This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-12 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| In their Supplemental Memorandum,[23] petitioners contend that the nature of their complaints, as denominated therein and as borne by their allegations, are suits for reconveyance, or annulment or cancellation of OCTs and damages. The cases allegedly involve more than just the issue of title and possession since the nullity of the OCTs issued to respondents and the reconveyance of the subject properties were also raised as issues. Thus, the RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, which provides that the RTC has jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation." Petitioners cited: a) Raymundo v. CA[24] which set the criteria for determining whether an action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation; b) Swan v. CA[25] where it was held that an action for annulment of title is under the jurisdiction of the RTC; c) Santos v. CA[26] where it was similarly held that an action for annulment of title, reversion and damages was within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and d) Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation v. CA[27] where it was held that "[w]here the action affects title to the property, it should be filed in the RTC where the property is located." Petitioners also contend that while it may be argued that the assessed values of the subject properties are within the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court (MTC), they have included in their prayers "any interest included therein" consisting of 49 felled natural grown trees illegally cut by respondents. Combining the assessed values of the properties as shown by their respective tax declarations and the estimated value of the trees cut, the total amount prayed by petitioners exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Hence, they contend that the RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129. | |||||
|
2004-11-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Commodities Storage & Ice Plant Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[24] this Court ruled that "an action to redeem by the mortgage debtor affects his title to the foreclosed property. If the action is seasonably made, it seeks to erase from the title of the judgment or mortgage debtor the lien created by registration of the mortgage and sale. If not made seasonably, it may seek to recover ownership to the land since the purchaser's inchoate title to the property becomes consolidated after [the] expiration of the redemption period. Either way, redemption involves the title to the foreclosed property. It is a real action." | |||||