Case Digest: Bangko Central v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016

Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the decision of the CA.

Facts:

§  Petitioner BSP filed a Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate and damages (with application for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction) against Secretary Atienza, Jr. and others including respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.

§  RTC issued an Order mandating the issuance of preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from pursuing the construction, development and/or operation of a dumpsite or landfill over the property subject of the complaint.

§  Respondent Legaspi filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner BSP because the suit is unauthorized by petitioner BSP itself and that the counsel representing petitioner BSP is not authorized and thus cannot bind BSP.

§  Respondent Legaspi also alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action because the complaint is prima facie void and that an illegal representation produces no legal effect.

RTC rendered its Order denying respondent Legaspi's motion to dismiss.

Respondent Legaspi filed a motion for reconsideration, adding as its argument that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the action because the complaint, a real action, failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property.

As an opposition, petitioner BSP claimed that since the subject property contains an area of over 4 million square meters, it is unthinkable that said property would have an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 which is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. Petitioner BSP further stated that a tax declaration showing the assessed value and latest zonal value of P145,162,080.00 was attached to the complaint.

RTC denied respondent Legaspi's motion for reconsideration Legaspi elevated the case to the CA which reversed the RTC's decision BSP moved for reconsideration which was denied by the CA

SC Issues:

1) RTC of Malolos City has exclusive original jurisdiction over the subject matter

2) BSP lawfully engaged the services of private counsel.

Decision:

Under BP 129, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions which involve title to possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) Incidentally, the complaint on its face, is devoid of any amount that would confer jurisdiction over the RTC. However, the non-inclusion on the face of the complaint of the amount of the property, however, is not fatal because attached in the complaint is a tax declaration (Annex "N" in the complaint) of the property in question showing that it has an assessed value of P215,320.00. It must be emphasized that annexes to a complaint are deemed part of, and should be considered together with the complaint.

BSP was able to justify its being represented by a private counsel because the BSP Governor is authorized to represent BSP either personally or through a counsel, including private counsel and that the complaint was verified by BSP’s Director of Asset Management Department.