FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS v.

PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATIONS, GR No. 202836, 2018-06-19
Facts:
irst Sarmiento obtained from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) a P40,000,000.00
loan, which was secured by a real estate mortgage[5] over 1,076 parcels of land.[6]
On March 15, 2003,[7] the loan agreement was amended[8] with the increase of the loan amount
to P51,200,000.00. On September 15, 2003, the loan agreement was further amended[9] when
the loan amount was increased to P100,000,000.00.
On January 2, 2006,[10] PBCOM filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage.[11] It claimed in its Petition that it sent First Sarmiento several demand letters, yet
First Sarmiento still failed to pay the principal amount and accrued interest on the loan. This
prompted PBCOM to resort to extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, a recourse
granted to it under the loan agreement
Also on December 29, 2011, the mortgaged properties were auctioned and sold to PBCOM as
the highest bidder.[15]
, First Sarmiento filed a Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage and its amendments,
with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.[16] It
paid a filing fee of P5,545.00
First Sarmiento claimed in its Complaint that it never received the loan proceeds of
P100,000,000.00 from PBCOM, yet the latter still sought the extrajudicial foreclosure of real
estate mortgage. It prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Ex-Officio Sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage or registering the certificate of sale in PBCOM's favor with the Registry of Deeds of
Bulacan.[18]That same day, Judge Francisco issued an ex-parte temporary restraining order for
72 hours, enjoining the registration of the certificate of sale with the Registry of Deeds of Bulaca
On January 4, 2012, the Regional Trial Court directed the parties to observe the status quo ante.
PBCOM asserted that the Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over First
Sarmiento's Complaint because the action for annulment of mortgage was a real action; thus, the
filing fees filed should have been based on the fair market value of the mortgaged properties... n
April 3, 2012, Branch 11, Regional Trial Court,[25] Malolos City, Bulacan dismissed the
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction:
First Sarmiento sought direct recourse to this Court with its Petition for Review[29] under Rule
45
Issues:
The only issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Regional Trial Court obtained
jurisdiction over First Sarmiento Corporation, Inc.'s Complaint for annulment of real estate
mortgage.
Ruling:
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court allows for a direct recourse to this Court by appeal from a
judgment, final order, or resolution of the Regional Trial Court. Rule 45, Section
Rule 41, Section 2(c) likewise provides:Section 2. Modes of appeal. —....(c) Appeal by
certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be
to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
Considering that the issue of jurisdiction is a pure question of law,[57] petitioner did not err in
filing its appeal directly with this Court pursuant to law and prevailing jurisprudence.
Petitioner contends that its Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage has a subject
incapable of pecuniary estimation because it was not intended to recover ownership or
possession of the mortgaged properties sold to respondent during the auction sale.[58] It insists
that it had ownership and possession of the mortgaged properties when it filed its Complaint;
hence, it never expressly or impliedly sought recovery of their ownership or possession.[59]The
petition is meritorious.
Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts with
exclusive, original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation."