8/30/2016

G.R.No.119347

TodayisTuesday,August30,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.119347March17,1999
EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO,
DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX
TAUTHO,WILLIAMTAUTHO,ANDMARILYNPERALES,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA,
DOMINGOBANTILAN,RAULBATALUNAANDARTEMIOCABATINGAN,respondent.

KAPUNAN,J.:
BeforeusisaPetitionforCertioraritosetasidetheOrderdatedJanuary12,1995issuedbyrespondentJudge
Augustine A. Vestil of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, dismissing the complaint filed by
petitioners on ground of lack of jurisdiction, as well as his Order dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners'
MotionforReconsiderationoftheorderofdismissal.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
OnSeptember28,1994,petitionersfiledacomplaintagainstprivaterespondents,denominated"DECLARATION
OFNULLITYANDPARTITION,"withtheRegionalTrialCourtofMandaueCity,Branch56,docketedasCivilCase
No.MAN2275.Thecomplaint,insubstance,allegedthatpetitionersarecoownersofthatparcelofland,Lot6149
situated in Liloan, Cebu and containing an area of 56,977.40 square meters, more or less. The land was
previously owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Upon the death of said spouses, the
property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents. Since then, the lot had
remainedundivideduntilpetitionersdiscoveredapublicdocumentdenominated"DECLARATIONOFHEIRSAND
DEEDOFCONFIRMATIONOFAPREVIOUSORALAGREEMENTOFPARTITION,"executedonJune6,1990.By
virtueofthisdeed,privaterespondentsdividedthepropertyamongthemselvestotheexclusionofpetitionerswho
are also entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Petitioners
claimedthatthedocumentwasfalseandperjuriousastheprivaterespondentswerenottheonlyheirsandthatno
oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the
documentbedeclarednullandvoidandanorderbeissuedtopartitionthelandamongalltheheirs.1
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss 2 the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdictionoverthenatureofthecaseasthetotalassessedvalueofthesubjectlandisP5,000.00whichundersection33
(3) 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, 4 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
CircuitTrialCurtofLiloan,Compostela.5

PetitionersfiledanOppositiontotheMotiontoDismiss 6 saying that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(1) of B.P.
129,asamended.7

On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss. 8 A Motion for
ReconsiderationofsaidorderwasfiledbypetitionersonJanuary30,1995allegingthatthesameiscontrarytolawbecause
theiractionisnotoneforrecoveryoftitletoorpossessionofthelandbutanactiontoannuladocumentordeclareitnulland
void, 9 hence, one incapable of pecuniary estimation falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Private
respondentsdidnotopposethemotionforreconsideration.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_119347_1999.html

1/4

8/30/2016

G.R.No.119347

OnFebruary13,1995,therespondentjudgeissuedanotherOrderdenyingthemotionforreconsideration.10
Hence, this petition wherein the sole issue raised is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to
entertainCivilCaseNo.MAN2275.
Wefindmeritinthepetition.
Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the annulment of a
document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL
PARTITION,"whichisclearlyoneincapableofpecuniaryestimation,thus,cognizablebytheRegionalTrialCourt.
Privaterespondents,ontheotherhand,insiststhattheactionisoneforrepartitionandsincetheassessedvalue
ofthepropertyasstatedinthecomplaintisP5,000.00,then,thecasefallswithinthejurisdictionoftheMunicipal
CircuitTrialCourtofLiloan,Compostela,Cebu.
Forbetterappreciationofthefacts,thepertinentportionsofthecomplaintarereproducedhereunder:
xxxxxxxxx
3.ThattheplaintiffsandthedefendantsarethelegalheirsofspousesCasimeroTauthoandCesaria
N.Tauthowhodiedlongtimeago
4.Thatinlifethespousesbecametheownersinfeesimpleofacertainparcelofland,whichismore
particularlydescribedasfollows:
A parcel of land containing 56,97740 square meters, more or less, located at Cotcot,
Liloan,Cebu.
designatedasLot6149perTechnicalDescriptionandCertificationissuedbytheOfficeoftheLand
ManagementcopyofwhichareheretoattachedasAnnexes"A"and"A1"andaremadeparthereof:
totalassessedvalueisP5,000.00
5. That the passed to the children of the spouses (who are all deceased except for defendant
MarceloTautho),namely:Zacarias,Epifania,Vicenta,Felecisimo,Maria,LorenciaandMarcelo,and
whichinturnpassedtotheplaintiffsanddefendantsupontheirdeaththeybeingtheirdescendants
andlegalheirs
6.Thatthesubjectparceloflandhasforyearbeenundividedbyandamongthelegalheirsofsaid
previousowners
7. That, very recently, plaintiffs discovered a public document, which is a declaration of heirs and
deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement of partition, affecting the land executed by and
amongthedefendantswherebydefendantsdividedthepropertyamongthemselvestotheexclusion
ofplaintiffswhoareentitledtheretoattachedheretoasAnnex"B"andismadeparthereofisxerox
copyofsaiddocument
8. That the instrument (Annex "B") is false and perjurious and is a complete nullity because the
defendants are not the only heirs of Casimero Tautho plaintiffs are also heirs and descendants of
saiddeceasedmoreover,therehasbeennooralpartitionoftheproperty
9.Thatpursuanttosaiddocument(Annex"B"),defendantshadprocuredtaxdeclarationsoftheland
fortheirsupposed"shares"tothegreatdamageandprejudiceofplaintiffs
10. That the property in controversy should be divided into seven (7) equal parts since Casimero
TauthoandCesariaN.Tauthohadsevenchildren
11. That the parties had failed to settle the controversy amicably at the barangay level attached
heretoasAnnex"C"isCertificationtofileAction
12.Thatbyreasonoftheforegoingunjustandillegalactofdefendants,plaintiffswereforcedtobring
instantactionandcontracttheservicesoftheundersignedcounselwithwhomtheybindthemselves
topayP30,000.00asattorney'sfees.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to declare null and void the
document(Annex"B")ofdeclarationofheirsandconfirmationandtoorderthepartitionoftheland
into seven (7) equal parts each part shall respectively go to the seven (7) children of Casimero
Tautho and considering six (6) of them died already the same shall go to their children or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_119347_1999.html

2/4

8/30/2016

G.R.No.119347

descendants, and to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of
P30,000.00.
Plaintiffsfurtherprayforsuchotherreliefsandremediesjustandequitableunderthepremises.11
Weagreewithpetitioners.

The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one incapable of pecuniary
estimationandthereforewithinthejurisdictionofsaidcourt.
InSingsongvs.IsabelaSawmill,12wehadtheoccasiontorulethat:
[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimationthisCourthasadoptedthecriterionoffirstascertainingthenatureoftheprincipalactionor
remedysought.Ifitisprimarilyfortherecoveryofasumofmoney,theclaimisconsideredcapableof
pecuniaryestimation,andwhetherjurisdictionisinthemunicipalcourtsorininstancewoulddepend
on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principalreliefsought,thisCourthasconsideredsuchwherethesubjectofthelitigationmaynotbe
estimatedintermsofmoney,andarecognizableexclusivelybycourtsoffirstinstance(nowRegional
TrialCourts).13
Examplesofactionsincapableofpecuniaryestimationarethoseforspecificperformance,support,orforeclosure
ofmortgageorannulmentofjudgment14alsoactionsquestioningthevalidityofamortgage, 15annullingadeedofsale
orconveyanceandtorecoverthepricepaid16andforrescession,whichisacounterpartofspecificperformance.17

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically
mandatesthattheyarecognizablebytheMTC,METC,orMCTCwheretheassessedvalueoftherealproperty
involved does exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds
P20,000.00orP50,000.00asthecasemaybe,itistheRegionalTrialCourtswhichhavejurisdictionunderSec.
19(2). 18 However, the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as
"DECLARATIONOFHEIRSANDDEEDOFCONFIRMATIONOFPREVIOUSORALPARTITION."

The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in which private
respondentsdeclaredthemselvesastheonlyheirsofthelatespousesCasimeroTauthoandCesariaTauthoand
dividedhispropertyamongthemselvestotheexclusionofpetitionerswhoalsoclaimtobelegalheirsandentitled
totheproperty.Whilethecomplaintalsopraysforthepartitionoftheproperty,thisisjustincidentaltothemain
action,whichisthedeclarationofnullityofthedocumentabovedescribed.Itisaxiomaticthatjurisdictionoverthe
subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the
characterofthereliefsought,irrespectiveofwhethertheplaintiffisentitledtoallorsomeoftheclaimsasserted
therein.19
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheOrderdismissingCivilCaseNo.MAN
2275,aswellastheOrderdenyingthemotionforreconsiderationofsaidOrder,isSETASIDE.
TheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch56,MandaueCityisORDEREDtoproceedwithdispatchinresolvingCivilCase
No.MAN2275.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,MeloandPardo,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.1317.
2Id.,at21.
3Sec.3.Section33ofthesamelawisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:
Sec.33.JurisdictionofMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsin
civil cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
CircuitTrialCourtsshallexercise:
xxxxxxxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_119347_1999.html

3/4

8/30/2016

G.R.No.119347

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of real property, or
anyinterestthereinwheretheassessedvalueofthepropertyorinterestthereindoesnotexceedTwenty
thousandpesos(P20,000.00)orincivilactioninMetroManila,wheresuchassessedvaluedoesnotexceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigationexpensesandcosts:Provided,Thatincasesoflandnotdeclaredfortaxationpurposes,thevalue
ofsuchpropertyshallbedeterminedbytheassessedvalueoftheadjacentlots.
4 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
CircuitsTrialCourtsAmendingforthepurposeBatasPambansaBlg.129,otherwiseknownastheJudiciary
ReorganizationActof1980.
5Id.,at21.
6Id.,at2223.
7Sec.19.Jurisdictionincivilcases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction:
(1)inallcivilactionsinwhichthesubjectofthelitigationisincapableofpecuniaryestimation
xxxxxxxxx
8Id.,at24.
9Id.,at2628.
10Id.,at29.
11Id.,at1416.
1288SCRA623(1979).
13Seealso:Raymundov.CourtofAppeals,213SCRA457(1992).
14Amorgandav.CourtofAppeals,213SCRA457(1992).
15Bunayogv.Tunos,106Phil.715.
16PhilippineFarmingCorporation,Ltd.v.Llanos,14SCRA949Arrozv.Alojada,19SCRA711.
17Lapitanv.Scandia,24SCRA479.
18Sec.19.Jurisdictionincivilcases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction:
xxxxxxxxx
(2)Inallcivilactionswhichinvolvetitleto,orpossessionofrealproperty,oranyinteresttherein,wherethe
assessedvalueofthepropertyinvolvedexceedsTwentythousandpesos(P20,000.00)or,forcivilactionsin
MetroManila,wheresuchvalueexceedsFiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)exceptactionsforforcibleentry
into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts

xxxxxxxxx
19Garciav.CourtofAppeals,273SCRA239Canizav.CourtofAppeals,268SCRA640.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_119347_1999.html

4/4