Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
597
ers failed to allege in their Complaint the assessed value of the subject
property, the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint as petitioners failed to
establish that the RTC had jurisdiction over it. In fact, since the assessed
value of the property was not alleged, it cannot be determined which trial
court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Same; Same; Same; Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of
Court, defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res
judicata, and prescription, which must be apparent from the pleadings or
the evidence on record.—Contrary to the claim of petitioners, the issue of
lack of jurisdiction was raised by respondents in their Appellant’s Brief.
And the fact that it was raised for the first time on appeal is of no moment.
Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, defenses not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for
lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription, which
must be apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In other
words, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. In
fact, the court may motu proprio dismiss a complaint at any time when it
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that lack of
jurisdiction exists.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
Civil Law; Land Titles; Article 434 of the Civil Code states that “in an
action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely
on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s
claim.”—Article 434 of the Civil Code states that “[i]n an action to recover,
the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of
his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.” The plaintiff,
therefore, is duty-bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered,
in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. It
bears stressing that the failure of the plaintiff to establish the identity of the
property claimed is fatal to his case.
598
Factual Antecedents
_______________
1 Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98.
2 Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389, 400; 475
SCRA 743, 756 (2005).
3 Peralta-Labrador v. Bugarin, 505 Phil. 409, 415; 468 SCRA 308, 313 (2005).
4 Rollo, pp. 8-24.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
599
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
600
_______________
17 Petitioner Roderick Julao is the son of Rogelio Julao, one of the children of
Telesforo Julao and Maria Consolacion Serrano Julao.
18 Rollo, pp. 37-43.
19 Raffled to Branch 60 of the RTC of Baguio City.
20 Rollo, pp. 37-38.
21 Id., at p. 38.
22 Id., at p. 39.
23 Id.
24 Id., at pp. 39-40.
25 Id., at p. 40.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id., at pp. 51-52.
601
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
merit. Thus, they filed an Answer30 contending that they are the
29
true and lawful owners and possessors of the subject property;31 that
they acquired the said property from petitioners’ brother, Solito;32
and that contrary to the claim of petitioners, TSA No. V-6667 and
TSA No. V-2132 pertain to the same property.33
During the trial, petitioners disputed the validity of the Deed of
Transfer of Rights executed by Solito. They presented evidence to
show that Telesforo submitted two applications, TSA No. V-2132
and TSA No. V-6667.34 The first one, TSA No. V-2132, resulted in
the issuance of OCT No. P-2446 in favor of the heirs of Telesforo,
while the second one, TSA No. V-6667, was dropped from the
records.35 They also presented evidence to prove that Solito had no
hereditary share in the estate of Telesforo because Solito was not
Telesforo’s biological son, but his stepson, and that Solito’s real
name was Francisco Bognot.36
After petitioners rested their case, respondent spouses filed a
Motion for Leave of Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence.37 The
RTC, however, denied the Motion.38
The heirs of Solito then moved to intervene and filed an Answer-
in-Intervention,39 arguing that their father, Solito, is a legitimate son
of Telesforo and that Solito sold his hereditary share in the estate of
his father to respondent spouses by virtue of a Deed of Transfer of
Rights.40
_______________
29 Id., at p. 69.
30 Id., at pp. 53-55.
31 Id., at pp. 53-54.
32 Id.
33 Id., at p. 54.
34 Id., at p. 71.
35 Id.
36 Id., at p. 72.
37 Id., at p. 70.
38 Id.
39 Id., at pp. 65-67.
40 Id., at p. 66.
602
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
dated September 30, 1998 from the DENR stating that “the land
applied for with assigned number TSA No. V-2132 was renumbered
as TSA No. V-6667 as per 2nd Indorsement dated November 20,
1957 x x x.”43 They also presented two affidavits,44 both dated
August 31, 1994, executed by petitioners Sonia Tolentino and
Roderick Julao,45 acknowledging that Solito was their coheir and
that he was the eldest son of Telesforo.46
_______________
41 Id., at p. 72.
42 Id., at p. 60.
43 CA Rollo, p. 69.
44 Rollo, pp. 58-59.
45 Petitioner Roderick Julao and his mother, Josefina Julao, executed a Joint
Affidavit.
46 Rollo, pp. 72-74.
47 Id., at pp. 68-75; penned by Judge Edilberto T. Claravall.
48 Id., at pp. 73-74.
49 Id., at p. 74.
603
_______________
604
RTC had jurisdiction over the case as petitioners failed to allege the
assessed value of the subject property.55 Thus:
Issues
I
THE [CA] COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
II
THE [CA] COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
COMPLAINT.57
_______________
605
Our Ruling
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
_______________
606
xxxx
(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) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
61 Bernardo v. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010, 615
SCRA 466, 472.
62 CA Rollo, p. 26.
63 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.—Defenses and objections
not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending be-
607
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
2/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 736
_______________
tween the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
64 Heirs of Jose Fernando v. De Belen, G.R. No. 186366, July 3, 2013, 700
SCRA 556, 562.
65 Id.
66 Dr. Seriña v. Caballero, 480 Phil. 277, 287; 436 SCRA 593, 602 (2004).
67 Id., at pp. 287-288; p. 603; and Spouses Divinagracia v. Cometa, 518 Phil. 79,
89; 482 SCRA 648, 658-659 (2006).
608
_______________
68 CA Rollo, p. 65.
* * Per Special Order No. 1803 dated September 24, 2014.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ec8200f6b0fe7efb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11