Bokingo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, the heirs of Celestino Busa, filed a complaint for injunction and damages against petitioner Alfredo Bokingo and others. The respondents claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land located in Baan (Buhangin), Butuan City, with an area of 2.1600 hectares, which they inherited from their father, Celestino Busa. Petitioner Bokingo and his co-defendants had applied for the titling of this same land with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The respondents had filed a protest against this application, which was resolved in their favor by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO). The PENRO's order became final and executory, and the respondents were subsequently authorized to survey the land. However, petitioner Bokingo and his representatives prevented the survey, leading the respondents to pursue legal action after exhausting barangay mediation. Procedural History: The respondents filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 3. Petitioner Bokingo filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because the complaint involved possession of land and the assessed value, allegedly P14,410.00 based on his father's tax declaration, was below the threshold for RTC jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court concerning preliminary injunctions. Petitioner Bokingo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not subject to certiorari, and that petitioner Bokingo failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order. The Petition: Petitioner Alfredo Bokingo seeks a reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He maintains that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari. Bokingo insists that the complaint filed by the respondents is a possessory action and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the assessed value of the land was not alleged in the complaint and, based on his estimation, was below the jurisdictional threshold for the RTC, placing it under the Municipal Trial Court's (MTC) jurisdiction. He argues that the court should have preliminarily determined the assessed value to ascertain jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, affirming the CA's dismissal and holding that the nature of the action is determined by the allegations and relief sought, which in this case was primarily an injunction to prevent the obstruction of a land survey, making the subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Whether the complaint filed by respondents is properly characterized as a possessory action requiring the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. Whether interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss are proper subjects of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the December 17, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71510 is AFFIRMED in toto. Dispositive: The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA's dismissal for failure to move for reconsideration and held that the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, because the principal relief sought is injunctive and the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, explaining that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent court to permit it the opportunity to correct any error. The petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order denying his motion to dismiss, and he offered no compelling reason to deviate from the rule requiring such an initial remedy. The CA therefore properly dismissed the certiorari petition for that procedural deficiency. The Court also observed that the petition failed to allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, a required showing for certiorari to lie. Given these procedural defects, the CA's dismissal was not reversible. On Whether the RTC erred in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction: The Court reviewed the material allegations of the complaint and the relief sought, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the action, the relief prayed for and the law in effect when filed. The complaint principally sought injunctive relief to prevent defendants from obstructing a survey authorized by the relevant environment office; the money claims asserted were incidental. Because the principal relief is injunctive and the subject matter is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction properly lies with the RTC under Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691. The Court held that the RTC did not err in denying the motion to dismiss and that a preliminary determination of assessed value was not required in these circumstances. The Court reiterated that the caption or the defendant's answer does not determine jurisdiction. On Whether the complaint is a possessory action requiring MTC jurisdiction: The Court analyzed the nature of possessory and ejectment actions and contrasted them with the present complaint, concluding that the respondents did not seek to recover possession or ownership but to enjoin acts preventing a survey. It explained the three distinct forms of actions to recover possession and found that the present complaint is not any of them. Because the principal relief is injunctive and not the recovery of possession, the complaint is not a possessory action; hence the assessed value of the land is immaterial to the RTC's jurisdiction in this case. The RTC's exercise of jurisdiction was therefore proper. On Whether interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss are proper subjects of certiorari: The Court agreed with the CA that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and ordinarily not proper for an extraordinary remedy like certiorari, absent an allegation and proof of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner failed to allege grave abuse; thus certiorari was not the appropriate remedy. The Court reaffirmed the rule that interlocutory rulings should be challenged by appeal when appealable or by appropriate remedies provided by the Rules of Court, not by an immediate petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
The nature of the action, the relief sought and the law in effect determine the court's jurisdiction; interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss require a motion for reconsideration before an extraordinary writ for certiorari may be entertained.