Heir of Valeriano Concha Eat Al vs. Spouses Gregorio Lumucso and Bienvenida Guya Et Al

HEIRS OF VALERIANO CONCHA vs.
SPOUSES GREGORIO LUMOCSO
Facts:
1. Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be the
rightful owners ofa 2 lots all situated in Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as the Public Land
Act.
2. Respondent siblings Lumocso are the patent holders and registered owners of the
subject lots.
3. The Heirs of Valeriano filed for a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of
Title with Damages against respondents, seeking to annul Free Patent and the
corresponding Original Certificate of Title issued in the name of "Gregorio Lumocso"
covering a certain parcel of land.
4. Respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases against them on the
same grounds of:
(a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints;
(b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance;
(c) prescription; and
(d) waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel.
5. On the issue of jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction
over the complaints pursuant to Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are
less than P20,000.00. Petitioners opposed, contending that the instant cases involve
actions the subject matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which,
under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTCs. They also contended that they have two main
causes of action: for reconveyance and for recovery of the value of the trees felled by
respondents. Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which, if computed,
allegedly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
6. Trial court DENIED the Motion to Dismiss of the respondents.
7. CA REVERSED the resolutions and order of the trial court. It held that even
assuming that the complaints stated a cause of action, the same have been barred by
the statute of limitations.
8. Furthermore, an action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in ten (10) years,
hence, the instant complaints must be dismissed as they involve titles issued for at
least twenty-two (22) years prior to the filing of the complaints.
Hence this appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue:
WON RTC has jurisdiction over the complaints herein pursuant to Section 19(2) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691
REYES, TEOTI
Held:
1. No. MTC has the jurisdiction over the subjected value.
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
3. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the
parties.
4. To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is
important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought. T
5. he trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance.
6. An action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but
seeks the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
other persons' names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have a
better right.
7. There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved
party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner and that
the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
8. Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one's title,
the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129,
as amended by R.A. No. 7691:
“Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts”;
9. In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Cogon, Dipolog
City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00. Hence, the MTC clearly has
jurisdiction.
10. Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 is
erroneous.
11. In a number of cases, SC have held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of
title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of
cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."
REYES, TEOTI

Heir of Valeriano Concha Eat Al vs. Spouses Gregorio Lumucso and Bienvenida Guya Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heir of Valeriano Concha Eat Al vs. Spouses Gregorio Lumucso and Bienvenida Guya Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Heir of Valeriano Concha Eat Al vs. Spouses Gregorio Lumucso and Bienvenida Guya Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF VALERIANO CONCHA vs.

SPOUSES GREGORIO LUMOCSO

Hence this appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

You might also like