G.R. No. 205966. March 2, 2016.

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, petitioner, vs.

FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Regional Trial Court;

Jurisdiction; Under Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 129, as amended
by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has
exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions which involve title to
possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00).·Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil actions which involve title to possession of
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
Petitioner BSP insists that the property involved has an assessed
value of more than P20,000.00, as shown in a Tax Declaration
attached to the

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

467

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 467

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

complaint. Incidentally, the complaint, on its face, is devoid of

any amount that would confer jurisdiction over the RTC.
Same; Same; Complaints; The noninclusion on the face of the
complaint of the amount of the property is not fatal because attached
in the complaint is a tax declaration (Annex „N‰ in the complaint) of
the property in question showing that it has an assessed value of
P215,320.00. It must be emphasized that annexes to a complaint are
deemed part of, and should be considered together with the
complaint.·The noninclusion on the face of the complaint of the
amount of the property, however, is not fatal because attached in
the complaint is a tax declaration (Annex „N‰ in the complaint) of
the property in question showing that it has an assessed value of
P215,320.00. It must be emphasized that annexes to a complaint
are deemed part of, and should be considered together with the
complaint. In Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd., 528 SCRA 321 (2007), this Court ruled that in
determining the sufficiency of a cause of action, the courts should
also consider the attachments to the complaint, thus: We have ruled
that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause
of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its
attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The converse is
also true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of
action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the
plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Hence, being an annex to BSPÊs
complaint, the tax declaration showing the assessed value of the
property is deemed a part of the complaint and should be
considered together with it in determining that the RTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction.
Same; Evidence; Judicial Notice; A court will take judicial
notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity
of its own records of another case between the same parties, of the
files of related cases in the same court, and of public records on file
in the same court.·A court will take judicial notice of its own acts
and records in the same case, of facts established in prior
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records
of another case between the same parties, of the files of related
cases in the same court, and of public records on file in the same
court. Since a copy of the tax declaration, which is a public record,
was attached to the complaint, the same document is already
considered as on file with the court, thus, the court can now take
judicial notice of such.

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

New Central Bank Act; Central Bank Governor; Jurisdiction;

Under Republic Act (RA) No. 7653, or the New Central Bank Act, the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor is authorized to
represent the Bangko Sentral, either personally or through counsel,
including private counsel, as may be authorized by the Monetary
Board, in any legal proceedings, action or specialized legal studies.
Under the same law, the BSP Governor may also delegate his power
to represent the BSP to other officers upon his own responsibility.·
Under Republic Act No. 7653, or the New Central Bank Act, the
BSP Governor is authorized to represent the Bangko Sentral, either
personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as may be
authorized by the Monetary Board, in any legal proceedings, action
or specialized legal studies. Under the same law, the BSP Governor
may also delegate his power to represent the BSP to other officers
upon his own responsibility.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ongkiko, Manhit, Custodio & Acorda for petitioner.
Perdigon, Duclan & Associates for respondent.

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is the Petition for Review on

Certiorari1 under Rule 45, dated March 13, 2013, of
petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), seeking to
reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated August 15, 2012
and Resolution3 dated February 18, 2013, both of the Court
of Appeals (CA) that reversed the Order4 dated January 20,
2009 of the Regional

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 3-517.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate
Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring;
id., at pp. 27-42.
3 Id., at p. 43.
4 Penned by Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., id., at pp. 337-343.
 469

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 469

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City, Bulacan

regarding a complaint for annulment of title, revocation of
certificate and damages (with application for TRO/writ of
preliminary injunction) filed by petitioner BSP against
Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon,
Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., Ex-Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi
and respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, the incumbent Mayor
of Norzagaray, Bulacan at the time of the filing of the said
complaint.
The facts follow.
Petitioner BSP filed a Complaint for annulment of title,
revocation of certificate and damages (with application for
TRO/writ of preliminary injunction) against Secretary Jose
L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon, Engr. Ramon C.
Angelo, Jr., Ex-Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi and respondent
Feliciano P. Legaspi before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
Respondent, together with his fellow defendants, filed their
Answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the RTC, on May 13,
2008, issued an Order mandating the issuance of
preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants Engr. Ramon
C. Angelo, Jr. and petitioner Feliciano P. Legaspi, and
persons acting for and in their behalf, from pursuing the
construction, development and/or operation of a dumpsite
or landfill in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, in
an area allegedly covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent
No. 257917, the property subject of the complaint.
Herein respondent Legaspi filed a Motion to Dismiss
dated August 15, 2008 alleging that the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner BSP
because the suit is unauthorized by petitioner BSP itself
and that the counsel representing petitioner BSP is not
authorized and thus cannot bind the same petitioner.
Respondent Legaspi also alleged that the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
because the complaint is prima facie void and that an
illegal representation produces no legal effect. In addition,
respondent Legaspi asserted that the complaint was
initiated without the authority of the Monetary Board and
 470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

that the complaint was not prepared and signed by the

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the statutory counsel
of government agencies.
In opposing the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner BSP
argued that the complaint was filed pursuant to Monetary
Board Resolution No. 8865, dated June 17, 2004, and that
the complaint was verified by Geraldine Alag, Director of
Asset Management of the BSP, who stated that she was
authorized by Monetary Board Resolutions No. 805 dated
June 17, 2008 and 1005 dated July 29, 2005. Petitioner
BSP further claimed that it is not precluded from being
represented by a private counsel of its own choice.
After respondent Legaspi filed a Reply, to which
petitioner BSP filed a Rejoinder, and against which,
respondent Legaspi filed a Rejoinder, the RTC rendered its
Order denying respondent LegaspiÊs motion to dismiss.
In denying the Motion to Dismiss, the RTC ruled that it
had acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner
when the latter filed with the court the Complaint dated
April 10, 2008. Furthermore, the RTC adjudged that in
suits involving the BSP, the Monetary Board may authorize
the Governor to represent it personally or through counsel,
even a private counsel, and the authority to represent the
BSP may be delegated to any other officer thereof. It took
into account the fact that the BSPÊs complaint dated April
10, 2008 was verified by Geraldine C. Alag, an officer of the
BSP being the Director of its Asset Management
Department and the SecretaryÊs Certificate issued by
Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas, Officer-in​ Charge, Office of the
Secretary of BSPÊs Monetary Board attesting to Monetary
Board Resolution No. 900, adopted and passed on July 18,
2008 containing the BoardÊs approval of the
recommendation of the Asset Management Department
(AMD) to engage the services of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit
and Acorda Law Offices (OKMA Law).
Respondent Legaspi filed a motion for reconsideration,
adding as its argument that the RTC failed to acquire
jurisdiction
 471

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 471

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

over the action because the complaint, a real action,

failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property.
As an opposition to respondent LegaspiÊs additional
contention, petitioner BSP claimed that since the subject
property contains an area of 4,838,736 square meters, it is
unthinkable that said property would have an assessed
value of less than P20,000.00 which is within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. Petitioner BSP
further stated that a tax declaration showing the assessed
value of P28,538,900.00 and latest zonal value of
P145,162,080.00 was attached to the complaint.
The RTC, in its Order dated April 3, 2009, denied
respondent LegaspiÊs motion for reconsideration. Hence,
respondent Legaspi elevated the case to the CA via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA, in its assailed Decision, dated August 15, 2012,
granted respondent LegaspiÊs petition. The dispositive
portion of the said decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The

assailed January 20, 2009 and April 03, 2009 Orders
are SET ASIDE and the complaint of BSP is hereby
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.5

Petitioner BSP moved for reconsideration, but the CA, in

its Resolution dated February 18, 2013, denied the same
motion. Hence, the present petition with the following
grounds relied upon:
I.
The Regional Trial Court of Malolos City has
exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject matter
of Civil Case No. 209-M-2008.

_______________

5 Id., at p. 41. (Emphases omitted)

 472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

II.
BSP lawfully engaged the services of [the]
undersigned counsel.6

The principle that it is well-settled that Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court which provides that only questions of law
shall be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court before this Court admits of certain
exceptions,7 namely: (1) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4)
when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5)
when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in
making its findings, the same are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when
the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitionerÊs main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record.8 Under the present case, the RTC and the CA have
different findings of fact, hence, there is a need for this
Court to address the issues raised by petitioner BSP.
The petition is meritorious.
Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil actions which involve title to
possession of real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos

_______________

6 Id., at p. 10.
 7 Uy v. Villanueva, 553 Phil. 69; 526 SCRA 73 (2007).
8 Bernaldo v. Ombudsman, 584 Phil. 57, 67; 562 SCRA 60, 70 (2008).

473

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 473

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

(P20,000.00).9 Petitioner BSP insists that the property

involved has an assessed value of more than P20,000.00, as
shown in a Tax Declaration attached to the complaint.
Incidentally, the complaint,10 on its face, is devoid of any
amount that would confer jurisdiction over the RTC.
The noninclusion on the face of the complaint of the
amount of the property, however, is not fatal because
attached in the complaint is a tax declaration (Annex „N‰
in the complaint) of the property in question showing that
it has an assessed value of P215,320.00. It must be
emphasized that annexes to a complaint are deemed part
of, and should be considered together with the complaint.11
In Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd.,12 this Court ruled that in determining
the sufficiency of a cause of action, the courts should also
consider the attachments to the complaint, thus:

We have ruled that a complaint should not be

dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it
appears clearly from the complaint and its
attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The
converse is also true. The complaint may be dismissed
for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from the
complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not
entitled to any relief.13

_______________

9 Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.·Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxxx
(b) In all civil actions which involve 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) x x x.
 10 Rollo, pp. 95-115.
11 Jornales v. Central Azucarera de Bais, 118 Phil. 909, 911; 9 SCRA
67, 69 (1963).
12 555 Phil. 295; 528 SCRA 321 (2007).
13 Id., at p. 301; pp. 327-328.

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

Hence, being an annex to BSPÊs complaint, the tax

declaration showing the assessed value of the property is
deemed a part of the complaint and should be considered
together with it in determining that the RTC has exclusive
original jurisdiction.
In connection therewith, the RTC, therefore, committed
no error in taking judicial notice of the assessed value of
the subject property. A court will take judicial notice of its
own acts and records in the same case, of facts established
in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of
its own records of another case between the same parties,
of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public
records on file in the same court.14 Since a copy of the tax
declaration, which is a public record, was attached to the
complaint, the same document is already considered as on
file with the court, thus, the court can now take judicial
notice of such.
In holding that the courts cannot take judicial notice of
the assessed or market value of the land, the CA cited this
CourtÊs ruling in Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals.15 This
CourtÊs ruling though in Quinagoran is inapplicable in this
case because in the former, the complaint does not allege
that the assessed value of the land in question is more than
P20,000.00 and that there was no tax declaration nor any
other document showing the assessed value of the property
attached to the complaint. Thus, in Quinagoran, the
assessed value of the land was not on record before the trial
court, unlike in the present case.
Moreover, considering that the area of the subject land is
four million eight hundred thirty-eight thousand seven
hundred and thirty-six (4,838,736) square meters, the RTC
acted properly when it took judicial notice of the total area
of the property involved and the prevailing assessed value
of the titled property, and it would also be at the height of
absurdity

_______________

14 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 428, 437; 277 SCRA 633,
641 (1997).
15 557 Phil. 650, 661; 531 SCRA 104, 115 (2007).

475

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 475

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

if the assessed value of the property with such an area is

less than P20,000.00.
Anent the issue of the legal representation of petitioner
BSP, the CA ruled that the BSP, being a government-owned
and -controlled corporation, should have been represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) or the Office of
the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and not a
private law firm or private counsel, as in this case.
Under Republic Act No. 7653, or the New Central Bank
Act, the BSP Governor is authorized to represent the
Bangko Sentral, either personally or through counsel,
including private counsel, as may be authorized by the
Monetary Board, in any legal proceedings, action or
specialized legal studies.16

_______________

16 R.A. No. 7653, Sec. 18. Representation of the Monetary Board and

the Bangko Sentral.·The Governor of the Bangko Sentral shall be the
principal representative of the Monetary Board and of the Bangko
Sentral and, in such capacity and in accordance with the instruction of
the Monetary Board, shall be empowered to:
(a) represent the Monetary Board and the Bangko Sentral in all
dealings with other offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government and all other persons or entities, public or private, whether
domestic, foreign or international;
 (b) sign contracts entered into by the Bangko Sentral, notes and
securities issued by the Bangko Sentral, all reports, balance sheets,
profit and loss statements, correspondence and other documents of the
Bangko Sentral.
The signature of the Governor may be in facsimile whenever
appropriate;
(c)  represent the Bangko Sentral, either personally or through
counsel, as may be authorized by the Monetary Board, in any
legal proceedings, action or specialized legal studies; and
(d)  delegate his power to represent the Bangko Sentral, as
provided in subsection (a), (b) and (c) of this section, to other
officers upon his own responsibility; Provided, however, That in
order to preserve the

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

Under the same law, the BSP Governor may also

delegate his power to represent the BSP to other officers
upon his own responsibility.
As aptly found by the RTC, petitioner BSP was able to
justify its being represented by a private counsel, thus:

BSPÊs complaint dated April 10, 2008 was verified

by Geraldine C. Alag, an officer of the BSP being the
Director of its Asset Management Department. It has
been explained that this was authorized by the
Monetary Board, as per Resolution No. 865 dated
June 17, 2004, which reads:
To approve delegation of authority to the
Director, Asset Management Department
(AMD), or in his absence, the Officer-in-Charge,
AMD to sign all documents, contracts,
agreements and affidavits relating to the
consolidation of ownership, lease, cancellation of
decision, redemption and sale of acquired assets,
and all documents to be filed in court upon
clearance by the Office of the General Counsel
and Legal Services x x x.
Also submitted to this Court is the SecretaryÊs
 Certificate issued by Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas,
Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Secretary of BSPÊs
Monetary Board attesting to Monetary Board
Resolution No. 900, adopted and passed on July 18,
2008, which reads:
3. At the regular meeting of the MB on 18
July 2008, the MB adopted and passed MB
Resolution No. 900, to wit:

_______________

integrity and the prestige of his office, the Governor or the Bangko
Sentral may choose not to participate in preliminary discussions with
any multilateral banking or financial institution or any negotiations, he
may instead be represented by a permanent negotiator. (Emphasis ours)

477

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 477

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

The Board approved the

recommendation of the Asset Management
Department (AMD) to engage the services
of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law
Offices (OKMA Law) as follows:
1. To act as counsel for the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) in a
complaint to be filed against the
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary,
et al., before the Regional Trial Court,
Malolos, Bulacan, involving a BSP-
acquired property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 48694 P(M)
with a total area of 483.87 hectares in
Norzagaray, Bulacan, and under the
terms and conditions of the service
engagement and the fees as shown in
Annex G of the memorandum of Ms.
Geraldine C. Alag, Director, AMB,
dated 8 July 2008; and
 2. To act as true and lawful
attorney-in-fact of the BSP, with full
power and authority, as follows:
a. To represent the BSP in
the pretrial conference and trial
of the case;
b. To negotiate, conclude,
enter into and execute a
compromise or amicable
settlement of the case, under
such terms and conditions as an
attorney-in-fact may deem just
and reasonable;
c. To agree on the
simplification of issues;

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

d. To file and/or amend the

necessary pleadings;
x x x.

Thus, the filing of the instant suit and the

engagement of the services of counsel are duly
authorized.
It is significant to note that neither the
Governor or General Counsel nor the Monetary
Board of BSP has come out to disown the
authority given for the filing of the instant suit
and for the engagement of the services of BSPÊs
counsel of record in this case.17

Therefore, as discussed above, in cases involving the

BSP, the Monetary Board may authorize the BSP Governor
to represent it personally or through a counsel, even a
private counsel, and the authority to represent the BSP
may be delegated to any of its officers.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 dated March 13, 2013 of petitioner Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas is GRANTED. Consequently, the
Decision dated August 15, 2012 and Resolution dated
February 18, 2013 of the Court of Appeals are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Orders dated
January 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 20, Malolos City, Bulacan, are AFFIRMED.
Let this case, therefore, be REMANDED to the trial
court for the continuation of its proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes and Jardeleza,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.

479

VOL. 785, MARCH 2, 2016 479

Bankgo Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Legaspi

Notes.·Regular courts do not have jurisdiction over

actions filed by claimants against an insolvent bank, unless
there is a clear showing that the action taken by the BSP,
through the Monetary Board, in the closure of financial
institutions was in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion. (Barrameda Vda. de Ballesteros vs.
Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc., 636 SCRA 119 [2010])
Under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129, as
amended (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and in all
civil actions which involve title to, possession of, real
property or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein exceeds Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value exceeds Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00). (Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 773 SCRA
114 [2015])

··o0o··
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.