Ungria et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

165777 | July 25, 2011 FACTS This is a petition for review on ertiorari for ownership, possession an! !a"a#es, an! alternative auses of a tion either to !e lare two !o u"ents as patent nullities, an!$or for re overy of Rosario%s on&u#al share with !a"a#es or re!e"ption of the su'&e t lan! a#ainst petitioner (eferina !e )n#ria et al file! with the Re#ional Trial (ourt *RT(+ of General ,antos (ity. Respon!ent Rosario is the survivin# wife of the late -ernan!o (astor, while the rest of the respon!ents are their le#iti"ate hil!ren.
.etitioner (eferina file! a /otion to 0is"iss. The !o u"ents they *respon!ents+ sou#ht to annul are *1+ the 0ee! of Transfer of Ri#hts an! 1nterest in lu!in# 1"prove"ents thereon alle#e!ly e2e ute! 'y -ernan!o in favour of 3u#enio !e )n#ria, petitioner%s father4 an! *2+ the 5ffi!avit of Relin6uish"ent e2e ute! 'y 3u#enio in favor of petitioner. .etitioner also file! an 5!!en!u" to the /otion to 0is"iss raisin#, a"on# others that the ourt has no &uris!i tion over the ase for failure of plaintiffs to pay the filin# fee in full.

RULING @3,. 1t is a settle! rule in this &uris!i tion that when an a tion is file! in ourt, the o"plaint "ust 'e a o"panie! 'y the pay"ent of the re6uisite !o =et an! filin# fees. 1t is not si"ply the filin# of the o"plaint or appropriate initiatory plea!in#, 'ut the pay"ent of the pres ri'e! !o =et fee, that vests a trial ourt with &uris!i tion over the su'&e t "atter or nature of the a tion. ,e tion 7*'+*1+ of Rule 1A1 of the Rules of (ourt provi!es; ,3(. 7. (ler=s of Re#ional Trial (ourts. B *a+ -or filin# an a tion or a per"issive ounter< lai" or "oney lai" a#ainst an estate not 'ase! on &u!#"ent, or for filin# with leave of ourt a thir!<party, fourth<party,et . o"plaint, or a o"plaint<in< intervention, an! for all leri al servi es in the sa"e, if the total<su" lai"e!, e2 lusive of interest, or the state! value of the property in liti#ation, *'+ -or filin#;1. 5 tions where the value of the su'&e t "atter annot 'e esti"ate! ........ .A00.00 2. 1n a real a tion, the assesse! value of the property, or if there is none, the esti"ate! value thereof shall 'e alle#e! 'y the lai"ant an! shall 'e the 'asis in o"putin# the fees. ,in e we fin! that the ase involve! the annul"ent of ontra t whi h is not sus epti'le of pe uniary esti"ation, thus, fallin# within the &uris!i tion of the RT(, the !o =et fees shoul! not 'e 'ase! on the assesse! value of the su'&e t lan! as lai"e! 'y petitioner in their "e"oran!u", 'ut shoul! 'e 'ase! on ,e tion 7*'+*1+ of Rule 1A1. 5 perusal of the entries in the Ce#al -ees -or" atta he! to the re or!s woul! refle t that the a"ount of .A00.00 was pai! to the (ler= of (ourt, to#ether with the other fees, as assesse! 'y the (ler= of (ourt. Thus, upon respon!ents% proof of pay"ent of the assesse! fees, the RT( has properly a 6uire! &uris!i tion over the o"plaint. Juris!i tion on e a 6uire! is never lost, it ontinues until the ase is ter"inate!.

.en!in# resolution of the "otion, respon!ents file! a /otion to allow the" to ontinue prose utin# this ase as in!i#ent liti#ants. .etitioner file! a "otion for re onsi!eration an! larifi ation on whether plaintiffs shoul! 'e allowe! to ontinue prose utin# the ase as in!i#ent liti#ants. ,ai! "otion was !enie!. 7efore the (5, the petitioner8s petition for ertiorari an! prohi'ition with TR9 to annul RT( !e ision was !is"isse! 'e ause ,( (ir ular No. 7 woul! not apply where the a"ount of !a"a#es or value of the
property was i""aterial4 that the (ir ular oul! 'e applie! only in ases where the a"ount lai"e! or the value of the personal property was !eter"inative of the ourt%s &uris!i tion itin# the ase of Tacay v. RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte.

:en e, this petition for review on ertiorari where petitioner raises the followin# assi#n"ent of error; that the (ourt of 5ppeals erre! in not fin!in# that respon!ent RT( o""itte! #rave a'use of !is retion in !enyin# petitioner8s /otion to 0is"iss !espite respon!ent8s non<pay"ent of the orre t !o =et fees. ISSUE >as &uris!i tion veste! to the RT( in this ivil ase !espite the failure of the plaintiff to file the ne essary !o =et fees?