Tumpag vs. Tumpag

A complaint's failure to allege the assessed value of real property subject of an accion publiciana does not necessarily warrant dismissal where the complaint attaches a Declaration of Real Property showing the assessed value, as the attached document forms part of the complaint and may be considered in determining the court's jurisdiction. The general rule that jurisdiction is determined solely from the allegations of the complaint admits exceptions where rigid application would defeat substantial justice.

Esperanza Tumpag and Samuel Tumpag are relatives residing in Barangay Tuyom, Cauayan, Negros Occidental. Esperanza claimed absolute ownership over Lot No. 1880-A, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70184, while Samuel occupied a portion of the lot at her tolerance. The parties had prior litigation: in 1988, Samuel and other relatives filed Civil Case No. 400 against Esperanza for cancellation of her title, which was dismissed by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. CV-25699, becoming final on March 11, 1994. The present dispute concerns the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the subsequent action for recovery of possession, governed by the jurisdictional thresholds under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691.

Esperanza Tumpag filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Samuel Tumpag before the RTC, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, on March 13, 1995. She alleged that she was the absolute owner of Lot No. 1880-A of the Cauayan Cadastre, containing 12,992 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70184 dated April 27, 1983. Samuel had been occupying a portion of not less than 1,000 square meters for more than ten years at her tolerance. When Esperanza sought to recover the portion in 1987, Samuel refused to vacate and, in 1988, instigated relatives to file Civil Case No. 400 for cancellation of her title, which was dismissed and ultimately affirmed on appeal, becoming final on March 11, 1994. After oral demands and barangay conciliation failed, Esperanza filed the complaint, seeking actual damages of ₱10,000.00 per annum, moral damages of ₱50,000.00, exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees.

Samuel moved to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a cause of action, prior judgment bar, and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied the motion on January 16, 1996, and proceeded with trial. During the pendency of the case, Esperanza died and was substituted by her son, Pablito Tumpag Belnas, Jr. On June 3, 2002, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering Samuel to return possession and pay damages. Samuel appealed to the CA, raising the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. The CA agreed, nullifying the RTC decision and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, holding that jurisdiction is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and that the complaint failed to allege the assessed value of the property. The CA noted that a Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint showed a market value of ₱51,965.00 and assessed value of ₱20,790.00, but still dismissed the case.

• Estoppel: Petitioner argued that the respondent, having actively participated in all stages of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 666, was estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction.
• Length of Litigation: Petitioner argued that the case had been litigated before the RTC for more than seven years and was pending before the CA for almost eight years, making dismissal unwarranted.
• Meritorious Case / Attached Declaration: Petitioner argued that dismissal was not warranted because a Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint indicated that the assessed value of the disputed property was ₱20,790.00, which was within the RTC's jurisdiction.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondent contended that the assessed value of the property subject of the case was actually much below the value stated in the attached Declaration of Real Property, and maintained that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

• Determination of Jurisdiction from Attached Documents: Whether the RTC's jurisdiction over the accion publiciana case should be determined solely from the complaint's allegations, or whether the Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint may be considered.
• Estoppel by Active Participation: Whether the respondent was estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction after having actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court.

• Determination of Jurisdiction from Attached Documents: No. The CA's dismissal was erroneous. The Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint, showing an assessed value of ₱20,790.00, may be considered in tandem with the complaint's allegations to determine jurisdiction, and a mere reference to the attached document facially resolves the jurisdictional question.
• Estoppel by Active Participation: No. The respondent was not estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction, having consistently raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in his motions, pleadings, and submissions throughout the proceedings, and jurisdictional issues can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal.

• Determination of Jurisdiction from Attached Documents: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, not by the parties' action or conduct, and is determined from the allegations in the complaint. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC's jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property is limited to cases where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila), except forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. While the general rule is that the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint, there are instances when rigid application of this rule may defeat substantial justice. Citing Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Garcia and Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs. Heirs of Valdez, the Court held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. Here, the Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint showed an assessed value of ₱20,790.00, which facially resolved the jurisdictional question. The respondent's contention that the actual assessed value was lower was unavailing, because the test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment; the defendant, in filing a motion to dismiss, hypothetically admits the truth of the factual and material allegations in the complaint, as well as the documents attached whose due execution and genuineness are not denied under oath.

• Estoppel by Active Participation: The Court distinguished Honorio Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, where the defendant was estopped from assailing jurisdiction due to active participation in the proceedings. In the present case, the respondent consistently raised the issue of the court's lack of jurisdiction in his motions, pleadings, and submissions throughout the proceedings, until the CA dismissed the complaint. Even in his comment before the Supreme Court, the respondent maintained that the RTC had no jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be acquired through waiver, enlarged by the omission of the parties, or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Thus, the respondent was not prevented from raising the jurisdictional question on appeal.

• Jurisdiction determined by allegations of the complaint — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined from the allegations in the complaint. The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the complaint in accordance with the plaintiff's prayer. In this case, the Court applied this doctrine but recognized an exception allowing consideration of documents attached to the complaint.

• Attached documents form part of the complaint — The factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. A defendant filing a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the factual and material allegations in the complaint, as well as the documents attached whose due execution and genuineness are not denied under oath. The Court applied this doctrine to consider the Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint in determining the RTC's jurisdiction.

• Estoppel on jurisdictional questions — While active participation in proceedings may estop a party from assailing jurisdiction, estoppel does not apply where the party has consistently raised the jurisdictional issue throughout the proceedings. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be acquired through waiver, enlarged by the omission of the parties, or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.

• "Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's substantial right." — This passage articulates the exception to the general rule on determining jurisdiction, which the Court applied to consider the attached Declaration of Real Property.

• "In the present case, we find reason not to strictly apply the abovementioned general rule, and to consider the facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint in determining whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner's case. A mere reference to the attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction and would have rendered lengthy litigation on this point unnecessary." — This passage states the Court's core reasoning for reinstating the RTC decision, emphasizing the facial resolution of the jurisdictional question from the attached document.

• "Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues, as a rule, cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court." — This passage states the controlling rule on jurisdictional challenges, which the Court applied to hold that the respondent was not estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue.

• Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Garcia, 227 Phil. 166 (1986) — Cited as authority allowing the RTC to consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether a complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action; applied to justify considering the attached Declaration of Real Property.

• Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs. Heirs of Valdez, G.R. No. 171531, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 441 — Cited for the rule that factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts; directly applied to the present case.

• Honorio Bernardo vs. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 466 — Distinguished; in that case, the defendant was estopped from assailing jurisdiction due to active participation, whereas here the respondent consistently raised the jurisdictional issue throughout the proceedings.

• Feliciano vs. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 499 (1998) — Cited for the test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint: whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the complaint in accordance with the plaintiff's prayer.

• Asia Banking Corporation vs. Walter E. Olsen and Co., 48 Phil. 529 (1925) — Cited for the rule that documents attached to a complaint whose due execution and genuineness are not denied under oath must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon.

• Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — The jurisdictional statute governing RTC jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property; limits jurisdiction to cases where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila), except forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. The Court applied this provision to determine whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the accion publiciana case.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural basis for the petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, J., Mendoza, J., and Leonen, J., concurred in the decision.