G.R. NO. 161739 - ALFREDO BOKINGO, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HEIRS OF CELESTINO BUSA, REPRESENTED BY FELICIDAD BUSA-PANAL AND ERNESTO M. CAMPOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing, this Honorable Court: 1) Enjoin permanently the illegal acts of defendants of preventing the survey of the land subject matter of this case by ENGR. ERNESTO M. CAMPOS; 2) Order defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; 3) Order defendants to pay damages to plaintiff; 4) Such other reliefs just and reasonable under the circumstances. [5] Petitioner Bokingo, as one of the defendants in the above complaint, filed with the court a quo a motion to dismiss alleging that the latter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. Specifically, petitioner Bokingo contended that it could be gleaned from the complaint that the issue between the parties involved the possession of the land. As such, the assessed value of the land was crucial to determine the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter in accordance with either Section 19(2) [6] or Section 33(3) [7] of Batasang Pambansa Blg . 129 [8] as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. If the assessed value thereof is P20,000.00 or less, then the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Otherwise, jurisdiction is with the RTC. Petitioner Bokingo pointed out in his Motion to Dismiss that the assessed value of the land subject matter of the complaint was not indicated. Nonetheless, he proffered that based on his father's tax declaration covering the subject land, its assessed value was only P14,410.00. Consequently, it was allegedly clear that the court a quo , a Regional Trial Court, had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint filed by the respondents. Rather, in view of the assessed value of the subject land which was allegedly less than the P15,000.00, jurisdiction properly belonged to the MTC. Petitioner Bokingo thus urged the court a quo to dismiss the complaint filed by the respondents for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. Acting thereon, the court a quo issued the Order dated March 13, 2002 denying the motion to dismiss. It pointed out that the complaint's allegation is that the respondents, as plaintiffs, are entitled to have the subject land surveyed after petitioner Bokingo's and his co-claimants' application for the titling of the subject land was dismissed by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) and the respondents were declared to have a better right to file a public land application covering the same. Further, the relief being sought in the complaint is injunction in order that the respondents' right to survey the subject land would not be defeated. Based on these allegations, the court a quo held that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim under Section 2 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which provides in part that "[a] preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or proceeding is pending." It accordingly denied p