B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [Dec.

12, 2007]

Heirs of Concha v. Spouses Lumocso Heirs of Concha v. Spouses Lumocso

I. Recit-ready summary II. Facts of the case

Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim
to be the rightful owners of Lot No. 6195 a one-hectare portion of Lot No. to be the rightful owners of Lot No. 6195 a one-hectare portion of Lot No.
6196-A and a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A all situated 6196-A and a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A all situated
in Cogon, Dipolog City, under the Public Land Act. in Cogon, Dipolog City, under the Public Land Act.
On August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr. and his children, petitioners Valeriano
Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita, Reynaldo, and Gloria, all Respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso, Cristita Lumocso Vda. de
surnamed Concha, led a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Daan, and Jacinto Lumocso are the patent holders and registered owners of
Title with Damages against Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida the subject lots.
Guya. They sought to annul the Free Patent and the corresponding Original
Certicate of Title issued in the name of Gregorio Lumocso. Then, two new On August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr. and his children, petitioners Valeriano
separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita, Reynaldo, and Gloria, all
petitioners, this time against Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan for a one-hectare surnamed Concha, led a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of
portion of Lot No. 6196-A and Spouses Jacinto Lomocso and Balbina T. Title with Damages against Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida
Lomocso for a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A Guya. They sought to annul the Free Patent and the corresponding Original
Respondents then moved for the dismissal of the respective cases agains Certicate of Title issued in the name of Gregorio Lumocso covering Lot No.
them on the same grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject 6195. The case was raffled to the RTC of Dipolog City, Branch 9, and
matters of the complaints. They argued that since the assailed lots did not docketed as Civil Case No. 5188.
exceed P20,000, then the MTC, not the RTC, should have jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Then, two new separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages
were filed by petitioners, this time against Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan
ISSUE: W/N RTC has jurisdiction – NO. for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and Spouses Jacinto Lomocso
and Balbina T. Lomocso for a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and
Since this is an action for reconveyance, the applicable law to 7529-A
determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, which states that if the assailed lot is worth Petitioners argue that they have been in continuous possession of the
P20,000 and above, the RTC acquires jurisdiction, if not, then the MTC. The said lots when respondents, by force, intimidation, stealth forcibly entered
properties were worth below P20,000. the premises, illegally cut, collected, disposed; of trees in the said lots; and
that the land is private land or that even assuming it was part of the public
It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject domain, plaintiffs had already acquired imperfect title thereto; under the
properties may be included in the term “any interest therein.” However, the Public Land Act; that respondents allegedly cut into flitches the trees felled
law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only in Lot No. 6195 while the logs taken from the subject lots were sold to a
the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed. timber dealer in Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte; and that respondents
surreptitiously filed free patent applications over the lots despite their full
knowledge that petitioners owned the lots.

On separate occasions, respondents moved for the dismissal of the

respective cases against them on the same grounds of lack of jurisdiction of

G.R. NO: 158121 PONENTE: Puno, CJ.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Jurisdiction DIGEST MAKER: Leshen, Brian
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [Dec. 12, 2007]

Heirs of Concha v. Spouses Lumocso Heirs of Concha v. Spouses Lumocso

the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints. Respondents contended - 5188 6195 P1,030.00
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section - 5433 6196-A P 4,500.00
19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as - 5434 6196-B P4,340.00
in each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00. - 7529-A P 1,880.00.

III. Issue/s Petitioner’s contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject
properties constitutes interest therein (in the subject properties that should be
1. W/N RTC has jurisdiction over the case - NO computed in addition to the respective assessed values of the subject
properties is unavailing.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that
In their Supplemental Memorandum, petitioners contend that the nature the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve the title
of their complaints, as denominated therein and as borne by their allegations, to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
are suits for reconveyance, or annulment or cancellation of OCTs and value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
damages. The cases allegedly involve more than just the issue of title and or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
possession since the nullity of the OCTs issued to respondents and the pesos (P50,000.00).
reconveyance of the subject properties were also raised as issues. Thus, the
RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, which provides that It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject
the RTC has jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of the properties may be included in the term “any interest therein.” However, the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only
the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed.
The SC held that trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve
actions for reconveyance. An action for reconveyance respects the decree V. Disposition
of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property, which
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons names, to its IN VIEW WHEREOF , the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have a better right. AFFIRMED that the RTC of Dipolog City, Branch 9, has no jurisdiction in
Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434. No costs. SO ORDERED
Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove
cloud on one’s title, the applicable law to determine which court has
jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691
which states that if the assailed lot is worth P20,000 and above, the RTC
acquires jurisdiction, if not, then the MTC.

In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in
Cogon, Dipolog City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00, to
wit:

Civil Case No. Lot No. Assessed Value

G.R. NO: 158121 PONENTE: Puno, CJ.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Jurisdiction DIGEST MAKER: Leshen, Brian