Heirs of Julao vs. Spouses De Jesus

In an action for recovery of possession of real property, the assessed value of the property must be alleged in the complaint to determine which court has exclusive original jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must clearly identify the property sought to be recovered by describing its location, area, and boundaries in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. Failure to allege the assessed value is fatal to jurisdiction, and failure to identify the property is fatal to the cause of action itself.

Telesforo Julao filed two Townsite Sales Applications (TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667) before the DENR in Baguio City sometime in the 1960s. Upon his death on June 1, 1971, his applications were transferred to his heirs. One of those heirs, Solito Julao, executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights on April 30, 1979, conveying his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to respondent spouses Alejandro and Morenita De Jesus, who constructed a house on the property in 1983. The dispute centers on whether the two TSAs covered the same parcel of land or two separate parcels, and whether the respondents' house encroached on the property titled under OCT No. P-2446, which was issued pursuant to TSA No. V-2132.

Sometime in the 1960s, Telesforo Julao filed two Townsite Sales Applications with the DENR in Baguio City: TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667. Upon his death on June 1, 1971, his applications were transferred to his heirs. On April 30, 1979, one of those heirs, Solito Julao, executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights conveying his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to respondent spouses Alejandro and Morenita De Jesus. In 1983, the respondent spouses constructed a house on the property they acquired from Solito. Solito went missing in 1986.

On March 15, 1996, the DENR issued an Order rejecting TSA No. V-6667 on the ground that Telesforo held two applications in violation of established policy, and directing that TSA No. V-2132 be transferred to the heirs of Telesforo, represented by Anita Vda. De Enriquez. Consequently, on December 21, 1998, Original Certificate of Title No. P-2446 was issued in favor of the heirs of Telesforo, covering a 641-square meter property.

On March 2, 1999, petitioners Anita Julao Vda. De Enriquez, Sonia J. Tolentino, and Roderick Julao — representing themselves as the heirs of Telesforo — filed before the RTC of Baguio City a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property against respondent spouses. Petitioners alleged that they were the true and lawful owners of the 641-square meter parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-2446, which originated from TSA No. V-2132, and that respondent spouses' house encroached on 70 square meters of that property. Petitioners had sent a demand letter on August 4, 1998, which respondents refused, insisting they had acquired the property from Solito by virtue of the Deed of Transfer of Rights. Petitioners contended that what Solito transferred was his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667, which had been rejected by the DENR, and that the subject property was covered by a separate application, TSA No. V-2132.

Respondent spouses answered that they were the true and lawful owners and possessors, having acquired the property from Solito, and that contrary to petitioners' claim, TSA No. V-6667 and TSA No. V-2132 pertained to the same property. During trial, petitioners presented evidence that Telesforo filed two separate applications, with TSA No. V-2132 resulting in OCT No. P-2446 and TSA No. V-6667 being dropped from the records. Petitioners also attempted to prove that Solito was not Telesforo's biological son but his stepson, and that Solito's real name was Francisco Bognot, meaning he had no hereditary share in Telesforo's estate. Respondent spouses countered with two DENR letters — one dated April 27, 1999 stating that TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667 referred to one and the same application covering the same lot, and another dated September 30, 1998 stating that the land applied for under TSA No. V-2132 was renumbered as TSA No. V-6667. They also presented two affidavits dated August 31, 1994 executed by petitioners Sonia Tolentino and Roderick Julao acknowledging that Solito was their co-heir and the eldest son of Telesforo. The heirs of Solito moved to intervene, arguing that their father was a legitimate son of Telesforo and had sold his hereditary share to respondent spouses.

The RTC rendered a decision on August 10, 2001 in favor of petitioners, finding that although petitioners failed to prove that Solito was not an heir of Telesforo, they convincingly showed that Telesforo filed two separate applications covering two separate parcels of land, and that it was TSA No. V-2132 which resulted in the issuance of OCT No. P-2446. Since what Solito transferred was his share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667, respondent spouses acquired no right over the subject property derived from TSA No. V-2132. The RTC ordered respondents to restore possession of the 70-square meter portion, remove their house and improvements, and vacate. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC on December 4, 2006, dismissing the complaint on two grounds: failure to identify the property sought to be recovered, and lack of jurisdiction due to petitioners' failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property. The CA also noted that it was not fully convinced the two applications pertained to separate parcels, given the evidence presented by respondent spouses.

• Identity of Property: Petitioner argued that the CA committed reversible error in ruling that petitioners failed to prove the identity of the property in question.
• Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint.

• Identity of Property: Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioners failed to prove the identity of the property sought to be recovered.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint due to petitioners' failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property.

• Identity of Property: No. Petitioners failed to identify the property they sought to recover, having neither described its location, area, and boundaries nor presented any survey plan to prove that respondent spouses actually encroached upon the 70-square meter portion of petitioners' property, as required under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
• Jurisdiction: No. The complaint failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property, making it impossible to determine which court had exclusive original jurisdiction under Section 19(2) and Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.

• Identity of Property: Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. The plaintiff is duty-bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. Failure to establish the identity of the property claimed is fatal to the case. Here, petitioners failed to describe the location, area, and boundaries of the property they sought to recover. No survey plan was presented to prove that respondent spouses actually encroached upon the 70-square meter portion of petitioners' property. Failing to prove their allegation, petitioners were not entitled to the relief prayed for.

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the material allegations of the complaint. Under Section 19(2) and Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the assessed value of the property determines whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over an action involving title to or possession of real property — the threshold being ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila). Since petitioners failed to allege the assessed value in their complaint, it could not be determined which trial court had jurisdiction. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waived by failure to plead it in a motion to dismiss or answer; under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, and the court may even motu proprio dismiss the complaint when lack of jurisdiction appears from the pleadings or evidence on record. The fact that respondents raised the issue only in their Appellant's Brief was therefore of no moment.

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the material allegations of the complaint — Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties, nor cured by their silence, acquiescence, or express consent. In actions involving title to or possession of real property, the assessed value of the property alleged in the complaint determines whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction. The failure to allege the assessed value is fatal, as it renders it impossible to determine which court has jurisdiction.

• Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings — Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, defenses not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription, which must be apparent from the pleadings or evidence on record. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, and the court may motu proprio dismiss on this ground.

• In an action to recover, the property must be identified — Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must clearly identify the land sought to be recovered, describing its location, area, and boundaries in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. Failure to establish the identity of the property is fatal to the action.

• "Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the material allegations of the complaint." — This opening line of the decision states the foundational principle governing the entire ruling: jurisdiction is not a matter of party consent or procedural waiver but is fixed by law and determined by the complaint's allegations.

• "In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim." — This passage quotes Article 434 of the Civil Code and articulates the doctrinal requirement that a plaintiff in a recovery action must both identify the property and stand on the strength of his own title, the failure of either being fatal.

• "the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal." — This formulation clarifies the exception to the general rule of waiver under Rule 9, Section 1, and explains why the respondents' raising of the jurisdictional issue only in their Appellant's Brief was not barred.

• Padlan vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91 — Cited for the principle that jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint containing the concise statement of ultimate facts.
• Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz vs. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that jurisdiction cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.
• Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 466 — Cited for the rule that in an action for recovery of possession, the assessed value of the property determines the court's jurisdiction.
• Heirs of Jose Fernando vs. De Belen, G.R. No. 186366, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 556 — Cited for the principle that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, and that the court may motu proprio dismiss on this ground.
• Dr. Seriña vs. Caballero, 480 Phil. 277 (2004) — Cited for the rule that the plaintiff is duty-bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered in accordance with his title, and that failure to establish the identity of the property is fatal.

• Section 19(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Grants RTCs exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila). Applied to establish that the assessed value alleged in the complaint determines RTC jurisdiction.
• Section 33(3), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Grants MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila). Applied as the counterpart provision establishing the jurisdictional threshold below the RTC.
• Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court — Provides that defenses not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription apparent from the pleadings or evidence. Applied to hold that the jurisdictional objection was not waived despite being raised only on appeal.
• Article 434, Civil Code — Requires that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title. Applied to hold that petitioners' failure to identify the property — by describing its location, area, and boundaries or presenting a survey plan — was fatal to their cause of action.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1803 dated September 24, 2014, acting as Acting Chief Justice), Justice Arturo D. Brion, Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred.