Bokingo vs CA 2006

FACTS:
BOKINGO filed an application for titling of a parcel of land before the DENR.
Ernesto Campos, the Heirs of Celestino Busa, the Heirs of Felicidad BusaPanal and the Heirs of Concordia Busa claimed that they were co-owners of
the subject land and so they protested the application of BOKINGO. They
then filed a complaint for injunction and damages against BOKINGO (among
other defendants in that case) with the RTC. Meanwhile, DENR ruled against
BOKINGO. Such decision became final and executory. DENR issued an
Order of Execution stating that the whole proceeding must be set forth in
writing signed by the parties and witnesses to be used as evidence should it
be necessary to institute any action, criminal or otherwise, against any party
who may refuse to obey the same. The plaintiffs in this case (heirs of chuva
chuva) requested to survey the subject land which was granted by CENRO.
When they went there to survey it, BOKING told them to stop and not to
enter the area. Shempre, plaintiff availed of the Barangay Justice System to
resolve the controversy but to no avail (tigas ulo sila BOKING kasama pala
niya sa pag harang sa mga heirs chuva si SPO3 Dacillo just in case itanong).
So a CERTIFICATE TO FILE ACTION was issued by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa. Talo si BOKING! Did not exercise honest and GF in their
acts aka violated CC 19 so they had to pay damages.
SO KAYA MAY PRESENT CASE!
Petitioner BOKINGO filed with court a quo motion to dismissing alleging that
the latter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. He said that the issue
from the complaint involved the possession of the land. As such, assessed
value was crucial to determine the courts jurisdiction as per BP 129 Sec
19(2) and 33(3) as amended by RA 7691. If value is P20k or less, MTC if not,
RTC!!!
Petitioner said that yes, theres no assessed value indicated but he showed
his fathers tax declaration covering the land. He said that it was only P14k!
And since the court a quo is an RTC and the land is LESS THAN P20k, MTC
has jurisdiction bro. Kaya dismiss dapat for lack of jurisdiction!
BUT court a quo denied the MTD. In the allegation, plaintiffs are entitled to
have the subject land surveyed after Petitioners application for titling of the
land was dismissed by Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Officer and having them declared to have better right over it. Also, the relief

being sought is injunction order that the respondents right to survey the land
would not be defeated. It ruled that it had jurisdiction as per Sec 2 Rule 58
ROC which provides that a PI may be granted by the court where the action
is pending. So it denied the MTD.
BOKINGO filed certiorari to CA alleging GAD. CA dismissed the petition.
WHY? (1) ruled that remedy of certiorari is unavailing to petitioner because
an order denying a MTD is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of the
extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus.; (2) ruled that since the
records did not disclose that BOKINGO filed a MFR, it was a ground to
dismiss the petition of certiorari; (3) it wasnt shown that the court acted with
GAD. CA ruled that the issue was proper for an appeal but not a petition for
certiorari.
BOKINGOs contention: Complaint is a possessory action. To determine
jurisdiction, must look at the assessed value of the land alleged in the
complaint.
ISSUE: WON CA was correct in dismissing the petition - YES // WON it
is a possessory action - NO
HELD:
1) YES. The mere fact that he failed to file a MFR was a sufficient cause for
an outright dismissal. Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a
MFR is first filed before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to
correct its errors, if any. There was no compelling reason to warrant deviation
by the CA from this salutary rule. Petitioner even failed to allege GAD on the
part of the court a quo in denying MTD.
2) NO. The present petition lacks substantive merit. It is axiomatic that the
nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the
type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action
is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the
claims asserted therein. The caption of the complaint is not determinative of
the nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend upon
the answer of the defendant or agreement of the parties, or to the waiver or
acquiescence of the parties.
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action, or remedy

sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of

money the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and
jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount of the claim. However,
where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of,
the principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by
Regional Trial Courts.
In this case, the principal relief sought is for the court a quo to issue an
injuction against petitioner to permanently enjoin them from preventing the
survey of the land. The cause of action is not yet to recover the possession
of the land. There are 3 kinds of actions to judicially recover possession
of real property:
What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory
action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion
reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de
facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry
are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover
possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment,
accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and
accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which includes

recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially

recover possession.
Here, respondents complaint has not sought to recover possession of land,
rather, it prays to enjoin petitioner from preventing them from surveying the
land. The respondents to be entitled to the injunctive relief sought, need
to establish the following requirements: (1) the existence of a right to be
protected; and (2) that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed
are violative of the said right. As such, the subject matter of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the
court a quo, a Regional Trial Court under Section 19 (1) of BP Blg. 129, as
amended by RA 7691:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

Hence, the court a quo did not err in denying Bokingos MTD.