Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Blardony v. Coscolluela

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Rebosa
    267 views2 pages
    This case discusses jurisdiction and the requirement to refer disputes to the Lupon Tagapayapa conciliation body. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa is typically required, the court already had jurisdiction in this case because the defendant first filed an answer seeking affirmative relief from the court. 2) The petition was also properly filed directly with the court because it involved issues of child support and property division, which are exceptions to the referral requirement. 3) Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant's motion claiming a lack of jurisdiction due to non-referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses jurisdiction and the requirement to refer disputes to the Lupon Tagapayapa conciliation body. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa is typically required, the court already had jurisdiction in this case because the defendant first filed an answer seeking affirmative relief from the court. 2) The petition was also properly filed directly with the court because it involved issues of child support and property division, which are exceptions to the referral requirement. 3) Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant's motion claiming a lack of jurisdiction due to non-referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    267 views2 pages

    Blardony v. Coscolluela

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Rebosa
    This case discusses jurisdiction and the requirement to refer disputes to the Lupon Tagapayapa conciliation body. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa is typically required, the court already had jurisdiction in this case because the defendant first filed an answer seeking affirmative relief from the court. 2) The petition was also properly filed directly with the court because it involved issues of child support and property division, which are exceptions to the referral requirement. 3) Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant's motion claiming a lack of jurisdiction due to non-referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    TOPIC Jurisdiction; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; “Lupong Tagamapayapa”

    CASE NO. GR No. 70261 (1990)


    CASE NAME Mauro Blardony, Jr. v. Hon. Jose L. Coscolluela, Jr. and Ma. Rosario Blardony
    MEMBER Lead

    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.

    ISSUE/S and HELD


    1. W/N prior referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa is required for the CFI in this case to acquire jurisdiction – NO.
    2. W/N the petition may be filed directly in a competent court without passing the Lupon Tagapayapa – YES.

    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.

    You might also like