Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82128:56185&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:09:26+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 172293, August 28, 2013 - ARACELI J. CABRERA AND ARNEL CABRERA AND IN BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF SEVERINO CABRERA, Petitioners, v. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C. GELLA, VICTOR C. GELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G. ILIGAN AND DIANA ROSE GELLA, Respondents.
ARACELI J. CABRERA AND ARNEL CABRERA AND IN BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF SEVERINO CABRERA, Petitioners, v. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C. GELLA, VICTOR C. GELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G. ILIGAN AND DIANA ROSE GELLA, Respondents.
When Severino died in 1991, Araceli and Arnel, with the consent of respondents, took over the administration of the properties. Respondents likewise instructed them to look for buyers of the properties, allegedly promising them “a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration”11 thereof.
Accordingly, petitioners introduced real estate broker and President of ESV Marketing and Development Corporation, Erlinda Veñegas (Erlinda), to the respondents who agreed to have the said properties developed by Erlinda’s company. However, a conflict arose when respondents appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated Araceli’s and Arnel’s services.
Petitioners prayed that they be paid (1) commission and compensation in the form of real property equivalent to five percent of the 24-hectare Lot No. 1782-B, (2) moral damages of P100,000.00, and (3) attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P100,000.00.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss14 based on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction, (2) failure to state a cause of action, and (3) lack of legal capacity of Araceli and Arnel to sue in behalf of the other heirs of Severino.
Respondents argued that for RTCs outside of Metro Manila to take cognizance of a civil suit, the jurisdictional amount must exceed P200,000.00 pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7691 which amended Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129. And since the total market value of Lot No. 1782-B is P3,550,072,15 five percent thereof is only P177,506.60 or less than the said jurisdictional amount, then the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitioners’ Complaint. Respondents also posited that the Complaint states no cause of action since petitioners’ supposed right to any commission remained inchoate as Lot No. 1782-B has not yet been sold; in fact, the Complaint merely alleged that petitioners introduced a real estate broker to respondents. Lastly, respondents averred that petitioners have no legal capacity to sue on behalf of Severino’s other heirs and that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the Complaint only mentioned Araceli and Arnel as plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [respondents’] Motion to Dismiss is granted. Consequently, this case is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against the [petitioners].
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal,18 hence, the elevation of the records of the case to the CA.
Petitioners averred that their claim is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or one involving interest in real property the assessed value of which exceeds P200,000.00. Hence, it falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. Moreover, they asserted that they are not only claiming for commission but also for compensation for the services rendered by Severino as well as by Araceli and Arnel for the administration of respondents’ properties. Citing Section 3, Rule 319 of the Rules of Court, petitioners justified the inclusion of Severino’s other heirs as plaintiffs in the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DISMISSING the appeal filed in this case and AFFIRMING the [Order] rendered by [the] lower court in Civil Case No. 2001-9-3267 with double costs against [petitioners].
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration22 questioning solely the CA’s affirmance of the RTC’s finding on lack of jurisdiction. This was, however, also denied in a Resolution23 dated April 5, 2006.
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s findings that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; that the Complaint states no cause of action; and that petitioners Araceli and Arnel have no legal capacity to sue in behalf of the other heirs of Severino.
At the outset, petitioners claim that the RTC did not make its own independent assessment of the merits of respondents’ Motion to Dismiss but only blindly adopted the arguments raised therein. This, to them, violates the Court’s pronouncement in Atty. Osumo v. Judge Serrano24 enjoining judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence.
As to the substantial issues, petitioners reiterate the arguments they raised before the CA. They insist that their Complaint is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or involves interest in real property the assessed value of which exceeds P200,000.00 and falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction. At any rate, they emphasize that they likewise seek to recover damages, the amount of which should have been considered by the RTC in determining jurisdiction. Moreover, they have a cause of action against the respondents because an agency under the Civil Code is presumed to be for a compensation.25 And what they are claiming in their Complaint is such compensation for the services rendered not only by Severino but also by Araceli and Arnel as administrators/agents of respondents’ properties. Lastly, they allege that pursuant to Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the joining of Severino’s other heirs as plaintiffs in the Complaint, is proper.
be included in computing the total amount of the claim for purposes of determining jurisdiction. Respondents likewise point out that the CA’s affirmance of the RTC’s findings that the Complaint states no cause of action and that Araceli and Arnel have no capacity to sue in behalf of the other heirs can no longer be questioned before this Court as they are already final and executory since petitioners failed to assail them in their Motion for Reconsideration with the CA. Be that as it may, no error can be imputed to the CA for affirming the said findings as they are in accordance with law.
Contrary to petitioners’ claim, the RTC made an independent assessment of the merits of respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.
x x x In the instant case, the plaintiffs’ complaint does not even mention specifically the amount of their demand outside of their claim for damages and attorney’s fees. They are only demanding the payment of their alleged commission/compensation and that of the late Severino Cabrera which they fixed at 5% of Lot No. 1782-B allegedly with an area of 24 hectares. They did not also state the total monetary value of Lot 1782-B neither did they mention the monetary equivalent of 5% of Lot No. 1782-B. In short, the complaint fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.
A careful scrutiny of the complaint in this case reveals that it is bereft of any allegation that Lot No. 1782-B or any portion thereof has already been sold thru the plaintiffs’ efforts prior to the alleged dismissal as agents or brokers of the defendants. As they failed to sell Lot No. 1782-B or any portion thereof, then they are not entitled to any commission, assuming in gratia argumenti that they were promised 5% commission by defendants should they be able to sell Lot No. 1782-B or any part or parcel of the said lot.
Clearly, petitioners’ claim that the RTC merely adopted the arguments of respondents in their Motion to Dismiss when it resolved the same is belied by the above-quoted disquisition of the RTC on the matter and therefore deserves no credence.
Petitioners’ Complaint is neither one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation nor involves interest in a real property.
Insisting that the RTC has jurisdiction over their Complaint, petitioners contend that the same is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or involves interest in a real property the assessed value of which exceeds P200,000.00.
2. That on October 25, 1976 the defendants’ father the late Atty. Lorenzo Gella, x x x designated x x x Severino Cabrera as agent or [administrator of all his real properties located in San Jose, Antique] x x x.
3. That said Severino Cabrera immediately assumed his duties and responsibilities faithfully as agent or administrator until his death in 1991 of the properties of Lorenzo Gella in San Jose, Antique consisting of about 24 hectares x x x [which later] became Lot No. 1782-B in the name of the defendants, covered by T.C.T. No. T-16987, Register of Deeds of Antique x x x.
4. That after the death of said Severino Cabrera in 1991, with the consent of the defendants, his wife took over his duties and responsibilities as agent or administratrix of the above-named properties of the defendants in San Jose, Antique with the help of her son, Arnel Cabrera as ‘encargado’ and the plaintiffs were also instructed by the defendants to look for buyers of their properties and plaintiffs were promised by defendants a commission of five percent of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation for their long and continued administration of all the said properties.
7. That in view of the aforesaid failure and refusal of defendants to pay their compensation or commission and instead they were dismissed and replaced by the said Erlinda Veñegas they themselves recommended to defendants, the plaintiffs have suffered public humiliation, mental anguish, and serious anxiety for which plaintiffs should be adjudged and entitled to moral damages in the sum of not less than Php100,000.00 each.
8. That defendants’ ingratitude and unjustified refusal to pay plaintiffs x x x their compensation or commission for twenty five years service as administrators and had successfully found [a] developer of defendants’ property but only to be dismissed, plaintiffs were compelled to institute this action and incur expenses as well as attorney’s fees in the sum of Php100,000.00.
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the [C]ourts of [F]irst [I]nstance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by [C]ourts of [F]irst [I]nstance (now Regional Trial Courts).
It can be readily seen from the allegations in the Complaint that petitioners’ main purpose in filing the same is to collect the commission allegedly promised them by respondents should they be able to sell Lot No. 1782-B, as well as the compensation for the services rendered by Severino, Araceli and Arnel for the administration of respondents’ properties. Captioned as a Complaint for Collection of Agent’s Compensation, Commission and Damages, it is principally for the collection of a sum of money representing such compensation and commission. Indeed, the payment of such money claim is the principal relief sought and not merely incidental to, or a consequence of another action where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. In fact, petitioners in this case estimated their claim to be equivalent to five percent of the purchase price of Lot No. 1782-B. Therefore, the CA did not err when it ruled that petitioners’ Complaint is not incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Petitioners’ demand is below the jurisdictional amount required for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, hence, the RTC concerned in this case has no jurisdiction over petitioners’ Complaint.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
SEC. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Hence, when petitioners filed their Complaint on September 3, 2001, the said increased jurisdictional amount was already effective. The demand in their Complaint must therefore exceed P200,000.00 in order for it to fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioners prayed that they be paid five percent of the total purchase price of Lot No. 1782-B. However, since the Complaint did not allege that the said property has already been sold, as in fact it has not yet been sold as respondents contend, there is no purchase price which can be used as basis for computing the five percent that petitioners are claiming. Nevertheless and as mentioned, petitioners were able to attach to their Complaint a copy of the tax declaration for Lot No. 1782-B showing a total market value of P3,550,072.00.42 And since “[t]he fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy,”43 the RTC correctly computed the amount of petitioners’ claim based on the property’s market value. And since five percent of P3,550,072.00 is only P177,503.60 or below the jurisdictional amount of exceeding P200,000.00 set for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, the RTC in this case has no jurisdiction over petitioners’ claim.
2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Here, the moral damages being claimed by petitioners are merely the consequence of respondents’ alleged non-payment of commission and compensation the collection of which is petitioners’ main cause of action. Thus, the said claim for moral damages cannot be included in determining the jurisdictional amount.
In view of the foregoing, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC’s conclusion that it has no jurisdiction over petitioners’ claim.
The CA’s affirmance of the RTC’s findings that the Complaint states no cause of action and that Araceli and Arnel have no authority to sue in behalf of Severino’s other heirs cannot be raised in this Petition.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated July 6, 2005 and the Resolution dated April 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75126 are AFFIRMED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta,* Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 1525 dated August 22, 2013.
1Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013.
3 CA rollo, pp. 102-109; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
4 Records, pp. 42-47; penned by Judge Rudy P. Castrojas.
7 CA rollo, pp. 124-125; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
19 SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
20 CA rollo, pp. 102-109.
24 429 Phil. 626, 633 (2002).
27Cerezo v. People, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 222, 229.
28 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, records, pp. 23-24; Reply (To Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated 02 January 2002), id. at 27-29; Rejoinder, id. at 32-33; Sur-Rejoinder (Re: Motion to Dismiss dated 11 December 2001), id at. 34-36.
32 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980.
33 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129.
34Padlan v. Dinglasan, supra note 1.
37 G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011, 654 SCRA 314, 324-325.
38 177 Phil. 575, 588-589 (1979).
40 CA rollo, p. 106.
41 See Supreme Court Circular No. 21-99 dated April 15, 1999.
42 Records, p. 8; not P3,508,370.00 as computed by the RTC.
43Hilario v. Salvador, 497 Phil. 327, 336 (2005).
44Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Abad, 492 Phil. 657, 667-668 (2005).

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