03b - Filing Fees

8/9/2019 03b - Filing Fees

1/31

G.R. No. 75919 May 7, 1987

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDRE

LUISON, GRACE LUISON a!" #OSE DE MAISIP, respondents.

Tanjuatco, Oreta and Tanjuatco for petitioners.

Pecabar Law Offices for private respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

GANCAYCO, J.:

Acting on the motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Second ivision of !anuar" #$,%&$' andanother motion to refer the case to and to (e heard in oral argument (" the )ourt En Bancfiled ("

petitioners, the motion to refer the case to the )ourt en bancis granted (ut the motion to set the case for

oral argument is denied.

*etitioners in support of their contention that the filing fee must (e assessed on the (asis of the amended

complaint cite the case of Magaspi vs. Ramolete. 1The" contend that the )ourt of Appeals erred in that

the filing fee should (e levied (" considering the amount of damages sought in the original complaint.

The environmental facts of said case differ from the present in that +

%. The agaspi case -as an action for recover" of o-nership and possession of a parcel of land -ithdamages.$hile the present case is an action for torts and damages and specific performance -ith

pra"er for temporar" restraining order, etc.%

#. In the agaspi case, the pra"er in the complaint see/s not onl" the annulment of title of the defendant

to the propert", the declaration of o-nership and deliver" of possession thereof to plaintiffs (ut also as/s

for the pa"ment of actual moral, e0emplar" damages and attorne"1s fees arising therefrom in the amounts

specified therein. &2o-ever, in the present case, the pra"er is for the issuance of a -rit of preliminar"

prohi(itor" in3unction during the pendenc" of the action against the defendants1 announced forfeiture of

the sum of *4 illion paid (" the plaintiffs for the propert" in 5uestion, to attach such propert" of

defendants that ma"(e sufficient to satisf" an" 3udgment that ma"(e rendered, and after hearing, to order

defendants to e0ecute a contract of purchase and sale of the su(3ect propert" and annul defendants1

illegal forfeiture of the mone" of plaintiff, ordering defendants 3ointl" and severall" to pa" plaintiff actual,

compensator" and e0emplar" damages as -ell as #67 of said amounts as ma"(e proved during the trial

as attorne"1s fees and declaring the tender of pa"ment of the purchase price of plaintiff valid and

producing the effect of pa"ment and to ma/e the in3unction permanent. The amount of damages sought is

not specified in the pra"er although the (od" of the complaint alleges the total amount of over *'$ illion

as damages suffered (" plaintiff.5


2/31

4. Upon the filing of the complaint there -as an honest difference of opinion as to the nature of the action

in the agaspi case. The complaint -as considered as primaril" an action for recover" of o-nership and

possession of a parcel of land. The damages stated -ere treated as merel" to the main cause of action.

Thus, the doc/et fee of onl" *89.99 and *%9.99 for the sheriff1s fee -ere paid. '

In the present case there can (e no such honest difference of opinion. As ma"(e gleaned from the

allegations of the complaint as -ell as the designation thereof, it is (oth an action for damages and

specific performance. The doc/et fee paid upon filing of complaint in the amount onl" of *:%9.99 ("

considering the action to (e merel" one for specific performance -here the amount involved is not

capa(le of pecuniar" estimation is o(viousl" erroneous. Although the total amount of damages sought is

not stated in the pra"er of the complaint "et it is spelled out in the (od" of the complaint totalling in the

amount of *'$,'69,999.99 -hich should (e the (asis of assessment of the filing fee.

:. hen this under;re assessment of the filing fee in this case -as (rought to the attention of this )ourt

together -ith similar other cases an investigation -as immediatel" ordered (" the )ourt. ean-hile

plaintiff through another counsel -ith leave of court filed an amended complaint on Septem(er %#, %&$6

for the inclusion of *hilips ire and )a(le )orporation as co;plaintiff and (" emanating an" mention of

the amount of damages in the (od" of the complaint. The pra"er in the original complaint -as maintained.After this )ourt issued an order on Octo(er %6, %&$6 ordering the re; assessment of the doc/et fee in the

present case and other cases that -ere investigated, on Novem(er %#, %&$6 the trial court directed

plaintiffs to rectif" the amended complaint (" stating the amounts -hich the" are as/ing for. It -as onl"

then that plaintiffs specified the amount of damages in the (od" of the complaint in the reduced amount of

*%9,999,999.99. 7Still no amount of damages -ere specified in the pra"er. Said amended complaint -as

admitted.

On the other hand, in the agaspi case, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to pa" the amount of

*4,%9:.99 as filing fee covering the damages alleged in the original complaint as it did not consider the

damages to (e merel" an or incidental to the action for recover" of o-nership and possession of real

propert". 8An amended complaint -as filed (" plaintiff -ith leave of court to include the government of the

Repu(lic as defendant and reducing the amount of damages, and attorne"1s fees pra"ed for to

*%99,999.99. Said amended complaint -as also admitted. 9

In the agaspi case, the action -as considered not onl" one for recover" of o-nership (ut also for

damages, so that the filing fee for the damages should (e the (asis of assessment. Although the pa"ment

of the doc/eting fee of *89.99 -as found to (e insufficient, nevertheless, it -as held that since the

pa"ment -as the result of an


3/31

amendment of the complaint there(" vest 3urisdiction upon the )ourt. 1%=or an legal purposes there is no

such original complaint that -as dul" filed -hich could (e amended. )onse5uentl", the order admitting

the amended complaint and all su(se5uent proceedings and actions ta/en (" the trial court are null and

void.

The )ourt of Appeals therefore, aptl" ruled in the present case that the (asis of assessment of the doc/et

fee should (e the amount of damages sought in the original complaint and not in the amended complaint.

The )ourt cannot close this case -ithout ma/ing the o(servation that it fro-ns at the practice of counsel

-ho filed the original complaint in this case of omitting an" specification of the amount of damages in the

pra"er although the amount of over *'$ million is alleged in the (od" of the complaint. This is clearl"

intended for no other purpose than to evade the pa"ment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the

doc/et cler/ in the assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice -as compounded -hen, even as

this )ourt had ta/en cogni>ance of the anomal" and ordered an investigation, petitioner through another

counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of damages (eing as/ed for in

the (od" of the complaint. It -as onl" -hen in o(edience to the order of this )ourt of Octo(er %$, %&$6,

the trial court directed that the amount of damages (e specified in the amended complaint, that

petitioners1 counsel -rote the damages sought in the much reduced amount of *%9,999,999.99 in the(od" of the complaint (ut not in the pra"er thereof. The design to avoid pa"ment of the re5uired doc/et

fee is o(vious.

The )ourt serves -arning that it -ill ta/e drastic action upon a repetition of this unethical practice.

To put a stop to this irregularit", henceforth all complaints, petitions, ans-ers and other similar pleadings

should specif" the amount of damages (eing pra"ed for not onl" in the (od" of the pleading (ut also in

the pra"er, and said damages shall (e considered in the assessment of the filing fees in an" case. An"

pleading that fails to compl" -ith this re5uirement shall not (i( accepted nor admitted, or shall other-ise

(e e0punged from the record.

The )ourt ac5uires 3urisdiction over an" case onl" upon the pa"ment of the prescri(ed doc/et fee. An

amendment of the complaint or similar pleading -ill not there(" vest 3urisdiction in the )ourt, much less

the pa"ment of the doc/et fee (ased on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the

agaspi case 1&in so far as it is inconsistent -ith this pronouncement is overturned and reversed.

2ERE=ORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lac/ of merit.

SO ORERE.


4/31


5/31

On ecem(er %8, %&$6, !udge Antonio *. Solano, to -hose sala )ivil )ase No. ;:%%'' -as temporaril"

assigned, issuedan order to the )ler/ of )ourt instructing him to issue a certificate of assessment of the

doc/et fee paid (" private respondent and, in case of deficienc", to include the same in said certificate.

On !anuar" ', %&$:, to forestall a default, a cautionar" ans-er -as filed (" petitioners. On August

49,%&$:, an amended complaint -as filed (" private respondent including the t-o additional defendants

aforestated.

!udge a0imiano ). Asuncion, to -hom )ivil )ase No. :%%'' -as thereafter assigned, after his

assumption into office on !anuar" %8, %&$8, issued a Supplemental Order re5uiring the parties in the case

to comment on the )ler/ of )ourt1s letter;report signif"ing her difficult" in compl"ing -ith the Resolution of

this )ourt of Octo(er %6, %&$6 since the pleadings filed (" private respondent did not indicate the e0act

amount sought to (e recovered. On !anuar" #4, %&$8, private respondent filed a


6/31

uring the pendenc" of this petition and in conformit" -ith the said 3udgment of respondent court, private

respondent paid the additional doc/et fee of *8#,:4#.&9 on April #$, %&$$. %

The main thrust of the petition is that the )ourt of Appeals erred in not finding that the lo-er court did not

ac5uire 3urisdiction over )ivil )ase No. ;:%%'' on the ground of nonpa"ment of the correct and proper

doc/et fee. *etitioners allege that -hile it ma" (e true that private respondent had paid the amount of

*%$#,$#:.&9 as doc/et fee as herein;a(ove related, and considering that the total amount sought to (e

recovered in the amended and supplemental complaint is *8:,89%,8#4.'9 the doc/et fee that should (e

paid (" private respondent is *#6',$%9.:&, more or less. Not having paid the same, petitioners contend

that the complaint should (e dismissed and all incidents arising therefrom should (e annulled. In support

of their theor", petitioners cite the latest ruling of the )ourt in Manc%ester #evelopment &orporation vs.

&$, &as follo-sC

The )ourt ac5uires 3urisdiction over an" case onl" upon the pa"ment of the prescri(ed

doc/et fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading -ill not there(" vest

3urisdiction in the )ourt, much less the pa"ment of the doc/et fee (ased on the amounts

sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the agaspi )ase in so far as it is

inconsistent -ith this pronouncement is overturned and reversed.

On the other hand, private respondent claims that the ruling in Manc%estercannot appl" retroactivel" to

)ivil )ase No. :%%'' for at the time said civil case -as filed in court there -as no

such Manc%esterruling as "et. =urther, private respondent avers that -hat is applica(le is the ruling of

this &ourt in Magaspi v. Ramolete,5-herein this )ourt held that the trial court ac5uired 3urisdiction over

the case even if the doc/et fee paid -as insufficient.

The contention that Manc%ester cannot appl" retroactivel" to this case is untena(le. Statutes regulating

the procedure of the courts -ill (e construed as applica(le to actions pending and undetermined at the

time of their passage. *rocedural la-s are retrospective in that sense and to that e0tent. '

In La'aro vs. Endencia and $ndres,7this )ourt held that the pa"ment of the full amount of the doc/et fee

is an indispensa(le step for the perfection of an appeal. In a forci(le entr" and detainer case (efore the

3ustice of the peace court of anaoag, *angasinan, after notice of a 3udgment dismissing the case, the

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal -ith said court (ut he deposited onl" *$.99 for the doc/et fee, instead of

*%8.99 as re5uired, -ithin the reglementar" period of appeal of five ?6@ da"s after receiving notice of

3udgment. *laintiff deposited the additional *$.99 to complete the amount of the doc/et fee onl" fourteen

?%:@ da"s later. On the (asis of these facts, this court held that the )ourt of =irst Instance did notac5uire

3urisdiction to hear and determine the appeal as the appeal -as not there(" perfected.

In Lee vs. Republic, 8the petitioner filed a verified declaration of intention to (ecome a =ilipino citi>en ("

sending it through registered mail to the Office of the Solicitor Deneral in %&64 (ut the re5uired filing fee

-as paid onl" in %&68, (arel" 6# months prior to the filing of the petition for citi>enship. This )ourt ruledthat the declaration -as not filed in accordance -ith the legal re5uirement that such declaration should (e

filed at least one "ear (efore the filing of the petition for citi>enship. )iting La'aro, this )ourt concluded

that the filing of petitioner1s declaration of intention on Octo(er #4, %&64 produced no legal effect until the

re5uired filing fee -as paid on a" #4, %&68.

In Malimit vs. #egamo, 9the same principles enunciated in La>aro and Lee -ere applied. It -as an

original petition for(uo warrantocontesting the right to office of proclaimed candidates -hich -as mailed,


7/31

addressed to the cler/ of the )ourt of =irst Instance, -ithin the one;-ee/ period after the proclamation as

provided therefor (" la-.1(2o-ever, the re5uired doc/et fees -ere paid onl" after the e0piration of said

period. )onse5uentl", this )ourt held that the date of such pa"ment must (e deemed to (e the real date

of filing of aforesaid petition and not the date -hen it -as mailed.

Again, in)arica vs, *as(ue',11this )ourt reiterated the rule that the doc/et fee must (e paid (efore a

court -ill act on a petition or complaint. 2o-ever, -e also held that said rule is not applica(le -hen

petitioner see/s the pro(ate of several -ills of the same decedent as he is not re5uired to file a separate

action for each -ill (ut instead he ma" have other -ills pro(ated in the same special proceeding then

pending (efore the same court.

Then in Magaspi, 1$this )ourt reiterated the ruling in MalimitandLee that a case is deemed filed onl"

upon pa"ment of the doc/et fee regardless of the actual date of its filing in court. Said case involved a

complaint for recover" of o-nership and possession of a parcel of land -ith damages filed in the )ourt of

=irst Instance of )e(u. Upon the pa"ment of *89.99 for the doc/et fee and *%9.99 for the sheriffs fee, the

complaint -as doc/eted as )ivil )ase No. R;%%$$#. The pra"er of the complaint sought that the Transfer

)ertificate of Title issued in the name of the defendant (e declared as null and void. It -as also pra"ed

that plaintiff (e declared as o-ner thereof to -hom the proper title should (e issued, and that defendant(e made to pa" monthl" rentals of *4,699.99 from !une #, %&:$ up to the time the propert" is delivered to

plaintiff, *699,999.99 as moral damages, attorne"1s fees in the amount of *#69,999.99, the costs of the

action and e0emplar" damages in the amount of *699,999.99.

The defendant then filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to pa" the correct amount of the doc/et fee to

-hich an opposition -as filed (" the plaintiff alleging that the action -as for the recover" of a parcel of

land so the doc/et fee must (e (ased on its assessed value and that the amount of *89.99 -as the

correct doc/eting fee. The trial court ordered the plaintiff to pa" *4,%9:.99 as filing fee.

The plaintiff then filed a motion to admit the amended complaint to include the Repu(lic as the defendant.

In the pra"er of the amended complaint the e0emplar" damages earlier sought -as eliminated. The

amended pra"er merel" sought moral damages as the court ma" determine, attorne"1s fees of

*%99,999.99 and the costs of the action. The defendant filed an opposition to the amended complaint.

The opposition not-ithstanding, the amended complaint -as admitted (" the trial court. The trial court

reiterated its order for the pa"ment of the additional doc/et fee -hich plaintiff assailed and then

challenged (efore this )ourt. *laintiff alleged that he paid the total doc/et fee in the amount of *89.99

and that if he has to pa" the additional fee it must (e (ased on the amended complaint.

The 5uestion posed, therefore, -as -hether or not the plaintiff ma" (e considered to have filed the case

even if the doc/eting fee paid -as not sufficient. In Magaspi,e reiterated the rule that the case -as

deemed filed onl" upon the pa"ment of the correct amount for the doc/et fee regardless of the actual date

of the filing of the complaintF that there -as an honest difference of opinion as to the correct amount to (e

paid as doc/et fee in that as the action appears to (e one for the recover" of propert" the doc/et fee of*89.99 -as correctF and that as the action is also one, for damages, e upheld the assessment of the

additional doc/et fee (ased on the damages alleged in the amended complaint as against the

assessment of the trial court -hich -as (ased on the damages alleged in the original complaint.

2o-ever, as aforecited, this )ourt overturned Magaspi in Manc%ester. Manc%ester involves an action for

torts and damages and specific performance -ith a pra"er for the issuance of a temporar" restraining

order, etc. The pra"er in said case is for the issuance of a -rit of preliminar" prohi(itor" in3unction during


8/31

the pendenc" of the action against the defendants1 announced forfeiture of the sum of *4 illion paid ("

the plaintiffs for the propert" in 5uestion, the attachment of such propert" of defendants that ma" (e

sufficient to satisf" an" 3udgment that ma" (e rendered, and, after hearing, the issuance of an order

re5uiring defendants to e0ecute a contract of purchase and sale of the su(3ect propert" and annul

defendants1 illegal forfeiture of the mone" of plaintiff. It -as also pra"ed that the defendants (e made to

pa" the plaintiff 3ointl" and severall", actual, compensator" and e0emplar" damages as -ell as #67 of

said amounts as ma" (e proved during the trial for attorne"1s fees. The plaintiff also as/ed the trial court

to declare the tender of pa"ment of the purchase price of plaintiff valid and sufficient for purposes of

pa"ment, and to ma/e the in3unction permanent. The amount of damages sought is not specified in the

pra"er although the (od" of the complaint alleges the total amount of over *'$ illon allegedl" suffered

(" plaintiff.

Upon the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff paid the amount of onl" *:%9.99 for the doc/et fee (ased on

the nature of the action for specific performance -here the amount involved is not capa(le of pecuniar"

estimation. 2o-ever, it -as o(vious from the allegations of the complaint as -ell as its designation that

the action -as one for damages and specific performance. Thus, this court held the plaintiff must (e

assessed the correct doc/et fee computed against the amount of damages of a(out *'$ illion, although

the same -as not spelled out in the pra"er of the complaint.

ean-hile, plaintiff through another counsel, -ith leave of court, filed an amended complaint on

Septem(er %#, %&$6 (" the inclusion of another co;plaintiff and eliminating an" mention of the amount of

damages in the (od" of the complaint. The pra"er in the original complaint -as maintained.

On Octo(er %6, %&$6, this )ourt ordered the re;assessment of the doc/et fee in the said case and other

cases that -ere investigated. On Novem(er %#, %&$6, the trial court directed the plaintiff to rectif" the

amended complaint (" stating the amounts -hich the" -ere as/ing for. This plaintiff did as instructed. In

the (od" of the complaint the amount of damages alleged -as reduced to *%9,999,999.99 (ut still no

amount of damages -as specified in the pra"er. Said amended complaint -as admitted.

Appl"ing the principle in Magaspi that


9/31

On April #:, %&$8, private respondent filed a supplemental complaint alleging an additional claim of

*#9,999,999.99 in damages so that his total claim is appro0imatel" *8:,89%,8#9.'9. On Octo(er %8,

%&$8, private respondent paid an additional doc/et fee of *$9,4&8.99. After the promulgation of the

decision of the respondent court on August 4%, %&$' -herein private respondent -as ordered to (e

reassessed for additional doc/et fee, and during the pendenc" of this petition, and after the promulgation

of Manc%ester, on April #$, %&$$, private respondent paid an additional doc/et fee of *8#,%4#..

Although private respondent appears to have paid a total amount of *%$#,$#:.&9 for the doc/et fee

considering the total amount of his claim in the amended and supplemental complaint amounting to a(out

*8:,89%,8#9.'9, petitioner insists that private respondent must pa" a doc/et fee of *#6',$%9.:&.

The principle in Manc%ester could ver" -ell (e applied in the present case. The pattern and the intent to

defraud the government of the doc/et fee due it is o(vious not onl" in the filing of the original complaint

(ut also in the filing of the second amended complaint.

2o-ever, in Manc%ester, petitioner did not pa" an" additional doc/et fee untilG the case -as decided ("

this )ourt on a" ', %&$'. Thus, in Manc%ester, due to the fraud committed on the government, this

)ourt held that the court a (uo did not ac5uire 3urisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint

could not have (een admitted inasmuch as the original complaint -as null and void.

In the present case, a more li(eral interpretation of the rules is called for considering that, unli/e

anchester, private respondent demonstrated his -illingness to a(ide (" the rules (" pa"ing the

additional doc/et fees as re5uired. The promulgation of the decision in anchester must have had that

so(ering influence on private respondent -ho thus paid the additional doc/et fee as ordered (" the

respondent court. It triggered his change of stance (" manifesting his -illingness to pa" such additional

doc/et fee as ma" (e ordered.

Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the doc/et fee that -as paid is still insufficient considering the total

amount of the claim. This is a matter -hich the cler/ of court of the lo-er court andHor his dul" authori>ed

doc/et cler/ or cler/ in;charge should determine and, thereafter, if an" amount is found due, he must

re5uire the private respondent to pa" the same.

Thus, the )ourt rules as follo-sC

%. It is not simpl" the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiator" pleading, (ut the pa"ment of the

prescri(ed doc/et fee, that vests a trial court -ith 3urisdiction over the su(3ect matter or nature of the

action. here the filing of the initiator" pleading is not accompanied (" pa"ment of the doc/et fee, the

court ma" allo- pa"ment of the fee -ithin a reasona(le time (ut in no case (e"ond the applica(le

prescriptive or reglementar" period.

#. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third part" claims and similar pleadings, -hich shall

not (e considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescri(ed therefor is paid. The court ma" also allo-pa"ment of said fee -ithin a reasona(le time (ut also in no case (e"ond its applica(le prescriptive or

reglementar" period.

4. here the trial court ac5uires 3urisdiction over a claim (" the filing of the appropriate pleading and

pa"ment of the prescri(ed filing fee (ut, su(se5uentl", the 3udgment a-ards a claim not specified in the

pleading, or if specified the same has (een left for determination (" the court, the additional filing fee


10/31

therefor shall constitute a lien on the 3udgment. It shall (e the responsi(ilit" of the )ler/ of )ourt or his

dul" authori>ed deput" to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

2ERE=ORE, the petition is ISISSE for lac/ of merit. The )ler/ of )ourt of the court a (uois

here(" instructed to reassess and determine the additional filing fee that should (e paid (" private

respondent considering the total amount of the claim sought in the original complaint and the

supplemental complaint as ma" (e gleaned from the allegations and the pra"er thereof and to re5uire

private respondent to pa" the deficienc", if an", -ithout pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORERE.


11/31

CONRADO COLARINA,petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, #UDGE NILO MALANYAON, RTC*-.

%$, P262, Ca:a-2!+) S-; ASSET PRIVATIation ?)O*@ and the epartment of Agrarian Reform ?AR@ of his desire to (e paid -ith

BISUE)O assets. Nevertheless, the A*T pu(lished and offered the BISUE)O assets for sale at

pu(lic auction.

On ## !une %& petitioner su(mitted a (id of *#'9,999,999.99 plus 47 of the gross sales for the

ne0t five ?6@ "ears. 2e stated in his (id that the entire amount -ould (e paid for -ith his lands that -ere

ta/en and placed (" the AR under the operation of RA No. 886'. 2e also pra"ed that he (e e0empted

from putting up the re5uired cash deposit e5uivalent to ten percent ?%97@ of his (id.

*etitioner1s re5uest for e0emption from the (onding re5uirement -as ho-ever denied. Since he

failed to put up the re5uired cash (ond, he -as dis5ualified from the (idding thus leaving respondent

Bicol Agro;Industrial *roducers )ooperative ?BA*)I@ as the onl" 5ualified (idder. On ## !une %& a

deed of sale over the BISUE)O assets for *%89,999,999.99 -as e0ecuted in favor of respondent

BA*)I.

On : Novem(er %& petitioner filed a complaint for &ancellation and $nnulment of aleor$ward,

Mandamus wit% Preliminar! njunction, Restraining Order and #amages (efore the RT) of )amarines

Sur against the A*T, the )O*, the AR and the BA*)I. On % ecem(er %& he filed his$mended

&omplaintpra"ing that J

0 0 0 upon receipt of this complaint, a restraining order (e issued (" the court, en3oining and commanding

the BI)OL ADRO INUSTRIAL *ROU)ERS )OO*ERATIE ?BA*)I@ to stop and desist in ta/ing

possession the assets of BISUE)O, and to ma/e such order permanent thereafter through a -rit of

*reliminar" andator" In3unction. After due notice and hearing 3udgment (e renderedC
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/feb99/117439.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/feb99/117439.htm#_edn1


12/31

a. eclaring the sale, a-ard and grant of the BISUE)O assets to the BA*)I (" the A*TH)O* null and

void.

(. Ordering the A*T, the )O* and the AR to grant, approve, effect and materiali>e the s-apping of the

plaintiffKs land -ith the BISUE)O assets pursuant to R.A. No. 886', and the plaintiff (eing the highest

(idder.

c. Ordering the defendants to pa" the plaintiff the amount of *#99,999.99 for attorne"Ks fee and for

necessar" and related e0penses of suit.

=or the filing of his complaint in the Regional Trial )ourt petitioner paid the amount of * :%6.99 as doc/et

fees.

In its$nswer wit% &ounterclaimrespondent BA*)I argued that the trial court did not ac5uire

3urisdiction over the complaint since plaintiff ?petitioner herein@ failed to pa" the doc/et fee

of*%,469,$69.99, -hich -as (ased on the value of the disputed propert" pegged (" petitioner himself

at *#'9,999,999.99. On #4 arch %&&4 the trial court directed petitioner to complete -ithin t-ent" ?#9@

da"s pa"ment of the proper doc/et fees computed at


13/31


14/31

reasona(le time. hile the pa"ment of doc/et fees, li/e other procedural rules, ma" have (een li(erall"

construed in certain cases if onl" to secure a 3ust and speed" disposition of ever" action and proceeding,

it should not (e ignored or (elittled lest it scathes and pre3udices the other part"1s su(stantive rights. The

pa"ment of the doc/et fee in the proper amount should (e follo-ed su(3ect onl" to certain e0ceptions

-hich should (e strictl" construed.

The )ourt of Appeals -as also correct -hen it ruled that certiorari-as not the proper remed" since

an appeal -ould still (e availa(le should the trial court ultimatel" dismiss the civil case. =or,

(eforecertioraricould lie, all the remedies availa(le in the trial court should have first (een

e0hausted. Accordingl", -e find no reason to reverse the ecision sought to (e revie-ed as it is in

accord -ith the facts and the la-.

HEREFORE, the instant petition for revie- on certiorariis ENIE. The ## !ul" %&&: ecision of

respondent )ourt of Appeals sustaining the %9 a" %&&4 Order of the Regional Trial )ourt of *ili,

)amarines Sur, Br. 4#, in )ivil )ase No. *;%$86, is A==IRE. )osts against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


15/31

UY SHELTER UILDERS AND REALTYDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, *etitioner,

; versus;

HON. PALO C. FORMARAN III, P-+)2"2!3#"3+ o> R+32o!a6 T-2a6 Co- -a!4 $1,Na3a C2y, a) Pa2-2!3 #"3+ >o- R+32o!a6T-2a6 Co- -a!4 $$, Fo-:+-6y P-+)2"+" yHON. NOVELITA VILLEGAS*LLAGUNO/R+2-+" (1 May $(('0, ROMEO Y. TAN,ROERTO L. OIEDO a!" ATTY. TOMAS A.REYES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 17591&

*resentCMNARES;SANTIADO,-., )hairperson,

AUSTRIA;ARTINE,)2I)O;NAARIO,NA)2URA, and*ERALTA, --.

*romulgatedC

=e(ruar" %9, #99&

0; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;0

E ) I S I O N

CHICO*NA


16/31

In a emorandum of Agreement&Gdated %' arch #996, respondents Tan and O(iedo granted

petitioner until 4% ecem(er #996 to settle its inde(tedness, and condoned the interests, penalties and

surcharges accruing thereon from % Octo(er #99: to 4% ecem(er #996 -hich amounted

to *':,8'$,8:'.99. The emorandum of Agreement re5uired, in turn, that petitioner e0ecute

simultaneousl" -ith the said emorandum, (" -a" of dacion en pago, eeds of A(solute Sale in favor

of respondents Tan and O(iedo, covering the same parcels of land su(3ect of the mortgages. The eeds

of A(solute Sale -ould (e uniforml" dated # !anuar" #998, and state that petitioner sold to respondents

Tan and O(iedo the parcels of land for the follo-ing purchase pricesC

TCT No. P-4a)+ P-24+

4$4'8

* &,4:9,999.99

#&&%$ * #$,999,999.994$4': * %#,999,999.994# * %,899,999.99

4#6 * %,899,999.99

*etitioner could choose to pa" off its inde(tedness -ith individual or all five parcels of landF or it

could redeem said properties (" pa"ing respondents Tan and O(iedo the follo-ing prices for the same,

inclusive of interest and penaltiesC

TCT No. R+"+:?2o! P-24+

4$4'8

* #6,4#$,&4&.99

#&&%$ * 46,889,$99.99

4$4': * #$,:'',899.994# * 8,#44,4$%.994#6 * 8,#44,4$%.99

In the event that petitioner is a(le to redeem an" of the afore;mentioned parcels of land, the eed

of A(solute Sale covering the said propert" shall (e nullified and have no force and effectF and

respondents Tan and O(iedo shall then return the o-nerKs duplicate of the corresponding T)T to

petitioner and also e0ecute a eed of ischarge of ortgage. 2o-ever, if petitioner is una(le to redeem

the parcels of land -ithin the period agreed upon, respondents Tan and O(iedo could alread" present the

eeds of A(solute Sale covering the same to the Office of the Register of eeds for Naga )it" so

respondents Tan and O(iedo could ac5uire T)Ts to the said properties in their names.

The emorandum of Agreement further provided that should petitioner contest, 3udiciall" or

other-ise, an" act, transaction, or event related to or necessaril" connected -ith the said emorandum

and the eeds of A(solute Sale involving the five parcels of land, it -ould pa" respondents Tan and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn9


17/31

O(iedo *%9,999,999.99 as li5uidated damages inclusive of costs and attorne"Ks fees. *etitioner -ould

li/e-ise pa" respondents Tan and O(iedo the condoned interests, surcharges and penalties. %9G =inall",

should a contest arise from the emorandum of Agreement, r. Ru(en Sia ?Sia@, *resident of petitioner

corporation, personall" assumes, 3ointl" and severall" -ith petitioner, the latterKs monetar" o(ligation to

respondent Tan and O(iedo.

Respondent Att". Tomas A. Re"es ?Re"es@ -as the Notar" *u(lic -ho notari>ed the emorandum

of Agreement dated %' arch #996 (et-een respondent Tan and O(iedo, on one hand, and petitioner, on

the other.

*ursuant to the emorandum of Agreement, petitioner, represented (" r. Sia, e0ecuted

separate eeds of A(solute Sale,%%Gover the five parcels of land, in favor of respondents Tan and

O(iedo. On the (lan/ spaces provided for in the said eeds, some(od" -rote the 4

rd

of !anuar" #998 asthe date of their e0ecution. The eeds -ere again notari>ed (" respondent Att". Re"es also on 4

!anuar" #998.

ithout pa"ment having (een made (" petitioner on 4% ecem(er #996, respondents Tan and

O(iedo presented the eeds of A(solute Sale dated 4 !anuar" #998 (efore the Register of eeds of

Naga )it" on $ arch #998, as a result of -hich, the" -ere a(le to secure T)Ts over the five parcels of

land in their names.

On %8 arch #998, petitioner filed (efore the RT) a )omplaint%#Gagainst respondents Tan,

O(iedo, and Att". Re"es, for declaration of nullit" of deeds of sales and damages, -ith pra"er for the

issuance of a -rit of preliminar" in3unction andHor temporar" restraining order ?TRO@. The )omplaint -as

doc/eted as )ivil )ase No. #998;9949.

On the (asis of the facts alread" recounted a(ove, petitioner raised t-o causes of action in its

)omplaint.

As for the first cause of action, petitioner alleged that as earl" as #' ecem(er #996, its*resident alread" -rote a letter informing respondents Tan and O(iedo of the intention of petitioner to pa"

its loan and re5uesting a meeting to compute the final amount due. The parties held meetings on 4 and :

!anuar" #998 (ut the" failed to arrive at a mutuall" accepta(le computation of the final amount of loan

pa"a(le. Respondents Tan and O(iedo then refused the re5uest of petitioner for further

dialogues. Un(e/no-nst to petitioner, despite the ongoing meetings, respondents Tan and O(iedo, in

evident (ad faith, alread" had the pre;e0ecuted eeds of A(solute Sale notari>ed on 4 !anuar" #998("
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn12


18/31

respondent Att". Re"es. Att". Re"es, in connivance -ith respondents Tan and O(iedo, falsel" made it

appear in the eeds of A(solute Sale that r. Sia had personall" ac/no-ledgedHratified the said eeds

(efore Att". Re"es.

Asserting that the eeds of A(solute Sale over the five parcels of land -ere e0ecuted merel" as

securit" for the pa"ment of its loan to respondents Tan and O(iedoF that the eeds of A(solute Sale,

e0ecuted in accordance -ith the emorandum of Agreement, constitutedpactum commisoriumand as

such, -ere null and voidF and that the ac/no-ledgment in the eeds of A(solute Sale -ere falsified,

petitioner averredC

%4. That (" reason of the fraudulent actions (" the herein respondentsG,

herein petitionerG is pre3udiced and is no- in danger of (eing deprived, ph"sicall" andlegall", of the mortgaged properties -ithout (enefit of legal processes such as theremed" of foreclosure and its attendant procedures, solemnities and remedies availa(le

to a mortgagor, -hile petitionerG is desirous and -illing to pa" its o(ligation and have themortgaged properties released.%4G

In support of its second cause of action, petitioner narrated in its )omplaint that on %$ !anuar"

#998, respondents Tan and O(iedo forci(l" too/ over, -ith the use of armed men, possession of the five

parcels of land su(3ect of the falsified eeds of A(solute Sale and fenced the said properties -ith (ar(ed

-ire. Beginning 4 arch #998, respondents Tan and O(iedo started demolishing some of the commercial

spaces standing on the parcels of land in 5uestion -hich -ere (eing rented out ("

petitioner. Respondents Tan and O(iedo -ere also a(out to tear do-n a principal improvement on the

properties consisting of a steel;and;concrete structure housing a motor vehicle terminal operated ("

petitioner. The actions of respondents Tan and O(iedo -ere to the damage and pre3udice of petitioner

and its tenantsHlessees. *etitioner, alone, claimed to have suffered at least*499,999.99 in actual

damages (" reason of the ph"sical invasion (" respondents Tan and O(iedo and their armed goons of

the five parcels of land.

Ultimatel", petitionerKs pra"er in its )omplaint readsC

HEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfull" pra"ed of this

2onora(le )ourt that upon the filing of this complaint, a '#;hour temporar" restrainingorder (e forth-ith issued e/ parteC

?a@ Restraining herein respondentsG Tan and O(iedo, their agents, privies or

representatives, from committing actHs tending to alienate the mortgaged properties fromthe herein petitionerG pending the resolution of the case, including (ut not limited to theacts complained of in paragraph %:, a(oveF


19/31


20/31

petitioner and the reduction of the interest rate thereon to onl" one percent ?%7@ per month. Respondents

Tan and O(iedo re3ected (oth demands.

Respondent Tan maintained that the eeds of A(solute Sale -ere not e0ecuted merel" as

securities for the loan of petitioner. The eeds of A(solute Sale over the five parcels of land -ere the

consideration for the pa"ment of the total inde(tedness of petitioner to respondents Tan and O(iedo, and

the condonation of the %6;month interest -hich alread" accrued on the loan, -hile providing petitioner

-ith the golden opportunit" to still redeem all or even portions of the properties covered (" said

eeds. Unfortunatel", petitioner failed to e0ercise its right to redeem an" of the said properties.

Bel"ing that the" forci(l" too/ possession of the five parcels of land, respondent Tan alleged that

it -as r. Sia -ho, -ith the aid of armed men, on (oard a Sports Utilit" ehicle and a truc/, rammed into

the personnel of respondents Tan and O(iedo causing melee and distur(ance. oreover, (" thee0ecution of the eeds of A(solute Sale, the properties su(3ect thereof -ere, ipso jure, delivered to

respondents Tan and O(iedo. The demolition of the e0isting structures on the properties -as nothing (ut

an e0ercise of dominion (" respondents Tan and O(iedo.

Respondent Tan, thus, sought not 3ust the dismissal of the )omplaint of petitioner, (ut also the

grant of his counterclaim. The pra"er in his Ans-er is faithfull" reproduced (elo-C

herefore, premises considered, it is most respectfull" pra"ed that, after due

hearing, 3udgment (e rendered dismissing the complaint, and on the counterclaim,

herein petitionerG and Ru(en Sia, (e ordered to indemnif", 3ointl" and severall" hereinrespondents Tan and O(iedoG the amounts of not less than *%9,999,999.99 as li5uidateddamages and the further sum of not less than *699,999.99 as attorne"Ks fees. In thealternative, and should it (ecome necessar", it is here(" pra"ed that petitionerG (eordered to pa" herein respondents Tan and O(iedoG the entire principal loanof *&6,'99,8#9.99, plus interests, surcharges and penalties computed from arch %',#996 until the entire sum is full" paid, including the amount of *':,8'$,8:'.99 foregoneinterest covering the period from Octo(er %, #99: to ecem(er 4%, #996 or for a total offifteen ?%6@ months, plus incidental e0penses as ma" (e proved in court, in the event that

Anne0es D to L (e nullified. Other relief and remedies as are 3ust and e5uita(le underthe premises are here(" pra"ed for.%8G

Thereafter, respondent Tan filed (efore the RT) an Omni(us otion in -hich he contended that

)ivil )ase No. #998;9949 involved real properties, the doc/et fees for -hich should (e computed in

accordance -ith Section '?a@, not Section '?(@?%@, of Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as amended (" A..

No. 9:;#;9:;S) -hich too/ effect on %8 August #99:. Since petitioner did not pa" the appropriate doc/et

fees for )ivil )ase No. #998;9949, the RT) did not ac5uire 3urisdiction over the said case. 2ence,

respondent Tan as/ed the RT) to issue an order re5uiring petitioner to pa" the correct and accurate


21/31

doc/et fees pursuant to Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as amendedF and should petitioner

fail to do so, to den" and dismiss the pra"er of petitioner for the annulment of the eeds of A(solute Sale

for having (een e0ecuted in contravention of the la- or of the emorandum of Agreement aspactum

commisorium.

As re5uired (" the RT), the parties su(mitted their *osition *apers on the matter. On #: arch

#998, the RT) issued an Order%'Ggranting respondent TanKs Omni(us otion. In holding that (oth

petitioner and respondent Tan must pa" doc/et fees in accordance -ith Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the

Rules of )ourt, as amended, the RT) reasonedC

It must (e noted that underparagraph (b) 2. of the said Section 7, it is provided

that UIETIND O= TITLE -hich is an action classified as (e"ond pecuniar" estimationshall (e governed (" paragraph ?a@. 2ence, the filing fee in an action for eclaration ofNullit" of eed -hich is also classified as (e"ond pecuniar" estimation, must (e

computed (ased on the provision of Section '?A@ herein;a(ove, in part, 5uoted.Since herein respondentG, Romeo Tan in his Ans-er has a counterclaim against

the plaintiff, the former must li/e-ise pa" the necessar" filling ?sic@ fees as provided forunder Section 7 (A) of Amended Administrative Circular o. !"#2$$% issued (" theSupreme )ourt.%$G

)onse5uentl", the RT) decreed on the matter of doc/etHfiling feesC

2ERE=ORE, premises considered, the herein petitionerG is here(" ordered to

pa" additional filing fee and the herein respondentG, Romeo Tan is also ordered to pa"

doc/et and filing fees on his counterclaim, (oth computed (ased on Section '?a@ of theSupreme )ourt Amended Administrative )ircular No. 46;#99: -ithin fifteen ?%6@ da"sfrom receipt of this Order to the )ler/ of )ourt, Regional Trial )ourt, Naga )it" and forthe latter to compute and to collect the said fees accordingl".%&G

*etitioner moved#9Gfor the partial reconsideration of the #: arch #998 Order of the RT),

arguing that )ivil )ase No. #998;9949 -as principall" for the annulment of the eeds of A(solute Sale

and, as such, incapa(le of pecuniar" estimation. *etitioner su(mitted that the RT) erred in appl"ing

Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as amended, to petitionerKs first cause of action in its

)omplaint in )ivil )ase No. #998;9949.

In its Order#%Gdated #& arch #998, the RT) refused to reconsider its #: arch #998 Order,

(ased on the follo-ing ratiocinationC

Anal">ing, the action herein pertains to real propert", for as admitted (" the

herein petitionerG, the deeds of sale in 5uestion pertain to real propert" 0 0 0. The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn21


22/31

eeds of Sale su(3ect of the instant case have alread" (een transferred in the name ofthe herein respondents Tan and O(iedoG.

)ompared -ith uieting of Title, the latter action is (rought -hen there is cloud

on the title to real propert" or an" interest therein or to prevent a cloud from (eing castupon title to the real propert" (Art. %7&, Civil Code of the 'hilippines)and the plaintiffmust have legal or e5uita(le title to or interest in the real propert" -hich is the su(3ectmatter of the action (Art. %%7, ibid.), and "et plaintiff in UIETIND O= TITLE is re5uiredto pa" the fees in accordance -ith paragraph ?a@ of Section ' of the said Amended

Administrative )ircular No. 46;#99:, hence, -ith more reason that the petitionerG -ho nolonger has title to the real properties su(3ect of the instant case must (e re5uired to pa"the re5uired fees in accordance -ith Section 7(a) of the Amended AdministrativeCircular o. !"#2$$%afore;mentioned.

=urthermore, -hile petitionerG claims that the action for declaration of nullit" of

deed of sale and memorandum of agreement is one incapa(le of pecuniar" estimation,ho-ever, as argued (" the respondent TanG, the issue as to ho- much filing and doc/etfees should (e paid -as never raised as an issue in the case of ussell vs. estil, !$%SCA 7!*.

0 0 0 02ERE=ORE, the otion for *artial Reconsideration is here(" ENIE.##G

In a letter dated %& April #998, the RT) )ler/ of )ourt computed, upon the re5uest of counsel for

the petitioner, the additional doc/et fees petitioner must pa" for in )ivil )ase No. #998;9949 as directed in

the afore;mentioned RT) Orders. *er the computation of the RT) )ler/ of )ourt, after e0cluding the

amount petitioner previousl" paid on %8 arch #998, petitioner must still pa" the amount of *'#9,4.89

as doc/et fees.#4G

*etitioner, ho-ever, had not "et conceded, and it filed a *etition for &ertiorari-ith the )ourt of

AppealsF the petition -as doc/eted as )A;D.R. S* No. &:$99. According to petitioner, the RT)#:Gacted

-ith grave a(use of discretion, amounting to lac/ or e0cess of 3urisdiction, -hen it issued its Orders dated

#: arch #998 and #& arch #998 mandating that the doc/etHfiling fees for )ivil )ase No. #998;9949, an

action for annulment of deeds of sale, (e assessed under Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as

amended. If the Orders -ould not (e revo/ed, corrected, or rectified, petitioner -ould suffer grave

in3ustice and irrepara(le damage.

On ## Novem(er #998, the )ourt of Appeals promulgated its ecision -herein it held thatC

)learl", the petitionerKs complaint involves not onl" the annulment of the deeds of

sale, (ut also the recover" of the real properties identified in the said documents. Inother -ords, the o(3ectives of the petitioner in filing the complaint -ere to cancel thedeeds of sale and ultimatel", to recover possession of the same. It is therefore a realaction.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn24


23/31

)onse5uentl", the additional doc/et fees that must (e paid cannot (e assessedin accordance -ith Section '?(@. As a real action, Section '?a@ must (e applied in theassessment and pa"ment of the proper doc/et fee.

Resultantl", there is no grave a(use of discretion amounting to lac/ or e0cess of

3urisdiction on the part of the court a (uo. B" grave a(use of discretion is meantcapricious and -himsical e0ercise of 3udgment as is e5uivalent to lac/ of 3urisdiction, andmere a(use of discretion is not enough J it must (e grave. The a(use must (e grave andpatent, and it must (e sho-n that the discretion -as e0ercised ar(itraril" and despoticall".

Such a situation does not e0ist in this particular case. The evidence is

insufficient to prove that the court a (uoacted despoticall" in rendering the assailedorders. It acted properl" and in accordance -ith la-. 2ence, error cannot (e attri(utedto it.#6G

2ence, the falloof the ecision of the appellate court readsC

HEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is +-+. The assailed Orders of the

court a 5uo areA-/+.#8G

ithout see/ing reconsideration of the foregoing ecision -ith the )ourt of Appeals, petitioner

filed its *etition for Revie- on &ertiorari(efore this )ourt, -ith a lone assignment of error, to -itC

%$. The herein petitioner most respectfull" su(mits that the )ourt of Appeals

committed a grave and serious reversi(le error in affirming the assailed Orders of theRegional Trial )ourt -hich are 46+a-6y 4o!-a-y o + ?-o!o!4+:+! o> 2)Ho!o-a6+ Co- 2! + 4a)+ o> S?o)+) D+ L+o! @. Co- o> A??+a6), G.R. No.1(&79', Ma-4 ', 1998, not to mention the fact that if the said 3udgment is allo-ed to

stand and not rectified, the same -ould result in grave in3ustice and irrepara(le damageto herein petitioner in vie- of the prohi(itive amount assessed as a conse5uence of saidOrders.#'G

In Manc%ester #evelopment &orporation v. &ourt of $ppeals ,#$Gthe )ourt e0plicitl" pronounced

that tGhe court ac5uires 3urisdiction over an" case onl" upon the pa"ment of the prescri(ed doc/et

fee. 2ence, the pa"ment of doc/et fees is not onl" mandator", (ut also 3urisdictional.

In un nsurance Office, Ltd. 0OL1 v. $suncion,#&Gthe )ourt laid do-n guidelines for the

implementation of its previous pronouncement in Manc%esterunder particular circumstances, to -itC

%. It is not simpl" the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiator" pleading, (utthe pa"ment of the prescri(ed doc/et fee, that vests a trial court -ith 3urisdiction over thesu(3ect matter or nature of the action. here the filing of the initiator" pleading is notaccompanied (" pa"ment of the doc/et fee, the court ma" allo- pa"ment of the fee-ithin a reasona(le time (ut in no case (e"ond the applica(le prescriptive orreglementar" period.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn29


24/31

#. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third;part" claims andsimilar pleadings, -hich shall not (e considered filed until and unless the filing feeprescri(ed therefor is paid. The court ma" also allo- pa"ment of said fee -ithin areasona(le time (ut also in no case (e"ond its applica(le prescriptive or reglementar"period.

4. here the trial court ac5uires 3urisdiction over a claim (" the filing of the

appropriate pleading and pa"ment of the prescri(ed filing fee (ut, su(se5uentl", the3udgment a-ards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has (eenleft for determination (" the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lienon the 3udgment. It shall (e the responsi(ilit" of the )ler/ of )ourt or his dul" authori>eddeput" to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

In the *etition at (ar, the RT) found, and the )ourt of Appeals affirmed, that petitioner did not pa"

the correct amount of doc/et fees for )ivil )ase No. #998;9949. According to (oth the trial and appellate

courts, petitioner should pa" doc/et fees in accordance -ith Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt,

as amended. )onsistent -ith the li(eral tenor of un nsurance, the RT), instead of dismissing outright

petitionerKs )omplaint in )ivil )ase No. #998;9949, granted petitioner time to pa" the additional doc/et

fees. espite the seeming munificence of the RT), petitioner refused to pa" the additional doc/et fees

assessed against it, (elieving that it had alread" paid the correct amount (efore, pursuant to Section '?(@

?%@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as amended.

Relevant to the present controvers" are the follo-ing provisions under Rule %:% of the Rules of

)ourt, as amended (" A.. No. 9:;#;9:;S)49Gand Supreme )ourt Amended Administrative )ircular No.

46;#99:4%GC

SE). '. )ler/s of Regional Trial )ourts. J?a@ =or filing an action or a permissive OR )O*ULSORM counterclaim,

)ROSS;)LAI, or mone" claim against an estate not (ased on 3udgment, or for filing athird;part", fourth;part", etc. complaint, or a complaint;in;intervention, if the total sumclaimed, IN)LUSIE O= INTERESTS, *ENALTIES, SUR)2ARDES, AADES O=2ATEER PIN, AN ATTORNEMKS =EES, LT)$TO +E2PE+EAN )OSTSandHor in cases involving propert", the =AIR ARPET value of the REAL propert" inlitigation STATE IN T2E )URRENT TAQ E)LARATION OR )URRENT ONALALUATION O= T2E BUREAU O= INTERNAL REENUE, 2I)2EER IS 2ID2ER,OR I= T2ERE IS NONE, T2E STATE ALUE O= T2E *RO*ERTM IN LITIDATION ORT2E ALUE O= T2E *ERSONAL *RO*ERTM IN LITIDATION OR T2E ALUE O= T2E

*ERSONAL *RO*ERTM IN LITIDATION AS ALLEDE BM T2E )LAIANT, isCTa(le of fees omitted.GIf the action involves (oth a mone" claim and relief pertaining to propert", then

T2E fees -ill (e charged on (oth the amounts claimed and value of propert" (ased onthe formula prescri(ed in this paragraph a.

?(@ =or filingC
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn31


25/31

%. Actions -here the value of the su(3ect matter cannot (e estimated

#. Special civil actions, e0cept 3udicial foreclosure of mortgage,EQ*RO*RIATION *RO)EEINDS, *ARTITION AN UIETIND O= TITLE-hich -ill

4. All other actions not involving propert"

Ta(le of fees omitted.G

The doc/et fees under Section '?a@, Rule %:%, in cases involving real propert" depend on the fair

mar/et value of the sameC the higher the value of the real propert", the higher the doc/et fees due. In

contrast, Section '?(@?%@, Rule %:% imposes a fi0ed or flat rate of doc/et fees on actions incapa(le of

pecuniar" estimation.

In order to resolve the issue of -hether petitioner paid the correct amount of doc/et fees, it isnecessar" to determine the true nature of its )omplaint. The dictum adhered to in this 3urisdiction is that

the nature of an action is determined (" the allegations in the (od" of the pleading or )omplaint itself,

rather than (" its title or heading.4#G2o-ever, the )ourt finds it necessar", in ascertaining the true nature

of )ivil )ase No. #998;9949, to ta/e into account significant facts and circumstances (e"ond the

)omplaint of petitioner, facts and circumstances -hich petitioner failed to state in its )omplaint (ut -ere

disclosed in the preliminar" proceedings (efore the court a (uo.

*etitioner persistentl" avers that its )omplaint in )ivil )ase No. #998;9949 is primaril" for the

annulment of the eeds of A(solute Sale. Based on the allegations and reliefs in the )omplaint alone,

one -ould get the impression that the titles to the su(3ect real properties still rest -ith petitionerF and that

the interest of respondents Tan and O(iedo in the same lies onl" in the eeds of A(solute Sale sought to

(e annulled.

hat petitioner failed to mention in its )omplaint -as that respondents Tan and O(iedo alread"

had the emorandum of Agreement, -hich clearl" provided for the e0ecution of the eeds of A(solute

Sale, registered on the T)Ts over the five parcels of land, then still in the name of petitioner. After

respondents Tan and O(iedo had the eeds of A(solute Sale notari>ed on 4 !anuar" #998 and presentedthe same to Register of eeds for Naga )it" on $ arch #998, the" -ere alread" issued T)Ts over the

real properties in 5uestion, in their o-n names. Respondents Tan and O(iedo have also ac5uired

possession of the said properties, ena(ling them, (" petitionerKs o-n admission, to demolish the

improvements thereon.


26/31

It is, thus, suspect that petitioner /ept mum a(out the afore;mentioned facts and circumstances

-hen the" had alread" ta/en place (efore it filed its )omplaint (efore the RT) on %8 arch

#998. *etitioner never e0pressed surprise -hen such facts and circumstances -ere esta(lished (efore

the RT), nor moved to amend its )omplaint accordingl". Even though the emorandum of Agreement

-as supposed to have long (een registered on its T)Ts over the five parcels of land, petitioner did not

pra" for the removal of the same as a cloud on its title. In the same vein, although petitioner alleged that

respondents Tan and O(iedo forci(l" too/ ph"sical possession of the su(3ect real properties, petitioner did

not see/ the restoration of such possession to itself. And despite learning that respondents Tan and

O(iedo alread" secured T)Ts over the su(3ect properties in their names, petitioner did not as/ for the

cancellation of said titles. The onl" logical and reasona(le e0planation is that petitioner is reluctant to

(ring to the attention of the )ourt certain facts and circumstances, /eeping its )omplaint safel" -orded,

so as to institute onl" an action for annulment of eeds of A(solute Sale. *etitioner deli(eratel" avoided

raising issues on the title and possession of the real properties that ma" lead the )ourt to classif" its caseas a real action.

No matter ho- fastidiousl" petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations and reliefs it

sought in its )omplaint in )ivil )ase No. #998;9949 appears to (e ultimatel" a real action, involving as

the" do the recover" (" petitioner of its title to and possession of the five parcels of land from respondents

Tan and O(iedo.

A real action is one in -hich the plaintiff see/s the recover" of real propert"F or, as indicated in

-hat is no- Section %, Rule : of the Rules of )ourt, a real action is an action affecting title to or recover"

of possession of real propert".44G

Section ', Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, prior to its amendment (" A.. No. 9:;#;9:;S), had a

specific paragraph governing the assessment of the doc/et fees for real action, to -itC

In a real action, the assessed value of the propert", or if there is none, the

estimated value thereof shall (e alleged (" the claimant and shall (e the (asis incomputing the fees.

It -as in accordance -ith the afore;5uoted provision that the )ourt, in )oc%an v. )oc%an,4:Gheld

that although the caption of the complaint filed (" therein respondents ercedes Dochan, et al. -ith the

RT) -as denominated as one for specific performance and damages, the relief sought -as the

conve"ance or transfer of real propert", or ultimatel", the e0ecution of deeds of conve"ance in their favor

of the real properties enumerated in the provisional memorandum of agreement. Under these
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn34


27/31

circumstances, the case (efore the RT) -as actuall" a real action, affecting as it did title to or possession

of real propert". )onse5uentl", the (asis for determining the correct doc/et fees shall (e the assessed

value of the propert", or the estimated value thereof as alleged in the complaint. But since Mercedes

)oc%anfailed to allege in their complaint the value of the real properties, the )ourt found that the RT)

did not ac5uire 3urisdiction over the same for non;pa"ment of the correct doc/et fees.

Li/e-ise, in iapno v. Manalo,46Gthe )ourt disregarded the titleHdenomination of therein plaintiff

analoKs amended petition as one for andamus -ith Revocation of Title and amagesF and ad3udged

the same to (e a real action, the filing fees for -hich should have (een computed (ased on the assessed

value of the su(3ect propert" or, if there -as none, the estimated value thereof. The )ourt e0pounded

in iapno thatC

In his amended petition, respondent analo pra"ed that NTAKs sale of the

propert" in dispute to Standford East Realt" )orporation and the title issued to the latteron the (asis thereof, (e declared null and void. In a ver" real sense, albeitthe amendedpetition is st"led as one for andamus -ith Revocation of Title and amages, it is, at(ottom, a suit to recover from Standford the realt" in 5uestion and to vest in respondentthe o-nership and possession thereof. In short, the amended petition is in realit" anaction in res or a real action. Our pronouncement in 3ortune Motors 0P%ils.1, nc. vs.&ourt of $ppealsis instructive. There, -e saidC

A ?-ay+- >o- a!!6:+! o- -+)42))2o! o> 4o!-a4 "o+) !o

o?+-a+ o +>>a4+ + -+ o+42@+) a!" !a-+ o> + a42o! B242) o -+4o@+- -+a6 ?-o?+-y. ?nton, et al., v. 4uintan, $% *hil. &', %&:$@

A! a42o! >o- + a!!6:+! o- -+)42))2o! o> a )a6+ o> -+a6

?-o?+-y 2) a -+a6 a42o!. I) ?-2:+ o+42@+ 2) o -+4o@+- )a2" -+a6?-o?+-y.?)avieres v. anc%e', &: *hil. '89, %&6:@

An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is nodifferent from an action to annul a private sale of real propert". ?Mu5o' v.Llamas, $' *hil. '4', %&69@.

26+ 2 2) -+ a ?+22o!+- "o+) !o "2-+46y )++ +-+4o@+-y o> 26+ o- ?o))+))2o! o> + ?-o?+-y 2! +)2o!, 2)a42o! >o- a!!6:+! o> )a6+ a!" 2) 46a2: >o- "a:a3+) a-+ 46o)+6y2!+-B2!+" B2 + 2))+ o> oB!+-)2? o> + 26"2!3 B24, !"+-+ 6aB, 2) 4o!)2"+-+" 2::o@a6+ ?-o?+-y, + -+4o@+-y o> B24 2)?+22o!+-) ?-2:a-y o+42@+. T+ ?-+@a6+! "o4-2!+ 2) a a!a42o! >o- + a!!6:+! o- -+)42))2o! o> a )a6+ o> -+a6 ?-o?+-y"o+) !o o?+-a+ o +>>a4+ + >!"a:+!a6 a!" ?-2:+ o+42@+ a!"!a-+ o> + 4a)+, B24 2) o -+4o@+- )a2" -+a6 ?-o?+-y. I 2) a -+a6a42o!.Unfortunatel", and evidentl" to evade pa"ment of the correct amount of filing fee,

respondent analo never alleged in the (od" of his amended petition, much less in thepra"er portion thereof, the assessed value of the su(3ect res, or, if there is none, theestimated value thereof, to serve as (asis for the receiving cler/ in computing andarriving at the proper amount of filing fee due thereon, as re5uired under Section ' of this
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn35


28/31

)ourtKs en banc resolution of 9: Septem(er %&&9 ?Re6 Proposed $mendments to Rule787 on Legal 3ees@.

Even the amended petition, therefore, should have (een e0punged from the

records.In fine, -e rule and so hold that the trial court never ac5uired

3urisdiction over its )ivil )ase No. ;&6;#:'&%.48G

It -as in errano v. #elica,4'Gho-ever, that the )ourt dealt -ith a complaint that (ore the most

similarit" to the one at (ar. Therein respondent elica averred that undue influence, coercion, and

intimidation -ere e0erted upon him (" therein petitioners Serrano, et al. to effect transfer of his

properties. Thus, elica filed a complaint (efore the RT) against Serrano, et al., pra"ing that the special

po-er of attorne", the affidavit, the ne- titles issued in the names of Serrano, et al., and the contracts of

sale of the disputed properties (e cancelledF that Serrano, et al.(e ordered to pa" elica, 3ointl" and

severall", actual, moral and e0emplar" damages in the amount of *#99,999.99, as -ell as attorne"Ks fee

of *#99,999.99 and costs of litigationF that a TRO and a -rit of preliminar" in3unction (e issued ordering

Serrano, et al.to immediatel" restore him to his possession of the parcels of land in 5uestionF and that

after trial, the -rit of in3unction (e made permanent. The )ourt dismissed elicaKs complaint for the

follo-ing reasonsC

A careful e0amination of respondentKs complaint is that it is a real action.

In Paderanga vs. Buissan, -e held that in a real action, the plaintiff see/s the recover"of real propert", or, as stated in Section #?a@, Rule : of the Revised Rules of )ourt, a realaction is one affecting title to real propert" or for the recover" of possession of, or for

partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on a real propert".KO(viousl", respondentKs complaint is a real action involving not onl" the recover"

of real properties, (ut li/e-ise the cancellation of the titles thereto.)onsidering that respondentKs complaint is a real action, the Rule re5uires that

the assessed value of the propert", or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall(e alleged (" the claimant and shall (e the (asis in computing the fees.

e note, ho-ever, that neither the assessed value nor the estimated value of

the 5uestioned parcels of land -ere alleged (" respondent in (oth his original andamended complaint. hat he stated in his amended complaint is that the disputedrealties have a BIR >onal valuation of *%,#99.99 per s5uare meter. 2o-ever, the allegedBIR >onal valuation is not the /ind of valuation re5uired (" the Rule. It is the assessedvalueof the realt". 2aving utterl" failed to compl" -ith the re5uirement of the Rule that heshall allege in his complaint the assessed value of his real properties in controvers", thecorrect doc/et fee cannot (e computed. As such, his complaint should not have (eenaccepted (" the trial court. e thus rule that it has not ac5uired 3urisdiction over thepresent case for failure of herein respondent to pa" the re5uired doc/et fee. On thisground alone, respondentKs complaint is vulnera(le to dismissal.4$G
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn38


29/31

Brushing aside the significance of errano, petitioner argues that said decision, rendered (" the

Third ivision of the )ourt, and not (" the )ourt en banc, cannot modif" or reverse the doctrine laid do-n

in pouses #e Leon v. &ourt of $ppeals.4&G *etitioner relies heavil" on the declaration of this )ourt

in pouses #e Leonthat an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real propert" is

incapa(le of pecuniar" estimation.

The )ourt, ho-ever, does not perceive a contradiction (et-een erranoand the pouses #e

Leon. The )ourt calls attention to the follo-ing statement in pouses #e LeonC A revie- of the

3urisprudence of this )ourt indicates that in determining -hether an action is one the su(3ect matter of

-hich is not capa(le of pecuniar" estimation, this )ourt has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the

nature of the principal action or remed" sought. Necessaril", the determination must (e done on a case;

to;case (asis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each. hat petitioner convenientl" ignores is

that in pouses #e Leon, the action therein that private respondents instituted (efore the RT) -as solel"for annulment or rescission of the contract of sale over a real propert". :9G There appeared to (e no

transfer of title or possession to the adverse part". Their complaint simpl" pra"ed forC

%. Ordering the nullification or rescission of the )ontract of )onditional Sale

?Supplementar" Agreement@ for having violated the rights of plaintiffs ?privaterespondents@ guaranteed to them under Article $$8 of the )ivil )ode andHor violation ofthe terms and conditions of the said contract.

#. eclaring void ab initiothe eed of A(solute Sale for (eing a(solutel"

simulatedF and

4. Ordering defendants ?petitioners@ to pa" plaintiffs ?private respondents@attorne"1s fees in the amount of *%99,999.99.:%G

As this )ourt has previousl" discussed herein, the nature of )ivil )ase No. #998;9949 instituted

(" petitioner (efore the RT) is closer to that of errano, rather than ofpouses #e Leon, hence, calling

for the application of the ruling of the )ourt in the former, rather than in the latter.

It is also important to note that, -ith the amendments introduced (" A.. No. 9:;#;9:;S), -hich

(ecame effective on %8 August #99:, the paragraph in Section ', Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt,

pertaining specificall" to the (asis for computation of doc/et fees for real actions -as deleted. Instead,

Section '?%@ of Rule %:%, as amended, provides that 2! 4a)+) 2!@o6@2!3 -+a6 ?-o?+-y, the FAIR

MARET @a6+of the REAL propert" in litigation STATE IN T2E )URRENT TAQ E)LARATION OR

)URRENT ONAL ALUATION O= T2E BUREAU O= INTERNAL REENUE, 2I)2 IS 2ID2ER, OR

I= T2ERE IS NONE, T2E STATE ALUE O= T2E *RO*ERTM IN LITIDATION 0 0 0 shall (e the (asis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175914.htm#_ftn41


30/31

for the computation of the doc/et fees. ould such an amendment have an impact on )oc%an, iapno,

and errano The )ourt rules in the negative.

A real action indisputa(l" involves real propert". The doc/et fees for a real action -ould still (e

determined in accordance -ith the value of the real propert" involved thereinF the onl" difference is in

-hat constitutes the accepta(le value. In computing the doc/et fees for cases involving real properties,

the courts, instead of rel"ing on the assessed or estimated value, -ould no- (e using the >a2- :a-+

@a6+of the real properties ?as stated in the Ta0 eclaration or the onal aluation of the Bureau of

Internal Revenue, -hichever is higher@ or, in the a(sence thereof, the stated value of the same.

In sum, the )ourt finds that the true nature of the action instituted (" petitioner against

respondents is the recover" of title to and possession of real propert". It is a real action necessaril"

involving real propert", the doc/et fees for -hich must (e computed in accordance -ith Section '?%@, Rule%:% of the Rules of )ourt, as amended. The )ourt of Appeals, therefore, did not commit an" error in

affirming the RT) Orders re5uiring petitioner to pa" additional doc/et fees for its )omplaint in )ivil )ase

No. #998;9949.

The )ourt does not give much credence to the allegation of petitioner that if the 3udgment of the

)ourt of Appeals is allo-ed to stand and not rectified, it -ould result in grave in3ustice and irrepara(le

in3ur" to petitioner in vie- of the prohi(itive amount assessed against it. It is a s-eeping assertion -hich

lac/s evidentiar" support. Undenia(l", (efore the )ourt can conclude that the amount of doc/et fees is

indeed prohi(itive for a part", it -ould have to loo/ into the financial capacit" of said part". It (affles this

)ourt that herein petitioner, having the capacit" to enter into multi;million transactions, no- stalls at

pa"ing *'#9,4.89 additional doc/et fees so it could champion (efore the courts its rights over the

disputed real properties. oreover, even though the )ourt e0empts individuals, as indigent or pauper

litigants, from pa"ing doc/et fees, it has never e0tended such an e0emption to a corporate entit".

HEREFORE, premises considered, the instant *etition for Revie- is here(" DENIED. The

ecision, dated ## Novem(er #998, of the )ourt of Appeals in )A;D.R. S* No. &:$99, -hich affirmed the

Orders dated #: arch #998 and #& arch #998 of the RT), Branch ##, of Naga )it", in )ivil )ase No.

RT);#998;9949, ordering petitioner Ru(" Shelter Builders and Realt" evelopment )orporation to pa"

additional doc/etHfiling fees, computed (ased on Section '?a@, Rule %:% of the Rules of )ourt, as

amended, is here(" AFFIRMED. )osts against the petitioner.

SO ORDERE


31/31

Documents

03b - Filing Fees