Dear PAO,
May I know the rule on jurisdiction for civil cases involving real property or land? I was told that the value of the land determines which court has jurisdiction. If that is the case, how should we determine the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction if the property is covered by a single certificate of title with a total area of 500 square meters, but our interest therein only covers 100 square meters? Should the jurisdiction be based on the value of the entire 500 sqm or just on the value of our interest, which is only 100 sqm?
Reynie
Dear Reynie,
To address your question, please be advised of the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 11576, otherwise known as the Act Further Expanding the Jurisdiction of the First Level Courts, amending for the purpose Batas Pambansa (BP) 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The amended provisions of BP 129 dictate:
“Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as ‘The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,’ as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 19. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
“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 exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; x x x
“Section 2. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: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 any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on 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.” (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)
In connection with the foregoing, the Supreme Court says that “clearly, both the first and second level courts exercise original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, but it is the assessed value of the realty involved which ordains which court shall acquire exclusive jurisdiction over a real action.” (Plucena v. Balgos, GR 253531, July 10, 2023, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh)
Also in Plucena, the high court said that it is only the assessed value of the property or interest subject of the case which should be the basis in determining jurisdiction and not the entire property covered by the title, to wit:
“Here, Plucena admits that she only seeks to recover from the respondents a 60-square-meter portion of her 10,000-square-meter land. To prove ownership of the same, Plucena presented TCT No. T-19220, as well as a tax declaration, which showed that the entire 10,000-square meter property has an assessed value of P34,160.00, which falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction. Plucena averred that there is no separate tax declaration which shows the assessed value of the 60-square-meter portion sought to be recovered. Here, she argues that the assessed value of the entire property should control.
“The Court does not agree. The RTC correctly held:
“It is quite clear therefore that what determines jurisdiction is assessed value of the “property involved” or “interest therein.” Surely, there could no other (sic) “property involved” or “interest therein” in this case than the 60 square meters’ portion allegedly encroached and occupied by and being recovered in this suit from the defendants. The assessed value of the entire ONE HECTARE property in the name of the plaintiff could not be the basis in determining the court’s jurisdiction because such entire property is not involved in this case.
“To add, Section 33(3) of BP 129 clearly refers to ‘the assessed value of the property or interest therein. The party-plaintiff, Plucena, in this case, cannot be given the discretion as to which assessed value to use; otherwise, it will be an unintended license to forum shop.
‘The 60-square-meter portion can always be the subject of segregation and thus, its approximate value can be easily determined through the extant records which, in this case, is a tax declaration. However, Plucena failed to do so.'” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Applying the foregoing to your query, since the subject matter of your case only refers to a portion of the land with an area of 100 sqm land — such should be the basis of the computation of the assessed value; and not the assessed value of the entire land with a total area of 500 sqm.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
