EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN,

EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN, respondent.

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is a Petition for Certiorari praying to set aside the decision of the RTC of Mandaue City dismissing the complaint of the petitioners on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as the order denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.

FACTS: Spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho owned a parcel of land in Cotcot, Liloan, Cebu. When they died, the land was inherited by their seven children. All of the children are now deceased except for one, respondent Marcelo Tautho. The petitioners and the respondents are now the legal heirs of the subject land; and for years, the land has been undivided until the petitioners discovered a public document – a Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of a previous oral agreement of partition executed on June 6, 1990.

            By virtue of the aforementioned document, the private respondents partitioned the property among themselves excluding the petitioners. But, the petitioners claim that the document was “false and perjurious” because the respondents are not the only heirs to the land and that no oral partition over the property has been made between the heirs.

So, on September 28, 1994, the petitioners filed a complaint in the RTC of Mandaue City against the respondents for the document to be declared void and sought that the land be divided among all the heirs i.e. including them.

On November 24, 1994, the private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They claim that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the total assessed value of the subject property is P5,000.00 which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan.

The petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss asserting that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case since the action they filed is incapable of pecuniary estimation and is within the contemplation of BP 129, as amended.

On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge granted the Motion to Dismiss. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order alleging that the decision was contrary to law because their complaint is not for the recovery of title to or possession of the land but an action to annul a document, thus, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and such case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. But, the respondent judge denied the Motion for Reconsideration prompting the petitioners to file this petition to the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioners as the partition is merely incidental to the annulment of the document.

HELD: Yes, the RTC has jurisdiction to hear the case of the petitioners. Since what is sought by the petitioners is the declaration of the document denominated as ‘Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition’, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Though the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, such is only incidental to the main action as it is clear that the main purpose of the petitioners is to declare the aforementioned document void. Hence, since an action to annul a document is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, the petition was granted and the RTC of Mandaue City was ordered to proceed with dispatch in resolving the complaint filed by the petitioners.

N.B. 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 the counterpart of specific performance.