RUSSEL v.

VESTIL
G.R. No. 119347 | March 17, 1999 | J. KAPUNAN
Petitioners: Eulalia Russel, Ruperto Tautho, Francisco Tautho, Susana Reales, Apitacio Tautho, Danilo
Tautho, Juditha Pros, Gregorio Tautho, Deodita Judilla, Agipino Tautho, Felix Taut-ho, William
Tautho, Marilyn Perales
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. Augustine Vestil, Adri-ano Tagalog, Marcelo Tautho, Juanita
Men-doza, Domingo Bantilan, Raul Bataluna and Artemio Cabatingan


Facts:
On 28 September 1994, Russel et al filed a complaint against private respondents denominated
DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION with the RTC of Mandaue.
The complaint alleges that petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land. It was previously owned by
Casimero and Cesaria Tautho Upon the death, they succeeded as legal heirs. As the lot remained
undivided, they discovered a document denominated as DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED
OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT FOR PARTITION, executed on 6
June 1990. By this document, the respondents divided the property among themselves.
Russel et al claim that the document was false and perjurious. They pray that the document be
declared null and void.
A MTD was filed by the respondents for lack of jurisdiction. The subject land is P5K which under
BP. 129, falls under the jurisdiction of the MCTC.
An opposition to MTD was filed stating that the nature of the case is one which incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Hence, it falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The judge granted the MTD. A subsequent MR was denied.
Issue:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction in the case.
Ratio:

Petitioners maintain the view that that the complaint is for the annulment of the document. For better
appreciation of the facts, the pertinent portions of the complaint are reproduced.

1. Plaintiffs and the defendants of are the legal heirs of Casimero and Cesaria.
2. That in life the spouses became the owners in fee simple of a certain parcel of land which is more.
3. That the land passed to them as the heirs.
4. That the subject land has been undivided between them.
5. That the plaintiffs recently discovered a document declaring them as heirs and partition of said lot.
6. That the said document is false and perjurious.
7. Wherefore, it is most respectfully declared that the court DECLARE THE DOCUMENT NULL AND
VOID and to order the PARTITION OF LAND into 7 EQUAL PARTS.

The Court agrees with the petitioners. It is clearly one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Therefore, the
jurisdiction lies with the RTC.

To determine whether one is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of the sum of money the jurisdiction would depend on the amount of the claim. But if it is something
other than the right to recover a sum of money, whether the money claim is merely incidental to or in
consequence of such relief, it is deemed incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus jurisdiction falls with the
RTC.

Examples of which are:

1. Specific performance
2. Support
3. Foreclosure of mortgage
4. Annulment of judgment
5. Questions of a validity of a mortgage
6. Annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid
7. Rescission
This case is for the ANNULMENT OF THE DOCUMENT denominated as DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND
DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION. The partition is just incidental to the main
action of annulment. Jurisdiction of a subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of
the complaint.
Held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order dismissing
Civil Case No. MAN-2275, as well as the Order denying the motion for
reconsideration of said Order, is SET ASIDE.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in
resolving Civil Case No. MAN. 2275. No Costs

SO ORDERED