Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Ruby Vs Formaran Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krez Delgado
    Ruby Shelter Builders took out a loan secured by real estate mortgages from Romeo Tan and Roberto Obiedo. When Ruby Shelter defaulted on the loan, Tan and Obiedo executed Deeds of Absolute Sale for the properties. Ruby Shelter then sued to annul the deeds. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that Ruby Shelter had to pay additional docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the lands, as the case involved recovery of real property and was a real action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional for real actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ruby Vs Formaran Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krez Delgado
    75 views2 pages
    Ruby Shelter Builders took out a loan secured by real estate mortgages from Romeo Tan and Roberto Obiedo. When Ruby Shelter defaulted on the loan, Tan and Obiedo executed Deeds of Absolute Sale for the properties. Ruby Shelter then sued to annul the deeds. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that Ruby Shelter had to pay additional docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the lands, as the case involved recovery of real property and was a real action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional for real actions.

    Original Title

    Ruby vs Formaran digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ruby Shelter Builders took out a loan secured by real estate mortgages from Romeo Tan and Roberto Obiedo. When Ruby Shelter defaulted on the loan, Tan and Obiedo executed Deeds of Absolute Sale for the properties. Ruby Shelter then sued to annul the deeds. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that Ruby Shelter had to pay additional docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the lands, as the case involved recovery of real property and was a real action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional for real actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    75 views2 pages

    Ruby Vs Formaran Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krez Delgado
    Ruby Shelter Builders took out a loan secured by real estate mortgages from Romeo Tan and Roberto Obiedo. When Ruby Shelter defaulted on the loan, Tan and Obiedo executed Deeds of Absolute Sale for the properties. Ruby Shelter then sued to annul the deeds. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled that Ruby Shelter had to pay additional docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the lands, as the case involved recovery of real property and was a real action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional for real actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Higit Pa Gumawa ng Blog Mag-sign in

    WinLawSuites CaseDig LawIQ ASRealty

    CaseDig: Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Formaran

    G.R. No. 175914, 10 February 2009


    Posted by Roque H. Rios Jr. on 24 July 2018

    FACTS:

    Ruby Shelter, herein petitioner, obtained a loan amounting to P95,700,620.00 from


    respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo) secured by real estate
    mortgages consisting of five (5) parcels of land in the name of the petitioner. After several
    negotiations and despite the extension granted by Tan and Obiedo, petitioner still wasn't able to
    pay. Tan and Obiedo, by virtue of real estate mortgages, executed Deeds of Absolute Sale in
    their favor consisting the five parcels of land. It is provided for in the Memorandum Agreement
    that if petitioner fails to pay the loaned amount, five Deeds of Absolute Sale would be executed
    in favor of Tan and Obiedo.

    On March 16, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court for declaration
    of nullity of the deeds of sale and damages believing that respondents' action was one which
    was incapable of pecuniary estimation. Upon filing its complaint, petitioner paid docket fees
    amounting to P13,644.25 as assessed by the Office of the Clerk of Court. It was stated that it
    only wanted to annul the deeds of absolute sale, so therefor, no issue of title or recovery of
    possession is present to classify it as a real action.

    Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, there was a provision which states that if Ruby
    Shelter brought suit against respondents, it would be amounting to P10,000,000.00 as
    liquidated damages inclusive of costs and attorney's fees. Tan and Obiedo moved to dismiss the
    complaint contending that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over the
    case since the case involved recovery of real property making it a real action which requires
    payment of docket fees equivalent to a percentage of the fair market value of the land
    amounting to P720,392.60.

    RTC and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Tan and Obiedo ordering Ruby Shelter to pay
    additional docket fees. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Ruby Shelter should pay additional docket fees to acquire jurisdiction

    HELD:

    Yes.

    Payment of Docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. In Manchester Devt. Corp. vs.
    CA, 149 SCRA 562, the court explicitly pronounced that, the court acquires jurisdiction over any
    case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. "Hence, the payment of docket fees is
    not only mandatoty, but also jurisdictional.

    A real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. No matter
    how fastidiously petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations and reliefs it sought in its
    complaint in Civil Case no 2006-0030 appears to be ultimately a real action, involving as they
    do the recovery by petitioner of its title and possession of the five parcels of land from
    respondents Tan and Obiedo. A real action is one which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
    property, or, as indicated in what is now section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of court, a real action is
    an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.

    The docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the
    real property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value. In
    computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead on relying on
    the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the real properties
    ( as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
    whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.

    Newer Post Home Older Post

    ArinoLegal 2020. Rights Reserved. Powered by Blogger.

    You might also like