FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.

VS PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS, June 19, 2018

FACTS: Petitioner obtained a Php. 40,000,000.00 loan from the respondent, however, after
several demands of payment by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to pay the
loan. Respondent filed a petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
(REM) by the Petitioner, over 1,076 parcels of land. The Petitioner attempted to file a complaint
for annulment of the real estate mortgage (REM), however the clerk did not accept the same for
failure to attached the tax declaration which shall
be used to assess the value of the property. Petitioner then filed an urgent motion to consider the
value of the subject matter of the complainant as not capable of pecuniary estimation.
Respondent asserted that RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner complaint because
the action for annulment of mortgage was a real action, thus the filling fees filed should have
been base on the fair market value of the mortgage property. The RTC dismissed the complaint
of the petitioner for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Is the RTC ruling on the complaint of the petitioner for annulment of REM is one of
pecuniary estimation.

RULING: No. The complaint of the petitioner for annulment of REM is not capable of
pecuniary estimation. If the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or
real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of
the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. In the case at bar, the
petitioner’s principal action is to annul the REM. It does not seek to recover a sum of money or
real property. Therefore, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation in which the RTC has
jurisdiction.