REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGSION
BRANCH 116, TAGUIG CITY

SAM D. QUIZON,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 18-XXXX

-versus- For: Cancellation of

Contract, Recovery of
MARIA GERONA, Possession and Damages
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant MARIA GERONA, by counsel, respectfully
submits this Motion to Dismiss in compliance with the Order
issued in open court last May 25, 2018, and states that:
GROUND RELIED UPON
THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE CASE.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Well entrenched is the rule that jurisdiction over the

subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought, irrespective of whether the party is entitled to all or some
of the claims asserted.
2. The First Cause of Action of the Complaint states:
“First Cause of Action
“9. While the defendant paid the down payment of
P200,000.00 when the parties signed the above
subject Conditional Sale/Option Sale, defendant
however failed to pay any of the subsequent
payments as they fall due within the time prescribed
for their full payment, that is until December 13,
2016.
X x x x.
16. Defendant’s failure to pay any of the remaining
balance of the purchase price and her occupation and
introduction of improvements on the subject premises,

1
 despite the demand and grace period given by the
plaintiff, constitutes a gross violation of their contract
and pursuant to their agreement, plaintiff has every
right to cause the cancellation thereof and the
down payment forfeited in his favor.”

The Complaint on its face imputes breach of contract on

3.
the part of the defendant for failing to comply with her obligation
to pay the full purchase price of the parcel land. The plaintiff
then seeks the cancellation of the Conditional Sale/Option Sale
dated May 2, 2016, recovery of possession and damages
4.On several occasions, the Supreme Court ruled that
breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific
performance or rescission of contracts. 1 An action for rescission of
contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific performance, is
incapable of pecuniary estimation 2 which falls within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.3
5. In the case of Singson v. Isabela Sawmill,4 it was held
that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the 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 courts of first instance would depend
on the amount of the claim. However, 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 are cognizable by courts of first instance
[now Regional Trial Courts].5
6. A reading of the allegations in the Complaint shows
that the principal action or remedy sought by the plaintiff is one
for cancellation or recission of the Conditional Sale/Option Sale.
The claims for the recovery of possession and damages, as the
second and third causes of action, are either purely incidental to,
or a consequence of, the principal relief sought which is the
cancellation of the Conditional Sale/Option Sale.

1 Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, February 20, 2017
2 Id.
3 Section 19, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691
4 177 Phil. 575, 588-589
5 See also Villena v. Payoyo, 550 Phil 686, 691 (2007); Raymundo v. Court of Appeals, 288 Phil. 344,
348 (1992); Genesis Investment, Inc. v. Heirs of Ceferino Ebarasabal, 721 Phil. 798, 807 (2013)

2
 7. No award for recovery of possession, monthly rent,
attorney’s fees and moral damages may be had in an action for
rescission without first conducting an inquiry into matters which
would justify the setting aside of a contract. In short, the relief
for the recovery of possession may only be awarded when
Conditional Sale/Option Sale is rescinded, and the awards for
monthly rent, attorney’s fees and moral damages are only meant
to compensate the plaintiff as the result of the breach committed
by the defendant, if proven. These reliefs cannot be separated
from the main action for the recission of the Conditional
Sale/Option Sale without violating the rule against splitting a
cause of action and discouraging multiplicity of suits.
8. Section 5 (c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court allows the
joinder of causes of action between the same parties, whether
they pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, provided that one
of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court and the venue lies therein. The joinder of causes of
action in the said rule is only allowed in the Regional Trial Court,
but not in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Hence, the instant case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant case
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Complaint dated March 1, 2018.
Other reliefs just and equitable under premises are likewise
prayed for.
For Taguig City, this June 9, 2018.

NAME
Attorney’s Roll No. XXXX/ XX.XX.01
IBP Life Member No. XXXX/Date/ Chapter
PTR No. XXXXX/Date/Place
MCLE Compliance V-00XXXXX/ Date

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Address
Telephone No. XXXX
Mobile No. XXXX
Email: XXXXX

3
 JUSTIFICATION OF SERVICE

This pleading was served on the plaintiff by registered

mail/courier in lieu of personal service because of the distances
involved, lack of messenger and for reasons of economy.

NAME