Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HILARIO v. ALLAN T. SALVADOR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172293 2013-08-28	ARACELI J. CABRERA v. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners prayed that they be paid five percent of the total purchase price of Lot No. 1782-B. However, since the Complaint did not allege that the said property has already been sold, as in fact it has not yet been sold as respondents contend, there is no purchase price which can be used as basis for computing the five percent that petitioners are claiming. Nevertheless and as mentioned, petitioners were able to attach to their Complaint a copy of the tax declaration for Lot No. 1782-B showing a total market value of P3,550,072.00.[42] And since "[t]he 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,"[43] the RTC correctly computed the amount of petitioners' claim based on the property's market value. And since five percent of P3,550,072.00 is only P177,503.60 or below the jurisdictional amount of exceeding P200,000.00 set for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, the RTC in this case has no jurisdiction over petitioners' claim.
	GR NO. 181303 2009-09-17	CARMEN DANAO MALANA v. BENIGNO TAPPA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one's recovery of possession over the real property as owner.[27]
	GR No. 158121 2007-12-12	HEIRS OF CONCHA v. LUMOCSO PUNO, CJ.
Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject properties constitutes "any interest therein (in the subject properties)" that should be computed in addition to the respective assessed values of the subject properties is unavailing. Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "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)." It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject properties may be included in the term "any interest therein." However, the law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed.[54] In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.
	GR No. 155179 2007-08-24	VICTORINO QUINAGORAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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]
	GR NO. 161739 2006-05-04	ALFREDO BOKINGO v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In any case, the present petition lacks substantive merit. It is axiomatic 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.[11] The caption of the 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.[12]