being incidental, is not included in determining the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Now, the law says, “exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs or THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY exceeds P300,000….”

Q: What is the property in controversy?

A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY not real. If the property sought to be recovered
is real, apply paragraph [2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.

Q: You want to recover your car which your friend borrowed but did not return, which court has
jurisdiction?

A: MTC if the value is P300,000.00 or less, and RTC, if over.

Q: Who shall determine the value or how should the value be determined?

A: In determining the jurisdiction of the court, over the subject matter, the allegations in the complaint
governs.

Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.

ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs. HERRERA - 120 SCRA 89 [1983]

FACTS: A entered into an agreement with B where A deposited the sum of P50,000 with B. After certain
conditions are complied B has to return the amount to A. According to A the conditions are already
complied with but B still refuses to return the money. So A filed a complaint which he denominated as
sum of money and since he is only asking for the return of P50,000, A filed the case in the MTC.

ISSUE #1: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be filed in the RTC. It is not an action to collect a loan. You
are not recovering a loan. You are compelling him to comply with the agreement – to return the money
after certain conditions are complied with. You are trying to enforce your agreement. therefore your
action is an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE which should be tried by the RTC under paragraph [1].

“When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon compliance
by the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally due him
under the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation.” So it is
cognizable by the RTC.

ISSUE #2: But according to the plaintiff, when he filed the complaint, it is entitled “for sum of money”
which should fall under paragraph [8]. Is the plaintiff correct?

HELD: NO. The plaintiff is wrong. The title of the action is not determinative on the court. Just like the
rule on contracts where the nature of the contract is not determined by the title but by stipulation.

“The factual allegations in the complaint seeking for the performance of an obligation of a written
contract which is a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation prevail over the designation of the
complaint as one for the sum of money and damages.”

As may be seen from the foregoing enumeration, jurisdiction is determined:

(1) by the nature of the action; or

(2) by the value of the demand; or

(3) by the value of the property involved.

[6] In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions

Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher – what does not belong to any other court, belongs
to the RTC. That’s what this provision is saying.

That is why, because of this, there are problems reaching the SC on jurisdiction – whether a case belongs
to this, to the regular court or to a special quasi-judicial body. And we are going to go over some of
these cases.

SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA - 190 SCRA 77 [1990]

FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the owner of the subdivision and the buyer. Later on, the buyer
refused to pay the unpaid installments. The subdivision developer filed a case for the collection of
unpaid installments over the subdivision lots.

HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction. That should be decided by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) formerly known as NHA. Under PD 957, it is the HLURB not the RTC or MTC
which has the jurisdiction to hear a case involving non-payment of installments over subdivision lots.

The counterpart of this case was the case of

CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA – 191 SCRA 268 [1990]

FACTS: This is also the case between the buyers of a subdivision lot against the subdivision developer.
Only this time it is the subdivision lot buyers who are suing the developer of the subdivision. The
subdivision lot owners filed against the subdivision developer for not maintaining properly the roads of
the subdivision. So they filed a case for specific