G.R. No. 241036 - David vs. Calilung

Marriage of Rene F. Aguas and Lucila David, nullity of first marriage, and conjugal/co-owned property

On November 24, 1981, Lucila and Rene were married in Mabalacat, Pampanga, and had five children (Princess Luren, Danica Lane, Sean Patrick, Sean Michael, Samantha).
On December 10, 2003, Rene filed for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lucila on the ground of psychological incapacity, alleging as conjugal properties (a) a 500 sq m parcel in Sunset Valley Estate, Angeles City (TCT No. 90811), and (b) pawnshop and ready-to-wear business inventory.

On December 22, 2005, RTC Branch 60 declared the marriage null and void, ordered division of the Sunset Valley Estate and delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes; the Decision and its finality certificate were not registered or annotated on the TCT, and no partition or delivery ensued.
On October 7, 2006, Rene entered into a second marriage with Cherry S. Calilung.

Rene died intestate on November 17, 2015.
On May 24, 2017, Cherry filed a petition for settlement of Rene’s estate (SP Case No. R-ANG-17-01449-SP, RTC Branch 56).
On October 2, 2017, Lucila and the Aguas heirs opposed the estate petition, arguing that (a) the first marriage nullity was not annotated, partitioned, or legitimes delivered (Art. 52, Family Code); (b) failure to comply with Articles 52 and 53 rendered the second marriage void; and (c) assets from the first marriage should not form part of the regime of the second (Art. 92, Family Code).

Petition for nullity of second marriage and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

On November 3, 2017, Lucila and the Aguas heirs filed in RTC Angeles City a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Rene and Cherry (Branch 59, Family Court).
On November 10, 2017, Branch 59 issued a Transmittal Order re-raffling the case to courts of general jurisdiction, deeming the petition a collateral attack not within Family Court jurisdiction.
The case was re-raffled to Branch 60, which on November 24, 2017 dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, holding (a) only spouses may file nullity petitions, (b) Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction (RA 8369, Sec. 5), and (c) heirs may only question validity in estate settlement proceedings.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration; on June 13, 2018, Branch 60 denied it, ruling the Transmittal Order final and reaffirming that only an aggrieved spouse may file.

Which RTC branch has jurisdiction over the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the second marriage?
Whether Branch 60 erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Lucila and the Aguas heirs are real parties-in-interest with cause of action to file the nullity petition.