8/11/2019 1. Russel v Vestil
1/2
RUSSEL v. VESTILG.R. No. 119347 | March 17, 1999 | J.
KAPUNANPetitioners: Eulalia Russel, Ruperto Tautho, Francisco
Tautho, Susana Reales, Apitacio Tautho, Danilo
Tautho, Juditha Pros, Gregorio Tautho, Deodita Judilla, Agipino
Tautho, Felix Taut-ho, WilliamTautho, Marilyn Perales
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. Augustine Vestil, Adri-ano
Tagalog, Marcelo Tautho, JuanitaMen-doza, Domingo Bantilan, Raul
Bataluna and Artemio Cabatingan
Facts:
On 28 September 1994, Russel et al filed a complaint against
private respondents denominatedDECLARATION 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 byCasimero and Cesaria Tautho Upon
the death, they succeeded as legal heirs. As the lot
remainedundivided, they discovered a document denominated as
DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEEDOF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
AGREEMENT FOR PARTITION, executed on 6June 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 bedeclared null and void.
A MTD was filed by the respondents for lack of jurisdiction. The
subject land is P5K which underBP. 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 betterappreciation 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 ANDVOID 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, thejurisdiction lies
with the RTC.
To determine whether one is capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation, this Court has adopted thecriterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought.
If it is primarily for therecovery of the sum of money the
jurisdiction would depend on the amount of the claim. But if it is
somethingother than the right to recover a sum of money, whether
the money claim is merely incidental to or inconsequence of such
relief, it is deemed incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus
jurisdiction falls with theRTC.
Examples of which are:
1. Specific performance2. Support3. Foreclosure of mortgage4.
Annulment of judgment5. Questions of a validity of a mortgage6.
Annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price
paid7. Rescission
This case is for the ANNULMENT OF THE DOCUMENT denominated as
DECLARATION OF HEIRS ANDDEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL
PARTITION. The partition is just incidental to the mainaction of
annulment. Jurisdiction of a subject matter is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations of
