Heirs of Concha Sr. vs.

Spouses Lumocso (2007)

Summary Cases:

● Heirs of Concha Sr. vs. Spouses Lumocso

Subject: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the nature of the cause of action and of
the relief sought in the complaint; Present case involves an action for reconveyance; In actions for
reconveyance, cancellation, or quieting of title over real property, jurisdiction is determined according to
assessed value of the property involved; In determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the
assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed

Facts:

Petitioners (heirs of Concha, Sr.) claim to be the rightful owners of certain lots located in Cogon, Dipolog
City to which the respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso, Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan and Jacinto
Lumocso, are the patent holders and registered owners.

In 1997, Valeriano Concha Sr. and his children (petitioners) filed a complaint in the RTC Dipolog for
Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages seeking to annul Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and
the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22556 issued in the name of "Gregorio
Lumocso" covering Lot No. 6195. (Civil Case No. 5188)

Two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners were filed against
Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan over a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A, and against Jacinto
Lumocso over a one-hectare portions of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A. (Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434,
respectively)

The three complaints commonly alleged that on May 21, 1958, petitioners' parents (spouses Valeriano
Sr. and Dorotea Concha) acquired by homestead a 24-hectare parcel of land situated in Cogon, Dipolog
City. Since 1931, spouses Concha "painstakingly preserved" the forest in the 24-hectare land, including
the excess four (4) hectares "untitled forest land" located at its eastern portion. They possessed this
excess 4 hectares of land (which consisted of Lot No. 6195, one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and
one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A) continuously, publicly, notoriously, adversely,
peacefully, in good faith and in concept of the owner since 1931. Sometime in November 12, 1996 (for
Civil Case No. 5188) and January 1997 (for Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434), respondents forcibly
entered the premises and illegally cut, collected,and disposed of the trees in the premises.

Petitioners alleged that the land is private land, and assuming it was part of the public domain,
petitioners had already acquired imperfect title thereto under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.
141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act. They allege that respondents "surreptitiously" filed free
patent applications over the lots despite their full knowledge that petitioners owned the lots.

Respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases against them on several ground, one of
which is the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints. Respondents
contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction pursuant to Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129,
as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than
P20,000.00.

Petitioners opposed, contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject matters of which are
incapable of pecuniary estimation which, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTCs. They also contended that they have two main
| Page 1 of 3
causes of action: for reconveyance and for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents.
Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which, if computed, allegedly falls within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.

The RTC denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that
even assuming that the complaints state a cause of action, the same have been barred by the statute of
limitations. An action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in ten (10) years, hence, the instant
complaints must be dismissed as they involve titles issued for at least twenty-two (22) years prior to the
filing of the complaints. Hence, the present appeal.
Held:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the nature of the cause of action and of the
relief sought in the complaint

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this ground
cannot be waived by the parties. To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
a case, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.

Present case involves an action for reconveyance

2. The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance. An action for
reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property,
which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons' names, to its rightful and legal
owners, or to those who claim to have a better right. There is no special ground for an action for
reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of
the registered owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value.

3. These cases may also be considered as actions to remove cloud on one's title as they are intended to
procure the cancellation of an instrument constituting a claim on petitioners' alleged title which was used
to injure or vex them in the enjoyment of their alleged title.

In actions for reconveyance, cancellation, or quieting of title over real property, jurisdiction is
determined according to assessed value of the property involved

4. Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one's title, the
applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A.
No. 7691, viz:

5. Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction: x x x

(2) In all civil actions which involve the 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) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(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 Trial Courts. xxx

6. In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Cogon, Dipolog City and their
| Page 2 of 3
assessed values are less than P20,000.00. Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant
cases.

7. Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 is erroneous. Actions for
reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under
the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."

8. Under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject
matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 or one involving
title to property under Section 19(2) [since they all fell under the jurisdiction of the RTC]. The distinction
between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994
[which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC]. Hence, under the present law, original jurisdiction over
cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein"
under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first (MTC) and second (RTC) level courts, with
the assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark.

In determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved
that should be computed

9. Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject properties constitutes "any interest
therein (in the subject properties)" that should be computed in addition to the respective assessed values
of the subject properties is unavailing. It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the
subject properties may be included in the term "any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129.
However, the law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed
value of the realty involved that should be computed. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed
values of the subject properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly,
jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.

| Page 3 of 3