Regalado vs. de la Pena

In an accion publiciana, the assessed value of the real property must be alleged in the complaint to determine whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction, and jurisdiction cannot be presumed from the area of the land, conferred by agreement of the parties, or based on a court's erroneous belief that it has jurisdiction.

Respondents — Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, Jose, Jessica, and Jaime Antonio, all surnamed de la Peña — are the registered owners of two parcels of land with a total area of 44 hectares located in Murcia, Negros Occidental, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-103187 and T-103189. Republic Act No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, was approved on March 25, 1994 and took effect on April 15, 1994, prior to the filing of the complaint in 1998. Under RA 7691, the assessed value of real property determines whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving possession of real property.

Respondents — Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, Jose, Jessica, and Jaime Antonio, all surnamed de la Peña — are the registered owners of two parcels of land with a total area of 44 hectares located in Murcia, Negros Occidental, referred to as Lot Nos. 138-D and 138-S, and respectively covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-103187 and T-103189. According to respondents, sometime in 1994, without their knowledge and consent, petitioner Joseph Regalado entered, took possession of, and planted sugar cane on the subject properties without paying rent. During the crop year 1995-1996, respondents discovered the alleged illegal entry and verbally demanded that petitioner vacate the properties, but he refused.

The parties thereafter appeared before the Barangay Office of Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros Occidental, but failed to reach an amicable settlement. On September 29, 1997, the Lupon Tagapamayapa issued a Certificate to File Action, and on March 9, 1998, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with injunction against petitioner. In his Answer, petitioner countered that in 1994, Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, and Jessica had executed separate Waivers of Undivided Share of Lands renouncing their rights and interests over the subject properties in favor of Jaime, who subsequently waived his rights and interests to petitioner. Petitioner claimed that respondents had intentionally relinquished their interests and did not attempt to enter the properties.

Respondents, in their Reply, alleged that the waiver of rights in favor of Jaime was conditioned on the payment of their P6.7 million loan with Republic Planters Bank and Philippine National Bank, and that in case the properties were sold, the proceeds would be equally distributed among them. They further stated that Jaime's subsequent waiver to petitioner should have been made with the conformity of the banks where the properties were mortgaged and conditioned on the payment of the P6.7 million loan. Neither Jaime nor petitioner paid any amount to the banks, rendering the waivers void according to respondents.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint was one for ejectment and should have been filed with the MTC. The RTC denied the motion on July 31, 2000, presuming that the assessed value of the 44-hectare properties exceeded P20,000.00. On January 20, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering petitioner to turn over the subject properties to respondents and to pay P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, finding that petitioner failed to prove he paid any consideration for Jaime's waiver of rights. Both parties appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC Decision on May 28, 2012. The CA ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction based on the parties' stipulation and the presumption that the assessed value exceeded P20,000.00. Petitioner also pointed out that the dispositive portion of the CA Decision erroneously referred to a different case — Civil Case No. CEB-30866 — and a different RTC Decision dated August 29, 2008.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Action: Petitioner insisted that the complaint was one for ejectment because it was filed on March 9, 1998, within one year from the parties' confrontation before the Barangay of Cansilayan on September 29, 1997, and thus the RTC lacked jurisdiction.
• Jurisdiction — Assessed Value: Petitioner argued that even if the action were deemed an accion publiciana, the RTC still lacked jurisdiction because the tax declarations of the properties were not submitted, making it impossible to determine whether the MTC or RTC had jurisdiction.
• Validity of Waiver: Petitioner maintained that Jaime's waiver in his favor was supported by consideration consisting of P400,000.00 cash, a car worth P350,000.00, and a convenience store worth P1,500,000.00, and that the delivery of the properties to him confirmed the payment of such consideration.
• Clerical Error in CA Disposition: Petitioner pointed out that the dispositive portion of the CA Decision erroneously referred to a different case — Civil Case No. CEB-30866 and an August 29, 2008 RTC Decision — and prayed that it be rectified.

• General Position: Respondents contended that the CA committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision and that petitioner's contentions were unsubstantial to merit consideration.
• Conditional Waiver: Respondents argued that the waiver of rights in favor of Jaime was conditioned on the payment of the P6.7 million loan with RPB and PNB, and that the subsequent waiver to petitioner should have been made with the banks' conformity and conditioned on the same loan payment, neither of which was fulfilled, rendering the waivers void.
• Damages: Respondents assailed the RTC Decision insofar as it failed to award them damages resulting from petitioner's purported illegal entry and possession of the subject properties.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Action: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
• Possession: Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner should return possession of the subject properties to respondents.
• Damages: Whether petitioner should be awarded damages.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Action: No. The complaint was not one for ejectment because it lacked the special jurisdictional facts required for forcible entry or unlawful detainer under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. While the action was properly characterized as an accion publiciana, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction because the assessed value of the subject properties was not alleged in the complaint, a jurisdictional requirement under RA 7691.
• Possession: N/A. The issue was rendered moot by the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
• Damages: N/A. The issue was rendered moot by the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction — Nature of Action: Three kinds of action exist for recovery of possession of real property: (1) ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) when dispossession has lasted not more than one year; (2) accion publiciana, a plenary action for recovery of the real right of possession when dispossession has lasted more than one year; and (3) accion reinvindicatoria, an action for recovery of ownership. Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a complaint for forcible entry must allege prior physical possession, dispossession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and filing within one year from learning of dispossession. A complaint for unlawful detainer must allege unlawful withholding of possession after expiration or termination of the right to possess, and filing within one year from when possession became unlawful. Here, respondents only averred that they were registered owners and that petitioner unlawfully deprived them of possession, without asserting the circumstances necessary to constitute either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The action was therefore an accion publiciana. However, under RA 7691, which was already in force when the complaint was filed in 1998, the assessed value of the property determines whether the RTC (exceeding P20,000.00) or the MTC (not exceeding P20,000.00) has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving possession of real property. The complaint failed to allege the assessed value of the subject properties. Jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be presumed, implied, conferred by agreement of the parties, or based on a court's erroneous belief that it has jurisdiction. The RTC's presumption that the assessed value exceeded P20,000.00 based on the 44-hectare area, and the CA's reliance on the parties' stipulation, were both erroneous. Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value or market value of land. Consequently, all proceedings before the RTC, including its decision, are void for lack of jurisdiction, rendering discussion of the other issues unnecessary.

• Jurisdiction is conferred only by law — Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied; it must distinctly appear from the law. It cannot be vested upon a court by agreement of the parties or by the court's erroneous belief that it had jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the RTC's presumption of jurisdiction based on property area, and the CA's reliance on the parties' stipulation, were both invalid bases for jurisdiction.

• Three kinds of actions for recovery of possession — (1) Ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) when dispossession has lasted not more than one year; (2) Accion publiciana, a plenary action for recovery of the real right of possession when dispossession has lasted more than one year; and (3) Accion reinvindicatoria, an action for recovery of ownership. The Court classified the present action as an accion publiciana because the complaint lacked the jurisdictional facts required for ejectment.

• Jurisdictional facts for ejectment — A complaint for forcible entry must allege: (a) plaintiff's prior physical possession; (b) deprivation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and (c) filing within one year from learning of dispossession. A complaint for unlawful detainer must allege: (a) unlawful withholding of possession after expiration or termination of the right to possess; and (b) filing within one year from when possession became unlawful. The absence of these averments means the action is not one for ejectment.

• Assessed value as jurisdictional element in accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria — Under RA 7691, the assessed value of the real property must be alleged in the complaint to determine which court has exclusive original jurisdiction. For properties not declared for taxation purposes, the assessed value of adjacent lots may be used. Courts cannot take judicial notice of assessed value or market value.

• "Jurisdiction is thus determined not only by the type of action filed but also by the assessed value of the property. It follows that in accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria, the assessed value of the real property is a jurisdictional element to determine the court that can take cognizance of the action." — This passage articulates the controlling rule that assessed value is a jurisdictional requirement in plenary actions for recovery of possession, not merely a procedural detail.

• "Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by law. It cannot be presumed or implied, and must distinctly appear from the law. It cannot also be vested upon a court by the agreement of the parties; or by the court's erroneous belief that it had jurisdiction over a case." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that jurisdiction is conferred solely by law, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on jurisdiction.

• "Indeed, in the absence of any allegation in the Complaint of the assessed value of the subject properties, it cannot be determined which court has exclusive original jurisdiction over respondents' Complaint. Courts cannot simply take judicial notice of the assessed value, or even market value of the land." — This passage establishes that courts may not supply the jurisdictional element of assessed value through judicial notice, reinforcing that the complaint itself must contain the necessary jurisdictional averments.

• Encarnacion vs. Amigo, 533 Phil. 466 (2006) — Cited for the classification of the three kinds of actions for recovery of possession of real property: ejectment, accion publiciana, and accion reinvindicatoria.
• Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, 616 Phil. 519 (2009) — Cited for the propositions that assessed value is a jurisdictional element in accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria, that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint and the law in force at the commencement of the action, and that all proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction are void.
• Nuñez vs. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., 632 Phil. 143 (2010) — Cited for the jurisdictional facts required in a complaint for forcible entry.
• Barbosa vs. Hernandez, 554 Phil. 1 (2007) — Cited for the jurisdictional facts required in a complaint for unlawful detainer, and for the rule that absence of such averments means the action is not one for ejectment.
• Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be presumed, implied, or conferred by agreement or erroneous belief.
• Cabling vs. Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016 — Cited for the rule that for land not declared for taxation purposes, the assessed value of adjacent lots may be used to determine jurisdiction.
• Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 650 (2007) — Cited for the rule that courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value or market value of land.

• Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court — Defines who may institute ejectment proceedings and the jurisdictional facts that must be alleged: prior physical possession and deprivation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth (forcible entry), or unlawful withholding after expiration or termination of the right to possess (unlawful detainer), with the action filed within one year. Applied to determine that the complaint lacked the required jurisdictional facts for ejectment.
• Section 19(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 1 of RA 7691 — Confers on the RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 (or P50,000.00 in Metro Manila), except ejectment cases. Applied to establish the RTC's jurisdictional threshold, which was not met because the assessed value was not alleged.
• Section 33(2) and (3), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3 of RA 7691 — Confers on the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases and over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00 (or P50,000.00 in Metro Manila). Applied to establish the MTC's jurisdictional threshold and the rule that for undeclared land, the assessed value of adjacent lots governs.
• Article VIII, Section 14, Constitution — Requires courts to render accurate decisions that clearly and distinctly express the facts and the law on which they are based. Cited as a reminder to the CA and all courts to be more circumspect in rendering decisions, including ensuring correctness of information in their issuances.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, and Tijam, JJ., concurred.