REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ___
SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION

______________________ CIVIL CASE NO. _____

Plaintiff,
For

QUIETING OF TITLE,
RECOVERY OF
OWNERSHIP AND
POSSESSION WITH
DAMAGES
-versus-

_________________________
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANTS by and through the undersigned counsel

and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully state that:

On July 26, 2016, the defendants received a SUMMONS

with the attached Complaint from this Honorable Court
requiring them to Answer the said Complaint within fifteen
(15) days from receipt or until August 10, 2016, within which
to file the same.

However, instead of filing an ANSWER, the defendants

through counsel move for the dismissal of the case on the
following ground to wit:

GROUND/S

I. THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE

SUBJECT MATTER.
 DISCUSSION

In the instant case, the court has no jurisdiction over the

subject matter.

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject

matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his
claims asserted therein. (Gocotano vs. Gocotano, 469 SCRA
328).

The nature of the action is determined not by what is

stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations
therein and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective
of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, it is a real
action and therefore, it should be filed in proper court having
jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject
thereof.

The Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over the

following cases:

x xx

2. civil actions which involve title to,

or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds P20,000.00 (
or P 50,000 in Metro Manila)

In this case, the cause of action filed by the plaintiff is

Quieting of Title, Recovery of Ownership and Possession,
Reconveyance with Damages. Perusal of the complaint would
reveal that the ultimate objective of the plaintiff in this case is
to recover ownership of the property subject of instant case as
such in determining the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the assessed value of the property must be taken into
consideration.

The Supreme Court ruled in several cases that

actions for recovery of ownership or actions to quiet title
over real property are actions that fall under the
classification of cases that involve title to, or possession
of real property or any interest therein, thus, in
determining the jurisdiction of the court, the assessed
value the property subject of instant case must be
considered. (Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. vs. Lumocso,
540 SCRA 1)

Significantly, the Court likewise declared in Concha case

that the actions for reconveyance in the subject cases were
also actions to remove cloud on a title, jurisdiction over which
would be determined by the assessed value of the property.

The Court instructed:

“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 petitioner’s
alleged title which was used to injure or vex them
in the enjoyment of their alleged title.

“Being in the nature of actions for

reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one’s
title, the applicable law to determine which 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 xx

(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)

x xx(Civil Procedure, Book I, pages 131 and

132 by Willard B. Riano)

Further, the Court expounded in the case of Spouses

Huguete vs. Spouses Embudo, 405 SCRA 273, thus:

“Petitioner’s cause of action is based on their

right as purchaser of the 50-square meter portion
of the land from respondents. They pray that
they be declared owners of the property sold.
Thus, their complaint involved title to real
property or any interest therein. The annulment
of the deed of sale between Ma. Lourdes Villaber-
Padillo and respondents, as well as of TCT No.
99694, were prayed for in the complaint because
they were necessary before the lot may be
 partitioned and the 50-square meter portion
subject thereof may be conveyed to petitioners.

Petitioners’ argument that the present action

is one incapable of pecuniary estimation
considering that it is for annulment of deed of
sale and partition is not well taken. As stated
above, the nature of the 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, as in this case, the
ultimate objective of the plaintiffs 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.” (Civil
Procedure, Book I, pages 141 by Willard B.
Riano)

All told, applying the above pronouncements on this

case, perusal of the complaint would show that they failed to
allege therein the assessed value of the subject property.
However, the assessed value of the subject property as
reflected in the Tax Declaration attached to the Complaint is
below P20,000.00, thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter as the same falls within the jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court. With due respect, the only
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is to dismiss the case

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered and the interest of

justice, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to
DISMISSthe case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.

Other relief and remedies deemed just and equitable

under the premises are likewise prayed for.

San Fernando City, La Union, August 09, 2016.

ATTY. _______________________
Roll of Attorneys No. 60588, March 23, 2012
IBP OR No. _________; January __________; (La Union Chapter)
PTR No. __________; January _________; San Fernando City, La
Union
MCLE Compliance No.
Issued on January 21, 2013
 NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court, Branch ____
San Fernando City, La Union

Atty. ______________
Consolacion St. Poblacion
Bacnotan, La Union

Greetings!

Immediately upon receipt hereof, please submit the foregoing

Motion to Dismiss before this Honorable Court for its consideration and
approval on August 16, 2016 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning.

COUNSEL

Copy Furnished:

Atty. ______________
Consolacion St. Poblacion
Bacnotan, La Union
EXPLANATION

Copy of the above MOTION was served to the party concerned by

registered mail with return card on account of the distance and lack of
personnel of the undersigned.

COUNSEL