Agarrado vs. Librando-Agarrado

An action for partition of real property, while incapable of pecuniary estimation, still requires the allegation of the assessed value of the subject property in the complaint to determine whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction under Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended; failure to allege such assessed value warrants dismissal of the complaint.

Rodrigo and Emilia Agarrado were spouses who acquired a 287-square-meter parcel of land in Bacolod City, registered in their names under TCT No. T-29842-B. Emilia died intestate on August 18, 1978. During the marriage, Rodrigo had an extramarital affair with Cristita Librando-Agarrado, with whom he begot Ana Lou Agarrado-King, who was conceived during the marriage but born on September 27, 1978, one month after Emilia's death. Rodrigo married Cristita on July 6, 1981, and died on December 8, 2000, leaving his surviving spouse Cristita, his legitimate children by Emilia, and Ana Lou.

Rodrigo and Emilia Agarrado were spouses who, during their lifetime, acquired a 287-square-meter parcel of land in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29842-B. Emilia died intestate on August 18, 1978, leaving Rodrigo and their children as her compulsory heirs. Unknown to the children, Rodrigo had been involved in an extramarital affair with Cristita Librando-Agarrado, with whom he begot Ana Lou Agarrado-King. Ana Lou was conceived during the subsistence of Rodrigo and Emilia's marriage but was born on September 27, 1978, one month after Emilia's death dissolved the marriage. Rodrigo married Cristita on July 6, 1981.

Rodrigo died on December 8, 2000, leaving his surviving spouse Cristita, his legitimate children by Emilia, and Ana Lou. On January 23, 2003, Cristita and Ana Lou filed a complaint before the RTC, Branch 44, Bacolod City, for partition of the subject property, naming Ma. Rosario, Ruth, Roy, "and other heirs of Rodrigo Agarrado" as defendants. None of the other heirs were named in any pleading filed by either party.

The RTC rendered its January 17, 2007 Decision ordering the parties to partition the subject property among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance or any other means or method, after which the court would confirm the partition or appoint commissioners. The petitioners appealed to the CA, which, in its April 19, 2013 Decision, affirmed with modification, declaring the parties co-owners and allocating specific shares: Cristita entitled to 2/9, Ma. Rosario, Ruth, and Roy entitled to 6/9 plus 1/4 to be divided equally among them, and Ana Lou entitled to 1/9. The CA denied reconsideration via its March 27, 2014 Resolution. The complaint, however, did not allege the assessed value of the subject property, nor did any document attached to the complaint indicate such value.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioners argued that the complaint must be dismissed for respondents' failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property, which is a jurisdictional requirement indispensable in determining whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the action.
• Filiation of Other Heirs: Petitioners contended that the CA erred in excluding the five other heirs (children of the first marriage) from their inheritance by the alleged failure to prove their filiation.
• Implied Recognition: Petitioners maintained that the CA failed to appreciate 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 other children.
• Computation of Shares: Petitioners argued that the CA mathematically misapplied the formula under the pertinent rules of succession in the Family Code and/or Civil Code to determine the shares of the parties.
• Family Home: Petitioners asserted that the CA erred in ruling that a family home cannot be recognized as such simply because it was not registered.
• Collation of Benefits: Petitioners argued that GSIS, PhilHealth, and other benefits received by respondents should be charged against their share of the subject property, along with funeral expenses shouldered by the first family.
• Docket Fees: Petitioners contended that the CA should have dismissed the case for failure of respondents to allege the market value and pay the correct docket fees at the inception of the complaint.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's jurisdiction over the partition complaint despite the failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property.
• Filiation of Other Heirs: Whether the CA erred in excluding the five other heirs of the first marriage from their inheritance by the alleged failure to prove their filiation.
• Implied Recognition: Whether the CA erred in not appreciating respondents' implied recognition or "admission by silence" under Section 32 of Rule 130 as evidence of the filiation of the five other children.
• Computation of Shares: Whether the CA misapplied the formula under the pertinent rules of succession to determine the shares of the parties.
• Family Home: Whether the CA erred in ruling that a family home cannot be recognized as such simply because it was not registered.
• Collation of Benefits: Whether the GSIS, PhilHealth, and other benefits received by respondents should be charged against their share, along with funeral expenses shouldered by the first family.
• Docket Fees: Whether the CA erred in not dismissing the case for failure to allege the market value and pay the correct docket fees.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. The complaint was dismissible for lack of jurisdiction because it failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property, which is essential to determine whether the RTC or the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction under Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended.
• Filiation of Other Heirs: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue, having dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
• Implied Recognition: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue.
• Computation of Shares: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue.
• Family Home: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue.
• Collation of Benefits: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue.
• Docket Fees: N/A — the Court did not reach this issue separately, as it was subsumed under the jurisdictional dismissal.

• Jurisdiction: While actions for partition are incapable of pecuniary estimation owing to their two-phased nature — first, a declaration of co-ownership, and second, the conveyance of a determinate portion — the determination of which court acquires jurisdiction must still conform to Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691. Under these provisions, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed value of the property exceeds ₱20,000 (or ₱50,000 in Metro Manila), while the MeTC, MTC, or MCTC has jurisdiction where the assessed value is at or below those thresholds. The CA's reliance on Russel vs. Vestil was misplaced, as Russel involved an action for annulment of a document, not partition; the partition aspect was merely incidental. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. A complaint that fails to allege the assessed value of the property — and whose attachments likewise fail to indicate such value — does not permit identification of the proper court. Pursuant to Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, the rule is two-tiered: jurisdiction is generally determined by the assessed value as alleged in the complaint, but may be liberally applied if the assessed value can be identified through a facial examination of documents already attached to the complaint. Because neither the complaint nor its attachments contained any indication of the assessed value, the proper court could not be identified, rendering all RTC proceedings null and void. The remaining issues were rendered moot by the jurisdictional dismissal.

• Jurisdiction over actions for partition of real property — An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and an action for the eventual conveyance of specific portions to the co-owners. While the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the proper court is still determined by the assessed value of the property under Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended. The RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000 (or ₱50,000 in Metro Manila); otherwise, jurisdiction lies with the MeTC, MTC, or MCTC.
• Two-tiered rule for determining jurisdiction by assessed value (Foronda-Crystal doctrine) — First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the complaint. Second, the rule is liberally applied if the assessed value, while not alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of documents already attached to the complaint. Failure to allege the assessed value — or to supply it through attached documents — warrants dismissal, as the court which would exercise jurisdiction cannot be identified.
• Jurisdiction determined by allegations in the complaint — It is hornbook doctrine that the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. One cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at trial, to determine the nature of the action initiated.

• "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." — This is the opening pronouncement of the decision and articulates the core legal principle: partition actions, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, still require assessment of the property's value to determine the proper court.

• "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." — This quotation, drawn from Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, states the ratio decidendi for dismissing the complaint: without the assessed value, jurisdiction cannot be determined, and courts cannot supply the deficiency by judicial notice.

• "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." — This passage sets out the canonical two-tiered test from Foronda-Crystal that the Court applied to dismiss the complaint.

• Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 739 (1999) — Distinguished. The CA relied on this case to hold that partition actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC. The Supreme Court clarified that Russel involved annulment of a document as the principal subject matter, not partition; the partition aspect was merely incidental. Russel itself acknowledged that jurisdiction over partition actions still depends on assessed value under Section 33(3) of B.P. 129.
• Cabrera vs. Francisco, 716 Phil. 574 (2013) — Followed. Reiterated the criterion from Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill that the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained to determine whether a case is capable of pecuniary estimation.
• Bagayas vs. Bagayas, 718 Phil. 91 (2013) — Followed. Established that partition is two-phased: declaration of co-ownership and conveyance of a determinate portion.
• Barrido vs. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, Oct. 20, 2014, 738 SCRA 510 — Followed. Upheld MTCC jurisdiction over a partition action where the assessed value was only ₱8,080.00, confirming that jurisdiction depends on assessed value under Section 33(3) of B.P. 129.
• Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, G.R. No. 221815, Nov. 29, 2017 — Controlling. Established the two-tiered rule for determining jurisdiction by assessed value and held that failure to allege the assessed value in the complaint or in attached documents warrants dismissal.
• Tumpag vs. Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, Sept. 29, 2014, 737 SCRA 62 — Followed. Stated the hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint.
• Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, et al., 616 Phil. 519 (2009) — Followed. Held that failure to allege the assessed value renders RTC proceedings null and void.
• Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 650 (2007) — Followed. Same doctrine as Spouses Cruz — failure to allege assessed value results in dismissal.

• Section 19(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Confers on the RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value exceeds ₱20,000 (or ₱50,000 in Metro Manila). Applied to determine that the RTC's jurisdiction depends on the assessed value of the subject property.
• Section 33(3), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Confers on the MeTC, MTC, or MCTC exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000 (or ₱50,000 in Metro Manila). Applied together with Section 19(2) to show that the assessed value determines which level of court has jurisdiction.
• Rule 69, Revised Rules of Court — Governs the procedure for partition. The CA ordered partition under this Rule, but the Supreme Court did not reach the merits.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred.