REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES THIRD JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 60 ANGELES CITY DIANA PILAR

FRANCO, Plaintiff, -versus14234 Reinvidicatoria SPS. NELSON FRANCO and PATRICIA FRANCO and all persons claiming rights under him , Defendant/s x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW, the defendants, thru counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully move for the dismissal of the above entitled case on the following grounds: 1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as explained hereunder and as can be gleaned from the following quoted jurisprudence: It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of the tribunal over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. (Rudolf Lietz

CIVIL CASE NO. For: Accion With Damages

2 Holdings, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of Paraaque City, 344 SCRA 680 (2000)). Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. (Duero vs Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 11 (2002)). If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio. A decision of the court without jurisdiction is null and void; hence, it could never logically become final and executory. Such a judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally. (JUSTINO LARESMA, vs. ANTONIO P. ABELLANA, G.R. No. 140973, November 11, 2004) 2. As shown from the complaint, the instant case is anchored on the recovery of possession of a portion of land as stated in the plaintiffs prayer to wit: WHEREFORE, plaintiff most respectfully pray to this Honorable Court, that after due notice and hearing a JUDGMENT be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants by declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the parcel of land occupied and possessed by the defendants, which is a portion of the land covered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 55627 and further ordering defendants and any and all persons claiming under them as follows: 1. To vacate and peacefully surrender the possession of the portion of land located at No. 467 Nepomuceno Street, San Jose Angeles City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 55627 of the Register of Deeds of Angeles City in favor of the Plaintiff; 2. Xxxx 3. Xxxxx 4. Xxxxx 3. A careful perusal of the complaint would also reveal that there never was an allegation as to the assessed value of the

3 property in question which would enable the court to be informed if the case is within its jurisdiction; 4. Neither the annexes of the complaint could supply the information as to the assessed value of the property in question except that the entire property has an area of 225 square meters; 5. During the pre-trial and initial trial of the case, an information was supplied by the Plaintiff that the assessed value of the entire lot is THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS ONLY which includes both the contested and uncontested portion. 6. This was confirmed by the Tax Declaration issued by the Office of the City Assessor of Angeles City pegging the assessed value at THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS for the entire 225 square meters (ANNEX A); 7. That judging from the above information, the assessed value of the land covered by TCT No. 55627 is SIXTY PESOS PER SQUARE METER; 8. As stated earlier, plaintiff is only asking for the recovery of possession of the portion of land which is occupied by the Defendants, which her testimony entire land; 9. In the computation of the assessed value, only the value of the relevant property is included, and in this case, the sixteen square meter portion which possession is being contested by the parties; 10. The assessed value of the contested portion as computed amounts to NINE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P960.00) ONLY. and judicial affidavit has established, to be a mere 16 square meter portion of the

11.

From the foregoing it is apparent and evident that the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter according to Sec. 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" which clearly states the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to wit: "Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. "(1) 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; "(3) x x x "(4) x x x "(5) x x x "(6) x x x "(7) x x x "(8) x x x

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Respondents hereby respectfully pray for the dismissal of the above entitled case for lack of jurisdiction. Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Concepcion, Tarlac for Angeles City, Pampanga. April 18, 2012.

JOSELITO C. CASTRO
Counsel for the Defendants Sps Nelson Franco L. Cortes St., San Nicolas, Concepcion, Tarlac

5 Lifetime IBP No. 07355/1-07-08/Tarlac City PTR No. 2270927/1-03-12/Concepcion, Tarlac Rollo No. 49046/MCLE III No. 0010482

NOTICE OF HEARING (with copy furnished) THE CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 60 Angeles City Atty. Angela T. Abrea Counsel for the Plaintiff Melys Arcade, Magalang Rd., Pandan, Angeles City Pls. submit the foregoing Motion to Dismiss for the consideration of the court on May 7, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. JOSELITO C. CASTRO