GR 156078; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156078 ; March 14, 2008
HEIRS OF CESAR MARASIGAN, Petitioners, vs. APOLONIO MARASIGAN, et al., and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Alicia Marasigan died intestate in 1995, survived by her siblings and the children of predeceased siblings. Her estate included undivided interests in a 496-hectare property known as Hacienda Sta. Rita. In 1997, several heirs (private respondents) filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition against Cesar Marasigan (petitioners’ predecessor) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur. The complaint specifically prayed for the partition of a “2/2 pro indiviso share” in the Hacienda. Petitioners, the heirs of Cesar, contested the RTC’s jurisdiction. They argued that the subject matter of the suit was not merely the 2/2 share but the entire 496-hectare estate, the value of which would exceed the RTC’s jurisdictional threshold. They further contended that the correct docket fees for the entire estate’s value were not paid, thus the court did not acquire jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for partition, considering the allegations regarding the property’s value and the payment of docket fees.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the primary relief sought. The complaint filed by private respondents expressly and solely prayed for the partition of a “2/2 pro indiviso share” in the Hacienda Sta. Rita. It did not seek the partition of the entire 496-hectare estate in that specific action. The value of this specific 2/2 share, as alleged, fell within the RTC’s jurisdiction. The general averments in the body of the complaint describing the total land area did not amend the specific and limited prayer. Consequently, the docket fees paid, based on the value of the share subject of the partition, were correct. The Court also noted that a co-owner’s right to demand partition of the common property is imprescriptible, and the inclusion of all co-owners, while proper, is not a jurisdictional requirement in a partition suit. The trial could proceed to determine the respective shares of all heirs in the specific property sought to be partitioned. The Petition was denied for lack of merit.