Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.: The Power of A Court To Hear and Decide

8/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 808 8/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 808
THE CITY OF MANILA and CIRIACO C.

MIJARES, intervenors-appellees.
Jurisdiction; The power of a court to hear and decide

a controversy is called its jurisdiction, which includes the
power to determine whether or not it has the authority to

hear and determine the contro-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

131
G.R. No. 195834. November 9, 2016.*

VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 131

GUILLERMO SALVADOR, REMEDIOS CASTRO, Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
represented by PAZ “CHIT” CASTRO, LEONILA
GUEVARRA, FELIPE MARIANO, RICARDO DE versy presented, and the right to decide whether or not
GUZMAN, VIRGILIO JIMENEZ, represented by the statement of facts that confer jurisdiction exists, as
JOSIE JIMENEZ, ASUNCION JUAMIZ, well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately
ROLANDO BATANG, CARMENCITA SAMSON, before the court.—The power of a court to hear and decide
AUGUSTO TORTOSA, represented by a controversy is called its jurisdiction, which includes the
FERNANDO TORTOSA, SUSANA MORANTE, power to determine whether or not it has the authority to
LUZVIMINDA BULARAN, LUZ OROZCO, JOSE hear and determine the controversy presented, and the
SAPICO, LEONARDO PALAD, ABEL BAKING, right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that
represented by ABELINA BAKING, GRACIANO confer jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that
ARNALDO, represented by LUDY ARNALDO, arise in the case legitimately before the court.
JUDITH HIDALGO, and IGMIDIO JUSTINIANO,
CIRIACO MIJARES, represented by Same; Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the
FREDEZWINDA MIJARES, JENNIFER agreement of the parties; or by the court’s acquiescence; or
MORANTE, TERESITA DIALA, and ANITA P. by the erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction;
SALAR, petitioners, vs. PATRICIA, INC., or by the waiver of objections; or by the silence of the
respondent. parties.—Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied, but
must appear clearly from the law or it will not be held to
exist, but it may be conferred on a court or tribunal by
necessary implication as well as by express terms. It
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36
cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties; or by judgment of a lower court that tried the case elevated
the court’s acquiescence; or by the erroneous belief of the for judicial review. Considering that the two classes of
court that it had jurisdiction; or by the waiver of jurisdiction are exclusive of each other, one must be
objections; or by the silence of the parties. expressly conferred by law. One does not flow, nor is
Same; The three (3) essential elements of jurisdiction inferred, from the other.
are: one, that the court must have cognizance of the class Same; The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the
of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; two, that court or tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry,
the proper parties must be present; and, three, that the not whether or not its conclusions in the course thereof
point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the were correct.—The test of jurisdiction is whether or not
issue.—The three essential elements of jurisdiction are: the court or tribunal had the power to enter on the
one, that the court must have cognizance of the class of inquiry, not whether or not its conclusions in the course
cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; two, that thereof were correct, for the power to decide necessarily
the proper parties must be present; and, three, that the carries with it the power to decide wrongly as well as
point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the rightly. In a manner of speaking, the lack of the power to
issue. act at all results in a judgment that is void; while the lack
Same; Jurisdiction may be classified into original of the power to render an erroneous decision results in a
and appellate, the former being the power to take judicial judgment that is valid until set aside.
cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the
Same; The exclusive original jurisdiction of the
first time under conditions provided by law, and the latter
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in civil cases is conferred and
being the authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine
provided for in Section 19 of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg.
the final order or judgment of a lower court that tried the
129.—The exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC in
case elevated for judicial review.—Jurisdiction may be
civil cases is conferred and provided for in Section 19 of
classified into original and appellate, the former being
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act
the power to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted
of 1980).
for judicial action for the first time under conditions
provided by law, and the latter being the authority of a Same; For the purpose of determining jurisdiction,
court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or the trial court must interpret and apply the law on
jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of
ultimate facts in the complaint regardless of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein.—For the purpose of
132
determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret
and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the
complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
therein. Based on the foregoing provision of law,
therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction over the cause of

action for injunction because it was one in which the be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
subject of the litigation was incapable of pecuniary prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.”
estimation. Same; To allow the boundary dispute to be litigated
Quieting of Title; An action to quiet title or remove the in the action for quieting of title would violate Section 48
clouds over the title is a special civil action governed by of the Property Registration Decree by virtue of its
the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of prohibition against collateral attacks on Torrens titles.—
Court. Specifically, an action for quieting of title is To allow the boundary dispute to be litigated in the action
essentially a common law remedy for quieting of title would violate Section 48 of the
Property Registration Decree by virtue of its prohibition
against collateral attacks on Torrens titles. A collateral
attack takes place when, in another action to obtain a
133
different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an
incident in said action.
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 133 PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision
and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reynaldo R. Princesa for petitioners.
grounded on equity.—An action to quiet title or Office of the Legal Officer for intervenor City of
remove the clouds over the title is a special civil action Manila.
governed by the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of David B. Agoncillo for intervenor C. Mijares.
the Rules of Court. Specifically, an action for quieting of Felix B. Lerio for respondent Patricia, Inc.
title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on
equity.

Same; For an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2)
indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the 134
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to
or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance
of validity or legal efficacy.—“For an action to quiet title Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar collaborating
to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, counsel for respondent Patricia, Inc.
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of
the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or BERSAMIN, J.:
proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must

Jurisdiction over a real action is determined

based on the allegations in the complaint of the
135
assessed value of the property involved. The silence
of the complaint on such value is ground to dismiss
the action for lack of jurisdiction because the trial VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 135
court is not given the basis for making the
determination.

The Case Additionally, to prevent the defendant Patricia Inc.,
from evicting the plaintiffs from their respective
For review is the decision promulgated on June improvements along Juan Luna Street, plaintiffs applied
25, 20101 and the resolution promulgated on for a preliminary injunction in their Complaint pending
February 16, 2011 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 86735,2 the quieting of title on the merits.
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the The complaint was amended to include different
petitioners’ complaint in Civil Case No. 96-81167, branches of the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Manila. A
thereby respectively reversing and setting aside the Complaint-in-Intervention was filed by the City of Manila
decision rendered on May 30, 2005 by the Regional as owner of the land occupied by the plaintiffs. Another
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, in Manila,3 and Complaint-in-Intervention by Ciriano Mijares was also
denying their motion for reconsideration. filed alleging that he was similarly situated as the other
plaintiffs.
Antecedents A preliminary injunction was granted and served on
all the defendants.
The CA adopted the summary by the RTC of the Based on the allegations of the parties involved, the
relevant factual and procedural antecedents, as main issue to be resolved is whether the improvements of
follows: the plaintiffs stand on land that belongs to Patricia Inc.,
or the City of Manila. Who owns the same? Is it covered by
This is an action for injunction and quieting of title to a Certificate of Title?
determine who owns the property occupied by the All parties agreed and admitted in evidence by
plaintiffs and intervenor, Ciriano C. Mijares. stipulation as to the authenticity of the following
documents:
_______________ (1) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44247 in the name
of the City of Manila;
1 Rollo, pp. 67-80; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. (2) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 35727 in the name
Cruz, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, of Patricia Inc.;
Jr., and Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican (retired). (3) Approved Plan PSD-38540; and
2 Id., at pp. 99-103. (4) Approved Subdivision Plan PCS-3290 for Ricardo
3 Id., at pp. 135-142. Manotok.

The issue as to whether TCT 35727 should be WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:

cancelled as prayed for by the plaintiffs and intervenor, 1. Defendant Patricia Inc. and other person/s
Ciriano C. Mijares is laid to rest by agreement of the claiming under it, are PERMANENTLY
parties that this particular document is genuine and duly ENJOINED to REFRAIN and DESIST from any
executed. Nonetheless, the cancellation of a Transfer act of EVICTION OR EJECTMENT of the
Certificate of Title should be in a separate action before PLAINTIFFS in the premises they occupy;
another forum. 2. Defendant Patricia Inc. STOP COLLECTING
any rentals from the plaintiffs who may seek
reimbursement of previous payments in a separate
action subject to the ownership of the City of
136
Manila; and
3. Attorney’s fees of P10,000.00 to each plaintiff and
intervenor, Ciriano Mijares; P20,000.00 to the City
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of Manila. (emphasis ours)
_______________
Since the Transfer Certificates of Title of both Patricia
4 Id., at pp. 68-69.
Inc. and the City of Manila are admitted as genuine, the
5 Id., at p. 37.
question now is: Where are the boundaries based on the
description in the respective titles?4

To resolve the question about the boundaries of 137
the properties of the City of Manila and respondent
Patricia, Inc., the RTC appointed, with the
concurrence of the parties, three geodetic engineers VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 137
as commissioners, namely: Engr. Rosario Mercado, Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
Engr. Ernesto Pamular and Engr. Delfin
Bumanlag.5 These commissioners ultimately No pronouncement as to costs.
submitted their reports. SO ORDERED.6
On May 30, 2005, the RTC rendered judgment in
favor of the petitioners and against Patricia, Inc.,
permanently enjoining the latter from doing any act Decision of the CA
that would evict the former from their respective
premises, and from collecting any rentals from On appeal, the CA, in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 86735,
them. The RTC deemed it more sound to side with reversed the RTC’s judgment,7 and dismissed the
two of the commissioners who had found that the complaint. The CA declared that the petitioners
land belonged to the City of Manila, and disposed: were without the necessary interest, either legal or
equitable title, to maintain a suit for quieting of
title; castigated the RTC for acting like a mere Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
rubber stamp of the majority of the commissioners;
opined that the RTC should have conducted Issues
hearings on the reports of the commissioners; ruled
as highly improper the adjudication of the boundary The petitioners maintain that the CA erred in
dispute in an action for quieting of title; and dismissing the complaint, arguing that the parties
decreed: had openly raised and litigated the boundary issue
in the RTC, and had thereby amended the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We hereby
complaint to conform to the evidence pursuant to
REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated May 30,
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court; that they
2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32.
had the sufficient interest to bring the suit for
Civil Case No. 96-81167 is hereby DISMISSED for
quieting of title because they had built their
utter want of merit. Accordingly, the questioned order
improvements on the property; and that the RTC
enjoining Patricia and all other person/s acting on its
correctly relied on the reports of the majority of the
stead (sic) to refrain and desist from evicting or ejecting
commissioners.
plaintiffs/appellees in Patricia’s own land and from
On its part, the City of Manila urges the Court to
collecting rentals is LIFTED effective immediately.
reinstate the decision of the RTC. It reprises the
No costs.
grounds relied upon by the petitioners, particularly
SO ORDERED.8
the application of Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of
Court.10
The CA denied the motions for reconsideration of In response, Patricia, Inc. counters that the
the petitioners and intervenor Mijares through the boundary dispute, which the allegations of the
assailed resolution of February 16, 2011.9 complaint eventually boiled down to, was not
Hence, this appeal by the petitioners. proper in the action for quieting of title under Rule
63, Rules of Court; and that Section 5, Rule 10 of
the Rules of Court did not apply to vest the
_______________
authority to resolve the boundary dispute in the
6 Id., at p. 70. RTC.11
7 Id., at pp. 67-80. In other words, did the CA err in dismissing the
8 Id., at p. 79. petitioners’ complaint?
9 Id., at pp. 99-103.
Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

138
1.
Jurisdiction over a real action depends on
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the assessed value of the property involved
as alleged in the complaint
_______________ Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law

because it is conferred only by law, as distinguished
10 Id., at pp. 158-162.
from venue, which is a purely procedural matter.
11 Id., at pp. 168-176.
The conferring law may be the Constitution, or the
statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the

special or general statute defining the jurisdiction

of an existing court or tribunal, but it must be in
139 force at the time of the commencement of the
action.14 Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or
implied, but must appear clearly from the law or
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 139
_______________
The complaint was ostensibly for the separate 12 21 CJS § 15, p. 30.
causes of action for injunction and for quieting of 13 Id., at p. 32.
title. As such, the allegations that would support 14 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, June 24,
both causes of action must be properly stated in the 1992, 205 SCRA 356, 362; Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC of
complaint. One of the important allegations would Legaspi City, Branch I, G.R. No. 68789, November 10, 1986, 145
be those vesting jurisdiction in the trial court. SCRA 408.
The power of a court to hear and decide a
controversy is called its jurisdiction, which includes
the power to determine whether or not it has the
authority to hear and determine the controversy 140
presented, and the right to decide whether or not
the statement of facts that confer jurisdiction
exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
case legitimately before the court. Jurisdiction Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
imports the power and authority to declare the law,
to expound or to apply the laws exclusive of the idea it will not be held to exist,15 but it may be conferred
of the power to make the laws, to hear and on a court or tribunal by necessary implication as
determine issues of law and of fact, the power to well as by express terms.16 It cannot be conferred
hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the by the agreement of the parties;17 or by the court’s
issues before the court, and the power to inquire acquiescence;18 or by the erroneous belief of the
into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce court that it had jurisdiction;19 or by the waiver of
the judgment.12 objections;20 or by the silence of the parties.21
But judicial power is to be distinguished from The three essential elements of jurisdiction are:
jurisdiction in that the former cannot exist without one, that the court must have cognizance of the
the latter and must of necessity be exercised within class of cases to which the one to be adjudged
the scope of the latter, not beyond it.13
belongs; two, that the proper parties must be

present; and, three, that the point decided must be,
in substance and effect, within the issue. The test
141
for determining jurisdiction is ordinarily the nature
of the case as made by the complaint and the relief
sought; and the primary and essential nature of the VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 141
suit, not its incidental character, determines the
jurisdiction of the court relative to it.22
Jurisdiction may be classified into original and
appellate, the former being the power to take case instituted for judicial action for the first time
judicial cognizance of a under conditions provided by law, and the latter
being the authority of a court higher in rank to
reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower
_______________
court that tried the case elevated for judicial
15 Tenorio v. Batangas Transportation Co., 90 Phil. 804 review. Considering that the two classes of
(1952); Dimagiba v. Geraldez, 102 Phil. 1016 (1958); De Jesus v. jurisdiction are exclusive of each other, one must be
Garcia, No. L-26816, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 554, 562. expressly conferred by law. One does not flow, nor
16 21 CJS § 29, p. 40; thus, a statute declaring that there is a is inferred, from the other.23
remedy for every wrong cannot be relied on to confer jurisdiction Jurisdiction is to be distinguished from its
on a court in a particular case, because the remedy may lie with exercise.24 When there is jurisdiction over the
the Legislature; also, a court has no jurisdiction over a matter person and subject matter, the decision of all other
that is not an action or special proceeding provided by statute or questions arising in the case is but an exercise of
the Rules of Court unless the matter involves a wrong that that jurisdiction.25 Considering that jurisdiction
requires judicial action, and for which there is no adequate over the subject matter determines the power of a
remedy at law. court or tribunal to hear and determine a particular
17 United States v. Castañares, 18 Phil. 210, 214 (1911); case, its existence does not depend upon the
unlike venue, which may be regulated by the agreement of the
regularity of its exercise by the court or tribunal.26
parties
The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the court
18 Molina v. De la Riva, 6 Phil. 12, 15 (1906); Squillantini v.
or tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry,
not whether or not its conclusions in the course
Republic, 88 Phil. 135 (1951).
thereof were correct, for the power to decide
19 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No 116033, February 26,
necessarily carries with it the power to decide
1997, 268 SCRA 747; Cruzcosa v. Concepcion, 101 Phil. 146
wrongly as well as rightly. In a manner of speaking,
(1957).
the lack of the power to act at all results in a
20 Vda. de Decena v. De los Angeles, 39 SCRA 94 (1971);
judgment that is void; while the lack of the power to
Vargas v. Akai Philippines, Inc., UDK-7927, December 14, 1987,
render an erroneous decision results in a judgment
156 SCRA 531.
that is valid until set aside.27 That the decision is
21 United States v. De La Santa, 9 Phil. 22, 26 (1907).
erroneous does not divest the court or tribunal that
22 21 CJS § 35.

rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
try the case.28 Hence, if the court or tribunal has possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
_______________ detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
23 Garcia v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 88158, March 4, 1992, 206 Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
SCRA 779. Courts;
24 Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, September 1, 1994, 236 (3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime
SCRA 211, 218; Lamagan v. De la Cruz, No. L-27950, July 29, jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds twenty
1971, 40 SCRA 101, 107. thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
25 21 CJS § 26. (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and
26 Century Insurance Co., Inc. v. Fuentes, No. L-16039, intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
August 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 1168, 1173. twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
27 21 CJS § 27. (5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage
28 Quiason, Philippine Courts and their Jurisdiction, p. 199, and marital relations;
1993 ed. (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
142
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. of interest and costs or the value of the property in
jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error _______________
may be attributed to it is simply one of judgment, 29 De Castro v. Delta Motor Sales Corp., No. L-34971, May
not of jurisdiction; appeal, not certiorari, lies to 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 344, 346.
correct the error.29
The exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC in
civil cases is conferred and provided for in Section
19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary
143
Reorganization Act of 1980), viz.:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial

VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 143
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

controversy, amounts to more than twenty thousand 31 Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Lumocso, G.R. No.
pesos (P20,000.00). 158121, December 12, 2007, 540 SCRA 1, 16-18.
32 This date of effectivity — 15 days after publication in the
Malaya and in the Times on March 30, 1994 — is provided for in
For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7691 (see Administrative Circular
trial court must interpret and apply the law on No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994).
jurisdiction in relation to the averments or
allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
144
therein.30 Based on the foregoing provision of law,
therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction over the cause
of action for injunction because it was one in which 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the subject of the litigation was incapable of
pecuniary estimation. But the same was not true in
the case of the cause of action for the quieting of
title, which had the nature of a real action — that (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil
is, an action that involves the issue of ownership or actions which involve title to, possession of, real
possession of real property, or any interest in real property, or any interest therein where the
property31 — in view of the expansion of the assessed value of the property or interest therein
jurisdiction of the first level courts under Republic does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
Act No. 7691, which amended Section 33(3) of Batas (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
Pambansa Blg. 129 effective on April 15, 1994,32 to where such assessed value does not exceeds (sic)
now pertinently provide as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial litigation expenses and costs. x x x
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in Civil Cases.—Metropolitan Trial Courts, As such, the determination of which trial court had
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial the exclusive original jurisdiction over the real
Courts shall exercise: action is dependent on the assessed value of the
property in dispute.
x x x x An action to quiet title is to be brought as a
special civil action under Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court. Although Section 1 of Rule 63 specifies the
_______________
forum to be “the appropriate Regional Trial
30 Caparros v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56803, February Court,”33 the specification does not override the
28, 1989, 170 SCRA 758, 761; Republic v. Estenzo, No. L-35512, statutory provision on jurisdiction. This the Court
February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 282, 285; Alvir v. Vera, No. L- has pointed out in Malana v. Tappa,34 to wit:
39338, July 16, 1984, 130 SCRA 357, 361-362.

To determine which court has jurisdiction over the “may” in a statute denotes that the provision is merely
actions identified in the second paragraph of Section 1, permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read opportunity or an option.
together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary
1980, as amended. Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word
shall and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise
_______________ exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions
which involve title to or possession of real property where
33 Section 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00, thus:
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, x x x x
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 is
or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties only P410.00; therefore, petitioners Complaint involving
thereunder. title to and possession of the said property is within the
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC.35
to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought
under this Rule. (1a, R64). The complaint of the petitioners did not contain
34 G.R. No. 181303, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 189. any averment of the assessed value of the property.
Such failure left the trial court bereft of any basis to
determine which court could validly take
cognizance of the cause of action for quieting of
title. Thus, the RTC could not proceed with the case
145
and render judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
Although neither the parties nor the lower courts
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 145 raised jurisdiction of the trial court in the
proceedings, the issue did not simply vanish
because the Court can hereby motu proprio consider
and resolve
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court does not categorically require that an
_______________
action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly
uses the word “may” — that an action for quieting of title 35 Id., at p. 200.
“may be brought under [the] Rule” on petitions for
declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition
for declaratory relief “may x x x bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court.” The use of the word
146
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Consequently, the RTC should have severed the
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. causes of action, either upon motion or motu
proprio, and tried them
it now by virtue of jurisdiction being conferred only

_______________
by law, and could not be vested by any act or
omission of any party.36 36 Flores-Cruz v. Goli-Cruz, G.R. No. 172217, September 18,
2009, 600 SCRA 545, 553.
2.
The joinder of the action for injunction
and the action to quiet title was
disallowed by the Rules of Court
147

Another noticeable area of stumble for the
petitioners VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 147
related to their having joined two causes of action,
i.e., injunction and quieting of title, despite the first
being an ordinary suit and the latter a special civil
action under Rule 63. Sec-tion 5, Rule 2 of the Rules separately, assuming it had jurisdiction over both.
of Court disallowed the joinder, viz.: Such severance was pursuant to Section 6, Rule 2 of
the Rules of Court, which expressly provides:
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action.—A party may
in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.—Misjoinder
many causes of action as he may have against an of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an
opposing party, subject to the following conditions: action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and
comply with the rules on joinder of parties; proceeded with separately. (n)
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil

actions or actions governed by special rules;
The refusal of the petitioners to accept the
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same
severance would have led to the dismissal of the
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
case conformably with the mandate of Section, Rule
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
17 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.—If, for
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the
claimed shall he the test of jurisdiction. complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order
of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion

of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without property dissipated, and he could afterwards
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his without fear introduce the improvements he may
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he
dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon deems best. But “for an action to quiet title to
the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (3a) prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal
or an equitable title to or interest in the real
3. property subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
The petitioners did not show that they were claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be
real parties in interest to demand casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in
either injunction or quieting of title fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy.”37
Even assuming that the RTC had jurisdiction The first requisite is based on Article 477 of the
over the cause of action for quieting of title, the Civil Code which requires that the plaintiff must
petitioners failed to allege and prove their interest have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the
to maintain the suit. Hence, the dismissal of this real property which is the subject matter of the
cause of action was warranted. action. Legal title denotes registered ownership,
An action to quiet title or remove the clouds over while equitable title means beneficial ownership,38
the title is a special civil action governed by the meaning a title derived through a valid contract or
second paragraph of relation, and based on recognized equitable
principles; the right in the party, to whom it
belongs, to have the legal title transferred to him.39
148 To determine whether the petitioners as
plaintiffs had the requisite interest to bring the
suit, a resort to the allegations
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. _______________
37 Mananquil v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012,

Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
686 SCRA 123, 129-130.
Specifically, an action for quieting of title is
38 Id., at p. 124.
essentially a common law remedy grounded on
39 Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Virata, G.R. No. 162037, August
equity. The competent court is tasked to determine
7, 2006, 498 SCRA 141, 161; PVC Investment & Management
the respective rights of the complainant and other
Corporation v. Borcena, G.R. No. 155225, September 23, 2005,
claimants, not only to put things in their proper
470 SCRA 685, 696.
place, to make the one who has no rights to said
immovable respect and not disturb the other, but
also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the
right would see every cloud of doubt over the
149 No. 35727, defendant cannot lawfully evict the plaintiffs

from the subject property since it no longer owns the
subject property;
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 149
13. Any attempted eviction of the plaintiffs from the
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. subject property would be without legal basis and

of the complaint is necessary. In that regard, the

complaint pertinently alleged as follows:
150
THE CAUSE OF ACTION

5. Plaintiffs are occupants of a parcel of land situated 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
at Juan Luna Street, Gagalangin, Tondo (hereinafter
“subject property”);
6. Plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest have
been in open and notorious possession of the subject consequently, would only be acts of harassment which are
property for more than thirty (30) years; contrary to morals, good customs and public policy and
7. Plaintiffs have constructed in good faith their therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to enjoin the defendant
houses and other improvements on the subject property; from further harassing them;
8. The subject property is declared an Area for 14. Plaintiffs recently discovered that the subject
Priority Development (APD) under Presidential Decree property is owned by the City of Manila and covered by
No. 1967, as amended; and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44247, a
9. Defendant is claiming ownership of the subject copy of which is attached hereto as Annex “B,” of the
property by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila;
No. 35727 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila. 15. TCT No. 35727 which is apparently valid and
x x x effective is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
10. Defendant’s claim of ownership over the subject voidable or unenforceable, and constitutes a cloud on the
property is without any legal or factual basis because, rights and interests of the plaintiffs over the subject
assuming but not conceding that the TCT No. 35727 property;
covers the subject property, the parcel of land covered by 16. Plaintiffs are entitled to the removal of such
and embraced in TCT No. 35727 has already been sold cloud on their rights and interests over the subject
and conveyed by defendant and, under the law, TCT No. property;
35727 should have been cancelled; 17. Even assuming, but not admitting, that
11. By virtue of TCT No. 35727, defendant is defendant owns the subject property, it cannot evict the
evicting, is about to evict or threatening to evict the plaintiffs from the subject property because plaintiffs’
plaintiffs from the said parcel of land; right to possess the subject property is protected by
12. Because of the prior sales and conveyances, even Presidential Decree No. 2016.
assuming but not conceding that the subject property is 18. Even assuming, but not admitting, that
covered by and embraced in Transfer Certificate of title defendant owns the subject property, it cannot evict the

plaintiffs from the subject property without reimbursing their houses in good faith; and that the area had
the plaintiffs for the cost of the improvements made upon been declared an Area for Priority Development
the subject property; (APD) under Presidential Decree No. 1967, as
19. Because of defendant’s unwarranted claim of amended. Yet, none of such reasons validly clothed
ownership over the subject property and its attempt to them with the necessary interest to maintain the
evict or disposses the plaintiffs from the subject property, action for quieting of title. For one, the authenticity
plaintiffs experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, of the title of the City of Manila and Patricia, Inc.
social humiliation, sleepless nights and loss of appetite was not disputed but was even admitted by them
for which defendant should be ordered to pay each during trial. As such, they could not expect to have
plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages; any right in the property other than that of
20. Because of defendant’s unwarranted claim of occupants whose possession was only tolerated by
ownership over the subject property and its attempt to the owners and rightful possessors. This was
evict or disposses the plaintiffs from the subject property, because land covered by a Torrens title cannot be
plaintiffs were constrained to litigate to protect their acquired by prescription or by adverse possession.41
rights and interests, and hire services of a lawyer, for Moreover, they would not be builders entitled to the
protection of the Civil Code as builders in good
faith. Worse for them, as alleged in the respondent’s
comments,42 which they did not deny, they had
151 been lessees of Patricia, Inc. Such circumstances
indicated that they had no claim to possession in
good faith, their occupation not being in the concept
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 151 of owners.
_______________
which they should each be awarded the amount of
40 Rollo, pp. 112-115.
P10,000.00;
41 Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association, Inc., G.R.
21. The plaintiffs and the defendants are not
No. 146823, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 136, 148.
required to undergo conciliation proceeding before the
42 Rollo, pp. 171, 183-185.
Katarungan Pambarangay prior to the filing of this
action.40

The petitioners did not claim ownership of the 152
land itself, and did not show their authority or
other legal basis on which they had anchored their
alleged lawful occupation and superior possession of 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the property. On the contrary, they only contended Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
that their continued possession of the property had
been for more than 30 years; that they had built
At this juncture, the Court observes that the fact the property decided to sell the property. Only then
that the area was declared an area for priority would the right of first refusal accrue. Conse-
development (APD) under Presidential Decree No.
1967, as amended, did not provide sufficient _______________
interest to the petitioners. When an area is declared
as an APD, the occupants would enjoy the benefits 43 G.R. No. 129889, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 353, 358.
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1517

(Proclaiming Urban Land Reform in the Philippines

and Providing for the Implementing Machinery
Thereof). In Frilles v. Yambao,43 the Court has 153
summarized the salient features of Presidential
Decree No. 1517, thus:
VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 153
P.D. No. 1517, which took effect on June 11, 1978,
seeks to protect the rights of bona fide tenants in urban
lands by prohibiting their ejectment therefrom under
certain conditions, and by according them preferential quently, the right of first refusal remained
right to purchase the land occupied by them. The law contingent, and was for that reason insufficient to
covers all urban and urbanizable lands which have been vest any title, legal or equitable, in the petitioners.
proclaimed as urban land reform zones by the President Moreover, the CA’s adverse judgment dismissing
of the Philippines. If a particular property is within a their complaint as far as the action to quiet title
declared Area for Priority Development and Urban Land was concerned was correct. The main requirement
Reform Zone, the qualified lessee of the said for the action to be brought is that there is a deed,
property in that area can avail of the right of first claim, encumbrance, or proceeding casting cloud on
refusal to purchase the same in accordance with the plaintiffs’ title that is alleged and shown to be
Section 6 of the same law. Only legitimate tenants in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
who have resided for ten years or more on specific appearance of validity or legal efficacy, the
parcels of land situated in declared Urban Land eliminates the existence of the requirement. Their
Reform Zones or Urban Zones, and who have built their admission of the genuineness and authenticity of
homes thereon, have the right not to be dispossessed Patricia, Inc.’s title negated the existence of such
therefrom and the right of first refusal to purchase deed, instrument, encumbrance or proceeding that
the property under reasonable terms and was invalid, and thus the action must necessarily
conditions to be determined by the appropriate fail.
government agency. [Bold emphasis supplied]
4.
The petitioners did not have
Presidential Decree No. 1517 only granted to the a cause of action for injunction
occupants of APDs the right of first refusal, but
such grant was true only if and when the owner of
The petitioners did not also make out a case for acts against which the injunction is to be directed
injunction in their favor. are violative of said right. Particularly, in actions
The nature of the remedy of injunction and the involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie only after
requirements for the issuance of the injunctive writ the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto
have been expounded in Philippine Economic Zone by a proper action for the purpose. [Emphasis supplied]
Authority v. Carantes,44 as follows:

Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding Accordingly, the petitioners must prove the
whereby a party is directed either to do a particular act, existence of a right to be protected. The records
in which case it is called a mandatory injunction or to show, however, that they did not have any right to
refrain from doing a particular act, in which case it is be protected because they had established only the
called a prohibitory injunction. As a main action, existence of the boundary dispute between Patricia,
injunction seeks to permanently enjoin the defendant Inc. and the City of Manila. Any violation of the
through a final injunction issued by the court and boundary by Patricia, Inc., if any, would give rise to
contained in the judgment. Section 9, Rule 58 of the 1997 the right of action in favor of the City of Manila
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides, only. The dispute did not concern the petitioners at
all.
_______________
5.
44 G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010, 621 SCRA 569, 578-579. Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court
did not save the day for the petitioners

The invocation of Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules
154 of Court in order to enable the raising of the
boundary dispute was unwarranted. First of all, a
boundary dispute should not be litigated in an
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED action for the quieting of title due to the limited
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. scope of the action. The action for the quieting of
title is a tool specifically used to remove of any
SEC. 9. When final injunction granted.—If cloud upon, doubt, or
after the trial of the action it appears that the
applicant is entitled to have the act or acts
complained of permanently enjoined, the court 155
shall grant a final injunction perpetually
restraining the party or person enjoined from the
commission or continuance of the act or acts or VOL. 808, NOVEMBER 9, 2016 155
confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction. Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
Two (2) requisites must concur for injunction to issue:
(1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the
uncertainty affecting title to real property;45 it 47 Decaleng v. Bishop of the Missionary District of the
should not be used for any other purpose. And, Philippine Islands of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
secondly, the boundary dispute would essentially States of America, G.R. No. 171209, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA
seek to alter or modify either the Torrens title of 145, 168.
the City of Manila or that of Patricia, Inc., but any
alteration or modification either way should be
initiated only by direct proceedings, not as an issue
incidentally raised by the parties herein. To allow 156
the boundary dispute to be litigated in the action
for quieting of title would violate Section 4846 of the
Property Registration Decree by virtue of its 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prohibition against collateral attacks on Torrens Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.
titles. A collateral attack takes place when, in
another action to obtain a different relief, the
Note.—In case of doubt, the jurisprudential
certificate of title is assailed as an incident in said
trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a
action.47 This is exactly what the petitioners sought
controversy involving matters that demand the
to do herein, seeking to modify or otherwise cancel
special competence of administrative agencies, even
Patricia, Inc.’s title.
if the questions involved are also judicial in
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the
character. (Department of Agrarian Reform vs.
decision promulgated on June 25, 2010 by the Court
Trinidad Valley Realty & Development Corporation,
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 86735; and
715 SCRA 650 [2014])
ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
Perlas- Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

_______________
45 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v.

Bonifacio, G.R. No. 167391, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 327, 341.
46 Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.—A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.

Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.: The Power of A Court To Hear and Decide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.: The Power of A Court To Hear and Decide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.: The Power of A Court To Hear and Decide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 808 8/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 808

THE CITY OF MANILA and CIRIACO C.

Jurisdiction; The power of a court to hear and decide

G.R. No. 195834. November 9, 2016.*

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/36

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/36

Jurisdiction over a real action is determined

The issue as to whether TCT 35727 should be WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:

_______________ Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law

belongs; two, that the proper parties must be

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/36

jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error _______________

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/36

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/36

it now by virtue of jurisdiction being conferred only

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/36

37 Mananquil v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012,

149 No. 35727, defendant cannot lawfully evict the plaintiffs

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/36

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

45 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001742b86108b116c7822003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/36

You might also like