Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Blardony v. Coscolluela
Blardony v. Coscolluela
RELEVANT DOCTRINES
1. [Non-Compliance with P.D. 1508 Does Not Affect Jurisdiction Already Acquired]
While the referral of a case to the Lupon Tagapayapa is a condition precedent for filing a complaint in
court, it is not a jurisdictional requirement, “its non-compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction which the
court has already acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.”
2. [Who May File a Petition for Nullity of Marriage; Exceptions]
Under Section 6 of P.D. 1508, the complaint may be filed directly in a competent court without passing the
Lupon Tagapayapa in the following cases, among others: “…(3) Actions coupled with provisional remedies
such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite.”
RECIT-READY DIGEST
The case is extremely short, so I’ll just make a TLDR version. Look at the Doctrines ^ if you want a better ratio.
TLDR: When Mrs. Blardony filed a petition for the dissolution and partition of the conjugal partnership with the CFI, Mr.
Blardony did two things sequentially: first, he filed an answer praying for the CFI to render a fair dissolution; and then
second, he filed a motion to dismiss saying that the CFI has no jurisdiction because the petition should have allegedly first
gone through the Lupon Tagapamayapa. The CFI dismissed his motion. On appeal, the SC ruled that: (1) non-compliance
with P.D. 1508 does not affect the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired – Mr. Blardoney admitted the
jurisdiction of the CFI when he prayed for an affirmative relief on his FIRST filing; (2) the complaint may be filed directly
to the court when it involves delivery of personal property and support pendente lite – this case needs to determine the
support of their minor child, and needs to eventually deliver the properties after their partition. Thus, the CFI has jurisdiction.
FACTS
1. Mauro Blardony and Rosario Blardoney are spouses who have one child, Patricia Blardony.
2. Due to irreconcilable differences, the spouses separated; and after which Rosario (the wife) filed a Petition for
Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Partition of Conjugal Partnership Properties in the CFI.
3. Mauro (the husband) first filed an answer that prayed the court to order “a fair and equitable dissolution of their
conjugal partnership in accordance with law.”
4. Then, Mauro filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the petition should have been filed first in the Lupon
Tagapamayapa as provided in P.D. 1508, because the spouses are residents of the same municipality.
5. Judge Coscolluela dismissed Mauro’s complaint and required the defendant to submit an accounting of his salaries,
allowances, bonuses, and commissions.
RATIO
1. NO, it is not required for the CFI to acquire jurisdiction in this case.
➢ RULE: While the referral of a case to the Lupon Tagapayapa is a condition precedent for filing a
complaint in court, it is not a jurisdictional requirement, “its non-compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction
which the court has already acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.”
o APPLICATION: The Mauro could have prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over
the case by immediately questioning its jurisdiction, instead he invoked the court’s jurisdiction by
FIRST filing an answer which sought and affirmative relief by praying to the court to make an
equitable partition of the conjugal properties. Thus, Mauro waived the pre-litigation conciliation
procedure, causing the CFI to acquire jurisdiction.
2. YES, the petition may be filed directly in a competent court without passing the Lupon Tagapayapa.
1
➢ RULE: Under Section 6 of P.D. 1508, the complaint may be filed directly in a competent court without
passing the Lupon Tagapayapa in the following cases, among others: “…(3) Actions coupled with
provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and
support pendente lite.”
o APPLICATION: The issues of support pendente lite and delivery of personal properties belonging
to the conjugal partnership are both essentially involved in this petition because:
(1) their daughter is a minor (8 years old); and
(2) the resolution or decision of this court on the pending petition would eventually lead to the
delivery of the personal and real properties of the conjugal partnership after the court has
necessarily rendered a disposition on the partition thereof.
DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the orders complained of, the petition for certiorari is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.
This decision is immediately executory.cdrep
SO ORDERED.