Bernabe v. Vergara

Facts

Victoriano Zafra ("Victoriano") died, survived by three (3) children, namely, Benito ("Benito"), Apolonia ("Apolonia"), and Dominga ("Dominga"), all surnamed Zafra. Benito and Apolonia are both deceased and their heirs instituted an action for partition of Victoriano's estate. The defendants in the said action were Dominga and certain persons to whom she had sold her share of the estate. In her answer, Dominga interposed a counterclaim that she had paid certain debts that had been contracted by Apolonia, which constitutes an equitable lien on Apolonia's estate. The trial court rendered a judgment awarding the heirs of Apolonia a third of Victoriano's estate and at the same time, ordered them to pay Apolonia's debts amounting to Php 350.00. The heirs of Apolonia now question the jurisdiction of the trial court to order the payment of the Php 350.00.

Issue

Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to order the heirs of Apolonia the Php 350.00.

Held

Yes. The trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but the issue of jurisdiction over the issue must be remanded to the Court of Appeals for determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court had jurisdiction as there was a counterclaim wherein the amount adjudged was within the amount pleaded. Also, the proceeding was in the nature of one for liquidation and partition of inheritance, wherein debts left by deceased ancestors may be determined and ordered paid if the creditors are parties. In any case, the heirs of Apolonia failed to object to the exercise of jurisdiction of the trial court and the same court ruled upon the issue of jurisdiction by implication when it tried and decided on the case.

As the case involves an amount of Php 200 or more, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (CFI). The issue thus raised is not one of subject matter, but one of issue. The difference between the two has been elucidated in the case of Reyes v. Diaz in which it was likewise ruled that the issue of jurisdiction over the issues is not a matter properly reviewed by the Supreme Court.