BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


Roldan vs Sps Barrios

10/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Roldan vs Sps. Barrios
G.R. No. 214803. April 23, 2018

Facts:
On October 13, 2008, defendants (respondents) mortgaged a 478-sq. meter parcel of land in Aklan with an assessed worth of P13,380 in favor of plaintiff (respondent), in order to secure a P250,000 loan from the latter, payable within one (1) year from date the loan was issued, with an interest thereon at the rate of 5% per month. After the respondents failed to pay the principal obligation and interest due starting from February 2011, petitioner filed a complaint with the Aklan RTC to compel the respondents to pay the aforementioned loan with interests, plus an additional sum of P25,000.00 for attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. The RTC subsequently dismissed the case (Civil Case No. 9811) for lack for jurisdiction as the assessed value of the property mortgaged is below P20,000.00 (P13,380), and is thus the jurisdiction of the first level. After petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also dismissed by the RTC, they an submitted instant petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC. Petitioner argues that the foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.


Issue:
Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Held:
No. Petition for certiorari dismissed 
under Section 19 and Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Big. (BP) 129 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest in it where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00, and if it is below P20,000.00, it is the first level court which has jurisdiction. An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiffs cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal right to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. In the current case, the foreclosure suit is a real action so far as it is against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a property debt, and an order for the sale of the res. Petitioner also failed to convince the SC by citing Russell v. Vestill to show that action for foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the RTC. In the same case, the court explained that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved. In the current case, since the mortgaged property has an assessed value of P13,380, the proper jurisdiction falls to the first level courts. 

​
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2024
    August 2024
    May 2024
    December 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION