8/10/2019 CIVPRO Set1 Cases http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-set1-cases 1/39 [G.R. No. 119347. March 17, 1999] EULALIA RUSSELL, RUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN, respondents. D E C I S I O N KAPUNAN, J .: Before us is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the Order dated January 12, 1995 issued by respondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners on ground of lack of jurisdiction, as well as his Order dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The facts of the case are as follows: On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents, denominated "DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN 2275. The complaint, in substance, alleged that petitioners are co-owners of that parcel of land, Lot 6149 situated in Liloan, Cebu and containing an area of 56,977.40 square meters, more or less. The land was previously owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Upon the death of said spouses, the property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents. Since then, the lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document denominated "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION," executed on June 6, 1990. By virtue of this deed, private respondents divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are also entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Petitioners claimed that the document was false and perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.[1] On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss[2] the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3)[3] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,[4] falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela.[5]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO,
AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL,ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO
BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J .:
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the Order dated January 12, 1995 issued byrespondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56,
dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners on ground of lack of jurisdiction, as well as his
Order dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the order ofdismissal.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents, denominated
"DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court ofMandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN 2275. The complaint, in substance,
alleged that petitioners are co-owners of that parcel of land, Lot 6149 situated in Liloan, Cebu
and containing an area of 56,977.40 square meters, more or less. The land was previously owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Upon the death of said spouses, the
property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents. Sincethen, the lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document denominated
"DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORALAGREEMENT OF PARTITION," executed on June 6, 1990. By virtue of this deed, private
respondents divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are also
entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho.Petitioners claimed that the document was false and perjurious as the private respondents were
not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between
the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order beissued to partition the land among all the heirs.[1]
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss[2] the complaint on theground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subjectland is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3)[3] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended byR.A. No. 7691,[4] falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss[6] saying that the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation
within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended.[7]
On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss.[8] A
Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed by petitioners on January 30, 1995 allegingthat the same is contrary to law because their action is not one for recovery of title to or
possession of the land but an action to annul a document or declare it null and void,[9] hence,
one incapable of pecuniary estimation failing within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.Private respondents did not oppose the motion for reconsideration.
On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge issued another Order denying the motion forreconsideration.[10]
Hence, this petition wherein the sole issue raised is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MAN-2275.
We find merit in the petition.
Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the
annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OFCONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION," which is clearly one incapable of
pecuniary estimation, thus, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondents, on the other hand, insists that the action is one for re-partition and since the
assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint is P5,000.00, then, the case falls within
the jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela, Cebu.
For better appreciation of the facts, the pertinent portions of the complaint are reproduced
hereunder:
x x x
3. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of spouses Casimero Tautho and
Cesaria N. Tautho who died long time ago;
4. That in life the spouses became the owners in fee simple of a certain parcel of land,
which is more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land containing 56,977.40 square meters, more or less, located at Cotcot, Liloan,
Cebu.
designated as Lot 6149 per Technical Description and Certification issued by the Office of the
Land Management copy of which are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "A-1" and are made part hereof: total assessed value is P5,000.00;
and Marcelo, and which in turn passed to the plaintiffs and defendants upon their death they being their descendants and legal heirs;
6. That the subject parcel of land has for year been undivided by and among the legal heirsof said previous owners;
7. That, very recently, plaintiffs discovered a public document, which is a declaration ofheirs and deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the land
executed by and among the defendants whereby defendants divided the property among
themselves to the exclusion of plaintiffs who are entitled thereto; attached hereto as Annex "B"and is made part hereof is xerox copy of said document;
8. That the instrument (Annex "B") is false and perjurious and is a complete nullity becausethe defendants are not the only heirs of Casimero Tautho; plaintiffs are also legal heirs and
descendants of said deceased; moreover, there has been no oral partition of the property;
9. That pursuant to said document (Annex "B"), defendants had procured tax declarations of
the land for their supposed "shares" to the great damage and prejudice of plaintiffs;
10. That the property in controversy should be divided into seven (7) equal parts since
Casimero Tautho and Cesaria N. Tautho had seven children;
11. That the parties had failed to settle the controversy amicably at the barangay level;
attached hereto as Annex "C" is Certification to file Action;
12. That by reason of the foregoing unjust and illegal act of defendants, plaintiffs were forcedto bring instant action and contract the services of the undersigned counsel with whom they bind
themselves to pay P30,000.00 as attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to declare null and void
the document (Annex "B") of declaration of heirs and confirmation and to order the partition ofthe land into seven (7) equal parts; each part shall respectively go to the seven (7) children of
Casimero Tautho and considering six (6) of them died already the same shall go to their children
or descendants, and to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount ofP30,000.00.
Plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises.[11]
We agree with petitioners.
The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one incapable of pecuniaryestimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill,[12] we had the occasion to rule that:
[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniaryestimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal
action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts orin the courts of first instance would 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, this Court has consideredsuch actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money,
and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).[13]
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance,
support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment;[14] also actions questioning the
validity of a mortgage,[15] annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price
paid[16] and for rescession, which is a counterpart of specific performance.[17]
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law
specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where theassessed value of the real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or
P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the case may
be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2).[18]
However, the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a document
denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OFPREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION."
The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the documentin which private respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero
Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and divided his property among themselves to the exclusion of
petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the
declaration of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaintand the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or
some of the claims asserted therein.[19]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order dismissing
Civil Case No. MAN-2275, as well as the Order denying the motion for reconsideration of said
decision[3] and resolution[4] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59499, annulling
the resolutions[5] and order [6] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 9, in
Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434 which denied the separate motions to dismiss and Joint
Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondents.
The relevant facts are undisputed.
Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be the rightful
owners of Lot No. 6195 (Civil Case No. 5188), a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A (Civil
Case No. 5433), and a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A (Civil Case No.
5434), all situated in Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141
(C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Respondent siblings Gregorio
Lumocso (Civil Case No. 5188), Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan (Civil Case No. 5433) and
Jacinto Lumocso (Civil Case No. 5434), are the patent holders and registered owners of the
subject lots.
The records show that on August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr.[7] and his children, petitioners
Valeriano Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita, Reynaldo, and Gloria, all surnamed
Concha, filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against
"Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought 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. The case was raffled to the RTC of DipologCity, Branch 9, and docketed as Civil Case No. 5188. In their Amended Complaint, petitioners
1. Declaring Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and Original Certificate of
Title No. 22556 issued to defendants as null and void ab initio;
2. Declaring Lot No. 6195 or 1.19122-hectare as private property of
the plaintiffs under Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141 otherwise known as the Public
Land Act as amended by RA 1942;
3. Ordering the defendant Lomocsos to reconvey the properties ( sic)
in question Lot No. 6195 or the 1.19122 hectares in favor of the plaintiffs within
30 days from the finality of the decision in this case and if they refuse, orderingthe Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute the deed of reconveyance
with like force and effect as if executed by the defendant[s] themselves;
4. Ordering defendant Lomocsos to pay P60,000.00 for the 21 forest
trees illegally cut; P50,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney’s
fees; P20,000.00 for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the proceedings;
5. Declaring the confiscated three ( sic) flitches kept in the area of
the plaintiffs at Dampalan San Jose, Dipolog with a total volume of 2000 board
feet a[s] property of the plaintiff [they] being cut, collected and taken from the
land possessed, preserved, and owned by the plaintiffs;
6. The plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies
which this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.[8]
On September 3, 1999, two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were
filed by petitioners,[9] this time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a one-hectare
portion of Lot No. 6196-A and "Spouses Jacinto Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso" for a one-
hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A. The two complaints were also raffled to Branch
9 of the RTC of Dipolog City and docketed as Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434,
respectively. In Civil Case No. 5433, petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:
1. Declaring [a] portion of Lot 6196-A titled under OCT (P23527) 4888
equivalent to one hectare located at the western portion of Lot 4888 as private property of the plaintiffs under Sec. 48(B) CA 141 otherwise known as Public
Land OCT ( sic) as amended by RA No. 1942;
2. Ordering the defendant to reconvey the equivalent of one (1) hectare
forested portion of her property in question in favor of the plaintiffs within 30
days from the finality of the decision in this case segregating one hectare from
OCT (P23527) 4888, located at its Western portion and if she refuse ( sic),ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute the deed of
reconveyance with like force and effect, as if executed by the defenda[n]t
herself;
3. Ordering defendant to pay P30,000.00 for the 22 forest trees illegally
cut; P20,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney's fees; P20,000.00for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the proceedings.[10]
In Civil Case No. 5434, petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:
1. Declaring [a] portion of Lot 7529-A under OCT (P-23207) 12870 andLot 6196-B OCT (P-20845) 4889 equivalent to one hectare located as ( sic) the
western portion of said lots as private property of the plaintiffs under Sec. 48(b)
of [C.A. No.] 141 otherwise know[n] as the [P]ublic [L]and [A]ct as amended byRA 1942;
2. Ordering the defendants to reconvey the equivalent of one (1) hectare
forested portion of their properties in question in favor of the plaintiffs within 30days from the finality of the decision in this case segregating one hectare from
OCT (P-23207) 12870 and OCT (T-20845)-4889 all of defendants, located at its
Western portion and if they refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable
Court to execute the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as ifexecuted by the defendants themselves[;]
3. Ordering defendants to pay P20,000.00 for the six (6) forest trees
illegally cut; P20,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney's fees;P20,000.00 for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the proceedings.[11]
The three complaints[12] commonly alleged: a) that on May 21, 1958, petitioners'
parents (spouses Valeriano Sr. and Dorotea Concha) acquired by homestead a 24-hectare parcel
survey to give them an opportunity to oppose respondents' applications; j) that respondents' free
patents and the corresponding OCTs were issued "on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
misrepresentation"; and k) that the lots in question have not been transferred to an innocent
purchaser.
On separate occasions, respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases
against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters
of the complaints; (b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance; (c) prescription; and (d)
waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel.[13] On the issue of jurisdiction, respondents
contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints 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,[14] 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 alsocontended that they have two main 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 trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents.[15] The
respondents filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration,[16] to no avail.[17]
Dissatisfied, respondents jointly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Restraining Order Ex Parte[18] with the CA,
PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE
TITLES OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
FOURTH - WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION OF HEREIN PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS FILED WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER FIRST DIVISION) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSEDOUTRIGHTLY FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' THEREIN FAILURE TOCOMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 1
RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO SUBMIT CERTIFIED TRUE
COPIES OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICHRENDERED THEIR PETITION (CA G.R. 59499) DEFICIENT IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE CITING THE CASE OF CATUIRA VS. COURT OF
APPEALS (172 SCRA 136).[20]
In their memorandum,[21] respondents reiterated their arguments in the courts below
that: a) the complaints of the petitioners in the trial court do not state causes of action for
reconveyance; b) assuming the complaints state causes of action for reconveyance, the same
have already been barred by prescription; c) the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the instant cases; d) the claims for reconveyance in the complaints are barred by
waiver, abandonment, or otherwise extinguished by laches and estoppel; and e) there is no
special reason warranting a review by this Court.
Since the issue of jurisdiction is determinative of the resolution of the instant case yet the
CA skirted the question, we resolved to require the parties to submit their respective
Supplemental Memoranda on the issue of jurisdiction.[22]
In their Supplemental Memorandum,[23] petitioners contend that the nature of their
complaints, as denominated therein and as borne by their allegations, are suits for reconveyance,
or annulment or cancellation of OCTs and damages. The cases allegedly involve more than just
title and possession since the nullity of the OCTs issued to respondents and the reconveyance of
the subject properties were also raised as issues. Thus, the RTC has jurisdiction under Section
19(1) of B.P. 129, which provides that the RTC has jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions in which
the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation." Petitioners cited: a)
Raymundo v. CA[24] which set the criteria for determining whether an action is one not
capable of pecuniary estimation; b) Swan v. CA[25] where it was held that an action for
annulment of title is under the jurisdiction of the RTC; c) Santos v. CA[26] where it was
similarly held that an action for annulment of title, reversion and damages was within the
jurisdiction of the RTC; and d) Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation v. CA[27]
where it was held that "[w]here the action affects title to the property, it should be filed in the
RTC where the property is located." Petitioners also contend that while it may be argued that theassessed values of the subject properties are within the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial
court (MTC), they have included in their prayers "any interest included therein" consisting of 49
felled natural grown trees illegally cut by respondents. Combining the assessed values of the
properties as shown by their respective tax declarations and the estimated value of the trees cut,
the total amount prayed by petitioners exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Hence, they
contend that the RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong.[28] It is conferred by law and an
objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties.[29] 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.[30]
The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance.[31]
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.[32] 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 [33] and that the property has
not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[34]
The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify an action for
reconveyance. The following are also the common allegations in the three complaints that are
sufficient to constitute causes of action for reconveyance, viz :
(a) That plaintiff Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. together with his spouseDorotea Concha have painstakingly preserve[d] the forest standing in the area [of
their 24-hectare homestead] including the four hectares untitled forest land
located at the eastern portion of the forest from 1931 when they were newlymarried, the date they acquired this property by occupation or possession;[35]
(b) That spouses Valeriano S. Concha Sr. and Dorotea P. Concha have
preserved the forest trees standing in [these parcels] of land to the exclusion ofthe defendants Lomocsos or other persons from 1931 up to November 12, 1996
[for Civil Case No. 5188] and January 1997 [for Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434]
when defendants[,] by force, intimidation, [and] stealth[,] forcibly entered the premises, illegal[ly] cut, collected, disposed a total of [twenty-one (21) trees for
Civil Case No. 5188, twenty-two (22) trees for Civil Case No. 5433 and six (6)
trees for Civil Case No. 5434] of various sizes;[36]
(c) That this claim is an assertion that the land is private land or that
even assuming it was part of the public domain, plaintiff had already acquired
imperfect title thereto under Sec. 48(b) of [C.A.] No. 141[,] otherwise known asthe Public Land Act[,] as amended by [R.A.] No. [7691];[37]
(d) That [respondents and their predecessors-in-interest knew when
they] surreptitiously filed[38] [their respective patent applications and wereissued their respective] free patents and original certificates of title [that the
subject lots belonged to the petitioners];[39]
(e) [That respondents' free patents and the corresponding original
certificates of titles were issued] on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
(f) The land in question has not been transferred to an innocent
purchaser.[41]
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.[42]
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 :
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;
x x x.
In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Cogon, Dipolog
City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00, to wit:
between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691[48]
in 1994 which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all
civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not
exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs." Thus, 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 and second
level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark. This
amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in
the speedier administration of justice."[49]
The cases of Raymundo v. CA[50] and Commodities Storage and ICE Plant
Corporation v. CA,[51] relied upon by the petitioners, are inapplicable to the cases at bar.
Raymundo involved a complaint for mandatory injunction, not one for reconveyance or
annulment of title. The bone of contention was whether the case was incapable of pecuniaryestimation considering petitioner's contention that the pecuniary claim of the complaint was only
attorney's fees of P10,000, hence, the MTC had jurisdiction. The Court defined the criterion for
determining whether an action is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation and held that the
issue of whether petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and Declaration of
Restriction of the Corporation is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The claim for
attorney's fees was merely incidental to the principal action, hence, said amount was not
determinative of the court's jurisdiction. Nor can Commodities Storage and ICE Plant
Corporation provide any comfort to petitioners for the issue resolved by the Court in said case
was venue and not jurisdiction. The action therein was for damages, accounting and fixing of
redemption period which was filed on October 28, 1994, before the passage of R.A. No. 7691.
In resolving the issue of venue, the Court held that "[w]here the action affects title to property, it
should be instituted in the [RTC] where the property is situated. The Sta. Maria Ice Plant &
disputed 400 sq m, more or less, and to be paid the amount of P5,000.00 monthly
until the property is vacated, attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00, costs of
suit and other reliefs and remedies just and equitable.[6]
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which expanded the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to include all
civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein which does not exceed P20,000.00. He argued that since the 346 sq m lot
which he owns adjacent to the contested property has an assessed value of
P1,730.00, the assessed value of the lot under controversy would not be more than
the said amount.[7]
The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss in an Order dated November
11, 1999, thus:
The Court finds the said motion to be without merit. The present action onthe basis of the allegation of the complaint partakes of the nature of action
publicciana (sic) and jurisdiction over said action lies with the Regional Trial Court,
regardless of the value of the property. This is so because in paragraph 8 of thecomplaint, it is alleged that the plaintiff demanded from the defendant the removal
of the house occupied by the defendant and the possession of which is “Only due to
Tolerance (sic) of herein plaintiffs”.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.[8]
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the RTC.[9]
Petitioner then went to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibitionseeking the annulment of the Orders of the RTC.[10]
On May 27, 2002, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision dismissing
petitioner's action and affirming in toto the RTC.[11] Pertinent portions of said
Decision, read:
At the onset, we find that the complaint filed by the Heirs of Juan dela Cruz,
represented by Senen dela Cruz adequately set forth the jurisdictional
requirements for a case to be cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. TheComplaint is captioned “recovery of portion of registered land” and it contains the
following allegations:
7. That since plaintiffs and defendant were neighbors, the latter being the admitted owner of the adjoining lot, the former's occupancy
of said house by defendant was only due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;
8. That plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993, then demanded the
removal of the subject house for the purpose of constructing acommercial building and which herein defendant refused and in fact
now claims ownership of the portion in which said house stands;
9. That repeated demands relative to the removal of the subject
house were hence made but which landed on deaf ears;
10. That a survey of the property as owned by herein plaintiffsclearly establishes that the subject house is occupying Four Hundred
(400) square meters thereof at the north-west portion thereof, as per the
approved survey plan in the records of the Bureau of Lands.
It is settled that when the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry waseffected or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an
accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.
In the latter instances, jurisdiction pertains to the Regional Trial Court.
As another legal recourse from a simple ejectment case governed by the
Revised Rules of Summary Procedure, an accion publiciana is the plenary action
to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted more than oneyear or when dispossession was effected by means other than those mentioned in
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Where there is no allegation that there was denial
of possession through any of the methods stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rulesof Court, or where there is no lease contract between the parties, the proper
remedy is the plenary action of recovery of possession. Necessarily, the action
falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Thus, we find that the
private respondents [heirs of dela Cruz] availed of the proper remedy when theyfiled the action before the court a quo.
Undoubtedly, the respondent court therefore did not act with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in denying Quinagoran'sMotion to Dismiss and the Motion for Reconsideration, thereof, because it has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant case.
x x x x
It would not be amiss to point out that the nature of the action and
jurisdiction of courts are determined by the allegations in the complaint. Ascorrectly held by the Regional Trial Court, “the present action on the basis of the
allegation of the complaint partakes of the nature of action publiciana and
jurisdiction over said action lies with the Regional Trial Court regardless of thevalue of the property. Therefore, we completely agree with the court a quo's
conclusion that the complaint filed by the Heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by
Senen dela Cruz, is in the nature of an accion publiciana and hence it is theRegional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the action, regardless of the
assessed value of the property subject of present controversy.[12]
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on August 28, 2002 for
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 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.
x x x x
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:
x x x x
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of , real property, or any interest therein where the assessedvalue of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed
value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages or whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.(Emphasis
supplied)
The Court has also declared that all cases involving title to or possession of
real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 if outside Metro
Manila, falls under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.[27]
In Atuel v. Valdez [28] the Court likewise expressly stated that:
Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.
Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction “in all
civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property.” However, if the
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in
Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial
court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real
property.[29]
That settled, the next point of contention is whether the complaint must
allege the assessed value of the property involved. Petitioner maintains that there
should be such an allegation, while respondents claim the opposite.
In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint must
allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the
interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.[30] This
is because 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.[31]
In this case, the complaint denominated as “Recovery of Portion of
Registered Land with Compensation and Damages,” reads:
1. That plaintiffs are the only direct and legitimate heirs of the late Juandela Cruz, who died intestate on February 3, 1977, and are all residents of Centro,
4. That plaintiffs inherited from x x x Juan dela Cruz x x x a certain
parcel of land x x x containing an area of 13,111 square meters.
5. That sometime in the mid-1960's, a house was erected on the north-
west portion of the aforedescribed lot x x x.
x x x x
7. That since plaintiffs and defendant were neighbors, the latter being
the admitted owner of the adjoining lot, the former's occupancy of said house bydefendant was only due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;
8. That plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993, then demanded theremoval of the subject house for the purpose of constructing a commercial building
and which herein defendant refused and in fact now claims ownership of the portion
in which said house stands;
9. That repeated demands relative to the removal of the subject house
were hence made but which landed on deaf ears;
10. That a survey of the property as owned by herein plaintiffs clearlyestablishes that the subject house is occupying Four Hundred (400) square meters
thereof at the north-west portion thereof, as per the approved survey plan in the
records of the Bureau of Lands.[32]
Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the subject property
ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of the complaint that
the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the respondents.[33] Indeed,
absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it
cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioner's action.[34] The courts cannot take judicial notice
CESAR T. HILARIO, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of IBARRA, NESTOR, LINA and
PRESCILLA, all surnamed HILARIO, petitioners, vs. ALLAN T. SALVADOR, respondent .
HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO SALVADOR, namely, REGIDOR M. SALVADOR and VIRGINIA
SALVADOR-LIM, respondents-intervenors.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J .:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of theDecision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63737 as well as its Resolution[2]
denying the motion for the reconsideration of the said decision.
The Antecedents
On September 3, 1996, petitioners Cesar, Ibarra, Nestor, Lina and Prescilla, all surnamed Hilario,
filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 71, against
private respondent Allan T. Salvador. They alleged therein, inter alia, as follows:
2. That, the plaintiffs are co-owners by inheritance from Concepcion Mazo Salvador of a
parcel of land designated as Cad. Lot No. 3113-part, located at Sawang, Romblon,Romblon, which property was [adjudged] as the hereditary share of their father, Brigido
M. Hilario, Jr. when their father was still single, and which adjudication was known bythe plaintiffs[’] father’s co-heirs;
3. That, sometime in 1989, defendant constructed his dwelling unit of mixed materials on
the proper ty of the plaintiffs’ father without the knowledge of the herein plaintiffs or
their predecessors-in-interest;
4. That, demands have been made of the defendant to vacate the premises but the lattermanifested that he have ( sic) asked the prior consent of their grandmother, Concepcion
Mazo Salvador;
5. That, to reach a possible amicable settlement, the plaintiffs brought the matter to theLupon of Barangay Sawang, to no avail, evidenced by the CERTIFICATE TO FILE
ACTION hereto attached as ANNEX B;
6. That, the unjustified refusal of the defendant to vacate the property has caused the
plaintiffs to suffer shame, humiliation, wounded feelings, anxiety and sleepless nights;
petitioners, the motion to dismiss was premature and “the proper time to interpose it is when the
[petitioners] introduced evidence that the land is of such value.”
On November 7, 1996, the RTC issued an Order [8] denying the motion to dismiss, holding that
the action was incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore, cognizable by the RTC as
provided in Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended.
After the denial of the motion to dismiss, the private respondent filed his answer with
counterclaim.[9] Traversing the material allegations of the complaint, he contended that the 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.
On April 8, 1997, Regidor and Virginia Salvador filed their Answer-in-Intervention[10] making
common cause with the private respondent. On her own motion, however, Virginia Salvador
was dropped as intervenor .[11]
During trial, the petitioners adduced in evidence Tax Declaration No. 8590-A showing that in1991 the property had an assessed value of P5,950.00.[12]
On June 3, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment finding in favor of the petitioners. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, as prayed for, judgment is rendered:
Ordering the defendant to vacate and peacefully turn over to the plaintiffs the occupied property;and
Dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Aggrieved, the private respondent and respondent-intervenor Regidor Salvador appealed the
decision to the CA, which rendered judgment on May 23, 2003 reversing the ruling of the RTC
and dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The fallo of the decision is as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is REVERSED, and the case
DISMISSED, without prejudice to its refilling in the proper court.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The CA declared that the 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 Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the action,conformably to Section 33[15] of R.A. No. 7691.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, which the appellate court
denied.[16] Hence, they filed the instant petition, with the following assignment of errors:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERRORIN HOLDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE, ACCION REINVINDICATORIA, FALLS
WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT OF ROMBLON, AND NOT WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OFROMBLON.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN ORDERING THE REFILING OF THE CASE IN THE [PROPER] COURT, INSTEAD OFDECIDING THE CASE ON THE MERITS BASED ON THE COMPLETE RECORDS
ELEVATED BEFORE SAID APPELLATE COURT AND IN NOT AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.[17]
The Ruling of the Court
The lone issue for our resolution is whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of the
petitioners, the plaintiffs in the RTC, against the private respondent, who was the defendanttherein.
The petitioners maintain that the RTC has jurisdiction since their action is an accion
reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed
value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction falls within the said court. Besides,according to the petitioners, in their opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, they made
mention of the increase in the assessed value of the land in question in the amount of P3.5million. Moreover, the petitioners maintain that their action is also one for damages exceeding
P20,000.00, over which the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691.
The petition has no merit.
It bears stressing 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.[18]
The caption ofthe 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.
We do not agree with the contention of the petitioners and the ruling of the CA that the action of
the petitioners in the RTC was an accion reinvindicatoria. We find and so rule that the action ofthe petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery of possession of the real
property subject matter thereof. An accion reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the
recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and
possession based on the said ownership. On the other hand, an accion publiciana is one for therecovery of possession of the right to possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after
the expiration of one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty.[19]
The action of the petitioners filed on September 3, 1996 does not involve a claim of ownership
over the property. They allege that they are co-owners thereof, and as such, entitled to its possession, and that the private respondent, who was the defendant, constructed his house
thereon in 1989 without their knowledge and refused to vacate the property despite demands for
him to do so. 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 MunicipalCircuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
…
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, Thatin cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be
determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
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, or any interesttherein, 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.
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 of real property is the fair market value of the real property multiplied by theassessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value.[20] The fair market value is the price at
which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer,
who is not compelled to buy.
Even a cursory reading of the complaint will show that it does not contain an allegation stating
the assessed value of the property subject of the complaint.[21] The court cannot take judicialnotice of the assessed or market value of lands.[22] Absent any allegation in the complaint of the
assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be determined whether the RTC or the MTC had
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action.
We note that 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. The petitioners,
however, did not bother to adduce in evidence the tax declaration containing the assessed value
of the property when they filed their complaint in 1996. Even assuming that the assessed valueof the property in 1991 was the same in 1995 or 1996, the MTC, and not the RTC had
jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners since the case involved title to or possession of real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00.[23]
We quote with approval, in this connection, the CA’s disquisition:
The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reinvindicatoria is, as RA 7691 discloses,
the assessed value of the property in question. For properties in the provinces, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds P20,000, and the MTC, if the value is P20,000 or
below. An assessed value can have reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality where the
property is located, and is contained in the tax declaration. In the case at bench, the most recenttax declaration secured and presented by the plaintiffs-appellees is Exhibit B. The loose remarkmade by them that the property was worth 3.5 million pesos, not to mention that there is
absolutely no evidence for this, is irrelevant in the light of the fact that there is an assessed
value. It is the amount in the tax declaration that should be consulted and no other kind of value,and as appearing in Exhibit B, this is P5,950. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon which has jurisdiction over the
territory where the property is located, and not the court a quo.[24]
It is elementary that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the
presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency.[25]
Unavailing also is the petitioners’ argumentation that since the complaint, likewise, seeks the
recovery of damages exceeding P20,000.00, then the RTC had original jurisdiction over theiractions. Section 33(3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, quoted earlier, explicitly excludes from the
determination of the jurisdictional amount the demand for “interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.” This Court issued Administrative Circular No.09-94 setting the guidelines in the implementation of R.A. No. 7691, and paragraph 2 thereof
2. The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional
amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main causeof action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of
the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
of the court.
Neither may the petitioners find comfort and solace in Section 19(8) of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended, which states:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
…
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceedsOne Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where thedemand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00).
The said provision is applicable only to “all other cases” other than an action involving title to, or
possession of real property in which the assessed value is the controlling factor in determining
the court’s jurisdiction. The said damages are merely incidental to, or a consequence of, themain cause of action for recovery of possession of real property.[26]
Since the 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 bedismissed.[27]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63737 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.