REMEDIAL LAW COMPILATION
OF CASES also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law
MARIAM R. PETILLA
PRE-WEEK BAR NOTES
11. Russel vs Vestil
Facts: Petitioners Eulalia Vestil, et al filed a
complaint against respondents Adriano Tagalog
et al denominated “Declaration of Nullity &
Partition” with the RTC if Mandaue City. The
complaint alleged that the petrs are co-owners
of a parcel of land previously owned by Tautho
spouses. Upon the death of the said spouses, the
property was inherited by the heirs, herein
petrs & respondents.
Petrs discovered a document denominated
“Declaration of Heirs & Deed of Confirmation
of a Previous Oral Agreement of Partition.” By
virtue of this deed, respondents divided the
property among themselves to the exclusion of
petrs who are also entitled to the said lot. The
complaint prayed that the document be declared
null & void & an order be issued to partition
the land among the heirs.
Private respondents filed a mot 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 w/c is under Sec 33(3) of BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691 falls w/in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MCTC.
Petrs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss saying that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the case since the action is one w/c is
incapable of pecuniary estimation w/in the
contemplation of Sec 19(l) of BP 129, as
amended.
The respondent Judge granted the mot to
dismiss & mot for reconsideration.
Issue: WON THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE.
Held: YES. The complaint filed before the
RTC is one incapable of pecuniary estimation
& therefore w/in the jurisdiction of said court.
While actions under 33(3) of BP 129 are
specifically mandates that they are cognizable
by the MTC, METC, MCTC where the
assessed value of the real property involved
does exceed P20,000 in MM or P50,0000, if
located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000
or P50,000 as the case may be, it is the RTC
w/c have jurisdiction under Sec 19(2).
In this case, the subj matter of the
complaint in this case is ANNULMENT OF A
DOCUMENT denominated as “Declaration of
Heirs & Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral
Partition.” The petitioners filed the case to
declare the document null & void w/c the
respondents declared themselves as the
only heirs & entitled to the property.
Thus, it is w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC.
[ In determining whether an action is one the
subj matter of w/c is not capable of pecuniary
estimation in this crt has adopted the criterion
of first, ascertaining the principal action or
remedy sought.
1) If it is primarily for the recovery of sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation & whether jur is in the
municipal crts or in the RTC wld depend on the
amt of the claim.
2) However, where the basic issue is other than
The rt to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to or a
consequence of, the principal sought, this Crt
has considered such actions as cases where the
subj of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money & are cognizable eclusively by
RTC. ]
[Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation:
(1) specific performance
(2) support
(3) foreclosure of mortgage or
(4) annulment of judgmt
(5) actions questioning the validity of mortgage,
(6) annulling a deed of sale or conveyance & to
recover the price paid
(7) & for recission w/c is counterpart of specific
performance.