Maslag vs. Monzon

The proper mode of appeal from an RTC decision depends on the jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC: an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 applies when the RTC exercised original jurisdiction, while a petition for review under Rule 42 applies when the RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction. An RTC order declaring it has original jurisdiction when the law confers only appellate jurisdiction is void and produces no effect; parties cannot by agreement or estoppel confer jurisdiction where none exists.

In 1998, Darma Maslag filed a complaint for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of an original certificate of title against Elizabeth Monzon, William Geston, and the Registry of Deeds of La Trinidad, Benguet before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. Maslag claimed that Monzon fraudulently included a portion of her property in Monzon's title despite Maslag's open, continuous, and exclusive possession since the 1940s.

• In 1998, petitioner Darma Maslag filed a Complaint for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) against respondents Elizabeth Monzon, William Geston, and the Registry of Deeds of La Trinidad, Benguet before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.
• Maslag claimed that she and her father had been in open, continuous, notorious, and exclusive possession of the disputed property since the 1940s, and that Monzon fraudulently omitted Maslag's name from the title despite Maslag's contribution to the survey and titling costs in 1987.
• The disputed property had an assessed value of P12,400 as shown in a Declaration of Real Property dated November 12, 1991.
• On June 11, 2001, the MTC rendered judgment finding Monzon guilty of fraud and ordering her to reconvey the 4,415 square meter portion of the property to Maslag, and to pay damages and costs.
• Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10.
• On October 22, 2003, Acting Presiding Judge Fernando P. Cabato issued an Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over the case (supposedly because the subject was incapable of pecuniary estimation) and stating that the RTC would take cognizance under Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
• Both parties acknowledged receipt of the October 22, 2003 Order but neither presented additional evidence before the new judge, Edgardo B. Diaz De Rivera, Jr.
• On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De Rivera issued a Resolution reversing the MTC judgment, ordering Maslag to turn over possession to Monzon, and remanding the case to the court a quo to determine Maslag's entitlement to builder-in-good-faith remedies.
• Judge Diaz De Rivera's Resolution began with the statement: "This is an appeal from the Judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad Benguet."
• Maslag filed a Notice of Appeal from the RTC's May 4, 2004 Resolution, praying that the RTC decision be reversed and the MTC decision be adopted.

• The RTC held in its October 22, 2003 Order that the MTC had no jurisdiction and that the case would be decided pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, thereby exercising original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.
• Because the RTC exercised original jurisdiction, the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for review under Rule 42.
• The parties' active participation and submission to the RTC's assumption of original jurisdiction should validate the procedure.
• The RTC's May 4, 2004 Resolution should be treated as one rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction because of the prior order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction.

• The RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as evidenced by the fact that it set aside an MTC judgment and remanded the case to the court a quo.
• The proper mode of appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41.
• The assessed value of the property (P12,400) falls within the MTC's jurisdiction, making the RTC's declaration of lack of jurisdiction erroneous.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner under Rule 41.
  • What is the proper mode of appeal from an RTC decision rendered under Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the RTC exercised original or appellate jurisdiction in rendering its May 4, 2004 Resolution.
  • Whether the RTC's October 22, 2003 Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction has any legal effect on the mode of appeal.

• Procedural:
  • The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the dismissal of an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court.
  • An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.
• Substantive:
  • The MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case because the assessed value of the property (P12,400) was below the P20,000 threshold for MTC jurisdiction under Section 33(3) of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691.
  • The RTC's October 22, 2003 Order declaring the MTC without jurisdiction was erroneous and void because jurisdiction is conferred only by law, not by court orders; the RTC cannot appropriate jurisdiction where the law confers none.
  • The RTC actually exercised appellate jurisdiction in its May 4, 2004 Resolution, as shown by its treatment of the case as an appeal from the MTC judgment and its reversal of the MTC's factual findings.
  • The determinative factor for the proper mode of appeal is the jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC, not what it should have exercised or claimed to exercise.
  • Since the RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction, the proper remedy was a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

• Jurisdiction over Subject Matter — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is not within the courts or the parties to determine or conveniently set aside; neither active participation of the parties nor estoppel can confer jurisdiction where the court has none.
• Modes of Appeal from RTC Decisions — There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision: (1) ordinary appeal under Rule 41 when the RTC exercised original jurisdiction, filed by notice of appeal; and (2) petition for review under Rule 42 when the RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions, filed by petition for review with the CA.
• Determinative Factor for Mode of Appeal — The determinative factor in selecting the proper mode of appeal is the type of jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC in rendering its decision, not what it should have exercised.
• Void Orders for Lack of Jurisdiction — Any judgment, order, or resolution issued without jurisdiction is void and cannot be given any effect; an order declaring a court has jurisdiction when under the law it has none amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction.

• "It is incumbent upon x x x appellants to utilize the correct mode of appeal of the decisions of trial courts to the appellate courts. In the mistaken choice of their remedy, they can blame no one but themselves."
• "jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside."
• "Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer original and exclusive jurisdiction where the court or tribunal only wields appellate jurisdiction over the case."
• "any judgment, order or resolution issued without [jurisdiction] is void and cannot be given any effect."
• "By parity of reasoning, an order issued by a court declaring that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has none cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced."

• Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that appellants must utilize the correct mode of appeal and bear the consequences of choosing the wrong remedy.
• Zarate v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court may motu proprio review and pass upon questions of jurisdiction even at a late stage of the proceedings.
• Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla — Cited for the definition of an action "involving title to real property" as one where the plaintiff claims ownership or legal rights to exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition.
• Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta v. Spouses Lorenzo Mores — Cited regarding the jurisdiction of RTC and MTC in cases involving title to real property under BP 129 as amended by RA 7691.
• Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco — Cited for the enumeration of the two modes of appealing an RTC decision on issues of fact and law.
• Lozon v. National Labor Relations Commission and Magno v. People — Cited for the principle that jurisdiction is conferred by law and judgments without jurisdiction are void.
• Suarez v. Saul — Cited for the principle that estoppel does not operate to confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that otherwise has none.

• Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court — Provides that if a case was tried on the merits by a lower court without jurisdiction, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section; cited to show the RTC's erroneous application of this provision.
• Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court — Mandates the dismissal of an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of an RTC.
• Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Defines the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC in civil actions involving title to real property where the assessed value exceeds P20,000 (or P50,000 in Metro Manila).
• Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Defines the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC in civil actions involving title to real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000 (or P50,000 in Metro Manila).
• Rule 41 of the Rules of Court — Governs ordinary appeals from the RTC to the CA when the RTC exercised original jurisdiction.
• Rule 42 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review from the RTC to the CA when the RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction.