Surviving Heirs of Alfredo Bautista Vs.
Francisco Lindo et al
GR no. 208232
March 10, 2014
Facts:
Alfredo Baustista petitioner’s predecessor, inherited in 1983 a free-patent land located in Poblacion,
Lupon, Davao Oriental. A few years later, he subdivided the property and sold it to several vendees,
herein respondents, via a notarized deed of absolute sale. Three years after the sale, Bautista filed a
complaint for repurchase against respondents before the RTC ] anchoring his cause of action on Public
Land Act,” which reads:
SECTION 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when
proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five
years from the date of the conveyance.
Latter they entered into a compromise agreement whereby Lindon agreed to later entered into a
compromise agreement with petitioners, whereby they agreed to Epifania (Successor of late Alfredo
Bautista) a portion of the property as well as to waive, abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims and
counterclaims against each other. The compromise was approved by the RTC.
Other respondents, however, filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the complaint failed to state the
value of the property sought to be recovered. Moreover, they asserted that the total selling price of
allthe pro perties is only sixteen thousand five hundred pesos (16500) Since Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP)
129, as amended, grants jurisdiction to the RTCs over civil actions involving title to or possession of real
property or interest therein where the assessed value is more than PhP20,000, then the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the complaint in question since the property which Bautista seeks to repurchase is
below the PhP20,000 jurisdictional ceiling.
RTC dismissed the case on the lack of jurisdiction
Petitioners now seek recourse before this Court and further argued that an action for repurchase is not
a real action, but one incapable of pecuniary estimation. According to petitioners, what they seek is the
enforcement of their right to repurchase.
ISSUE: WON the action sought by the parties are not real action but one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
HELD:
The petition is meritorious.
The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a
sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim. But 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, this Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and, hence, are incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
The Court finds that the instant cause of action to redeem the land is one for specific performance. The
facts are clear that Bautista sold to respondents his lots which were covered by a free patent. While the
deeds of sale do not explicitly contain the stipulation that the sale is subject to repurchase such legal
provision is deemed integrated and made part of the deed of sale as prescribed by law
it appears that the action filed by Bautista involves title to or possession of the lots he sold to
respondents. Since the total selling price is less than PhP20,000, then the MTC, not the RTC, has
jurisdiction over the case. This proposition is incorrect for the reacquisition of the lots by Bautista or
herein successors in-interests, the present petitioners, is but incidental to and an offshoot of the
exercise of the right by the latter to redeem said lots and is not the principal or main relief or remedy
sought.
