Decision 9 G.R. No. 201273 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; xxxx (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (Pl00,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). In Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 36 the Court held that "[a]ctions for cancellation of title and reversion xx x belong to the class of cases that 'involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein' and where the assessed value of the property exceeds 1220,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC." 37 As the Court held in Malabanan v. Republic 38 "[i]n a reversion suit, we should emphasize, the attack is directed not against the judgment ordering the issuance of title, but against the title that is being sought to be cancelled either because th~ judgment was not validly rendered, or the title issued did not faithfully reflect the land referred to in the judgment, or because no judgment was rendered at all." 39 The allegations of the Republic in the Complaint squarely assert a reversion suit as described above. It is attacking OCT No. 0-CALT-37 because it arose from Resolution No. 060-2009-AL, which the Republic claims was not validly rendered. The Court is not unmindful that in ruling on the issue of the validity of OCT No. 0-CAL T-3 7, the Court will necessarily rule on the validity of CAL T No. CAR-BAG-0309-000207, and the reconstructed and unapproved survey plan together with the technical description of Lot 1, SWO-14110215703-DA-NCIP, both of which were issued and approved in Resolution 060-2009AL. This, however, does not remove the Complaint from the RTC's jurisdiction, and as described above, even confirms it. Again, the cause of action of the Republic is for the reversion to the public domain of the lot covered by OCT No. 0-CALT-37 and the cancellation of the title. In ruling on this issue, the RTC may dwell on the validity of the proceedings of the NCIP, which gave rise to the issuance of the Torrens title. The Court's ruling in Republic V. Bacas 40 (Bacas) is instructive: The success of the annulment of title does not solely depend on the existence of actual and extrinsic fraud, but also on the fact that a judgment 36 37 38 39 40 Supra note 18. Id. at 435-436. G.R. No. 201821, September 19, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64605>. Id. 721 Phil. 808 (2013). accessed