2/15/2017 G.R.No.

70261

TodayisWednesday,February15,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT ClipHighli
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.70261February28,1990

MAUROBLARDONY,JR.,petitioner,
vs.
HON.JOSEL.COSCOLLUELA,JR.,asPresidingJudgeofBranchCXLVI,REGIONALTRIALCOURT
NATIONALCAPITALREGION,MAKATI,METROMANILAandMA.ROSARIOARANETABLARDONY,
respondents.

RectoLawOfficesforpetitioner.

Araneta,Mendoza&Papaforprivaterespondent.

GRIOAQUINO,J.:

ThepetitionerseeksareviewoftheordersdatedAugust9,1983,andFebruary20,1985,ofrespondentJudge
JoseCoscolluela,Jr.,oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,BranchCXLVI,amendingtheorderofhispredecessor,
Judge Segundo Soza, (which dismissed private respondent's petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership
and partition of conjugal properties) by requiring petitioner to submit an accounting of his salaries, allowances,
bonusesandcommissions.

The petitioner and the private respondent are spouses. They were married on April 30, 1975. During their
marriage,theybegotonechildnamedPatriciaAranetaBlardony,whowasbornonNovember10,1975.Dueto
irreconcilabledifferences,petitionerandprivaterespondentseparatedinMarch,1981.

Ondifferentdates,thespousesexecutedthefollowingagreements:

(a)MemorandumofAgreementdatedJuly1981forthesupportoftheirchild,Patricia

(b)ReceiptdatedJanuary11,1982,evidencingtheCompromiseofSettlementofAdvancesclaimed
byprivaterespondentfrompetitioner

(c)TheDeedofConveyanceofapropertysituatedinAlabang,Muntinlupaand

(d) The Confirmation of the waiver by private respondent in favor of petitioner over a property
situatedinCalatagan,Batangas.(p.25,Rollo.)

On May 3, 1982, the wife filed a Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Partition of Conjugal
PartnershipPropertiesintheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal,BranchXXXVI,inMakati,whereitwasdocketedas
Sp.No.9711.

Thehusband,inhisanswer,admittedthathehadabandonedtheconjugalhomesinceMarch1981thatbefore
the filing of the petition, he and his wife, assisted by their respective counsel, tried to file a joint petition for the
dissolutionoftheirconjugalpartnershipbuttheirattemptfailedduetotheirinabilitytoagreeupontheequitable
partitionoftheirconjugalpartnershippropertiesandheprayedthecourttoorder"afairandequitabledissolution
oftheirconjugalpartnershipinaccordancewithlaw."(p.74,Rollo.)

OnOctober8,1982,thehusbandfiledamotiontodismissthepetitiononjurisdictionalgrounds,claimingthatit
shouldhavebeenfiledfirstintheLuponTagapamayapaasprovidedinP.D.1508,becausebothareresidentsof
thesameMunicipalityofMakati.

Mrs. Blardony opposed the motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, Judge Segundo Soza dismissed her petition on
October8,1982forherfailure,asplaintiff,tocomplywithSection6ofP.D.1508.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_70261_1990.html 1/3
2/15/2017 G.R.No.70261

Mrs.Blardonyfiledamotionforreconsideration.Inthemeantime,thecourtswerereorganizedandthecasewas
transferred to Branch CXLVI (146) of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, presided over by Judge Jose
Coscolluela,Jr.

OnAugust9,1983,JudgeCoscolluelasetasideJudgeSoza'sorderofdismissalandrequiredthedefendantto
submit an accounting of his salaries, allowances, bonuses, and commissions. The latter's motion for
reconsideration of that order was denied by the court on February 20, 1985. Hence, this petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on the grounds that
respondentJudgeexceededhisjurisdiction:

1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without prior referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa as ClipHighli
requiredbyP.D.1508and

2.indeclaringthattheissuesofsupportpendenteliteanddeliveryofpersonalpropertybelongingto
theconjugalpartnershipofthepartiesareessentiallyinvolvedinthepetition,hence,thepartiescould
go directly to court without passing through the Lupon Tagapamayapa, as provided in Section 6 of
P.D.1508.

The petition has no merit. Our jurisprudence is replete with decisions of this Court to the effect that while the
referral of a case to the Lupon Tagapayapa is a condition precedent for filing a complaint in court, it is not a
jurisdictionalrequirement,"itsnoncompliancecannotaffectthejurisdictionwhichthecourthasalreadyacquired
overthesubjectmatteroroverthepersonofthedefendant."(Fernandezvs.Militante,May31,1988Gonzales
vs.CourtofAppeals,151SCRA287Royalesvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,127SCRA470).Petitionerwaived
theprelitigationconciliationprocedureprescribedinP.D.No.1508whenhedidnotfileamotiontodismissthe
complaintonthatscore,butfiledhisanswertheretowhereinheprayedthecourttomakeanequitablepartitionof
theconjugalproperties.

While petitioners could have prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by
seasonably taking exception thereto, they instead invoked the very same jurisdiction by filing an
answer and seeking affirmative relief from it. ... . Upon this premise, petitioners cannot be allowed
belatedlytoadoptaninconsistentposturebyattackingthejurisdictionofthecourttowhichtheyhad
submittedthemselvesvoluntarily.(Royalesvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,127SCRA470.)

Furthermore, under Section 6 of P.D. 1508, the complaint may be filed directly in a competent court without
passingtheLuponTagapayapainthefollowingcases:

SECTION 6. Conciliation, precondition to filing of complaint. No complaint, petition, action or

proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 hereof,
shall be filed or instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication unless there has
beenaconfrontationofthepartiesbeforetheLuponChairmanorthePangkatandnoconciliationor
settlementhasbeenreachedascertifiedbytheLuponSecretaryorthePangkatSecretary,attested
by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, or unless the settlement has been repudiated. However, the
partiesmaygodirectlytocourtinthefollowingcases:

xxxxxxxxx

(3)Actionscoupledwithprovisionalremediessuchaspreliminaryinjunction,attachment,
deliveryofpersonalproperlyandsupportpendenteliteand

xxxxxxxxx

(Emphasissupplied.)

RespondentJudgecorrectlyobservedthat:

...theissuesofsupportpendenteliteanddeliveryofpersonalpropertiesbelongingtotheconjugal
partnership, although not coupled in the strict sense of the word with the instant petition, are
essentiallyinvolvedinthispetitionbecauseoftheminorityofthedaughter,PatriciaAranetaBlardony
who,asofthisdate,isnotyet8yearsold,andbecausetheresolutionordecisionofthiscourtonthe
pendingpetitionwouldbeincompletewithoutaclearcutdispositiononthepartitionofthepersonal
andrealpropertiesoftheconjugalpartnershipandconsequentdeliverythereoftotheproperparties.
(p.20,Rollo.)

WHEREFORE,findingnoreversibleerrorintheorderscomplainedof,thepetitionforcertiorariisdeniedforlack
ofmerit.Costsagainstthepetitioner.Thisdecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.

SOORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_70261_1990.html 2/3
2/15/2017 G.R.No.70261

Narvasa,Cruz,GancaycoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

ClipHighli

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_70261_1990.html 3/3