G.R. No. 217755 - ELMER MONTERO, VS. SANTIAGO MONTERO, JR. AND CHARLIE MONTERO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , the petition is GRANTED . The Orders dated September 3, 2013 and November 8, 2013 are SET ASIDE , and the Motion to Dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction, GRANTED . SO ORDERED . [15] In sum, the CA held that "[t]he present action, therefore, is not mainly about the declaration of nullity of [the respondents'] affidavit of adjudication or the title they obtained based on said affidavit. The primary issue for resolution is who between the contending parties is the lawful owner of the land, and thus, entitled to its possession. The action is, therefore, one that involves title to, or possession of, real property , jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property in question." [16] The CA further found that "it is undisputed that the assessed value of the property in question is P3,010.00, an amount not exceeding P20,000.00. Based on [Section 19 of Batas Pambansa No. (BP) 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the] jurisdiction over the instant case is with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, as the case may be. Undeniably, the [RTC] does not have jurisdiction over the case and thus, erred in denying [the respondents'] motion to dismiss based on this ground." [17] Petitioner Elmer filed his Motion for Reconsideration [18] dated January 5, 2015, which was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution. Hence, the instant appeal. Issue Stripped to its core, the instant Petition presents a singular issue -whether the subject matter of petitioner Elmer's Complaint involve the title to, possession of, or interest in real property, or is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Court's Ruling The instant Petition is unmeritorious. Petitioner Elmer's Complaint involves the title to, possession of, and interest in real property, i.e ., the subject property, which indisputably has an assessed value of below P20,000.00. Hence, the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear case. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. [19] According to BP 129, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have 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 P20,000.00 or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed v