Blardony v. Coscolluela, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Mauro Blardony, Jr. and Ma. Rosario Araneta Blardony were married on April 30, 1975, and had one child. Due to irreconcilable differences, they separated in March 1981. During their marriage, they executed several agreements concerning child support, settlement of advances, and property conveyances. The wife subsequently filed a petition for the dissolution and partition of their conjugal partnership properties. 2. Procedural History: The wife initially filed a Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Partition of Conjugal Partnership Properties in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The husband moved to dismiss, arguing the case should have been referred to the Lupon Tagapamayapa under P.D. 1508. The initial dismissal by Judge Segundo Soza was set aside by Judge Jose Coscolluela, Jr., who ordered the husband to submit an accounting of his salaries, allowances, bonuses, and commissions. This order was later affirmed by Judge Coscolluela, Jr. upon denial of the husband's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Mauro Blardony, Jr. seeks a review of the respondent judge's orders via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. He contends that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction without prior referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa and by declaring that issues of support pendente lite and delivery of personal property were essentially involved, thus allowing direct court filing. The petition argues that these issues were not strictly coupled with the main petition, negating the exception under Section 6 of P.D. 1508.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in assuming jurisdiction over the case without prior referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa as required by P.D. 1508, and whether this procedural requirement was waived by the petitioner. Whether the issues of support pendente lite and delivery of personal property belonging to the conjugal partnership are essentially involved in the petition, thus allowing parties to go directly to court without passing through the Lupon Tagapamayapa.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied for lack of merit. The orders complained of are affirmed. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa: The Supreme Court reiterated that the referral of a case to the Lupon Tagapamayapa under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement. Its non-compliance does not affect the jurisdiction already acquired by the court over the subject matter or the parties. The petitioner waived this procedural requirement by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief from the court, thereby invoking its jurisdiction. He cannot belatedly attack the jurisdiction of the court to which he had voluntarily submitted himself. The Court cited Fernandez vs. Militante, Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, and Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court in support of this principle. On the issue of direct filing in court: The Court affirmed that under Section 6 of P.D. 1508, parties may go directly to court without passing through the Lupon Tagapamayapa in cases coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property, and support pendente lite. The respondent judge correctly observed that issues of support pendente lite and delivery of personal properties were essentially involved in the petition, especially considering the minority of the child. A resolution of the petition would be incomplete without a clear disposition on the partition and consequent delivery of conjugal properties. Therefore, direct recourse to the court was permissible under the exceptions provided in P.D. 1508.
Main Doctrine
The requirement for referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement, and its non-compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction already acquired by the court. Furthermore, parties may directly file a case in court if it involves actions coupled with provisional remedies such as support pendente lite and delivery of personal property.