CABRERA v. CLARIN (HERMOSO) 4. Respondents elevated the case before the CA.
The CA reversed and set
November 28, 2016 | Peralta, J. | Jurisdiction
Flow of the case: (RTC - MR - CA - MR – SC via Rule 45)
PETITIONER: Nestor Cabrera
RESPONDENTS: Arnel Clarin and wife, et al.
SUMMARY: Petitioner Cabrera filed a Complaint for accion publiciana with
damages against respondents Clarin et. al. before the RTC for their alleged
encroachment over portions of his land. In a Motion to Dismiss, respondents claim
that petitioner failed to state the assessed value of the property to determine the
correct amount of docket fees. The RTC denied as accion publiciana falls within
within the RTC’s jurisdiction. However, the CA reversed the decision and held that
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction because of petitioner’s failure to allege the
assessed value of the property. The SC affirmed the CA decision. First, RA 7691
expanded the jurisdiction of first level courts over real actions. The assessed value of
the property is the jurisdictional element. Petitioner failed to state the assessed value
in the Complaint, absent which, it cannot be determined which court has jurisdiction.
The subsequent attachment of the tax declaration in the Brief before the CA cannot
cure the defect as it was not formally offered in evidence. Second, the issue of the
court’s jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. An exception to
this is when there is estoppel by laches following the Tijam case. Respondents,
however, are not estopped as they assailed the failure to state the assessed value of
the property, from the beginning, in their Motion to Dismiss before the RTC. Hence,
the CA correctly found that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
DOCTRINE: The assessed value of the subject land is a jurisdictional requirement.
Absent such statement in the Complaint, it cannot be readily determined which court
has jurisdiction. Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of
the land.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed a Complaint for accion publiciana with damages before the
RTC against Respondents. He claims that he is the lawful and registered
owner of a land. In 2005, he discovered the encroachment of respondents
over portions of the land. Despite demands, Respondents refused to vacate.
2. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. They claim that petitioner failed: 1)
to state the assessed value of the property to determine the correct amount
of docket fees, and 2) to submit a government approved technical survey
plan as an essential condition prior to filing to prove the encroachment.
3. The RTC denied the motion. Citing the case of Aguilon v. Bohol, it ruled
that “the case is the plenary action of accion publiciana which clearly falls
within its jurisdiction.” Consequently, in its decision, the RTC ruled in
favor of petitioner.
aside the RTC decision ruling that the court did not acquire jurisdiction as
petitioner failed to allege the assessed value of the property. It likewise
denied the MR finding no reason to deviate from the ruling. Hence, the
petition.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the assessed value of a dispute land should be stated in the complaint
for the court to acquire jurisdiction? – YES
2. WoN “estoppel bars respondents from raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction” – NO
RULING: SC affirmed the CA decision. Respondents won.
RATIO:
On the assessed value of the land
1. Petitioner maintained in the RTC that accion publiciana is an action
incapable of pecuniary interest under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
However, he later admitted before the CA that the assessed value of the
property now determines which court has jurisdiction. Now, petitioner avers
that the failure to allege the assessed value of the property in the Complaint
was merely innocuous and did not affect the jurisdiction of the RTC.
2. Before the amendments, the plenary action of accion publiciana was to be
brought before the RTC regardless of the value of the property. With the
modifications under RA 7691, the jurisdiction of first level courts was
expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the assessed
value does not exceed 20k or 50k. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element
is the assessed value of the property.
3. Petitioner failed to state the assessed value of the land. On its face, there is
no showing that the RTC has jurisdiction exclusive of the MTC. Absent it,
it cannot readily be determined which court has jurisdiction. The courts
cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
4. Petitioner likewise insists that the tax declaration it attached in his Brief
before the CA cured the defect of failure to allege the assessed value.
5. The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered. It facilitates review as the appellate court will
not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial
court. Although this is subject to an exception, it was not duly identified by
testimony during trial as there was no proof or allegation that he presented it
during trial or that the court examined it.
6. As the assessed value is a jurisdiction requirement, the belated presentation
of document proving such value before the CA will not cure the glaring
defect Thus, jurisdiction was not acquired.
On estoppel
7. Petitioner claims that respondents are estopped from raising the issue of
jurisdiction.
8. A court’s jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
on appeal. It applies even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal or
after final judgment. The exception is the principle of estoppel by laches.
9. In Tijam v Sibonghanoy, the Court ruled it was barred by laches after the
question of jurisdiction was raised for the first time almost fifteen years
after the ruling had been rendered. In La Naval v CA, the Court further ruled
that estoppel applies when the cases was heard and decided that the court
had no jurisdiction and later on appeal, the party assumes an inconsistent
position that the court has jurisdiction.
10. Respondents are not estopped. First, even before filing their Answer,
respondents assailed the none mention of the assessed value via a motion to
dismiss. Second, respondents raised the issue before there was judgment on
the merits in the RTC and never assumed an inconsistent position before the
CA.
11. Further, in contrast with Tijam and Heirs of Villegas, the case does not
involve a situation where a party, who after obtaining affirmative relief
from the court, later on turned around to assail the jurisdiction of the same
court that granted such relief by reason of an unfavorable judgment.
Respondents did not obtain affirmative relief.