G.R. No. 134230 - JOVENAL OUANO, VS. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND HON. JUDGE RAMON G. CODILLA, JR..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered ordering defendant (Jovenal Ouano) to vacate the premises and restore the lots to their original condition; pay plaintiff (PGTT) P100,000.00 as damages per year, beginning October, 1996 until he shall have vacated the premises and restored the lots to their original condition; pay P100,000.00 as attorney's fees; and pay P50,000.00 as expenses of litigation. "Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the premises." [2] On February 5, 1998, Ouano filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over it considering that the assessed value of the lots involved is only P2,910, as indicated in the latest tax declaration, [3] citing Section 19 (paragraph 2) and Section 33 (paragraph 3) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. [4] In its opposition to Ouanos motion, PGTT contends that the RTC has jurisdiction since the market value of the lots is P49,760.00. [5] Besides, the complaint is not only an action for recovery of ownership and possession of real property, but also for damages exceeding P100,000.00, over which claim the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction under Section 19 (paragraph 8) of the same law. On March 6, 1998, the RTC, presided by Judge Ramon G. Codilla, Jr., issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss, holding that: This court believes that this court has jurisdiction to try this case considering that the real properties consist of ten parcels of land in a subdivision and the court takes note that there is a discrepancy somewhere by the Office of the City Assessor in the Assessment of the parcels of land for only less than P2,000.00 and that the government is very much at a loss by these unrealistic valuation. [6] Ouano filed a motion for reconsideration but was likewise denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 27, 1998. The trial court ruled it has jurisdiction over the case because (i)t is of judicial knowledge that the real properties situated in Cebu City command a higher valuation than those indicated in the tax declaration. The observation of plaintiffs (PGTTs) counsel as to the issue on damages is likewise sustained considering that, being a corporation, it may have incurred damages in the form of unrealized profits. [7] Hence the present petition for certiorari filed by Ouano under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Orders of respondent judge dated March 6, 1998 and May 27, 1998 as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court is highly improper, for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts.