G.R. No.

181622 November 20, 2013

GENESIS INVESTMENT, INC., CEBU JAYA REALTY INC., and

SPOUSES RHODORA and LAMBERT LIM,Petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS of CEFERINO EBARASABAL,* NAMELY: ROGELIO
EBARASABAL, SPOUSES LIGAYA E. GULIMLIM AND JOSE
GULIMLIM, SPOUSES VISITACION E. CONEJOS and ELIAS
CONEJOS, BEN TEJERO, POCAS TEJERO, GERTRUDES
TEJERO, BANING HAYO, LACIO EBARASABAL and JULIETA
EBARASABAL; HEIRS OF FLORO EBARASABAL, namely: SOFIA
ABELONG, PEPITO EBARASABAL AND ELPIDIO EBARASABAL;
HEIRS OF LEONA EBARASABAL- APOLLO, namely: SILVESTRA
A. MOJELLO and MARCELINO APOLLO; HEIRS OF PEDRO
EBARASABAL, namely: BONIFACIO EBARASABAL, SERGIO
EBARASABAL and JAIME EBARASABAL; HEIRS of ISIDRO
EBARASABAL, NAMELY: SPOUSES CARLOSA E. NUEVO and
FORTUNATO NUEVA;** HEIRS of BENITO EBARASABAL,
namely: PAULO BAGAAN, SPOUSES CATALINA A. MARIBAO and
RENE MARIBAO, VICENTE ABRINICA and PATRON
EBARASABAL; HEIRS of JULIAN EBARASABAL, NAMELY:
ALFREDO BAGAAN, JUAN BAGAAN, AVELINO BAGAAN,
FERDINAND BAGAAN, MAURO BAGAAN, SPOUSES ROWENA B.
LASACA and FRANCISCO LACASA,*** SPOUSES MARIA B.
CABAG and EMILIO CABAG and ESTELITA BAGAAN, all being
represented herein by VICTOR MOJELLO, FEDERICO BAGAAN
and PAULINO EBARASABAL, as their Attorneys-in-
Fact, Respondents.

The petition lacks merit.

For a clearer understanding of the case, this Court, like the CA,
finds it proper to quote pertinent portions of respondents'
Complaint, to wit:

xxxx
1. Plaintiffs are all Filipino, of legal age, surviving descendants –
either as grandchildren or great grandchildren – and heirs and
successors-in-interest of deceased Roman Ebarsabal, who died on
07 September 1952 x x x

xxxx

8. During the lifetime of Roman Ebarsabal, he acquired a parcel of

land situated in Basdaku, Saavedra, Moalboal, Cebu, x x x.

xxxx

with a total assessed value of ₱2,890.00 x x x. However, for the year

2002, the property was already having (sic) a total assessed value of
₱11,990.00 x x x.

9. Upon the death of said Roman Ebarsabal, his eight (8) children
named in par. 7 above, became co-owners of his above-described
property by hereditary succession; taking peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the same in fee simple pro indiviso, paying the real
estate taxes thereon and did not partition the said property among
themselves until all of them likewise died, leaving, however, their
respective children and descendants and/or surviving heirs and
successors-in-interest, and who are now the above-named plaintiffs
herein;

10. The plaintiffs who are mostly residents in (sic) Mindanao and
Manila, have just recently uncovered the fact that on 28th January
1997, the children and descendants of deceased Gil Ebarsabal,
namely: Pelagio, Hipolito, Precela, Fructuosa, Roberta, Florentino,
Erlinda, Sebastian, Cirilo, all surnamed Ebarsabal, have executed
among themselves a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of
Roman Ebarsabal's entire property described above, by virtue of
which they allegedly extrajudicially settled the same and, for
₱2,600,000.00 – although only the sum of ₱950,000.00 was
reflected in their Deed of Sale for reason only known to them, they
sold the whole property to defendants Genesis Investment Inc.
represented by co-defendant Rhodora B. Lim, the wife of Lambert
Lim, without the knowledge, permission and consent of the
plaintiffs who are the vendors' co-owners of the lot in question, x x
x.

11. Surprisingly, however, the defendant Genesis managed to have

the Tax Declaration of the property issued in the name of co-
defendant Cebu Jaya Realty Incorporated, a firm which, as already
intimated above, is also owned by Spouses Lambert and Rhodora B.
Lim, instead of in the name of Genesis Investment, Incorporated,
which is actually the vendee firm of the lot in question.

xxxx

Hence, the reason why Cebu Jaya Realty, Incorporated is joined

and impleaded herein as a co-defendant.

12. Without the participation of the plaintiffs who are co-owners of

the lot in question in the proceedings, the aforementioned
extrajudicial settlement with sale cannot be binding upon the
plaintiff-co-owners.

13. Further, where as in this case, the other heirs who are the
plaintiffs herein, did not consent to the sale of their ideal shares in
the inherited property, the sale was only to be limited to the pro
indiviso share of the selling heirs.

xxxx

14. By representation, the plaintiffs, are therefore, by law, entitled

to their rightful shares from the estate of the deceased Roman
Ebarsabal consisting of seven (7) shares that would have been due
as the shares of seven (7) other children of Roman Ebarsabal who
are also now deceased, namely: Ceferino, Floro, Leona, Pedro,
Isidoro, Julian and Benito, all surnamed Ebarsabal.

15. The defendants who had prior knowledge of the existence of the
other heirs who are co-owners of the vendors of the property they
purchased, had unlawfully acted in bad faith in insisting to buy the
whole property in co-ownership, only from the heirs and
successors-in-interest of deceased Gil Ebarsabal, who is only one
(1) of the eight (8) children of deceased Roman Ebarsabal, and
without notifying thereof in whatever manner the plaintiffs who are
the heirs and successors-in-interest of the other co-owners of the
property-in-question; thus, have compelled the plaintiffs herein to
file this instant case in court to protect their interests, x x x.

xxxx

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing,
judgment shall be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, as follows, to
wit:

1 – Declaring as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs,
the following documents to wit:

(a) Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale executed by

and between the heirs of deceased Gil Ebarsabal headed
by Pedro Ebarsabal, and Genesis Investment, Inc.,
represented by Rhodora Lim, dated 28th of January,
1997, marked as Annex-A;

(b) Memorandum of Agreement executed between Pedro

Ebarsabal and Genesis Investment, Inc., represented by
Rhodora Lim dated 27 January, which document is
notarized;

(c) Tax Declaration of Real Property issued to Cebu Jaya

Realty, Inc., marked as Annex-D;

2 – Ordering the defendants to make partition of the property in

litigation with the plaintiffs into eight (8) equal shares; to get one (1)
share thereof, which is the only extent of what they allegedly
acquired by purchase as mentioned above, and to transfer, restore
or reconvey and deliver to the plaintiffs, seven (7) shares thereof, as
pertaining to and due for the latter as the heirs and successors-in-
interest of the seven (7) brothers and sister of deceased Gil
Ebarsabal already named earlier in this complaint;
xxxx

Further reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the premises are
also herein prayed for.

x x x x14

It is true that one of the causes of action of respondents pertains to

the title, possession and interest of each of the contending parties
over the contested property, the assessed value of which falls within
the jurisdiction of the MTC. However, a complete reading of the
complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the suit,
the allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

As stated above, it is clear from the records that respondents'

complaint was for "Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of
Shares, Partition, Damages and Attorney's Fees." In filing their
Complaint with the RTC, respondents sought to recover ownership
and possession of their shares in the disputed parcel of land by
questioning the due execution and validity of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale as well as the Memorandum of
Agreement entered into by and between some of their co-heirs and
herein petitioners. Aside from praying that the RTC render
judgment declaring as null and void the said Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale and Memorandum of Agreement, respondents
likewise sought the following: (1) nullification of the Tax
Declarations subsequently issued in the name of petitioner Cebu
Jaya Realty, Inc.; (2) partition of the property in litigation; (3)
reconveyance of their respective shares; and (3) payment of moral
and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, plus appearance
fees.1âwphi1

Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which

comprehends more than the issue of partition of or recovery of
shares or interest over the real property in question but includes an
action for declaration of nullity of contracts and documents which
is incapable of pecuniary estimation.15
As cited by the CA, this Court, in the case of Singson v. Isabela
Sawmill,16 held that:

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which

is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this 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].17

This rule was reiterated in Russell v. Vestil 18 and Social Security

System v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila Inc.19

Contrary to petitioners contention, the principal relief sought by

petitioners is the nullification of the subject Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale entered into by and between some of their co-
heirs and respondents, insofar as their individual shares in the
subject property are concerned. Thus, the recovery of their
undivided shares or interest over the disputed lot, which were
included in the sale, simply becomes a necessary consequence if
the above deed is nullified. Hence, since the principal action sought
in respondents Complaint is something other than the recovery of a
sum of money, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and,
thus, cognizable by the RTC.20 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.21

Moreover, it is provided under Section 5 (c), Rule 2 of the Rules of

Court that where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within
the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. Thus, as
shown above, respondents complaint clearly falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution

dated July 11, 2007 and January 10, 2008, respectively, of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01017 are AFFIRMED.

[G.R. No. 149243. October 28, 2002.]

LOLITA B. COPIOSO, Petitioner, v. LAURO, DOLORES, RAFAEL,

ESTEBAN, and CORAZON, all surnamed COPIOSO, and COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.
Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which
comprehends more than the issue of title to, possession of, or any
interest in the real property under contention but includes an
action to annul contracts, reconveyance or specific performance,
and a claim for damages, which are incapable of pecuniary
estimation and thus properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

As correctly opined by the appellate court, if the only issue involved

herein is naked possession or bare ownership, then petitioner Lolita
Copioso would not be amiss in her assertion that the instant
complaint for reconveyance, considering the assessed value of the
disputed property, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
But as herein before stated, the issue of title, ownership and/or
possession thereof is intertwined with the issue of annulment of
sale and reconveyance hence within the ambit of the jurisdiction of
the RTC. The assessed value of the parcels of land thus becomes
merely an incidental matter to be dealt with by the court, when
necessary, in the resolution of the case but is not determinative of
its jurisdiction.

G.R. No. 104796 March 6, 1998

SPOUSES ROSALINA S. DE LEON and ALEJANDRO L. DE

LEON, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, GLICERIO MA. ELAYDA II,
FEDERICO ELAYDA and DANILO ELAYDA, respondents.

The facts are as follows:

On August 8, 1991, private respondents filed in the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City a complaint for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale of two (2) parcels of land against petitioners,
praying for the following reliefs:

1. Ordering the nullification or rescission of the Contract of

Conditional Sale (Supplementary Agreement) for having
violated the rights of plaintiffs (private respondents)
guaranteed to them under Article 886 of the Civil Code and/or
violation of the terms and conditions of the said contract.

2. Declaring void ab initio the Deed of Absolute Sale for being

absolutely simulated; and

3. Ordering defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiffs (private

respondents) attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00.

Other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable in the

premises are also prayed for. 1

G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999

EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO,

SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO,
JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA,
AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND
MARILYN PERALES, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG,
MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN,
RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN, respondent.
For better appreciation of the facts, the pertinent portions of the
complaint are reproduced hereunder:

xxx xxx xxx

3. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal

heirs of spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria N. Tautho
who died long time ago;

4. That in life the spouses became the owners in fee

simple of a certain parcel of land, which is more
particularly described as follows:

A parcel of land containing 56,97740 square

meters, more or less, located at Cotcot, Liloan,
Cebu.

designated as Lot 6149 per Technical Description and

Certification issued by the Office of the Land
Management copy of which are hereto attached as
Annexes "A" and "A-1" and are made part hereof: total
assessed value is P5,000.00;

5. That the passed to the children of the spouses (who

are all deceased except for defendant Marcelo Tautho),
namely: Zacarias, Epifania, Vicenta, Felecisimo, Maria,
Lorencia and Marcelo, and which in turn passed to the
plaintiffs and defendants upon their death they being
their descendants and legal heirs;

6. That the subject parcel of land has for year been

undivided by and among the legal heirs of said previous
owners;

7. That, very recently, plaintiffs discovered a public

document, which is a declaration of heirs and deed of
confirmation of a previous oral agreement of partition,
affecting the land executed by and among the defendants
whereby defendants divided the property among
themselves to the exclusion of plaintiffs who are entitled
thereto; attached hereto as Annex "B" and is made part
hereof is xerox copy of said document;

8. That the instrument (Annex "B") is false and perjurious

and is a complete nullity because the defendants are not
the only heirs of Casimero Tautho; plaintiffs are also
heirs and descendants of said deceased; moreover, there
has been no oral partition of the property;

9. That pursuant to said document (Annex "B"),

defendants had procured tax declarations of the land for
their supposed "shares" to the great damage and
prejudice of plaintiffs;

10. That the property in controversy should be divided

into seven (7) equal parts since Casimero Tautho and
Cesaria N. Tautho had seven children;

11. That the parties had failed to settle the controversy

amicably at the barangay level; attached hereto as Annex
"C" is Certification to file Action;

12. That by reason of the foregoing unjust and illegal act

of defendants, plaintiffs were forced to bring instant
action and contract the services of the undersigned
counsel with whom they bind themselves to pay
P30,000.00 as attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to declare null and void the document
(Annex "B") of declaration of heirs and confirmation and
to order the partition of the land into seven (7) equal
parts; each part shall respectively go to the seven (7)
children of Casimero Tautho and considering six (6) of
them died already the same shall go to their children or
descendants, and to order the defendants to pay
plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00.

Plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies

just and equitable under the premises. 11
 We agree with petitioners.

The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is

doubtless one incapable of pecuniary estimation and
therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
12
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:

[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject

matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation
this 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
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
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated
in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by
courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). 13

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for

specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or
annulment of judgment; 14 also actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage, 15 annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover
the price paid 16 and for rescession, which is a counterpart of
specific performance. 17

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are
cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value
of the real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in Metro
Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds
P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the Regional
Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). 18 However,
the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a
document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED
OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION."

The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare

null and void the document in which private respondents declared
themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho
and Cesaria Tautho and divided his property among themselves to
the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and
entitled to the property. While the complaint also prays for the
partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action,
which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described.
It is axiomatic 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 plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein. 19

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The Order dismissing Civil Case No. MAN-2275, as well
as the Order denying the motion for reconsideration of said Order,
is SET ASIDE.

[ G.R. No. 227460, December 05, 2019 ]

PABLO UY, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MYLENE D.

UY, PAUL D. UY, AND PAMELA UY DACUMA, PETITIONERS, VS.
HEIRS OF JULITA UY-RENALES, REPRESENTED BY: JESSICA
R. ROSERO, JOSELITO RENALES AND JANET U. RENALES;
JOVITO ROSERO AND MARILYN RENALES, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 182585 November 27, 2009

JOSEPHINE MARMO,* NESTOR ESGUERRA, DANILO DEL PILAR and MARISA DEL
PILAR, Petitioners,
vs.
MOISES O. ANACAY Respondent.
We upheld in several cases the right of a co-owner to file a suit without impleading other co-owners,
pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. We made this ruling in Vencilao, where the amended
complaint for "forcible entry and detainer" specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns
the disputed properties. In Sering, and Resuena v. Court of Appeals,37 the co-owners who filed the
ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owners of the property. In Celino v.
Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,38 the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the
co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common.39 In Plasabas, the plaintiffs alleged in their
complaint for recovery of title to property (accion reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the
property in litigation, but acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned with other
parties, and the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-owners to pursue the case on the latter’s
behalf.

These cases should be distinguished from Baloloy v. Hular40 and Adlawan v. Adlawan41 where the
actions for quieting of title and unlawful detainer, respectively, were brought for the benefit of the
plaintiff alone who claimed to be the sole owner. We held that the action will not prosper unless the
plaintiff impleaded the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. In these cases, the absence
of an indispensable party rendered all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

We read these cases to collectively mean that where the suit is brought by a co-owner, without
repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-
owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners. However, where the co-owner
repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where the suit is brought
against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-
defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.

In the present case, the respondent, as the plaintiff in the court below, never disputed the existence
of a co-ownership nor claimed to be the sole or exclusive owner of the litigated lot. In fact, he
recognized that he is a "bona-fide co-owner" of the questioned property, along with his deceased
wife. Moreover and more importantly, the respondent’s claim in his complaint in Civil Case No. 2919-
03 is personal to him and his wife, i.e., that his and his wife’s signatures in the Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of petitioner Josephine were falsified. The issue therefore is falsification, an issue which
does not require the participation of the respondent’s co-owners at the trial; it can be determined
without their presence because they are not parties to the document; their signatures do not appear
therein. Their rights and interests as co-owners are adequately protected by their co-owner and
father, respondent Moises O. Anacay, since the complaint was made precisely to recover ownership
and possession of the properties owned in common, and, as such, will redound to the benefit of all
the co-owners.421avvphi1

In sum, respondent’s children, as co-owners of the subject property, are not indispensable parties to
the resolution of the case. We held in Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman43 that in cases like this, the
co-owners are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even
without their participation, since the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all.44 Thus, the
respondent’s children need not be impleaded as party-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2919-03.

We cannot subscribe to the petitioners’ reliance on our rulings in Arcelona v. Court of

Appeals,45 Orbeta v. Sendiong46 and Galicia v. Manliquez Vda. de Mindo,47 for these cases find no
application to the present case. In these cited cases, the suits were either filed against a co-owner
without impleading the other co-owners, or filed by a party claiming sole ownership of a property that
would affect the interests of third parties.