Lacson Hermanas v. Heirs of Ignacio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed a complaint for recovery of real property against petitioner Lacson Hermanas, Inc. They alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Cenon Ignacio, purchased a 1,000 square meter portion of a parcel of land from petitioner for P50,000.00, which was fully paid on September 24, 1989. Cenon took possession and fenced the area for the construction of a chapel. Cenon died on January 11, 1996. In 2002, private respondents demanded the title and segregation of the lot but were informed by petitioner that the same lot had been sold to Rowena T. Coleman. This led to the filing of the instant case to compel petitioner to execute a deed of sale and deliver the owner's duplicate copy of the title. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the case is cognizable by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and not the trial court, as it was sued as a subdivision developer and the property involved was a subdivision lot. The trial court denied the motion, holding that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and that petitioner's allegation about the property being a subdivision lot was not a ground to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the trial court's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed with the proper court. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, or if it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently establish that the property in question is a subdivision lot, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the HLURB.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The September 9, 2004 and October 15, 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, Branch 48, which denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, respectively, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper court for the petition: The petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, in adherence to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction, direct recourse is permissible only when special and important reasons are clearly and specifically set out, which were absent in this case. Furthermore, even if treated as an appeal under Rule 45, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. On the jurisdiction of the RTC versus HLURB: The Supreme Court reiterated the settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the defendant's pleas or theories. The complaint did not allege that the property was a subdivision lot or that petitioner sold it as a subdivision developer. Therefore, the RTC correctly asserted its jurisdiction. The mere assertion by petitioner that it is a subdivision developer and the land is a subdivision lot does not automatically divest the RTC of its jurisdiction. On whether the property is a subdivision lot: The allegations in the private respondents' complaint clearly vested jurisdiction in the trial court. The complaint described the property as a "portion of a parcel of land, particularly a 1,000 sq. m. area thereof … covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 261974-R." There was no allegation that the lot was part of a tract of land partitioned primarily for residential purposes into individual lots and offered to the public for sale, nor that it included amenities typical of a subdivision project. Citing Javellana v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Manila, the Court emphasized that even the allegation of a "subdivision lot in a subdivision project" is not sufficient to vest jurisdiction with the HLURB if the complaint's averments do not support it.
Main Doctrine
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the defendant's pleas or theories. A mere assertion that the property is a subdivision lot does not automatically divest the regular courts of jurisdiction.