June 06, 2018 

MA. ROSARIO AGARRADO, RUTH LIBRADA AGARRADO AND ROY AGARRADO, FOR
THEMSELVES AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR SIBLINGS AND CO-OWNERS ROBERTO
AGARRADO, REUEL ANDRES AGARRADO, HEIRS OF THE LATE RODRIGO AGARRADO,
JR., REX AGARRADO AND JUDY AGARRADO, PETITIONERS, V. CRISTITA LIBRANDO-
AGARRADO AND ANA LOU AGARRADO-KING, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

REYES, JR., J:

An action for partition of real estate is at once an action for the determination of the co-owners
of the subject property and an action for the eventual conveyance of specific portions thereof to
the co-owners. While this subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
proper court which would have jurisdiction over the action would still depend on the
subject property's assessed values in accordance with Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended. [1]

The Case

Challenged before the Court via this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court is the April 19, 2013 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 02669,
which affirmed with modification the January 17, 2007 Decision [3] of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 44, of Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 03-11893. Likewise challenged is the
subsequent March 27, 2014 Resolution[4] of the CA which upheld its earlier decision.

The Antecedent Facts

As borne by the records of the case, it appears that the petitioners Ma. Rosario Agarrado (Ma.
Rosario), Ruth Librada Agarrado (Ruth), and Roy Agarrado (Roy) are children of the late spouses
Rodrigo (Rodrigo) and Emilia (Emilia) Agarrado, who, during their lifetime, acquired a 287-
square meter land (subject property) in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. The subject property
was registered in the name of the spouses Rodrigo and Emilia and was covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-29842-B.[5]

On August 18, 1978, Emilia died intestate, leaving Rodrigo and their children as her compulsory
heirs.

Meanwhile, unknown to the petitioners, Rodrigo was involved in an illicit affair with respondent
Cristita Librando-Agarrado (Cristita), with whom Rodrigo begot respondent Ana Lou Agarrado-
King (Ana Lou). As it turned out, Ana Lou was conceived during the existence of the marriage
between Rodrigo and Emilia, but was born on September 27, 1978—one month after the
dissolution of Rodrigo and Emilia's marriage through the latter's death.

Eventually, Rodrigo married Cristita on July 6, 1981.

On December 8, 2000, Rodrigo also succumbed to mortality and died. He left his surviving
spouse, Cristita, his legitimate children by his marriage with Emilia, and Ana Lou.

On January 23, 2003, Cristita and Ana Lou filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 44, of Bacolod City for the partition of the subject property, with Ma. Rosario,
Ruth, Roy, "and other heirs of Rodrigo Agarrado"[6] as defendants. None of the other heirs were
however named in any pleading filed by either the plaintiffs (now respondents) or defendants
(now petitioners).

Eventually, the RTC rendered its January 17, 2007 Decision, which ordered the parties to
partition the subject property "among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance or any
other means or method."[7] The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ana Lou Agarrado-King and the defendants herein are ordered to partition
the property subject of this case (Lot 10, Block 6) among themselves by proper instruments of
conveyance or any other means or method after which the Court shall confirm the partition so
agreed upon by them, otherwise the Court will appoint commissioners to effect partition at the
expense of the parties.

SO ORDERED.[8]

Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which, through the assailed
April 19, 2013 Decision, affirmed with modification the January 17, 2007 Decision of the RTC.
The fallo of the decision of the appellate court reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 17, 2007, of the Regional
Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 44, Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 03-11893 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that:

1. We declare plaintiffs-appellees Cristita Librando Agarrado and Ana Lou Agarrado-King as

well as defendants-appellants as co-owners of the subject property;

2. We grant judicial partition in the following manner:

(a) Plaintiff-appellee Cristita Librando Agarrado is entitled to 2/9;

(b) Ma. Rosario, Ruth and Roy Agarrado are entitled to 6/9 plus ¼ to be divided equally among
them unless they agree otherwise; and
(c) Ana Lou Agarrado-King is entitled to 1/9 of the property.

The partition and segregation of the subject property is hereby ordered as outlined in Rule 69 of
the Revised Rules of Court, as amended.

No pronouncements as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[9]

Despite the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the CA affirmed its April 19, 2013
Decision via the March 27, 2014 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

The petitioners anchor their prayer for the reversal of the April 19, 2013 Decision and March 27,
2014 Resolution based on the following issues:

a. Whether the Hon. Court of Appeals erred in excluding the FIVE OTHER heirs (children of
the first marriage) of their inheritance by the alleged failure to prove their filiation in the
proceedings before the Honorable Regional Trial Court;

b. Harmonizing substantive and procedural law, whether the Honorable Court of Appeals
erred in not appreciating Respondents' implied recognition or "admission by silence" under
Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as evidence of the filiation of the five (5)
 other children of the late Rodrigo Agarrado, Sr. (namely Reuel Andres Agarrado, Rodrigo
Agarrado, Jr., Rex Agarrado, Roberto Agarrado and Judy Agarrado);

c. Whether the Hon. Court of Appeals in its contested Decision, mathematically MISAPPLIED
the formula under the pertinent rules of succession in the Family Code and/or Civil Code
to determine the shares of both Petitioners and Respondents to the subject house and lot;

d. Relatedly, whether the Hon. Court of Appeals is correct in ruling that a family home
cannot be recognized as such simply because it was not registered as such;

e. Whether all the GSIS, PHILHEALTH and other benefits all claimed, taken, and received by
the Respondents are to be charged against whatever share they may have over the
subject "house and lot" of the late Rodrigo Agarrado, Sr., as well as the funeral expenses
expended by the first family alone?

f. Whether the Hon. Court of Appeals was correct in not ordering the dismissal of the case
for failure of Plaintiffs-Respondents to allege the market value and pay the right docket
fees at the incipience of the Complaint.[10]

In sum, the submissions of the petitioners seek to determine the following: (1) the compulsory
heirs of the late Rodrigo; (2) the portion of the estate to which each of the compulsory heirs are
entitled; (3) the propriety of collating to the total estate the medical and burial expenses
shouldered by the petitioners and the benefits (GSIS, PHILHEALTH) received by the
respondents; (4) the effect of the allegation that the subject property is the petitioners' family
home; and (5) the effect on jurisdiction of the failure to indicate the market value of the subject
property in the complaint filed before the RTC.

The Court's Ruling

After a careful perusal of the arguments presented and the evidence submitted, the Court finds
merit in the petition.

For obvious reasons, the Court shall first consider the issue on jurisdiction.

The petitioners argue that the complaint must be dismissed for the failure of the respondents to
allege the assessed value of the subject property. They said that the appellate court failed to
appreciate this jurisdictional requirement, which was indispensable in the determination of the
jurisdiction of the RTC. They further averred that the case should not have proceeded in the first
place.[11]

The CA glossed over this issue by saying that the action for partition instituted by the
respondents in the RTC is one incapable of pecuniary estimation, which would thus confer
jurisdiction over the case to the RTC. In ruling thus, the appellate court invoked the guidance of
the case of Russel vs. Vestil,[12] and stated that:

We are guided by the ruling in Russel vs Vestil, 304 SCRA 739, March 17, 1999 wherein the
Supreme Court considered petitioners' complaint seeking the annulment of the
document entitled "Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral
Partition," as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, rationalizing that the resolution
of the same principally involved the determination of hereditary rights. In effect, the partition
aspect is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)[13]

This, however, is an error that must be reversed. The appellate court's reliance on Russel is
misplaced.
The Court, in Russel, explained that the complaint filed by the plaintiff is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation because the subject matter of the complaint is not one of partition, but
one of the annulment of a document denominated as a "Declaration of Heirs and Deed of
Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition." Considering that the annulment of a document is the
main subject matter, and that the same is incapable of pecuniary estimation, then necessarily,
the RTC has jurisdiction.

This is not so in the present case.

In determining whether a case is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the case of Cabrera vs.
Francisco,[14] in reiterating the case of Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill,[15] teaches that identifying
the nature of the principal action or remedy sought is primarily necessary. It states:

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 Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Courts).[16] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

.[18]

The case of Russel, the very same case cited by the Court of Appeals, determined that while
actions for partition are incapable of pecuniary estimation owing to its two-phased subject
matter, the determination of the court which will acquire jurisdiction over the same
must still conform to Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended. Russel said:

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the
assessed value of the real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or
P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as the
case may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec.
19(2). (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

This is also the tenor of the case of Barrido vs. Nonato[19] where the Court upheld the jurisdiction
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, of Bacolod City over the action for
partition because the assessed value of the subject property was only P8,080.00. As
basis, Barrido likewise cited Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended.

To be sure, according to the recent case of Foronda-Crystal vs. Son,[20] jurisdiction is defined as

the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. To exercise this, the court or
adjudicative body must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter, [21] which is
conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by
erroneous belief of the court that it exists. [22]

Jurisdiction over cases for partition of real properties therefore, like all others, is determined by
law. Particularly, the same is identified by Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act 7691. [23]
The provisions state that in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property,
or any interest therein, the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000.00 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds P50,000.00.[24] For those below the foregoing threshold amounts, exclusive jurisdiction
lies with the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), or Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts (MCTC).[25]

Thus, the determination of the assessed value of the property, which is the subject matter of the
partition, is essential. This, the courts could identify through an examination of the allegations of
the complaint.

According to the case of Tumpag vs. Tumpag,[26] it is a hornbook doctrine that the court should
only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its
jurisdiction.[27] According to the case of Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, et al.,[28] only these facts
can be the basis of the court's competence to take cognizance of a case, and that one cannot
advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to
determine the nature of the action thereby initiated.[29]

According to Foronda-Crystal, failure to allege the assessed value of a real property in the
complaint would result to a dismissal of the case. The reason put forth by the Court is that:

x x x absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the petitioner's action. Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or
market value of the land. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)

This same ratio has been repeated in a number of cases, including the cases of Spouses Cruz vs.
Spouses Cruz, et al.[30] and Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals,[31] where the Court concluded that:

Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the assessed value of the
subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all
proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the RTC. [32]

Based on the foregoing, in Foronda-Crystal, the Court already established the rules that have to
be followed in determining the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts. It said:

A reading of the quoted cases would reveal a pattern which would invariably guide both the
bench and the bar in similar situations. Based on the foregoing, the rule on determining the
assessed value of a real property, insofar as the identification of the jurisdiction of the
first and second level courts is concerned, would be two-tiered:

First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real
property as alleged in the complaint; and

Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the property, while not
alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of the documents
already attached to the complaint. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On the basis of this most recent ruling, the Court is without any recourse but to agree with the
petitioners in dismissing the complaint filed before the RTC for lack of jurisdiction.

A scouring of the records of this case revealed that the complaint did indeed lack any indication
as to the assessed value of the subject property. In fact, the only reference to the same in the
complaint are found in paragraphs six, seven, and eight thereof, which state that:
"6. Meanwhile, during the lifetime of Rodrigo Agarrado, he acquired certain real and personal
properties due to his hard work, one of which is the parcel of land with improvements standing
thereon, located at Barangay Villamonte, Bacolod City, more particularly described as follows, to
wit:

xxxx

7. RODRIGO AGARRADO died intestate and leaving no debts. Upon his death, plaintiffs by
operation of law, became co-owners of the afore-described property jointly with the other heirs,
the herein defendants;

8. Demand thru counsel has been made by the herein plaintiffs upon the defendants for the
partition of the subject property, but the same was simply ignored. Copy of the Demand Letter is
hereto attached and marked as Annex 'D' and forming part hereof." [33]

None of these assertions indicate the assessed value of the property to be partitioned that would
invariably determine as to which court has the authority to acquire jurisdiction. More, none of
the documents annexed to the complaint and as attached in the records of this case indicates
any such amount Thus, the petitioners are correct in restating their argument against the RTC's
jurisdiction, for it has none to exercise.

Clearly, therefore, jurisprudence has ruled that an action for partition, while one not capable of
pecuniary estimation, falls under the jurisdiction of either the first or second level courts
depending on the amounts specified in Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended.
Consequently, a failure by the plaintiff to indicate the assessed value of the subject property in
his/her complaint, or at the very least, in the attachments in the complaint as ruled in Foronda-
Crystal, is dismissible because the court which would exercise jurisdiction over the same could
not be identified.

Consequently, as the complaint in this case is dismissible for its failure to abide by the rules
in Foronda-Crystal, then the Court sees no further necessity to discuss the other issues raised.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the April 19, 2013 Decision and March 27, 2014 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 02669, as well as the January 17, 2007 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, of Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 03-11893 are hereby SET
ASIDE. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling in the proper
court.

SO ORDERED.