Bokingco v CA4 May 2006 | Ponente: Callejo, Sr.

Overview: The action involved here is to enjoin Bokingco, et. al. from committing acts that would tend to prevent the survey of the subject land. It is not one of a possessory action. As such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the RTC pursuant to BP 129, as amended.

Statement of the Case- Heirs of Celestino Busa, Heirs of Felicidad Busa-Panal and the Heirs of Concordia Busa filed a complaint for

injunction and damages against Bokingco, et. al. with the RTC of Butuan City praying to enjoin permanently the acts of Bokingco, et. al. of preventing the survey of land subject matter of the case.

- Bokingco, as one of the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. According to him, the issue between the parties involves the possession of land with an assessed value of less than P20,000 (i.e. P14,410) so jurisdiction properly belonged to the MTC.

- RTC: MD denied. Relief sought in the complaint is injunction in order that the right to have the subject land be surveyed would not be defeated.- Sec. 2 of ROC 58: A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or proceeding is

pending.- Bokingco filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion.- CA: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Remedy is unavailing because (1) an order denying a MD is interlocutory

cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus; (2) failure to disclose that a motion for reconsideration was filed; (3) did not show that the court acted with grave abuse of discretion.

- Hence, this present petition for review on certiorari filed by Bokingco.

Statement of Facts- Bokingco, et. al. filed an application for the titling of a parcel of land located at Baan, Butuan City before the DENR,

Office of the CENRO. It appears that the land in question is the same land inherited by the heirs of Felicidad Busa-Panal and Concordia Busa, and Reynaldo Busa (Heirs) from their late father so the heirs filed a protest against Bokingco, et. al’s application. Protest was resolved in favor of the heirs.

- The heirs requested for a Survey Authority to the survey the land. This was subsequently authorized but when the survey group went to the area subject matter of the case, said group was prevented from entering the area by SPO3 Dacillo and Bokingco.

- Heirs availed of the Barangay Justice System to resolve the controversy regarding the survey but to no avail, Bokingco et. al. still refused to allow them to survey the land. A Certificate to File Action was subsequently issued by the Lupong Tagamapayapa.

- (See Statement of the Case).

Applicable Laws: - Section 19 (1) of BP 129, as amended: RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which

the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Issues: 1. WON CA err in denying Bokingco’s petition for certiorari (NO)2. WON jurisdiction properly pertained to the RTC (YES)

Rationale1. The mere fact that Bokingco failed to move for the reconsideration of the court a quo’s order denying his motion to

dismiss was sufficient cause for the outright dismissal of the said petition. Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a MR is first filed before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to correct its errors, if any. Moreover, Bokingo failed to even allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo in rendering the order denying his motion to dismiss.

2. As gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought by the heirs in their complaint is for the court a quo to issue an injunction against Bokingo and his representatives to permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land. The heirs’ complaint has not sought to recover the possession or ownership of the subject land. It is not a possessory action. As such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the court a quo, a Regional Trial Court under Section 19 (1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA 7691.

a. Ganila v CA: "In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action, or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will 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, the action is one where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by Regional Trial Courts."

Judgment: CA affirmed. Petition denied.