Court of Jurisdiction in Expropriation suit

G.R. No. 234103. January 8, 2018HEIRS OF SPOUSES ENRIQUE AND JUANITA TUMANG, ET

AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION AND POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated January 8, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234103 (Heirs of Spouses Enrique and Juanita Tumang,
et al. vs. National Power Corporation and Power Sector Assets and
Liabilities Management Corporation). — For the consideration of the Court
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking the reversal of the Decision dated May 29, 2017 1 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 10 in La Trinidad, Benguet in Civil Case No. 04-CV-2072
entitled Heirs of Spouses Enrique & Juanita Tumang, et al. v. National Power
Corporation & Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation.
The trial court dismissed the case filed by petitioners for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners went directly to this Court it raising only questions of law.

The Facts

The facts are undisputed. The spouses Enrique and Juanita Tumang,
the parents and predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners, were the
owners of four (4) parcels of land located in Binga, Itogon denominated as
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. During their lifetime, the spouses Tumang executed two (2)
contracts with defendant National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), to wit:
1. Deed of Absolute Sale over Portions of Lot 2, with Right-of-Way
Grants of Portions of Lots 1, 2 and 4 and Waiver of Rights dated
March 15, 1966; and
2. Agreement dated August 27, 1966 reiterating the sale of grant of right-
of-way easements dated August 27, 1966.
 Such agreements were entered into by NAPOCOR in support of its
development of the Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant. Notably, one of the
provisions in the Agreement was:
a) Renounce its right to expropriate the hilltop area on Lot 2, where
improvements will be introduced by the PARTY OF THE
SECOND PART;
Later on, petitioners contended that NAPOCOR encroached upon lands
covered by Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 that were not included in the Deed of Absolute
Sale and Agreement. These encroached portions were used by NAPOCOR
for its Binga Guest House, eight (8) transmission towers, housing, mini golf
course, additional reservoir and watersheds, among others. Petitioners allege
that the total area encroached upon by NAPOCOR was 827,171 square
meters (sqm).
Thus, petitioners filed a Complaint dated December 13, 2004 2 for
Recovery of Possession, Forfeiture of Improvements, Payment of Rentals,
Interest and Damages with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
In their Answer, respondents deny that they encroached on any
property not covered by the Deed of Sale and the Agreement. Further, they
point out that the structures identified by petitioners were constructed in the
1960s and that it was only after 35 years that petitioners now claim
compensation.
During trial, petitioners presented as its sole witness Geodetic Engineer
Benjamin Ventura, Chief of the Aggregate Survey Section of the Land
Management Service DENR-CAR Cordillera Region, Baguio City, who led a
team that conducted a survey of NAPOCOR landholdings in Binga and
Ambuclao Hydroelectric Plants. The survey was for the purpose of titling
unregistered lands of NAPOCOR in line with the privatization of its disposable
assets pursuant to the EPIRA law.
Engr. Ventura's team issued a Report with the finding that the
NAPOCOR reservoir encroached upon an approximate area of 88,870 square
meters of petitioners' Lot 2 with the caveat that further surveys must be
conducted to determine the exact amount of encroachment owing to the
differing surveys employed by NAPOCOR and his team.
Afterwards, respondents filed a Demurrer to Evidence which was
denied by the trial court. Such denial was appealed by respondents to the
Court of Appeals and subsequently to the Supreme Court, but was affirmed
both times. Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Respondents waived their right to present evidence. The parties were
directed by the court to submit their memoranda. Then, the trial court issued
the assailed Decision dated May 29, 2017, thirteen (13) years after the filing
of the Complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
Defendants' counterclaims are also dismissed for lack of evidence and
merit. No cost.
So Ordered.
In dismissing the Complaint, the trial court explained that:
Clearly, therefore, the instant suit is a real action as it involves
the recovery of possession of certain real properties. x x x
Here is the problem. The assessed value of the realties in
dispute has not been alleged in, and no tax declaration has been
attached to, the Complaint. In Quinagoran v. CA, the Highest Court
said:
Nowhere in the said complaint was the assessed
value of the subject property ever mentioned. There is
therefore no showing on the fact of the complaint that the
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the
respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the
complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot
be determined whether the RTC or MTC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The
Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or
market value of the land.
xxx xxx xxx
Without the amount being claimed as compensation specified in
the body of the Complaint as well as in its prayer, there is no way by
which the Court could determine whether the "demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)" so as to enable
it to say that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. 3
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the Decision but was denied
in an Order dated September 5, 2017. 4
From such rulings of the RTC, petitioners filed the instant petition
directly with this Court raising purely questions of law.

Issue

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

In the instant petition, petitioners argue that the Complaint is one for
Inverse Expropriation which is incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus,
jurisdiction would fall properly with the Regional Trial Court.
Notably, paragraph 1, Section 19 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 which
amended Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
In support of their contention that the action is one for inverse
expropriation, petitioners cite the case of DPWH v. Tecson, 5 where the Court
ruled:
When a property is taken by the government for public use,
jurisprudence clearly provides for the remedies available to a
landowner. The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible
or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just
compensation for the land taken. For failure of respondents to question
the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are
deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of
the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power
was exercised. What is left to respondents is the right of
compensation. The trial and appellate courts found that respondents
are entitled to compensation. The only issue left for determination is
the propriety of the amount awarded to respondents.
Such contention is misplaced.
The Court explained how jurisdiction over a subject matter is
determined in Padlan v. Dinglasan, 6 to wit:
However, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over
the action, an examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a
hornbook 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 plaintiff's 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 therein. The averments in the complaint and the
 character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once
vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains
vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature
of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief
sought are the ones to be consulted. (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, there is no action for expropriation to speak of. The
fact of the matter is that petitioners seek to enforce their right of possession
over the alleged encroached portion of their properties by virtue of the Deed
of Sale and the Agreement that they executed with NAPOCOR. Precisely,
petitioners stated in the Complaint that:
10. Subsequently, in utter bad faith and without the knowledge
and consent of Spouses Tumang and/or their heirs and/or succesors-
in-interest, defendant NPC occupied and used various areas of the
aforementioned parcels of land of Spouses Tumang not covered by
the Deed and Agreement (Annexes "G" and "H" supra) for NPC's
Binga Guest House, transmission towers (8) housing, mini golf course,
additional reservoir and watershed, etc.; 7 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the trial court properly ruled that Section 19 (2) of RA 7691 would
apply in this case:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xxx xxx 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
Petitioners' failure to indicate the assessed value of the property is fatal
to their cause. The trial court aptly cites the case of Quinagoran v. CA, 8 where
this Court ruled:
Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the
subject property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the
face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the
complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be
 determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the
defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the
parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the
action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for,
otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on
the defendant.
Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their
complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC
seriously erred in denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all
proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming
the RTC.
As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction. Petitioners have no one to blame but themselves for failing to
state the assessed value of the properties involved.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated May 29, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in La
Trinidad, Benguet is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."

Ruling of the Court : The petition has no merit.

In the instant petition, petitioners argue that the Complaint is one for Inverse
Expropriation which is incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, jurisdiction
would fall properly with the Regional Trial Court.
Notably, paragraph 1, Section 19 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 which
amended Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
In support of their contention that the action is one for inverse expropriation,
petitioners cite the case of DPWH v. Tecson,  where the Court ruled:
When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence
clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner. The owner may
recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner
may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. For failure of
respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period
of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the
power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power
was exercised. What is left to respondents is the right of compensation. The
trial and appellate courts found that respondents are entitled to compensation.
The only issue left for determination is the propriety of the amount awarded to
respondents.
Such contention is misplaced.

The Court explained how jurisdiction over a subject matter is determined

in Padlan v. Dinglasan,  to wit:
However, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over
the action, an examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a
hornbook 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 plaintiff's 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 therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once
vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains
vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The
averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to
be consulted.

In the instant case, there is no action for expropriation to speak of. The fact of
the matter is that petitioners seek to enforce their right of possession over the
alleged encroached portion of their properties by virtue of the Deed of Sale
and the Agreement that they executed with NAPOCOR. Precisely, petitioners
stated in the Complaint that:
10. Subsequently, in utter bad faith and without the knowledge and consent of
Spouses Tumang and/or their heirs and/or succesors-in-interest, defendant
NPC occupied and used various areas of the aforementioned parcels of land of
Spouses Tumang not covered by the Deed and Agreement (Annexes "G"
and "H" supra) for NPC's Binga Guest House, transmission towers (8) housing,
mini golf course, additional reservoir and watershed, etc.; 7 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the trial court properly ruled that Section 19 (2) of RA 7691 would
apply in this case:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xxx xxx 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

Petitioners' failure to indicate the assessed value of the property is fatal to

their cause. The trial court aptly cites the case of Quinagoran v. CA, where
this Court ruled:
Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the
subject property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the
face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the
complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the
defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the
parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the
action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for,
otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on
the defendant.