MAURO BLARDONY, JR. vs. HON. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR., as Presiding Judge of Br CXL !, R"C#NCR, MA$A"!, ME"RO MAN!

LA and MA. ROSAR!O ARANE"A BLARDONY %.R. No. &'()* +e,ruar- (., *//' +AC"S0 The petitioner and the private respondent are spouses. They were married on April 30, 1975. During their marriage, they begot 1 hild named !atri ia Araneta "lardony, who was born on #ov10,1975. Due to irre on ilable di$$eren es, petitioner and private respondent separated in %ar h 19&1. 'n di$$erent dates, the spouses e(e uted the $ollowing agreements) *a+ %'A dated ,uly 19&1 $or the support o$ their hild, !atri ia- *b+ .e eipt dated ,an 11, 19&/, eviden ing the 0ompromise o$ 1ettlement o$ Advan es laimed by private respondent $rom petitioner- * + The Deed o$ 0onveyan e o$ a property situated in Alabang, %untinlupa- and *d+ The 0on$irmation o$ the waiver by private respondent in $avor o$ petitioner over a property situated in 0alatagan, "atangas 'n %ay 3, 19&/, the wi$e $iled a !etition $or Dissolution o$ 0on2ugal !artnership and !artition o$ 0on2ugal !artnership !roperties in the 034 o$ .i5al, "r 306, in %a7ati. The husband, in his answer, admitted that he had abandoned the on2ugal home sin e %ar h 19&1- that be$ore the $iling o$ the petition, he and his wi$e, assisted by their respe tive ounsel, tried to $ile a 2oint petition $or the dissolution o$ their on2ugal partnership but their attempt $ailed due to their inability to agree upon the e8uitable partition o$ their on2ugal partnership properties and he prayed the ourt to order 9a $air and e8uitable dissolution o$ their on2ugal partnership in a ordan e with law.9 'n ' t &, 19&/, the husband $iled a %D the petition on 2urisdi tional grounds, laiming that it should have been $iled $irst in the :upon Tagapamayapa as provided in !.D. 150&, be both are residents o$ the same %un o$ %a7ati. %rs. "lardony opposed the %D. #evertheless, ,udge 1egundo 1o5a dismissed her petition $or her $ailure, as plainti$$, to omply with 1e 6 o$ !.D. 150&. %rs. "lardony $iled a %.. 4n the meantime, the ourts were reorgani5ed and the ase was trans$erred to "r1;6 o$ .T0 %a7ati, presided over by ,udge ,ose 0os olluela, ,r. 'n Aug 9, 19&3, ,udge 0os olluela set aside ,udge 1o5a<s order o$ dismissal and re8uired the de$endant to submit an a ounting o$ his salaries, allowan es, bonuses, and ommissions. The latter<s %. o$ that order was denied by the ourt. =en e, this petition $or ertiorari under .ule 65 o$ the .ules o$ 0ourt with a prayer $or a writ o$ preliminary in2un tion. 1ON issues of su22or3 2enden3e 4i3e and de4i5er- of 2ersona4 2ro2er3- ,e4onging 3o 36e 7on8uga4 2ar3ners6i2 of 36e 2ar3ies are essen3ia44- in5o45ed in 36e 2e3i3ion, 6en7e, 36e 2ar3ies 7ou4d go dire734- 3o 7our3 9i36ou3 2assing 36roug6 36e Lu2on "aga2a:a-a2a, as 2ro5ided in Se7 ) of P.D. *;'. The petition has no merit. 'ur 2urispruden e is replete with de isions to the e$$e t that while the re$erral o$ a ase to the :upon Tagapayapa is a ondition pre edent $or $iling a omplaint in ourt, it is not a 2urisdi tional re8uirement, 9its non> omplian e annot a$$e t the 2urisdi tion whi h the ourt has already a 8uired over the sub2e t matter or over the person o$ the de$endant.9 *3ernande5 vs. %ilitante, %ay 31, 19&&- ?on5ales vs. 0ourt o$ Appeals, 151 10.A /&7.oyales vs. 4ntermediate Appellate 0ourt, 1/7 10.A ;70+. !etitioner waived the pre>litigation on iliation pro edure pres ribed in !.D. #o. 150& when he did not $ile a motion to dismiss the omplaint on that s ore, but $iled his answer thereto wherein he prayed the ourt to ma7e an e8uitable partition o$ the on2ugal properties. 3urthermore, under 1e 6 o$ !.D. 150&, the omplaint may be $iled dire tly in a ompetent ourt without passing the :upon Tagapayapa. .espondent ,udge orre tly observed that) @the issues o$ support pendente lite and delivery o$ personal properties belonging to the on2ugal partnership, although not oupled in the stri t sense o$ the word with the instant petition, are essentially involved in this petition be o$ the minority o$ !atri ia Araneta "lardony who, as o$ this date, is not yet & years old, and be the reso or de ision o$ this ourt on the pending petition would be in omplete without a lear ut disposition on the partition o$ the personal and real properties o$ the on2ugal partnership and onse8uent delivery thereo$ to the proper parties. A=B.B3'.B, $inding no reversible error in the orders omplained o $, the petition $or ertiorari is denied $or la 7 o$ merit. 0osts against the petitioner. %R!<O#A=U!NO, J.