11/8/2016 G.R.No.

186366

TodayisTuesday,November08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.186366July3,2013

HEIRSOFJOSEFERNANDO,PETITIONERS,
vs.
REYNALDODEBELEN,RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PEREZ,J.:

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtseeksthereversalofthe11February
2009Decision1oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.87588,settingasidethe28October2005Decision2of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10 of Malolos City, Bulacan, which rendered a favorable finding for the
petitionersinacomplaintforrecoveryofpossessiondocketedasCivilCaseNo.180M98.

TheFacts

This case emanated from a complaint for Recovery of Possession3 filed on 6 March 1998 by the petitioners
against Reynaldo De Belen, herein respondent, before the RTC, Branch 10 of Malolos, Bulacan, involving a
parceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.RO487(997)registeredinthenameofthelate
Jose,marriedtoLucilaTinioandApoloniaFernando,wifeofFelipeGalvez,consistingof124,994squaremeters,
moreorless,whichissituatedinBaliuag,Bulacan.

Inthesaidcomplaint,itwasallegedthatpetitionersarethechildrenofthelateJoseandtheyareintheprocessof
partitioningtheirinheritance.However,theycouldnotproperlyaccomplishthepartitionduetothepresenceofthe
respondent who intruded into a portion of their property and conducted quarrying operations in its immediate
vicinityforsomanyyears,withouttheirknowledgeandpermission.4

Petitioners,therefore,wrotealetter5dated8April1997totherespondentwhichwasunheededthus,abarangay
conciliationwasresortedto.Forfailureoftherespondenttoappear,aCertification6wasissuedbytheBarangay
LuponthatledtothefilingofthecomplaintbeforetheRTCofMalolos,BulacandocketedasCivilCaseNo.180
M98toassertanddefendtheirrightoverthesubjectpropertyandfortherespondenttovacatethepremisesand
pay rental arrearages in the amount of P24,000.00, attorneys fees of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of
P20,000.00

InsteadoffilinganAnswer,respondentReynaldoDeBelenfiledaMotiontoDismiss7dated22June1998,setting
forththefollowinggrounds:(1)lackofjurisdiction(2)lackofcauseofaction(3)ambiguityastotheportionofthe
lot De Belen occupies and, (4) incomplete statement of material facts, the complaint having failed to state the
identity,locationandareaofthelotsoughttoberecovered.

ThepetitionersfiledtheirOpposition8on17July1998,averringthatthecomplaintstatesacauseofactionand
respondent need not be confused because the estate under OCT No. RO487 (997) is actually known as Psu
39080withanareaof124,994squaremetersdividedintoLot1(80,760squaremeters),Lot2(22,000square
meters),andLot3(21,521squaremeters).Likewise,petitionersalsostatedthattheirfather,Joseandthelatters
sister, Antonia A. Fernando, were coowners proindiviso of the subject property and that as indicated in their
demand letter, they represent the heirs of Jose and Antonia A. Fernando, both deceased many years ago.
Although, a matter of proof to be presented in the course of the trial, petitioners nonetheless advanced that
Antonia Fernando predeceased her brother Jose and she died without issue thus, her undivided share was
consolidatedwiththatofherbrother.

Findinglackofmerit,themotionwasdeniedinanOrder9dated3November1998,withthetrialcourtordering
hereinpetitionerstoamendthecomplaintbyindicatingthedetailsdesiredbytherespondentinorderforthelatter
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 1/6
11/8/2016 G.R.No.186366

tofilearesponsivepleading.

On12February1999,theAmendedComplaint10withitsattachmentwasfiledtowhichtherespondentmovedfor
aBillofParticulars,11specificallyquestioningthelegalbasisforthecomplaintsincetheentirepropertyappearsto
be coowned by Jose and Antonia Fernando and it was not particularized in the complaint as to what specific
portionbelongstoeachofthecoowners.

In addition, the respondent, in his Answer,12claimedthateventheBillofParticulars13 did not clearly show the
exactidentity,personalcircumstancesandrelationshipoftheindividualheirsofthedecedent,location,areaand
sizeofthesubjectproperty.Also,prescription,estoppelandlacheshadsetinasagainstthepetitioners.

The respondent further argued that the Amended Complaint was prematurely filed due to the fact that the
CertificationtoFileActionwasissuedinviolationoftheprescribedprocedure.Therespondentlikewiseinsistedon
hisrightofpossessionoverthesubjectpropertyasevidencedbythesuccessivetransferfromFelipeGalvezto
CarmenGalvezon11March1955fromCarmenGalveztoFlorentinoSanLuistoReynaldoDeBelenon4June
1979,andthereceiptforthepurchasepriceofP60,000.00dated19June1979.Heassertedthatfromthedateof
hispurchase,hehasbeeninexclusive,continuous,openandpublicpossessionofsaidparcelofland.

Trial on the merits ensued which eventually resulted in the 28 October 2005 Decision of the RTC which is
favorabletothepetitioners.Thus:

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,judgmentisherebyRENDERED:

(a)

Declaringasnullandvoidandwithoutlegalforceandeffectthe"KasulatanNgPagbibilihangTuluyanNg
Tumana" dated March 11, 1955 executed by Felipe Galvez in favor of Carmen Galvez "Kasulatan Ng
Pagbibiling Tuluyan Ng Tumana dated July 28, 1958, registered as Doc. No. 945 Page 59, Book XXIV
Seriesof1958ofNotaryPublicFerminSamsonexecutedbyCarme[n]GalvezmarriedtoLuisCruzinfavor
of Florentino San Luis and "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Lupang Tumana" dated June 04, 1979
executed by Florentino R. San Luis married to Agripina Reyes in favor of defendant Reynaldo Santos de
Belen,enteredasDoc.No.199PageNo.41BookNo.79Seriesof1979covering9,838squaremeters
ofaparceloflanddesignatedasLot1303BperapprovedsubdivisionplaninCad.CaseNo.17,Record
No.788submittedbeforethedefunctCFIofBulacanandgrantedinaDecisiondatedDecember29,1929

(b)

Orderingthereconveyanceofthedisputedsubjectpropertyinquestionincludingallimprovementsthereon
asabovedescribedbythedefendanttotheplaintiffsherein

(c)

OrderingthedefendanttopayplaintiffstheamountofP10,000.00amonthfromMarch06,1998withlegal
interestuntilthesubjectpropertyisactuallyreturnedtotheplaintiffs

(d)

OrderingthedefendanttopayplaintiffstheamountofP10,000.00asattorneysfees

(e)

Orderingthedefendanttopayplaintiffsthecostsofsuit.14

Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the issues on jurisdiction for failure of the
petitionerstostatetheassessedvalueofthesubjectproperty,absenceofevidenceprovingthelawfulownership
ofthepetitionersandthegrantofaffirmativereliefswhichwerenotallegedorprayedfor.

On11February2009,theCourtofAppealsissuedtheassaileddecisionsettingasidethedecisionoftheRTCfor
wantofjurisdictionanddeclaringfurtherthattheAmendedComplaintmustbedismissed.

Hence,thepetitionatbenchseekingthereversaloftheaforementioneddecision.

TheIssue

ThecoreissueforresolutioniswhetherornottheCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleerrorinholdingthatthe
RTCdidnotacquirejurisdictionforfailuretoallegeinthecomplainttheassessedvalueofthesubjectproperty.

OurRuling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 2/6
11/8/2016 G.R.No.186366

Thegeneralruleisthatthejurisdictionofacourtmaybequestionedatanystageoftheproceedings.15Lackof
jurisdictionisoneofthoseexceptedgroundswherethecourtmaydismissaclaimoracaseatanytimewhenit
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not
raisedintheanswerorinamotiontodismiss.16Sothat,wheneveritappearsthatthecourthasnojurisdiction
overthesubjectmatter,theactionshallbedismissed.Thisdefensemaybeinterposedatanytime,duringappeal
orevenafterfinaljudgment.Suchisunderstandable,asthiskindofjurisdictionisconferredbylawandnotwithin
thecourts,letalonetheparties,tothemselvesdetermineorconvenientlysetaside.17

A reading of both the complaint and the amended complaint shows that petitioners failed to state the assessed
valueofthedisputedlot.ThisfactwashighlightedbytheCourtofAppealswhenitruled:

InstantcomplaintforRecoveryofPossessionfailedtospecifytheassessedvalueofthepropertysubjectmatterof
the action. "What determines the nature of the action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought." (Bejar, et. al. v. Caluag, G.R. No. 171277,
February12,2007).Theallegationsinthecomplaintandthereliefsoughtbythepartydeterminethenatureof
theactionifthetitleordesignationisnotclear.Thecomplaint,inthecaseatbar,isbereftofanyallegationwhich
discloses the assessed value of the property subject matter thereof. The court a quo therefore, did not acquire
jurisdictionoverinstantaction.TheAmendedComplaintdoesnotstateavalidcauseofaction.18

Facially, the above disposition finds support from the provisions of Republic Act 7691 (RA 7691),19 the law in
effect when the case was filed. Section 1 of RA 7691, amending Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,
pertinentlystates:

"Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980",isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:

"Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction.

"(1)Inallcivilactionsinwhichthesubjectofthelitigationisincapableofpecuniaryestimation

"(2)Inallcivilactionswhichinvolvethetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,oranyinteresttherein,
wheretheassessedvalueofthepropertyinvolvedexceedsTwentythousandpesos(P20,000,00)or,
forcivilactionsinMetroManila,wheresuchvalueexceedsFiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)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
TrialCourts

xxxx.

Therebyguided,theCourtofAppealsnolongerdweltontheotherissuesandmattersraisedbeforeit. 1 w p h i1

JurisprudencehasitthatinapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,onlyquestions
oflawmayberaised.20AsheldinthecaseofSolmayorv.Arroyo,21itisnotthefunctionofthisCourttoanalyze
andweighevidencealloveragain.Thisispremisedonthepresumedthoroughappreciationofthefactsbythe
lower courts. Such that, when the trial court and the appellate court, as in this case, reached opposite
conclusions, a review of the facts may be done. There is a permissible scope of judicial review on the factual
findings of the lower courts as crystallized in Treas v. People of the Philippines,22 where the Court cited
contradictoryfindingsoftheCourtofAppealsandthetrialcourtasoneoftheinstanceswheretheresolutionof
the petition requires a review of the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence upon which they are
based.

Sotooareweremindedthatproceduralrulesareintendedtoensuretheproperadministrationoflawandjustice
and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid sense, for they are adopted to secure, not
override,substantialjustice.23

We,accordingly,reviewtherecordsofthiscaseandnotethefactsandevidenceignoredbytheappellatecourt.
WeobservethatattheinitialstageofthiscasewhentherespondentquestionedthejurisdictionoftheRTCina
MotiontoDismiss,hesolelyassailedthevaguenessofthecomplaintforfailuretoallegethespecificidentityofthe
subjectpropertyandforbeingprematurelyfiled.Thetrialcourtinits3November1998Order,settledtheissueby
declaring that the allegations in the complaint make out for a case of recovery of ownership and that the
petitioners need not wait for the lapse of one year from the 8 April 1997 demand letter to maintain the accion
reinvidicatoria. The trial court went on to explain that the complaint clearly gives the defendant, herein
respondent, notice of their exclusive and absolute claim of ownership over the entire property covered by the
OCTNo.RO487(997).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 3/6
11/8/2016 G.R.No.186366

FromthesaidOrder,therespondentneverraisedanyobjectionanddidnotevenopttoelevatethemattertoa
highercourtviaacertioraricasewhichisaremedyforthecorrectionoferrorsofjurisdiction.Ifindeedrespondent
was not convinced of the trial courts ruling, he could have availed of such remedy which is an original and
independentactionthatdoesnotproceedfromthetrialthatwouldleadtothejudgmentonthemerits.Asaptly
citedinthecaseofNewFrontierSugarCorporationv.RTC,Branch39,IloiloCity,24whentheissueisjurisdiction,
anoriginalactionforcertiorarimaybedirectedagainstaninterlocutoryorderofthelowercourtpriortoanappeal
fromthejudgment.

On the contrary, the respondent acquiesced to the 3 November 1998 Order of the trial court for him to file his
Answer,25 whereby, he asserted ownership over the portion of the subject property which he occupied. He
attached the following proof of his ownership, to wit: a) Deed of Absolute Sale by Felipe Galvez in favor of
CarmenGalvezdated11March195526b)DeedofAbsoluteSalebyCarmenGalvezinfavorofFlorentinoSan
Luisdated28July195827c)DeedofAbsoluteSalebyFlorentinoSanLuisinfavorofReynaldoSantosDeBelen
dated4June197928andthecorrespondingreceiptofthepurchasepriceofP60,000.00dated19June1979.29

When the pretrial conference was concluded, the trial court issued several PreTrial Orders,30 specifying the
identityandcoverageofthesubjectpropertybeingclaimedbythepetitionersaswellasthatportionoccupiedby
the respondent, simplification of facts involved, and the issues which primarily centered on the validity of the
transfer or disposition made by Felipe Galvez of the paraphernal property of his wife Antonia Fernando from
whichtransfertherespondentsucceededhisrightovertheportionheoccupied.

During the trial, the petitioners were able to prove that indeed they are the rightful heirs of Jose and Antonia
Fernando and that they have right of ownership over the property covered by OCT No. RO487 (997) as
described in Plan Psu39080 of Lots 1302B and 1303 prepared by Geodetic Engineer Alfredo C. Borja on 15
September1997.31 It was also proved through the admission of the respondent that he has been occupying a
portionofLot1303whichistheSapangBayan,theoldriver,titledinthenameofJoseandAntoniaFernando.
Thus,itwasruledthattheDeedofSaleinrespondentsfavorwhichwastracedfromthetransfermadebyFelix
Galvezon11March1955,withoutanyparticipationofAntoniaFernandowaslikewisewithoutanysettlementof
property between the said husband and wife and the property remained to be the paraphernal property of
Antonia.Consequently,thetrialcourtdeclaredthatthesalebetweenFelipeGalvezandCarmenGalvezandits
subsequenttransfersarevoidabinitio,asFelipeGalvezwasneithertheownernoradministratorofthesubject
property. 1 w p h i1

Further,thetrialcourtwentontostatethatrespondenthasnotprovedhisstatusasapurchaseringoodfaithand
forvaluetakingcuefromthefactsandcircumstancesaswellasthenumerousentriesfoundatthedorsalsidesof
OCTNo.RO487(997)whichshouldhaveputanyofthebuyersonguard.

Aftertheentireproceedingsfullyparticipatedinbytherespondent,hecannotbeallowedtoquestiontheresultas
having been rendered without jurisdiction. This is the teaching in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, et al.32 as reiterated in
Solivenv.FastformsPhilippines,Inc.,33wheretheCourtruled:

"While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel has not
supervened."Intheinstantcase,respondentactivelyparticipatedinallstagesoftheproceedingsbeforethetrial
courtandinvokeditsauthoritybyaskingforanaffirmativerelief.Clearly,respondentisestoppedfromchallenging
thetrialcourtsjurisdiction,especiallywhenanadversejudgmenthasbeenrendered."(Italicsours)

Similarly,asthisCourtheldinPantrancoNorthExpress,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,34 participation in all stages of

thecasebeforethetrialcourt,thatincludedinvokingitsauthorityinaskingforaffirmativerelief,effectivelybarred
the respondent by estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld the
doctrinethatwhilejurisdictionmaybeassailedatanystage,alitigantwhoparticipatedinthecourtproceedingsby
filingpleadingsandpresentinghisevidencecannotlateronquestionthetrialcourtsjurisdictionwhenjudgement
unfavorabletohimisrendered.

Moreover, and of equal significance, the facts of this case demonstrate the inapplicability of RA 7691. The
argumentofrespondentthattheassessedvalueofthesubjectpropertyplacesthecaseoutsidethejurisdictionof
theRegionalTrialCourtisbeliedbyrespondentsownAnswerwhichstatesthat:

xxxx

"16.Thatthedefendantsownershipandpossessionovertheparceloflandoughttoberecoveredbytheplaintiff
isvalidandlegalasevidencedbythefollowing:35

xxxx

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 4/6
11/8/2016 G.R.No.186366

(c) Deed of Absolute Sale by Florentino San Luis in favor of Reynaldo Santos de Belen dated June 4, 1979
(Annex "3" hereof)36 and the corresponding receipt of the purchase price of P60,000.00 dated June 19, 1979
(Annex"4"hereof)."37

thereby showing that way back in 1979 or nineteen (19) years before this case was instituted, the value of the
propertywasalreadywellcoveredbythejurisdictionalamountforcaseswithinthejurisdictionoftheRTC.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. The
Regional Trial Court Decision is AFFIRMED. Let the records of this case be remanded to the RTC, Branch 10,
Malolos,Bulacanforexecution.

SOORDERED.

Carpio,(Chairperson),Brion,DelCastillo,andPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. RomillaLontok and concurred in by Associate Justices
JosefinaGuevaraSalongaandRomeoF.Barza.CArollo,pp.112119.

2PennedbyJudgeVictoriaVillalonPornillos.Records,pp.237248.

3Id.at25.

4Id.at2.

5Id.at8.

6Exhibit"C"oftheComplaint,id.at9.

7Id.at2025.

8Id.at2728.

9Id.at3941.

10Id.at5660.

11Id.at7174.

12Id.at8089.

13Id.at7778.

14Id.at247248.

15Vargasv.Caminas,G.R.No.137869andG.R.No.137940,12June2008,554SCRA305,321.

16GeonzonVda.DeBarrerav.HeirsofVicenteLegaspi,G.R.No.174346,12September2008,565SCRA
192,198citingFrancelRealtyCorporationv.Sycip,506Phil.407,415(2005).
17DeRossiv.NLRC,373Phil.17,2627(1999)citingLaNavalDrugCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.
No.103200,31August1994,236SCRA78,90.

18CAs11February2009DecisioninCAG.R.CVNo.87588.CArollo,p.117

19 Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPALTRIALCOURT,ANDMUNICIPALCIRCUITTRIALCOURTS,AMENDINGFORTHEPURPOSE
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980."

20 Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 64, 90 (2004) citing Calvo v.
Vergara,423Phil.939,947(2001).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 5/6
11/8/2016 G.R.No.186366
21520Phil.854,871(2006).

22G.R.No.195002,25January2012,664SCRA355,363364.

23Moralesv.TheBoardofRegentsoftheUniversityofthePhilippines,487Phil.449,465(2004).

24542Phil.587,597(2007).

25Records,pp.8084.

26Annex"1,"id.at85.

27Annex"2,"id.at8687.

28Annex"3,"id.at88.

29Annex"4,"id.at89.

30Id.at113115120121124and145146.

31Exhibit"A,"id.at180.

32131Phil.556,(1968).

33483Phil.416,422(2004).

34G.R.No.105180,5July1993,224SCRA477,491.

35Records,p.81.

36Id.at88.

37Id.at89.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_186366_2013.html 6/6