(CivProc) Maslag v. Geston
(CivProc) Maslag v. Geston
(CivProc) Maslag v. Geston
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"It is incumbent upon x x x appellants to utilize the correct mode of appeal of the decisions of
trial courts to the appellate courts. In the mistaken choice of their remedy, they can blame no
one but themselves."1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 of the May 31, 2006 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83365, which dismissed petitioner Darma Maslag’s
(petitioner) ordinary appeal to it for being an improper remedy. The Resolution disposed of the
case as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SO ORDERED.4nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary
The Petition also assails the CA’s September 22, 2006 Resolution 5 denying petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration.6
Factual Antecedents
After trial, the MTC found respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over
petitioner’s property.8 It ordered her to reconvey the said property to petitioner, and to pay
damages and costs of suit.9
After going over the MTC records and the parties’ respective memoranda, the RTC of La
Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, through Acting Presiding Judge Fernando P. Cabato (Judge
Cabato), issued its October 22, 2003 Order,10 declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over
petitioner’s cause of action. It further held that it will take cognizance of the case pursuant to
Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which reads:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SECTION 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. – x x x
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction
thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to
the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.
Both parties acknowledged receipt of the October 22, 2003 Order,11 but neither presented
additional evidence before the new judge, Edgardo B. Diaz De Rivera, Jr. (Judge Diaz De
Rivera).12
On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De Rivera issued a Resolution 13 reversing the MTC Decision.
The fallo reads as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SO ORDERED.14
Petitioner assailed the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution for reversing the MTC’s factual
findings16 and prayed that the MTC Decision be adopted. Her prayer before the CA
reads:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of La Trinidad, Benguet, appealed from be reversed in toto and
that the Honorable Court adopt the decision of the Municipal Trial Court. Further reliefs just and
equitable under the premises are prayed for.17
Respondents moved to dismiss petitioner’s ordinary appeal for being the improper remedy. They
asserted that the proper mode of appeal is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 because the RTC
rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its appellate jurisdiction.18
The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal. It observed that the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution (the
subject matter of the appeal before the CA) set aside an MTC Judgment; hence, the proper
remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, and not an ordinary appeal.19
Petitioner sought reconsideration.20 She argued, for the first time, that the RTC rendered its May
4, 2004 Resolution in its original jurisdiction. She cited the earlier October 22, 2003 Order of
the RTC declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over the case.
The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its September 22, 2006 Resolution:21
A perusal of the May 4, 2004 Resolution of the RTC, which is the subject matter of the appeal,
clearly reveals that it took cognizance of the MTC case in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Consequently, as We have previously enunciated, the proper remedy, is a petition
for review under Rule 42 and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The
May 31, 2006 Resolution of this Court is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.22
Hence this Petition wherein petitioner prays that the CA be ordered to take cognizance of her
appeal.23
Issues
WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 10 OF LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, WHEN IT DECIDED A CASE APPEALED
BEFORE IT UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 8, RULE 40 OF THE RULES OF
COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS TO THE COURSE OF REMEDY THAT MAY BE
AVAILED OF BY THE PETITIONER – A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 42 OR
AN ORDINARY APPEAL UNDER RULE 41.24nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary
Our Ruling
In its October 22, 2003 Order, the RTC declared that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case based on the supposition that the same is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Thus, following Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, it took cognizance of the
case and directed the parties to adduce further evidence if they so desire. The parties bowed to
this ruling of the RTC and, eventually, submitted the case for its decision after they had
submitted their respective memoranda.
We cannot, however, gloss over this jurisdictional faux pas of the RTC. Since it involves a
question of jurisdiction, we may motu proprio review and pass upon the same even at this late
stage of the proceedings.25
7. Sometime in the year 1987, Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the adjacent parcel of land being
occupied by plaintiff [Maslag], informed the plaintiff that the respective parcels of land being
claimed by them can now be titled. A suggestion was, thereafter made, that those who were
interested to have their lands titled, will contribute to a common fund for the surveying and
subsequent titling of the land;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
8. Since plaintiff had, for so long, yearned for a title to the land she occupies, she contributed to
the amount being requested by Elizabeth Monzon;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
9. A subdivision survey was made and in the survey, the respective areas of the plaintiff and the
defendants were defined and delimited – all for purposes of titling. x x x
10. But alas, despite the assurance of subdivided titles, when the title was finally issued by the
Registry of Deeds, the same was only in the name of Elizabeth Monzon and WILLIAM
GESTON. The name of Darma Maslag was fraudulently, deliberately and in bad faith omitted.
Thus, the title to the property, to the extent of 18,295 square meters, was titled solely in the name
of ELIZABETH MONZON.
As a relief, petitioner prayed that Monzon be ordered to reconvey the portion of the property
which she claimed was fraudulently included in Monzon’s title. Her primary relief was to
recover ownership of real property. Indubitably, petitioner’s complaint involves title to real
property. An action "involving title to real property," on the other hand, was defined as an action
where "the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a claim that [she] owns such property or that
[she] has the legal rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
same."27 Under the present state of the law, in cases involving title to real property, original and
exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the MTC, depending on the assessed value of
the subject property.28 Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,29 as amended by
Republic Act (RA) No. 7691,30 provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(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 x x x the [assessed] value [of the
property] exceeds Fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x x
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: x x x x
(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) x x x.
In the case at bench, annexed to the Complaint is a Declaration of Real Property 31 dated
November 12, 1991, which was later marked as petitioner’s Exhibit "A",32 showing that the
disputed property has an assessed value of P12,40033 only. Such assessed value of the property
is well within the jurisdiction of the MTC. In fine, the RTC, thru Judge Cabato, erred in
applying Section 19(1) of BP 129 in determining which court has jurisdiction over the case and
in pronouncing that the MTC is divested of original and exclusive jurisdiction.
This brings to fore the next issue of whether the CA was correct in dismissing petitioner’s
appeal.
Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides for the dismissal of an improper
appeal:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SECTION 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. – An appeal under Rule 41
taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall
be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by
notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional
Trial Court shall be dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate
court but shall be dismissed outright. (Emphasis supplied)
There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law.34 The
first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original
jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The second mode is
a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate
jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filing a Petition for Review with the CA. Simply
put, the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised
by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed.
As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and
review the court a quo’s Judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Besides,
the new RTC Judge who penned the May 4, 2004 Resolution, Judge Diaz de Rivera, actually
treated the case as an appeal despite the October 22, 2003 Order. He started his Resolution by
stating, "This is an appeal from the Judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
La Trinidad Benguet"35 and then proceeded to discuss the merits of the "appeal." In the
dispositive portion of said Resolution, he reversed the MTC’s findings and conclusions and
remanded residual issues for trial with the MTC.36 Thus, in fact and in law, the RTC Resolution
was a continuation of the proceedings that originated from the MTC. It was a judgment issued
by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. With regard to the RTC’s earlier October
22, 2003 Order, the same should be disregarded for it produces no effect (other than to confuse
the parties whether the RTC was invested with original or appellate jurisdiction). It cannot be
overemphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law and it is "not
within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or coveniently set aside."37
Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer original and
exclusive jurisdiction where the court or tribunal only wields appellate jurisdiction over the
case.38 Thus, the CA is correct in holding that the proper mode of appeal should have been a
Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, and not an ordinary appeal under Rule
41.
Seeing the futility of arguing against what the RTC actually did, petitioner resorts to arguing for
what the RTC should have done. She maintains that the RTC should have issued its May 4, 2004
Resolution in its original jurisdiction because it had earlier ruled that the MTC had no
jurisdiction over the cause of action.
Petitioner’s argument lacks merit. To reiterate, only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court
issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly held that "any
judgment, order or resolution issued without [jurisdiction] is void and cannot be given any
effect."39 By parity of reasoning, an order issued by a court declaring that it has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has none cannot
likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced.
Since BP 129 already apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC and the RTC in cases involving
title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner could alter or disregard the same. Besides,
in determining the proper mode of appeal from an RTC Decision or Resolution, the
determinative factor is the type of jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC in rendering its
Decision or Resolution. Was it rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
or in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction? In short, we look at what type of jurisdiction
was actually exercised by the RTC. We do not look into what type of jurisdiction the
RTC should have exercised. This is but logical. Inquiring into what the RTC should have done
in disposing of the case is a question which already involves the merits of the appeal, but we
obviously cannot go into that where the mode of appeal was improper to begin with.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit.
The assailed May 31, 2006 and September 22, 2006 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 83365 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.