1|Russell vs Vestil

[G.R. No. 119347. March 17, 1999] Motion for Reconsideration of the order of
dismissal.
EULALIA RUSSELL, RUPERTO TAUTHO,
FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, The facts of the case are as follows:
APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO,
JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a
DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, complaint against private respondents,
FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND denominated "DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND
MARILYN PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court of
PERALES, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE Mandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case
AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ADRIANO No. MAN 2275. The complaint, in substance,
TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA alleged that petitioners are co-owners of that
MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL parcel of land, Lot 6149 situated in Liloan, Cebu
BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO and containing an area of 56,977.40 square
CABATINGAN, Respondents. meters, more or less. The land was previously
owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and
DECISION Cesaria Tautho. Upon the death of said spouses,
the property was inherited by their legal heirs,
KAPUNAN, J.: herein petitioners and private respondents. Since
then, the lot had remained undivided until
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside petitioners discovered a public document
the Order dated January 12, 1995 issued by denominated "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND
respondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil of the DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, AGREEMENT OF PARTITION," executed on June
dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners on 6, 1990. By virtue of this deed, private
ground of lack of jurisdiction, as well as his Order respondents divided the property among
dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners' themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who
2|Russell vs Vestil

are also entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge
spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. issued an Order granting the Motion to
Petitioners claimed that the document was false Dismiss.8 A Motion for Reconsideration of said
and perjurious as the private respondents were order was filed by petitioners on January 30,
not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the 1995 alleging that the same is contrary to law
property whatsoever had been made between because their action is not one for recovery of
the heirs. The complaint prayed that the title to or possession of the land but an action to
document be declared null and void and an order annul a document or declare it null and
be issued to partition the land among all the void,9 hence, one incapable of pecuniary
heirs.1cräläwvirt ualib rä ry estimation failing within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court. Private respondents did not
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed oppose the motion for reconsideration.
a Motion to Dismiss2 the complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge
as the total assessed value of the subject land issued another Order denying the motion for
is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3)3 of reconsideration.10cräl äwvirtual ibrä ry

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.

No. 7691,4 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction Hence, this petition wherein the sole issue raised
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has
Compostela.5 cräläwvirtual ibrä ry
jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MAN-
2275.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss6 saying that the Regional Trial Court has We find merit in the petition.
jurisdiction over the case since the action is one
which is incapable of pecuniary estimation within Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint
the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the
amended.7 annulment of a document denominated as
"DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
cräläwvirtua lib räry
3|Russell vs Vestil

CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL A parcel of land containing 56,977.40 square

PARTITION," which is clearly one incapable of meters, more or less, located at Cotcot, Liloan,
pecuniary estimation, thus, cognizable by the Cebu.
Regional Trial Court.
designated as Lot 6149 per Technical Description
Private respondents, on the other hand, insists and Certification issued by the Office of the Land
that the action is one for re-partition and since Management copy of which are hereto attached
the assessed value of the property as stated in as Annexes "A" and "A-1" and are made part
the complaint is P5,000.00, then, the case falls hereof: total assessed value is P5,000.00;
within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela, Cebu. 5. That the land passed to the children of the
spouses.(who are all deceased except for
For better appreciation of the facts, the pertinent defendant Marcelo Tautho), namely: Zacarias,
portions of the complaint are reproduced Epifania, Vicenta, Felicisimo, Maria, Lorencia and
hereunder: Marcelo, and which in turn passed to the plaintiffs
and defendants upon their death they being their
xxx descendants and legal heirs;

3. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the 6. That the subject parcel of land has for year
legal heirs of spouses Casimero Tautho and been undivided by and among the legal heirs of
Cesaria N. Tautho who died long time ago; said previous owners;

4. That in life the spouses became the owners in 7. That, very recently, plaintiffs discovered a
fee simple of a certain parcel of land, which is public document, which is a declaration of heirs
more particularly described as follows: and deed of confirmation of a previous oral
agreement, of partition, affecting the land
executed by and among the defendants whereby
defendants divided the property among
4|Russell vs Vestil

themselves to the exclusion of plaintiffs who are 12. That by reason of the foregoing unjust and
entitled thereto; attached hereto as Annex "B" illegal act of defendants, plaintiffs were forced to
and is made part hereof is xerox copy of said bring instant action and contract the services of
document; the undersigned counsel with whom they bind
themselves to pay P30,000.00 as attorney's
8. That the instrument (Annex "B") is false and fees.
perjurious and is a complete nullity because the
defendants are not the only heirs of Casimero WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of
Tautho; plaintiffs are also legal heirs and this Honorable Court to declare null and void the
descendants of said deceased; moreover, there document (Annex "B") of declaration of heirs and
has been no oral partition of the property; confirmation and to order the partition of the land
into seven (7) equal parts; each part shall
9. That pursuant to said document (Annex "B"), respectively go to the seven (7) children of
defendants had procured tax declarations of the Casimero Tautho and considering six (6) of them
land for their supposed "shares" to the great died already the same shall go to their children
damage and prejudice of plaintiffs; or descendants, and to order the defendants to
pay plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount
10. That the property in controversy should be of P30,000.00.
divided into seven (7) equal parts since Casimero
Tautho and Cesaria N. Tautho had seven Plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and
children; remedies just and equitable under the
premises.11
11. That the parties had failed to settle the
controversy amicably at the barangay level; We agree with petitioners.
attached hereto as Annex "C" is Certification to
file Action; The complaint filed before the Regional Trial
Court is doubtless one incapable of pecuniary
5|Russell vs Vestil

estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary
said court. estimation are those for specific performance,
support, or foreclosure of mortgage or
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill,[12 we had the annulment of judgment;14 also actions
occasion to rule that: questioning the validity of a
mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or
15
[I]n determining whether an action is one the conveyance and to recover the price paid16 and
subject matter of which is not capable of for rescession, which is a counterpart of specific
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the performance.17
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
cräläwvirtua lib räry

principal action or remedy sought. If it is While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law
claim is considered capable of pecuniary specifically mandates that they are cognizable by
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance value of the real property involved does
would depend on the amount of the claim. exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila,
However, where the basic issue is something or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value
other than the right to recover a sum of money, exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the case
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have
a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2).18 cräläwvirtual ibrä ry

Court has considered such actions as cases

where the subject of the litigation may not be However, the subject matter of the complaint in
estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable this case is annulment of a document
exclusively by courts of first instance (now denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND
Regional Trial Courts).13 DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL
PARTITION."
6|Russell vs Vestil

The main purpose of petitioners in filing the

complaint is to declare null and void the
document in which private respondents declared
themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses
Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and divided
his property among themselves to the exclusion
of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and
entitled to the property. While the complaint also
prays for the partition of the property, this is just
incidental to the main action, which is the
declaration of nullity of the document above-
described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to
all or some of the claims asserted therein.19 cräläwvirtual ibrä ry

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.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo and Pardo, JJ.,

concur.