Bautista v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Matilde Sales Lim, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband Pedro Lim, filed a complaint against Angel Bautista seeking rescission of a contract for the sale of land and the annulment of a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage. She also prayed for the reconveyance of a twenty-hectare parcel of land that was allegedly fictitiously sold to Bautista but registered in his name through abuse of trust. Procedural History: Lim initially paid a docket fee of P32. However, alleging the value of the twenty-hectare lot to be P5,000,000, the court ordered her to pay a deficiency docket fee of P9,818. This deficiency was constituted as a lien on the properties in litigation, including the twenty-hectare lot registered in Bautista's name. Bautista moved for the dismissal of the complaint due to non-payment of the docket fee. Judge Moises F. Dalisay modified the order, treating the case as one for rescission or annulment of contract, not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, and fixed the filing fee at P200. Lim paid the balance of P168. The Petition: Bautista filed a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition, seeking to annul the orders regarding the deficiency docket fee and arguing that the lower court failed to acquire jurisdiction due to non-payment.
Issue(s)
Whether the docket fee for Civil Case No. 246 (later V-144) was fully paid. Whether the compromise agreement submitted by the parties should be approved by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The lower court's orders fixing the docket fee at P200 are affirmed. The restraining order is dissolved. The parties are to submit their compromise agreement to the lower court for approval.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of docket fee payment: The Court held that Judge Dalisay did not err in considering Civil Case No. V-144 as fundamentally a case for rescission or annulment of contract, which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. Consequently, the filing fee for such cases is P200, an amount that was paid by respondent Matilde Lim. The ruling in Malimit vs. Degamo regarding the date of filing being the date of payment of the docket fee was deemed inapplicable as an initial fee was paid. Similarly, Garcia v. Vasquez, where no docket fee was paid, was distinguished. Bautista's contention that the fee should be based on P5,000,000 was contrary to Section 5, Rule 141, which requires consideration of the assessed value of the property, not its market value. The assessed value of the lands was approximately P24,000. Furthermore, Bautista's raising of the docket fee issue after the pre-trial was considered a dilatory tactic. The submission of the compromise agreement was also seen as an implied abandonment of his petition. On the approval of the compromise agreement: The Court stated that it is the lower court, not the Supreme Court, that should approve or pass upon the compromise agreement, as it is a settlement of the main case. The merits of the main case are not at issue in the incident concerning the docket fee.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the lower court did not err in fixing the docket fee for a case involving rescission or annulment of contract, which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, at P200. The submission of a compromise agreement by the parties in the main case was deemed an implied abandonment of the petition for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition concerning the docket fee issue.