Tumpag v. Tumpag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Esperanza Tumpag filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Samuel Tumpag, alleging that the respondent had been occupying a portion of her 12,992 square meter property for over ten years, despite repeated demands to vacate. The petitioner claimed ownership based on Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70184. The respondent's refusal to return the occupied portion caused the petitioner to suffer actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as incur litigation expenses. Procedural History: The petitioner initiated Civil Case No. 666 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action, bar by prior judgment, and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied this motion and proceeded with the trial. During the proceedings, the petitioner passed away and was substituted by her son. The RTC eventually ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to return possession and pay damages. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the complaint without prejudice due to the failure to allege the assessed value of the disputed property. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petitioner argues that the respondent is estopped from questioning the RTC's jurisdiction due to his active participation in the proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the CA erred in dismissing the complaint, as a Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint indicated an assessed value of P20,790.00, which, when considered, would place the case within the RTC's jurisdiction. The petitioner asserts that a rigid application of the rule requiring the assessed value to be alleged in the complaint would defeat substantial justice in this instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for recovery of possession due to the alleged failure to allege the assessed value of the property. Whether the respondent is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that the CA's dismissal was erroneous and unwarranted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal for failure to allege assessed value: The Supreme Court found the CA's dismissal erroneous. While it is generally true that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, a rigid application of this rule may lead to defeating substantial justice. In this case, a Declaration of Real Property was attached to the complaint, clearly stating the assessed value of the property as ₱20,790.00. The Court held that in such instances, the allegations in the complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. The CA was aware of this attachment but still proceeded with the dismissal, which the Supreme Court found to be an error. The Court cited precedents where it allowed the consideration of other pleadings or attached documents in determining jurisdiction or cause of action to prevent prejudice to a party's substantial rights. The Court emphasized that a mere reference to the attached document could have resolved the jurisdictional question, avoiding lengthy litigation. On the issue of estoppel from assailing jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction. Unlike in the case of Bernardo v. Heirs of Villegas, where estoppel was applied, the respondent in this case consistently raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction throughout the proceedings, including in his appeal to the CA and in his comment before the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated the principle that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, as jurisdictional issues cannot be acquired through waiver or enlarged by the omission or acquiescence of the parties or the court. Therefore, the respondent was not prevented from raising the question of jurisdiction in his appeal to the CA regarding the RTC's decision.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for recovery of possession solely on the ground of failure to allege the assessed value of the property in the complaint, when a Declaration of Real Property attached to the complaint clearly indicated the assessed value, which, under certain circumstances, can be considered in determining jurisdiction to avoid defeating substantial justice.