By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

ELIZABETH VIDAL-PLUCENA VS. HON. FLAVIANO BALGOS, JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 253531 (JULY 10, 2023): ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED IN A COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AS BASIS IN DETERMINING JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

The case stems from a Complaint for recovery of Possession and damages filed by petitioner
Elizabeth Vidal-Plucena before the Regional Trial Court of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30, against
the respondents, then Mayor Flaviano Balgos, Jr. and Mrs. Franson Valencia. Petitioner Plucena alleged
that she is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Balungao, San Leonardo, Bambang, Nueva
Vizcaya, which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-19220. According to petitioner
Plucena, she has been tilling the land since the 1980s having inherited the same from her parents.
However, sometime in 2013, she was surprised to see that someone had entered and fenced a portion
of the subject land, and that small concrete houses and pigpens had been erected therein without her
consent. Upon further inquiry, petitioner Plucena learned that the owner of the pigpens and small pig
pens were the respondents. Petitioner Plucena complained to Mayor Balgos but the same fell on deaf
ears.
Petitioner Plucena had the subject land surveyed to know the exact portion which was illegally
occupied by the respondents. The survey showed that the portion fenced and occupied by the
respondents was 60 square meters. , Nevertheless, she filed the case before the Regional Trial Court and
not the Municipal Trial Court because she based the same on the assessed value of the entire property
of 10,000 square meters in the amount of Php34,160.00 within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court. The respondents claimed that the assessed value of Php34,160.00 cannot be the basis in
determining jurisdiction but only the portion of 60 square meters allegedly encroached by the
respondents. Hence, with the total assessed value of the said portion amounting to only Php204.96, the
jurisdiction over the subject matter belongs to the Municipal Trial Court. In an Order dated March 9,
2020, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
hence, petitioner Plucena filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court cited Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which held that “The Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xxx (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 [T]housand [P]esos ([P]20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) 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.”
The Court also cited Section 33 (3) of the same law which reads, “Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: xxx (3) Exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty [T]housand
[P]esos ([P]20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty [T]housand [P]esos ([P]50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.”

The Supreme Court affirmed agreed with the Regional Trial Court when it ruled that it is quite
clear therefore that what determines jurisdiction is assessed value of the “property involved” or “interest
therein.” Surely, there could no other (sic) “property involved” or “interest therein” in this case than the
60 square meters portion allegedly encroached and occupied by and being recovered in this suit from the
defendants. The assessed value of the entire ONE HECTARE property in the name of the plaintiff could
not be the basis in determining the court’s jurisdiction because such entire property is not involved in this
case.
The Court final held that petitioner Plucena cannot be given discretion as to which assessed
value to use, otherwise, it will be an unintended license to forum shop. The 60-square meter portion can
always be the subject of segregation and thus, its approximate value can easily be determined through
extant records which, in this case, is a tax declaration which petitioner Plucena failed to do.
The case was filed and decided by the trial court before the enactment of Republic Act No.
11576 dated July 30, 2021, which expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts.