Heirs of Julao v. Spouses De Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sometime in the 1960s, Telesforo Julao filed two Townsite Sales Applications (TSA) with the DENR. Upon his death in 1971, his heirs succeeded to his applications. In 1979, Solito Julao, one of the heirs, executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights, conveying his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to respondents Spouses Alejandro and Morenita De Jesus. The respondents constructed a house on this acquired property. In 1996, the DENR ordered the rejection of TSA No. V-6667 due to Telesforo holding two applications, and transferred TSA No. V-2132 to Telesforo's heirs. Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2446 was issued in favor of Telesforo's heirs. Procedural History: In 1999, the Heirs of Telesforo Julao filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property against the respondent spouses, alleging that the spouses' house encroached upon 70 square meters of the property covered by OCT No. P-2446, which originated from TSA No. V-2132. The petitioners claimed the respondents had no valid claim as their purported acquisition was from Solito, whose rights pertained to the rejected TSA No. V-6667. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the recovery of the 70-square meter portion. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on grounds of failure to identify the property and lack of jurisdiction. The CA noted that the petitioners failed to present evidence, such as a survey plan, to prove the encroachment and questioned the RTC's jurisdiction due to the absence of an allegation regarding the property's assessed value. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Telesforo Julao, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision. They argued that the CA erred in ruling that they failed to prove the identity of the property in question and in concluding that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. The petitioners contend that the CA should not have dismissed their complaint and that the RTC's initial ruling in their favor was correct. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision to dismiss the complaint, primarily on the grounds that the petitioners failed to allege the assessed value of the property, thus failing to establish the RTC's jurisdiction, and that they failed to clearly identify the property sought to be recovered as required in an action to recover.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that petitioners failed to prove the identity of the property in question. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the identity of the property: The Court held that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim, as stated in Article 434 of the Civil Code. Petitioners failed to identify the property they sought to recover by failing to describe its location, area, and boundaries. The absence of a survey plan to prove encroachment further weakened their claim. Consequently, failing to prove their allegation regarding the identity of the property, petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the material allegations in the complaint. For the RTC to exercise jurisdiction in an action for recovery of possession, the assessed value of the property must exceed ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila), as provided by Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Petitioners failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property in their Complaint. This failure prevented the determination of which trial court had original and exclusive jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the issue of lack of jurisdiction, even if raised for the first time on appeal, can be considered because it is a defense that cannot be waived, as provided under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
In an action for recovery of possession, the assessed value of the property sought to be recovered determines the court's jurisdiction. Failure to allege the assessed value in the complaint is fatal to the case. Furthermore, the property sought to be recovered must be clearly identified by the plaintiff.