There are three kinds of real actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, namely: accion de reivindicacion, accion publiciana and accion interdictal. The first seeks the recovery of ownership as well as possession of realty.18 The second proposes to recover the right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding.19 The third refers to the recovery of physical or actual possession only (through a special civil action either for forcible entry or unlawful detainer).
If the dispossession is not alleged totake place by any of the means provided by Section 1,20 Rule 70, Rules of Court, or, if the dispossession allegedly took place by any of such means but the action is not brought within one year from deprivation ofpossession, the action is properly a plenary action of accion publiciana or accion de reivindicacion. The explanation is simply that the disturbance of the peace and quiet of the local community due to the dispossession did not materialize; hence, the possessor thus deprived has no need for the summary proceeding of accion interdictal under Rule 70.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over accion interdictal. Until April 15, 1994, the MTC had no original jurisdiction over the other possessory actions. By such date, its jurisdiction was expanded to vest it with exclusive original jurisdiction over the other possessory actions ofaccion publiciana and accion de reivindicacion where the assessed value of the realty involved did not exceed ₱20,000.00, or, if the realty involved was in Metro Manila, such value did not exceed ₱50,000.00. The expansion of jurisdiction was by virtue of the amendment by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 769121 to make Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 pertinently provide thusly:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
x x x x
(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 (₱20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) 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;
x x x x
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691 similarly revised Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the provision defining the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC over civil actions) to make the latter provision state, pertinently, thus:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
x x x x
As can be seen, the amendments have made the assessed value of the property whose possession or ownership is in issue, or the assessed value of the adjacent lots if the disputed land is not declared for taxation purposes determinative of jurisdiction. The allegation of the assessed value of the realty must be found in the complaint, if the action (other than forcible entry or unlawful detainer) involves title to or possession of the realty, including quieting of title of the realty. If the assessed value is not found in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is not thereby afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court. Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the realty.22
No comments:
Post a Comment