ARACELI J.

CABRERA
et al vs. ANGELA G.
FRANCISCO et
al.G.R. No. 172293
August 28, 2013Del
Castillo,
J.:FACTS:Respondent
s 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 Antique.
When Severino died,
petitioners, with
theconsent of
respondents, took
over the

administration of the
properties.
Respondent 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.

Petitioners
introduced Erlinda
Veegas to the
respondents who
agreed to have the
said properties
developed by
Erlindas company.
However,
respondents
appointed Erlinda as
the new

administratrix of the
properties and
terminated
petitioners services.
Petitioners then
demanded for their
5% commission to
no avail. Hence, they
filed a complaint for
Collection of Agents
Compensation,
Commission and

Damages against
respondents before
the RTC.Respondents
filed a motion to
dismiss based on the
following grounds:a)
lack of jurisdiction,
b) failure to state a
cause of action and
c) lack of legal
capacity of
petitioners to sue in

behalf of the other

heirs of Severino.
They argued that for
the RTC outside
Metro Manila to
acquire jurisdiction,
the amount
demanded must
exceed Php200,000,
pursuant to R.A. No.
7691. Since the
market value of the

lot is Php3,550,072,
5% thereof is only
Php177,506.60, or
less than the
saidjurisdictional
amount; thus, the
RTC has no
jurisdiction. Their
right alsoremained
inchoate because
the lot has not yet
been sold.The RTC

granted the Motion

to Dismiss. On
appeal, the CA
affirmed the RTC,
concluding that the
Complaint is mainly
for collection of sum
of money and not
one which is
incapable of
pecuniary estimation
sincepetitioners are

claiming 5% of the
total purchase price
of the lot; hence,this
petition.ISSUE:Whet
her or not the RTC
has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of
the case.HELD:NO.
The complaint is
neither one which is
incapable of
pecuniary estimation

nor involves interest

in a real property.
The averments in
thecomplaint and
the character of the
relief sought must
be consulted
because the
jurisdiction of the
court is determined
by the nature of the
action pleaded as

appearing from the

allegations in the
complaint.In the
case, the complaint
is not incapable of
pecuniary estimation
because the main
purpose of
petitioners is to
collect the
commission
allegedly promised

by respondents
should they be able
to sell the lot, as
well as the
compensation for
the services they
rendered. It also
cannot involve an
interest in a real
property because
the
compensationsought

is not in the form of

real estate. Also,
since the fair market
valueof the property
is Php3,550,072.00
and 5% of this value
is Php177,503.60
which is below the
jurisdictional amount
of Php200,00, the
RTC has no
jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the

case.PETITION
DENIED