merely an offer to buy. appellant’s complaint is entitled to be one for specific
(Raza Appliance Center vs. Villaraza, 117 SCRA 576.) performance, yet the fact that he asked that a deed of
sale of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City be issued
Although venue is generally determined by residence of
in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title
the parties, disputes involving real property shall be
covering said land be issued to him shows that the
brought in the barangay where the real property is
primary objective and nature of the action is to recover
situated, notwithstanding that the parties reside
the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of
appellant the conveyance requested there is need to and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
make a finding that he is the owner of the land which in plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
ownership. Hence, the action must be commenced in resident defendant where he may be found, at the
the province where the property is situated pursuant to election of the plaintiff. The property subject of the
Section 3, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court, which provides Deed of Mortgage in this case has not been foreclosed.
that actions affecting title to or recovery of possession There is no indication that respondent Ruben Orbeta
of real property shall be commenced and tried in the has defaulted in the payment of the loan secured by the
province where the property or any part thereof lies. mortgage on the subject property. Petitioner even
asserts, without objection from respondents, that the
title to the property is still in her and respondent Ruben
Orbeta’s names and that they are still in possession of
the property.

NOTES: Where the complaint filed with the trial court

was in the nature of a real action although ostensibly
denominated as one for specific performance, the basis
for determining the correct docket fees shall be the
ORBETA vs. ORBETA assessed value of the property, or the estimated value
FACTS: Petitioner and respondent Ruben Orbeta are thereof as alleged by the claimant. (Gochan vs. Gochan,
lawfully married and are co-owners of a 455-square 372 SCRA 256 [2001])
meter parcel of land located in Pililla, Rizal. The couple Where what is being claimed by the plaintiff is simply
later became estranged and petitioner left for the the delivery of the title to a lot as payment for his
United States. When petitioner came back to the services, the complaint is not a real action but a
Philippines, she learned that her estranged husband personal action. (Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. vs.
obtained a loan in the amount of P200,000.00 from Dimaculangan, 425 SCRA 376 [2004])
respondent Wolcott and used the subject property as
collateral. She then filed a Complaint for Annulment of
Deed of Mortgage with Damages in the RTC of Las Piñas
City, claiming that she never consented to the execution
of the deed and that her signature thereon was forged.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, 5 alleging that
the complaint involved a real action and should have
been filed in the court which has jurisdiction over the
area where the real property is situated. Petitioner
argued that the nullification of the Deed of Mortgage
partakes of the nature of a personal action. TENORIO vs. CRUZ-PANO
ISSUE: Whether the action for annulment of Deed of FACTS: Petitioner-developer and respondents-owners
Mortgage is with Damages is a real action or a personal entered into a Subdivision Contract. On September 9,
action. 1977, the private respondents as plaintiffs filed their
complaint for accounting, breach of contract and
RULING: Personal. A real action, under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of
damages and termination of contract against the
the Rules of Court, is one that affects title to or
petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
possession of real property, or an interest therein. Such
Branch I, Quezon City, alleging among others that
actions should be commenced and tried in the proper
petitioner-developer failed to comply with his
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
obligations embodied in the subdivision contract,
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
specifically, petitioner failed (a) to construct avenues
All other actions are personal and may be commenced
and roads 10 to 15 meters wide with water and Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the
electrical facilities and an adequate drainage system; (b) amount ofP10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires
to pay the tax assessments, fees and impositions on the which he purchased on credit from petitioner on several
property and (c) to render full accounting of the sales occasions from March,1981 to January, 1982. Binongcal
made for the determination of the 40% share of the filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
plaintiffs to the gross cash receipts that will accrue to jurisdiction since the amount of the demand against
them. The defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss the said respondent was only P11,643.00, and under
complaint on the following grounds: (1) venue is Section 19(8) of BP 129 the regional trial court shall
improperly laid; (2) no valid cause of action; and (3) the exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of
action is barred by estoppel and laches. the demand is more than twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00). It was further averred in said motion that
ISSUE: Whether the complaint must be dismissed on
although another person, Fernando Calion, was
the ground of proper venue.
allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of
RULING: Yes. The records show that the property in P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct
question is situated in Gumaca, province of Quezon and from that of the other respondent. Petitioner maintains
the subdivision contract upon which the complaint was that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case
predicated was also executed in Gumaca, Quezon. As following the “novel” totality rule introduced in Section
correctly stated by petitioner, although the complaint 33(1) of BP 129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules.
does not pray explicitly for recovery of possession, such
ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the complaint on the
is the necessary consequence of the cancellation or
ground of lack of jurisdiction is proper.
rescission (resolution) of the Subdivision Contract. The
termination of said contract entails the delivery of RULING: Yes. The totality rule is applied also to cases
possession of the land, at least the unsold lots to private where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of
respondents as well as the Torrens Titles thereof. The action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as
demand for damages, aside from being merely well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of
incidental to the action, arises from private action against two or more defendants joined in a single
respondents' interests in the land. Proper venue should complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the
therefore be laid in Quezon Province where the land is two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more
situated. defendants should arise out of the same transaction or
series of transactions and there should be a common
The rules of venue are dictated by convenience. They
question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule
are precisely constituted to forestall conflicting
3.
decisions by different courts on the issue of ownership
and possession. 'To sanction respondents' flagrant In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that
evasion of the rule on venue of a real action is to the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder
tolerate a palpable manipulatory abuse or perversion of of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6
the right to litigate." Lim vs. Argel, G.R. No. L42800, July of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful
30, 1979, 92 SCRA 238, 243-244 [1979]). scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a
misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims
against respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate
and distinct and neither of which falls within its
jurisdiction.
FLORES vs. BINONGCAL and CALION

FACTS: The first cause of action alleged in the complaint

was against respondent Ignacio Binongcal for refusing
to pay the amount of P11,643.00 representing cost of
truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner
on various occasions from August to October, 1981; and
the second cause of action was against respondent
 may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the
first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling
TIJAM vs. SIBANGHANOY
everything done in the case with the active participation
FACTS: On July 19, 1948—barely one month after the of said party invoking the plea.
effectivity of Republic Act No. 296 known as the
Judiciary Act of 1948— the spouses Serafin Tijam and
Felicitas Tagalog commenced an action in the Court of
First Instance of Cebu against the spouses Magdaleno
Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio to recover from them the
sum of P1,908.-00. After trial upon the issues thus
joined, the Court rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and, after the same had become final and
executory, upon motion of the latter, the Court issued a
writ of execution against the defendants. The writ
having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved REPUBLIC vs. BANTIGUE
for the issuance of a writ of execution against the FACTS: On 17 July 1997, respondent Bantigue Point
Surety’s bond. On appeal, the CA affirmed the assailed Development Corporation filed with the RTC an
orders. On January 12, 1953, the Surety filed a Motion application for original registration of title over a parcel
to Dismiss, alleging substantially that the appellees of land with a total assessed value of P14,920 for the
action was f iled in the Court of First Instance of Cebu entire property. Petitioner Republic filed its Opposition
on July 19, 1948 for the recovery of the sum of to the application for registration on 8 January 1998
P1,908.00 only; that a month before that date Republic while the records were still with the RTC. On March
Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1998, the RTC Clerk of Court transmitted motu proprio
1948, had already become effective, Section 88 of the records of the case to the MTC, because the
which placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of assessed value of the property was allegedly less than
inferior courts all civil actions where the value of the P100,000. Thereafter, the MTC entered an Order of
subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not General Default and commenced with the reception of
exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; that evidence. Thereafter, it awarded the land to respondent
the Court of First Instance therefore had no jurisdiction Corporation. On appeal, Republic questioned the
to try and decide the case. jurisdiction of the MTC, the CA ruled that since the
ISSUE: Whether the case must be dismissed on the former had actively participated in the proceedings
ground of lack of jurisdiction. before the lower court, but failed to raise the
jurisdictional challenge therein, petitioner is thereby
RULING: No. The rule is that jurisdiction over the estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower
subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively court on appeal.
by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of
the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection ISSUES: 1.) Whether the Republic cannot be estopped
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. from questioning the jurisdiction of the MTC even for
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the first time on applea.
the present case, a party may be barred by laches from 2.) Whether the MTC failed to acquire
invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the jurisdiction over the application for original registration
purpose of annulling everything done in the case with of land title.
the active participation of said party invoking the plea.
The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is RULING: 1.) No. The rule is settled that lack of
conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at
lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take any stage of the proceedings.18 Jurisdiction over the
cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or
any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the the law.19 It cannot be acquired through a waiver or
facts and circumstances of the present case, a party enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by
the acquiescence of the court.20 Consequently,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if
raised for the first time on appeal.

In this case, petitioner Republic filed its Opposition to

the application for registration when the records were
still with the RTC. At that point, petitioner could not
have questioned the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC,
simply because the case was not yet with that court.
When the records were transferred to the MTC,
petitioner neither filed pleadings nor requested
affirmative relief from that court. On appeal, petitioner
immediately raised the jurisdictional question in its
Brief. Clearly, the exceptional doctrine of estoppel by
laches is inapplicable to the instant appeal.

2.) No. Under Section 34 of the Judiciary Reorganization

Act, as amended, the MTC has delegated jurisdiction in
cadastral and land registration cases in two instances:
first, where there is no controversy or opposition; or,
second, over contested lots, the value of which does not
exceed P100,000. The MTC had jurisdiction under the
second instance, because the value of the lot in this
case does not exceed P100,000.