Scribd
Upload
77 views2 pages

Cabrera vs. Francisco

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' appeal and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. [1] The petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents to collect a 5% commission from the sale of properties they had administered. [2] However, the RTC and CA ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case as the amount claimed was below the jurisdictional threshold. [3] The Supreme Court upheld this, finding also that the petitioners did not properly challenge the lower courts' other findings regarding no cause of action and lack of capacity to sue on behalf of all heirs.

Uploaded by

Jamie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views2 pages

Cabrera vs. Francisco

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' appeal and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. [1] The petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents to collect a 5% commission from the sale of properties they had administered. [2] However, the RTC and CA ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case as the amount claimed was below the jurisdictional threshold. [3] The Supreme Court upheld this, finding also that the petitioners did not properly challenge the lower courts' other findings regarding no cause of action and lack of capacity to sue on behalf of all heirs.

Uploaded by

Jamie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[G.R. No. 172293. August 28, 2013.

]
ARACELI J. CABRERA and ARNEL CABRERA and in behalf of the heirs of SEVERINO
CABRERA, petitioners, vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C. GELLA, VICTOR C.
GELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G. ILIGAN and DIANA ROSE
GELLA, respondents

DEL CASTILLO, J:
FACTS: On October 25, 1976, respondents' father, Atty. Lorenzo C. Gella, executed a private
document confirming that he has appointed Severino Cabrera husband of Araceli and father of
Arnel as administrator of all his real properties located in San Jose, Antique consisting of about 24
hectares of land.

When Severino died in 1991, Araceli and Arnel, with the consent of respondents, took over the
administration of the properties. Respondents likewise instructed them to look for buyers of the
properties, allegedly promising them "a commission of 5% of the total purchase price of the said
properties as compensation for their long and continued administration" hereof.

Accordingly, petitioners introduced real estate broker and President of ESV Marketing and
Development Corporation, Erlinda Veñegas, to the respondents who agreed to have the said
properties developed by Erlinda's company. However, a conflict arose when respondents
appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated Araceli's and Arnel's
services.

Petitioners, through counsel, wrote respondents and demanded for their 5% commission and
compensation to no avail. Hence, on September 3, 2001, they filed a Complaint for Collection of
Agent's Compensation, Commission and Damages against respondents before the RTC. Attached
to their Complaint is a copy of the tax declaration for the subject lot.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The RTC granted the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents
for they argued that: 1) for RTCs outside of Metro Manila to take cognizance of a civil suit, the
jurisdictional amount must exceed P200,000.00 pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) No.
7691 which amended Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129. And since the total market
value of the lot is P3,550,072, 15 5% thereof is only P177,506.60 or less than the said jurisdictional
amount, then the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitioners' Complaint; 2) there is no cause of action
since petitioners' supposed right to any commission remained inchoate as the lot has not yet been
sold; 3)respondents averred that petitioners have no legal capacity to sue on behalf of Severino's
other heirs and that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the
Complaint only mentioned Araceli and Arnel as plaintiffs.

The Petitioners appealed to the CA, that their claim is one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The CA concluded that the Complaint is mainly for collection of sums of money and
not one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It dismisses the appeal and affirmed the
decision of the RTC.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration questioning solely the CA's affirmance of the RTC's
finding on lack of jurisdiction. However, denied.
ISSUES:
1) WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC's findings that it has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case
2) WON the Complaint states no cause of action
3) WON petitioners Araceli and Arnel have no legal capacity to sue in behalf of the other
heirs of Severino.

RULING:
1) No. Petitioners' Complaint is neither one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation nor
involves interest in a real property. Petitioners' demand is below the jurisdictional amount
required for RTCs outside of Metro Manila, hence, the RTC concerned in this case has no
jurisdiction over petitioners' Complaint. Here, the moral damages being claimed by
petitioners are merely the consequence of respondents' alleged non-payment of
commission and compensation the collection of which is petitioners' main cause of action.
Thus, the said claim for moral damages cannot be included in determining the jurisdictional
amount.
2) No. The Court ruled that petitioners failed to question in their Motion for Reconsideration
before the CA its affirmance of the RTC's findings that the Complaint states no cause of
action. It must be raised in the CA when they filed their motion. For [them] to raise [these
issues] before [this Court] now would be improper, since [they] failed to do so before the
CA.
3) No. The Court ruled that the petitioners failed to question in their Motion for
Reconsideration before the CA its affirmance of the RTC's findings that Araceli and Arnel
have no authority to sue in behalf of the other heirs of Severino. Suffice it to say that
"[p]rior to raising [these arguments] before this Court, [they] should have raised the matter
in [their Motion for Reconsideration] in order to give the appellate court an opportunity to
correct its ruling. For [them] to raise [these issues] before [this Court] now would be
improper, since [they] failed to do so before the CA."

The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy