Scribd
Upload
13 views

Section 7

The document discusses rules for computing docket fees for real property cases in Philippine courts. Specifically, it examines a case where the plaintiffs did not state the fair market value of the property in question as required, so the court could not determine the proper filing fees or jurisdiction. As a result, the court ruled the real action complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Dfc Dar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views

Section 7

The document discusses rules for computing docket fees for real property cases in Philippine courts. Specifically, it examines a case where the plaintiffs did not state the fair market value of the property in question as required, so the court could not determine the proper filing fees or jurisdiction. As a result, the court ruled the real action complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Dfc Dar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, prior to its amendment by A.M. No.

04-2-04-SC,
had a specific paragraph governing the assessment of the docket fees for real action, to wit:

In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value
thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees.

But it is important to note that, with the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC,
which became effective on 16 August 2004, the paragraph in Section 7, Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, pertaining specifically to the basis for the computation of docket fees for real
actions was deleted. Instead, Section 7(1) of Rule 141, as amended, provides that ‘in cases
involving real property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED
IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICH [sic] IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE,
THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION x x x’ shall be the basis for the
computation of the docket fees.

Unfortunately, private respondents never alleged in their Amended Complaint, much less in
the prayer portion thereof, the fair market value of the subject res as stated in the Tax
Declaration or current zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which [sic] is
higher, or if there is none, the stated value thereof, to serve as basis for the receiving clerk in
computing and arriving at the proper amount of filing fee due thereon. In the absence of such
allegation, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action. There is therefore no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the private respondents.
Hence, the RTC erred in taking cognizance of the case despite private respondents’ non-
payment of the correct docket fees which must be computed in accordance with Section
7(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

The consistent rule is that ‘a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee
regardless of the actual date of filing in court,’ and that jurisdiction over any case is acquired
only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory and
jurisdictional. x x x

xxxx

This case at bench bears similarity to Gochan v. Gochan,16 where the Supreme Court held
that although the caption of the complaint filed by therein respondents Mercedes Gochan, et
al. with the RTC was denominated as one for ‘specific performance and damages,’ the relief
sought was the conveyance or transfer of real property, or ultimately, the execution of deeds
of conveyance in their favor of the real properties enumerated in the provisional
memorandum of agreement. Under these circumstances, the case before the RTC was
actually a real action, affecting as it did title to or possession of real property. Consequently,
the basis for determining the correct docket fees shall be the assessed value of the property,
or the estimated value thereof as alleged in the complaint. But since Mercedes Gochan failed
to allege in their complaint the value of the real properties, the Court found that the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction over the same for non-payment of the correct docket fees.

More to the point is Huguete v. Embudo.17 There, petitioners argued that a complaint for
annulment of a deed of sale and partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘the
nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by
the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the
plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the
proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.’

Likewise, in Siapno v. Manalo,18 the Supreme Court disregarded the title/denomination of


therein plaintiff Manalo’s amended petition as one for Mandamus with Revocation of Title
and Damages; and adjudged the same to be a real action, the filing fees for which should
have been computed based on the assessed value of the subject property or, if there was
none, the estimated value thereof. x x x

xxxx
In fine, We rule and so hold that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No.
4633-2K5, hence, its act of taking cognizance of the subject Complaint was tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of
discretion is defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.

Given the foregoing, this Court finds it unnecessary to dwell on the issue of prescription
raised by petitioners.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Orders
dated 03 September 2007 and 21 February 2008, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), 9th Judicial Region, Branch 18, Pagadian City, are DECLARED NULL and VOID for
having been issuedwithout jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint filed [sic] private
respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 4633-2K5 is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.19

You might also like