Spouses Veloso v. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc.
G.R. No. 256924
June 14, 2023
FACTS:
On June
25, 2010, petitioner-spouses executed a Mortgage Loan Agreement in favor of
respondent BDO to secure the payment of a P5,184,900.00 real estate loan obtained
with the bank; and they constituted a real estate mortgage over their real
properties. After petitioner-spouses defaulted on their obligations, respondent
BDO filed before the RTC of Quezon City a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage. Petitioner-spouses filed the instant Complaint against
respondent BDO for "Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage,
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage, Certificate of Sale,
Registration of Certificate of Sale, and All Related Entries." They
asserted that the stipulations in the parties' mortgage agreement are null and
void for being unconscionable and illegal; hence, the extrajudicial foreclosure
and all proceedings subsequently made pursuant thereto are likewise a nullity
and produce no legal effect whatsoever. BDO filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because the complaint
involves title to or possession of real property or interest therein; being a
real action, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the assessed value
of the property which petitioner[1]spouses
failed to allege in their complaint. In their Opposition to the motion,
petitioner-spouses argued that their complaint partakes of the nature of a
personal action being based on privity of contract; the primary relief sought
is the nullification of their mortgage contract with respondent BDO and not the
recovery of possession of the mortgaged properties because they are still in
possession thereof.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
HELD:
No. BP
129, as amended by RA 7691, provides: Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. —
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. (1) In
all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
Petitioner-spouses contend that
their complaint for the annulment of their real estate mortgage contract with
respondent BDO has a subject incapable of pecuniary estimation because it was
not intended to recover ownership and/or possession of the mortgaged properties
sold to respondent BDO during the auction sale. Respondent BDO counters that,
as evident from the complaint, the primary purpose of the causes of action of
petitioner-spouses involves title to or possession of real property; and that
the complaint seeks to allow petitioner-spouses to exercise their right to
redeem the mortgaged properties and maintain their peaceful and undisturbed
possession of the same, among others. The Court agrees with respondent BDO.
From the petitoners’ allegations, it becomes apparent that while
petitioner-spouses assert that their complaint does not directly seek the
recovery of title or possession of the mortgaged properties, the relief sought is
closely intertwined with the issue of the ownership of the mortgaged
properties, the recovery of which is petitioner-spouses' primary objective. In
real actions, the assessed value of the realty as alleged in the complaint
determines the trial court's jurisdiction Petitioner-spouses do not dispute
their failure to allege the assessed value of the mortgaged properties in their
complaint. Consequently, for failure of petitioner-spouses to reflect the
assessed value of the mortgage properties in the complaint, or in the annexes
thereto, the dismissal of the instant case is in order.
