REMEDIAL LAW | Montero v. Montero, G.R. No. 217755, Sep. 18, 2019

Montero v. Montero, 

G.R. No. 217755, Sep. 18, 2019


FACTS Elmer Montero filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the nullity of certain documents and the reconveyance of a parcel of land. Elmer claimed to be a surviving heir of the previous owner of the land, Dominga Taeza. Elmer alleged that the land was transferred to respondent Santiago Montero, Jr. based on a fraudulent Affidavit of Adjudication. Elmer also claimed that respondent Santiago and his son, respondent Charlie Montero, threatened and unlawfully occupied a portion of the land. Respondents Santiago and Charlie filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. They claimed that the assessed value of the property was below the threshold for the RTC's jurisdiction and that Elmer's action to annul the title constituted a collateral attack on the Torrens title. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, stating that the cause of action was a direct attack on the title and that the case was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was also denied. The respondents then filed a Petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65. The CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. The CA held that the primary issue was the ownership and possession of the land, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court due to the assessed value of the property. Elmer filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether the subject matter of Elmer's complaint involved the title to, possession of, or interest in real property, or was incapable of pecuniary estimation.


RULING Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought.


Here, The complaint involved the title to, possession of, and interest in real property, as Elmer sought to establish his right of ownership and possession over the land. The assessed value of the property was below the threshold for the RTC's jurisdiction. The primary issue in the case was the ownership and possession of the land, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court due to the assessed value of the property.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147