Republic of the Philippines

Manila

THIRTEENTH DIVISION

MILAGROS T. DELFINO, CA-G.R. CV. No. 110132

ALLAN T. DELFINO,
ANTONIO T. DELFINO, JR., Members:
MARILOU T. DELFINO-
JAYME, GARCIA, R. R.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Chairperson,
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, M. V. and
LEGASPI, G.F. D., JJ.

-versus-

ANTONIO HERMANO, Promulgated:

JENECYL P. URPIANA AND July 23, 2018
ROCHELLE S. CORTES, ______________
Defendants-Appellees.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

GARCIA, R. R. J.:

Before Us is an appeal from the Order 1 dated March 28, 2017 of

the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 92, Quezon City which
dismissed the Complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale,
Transfer Certificate of Title, Deed of Real Estate Mortgage,
Recovery of Ownership and Damages filed by plaintiffs-appellants
against defendants-appellees.

THE FACTS

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for Annulment of

Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title, Deed of Real
1
Order penned by Presiding Judge Eleuterio Larisma Bathan, Rollo, p. 28.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 2 of 14
Decision

Estate Mortgage, Recovery of Ownership and Damages 2 filed by

plaintiffs-appellants Milagros T. Delfino, Allan T. Delfino, Antonio T.
Delfino, Jr. and Marilou T. Delfino-Jayme against defendant-appellee
Antonio Hermano and defendants Jenecyl P. Urpiana and Rochelle S.
Cortes.

The complaint alleged that appellant Milagros Delfino is the

widow of Antonio S. Delfino, Sr. who died on August 18, 2009. 3
Appellant Milagros and Antonio, Sr. had three (3) children, namely:
appellants Allan T. Delfino, Antonio T. Delfino, Jr. and Marilou T.
Delfino-Jayme. During their marriage, spouses Delfino acquired the
subject property, a residential lot measuring 372 square meters
located at Robina Road, Nagkaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City.
The same was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-
306374 issued in their names by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

Sometime in 2010, appellant Milagros obtained a loan of

P400,000.00 from Badette Guerrero. As security for the loan,
appellant Milagros turned over the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
RT-30637 to the latter. In December 2011, appellant Milagros
obtained another loan from defendant Rochelle S. Cortes using the
subject property as collateral. Instead of a contract of real estate
mortgage, however, defendant Cortes prepared the assailed Deed of
Absolute Sale5 dated November 23, 2011 where it was made to appear
that spouses appellant Milagros and Antonio, Sr. sold the subject
property to defendant Jenecyl P. Urpiana for the consideration of
P3,000,000.00.

At first, appellant Milagros objected to the execution of the

deed of sale for a number of reasons, viz: it did not reflect the true
agreement of mortgage between the parties thereto; Antonio Sr. who
appeared as one of the sellers in the contract was already dead at the
time of the purported execution thereof; appellant Milagros does not
know nor has met the purported buyer defendant Urpiana; appellant
Milagros did not execute nor acknowledge the deed of sale before a
notary public; and the consideration of P3,000,000.00 stated in the
deed of sale was not paid to appellant Milagros. She received only the
amounts of P10,000.00 on November 18, 2011, P50,000.00 on
November 23, 2011, P150,000.00 on March 7, 2012, and P50,000.00
on May 30, 2012 or a total of P260,000.00. Due to the insidious
machination of defendant Cortes, however, appellant Milagros was
prevailed upon. Defendant Cortes assured appellant Milagros that
she would not register the deed of sale and that she would return the
2
Records, pp. 1-8.
3
Certificate of Death, Records, p. 10.
4
Records, pp. 15-19.
5
Records, pp. 20-23.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 3 of 14
Decision

owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. RT-30637 once appellant Milagros

pays her loan. Defendant Cortes also told appellant Milagros that
defendant Urpiana is her trusted friend.

The complaint averred further that appellant Milagros

remained in possession and control of the subject property as she
continued to collect the rentals from the tenants of the apartment
units built thereon. On March 28, 2012, appellant Milagros went to
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City to check her title. She was
shocked to find out that TCT No. RT-30637 has already been
cancelled by virtue of the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale dated
November 23, 2011 and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 004-2011013494 6
was issued in the name of defendant Urpiana on December 5, 2011.
Appellant Milagros also found out that on December 8, 2011, the
subject property was mortgaged by defendant Urpiana to appellee
Antonio Hermano to secure a loan of P3,000,000.00.

Appellants thus argued that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

November 23, 2011 is an absolute nullity for lack of consent or
meeting of the minds between the parties thereto. It is null and void
also for lack of or gross inadequacy of consideration since defendant
Urpiana did not actually pay appellant Milagros the purchase price of
P3,000,000.00. Additionally, the deed is an absolute nullity because
the subject matter thereof belongs to the conjugal partnership of
gains of spouses Milagros and Antonio, Sr. which has not been settled
or liquidated before the same was sold and encumbered. Even
granting, without admitting, that the subject deed of sale is not void,
the same should be considered as voidable because appellant
Milagros' consent thereto was vitiated by fraudulent acts of defendant
Cortes. If the foregoing grounds are found inapplicable, the assailed
deed of sale should be considered as an equitable mortgage on
account of the inadequacy of the price and the circumstance that
appellant Milagros has remained in possession and enjoyment of the
subject property. As a necessary consequence, TCT No. 004-
2011013494 in the name of defendant Urpiana is void for being the
product of a null and void contract. In the same wise, the Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage dated November 24, 2011 executed between
defendant Urpiana and appellee Hermano is also void on account of
the nullity of the TCT issued in favor of defendant Urpiano.

The complaint prayed that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

November 23, 2011, TCT No. 004-2011013494 and the Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage dated November 24, 2011 be declared null and void.
In the alternative, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 23,
2011 should be adjudged as voidable or be declared as an equitable
6
Records, pp. 24-26.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 4 of 14
Decision

mortgage pursuant to Article 1602 of the New Civil Code. It was

likewise prayed that appellee Hermano and defendants Urpiana and
Cortes be ordered to pay appellants moral damages, attorney's fees
and costs of suit.

In his Answer7, appellee Antonio Hermano averred that on

November 24, 2011, defendant Urpiana approached him for the
purpose of securing a loan in the amount of P3,000,000.00.
Defendant Urpiana told him that she just bought the subject property
which will be used as a collateral for the loan. He agreed to lend the
said amount to defendant Urpiana after the latter showed to him TCT
No. RT-30637 and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 23,
2011 executed by the owners in her favor.

Appellee Hermano further argued that appellants have no cause

of action against him because he never dealt with them. He is an
innocent mortgagee in good faith. Prior to accepting the subject
property as security for the loan, he undertook the necessary
precautions to make sure that the property is proper to be the subject
of a mortgage. It was only after ascertaining that the sellers and the
object indicated in the Deed of Sale are the same as those stated in
TCT No. RT-30637 that he agreed to grant the loan requested by
defendant Urpiana. He also exercised due diligence in determining
the authenticity of the certificate of title to the property mortgaged to
him as well as the authority of defendant Urpiana in mortgaging the
same.

Appellee Hermano prayed that the instant case against him be

dismissed and that appellants be ordered to compensate him at least
P300,000.00 as moral damages. By way of cross-claim, he prayed
that in the event that he is divested of his rights over the subject
property, defendants Urpiana and Cortes be ordered to reimburse
him for the total amount of P3,000,000.00 representing the full
amount of the loan plus three percent (3%) interest per annum and to
pay him moral damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

Meanwhile, the summonses and alias summonses issued for

defendants Urpiana and Cortes were returned unserved. In an Order 8
dated June 7, 2016, the court a quo ordered the service of
summonses to the said parties by publication.

On account of the failure on the part of defendants Urpiana and

Cortes to timely file an answer, they were declared in default in an
Order9 dated January 12, 2017.
7
Records, pp. 38-49.
8
Records, pp. 77-78.
9
Records, p. 100.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 5 of 14
Decision

In the assailed Order10 dated March 28, 2017, the court a quo
dismissed the instant complaint pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. During the status hearing, the parties
manifested that the case is one of a real action. The records show,
however, that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding the
assessed value of the subject property. The attachments and annexes
of the complaint are also silent as regards the assessed value of the
property. The court cannot thus determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the subjet matter of the complaint. Under the aforementioned
rule, the only power of the court is to dismiss the complaint. The full
text of the assailed Order is quoted:

ORDER

When this case was called for status hearing,

the parties manifested that there is no pending
incident prior to the re-raffle of this case. When asked
by the Court, the parties manifested that the case is
xxx a real action.

Assessed value of the property in real action is

jurisdictional xxx. In real action assessed value of the
property involved is the very foundation of
jurisdiction.

It [appears] from the records that there is no

allegation in the complaint as regards assessed value
of the property. The attachments/annexes of the
complaint are also silent as regards assessed value of
the property. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if
it has jurisdiction over the subject matter xxx.
Following Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the only power of this court is to dismiss
the complaint.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered,

the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.11

Appellants' motion for reconsideration12 was denied in an

Order13 dated August 23, 2017.

10
Supra, at Note 1.
11
Rollo, p. 28.
12
Records, pp. 108-112.
13
Records, p. 117.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 6 of 14
Decision

Hence, the instant appeal14 which raised the following

assignment of errors15:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, THUS COGNIZABLE BY
THE RTC AS PROVIDED BY BATAS PAMBANSA
BLG. 129, AS AMENDED;

II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
THAT WHILE THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY, THE REACQUISITION
OF TITLE IS BUT INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL
ACTION OF ANNULMENT OF DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE AND REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE WHICH IS
NOT CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION; AND

III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING
THAT BASED ON THE TOTAL FILING FEES OF
P32,322.20 PAID BY APPELLANTS, THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED WAY ABOVE THE
MAXIMUM JURISDICTIONAL VALUE OF
P400,000.00 COGNIZABLE BY THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, HENCE, THE
INSTANT CASE BELONGS TO THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE RTC.

THE ISSUE

The focal issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or

not the court a quo correctly dismissed appellants' Complaint for
Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title,
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Recovery of Ownership and
Damages.

THE RULING

The appeal must fail.

14
Appellants's Brief, Rollo, pp. 19-27.
15
Rollo, p. 20.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 7 of 14
Decision

Appelants essentially argue that the instant complaint is one for

annulment of deed of absolute sale and real estate mortgage, an
action incapable of pecuniary estimation which belongs to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. This is notwithstanding the
circumstance that it involves title to real property. As long as the
main or principal action is the annulment of deed or contract and the
reacquisition of title is only incidental thereto, the action is
cognizable by the RTC. Here, the reconveyance of appellants' title is
dependent on the right of appellants to annul the deeds in question.
Thus, the instant complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Furthermore, the filing fees of P32,322.20 shows that the Clerk of
Court assessed the subject property at an amount that is more than
P400,000.00 which is cognizable by second level courts. The court a
quo is thus estopped from adjudicating that it has no jurisdiction over
the case.

We are not persuaded.

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the courts

to hear, try and decide cases. The principle is that jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of
the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction
over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted.
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is
that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the
action determines the jurisdiction of the court.16

In the case at bench, a perusal of appellants' complaint reveals

that the action they instituted is a real action under Section 1, Rule 4
of the Rules of Court regarding an action affecting title to or recovery
of real property. The allegations in the complaint indubitably typify
an action for reconveyance and/or an action for quieting of title to
land which are real actions. In Uy vs. Court of Appeals, et al.17 the
Supreme Court explained that an action for reconveyance is a legal
and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for
the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land
to him. On the other hand, an action to quiet title is a common law

16
Anama vs. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 192048, December 13, 2017.
17
G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 8 of 14
Decision

remedy designed for the removal of any cloud upon, or doubt, or

uncertainty affecting title to real property.18

Here, appellants claim that they are the rightful owners of the
subject property which formed part of the conjugal partnership of
gains of appellant Milagros and her late husband Antonio, Sr.
Through fraudulent machinations and without the consent of
appellants, however, defendants Cortes and Urpiana succeeded in
cancelling TCT No. RT-30637 issued in the name of spouses
appellant Milagros and Antonio, Sr. and in procuring TCT No. 004-
2011013494 in the name of defendant Urpiana. Appellants also seek
to nullify the deed of real estate mortgage executed over the subject
property by defendant Urpiana in favor of appellee Hermano. The
contract of mortgage, which unquestionably constitutes a cloud
affecting appellants' title to the subject property, was allegedly
executed without the consent and knowledge of appellants. The
pertinent portions of appellants' complaint are quoted:

COMPLAINT

3. MILAGROS is the widow of ANTONIO S.

DELFINO, SR. xxx who died on August 18, 2009 xxx;
4. ALLAN, ANTONIO, Jr. and MARILOU are
the legitimate children of MILAGROS by ANTONIO,
Sr. xxx
5. Spouses DELFINO, Sr. and MILAGROS were
the registered owners of a 372 square meters
residential lot and the Fifteen (15) Doors Apartment
Building standing thereon, located in Robina Road,
Nagkaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City xxx
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-30637
of the Register of Deeds for Quezon City xxx;
6. Sometime in 2010 MILAGROS, without
settling or partitioning the estate of ANTONIO, Sr.
among the latter's compulsory heirs, obtained a loan
of Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos
from a certain Badette Guerrero and as a security of
the obligation, MILAGROS turned over to Guerrero
the Owner's Copy of TCT No. RT-30637;
7. Sometime in December 2011, MILAGROS,
with the consent of Guerrero, obtained an additional
loan with CORTES with the Conjugal Property as
collateral;
8. But instead of a real estate mortgage,
CORTES had a Deed of Absolute Sale prepared where
it was made to appear that for and in consideration of
THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00),
18
James, et al. vs. Eurem Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190650, October 14, 2013.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 9 of 14
Decision
MILAGROS and DELFINO, Sr. had sold their
Conjugal Property to URPIANA xxx;
9. At first, MILAGROS objected to the Deed of
Absolute Sale xxx
10. However, due to the insidious machination
of CORTES that she would not register the Deed of
Absolute Sale, that a Real Estate Mortgage was more
expensive and complicated than a Deed of Absolute
Sale, that she would return to MILAGROS her
Owner's Copy of TCT No. RT-30637 once MILAGROS
has paid the loan and that URPIANA was CORTES'
trusted friend, MILAGROS was prevailed upon to sign
the DEED of Absolute Sale;
11. Contrary to what the Deed of Absolute Sale
purports, CORTES and/or URPIANA had not actually
paid MILAGROS the stated consideration in the Deed
of Absolute Sale of Three Million Pesos nor lent
MILAGROS except for P10,000.00 on November 18,
2011, P50,000.00 on November 23, 2011,
P150,000.00 on March 7, 2012, and P50,000.00 on
May 30, 2012 or a total of P260,000.00;
12. Contrary to what the Deed of Absolute Sale
indicates, MILAGROS did not execute nor
acknowledge the Deed of Absolute Sale before the
notary public and so denied its notarization;
xxx
14. On or about March 28, 2012, MILAGROS
checked her title in the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City and was shocked to find out that TCT No. RT-
30637 was already cancelled by virtue of the Deed of
Absolute Sale that CORTES inveigled her to sign but
promised to not register and in lieu thereof, TCT No.
004-2011013494 was issued on December 5, 2011 to
URPIANA xxx;
15. Plaintiffs to their dismay also found out that
on December 8, 2011 xxx, the Conjugal Property was
mortgaged by URPIANA to HERMANO purportedly
to secure a loan of Three Million (P3,000,000.00)
Pesos xxx;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed that after trial, judgment be
rendered:
(a) On the First and Second Causes of Action,
by declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by MILAGROS and URPIANA over the
Conjugal Property formerly covered and described in
TCT No. RT-30637 of the Register of Deeds for
Quezon City for lack of the essential element of
consent or meeting of minds between the parties and
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 10 of 14
Decision
for lack of consideration and/or gross inadequacy of
the price, respectively;
(b) On the Third Cause of Action, by declaring
null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
MILAGROS and URPIANA over the Conjugal
Property formerly covered and described in TCT No.
RT-30637 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on
[the] ground that the said contract was executed in
violation of Article 130 of the Family Code of the
Philippines;
(c) On the Fourth Cause of Action, by declaring
the Deed of Absolute Sale, if the same is not void
under the grounds cited in the two immediately
preceding paragraphs, voidable for the consent
thereto of MILAGROS was vitiated by fraud as
provided for in Article 1390 of the Civil Code;
(d) On the Fifth Cause of Action, by declaring
the Deed of Absolute Sale an equitable mortgage
based on the provisions of Article 1602 of the Civil
Code;
(e) On the Sixth Cause of Action, by declaring
TCT No. 004-2011013494 void for being the product,
consequence of or derivative of a null and void Deed
of Absolute Sale;
(f) On the Seventh Cause of Action, by
declaring the Deed of Real [E]state Mortgage void
being the product, consequence of or derivative of a
null and void title and for being simulated and in
fraud of the plaintiffs xxx 19

A scrutiny of the foregoing allegations shows that while

appellants seek to nullify as well the Deed of Sale dated November 23,
2011 and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage November 24, 2011, their
end goal is to preserve their ownership, title and interest to the
subject property. To achieve this ultimate purpose, they prayed for
the cancellation of the instruments that constitute a cloud to the
enjoyment of their title to the subject property. Truly, the instant case
is one for reconveyance and/or quieting of title. In Heirs of Valeriano
Concha, Sr. vs. Spouses Gregorio J. Lumocso and Bienvenida Guya20
the Supreme Court held that actions for reconveyance or for
cancellation of title to or 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."

Central to the determination of which court has jurisdiction

over the instant case are Sections 33 (3) and Section 19 (2) of Batas
19
Records, pp. 2-7.
20
G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 11 of 14
Decision

Pambansa 129, otherwise known as “The Judiciary Reorganization

Act of 1980”, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, which speak of
actions involving title to, or possession of, real property or any
interest therein. Under these provisions, civil actions in Metro Manila
involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein
falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts if the
assessed value of such property or interest therein does not exceed
P50,000.00 while it is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts if the assessed value exceeds the said amount. We quote:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

xxx

(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;

xxx

Section 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:

xxx

(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 xxx. (Emphasis
Supplied)

It is crystal clear from the above-quoted provisions of law that

the determining jurisdictional element for civil actions involving title
to, or possession of real property is the assessed value of the property
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 12 of 14
Decision

involved. Thus, it is indispensable that the complaint categorically

allege the assessed value of the real property subject thereof21.

In the case at bench, a perusal of the allegations in the

complaint shows that appellants did not state therein the assessed
value of the subject property. Neither did they attach in the complaint
any document by which the court could ascertain the assessed value
thereof. There is thus no showing on the face of the complaint that the
court a quo has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over its subject matter.
Verily, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of
the property, it cannot be determined whether the court a quo, which
is a Regional Trial Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
appellant's action.22 The court a quo thus correctly dismissed the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The foregoing conclusion finds support in Penta Pacific Realty

Corporation vs. Ley Construction and Development Corporation 23
where the Supreme Court emphasized that if the action involves title
to or possession of the realty, including quieting of title of the realty,
the allegation of the assessed value of the realty must be found in the
complaint. If the assessed value is not found in the complaint, the
action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial
court is not thereby afforded the means of determining from the
allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action pertains to it or to another court.

Appellants' argument that the court a quo is estopped from

adjudicating that it has no jurisdiction over the instant case should
likewise fail.

Section 124, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that

a court shall motu proprio dismiss a case when it appears that it lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.25 In a catena of
cases26, the Supreme Court has reiterated the well-settled rule that the
21
Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007.
22
Hilario vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384. April 29, 2005; See also Spouses Trayvilla vs. Sejas, et
al., G.R. No. 204970, February 1, 2016.
23
G.R. No. 161589, November 24, 2014.
24
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from
the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
25
Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 193625, August 30,
2017; and P.L. Uy Realty Corporation vs. ALS Management and Development Corporation, et al.,
G.R. No. 166462, October 24, 2012
26
Marubeni Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 198485,
June 5, 2017; Heirs of Telesforo Julao vs. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No. 176020, September 29,
2014; Sales, et al. vs. Barro, G.R. No. 171678, December 10, 2008; Salera, Jr., et al. vs. A-1
 CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 13 of 14
Decision

issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at any time, be

raised by the parties or motu proprio considered by the court. The
reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the
very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render
judgment on the action. The rule remains that estoppel does not
confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action
or subject matter of the case.27

Based on the foregoing discussion, We do not find any

compelling reason to veer from the assailed ruling of the court a quo.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The

Order dated March 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 92, Quezon City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MYRA V. GARCIA-FERNANDEZ GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Investors, Inc., G.R. No. 141238, February 15, 2002.

27
Sales, et al. vs. Barro, G.R. No. 171678, December 10, 2008.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 110132 Page 14 of 14
Decision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]).

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Thirteenth Division