Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83411:57597&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:04:29+00:00

Document:
HEIRS OF TELESFORO JULAO, NAMELY, ANITA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, SONIA J. TOLENTINO AND RODERICK JULAO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND MORENITA DE JESUS, Respondents.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari4 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision5 dated December 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 72845.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and it appearing that herein applicant is a holder of two (2) applications in violation with established policy in the disposition [of] public lands in the City of Baguio, TSA V-6667 is hereby ordered dropped from the records. Accordingly, it is henceforth ordered that TSA 2132 in the name of TELESFORO JULAO be, as [it is] hereby transferred to the heirs of TELESFORO JULAO, represented by ANITA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, and as thus transferred, the same shall continue to be given due course. For convenience of easy reference, it is directed that the [pertinent] records be consolidated in the name of the latter.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioners] and against the [respondents] who are hereby ordered to restore the possession of the land in question consisting of an area of 70 square meters, more or less, which is a portion of the land covered by [OCT] No. P-2446. The [respondents] are ordered to remove the house and/or other improvements that they constructed over the said parcel of land and to vacate the same upon the finality of this decision.
Aggrieved, respondent spouses elevated the case to the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED.
THE [CA] COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
At this juncture, it must be mentioned that in the Resolution58 dated March 19, 2007, we required respondent spouses to file their Comment to the Petition which they failed to comply with. Thus, in the Resolution59 dated March 11, 2013, we dispensed with the filing of respondent spouses’ Comment. At the same time, we required petitioners to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. To date, petitioners have not done so.
court has jurisdiction over the action.
In this case, for the RTC to exercise jurisdiction, the assessed value of the subject property must exceed P20,000.00. Since petitioners failed to allege in their Complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint as petitioners failed to establish that the RTC had jurisdiction over it. In fact, since the assessed value of the property was not alleged, it cannot be determined which trial court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
In this case, petitioners failed to identify the property they seek to recover as they failed to describe the location, the area, as well as the boundaries thereof. In fact, as aptly pointed out by the CA, no survey plan was presented by petitioners to prove that respondent spouses actually encroached upon the 70-square meter portion of petitioners’ property.68 Failing to prove their allegation, petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their Complaint.
All told, we find no error on the part of the CA in dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to identify the property sought to be recovered.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated December 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72845 is hereby AFFIRMED.
* Per Special Order No. 1803 dated September 24, 2014.
1Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R.- No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98.
2Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389, 400 (2005).
3Peralta-Labrador v. Bugarin, 505 Phil. 409, 415 (2005).
5 CA rollo, pp. 61-71; penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Amelita G. Tolentino.
6 Married to Maria Serrano Julao, (also referred to as Maria Consolacion Serrano Julao in some parts of the records), who died on July 15, 1960; rollo, p. 71.
9 Erroneously dated as April 3, 1979 in petitioners’ Complaint; id. at 40.
17 Petitioner Roderick Julao is the son of Rogelio Julao, one of the children of Telesforo Julao and Maria Consolacion Serrano Julao.
19 Raffled to Branch 60 of the RTC of Baguio City.
43 CA rollo, pp. 69.
45 Petitioner Roderick Julao and his mother, Josefina Julao, executed a Joint Affidavit.
47 Id. at 68-75; penned by Judge Edilberto T. Claravall.
52 CA rollo, pp. 65-66.
60Padlan v. Dinglasan, supra note 1.
61Bernardo v. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 466, 472.
62 CA rollo, p. 26.
63 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
64Heirs of Jose Fernando v. De Belen, G.R. No. 186366, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 556, 562.
66Dr. Seriña v. Caballero, 480 Phil. 277, 287(2004).
67 Id. at 287-288; and Spouses Divinagracia v. Cometa, 518 Phil. 79, 89 (2006).
68 CA rollo, p. 65.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.