LIM KIEH TONG v. CA / LIM Facts: Lim and his family once resided in Room 301 of a building in Manila.

They later moved to Quezon City, but Room 301 was later used as a storehouse of important belongings, including Lims lawbooks. o The building only had one common main dooreach occupant had a key for the building, but the lock was later changed. Because of this, he was unable to get his law books, forcing him to purchase three new ones at P1253. o He tried to contact the owner, but the owner (petitioner) did not reply. MTC COMPLAINT: Specific performance + Damages with injunction. On first filing, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. o TRO was granted; petitioner to deliver keys and allow entrance into premises. Petitioner would file petition at this point: should be at RTC due to the amounts prayed for. MTC RULING: Forcible entry case. Damages and amount irrelevant. Had jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction. Held/Ratio: Yes. The facts actually allege forcible entry and detainer under Rule 70, which is precisely under the jurisdiction of the MTC. The facts show FE under Rule 70. Respondent, who once enjoyed possession of the room, was prevented from said enjoyment by the changing of the lock. This is a basis for forcible entry, which is not limited to landlords but also tenants, etc. MTC had jurisdiction over the case.

BF CITILAND v. OTAKE Facts: Petitioner owned Lot 2, Block 101 in BF Homes; lot has an assessed value of 48k pesos. On Feb 1987, respondent bought the adjoining Lot 1; it turned out she encroached into the petitioners lot. Petitioner filed in the MTC Pque a complaint for accion publiciana/ o MTC: Granted petitioners prayer. MTC had jurisdiction. Respondent tried to quash the writ of execution re: vacate order by assailing jurisdiction of the MTC to try accion publiciana. MeTC stressed the rule under Sec. 33 of BP 129. Respondent later tried to stop demolition; moved for reconsideration on the basis that the total value of the lot + house was >P50k, meaning the MTC did not have jurisdiction. MeTC stressed the assessed value as basis of computation. Further, the action was recovery of the lotthe house was immaterial. RTC REVERSED: Accion publiciana was under the RTC ONLY (EOJ). CA DISMISSED PETITION FOR REVIEW: should have been notice of appeal. (appeal from decision of RTC in original jurisdiction should be by notice of appeal) :: Implies that MTC had no jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction to handle the accion publiciana. Held/Ratio: Yes. Sec. 33 of BP 129 granted the MTC jurisdiction over accion publiciana where the assessed value of the property does not exceed 20,000 pesos (MM: 50k). The assessed value being 48k, the MTC rightfully had jurisdiction. RA 7691 amended BP 129 giving the MTC EOJ over a limited set of real actions based on assessed value. Basis: tax authorities. The accion publiciana was properly filed. Note: CA should not have dismissed due to a technicality; far costlier to litigate again. Besides, RTC was exercising appellate jurisdiction in a sense as MTC had original jurisdiction.

RUSSEL v. VESTIL Facts: The case revolves around a land in Liloan, Cebu that was owned by the Sps. Tautho. When they died, the property was inherited by their legal heirs, both petitioners and respondents. The land was undivided until petitioners discovered a public document which limited the ownership to the respondents (respondents were only heirs, and that there was a partition). In the case filed at the RTC Mandaue, the petitioners assail the validity of the document as it was false and perjurious, and that there was no oral partition made. Respondents file motion to dismiss: lack of jurisdiction as the total assessed value was <5k, which places the case under the MTC. o Opposition: RTC has jurisdiction as the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Judge Vestil granted the motion to dismiss. All motions for reconsideration were denied.

Issues: Whether or not the subject of the complaint was incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus under the RTC. Held/Ratio: Yes. The main purpose of the complaint is to declare null and void the document respondents rely on. Partition is only incidental to the main action. Whether or not a subject of the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation is a question on the main purpose. As per Singsong, determining whether or not an action is one where the subject matter is capable of pecuniary estimation focuses on the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. o Sum of money: Yes, capable. o If money claim is incidental: may be incapable. Included are annulments of deeds of sale or conveyances, rescission, support, etc. The subject matter was the annulment of a document. Partition, which is capable of estimation, is only incidental. Based on the court ruling, the RTC properly had jurisdiction.