Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    39 Heirs of Sps Ramiro Vs Bacaron

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case involves a property dispute between the heirs of Spouses Ramiro and Spouses Bacaron. Spouses Bacaron claim they bought the property from the father of the petitioners, but the petitioners deny this and claim the property was earlier mortgaged by Spouses Ramiro to DBP. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because it primarily involves title to or possession of real property, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Additionally, the correct docket fees giving the RTC jurisdiction could not be determined because the complaint did not allege the assessed value of the property. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire proper jurisdiction and all its proceedings were null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    39 Heirs of Sps Ramiro Vs Bacaron

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    116 views2 pages
    This case involves a property dispute between the heirs of Spouses Ramiro and Spouses Bacaron. Spouses Bacaron claim they bought the property from the father of the petitioners, but the petitioners deny this and claim the property was earlier mortgaged by Spouses Ramiro to DBP. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because it primarily involves title to or possession of real property, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Additionally, the correct docket fees giving the RTC jurisdiction could not be determined because the complaint did not allege the assessed value of the property. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire proper jurisdiction and all its proceedings were null and void.

    Original Title

    39 Heirs of Sps Ramiro vs Bacaron (3)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a property dispute between the heirs of Spouses Ramiro and Spouses Bacaron. Spouses Bacaron claim they bought the property from the father of the petitioners, but the petitioners deny this and claim the property was earlier mortgaged by Spouses Ramiro to DBP. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because it primarily involves title to or possession of real property, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Additionally, the correct docket fees giving the RTC jurisdiction could not be determined because the complaint did not allege the assessed value of the property. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire proper jurisdiction and all its proceedings were null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views2 pages

    39 Heirs of Sps Ramiro Vs Bacaron

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case involves a property dispute between the heirs of Spouses Ramiro and Spouses Bacaron. Spouses Bacaron claim they bought the property from the father of the petitioners, but the petitioners deny this and claim the property was earlier mortgaged by Spouses Ramiro to DBP. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because it primarily involves title to or possession of real property, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Additionally, the correct docket fees giving the RTC jurisdiction could not be determined because the complaint did not allege the assessed value of the property. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire proper jurisdiction and all its proceedings were null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Manzano, Dawn Janelle O.

    39. Heirs of Sps Ramiro vs Bacaron

    PETITIONER: THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES ALEJANDRO RAMIRO AND


    FELICISIMA LLAMADA, NAMELY; HENRY L. RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L.
    RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L. RAMIRO; VILMA R. CIELO AND CAROLYN R.
    CORDERO
    RESPONDENT: SPOUSES ELEODORO AND VERNA BACARON
    DATE: February 06, 2019
    PONENTE: Jardaleza, J.
    TOPIC: Jurisdiction

    Facts:
    ● Sps Bacaron claimed that the father of petitioners sold the property to them
    ● The property, however, was earlier mortgaged by spouses Ramiro to the Development
    Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
    ● Sps Bacaron paid the DBP P430,150.00 for the redemption of the property
    ● In June 1998, petitioners forcibly dispossessed spouses Bacaron of the property.
    ● Petitioners, on the other hand, denied the material allegations of the amended
    complaint, raising the following affirmative defenses: that the RTC does not have
    jurisdiction over the case considering that it involves recovery of possession of the
    property;
    Issues: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. - NO.
    Ruling:
    ● While respondents’ claim that their amended complaint before the RTC is denominated
    as one for the declaration of validity of the Deed of Sale and for specific performance,
    the averments in their amended complaint and the character of the reliefs sought therein
    reveal that the action primarily involves title to or possession of real property.
    ● An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff's cause of action is
    based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal rights to have
    exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Title is the "legal
    link between (1) a person who owns property and (2) the property itself."
    ● absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be
    determined which between the RTC or the Municipal Trial Court had original and
    exclusive jurisdiction over respondents' action. Consequently, the complaint filed before
    the RTC should be dismissed.
    ● Furthermore, it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading
    but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
    the subject matter or nature of the action.
    ● In resolving the issue of whether or not the correct amount of docket fees were paid, it is
    also necessary to determine the true nature of the complaint.
    ● Having settled that the action instituted by respondents is a real action and not one
    incapable of pecuniary estimation, the basis for determining the correct docket fees
    shall, therefore, be the assessed value of the property, or the estimated value thereof as
    alleged by the claimant.
    ● As already discussed, however, respondents did not allege the assessed value of the
    property in their amended complaint. They also did not allege its estimated value.
    Manzano, Dawn Janelle O.

    ● As a result, the correct docket fees could not have been computed and paid by
    respondents and the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of
    the case. All the proceedings before it are consequently null and void.

    You might also like