View full case

ESPERANZA TUMPAG v. SAMUEL TUMPAG

FACTS:

Esperanza Tumpag filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Samuel Tumpag, claiming that she is the owner of a parcel of land and that Samuel has been occupying a portion of it for over ten years. The complaint sought the return of the occupied portion and claimed damages. The complaint did not state the assessed value of the disputed property. The RTC denied Samuel's motion to dismiss and proceeded with the case. The RTC eventually ordered Samuel to return possession of the property, pay damages and attorney's fees. Samuel appealed to the CA, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to allege the assessed value of the property in the complaint. The CA agreed with Samuel, nullified the RTC's decision and all proceedings, reasoning that the failure to allege the assessed value warranted dismissal. Esperanza argues that Samuel is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction since the case had been litigated for several years and she attached a copy of a Declaration of Real Property indicating the assessed value of the property.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure of the petitioner to allege the assessed value of the disputed property in the complaint warrants the dismissal of the complaint.

  2. Whether the respondent is estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction after actively participating in the proceedings of the case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the failure of the petitioner to allege the assessed value of the disputed property in the complaint warrants the dismissal of the complaint. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the assessed value of the property is a jurisdictional requirement that must be alleged in the complaint. Failure to allege the assessed value deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case. However, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice, which means that the petitioner can still refile the complaint by complying with the jurisdictional requirements.

  2. The issue of estoppel is not resolved in this case as it was not discussed by the Court. The petitioner's argument that the respondent is estopped from assailing the RTC's jurisdiction was not addressed in the decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction is determined by the material allegations in the complaint and cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up by the defendant or a motion to dismiss.

  • Failure to allege the assessed value of the property in the complaint deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case.

  • Dismissal of a complaint without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile the complaint by complying with the jurisdictional requirements.