Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53043:gr-181303-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:27:14+00:00

Document:
CARMEN DANAO MALANA, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, EVELYN DANAO, FERMINA DANAO, LETICIA DANAO and LEONORA DANAO, the last two are represented herein by their Attorney-in-Fact, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, Petitioners, v. BENIGNO TAPPA, JERRY REYNA, SATURNINO CAMBRI and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND MARIA LIGUTAN, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Orders1 dated 4 May 2007, 30 May 2007, and 31 October 2007, rendered by Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, which dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the Complaint of petitioners Carmen Danao Malana, Leticia Danao, Maria Danao Accorda, Evelyn Danao, Fermina Danao, and Leonora Danao, against respondents Benigno Tappa, Jerry Reyna, Saturnino Cambri, Francisco Ligutan and Maria Ligutan, in Civil Case No. 6868.
Petitioners referred their land dispute with respondents to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Annafunan West for conciliation. During the conciliation proceedings, respondents asserted that they owned the subject property and presented documents ostensibly supporting their claim of ownership.
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
This Court maintains that an action to quiet title is a real action. [Herein petitioners] do not dispute the assessed value of the property at P410.00 under Tax Declaration No. 02-48386. Hence, it has no jurisdiction over the action.
Petitioners' statement of the issue is misleading. It would seem that they are only challenging the fact that their Complaint was dismissed by the RTC motu proprio. Based on the facts and arguments set forth in the instant Petition, however, the Court determines that the fundamental issue for its resolution is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitions for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
As the afore-quoted provision states, a petition for declaratory relief under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 may be brought before the appropriate RTC.
To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.
As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners' Complaint involving title to and possession of the said property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC.
In the present case, petitioners' Complaint for quieting of title was filed after petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only subsequent to the latter's express claim of ownership over the subject property before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners' title.
Petitioners' Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of the property involved. Given that the subject property herein is valued only at P410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing, without prejudice, petitioners' Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.
Since the RTC, in dismissing petitioners' Complaint, acted in complete accord with law and jurisprudence, it cannot be said to have done so with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.29 No such circumstances exist herein as to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The Orders dated 4 May 2007, 30 May 2007 and 31 October 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 3, dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868, without prejudice, are AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court is ordered to REMAND the records of this case to the Municipal Trial Court or the court of proper jurisdiction for proper disposition. Costs against the petitioners.
1 Penned by Judge Marivic Cacatian-Beltran; rollo, pp. 25-28.
4 The records fail to state the exact relationship between petitioners and Anastacio Danao, apart from the allegation in the Complaint that the former are heirs of the latter.
(a) Benigno Tappa is the son-in-law of Consuelo and the husband of the latter's deceased daughter. He built his house on the disputed property and leased it to an unidentified individual.
(b) Jerry Reyna is the grandson of Consuelo. He built a house of permanent materials on the subject land where he and his family reside.
(c) Saturnino Cambri is married to Nelly Quizan Cambri, the granddaughter of Consuelo. He built a house within the subject land occupied by him and his family.
(d) Spouses Francisco and Maria Ligutan, the latter being the daughter of Consuelo, also live in a house of permanent materials situated on the subject lot.
9 Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
13 Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
14 Rollo, pp. 33 and 34.
16 G.R. No. 168222, 18 April 2006, 487 SCRA 317.
21 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 283, 290.
22 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium (6th revised ed.), p. 692.
23 De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 71, 80; Melchor v. Gironella, 491 Phil. 653, 658-659 (2005); Social Security Commission v. Court of Appeals, 482 Phil. 449, 462 (2004).
24 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, supra note 21 at 294.
25 Manila Electric Company v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc., 425 Phil. 65, 82 (2002); Rosello-Bentir v. Leanda, 386 Phil. 802, 813-814 (2000).
26 Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat, G.R. 144101, 16 September 2005, 470 SCRA 92, 96.
27 Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 815, 824-825.
28 484 Phil. 766, 778-779 (2004).
29 Yee v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141393, 19 April 2006, 487 SCRA 385, 393.

References: v. 
 Art. 19
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.