Concha v. Lumocso, G.R. No.

158121, December 12, 2007

In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of, 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."
Heirs of Telesforo Julao v. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No. 176020, September
29, 2014
The assessed value must be alleged in the complaint to determine which
court has jurisdiction over the action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations in the complaint, which contains the concise
statement of the ultimate facts of a plaintiffs cause of action.
Flores v. Mallare-Philips, L-66620, September 24, 1986
Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes of action, irrespective
of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions. The causes of action in favor of two or more plaintiffs or
against two or more defendants should arise out of the same transaction or
series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact
as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3
SPOUSES TEODORO and ROSATIO SARAZA and FERNANDO SARAZA v.
WILLIAM FRANCISCO. G.R. No. 198718, November 27, 2013
Although the end result of the respondent’s claim was the transfer of the
subject property to his name, the suit was still essentially for specific
performance, a personal action, because it sought Fernando’s execution of a
deed of absolute sale based on a contract which he had previously made.
Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court then governs the venue for the
respondent’s action. It provides that personal actions "may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the Remedial Law principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides,
or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff." Considering the respondent’s statement in his
complaint that he resides in Imus, Cavite, the filing of his case with the RTC
of Imus was proper.
SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA v. FRANCISCO LINDO AND
WELHILMINIA LINDO, et al. G.R. NO. 208232. MARCH 10, 2014
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal
courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim. But where
the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where
the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and,
hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. These cases are cognizable
exclusively by RTCs.