[CIVIL ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY]
25 BF CITILAND CORP. V. OTAKE
July 29, 2010| Carpio, J. |
Petitioner/s: BF Citiland Corp.
Respondent/s: Marilyn Otake
Facts:
 BFCC owned a lot in BF Homes Parañaque with an assessed value of
P48,000 based on the tax declaration filed in the Office of the
Assessor.
 Merlinda Bodullo (OTAKE) bought the adjoining lot. However, she
occupied not just the lot she purchased. She encroached upon
BFCC’s lot.
 BFCC filed an accion publiciana before the MeTC of Parañaque City,
praying that OTAKE be ordered to vacate the lot and to pay P15,000
per month by way of reasonable compensation.
 MeTC ruled in favor of BFCC. It also subsequently denied OTAKE’s
motion for reconsideration and issued a writ of execution.
o OTAKE filed a motion to quash the writ of execution alleging
that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over accion publiciana
cases.
 MeTC denied her motion. BFCC then moved for a
special order of demolition.
o OTAKE opposed the motion for special order of demolition
for being premature, arguing that even if the MeTC had
jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases, the total value of
the lot with the house built thereon exceeded P50,000.
 MeTC ruled that since the lot had an assessed value
of P48,000, it had jurisdiction. Since the action was
only for recovery of the lot, the house thereon
should not be included in computing the assessed
value of the property.
o OTAKE filed before the RTC a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
 RTC reversed the MeTC, ruling that accion publiciana was within the
exclusice original jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
o BFCC filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that the
MeTC had jurisdiction, as accion publiciana is a civil action
involving title to or possession of real property. It also
claimed that OTAKE was already estopped from assailing
the MeTC’s jurisdiction because of her participation in all
the proceedings in the MeTC.
o Upon RTC’s denial, BFCC filed in the CA a petition for review
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
 CA dismissed BFCC’s petition for review, ruling that appeal by way
of petition for review under Rule 42 could be resorted to only when
what was appealed from was a decision of the RTC in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.
Ruling:
1. W/N a petition for review under Rule 42 is the proper mode of
appeal from a decision of the RTC in a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
a. NO, it is not. HOWEVER, the CA should not have easily
dismissed the petition and should have allowed a liberal
construction of the rules to serve the demands of substantial
justice.
2. W/N the MeTC has jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases.
a. It would depend on the ASSESSED VALUE of the subject
property. Here, it was below P50,000. Hence, the MeTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction.
b. Under B.P. 129, the plenary action of accion publiciana must
be brought before the RTC. HOWEVER, with the
modifications introduced by R.A. 7691, the RTC’s jurisdiction
has been limited to real actions where the assessed value
exceeds P20,000 or P50,000 if filed in Metro Manila. If the
assessed value is below the said amounts, the action must
be brought before first level courts.
c. Under B.P. 129, as amended, jurisdiction even in accion
publiciana cases is determined by the assessed value of the
property. Such value does not necessarily represent the
true or market value.
i. Here, the lot has an assessed value of P48,000.
ii. Since it is below the limit of P50,000 for Metro
Manila, the action comes within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the MeTC.