CIVIL PROCEDURE - Dismissal of Actions - Based on affirmative defense - non-waivable grounds - Rule 15 (litigious motions)

Heirs of the late Sps. Ramiro v. Sps. Bacaron

Topic: Dismissal of actions based on affirmative defense - Rule 15 (litigious motions)

Case Summary: Sps. Bacaron filed a civil case against Ramiro before RTC, concerning the validity of a Deed of Sale.
Ramiro heirs raised the affirmative defense that RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. RTC declared the
deed of sale valid. CA affirmed. On the issue of w/n the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, SC ruled
in the negative. The action primarily involved title to or possession of real property, hence it was a real action. Since the
complaint did not allege the assessed value of the lot, it could not be determined if RTC or MTC had jurisdiction over the
case. Correct docket fees also could not have been paid since this is also computed based on the assessed or estimated
value of the property. RTC should have dismissed the complaint. SC declared all proceedings before RTC null and void.

Petitioners: THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES ALEJANDRO RAMIRO AND FELICISIMA LLAMADA, NAMELY;
HENRY L. RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L. RAMIRO; VILMA
R. CIELO AND CAROLYN R. CORDERO
Respondents: SPOUSES ELEODORO AND VERNA BACARON,

DOCTRINE:
Ground for Dismissal: RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter since it was a real action but no assessed
value was alleged in the complaint, so it could not be determined if RTC or MTC had jurisdiction. Also, correct docket fees
could not have been paid since this is computed based on assessed or estimated value of the property. Neither of which
were alleged in the complaint. RTC should have dismissed the complaint. All proceedings before RTC declared NULL
AND VOID

FACTS
1. Spouses Bacaron filed Civil Case No. 1966 (045) before the RTC against petitioners Heirs of Sps Ramiro.
a. Alleged that the late Alejandro Ramiro was the registered owner of Lot 329, Cad-600 (48,639 sqm) and
covered OCT no. P-12524.
b. Oct 20 1991 - Sps. Ramiro sold the property to Sps. Bacaron as evidenced by a Deed of Sale. Sps.
Bacaron took possession of the property after the sale
c. It turns out that Sps. Ramiro previously mortgaged the property to DBP. Sps. Bacaron paid DBP
P430,150 for the redemption of the property
d. June 1998 - Ramiro heirs forcibly dispossessed Sps. Bacaron of the property
2. Petitioners Ramiro heirs denied the material allegations and raised the ff affirmative defenses:
a. RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case since it involves recovery of possession
b. The instrument denominated as a Deed of Sale should be interpreted as an equitable mortgage
c. Laches has barred Sps. Bacaron from instituting the complaint
3. RTC - ruled in favor of Sps. Bacaron. Deed of Sale declared VALID. Directed Ramiro heirs to execute a Deed
of Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of the Sale. Register of Deed directed to cause registration of the
parcel of land in Sps. Bacaron’s name upon presentation of the DEPw/C by Ramiro heirs
a. Sps. Bacaron were able to prove by preponderance of evidence the due execution of the Deed of Sale
i. Although the original copy was lost, Sps. Bacaron wera bel to introduce competent secondary
evidence to prove its existence
ii. Found that the purchase price of P400k as stated in the Deed of Sale corresponded more or less
to the amount paid by Sps. Bacaron to DBP (P430k)
4. Ramiro heirs appealed to CA, arguing that the complaint was mainly for the recovery of property but Sps.
Bacaron failed to allege its assessed value. Thus, RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
5. CA - DISMISSED APPEAL. RTC AFFIRMED IN TOTO
a. RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter because all the alleged causes of action1 were incapable of
pecuniary estimation and joinder in RTC is allowed in ROC
b. There was no equitable mortgage.
i. Failed to assail RTC finding that Ramiro heirs only had possession of the property since they
forcibly took possession from Sps. Bacaron in 1998

1
declaration of validity of the Deed of Sale or specific performance, and recovery of possession, damages, attorney's fees and
injunction
 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Dismissal of Actions - Based on affirmative defense - non-waivable grounds - Rule 15 (litigious motions)

ii.
Official receipts of realty taxes also show late payment by Ramiro heirs (taxes for 1991-1994
were only paid in 1998 and 1999)
c. Laches also not proven
6. MR denied by CA, hence this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

ARGUMENTS BEFORE SC
Ramiro heirs argue
- RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over subject matter
- Deed of Sale dated Oct 20, 1991 should be treated as an equitable mortgage
- Sps. Bacaron’s claims are barred by laches

ISSUE
1. W/N RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action? - NO
a. Sec 19 BP 129 - RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction on civil actions where
i. Subject is incapable of pecuniary jurisdiction
ii. Involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds P20k outside MM and exceeds P50k in MM
1. Except actions for forcible entry/unlawful detainer - MeTC, MuTC, MCTC have original
jurisdiction
b. Sec 33 BP 129 - exclusive original jurisdiction of first level courts
i. 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 does not exceed P20k outside MM and does not
exceed P50k in MM
c. Nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over it is determined by the
material allegations in the complaint, 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
d. Ramiro heirs argue that the complaint is for recovery of possession of property, hence involving title to or
possession of real property. This is evident the Sps. Bacaron’s complaint which seeks cancellation of
OCT, to have a new title issued in their name, and to be placed in possession of the same. This should be
filed in the court having jurisdiction based on the assessed value of the property but the same was not
alleged.
e. Sps. Bacaron argue that the main relief prayed for is the declaration of the validity and effectivity of the
Deed of Sale and specific performance, or in the alternative, that Ramiro heirs be ordered to execute
deed of conveyance and transfer the property
i. That SC has recognized actions involving legality of conveyance as incapable of pecuniary est.
ii. Actions for specific performance are exclusively in RTC jurisdiction
f. APPLICATION: The averments2 in the complaint and reliefs sought reveal that the action primarily
involves title to or possession of property (see notes)
i. “Involving title to real property” - COA is based on a claim that he owns the property or he has
legal rights to gave exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Title is
the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property and (2) the property itself.
ii. Ultimate relief sought by Sps, Bacaron is the recovery of the property thru the
enforcement of its sale in their favor by the late Sps. Ramiro

2
directing the defendants to return unto the plaintiffs the possession of the subject property; and enjoining and prohibiting said
defendants from further effecting and causing whatever acts of disturbances in contravention of plaintiffs['] peaceful possession of the
property;

that after the fact and verity of the subject property's sale (in plaintiffs' favor) shall have been proved and established in the
course of the proceedings of the above-entitled case, the validity and effectivity of said sale be categorically declared and
upheld: Or otherwise, defendants be ordered and directed to execute the proper deed or instrument of conveyance and transfer
of the subject property in plaintiffs' favor

that [the] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-12524 be ordered cancelled and in lieu thereof, another title be accordingly
issued in the name of the plaintiffs; and

that the plaintiffs be ordered placed in a peaceful and undisturbed possession over the property.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Dismissal of Actions - Based on affirmative defense - non-waivable grounds - Rule 15 (litigious motions)

1. Before any of the other reliefs can be granted, the issue of who between them and
Ramiro heirs has valid title to the lot must first be determined
g. Gochan v. Gochan - where a complaint is entitled as one for specific performance but nonetheless prays
for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, its primary objective and nature is one to recover
the parcel of land itself and is, thus, deemed a real action
i. The court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined by the
assessed value of the subject property.
h. Ramiro heirs did not allege the assessed value of the property. The Court cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of lands
i. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value, it cannot be determined if
RTC or MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction. The complaint filed before RTC should
be DISMISSED
i. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action.3
i. W/N the correct docket fees were paid → the true nature of the complaint is also necessary
j. APPLICATION: Since this is a real action, docket fees are based on the assessed or estimated
value of the property. Neither assessed nor estimated value was alleged in the complaint.
i. Correct docket fees could not have been computed and paid by Sps. Bacaron, so RTC
could not have acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. All proceedings
before RTC are NULL AND VOID.
ii. No need to discuss the other issues

RULING - Petition GRANTED, CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC decision declared NULL AND VOID

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 19, 2010 and Resolution dated May 3, 2011 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01350-MIN are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
dated July 13, 2007 is declared NULL and VOID. The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 1966 (045) is dismissed without
prejudice.

NOTES
Sps. Bacaron complaint - reliefs sought

Respondents' amended complaint pertinently narrates the following:

3. That the above-named defendants are all surviving heirs of the late spouses [Alejandro] Raqmiro (sic) and Felicisima
Llamada-Ramiro;

4. That the late Alejandro Ramiro, father of the defendants, is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Gov. Generoso, Davao
Oriental, consisting of an area of about Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine (48,639) square meters, more or less, and
embraced and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-12524; said property is mainly used and operated as a fish pond,
with some portions of the said parcel of land being devoted to and planted with coconut trees;

(Said parcel of land formed part of spouses Ramiro's [spouses Alejendro (sic) Ramiro's and Felicisima Llamada's] conjugal properties-
as registered owner Alejandro Ramiro is referred-to and acknowledged in the property's title as married to Felicisima Llamda') (sic);

xxxx

5. That sometime in 1991, said spouses Alejandro Ramiro and Felicisima Llamada-Ramiro sold the abovementioned property unto the
plaintiffs herein, as may be shown and evidenced by a Deed of Sale duly executed by the spouses, dated October 20, 1991;

xxxx

11.a. That just sometime after the aforesaid sale of the subject property, plaintiffs took over the possession thereof;

11. b. That likewise, since the subject property was earlier mortgaged by the Ramiro spouses unto the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP). Plaintiffs caused the payment unto the bank the amount of about Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos and
Hundred Fifty Pesos (P430, 150.00) for the redemption of the property from the Development Bank of the Philippines;
 CIVIL PROCEDURE - Dismissal of Actions - Based on affirmative defense - non-waivable grounds - Rule 15 (litigious motions)
12. That Alejandro Ramiro passed away sometime in 1996 or thereabout; That Felicisima Llamada on the other hand died later in 1997
or sometime thereabout;

13. That thereafter (sic), sometime on the month of June of 1998, or thereabout, the above-named defendants, led by defendant Henry
Ramiro, unlawfully and coercively took over the possession of the subject property without any justifiable cause whatsoever, to the
exclusion of the plaintiffs, arrogating unto themselves the supposed ownership of the property;

14. And despite several demands, defendants unjustifiably refused to return unto the plaintiffs the possession thereof, thus causing
unwarranted damage and injuries unto the latter;

x x x x23 (Underscoring in the original.)

In the same vein, the following are the reliefs sought by respondents in their amended complaint:

a.) that a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued enjoining and prohibiting the defendants from exercising, doing and/or
otherwise causing to be done all acts, deeds and activities which may be inimical to the plaintiffs' claims, rights and interest as lawful
owners thereof - more specifically (but not limited to ), the actual operation of the fishpond by the defendants, and defendants' gathering
and harvesting of coconuts and other products found within the property; directing the defendants to return unto the plaintiffs the
possession of the subject property; and enjoining and prohibiting said defendants from further effecting and causing
whatever acts of disturbances in contravention of plaintiffs['] peaceful possession of the property;

b.) that Writs of Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions likewise be issued in plaintiffs' favor directing and/or providing the
same wise (as stated in the foregoing);

c.) that after hearing, the said Injunctions be made permanent;

d.) that after the fact and verity of the subject property's sale (in plaintiffs' favor) shall have been proved and established in
the course of the proceedings of the above-entitled case, the validity and effectivity of said sale be categorically declared and
upheld: Or otherwise, defendants be ordered and directed to execute the proper deed or instrument of conveyance and
transfer of the subject property in plaintiffs' favor;

e.) that [the] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P12524 be ordered cancelled and in lieu thereof, another title be accordingly
issued in the name of the plaintiffs; and

f.) that the plaintiffs be ordered placed in a peaceful and undisturbed possession over the property.

g.) that defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and P1,200.00 as appearance fees of counsel
per hearing;

h.) that defendants be made to pay plaintiffs the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages as well as exemplary damages in the
amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court.

All other reliefs in plaintiffs' favor, as may be deemed by this Honorable Court as just and equitable under the premises, are herein
likewise prayed for. 24 (