Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor

Brgy. San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor Case Digest An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
niary estimation. A convenience or welfare may demand." (Brgy. San Roque vs.
review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No. 138896. June 20, 2000)
0 determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which
is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the
An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
Accordingly, it falls within the jurisdiction of the regional trial remedy sought.
courts, regardless of the value of the subject property.
If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
Facts: considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first
Petitioner Brgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu filed before the MTC of instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
Talisay, Cebu a complaint to expropriate a property of the
respondents heirs of Francisco Pastor. The MTC dismissed the However, where the basic issue is something other than the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is
"eminent domain is an exercise of the power to take private purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
property for public use after payment of just compensation. In an sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
action for eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause of action contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for
is the exercise of such power or right. The fact that the action also annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court
involves real property is merely incidental. An action for eminent has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
domain is therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
RTC and not with this Court." cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now RTC).
The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when filed before it,
holding that the action for eminent domain or condemnation of An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation
real property is a real action affecting title to or possession of real
property, hence, it is the assessed value of the property involved An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of
which determines the jurisdiction of the court. Section 3, money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its
paragraph (3), of Republic Act No. 7691, provides that all civil authority and right to take private property for public use.
actions involving title to, or possession of, real property with an
assessed value of less than P20,000.00 are within the exclusive The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the
original jurisdiction of the MTCs. The Tax Declaration shows that government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the
the assessed value of the land involved is only P1,740.00. Hence, requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts
it is the MTC which has jurisdiction. determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of
the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the
Petitioner thus appealed directly to the SC, raising a pure question main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government’s
of law. exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Issue: True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in

monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the just
Which court, MTC or RTC, has jurisdiction over cases for eminent compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the
domain or expropriation where the assessed value of the subject expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after
property is below Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos? the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation.
Held: To emphasize, the question in the present suit is whether the

government may expropriate private property under the given set
RTC. of circumstances. The government does not dispute respondents’
title to or possession of the same. Indeed, it is not a question of
Test to determine whether a suit is incapable of pecuniary who has a better title or right, for the government does not even
estimation claim that it has a title to the property. It merely asserts its
inherent sovereign power to "appropriate and control individual
property for the public benefit, as the public necessity,

Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brgy. San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor Case Digest An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Issue: True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in

Held: To emphasize, the question in the present suit is whether the

You might also like