G.R. No. 241036, January 26, 2021.
LUCILA DAVID AND THE HEIRS OF RENE F. AGUAS, NAMELY: PRINCESS LUREN D. AGUAS, DANICA LANE D. AGUAS, SEAN PATRICK D. AGUAS, SEAN MICHAEL D. AGUAS AND SAMANTHA D. AGUAS, PETITIONERS, VS. CHERRY S. CALILUNG, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners are Lucila David (Lucila) and the heirs of Rene F. Aguas (Rene). Lucila and Rene were married in 1981 and had five children. On December 10, 2003, Rene filed a petition to declare his marriage with Lucila null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity. The marriage was declared null and void on December 22, 2005. The court ordered the division of their conjugal property (a lot and house in Sunset Valley, Angeles City) and the delivery of the presumptive legitimes to their common children. This partition and delivery were not complied with. On October 7, 2006, Rene contracted a second marriage with respondent Cherry Calilung (Cherry). Rene died intestate on November 17, 2015. On May 24, 2017, Cherry filed a petition for letters of administration and settlement of Rene’s intestate estate (Settlement Proceeding) before RTC Branch 56. Petitioners actively participated in this proceeding. On November 3, 2017, petitioners filed a petition (RTC Petition) praying that the marriage between Rene and Cherry be declared null and void pursuant to Article 53 in relation to Article 52 of the Family Code, alleging that the requirements of Article 52 (recording of the judgment of nullity, partition, and delivery of legitimes) were not complied with, thus nullifying the subsequent marriage. The RTC Petition was originally raffled to Branch 59 (the designated Family Court) but was transmitted for re-raffle, with Branch 59 stating it involved a collateral attack on a marriage not within its jurisdiction. It was re-raffled to Branch 60, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was a matter for the Family Court under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court Branch 60 correctly dismissed the RTC Petition on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes. The ponencia affirms the dismissal. The subject matter of the RTC Petition—a complaint seeking a declaration of nullity of the subsequent marriage between Rene and Cherry—falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Court as provided under Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997). Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The RTC Petition’s allegations and prayer squarely involve a matter relating to marital status (declaration of nullity of marriage), which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (Branch 59 in this case). Therefore, Branch 60, not being a Family Court, correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.