HILARIO,petitioner vs. SALVADOR, respondent .

HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO SALVADOR , respondents intervenors.

September 3, 1996, petitioners Cesar, Ibarra, Nestor, Lina and Prescilla, all surnamed Hilario, filed a complaint with
Romblon RTC against Allan Salvador.

They alleged:

They are co-owners by inheritance from Concepcion Mazo Salvador a land in Sawang, Romblon. This land was
[adjudged] as hereditary share of their father, Brigido M. Hilario, Jr. when their father was still single.
In 1989, defendant constructed his dwelling on the property of the plaintiffs' father without the knowledge of the herein
plaintiffs.
They demand the defendant to vacate the premises but latter said he asked the prior consent of their grandmother,
Concepcion Mazo Salvador.
Unjustified refusal of the defendant to vacate the property has caused the plaintiffs to suffer shame, humiliation, wounded
feelings, anxiety and sleepless nights.

They pray that order be issued for the defendant to vacate and peacefully turn over to the plaintiffs the occupied
property .

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action. He
said:
1) complaint failed to state the assessed value of the land in dispute;
2) Does not sufficiently identify and/or describe the parcel of land referred to as the subject-matter of this action.
Both of which are essential requisites for determining the jurisdiction of the Court where the case is filed.
The assessed value was totally absent in the allegation and nothing can be picked up to determine jurisdiction. It can be
read between lines though that the assessed value is not more than 20k so under MTC not RTC.

Petitioners opposed motion and said RTC has jurisdiction since court can take judicial notice of the market value of the
property w/c was 200/sq. m so 14,7979 sq. m means more or less TV is 3.5M

RTC denied motion to dismiss cause action was incapable of pecuniary estimation so cognizable by RTC

Respondent filed counterclaim and hold that petitioners had no cause of action against him since the property in dispute
was the conjugal property of his grandparents, the spouses Salustiano Salvador and Concepcion Mazo-Salvador. Ca

RTC,in favor of Petitioners. So respondent filed in CA.

CA, reversed RTC and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

CA : action of the petitioners was one for the recovery of ownership and possession of real property. Absent any
allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property the MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

Pettioners filed in SC

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction of the case filed?

Petitioners maintain that the RTC has jurisdiction since their action is an accion reivindicatoria, an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction falls within the
said court. They also made mention of the increase in the assessed value of the land in question in the amount of P3.5
million.

The petition has no merit.

Held:
SC: Nature of the action and which court has original andexclusive 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.

Don’t agree with petitioner and CA that action of petitioners in RTC was an accion reivindicatoria. It was an accion
publiciana.

An accion reivindicatoria, is recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership
and possession based on the said ownership. An accion publiciana is recovery of possession of the right to possess

The action of the petitioners does not involve a claim of ownership over the property. They prayed that the private
respondent vacate the property and restore possession thereof to them.

When the petitioners filed their complaint on September 3, 1996, R.A. No. 7691 was already in effect. Section 33(3) of
the law provides:

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
Cases . — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, that does not
exceed 20k

Section 19(2) of the law, likewise, provides that:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases . — The Regional Trial Court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(2) In all civil actions, which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, that exceeds 20k

The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or possession of land is now determined by the assessed
value of the said property and not the market value thereof. The assessed value - fair market value of the real property
multiplied by the assessment level. The fair market value - price at which a property may be sold by a seller, not
compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, not compelled to buy.

The complaint does not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property. The court cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of lands. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the
property, it cannot determine whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction.

During the trial, the petitioners adduced in evidence Tax Declaration No. 8590-A, showing that the assessed value of the
property in 1991 was P5,950.00. But they, did not bother to show in evidence the tax declaration containing the assessed
value of the property when they filed their complaint in 1996. Assuming the assessed value of the property in 1991 is
same in 1995 or 1996, the MTC, and not the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners since the case involves
a property with an assessed value of less than 20k.

Tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by
the proper government agency.

RTC had no jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners, all the proceedings therein, including the decision of the
RTC, are null and void. The complaint should perforce be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED.