Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Feliciano P. Legaspi

Annexes to a complaint, such as a tax declaration, are deemed part of the complaint for purposes of determining jurisdiction; and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas may be represented by private counsel when the Monetary Board authorizes such representation under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 7653.

Petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is the entity whose acquired property in Norzagaray, Bulacan is the subject of the controversy; respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi was the incumbent Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan at the time material to the case and one of the defendants in the underlying action. The property is in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan and is allegedly covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent No. 257917. Jurisdiction over real actions is governed by BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, which vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the RTC where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00, while representation of BSP is governed by RA 7653, Section 18, which allows the Governor to represent BSP through counsel, including private counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board.

BSP filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate, and damages, with an application for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction, against Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon, Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., Ex-Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi, and respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, the incumbent Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan at the time of filing. The complaint, dated April 10, 2008, concerned a dumpsite or landfill in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, in an area allegedly covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent No. 257917. The defendants filed their Answer. On May 13, 2008, the RTC issued an Order mandating the issuance of a preliminary injunction, enjoining Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr. and Legaspi, and persons acting for and in their behalf, from pursuing the construction, development, and/or operation of the dumpsite or landfill.

Legaspi filed a Motion to Dismiss dated August 15, 2008. He alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of BSP because the suit was unauthorized by BSP itself and the counsel representing BSP was not authorized and could not bind BSP. He also alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter because the complaint was prima facie void and illegal representation produces no legal effect. In addition, he asserted that the complaint was initiated without the authority of the Monetary Board and was not prepared and signed by the OSG, the statutory counsel of government agencies.

BSP opposed the motion, arguing that the complaint was filed pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. 8865 dated June 17, 2004 and was verified by Geraldine Alag, Director of Asset Management of BSP, who stated that she was authorized by Monetary Board Resolutions No. 805 dated June 17, 2008 and 1005 dated July 29, 2005. BSP further claimed that it was not precluded from being represented by a private counsel of its own choice. After respondent Legaspi filed a Reply, to which BSP filed a Rejoinder, and against which Legaspi filed a Rejoinder, the RTC rendered its Order denying the motion to dismiss.

In denying the motion, the RTC ruled that it had acquired jurisdiction over the person of BSP when BSP filed the Complaint dated April 10, 2008. The RTC adjudged that in suits involving BSP, the Monetary Board may authorize the Governor to represent it personally or through counsel, even a private counsel, and the authority to represent BSP may be delegated to any other officer. It considered that BSP's complaint dated April 10, 2008 was verified by Geraldine C. Alag, Director of its Asset Management Department, and the Secretary's Certificate issued by Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Secretary of BSP's Monetary Board, attesting to Monetary Board Resolution No. 900, adopted and passed on July 18, 2008, containing the Board's approval of the recommendation of the Asset Management Department to engage the services of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law Offices.

Legaspi filed a motion for reconsideration, adding as an argument that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the action because the complaint, a real action, failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property. BSP opposed, claiming that since the subject property contains an area of 4,838,736 square meters, it was unthinkable that the property would have an assessed value of less than P20,000.00, which is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. BSP further stated that a tax declaration showing the assessed value of P28,538,900.00 and latest zonal value of P145,162,080.00 was attached to the complaint. The RTC, in its Order dated April 3, 2009, denied the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court's decision also refers to a tax declaration, Annex "N" of the complaint, showing an assessed value of P215,320.00.

• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter: Petitioner BSP argued that the RTC of Malolos City has exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 209-M-2008 because the property involved has an assessed value exceeding P20,000.00, as shown by the tax declaration attached to the complaint; the non-inclusion of the amount on the face of the complaint is not fatal because annexes are part of the complaint.
• Judicial Notice: Petitioner BSP maintained that the RTC properly took judicial notice of the assessed value of the subject property, a public record attached to the complaint, and that Quinagoran is inapplicable because there the assessed value was not on record.
• Legal Representation: Petitioner BSP argued that it lawfully engaged the services of its counsel; under RA 7653, the BSP Governor may represent BSP through counsel, including private counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board, and may delegate that authority to other officers. It cited Monetary Board resolutions and the verification by Geraldine Alag and the Secretary's Certificate for MB Resolution No. 900 approving the engagement of OKMA Law.
• Jurisdiction over Person: Petitioner BSP argued that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over its person when it filed the Complaint dated April 10, 2008, and that the suit was authorized by Monetary Board Resolution No. 8865 dated June 17, 2004.

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Person: Respondent Legaspi alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of BSP because the suit was unauthorized by BSP and the counsel representing BSP was not authorized and could not bind BSP.
• Lack of Jurisdiction over Subject Matter: Respondent Legaspi alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter because the complaint was prima facie void and illegal representation produces no legal effect.
• Absence of Monetary Board Authority and OSG Representation: Respondent Legaspi asserted that the complaint was initiated without the authority of the Monetary Board and was not prepared and signed by the OSG, the statutory counsel of government agencies.
• Failure to Allege Assessed Value: In his motion for reconsideration, Respondent Legaspi added that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the action because the complaint, a real action, failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property.

• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter: Whether the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over the complaint where the assessed value is not alleged on the face of the complaint but a tax declaration is attached as an annex.
• Judicial Notice of Assessed Value: Whether the RTC may take judicial notice of the assessed value of the subject property based on the tax declaration attached to the complaint.
• Legal Representation of BSP: Whether BSP may be represented by a private law firm or private counsel rather than the OSG or OGCC when authorized by the Monetary Board under RA 7653.
• Jurisdiction over Person of BSP: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of BSP despite allegations that the suit and its counsel were unauthorized.

• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter: Yes. The RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00; the tax declaration attached to the complaint is deemed part of the complaint and shows an assessed value of P215,320.00.
• Judicial Notice of Assessed Value: Yes. A court may take judicial notice of its own records and public records on file; the attached tax declaration is a public record on file with the court.
• Legal Representation of BSP: Yes. Under Section 18 of RA 7653, the BSP Governor may represent BSP through counsel, including private counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board, and may delegate that authority.
• Jurisdiction over Person of BSP: Yes. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over BSP when BSP filed the complaint, and the filing and engagement of counsel were duly authorized by the Monetary Board.

• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter: Section 19 of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the RTC over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00. The complaint did not state the assessed value on its face, but this omission is not fatal because a tax declaration, Annex "N," was attached and showed an assessed value of P215,320.00. Annexes to a complaint are deemed part of, and should be considered together with, the complaint; Fluor Daniel and Jornales support this rule. The RTC also properly took judicial notice of the assessed value because the tax declaration is a public record on file with the court. The CA's reliance on Quinagoran is misplaced: in Quinagoran, the complaint did not allege an assessed value exceeding P20,000.00 and no tax declaration or other document showing the assessed value was attached, whereas here the tax declaration was attached. Given the property's area of 4,838,736 square meters, an assessed value below P20,000.00 would be absurd. Thus, the RTC had jurisdiction.
• Judicial Notice of Assessed Value: A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same parties, the files of related cases in the same court, and public records on file in the same court. Since the tax declaration was attached to the complaint, it is considered on file with the court and may be judicially noticed. The CA's contrary ruling based on Quinagoran does not apply because the assessed value was not on record in Quinagoran.
• Legal Representation of BSP: Section 18 of RA 7653 authorizes the BSP Governor to represent the Bangko Sentral, either personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as may be authorized by the Monetary Board, in any legal proceedings, action, or specialized legal studies; the Governor may also delegate this power to other officers upon his own responsibility. The RTC found that BSP justified its representation: the complaint was verified by Geraldine C. Alag, Director of the Asset Management Department, under Monetary Board Resolution No. 865 dated June 17, 2004, and the Secretary's Certificate issued by Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas attested to Monetary Board Resolution No. 900, adopted July 18, 2008, approving the engagement of OKMA Law. Neither the Governor, the General Counsel, nor the Monetary Board disowned the authority for the filing or the engagement of counsel. The CA's ruling that BSP, as a government-owned and controlled corporation, should have been represented by the OSG or OGCC is rejected because RA 7653 specifically permits representation by private counsel upon Monetary Board authorization. Thus, the filing and engagement of counsel were duly authorized.
• Jurisdiction over Person of BSP: The RTC acquired jurisdiction over BSP when BSP filed the complaint. The challenge to the suit and counsel's authority fails because the Monetary Board authorized the filing and the engagement of private counsel, and no disavowal was made by the Governor, General Counsel, or Monetary Board. The motion to dismiss on this ground was therefore properly denied.

• Annexes as Part of the Complaint — In determining jurisdiction and the sufficiency of a cause of action, annexes to a complaint are deemed part of, and should be considered together with, the complaint. The Court applied this rule to the tax declaration attached as Annex "N," which showed an assessed value of P215,320.00 and thus supported the RTC's jurisdiction over the real action.
• Judicial Notice of Public Records on File — Courts may take judicial notice of their own acts and records, facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, and public records on file in the same court. Because the tax declaration was attached to the complaint, it was on file and could be judicially noticed to establish the assessed value of the property.
• Representation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas — Under Section 18 of RA 7653, the BSP Governor is the principal representative of the Monetary Board and the BSP and may represent the BSP, either personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board; the Governor may delegate this power to other officers. The Court applied this to uphold BSP's engagement of OKMA Law and the filing of the suit upon Monetary Board resolutions, absent any disavowal by the Governor, General Counsel, or Monetary Board.
• Rule 45 Limitation and Conflicting Factual Findings — Although Rule 45 generally permits only questions of law, the Court recognized exceptions, including when the findings of fact are conflicting. Because the RTC and the CA had different findings of fact, the Court addressed the issues raised.

• "The non-inclusion on the face of the complaint of the amount of the property, however, is not fatal because attached in the complaint is a tax declaration (Annex "N" in the complaint) of the property in question showing that it has an assessed value of P215,320.00." — States the ratio on jurisdiction: the omission of the assessed value from the complaint's face did not defeat RTC jurisdiction because the attached tax declaration supplied the required value.
• "It must be emphasized that annexes to a complaint are deemed part of, and should be considered together with the complaint." — Articulates the canonical rule on annexes, which the Court used to treat the tax declaration as part of the complaint for jurisdictional purposes.
• "Under Republic Act No. 7653, or the New Central Bank Act, the BSP Governor is authorized to represent the Bangko Sentral, either personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as may be authorized by the Monetary Board, in any legal proceedings, action or specialized legal studies." — Defines the statutory basis for BSP's representation by private counsel, the key rule rejecting the CA's OSG/OGCC requirement.
• "It is significant to note that neither the Governor or General Counsel nor the Monetary Board of BSP has come out to disown the authority given for the filing of the instant suit and for the engagement of the services of BSP's counsel of record in this case." — Supports the finding that BSP's filing and engagement of private counsel were duly authorized, as no authorized organ disavowed them.

• Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines vs. E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd., 555 Phil. 295 (2007) — Followed for the rule that a complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief; conversely, attachments are considered in determining sufficiency.
• Jornales, et al. vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, et al., 118 Phil. 909, 911 (1963) — Followed for the rule that annexes to a complaint are deemed part of, and should be considered together with, the complaint.
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 428, 437 (1997) — Followed for the rule that a court may take judicial notice of its own acts and records, facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, and public records on file in the same court.
• Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 650, 661 (2007) — Distinguished; the CA cited it to bar judicial notice of assessed value, but the Supreme Court held it inapplicable because in Quinagoran the complaint did not allege assessed value exceeding P20,000 and no tax declaration or other document showing assessed value was attached, unlike here.

• Section 19, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Vests the RTC with exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00. Applied because the attached tax declaration showed an assessed value of P215,320.00, bringing the case within RTC jurisdiction.
• Section 18, Republic Act No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) — Provides that the BSP Governor is the principal representative of the Monetary Board and the BSP; may represent the BSP personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as authorized by the Monetary Board; and may delegate this power to other officers. Applied to uphold BSP's representation by OKMA Law and the filing of the suit upon Monetary Board authorization.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law shall be raised in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, subject to exceptions. The Court noted that the RTC and the CA had different findings of fact, justifying review. Applied to address the issues despite the Rule 45 limitation.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.