Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    Russell Vs Vestil 304 SCRA 738

    Uploaded by

    Joshua L. De Jesus
    The complaint alleged that the petitioners and private respondents inherited land from the deceased spouses Tautho. Private respondents then divided the property and executed a document, excluding the petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint to declare this document null and void and partition the land among all heirs. Private respondents claimed the regional trial court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction due to the land's assessed value. However, the RTC has jurisdiction because the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation, as its primary purpose is to declare the document null and void, not recover money. Actions involving validity of documents and partition of property are incapable of pecuniary estimation and under RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Russell Vs Vestil 304 SCRA 738

    Uploaded by

    Joshua L. De Jesus
    258 views2 pages
    The complaint alleged that the petitioners and private respondents inherited land from the deceased spouses Tautho. Private respondents then divided the property and executed a document, excluding the petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint to declare this document null and void and partition the land among all heirs. Private respondents claimed the regional trial court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction due to the land's assessed value. However, the RTC has jurisdiction because the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation, as its primary purpose is to declare the document null and void, not recover money. Actions involving validity of documents and partition of property are incapable of pecuniary estimation and under RTC jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    civproc

    Original Title

    Russell vs Vestil 304 SCRA 738

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The complaint alleged that the petitioners and private respondents inherited land from the deceased spouses Tautho. Private respondents then divided the property and executed a document, excluding the petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint to declare this document null and void and partition the land among all heirs. Private respondents claimed the regional trial court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction due to the land's assessed value. However, the RTC has jurisdiction because the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation, as its primary purpose is to declare the document null and void, not recover money. Actions involving validity of documents and partition of property are incapable of pecuniary estimation and under RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    258 views2 pages

    Russell Vs Vestil 304 SCRA 738

    Uploaded by

    Joshua L. De Jesus
    The complaint alleged that the petitioners and private respondents inherited land from the deceased spouses Tautho. Private respondents then divided the property and executed a document, excluding the petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint to declare this document null and void and partition the land among all heirs. Private respondents claimed the regional trial court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction due to the land's assessed value. However, the RTC has jurisdiction because the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation, as its primary purpose is to declare the document null and void, not recover money. Actions involving validity of documents and partition of property are incapable of pecuniary estimation and under RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Russell vs Vestil 304 SCRA 738

    FACTS:
    The complaint alleged that petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land
    situated in Liloan, Cebu. The land was previously owned by the spouses Tautho.
    Upon the death of the spouses, the property was inherited by their legal heirs,
    petitioner and private respondents. Since then the lot had remained undivided
    until petitioners discovered a public document denominated DECLARATION OF
    HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT OF
    PARTITION." Private respondents divided the property with the exclusion of the
    petitioners
    Petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents, denominated
    Declaration of nullity and partition , with the RTC claiming that the document
    was false and perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and
    that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between the
    heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an
    order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.
    Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the
    ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed
    value of the subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas
    Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the exclusive
    jurisdiction of the MCTC.
    Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the
    RTC has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
    pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as
    amended.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
    HELD:
    The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one
    incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said
    court.
    In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:
    In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is
    not capable 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 a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
    estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
    first instance would depend 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 principal relief

    sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
    litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
    exclusively by the RTC.
    Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for
    specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of
    judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed
    of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission, which is a
    counterpart of specific performance.
    The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null
    and void the document in question. 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.

    You might also like