16. MALANA VS.

TAPPA Actions; Declaratory Relief; A petition for declaratory relief gives a

practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state
G.R. No. 181303. September 17, 2009.* where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a
CARMEN DANAO MALANA, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, EVELYN DANAO, form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a
FERMINA DANAO, LETICIA DANAO and LEONORA DANAO, the last two repudiation of obligation, an invasion of rights and a commission of wrongs.
are represented herein by their Attorney-in-Fact, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, —An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
petitioners, vs. BENIGNO TAPPA, JERRY REYNA, SATURNINO CAMBRI breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the
and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND MARIA LIGUTAN, respondents. purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
Actions; Declaratory Relief; An action for declaratory relief should be statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or
filed by a person interested under a deed, a  will, a contract or other written contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a 191
regulation or an ordinance.—An action for declaratory relief should be filed VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 191
by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written Malana vs. Tappa
instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach
regulation or thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the
_______________ statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief
* THIRD DIVISION. gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the
190 state where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a
Malana vs. Tappa repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of
an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the wrongs.
interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and Same; Same; Where the law or contract has already been contravened
the judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. Petitions for prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer
declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC assume jurisdiction over the action.—Where the law or contract has already
correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a
Courts; Jurisdiction; The mandatory provision of the Judiciary court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word “shall” and explicitly subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of
requires the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to exercise exclusive original the action.
jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real Property; Declaratory Relief; Since petitioners averred in the Complaint
property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00.—In that they had already been deprived of the possession of their property, the
contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion
1980, as amended, uses the word “shall” and explicitly requires the MTC to reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief.—Since petitioners averred in
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the possession of their
title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or
exceed P20,000.00, thus: Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the
Cases.—Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its
all civil actions which involve title to, possession of, real property, or any object one’s recovery of possession over the real property as owner.
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein Courts; Jurisdiction; If the Court has no jurisdiction over the nature of
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio.—As for
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceeds Fifty thousand the RTC dismissing petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio, the following
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, pronouncements of the Court in Laresma v. Abellana, 442 SCRA 156
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: x x x. (2004),  proves instructive: It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the
jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the material allegations of the
Page 1 of 6
complaint and the law at the time the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for Reivindicacion,
the tribunal over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by Quieting of Title, and Damages2 against respondents on 27 March 2007,
law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, docketed as Civil Case No. 6868. Petitioners alleged in their Complaint that
192 they are the owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Title (TCT) No. T-1279373 situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan (subject
Malana vs. Tappa property). Petitioners inherited the subject property from Anastacio Danao
would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an (Anastacio), who died intestate.4 During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had
action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of allowed Consuelo Pauig (Consuelo), who was married to Joaquin Boncad, to
an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Anastacio
consent of the parties. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of and Consuelo agreed that the latter would vacate the said land at any time
an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio. x x x. that Anastacio and his heirs might need it.5
Judgments; An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to Petitioners claimed that respondents, Consuelo’s family
have been committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was members,6 continued to occupy the subject property even after
performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is _______________
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.—Since the RTC, in dismissing petitioners’ 2 Rollo, pp. 50-54.
Complaint, acted in complete accord with law and jurisprudence, it cannot be 3 Id., at p. 56.
said to have done so with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or 4 The records fail to state the exact relationship between petitioners and
excess of jurisdiction. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to Anastacio Danao, apart from the allegation in the Complaint that the former
have been committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was are heirs of the latter.
performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is 5 Rollo, p. 51.
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent 6 Id., at p. 52. In their complaint petitioners identified each of the
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal respondents’ relationship to Consuelo:
to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as (a) Benigno Tappa is the son-in-law of Consuelo and the
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason husband of the latter’s deceased daughter. He built his house on the
of passion or personal hostility. No such circumstances exist herein as to disputed property and leased it to an unidentified individual.
justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. (b) Jerry Reyna is the grandson of Consuelo. He built a house of
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. permanent materials on the subject land where he and his family
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. reside.
  Perez and Calagui Law Office  for petitioners. 194
  Public Attorney’s Office for private respondents. 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Malana vs. Tappa
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, her death, already building their residences thereon using permanent
assailing the Orders1 dated 4 May 2007, 30 May 2007, and 31 October 2007, materials. Petitioners also learned that respondents were claiming ownership
rendered by Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, over the subject property. Averring that they already needed it, petitioners
which dis- demanded that respondents vacate the same. Respondents, however,
_______________ refused to heed petitioners’ demand.7
1 Penned by Judge Marivic Cacatian-Beltran; Rollo, pp. 25-28. Petitioners referred their land dispute with respondents to the Lupong
193 Tagapamayapa of Barangay Annafunan West for conciliation. During the
VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 193 conciliation proceedings, respondents asserted that they owned the subject
Malana vs. Tappa property and presented documents ostensibly supporting their claim of
missed, for lack of jurisdiction, the Complaint of petitioners Carmen Danao ownership.
Malana, Leticia Danao, Maria Danao Accorda, Evelyn Danao, Fermina According to petitioners, respondents’ documents were highly dubious,
Danao, and Leonora Danao, against respondents Benigno Tappa, Jerry falsified, and incapable of proving the latter’s claim of ownership over the
Reyna, Saturnino Cambri, Francisco Ligutan and Maria Ligutan, in Civil Case subject property; nevertheless, they created a cloud upon petitioners’ title to
No. 6868. the property. Thus, petitioners were compelled to file before the RTC a
Complaint to remove such cloud from their title. 8 Petitioners additionally
Page 2 of 6
sought in their Complaint an award against respondents for actual damages, (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
in the amount of P50,000.00, resulting from the latter’s baseless claim over real property or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
the subject property that did not actually belong to them, in violation of Article property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for
19 of the Civil Code on Human Relations.9 Petitioners civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
_______________ pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
(c) Saturnino Cambri is married to Nelly Quizan Cambri, the detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
granddaughter of Consuelo. He built a house within the subject land conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
occupied by him and his family. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
(d) Spouses Francisco and Maria Ligutan, the latter being the 196
daughter of Consuelo, also live in a house of permanent materials 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
situated on the subject lot. Malana vs. Tappa
7 Id., at p. 52. P20,000.00. It found that the subject property had a value of less than
8 Id., at pp. 52 and 53, 57. P20,000.00; hence, petitioners’ action to recover the same was outside the
9 Art.  19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the jurisdiction of the RTC. The RTC decreed in its 4 May 2007 Order that:
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and “The Court has no jurisdiction over the action, it being a real action
observe honesty and good faith. involving a real property with assessed value less than P20,000.00 and
In claims for damages, Article 19 of the Civil Code is read in relation with hereby dismisses the same without prejudice.”12
Article 21 of the same, to wit: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC
195 Order dismissing their Complaint. They argued that their principal cause of
VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 195 action was for quieting of title; the accion reivindicacion was included merely
Malana vs. Tappa to enable them to seek complete relief from respondents. Petitioner’s
likewise prayed for an award against respondents for exemplary damages, in Complaint should not have been dismissed, since Section 1, Rule 63 of the
the amount of P50,000.00, since the latter had acted in bad faith and Rules of Court13 states that an action to quiet title falls under the jurisdiction
resorted to unlawful means to establish their claim over the subject property. of the RTC.14
Finally, petitioners asked to recover from respondents P50,000.00 as In an Order dated 30 May 2007, the RTC denied petitioners’ Motion for
attorney’s fees, because the latter’s refusal to vacate the property Reconsideration. It reasoned that an action to quiet title is a real action.
constrained petitioners to engage the services of a lawyer. 10 Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691, it is the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) that
Before respondents could file their answer, the RTC issued an Order exercises exclusive jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value of
dated 4 May 2007 dismissing petitioners’ Complaint on the ground of lack of real property does not exceed P20,000.00. Since the assessed value of
jurisdiction. The RTC referred to Republic Act No. 7691, 11 amending Batas subject property per Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 was
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of _______________
1980, which vests the RTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the 12 Rollo, p. 25.
assessed value of the property involved exceeds 13 Section 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested under a
_______________ deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an
compensate the latter for the damage. action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
10 Rollo, p. 53-54. construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
11 The RTC’s reasoning was based on Section 1 of Republic Act No. thereunder.
7691: An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real
SECTION  1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under
known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” is hereby amended to Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
read as follows: 14 Rollo, pp. 33 and 34.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall 197
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 197
xxxx Malana vs. Tappa
Page 3 of 6
P410.00, the real action involving the same was outside the jurisdiction of the under Tax Declaration No. 02-48386. Hence, it has no jurisdiction over the
RTC.15 action.
Petitioners filed another pleading, simply designated as Motion, in which In view of the foregoing considerations, the Motion is hereby denied.” 19
they prayed that the RTC Orders dated 4 May 2007 and 30 May 2007, Hence, the present Petition, where petitioners raise the sole issue of:
dismissing their Complaint, be set aside. They reiterated their earlier I
argument that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court states that an action WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE
to quiet title falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. They also ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE
contended that there was no obstacle to their joining the two causes of PETITIONERS MOTU PROPRIO.20
action, i.e., quieting of title and reivindicacion, in a single Complaint, Petitioners’ statement of the issue is misleading. It would seem that they
citing Rumarate v. Hernandez.16 And even if the two causes of action could are only challenging the fact that their Complaint was dismissed by the
not be joined, petitioners maintained that the misjoinder of said causes of RTC motu proprio. Based on the facts and arguments set forth in the instant
action was not a ground for the dismissal of their Complaint. 17 Petition, however, the Court determines that the fundamental issue for its
The RTC issued an Order dated 31 October 2007 denying petitioners’ resolution is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
Motion. It clarified that their Complaint was dismissed, not on the ground of dismissing petitioners’ Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
misjoinder of causes of action, but for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC dissected _______________
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which provides: 18 Id., at p. 28.
“Section 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested under a 19 Id.
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected 20 Id., at pp. 338-339.
by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other 199
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 199
action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of Malana vs. Tappa
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, The Court rules in the negative.
thereunder. An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights
property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance.
Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.” The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and
The RTC differentiated between the first and the second paragraphs of determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. 21
_______________ Petitions for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of
15 Id., at pp. 26-27. Court. The RTC correctly made a distinction between the first and the second
16 G.R. No. 168222, 18 April 2006, 487 SCRA 317. paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
17 Rollo, pp. 35-39. The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes
198 the general circumstances in which a person may file a petition for
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED declaratory relief, to wit:
Malana vs. Tappa “Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
first paragraph refers to an action for declaratory relief, which should be instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
brought before the RTC. The second paragraph, however, refers to a regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before
different set of remedies, which includes an action to quiet title to real breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial
property. The second paragraph must be read in relation to Republic Act No. Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
7691, which vests the MTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.” (Emphasis ours.)
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in As the afore-quoted provision states, a petition for declaratory relief under
Metro Manila and P20,000.00 in all other places. 18 The dispositive part of the the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 may be brought before the
31 October 2007 Order of the RTC reads: appropriate RTC.
“This Court maintains that an action to quiet title is a real action. [Herein Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court further provides in its second
petitioners] do not dispute the assessed value of the property at P410.00 paragraph that:

Page 4 of 6
 “An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real “Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.—Metropolitan Trial
Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.” (Emphasis Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
ours.) Courts shall exercise:
_______________ xxxx
21 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004, 428 (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to,
SCRA 283, 290. possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
200 value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed
Malana vs. Tappa value does not exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
specifically refers to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument, costs: x x x” (Emphasis ours.)
recognized under Articles 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; (2) an action to As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as
quiet title, authorized by Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and (3) an stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore,
action to consolidate ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in petitioners’ Complaint involving title to and possession of the said property is
a sale with a right to repurchase. These three remedies are considered within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC.
similar to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has
legal rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising
judgment into effect.22 thereunder.24 Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure
To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a
second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or
must be read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach
as amended. thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief
not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the
repeatedly uses the word “may”—that an action for quieting of title “may be state where another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for
brought under [the] Rule” on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a
desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief “may x x x bring an action in the repudia-
appropriate Regional Trial Court.” The use of the word “may” in a statute _______________
denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere 24 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, supra note 21 at p. 294.
possibility, an opportunity or an option.23 202
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of 1980, as amended, uses the word “shall” and explicitly requires the MTC Malana vs. Tappa
to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which tion of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of
involve title to or wrongs.25
_______________ Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing
22 Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM (6th revised ed.), p. 692. of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume
23 De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 25 January jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction
2006, 480 SCRA 71, 80; Melchor v. Gironella, 491 Phil. 653, 658-659; 451 over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or
SCRA 476, 481 (2005); Social Security Commission v. Court of Appeals, 482 transgressed before the institution of the action. 26
Phil. 449, 462; 439 SCRA 239, 249-250 (2004). In the present case, petitioners’ Complaint for quieting of title was
201 filed after petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate
VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 201 the subject property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only subsequent to the
Malana vs. Tappa latter’s express claim of ownership over the subject property before
possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed the Lupong Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners’ title.
P20,000.00, thus:
Page 5 of 6
 Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in
declaratory relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from hostility.29 No such circumstances exist herein as to justify the issuance of a
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. An accion writ of certiorari.
reivindicatoria is a suit that has for its object one’s recovery of possession _______________
over the real property as owner.27 28 484 Phil. 766, 778-779; 442 SCRA 156, 169 (2004).
Petitioners’ Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion 29 Yee v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141393, 19 April 2006, 487 SCRA 385, 393.
reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
the property involved. Given that the subject property herein is valued only at
P410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The
_______________ Orders dated 4 May 2007, 30 May 2007 and 31 October 2007 of the
25 Manila Electric Company v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc., Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 3, dismissing the Complaint
425 Phil. 65, 82; 374 SCRA 262, 276 (2002); Rosello-Bentir v. Leanda, 386 in Civil Case No. 6868, without prejudice, are AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial
Phil. 802, 813-814; 330 SCRA 591, 601 (2000). Court is ordered to REMAND the records of this case to the Municipal Trial
26 Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat, G.R. 144101, 16 September 2005, 470 Court or the court of proper jurisdiction for proper disposition. Costs against
SCRA 92, 96. the petitioners.
27 Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 815, SO ORDERED.
824-825.
203
VOL. 600, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 203
Malana vs. Tappa
recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing, without prejudice, petitioners’ Complaint in Civil
Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.
As for the RTC dismissing petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio, the
following pronouncements of the Court in Laresma v. Abellana28 proves
instructive:
“It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a
tribunal are determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the
law at the time the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of the tribunal over
the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by law and not by
the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction
of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured
by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If
the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may
dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio.” x x x. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Since the RTC, in dismissing petitioners’ Complaint, acted in complete
accord with law and jurisprudence, it cannot be said to have done so with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An act
of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been committed in
grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Page 6 of 6