G.R. No.

192828 November 28, 2011

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUE, !" #!$ %&'&%!() &$ Pre$!*!"+ J,*+e o- (#e Re+!o"&. Tr!&. Co,r(
o- M&"!.&, /r&"%# 0, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND 1UCINA
SANTOS, $,b$(!(,(e* b) #er $o", EDUARDO S. /A1AJADIA, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
RE2ES, J.:
T#e C&$e
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
under Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court assailin# t"e
$e%e&'er 1, ())* $e%ision
(
and +ul, -, ()1) Resolution
.
of t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/1 in C/23.R.
SP No. **-!4. T"e dispositive portion of t"e assailed $e%ision reads5
WHERE3ORE, in view of all t"e fore#oin# pre&ises, 6ud#&ent is "ere', rendered ', us DEN2ING
t"e petition filed in t"is %ase and A33IRMING t"e assailed Orders dated 7ar%" 1!, ())8 and 7a, 14,
())8 issued ', t"e respondent +ud#e of t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0RTC1, Bran%" 4, in 7anila in Civil
Case No. )(21)!(!1.

T"e assailed Resolution denied t"e petitioners9 7otion for Re%onsideration.

T#e 3&%(,&. A"(e%e*e"($
So&eti&e 'etween Nove&'er (!, ())( and $e%e&'er ., ())(,
!
t"e respondents filed a Co&plaint
4
a#ainst t"e petitioners and Stron#"old Insuran%e Co&pan,, 3lo'al Business Ban:, In%. 0for&erl,
P"ilBan:1, Elena Tiu $el Pilar, /sia /tlanti% Resour%es ;entures, In%., Re#isters of $eeds of 7anila
and 7ala'on, and all persons %lai&in# ri#"ts or titles fro& Ra&on C"in# 0Ra&on1 and "is su%%essors2
in2interest.
T"e Co&plaint, %aptioned as one for <Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver,
Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer ertificates of Title !ith "rayer
for #the$ %ssuance of #a$ Tem&orary 'estraining (rder and #a$ Writ of "reliminary %n)unction,< was
do%:eted as Civil Case No. )(21)!(!1 and raffled to Bran%" - of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of 7anila
0RTC1.
In t"e Co&plaint, t"e respondents alle#ed t"e followin# as %auses of a%tion5
3!r$( C&,$e o- A%(!o". T"e, are t"e "eirs of Li& San, also :nown as /ntonio C"in# = Tion#
C"en# = C"in# C"en# Su, 0/ntonio1. Respondents +osep" C"en# 0+osep"1 and +ai&e C"en#
0+ai&e1 are alle#edl, t"e %"ildren of /ntonio wit" "is %o&&on2law wife, respondent 7er%edes
I#ne 07er%edes1. Respondent Lu%ina Santos 0Lu%ina1 %lai&ed t"at s"e was also a %o&&on2law
wife of /ntonio. T"e respondents averred t"at Ra&on &isrepresented "i&self as /ntonio9s and
Lu%ina9s son w"en in trut" and in fa%t, "e was adopted and "is 'irt" %ertifi%ate was &erel,
si&ulated. On +ul, 1-, 1**4, /ntonio died of a sta' wound. Poli%e investi#ators identified
Ra&on as t"e pri&e suspe%t and "e now stands as t"e lone a%%used in a %ri&inal %ase for &urder
filed a#ainst "i&. >arrants of arrest issued a#ainst "i& "ave re&ained unserved as "e is at lar#e.
?ro& t"e fore#oin# %ir%u&stan%es and upon t"e aut"orit, of /rti%le *1*
8
of t"e New Civil Code
0NCC1, t"e respondents %on%luded t"at Ra&on %an 'e le#all, disin"erited, "en%e, pro"i'ited
fro& re%eivin# an, s"are fro& t"e estate of /ntonio.
Se%o"* C&,$e o- A%(!o". On /u#ust (4, 1**4, prior to t"e %on%lusion of t"e poli%e
investi#ations ta##in# Ra&on as t"e pri&e suspe%t in t"e &urder of /ntonio, t"e for&er &ade
an inventor, of t"e latter9s estate. Ra&on &isrepresented t"at t"ere were onl, si@ real estate
properties left ', /ntonio. T"e respondents alle#ed t"at Ra&on "ad ille#all, transferred to "is
na&e t"e titles to t"e said properties. ?urt"er, t"ere are two ot"er par%els of land, %as" and
6ewelries, plus properties in Aon#:on#, w"i%" were in Ra&on9s possession.
T#!r* C&,$e o- A%(!o". 7er%edes, 'ein# of low edu%ational attain&ent, was sweet2tal:ed ',
Ra&on into surrenderin# to "i& a 3lo'al Business Ban:, In%. 03lo'al Ban:1 Certifi%ate of Ti&e
$eposit of P,))),))).)) in t"e na&e of /ntonio, and t"e %ertifi%ates of title %overin# two
%ondo&iniu& units in Binondo w"i%" were pur%"ased ', /ntonio usin# "is own &one, 'ut
w"i%" were re#istered in Ra&on9s na&e. Ra&on also fraudulentl, &isrepresented to +osep",
+ai&e and 7er%edes t"at t"e, will pro&ptl, re%eive t"eir %o&plete s"ares, e@%lusive of t"e
sto%:s in Po >in# Properties, In%. 0Po >in#1, fro& t"e estate of /ntonio. E@ertin# undue
influen%e, Ra&on "ad %onvin%ed t"e& to e@e%ute an /#ree&ent
-
and a >aiver
*
on /u#ust (),
1**4. T"e ter&s and %onditions stipulated in t"e /#ree&ent and >aiver, spe%ifi%all,, on t"e
pa,&ent ', Ra&on to +osep", +ai&e and 7er%edes of t"e a&ount of P((,))),))).)), were not
%o&plied wit". ?urt"er, Lu%ina was not infor&ed of t"e e@e%ution of t"e said instru&ents and
"ad not re%eived an, a&ount fro& Ra&on. Aen%e, t"e instru&ents are null and void.
3o,r(# C&,$e o- A%(!o". /ntonio9s ),))) s"ares in Po >in#, w"i%" %onstitute 4)B of t"e
latter9s total %apital sto%:, were ille#all, transferred ', Ra&on to "is own na&e t"rou#" a for#ed
do%u&ent of sale e@e%uted after /ntonio died. Po >in# owns a ten2store, 'uildin# in Binondo.
Ra&on9s %lai& t"at "e 'ou#"t t"e sto%:s fro& /ntonio 'efore t"e latter died is 'aseless. ?urt"er,
Lu%ina9s s"ares in Po >in# "ad also 'anis"ed into t"in air t"rou#" Ra&on9s &a%"inations.
3!-(# C&,$e o- A%(!o". On O%to'er (*, 1**4, Ra&on e@e%uted an /ffidavit of E@tra2+udi%ial
Settle&ent of Estate
1)
ad6udi%atin# solel, to "i&self /ntonio9s entire estate to t"e pre6udi%e of
t"e respondents. B, virtue of t"e said instru&ent, new Transfer Certifi%ates of Title 0TCTs1
%overin# ei#"t real properties owned ', /ntonio were issued in Ra&on9s na&e. Relative to t"e
Po >in# s"ares, t"e Re#ister of $eeds of 7anila "ad reCuired Ra&on to post a Suret, Bond
%onditioned to answer for w"atever %lai&s w"i%" &a, eventuall, surfa%e in %onne%tion wit" t"e
said sto%:s. Co2defendant Stron#"old Insuran%e Co&pan, issued t"e 'ond in Ra&on9s 'e"alf.
S!4(# C&,$e o- A%(!o". Ra&on sold /ntonio9s two par%els of land in Navotas to %o2defendant
/sia /tlanti% Business ;entures, In%. /not"er par%el of land, w"i%" was part of /ntonio9s estate,
was sold ', Ra&on to %o2defendant Elena Tiu $el Pilar at an unreasona'l, low pri%e. B, reason
of Ra&on9s la%: of aut"orit, to dispose of an, part of /ntonio9s estate, t"e %onve,an%es are null
and void ab initio*
Sin%e Ra&on is at lar#e, "is wife, Belen $, Tan C"in#, now &ana#es /ntonio9s estate. S"e "as no
intent to %onve, to t"e respondents t"eir s"ares in t"e estate of /ntonio.
T"e respondents t"us pra,ed for t"e followin# in t"eir Co&plaint5
1. @ @ @ a te&porar, restrainin# order 'e issued restrainin# t"e defendant R/7ON CAIN3
and=or "is attorne,2in2fa%t Belen $, Tan C"in# fro& disposin#, sellin# or alienatin# an,
propert, t"at 'elon#s to t"e estate of t"e de%eased /NTONIO CAIN3D
@ @ @
. @ @ @
a.1 $e%larin# t"at t"e defendant R/7ON CAIN3 w"o &urdered "is fat"er
/NTONIO CAIN3 disCualified as "eir and fro& in"eritin# to 0si%1 t"e estate of "is
fat"erD
'.1 $e%larin# t"e nullit, of t"e defendant R/7ON CAIN3 transfer 0si%1 of t"e si@
E4F par%els of land fro& t"e na&e of "is fat"er /NTONIO CAIN3 to "is na&e
%overed ', TCT No. @ @ @D
%.1 $e%larin# t"e nullit, of t"e /3REE7ENT and >/I;ER e@e%uted ', plaintiffs
@ @ @ in favor of @ @ @ R/7ON CAIN3 for 'ein# patentl, i&&oral, invalid, ille#al,
si&ulated and 0si%1 s"a&D
d.1 $e%larin# t"e nullit, of t"e transfer of t"e s"ares of sto%:s at 0si%1 PO >IN3
fro& t"e na&es of /NTONIO CAIN3 and LUCIN/ S/NTOS to t"e defendant
/NTONIO CAIN39s na&e for "avin# 'een ille#all, pro%ured t"rou#" t"e
falsifi%ation of t"eir si#natures in t"e do%u&ent purportin# t"e transfer t"ereofD
e.1 $e%larin# t"e nullit, and to "ave no for%e and effe%t t"e /??I$/;IT O?
SETTLE7ENT O? EST/TE e@e%uted ', @ @ @ R/7ON CAIN3 for 'ein#
%ontrar, to law and e@istin# 6urispruden%eD
f.1 $e%larin# t"e nullit, of t"e $EE$ O? S/LES 0si%1 e@e%uted ', @ @ @ R/7ON
CAIN3 0i1 over two 0(1 par%els of land @ @ @ to defendant /SI/ /TL/NTIC
BUSINESS ;ENTURES, In%.D and 0ii1 one 011 par%el of land @ @ @ sold to @ @ @
ELEN/ TIU $EL PIL/R for "avin# ille#all, pro%ured t"e owners"ip and titles of
t"e a'ove propertiesD
@ @ @.
11
T"e petitioners filed wit" t"e RTC a 7otion to $is&iss
1(
alle#in# foru& s"oppin#, litis &endentia, res
)udicata and t"e respondents as not 'ein# t"e real parties in interest.
On +ul, .), ()), t"e RTC issued an O&ni'us Order
1.
den,in# t"e petitioners9 7otion to $is&iss.
T"e respondents filed an /&ended Co&plaint
1
dated /pril 8, ())! i&pleadin# 7etro'an: as t"e
su%%essor2in2interest of %o2defendant 3lo'al Ban:. T"e /&ended Co&plaint also added a $eve"(#
%&,$e o- &%(!o" relative to t"e e@isten%e of a Certifi%ate of Pre&iu& Plus /%Cuisition 0CPP/1 in t"e
a&ount of P,))),))).)) ori#inall, issued ', P"ilBan: to /ntonio. T"e respondents pra,ed t"at t"e,
'e de%lared as t"e ri#"tful owners of t"e CPP/ and t"at it 'e i&&ediatel, released to t"e&.
/lternativel,, t"e respondents pra,ed for t"e issuan%e of a "old order relative to t"e CPP/ to preserve it
durin# t"e penden%, of t"e %ase.
On /pril ((, ())!, t"e petitioners filed t"eir Consolidated /nswer wit" Counter%lai&.
1!
On O%to'er (-, ())!, t"e RTC issued an Order
14
ad&ittin# t"e respondents9 /&ended Co&plaint. T"e
RTC stressed t"at 7etro'an: "ad alread, filed 7anifestations ad&ittin# t"at as su%%essor2in2interest of
3lo'al Ban:, it now possesses %ustod, of /ntonio9s deposits. 7etro'an: e@pressed willin#ness to a'ide
', an, %ourt order as re#ards t"e disposition of /ntonio9s deposits. T"e petitioners9 7otion for
Re%onsideration filed to assail t"e afore%ited Order was denied ', t"e RTC on 7a, ., ())4.
On 7a, (*, ())4, t"e petitioners filed t"eir Consolidated /nswer wit" Counter%lai& to t"e
respondents9 /&ended Co&plaint.
On /u#ust 11, ())4, t"e RTC issued a pre2trial order.
18
On +anuar, 1-, ())8, t"e petitioners filed a 7otion to $is&iss
1-
t"e respondents9 /&ended Co&plaint
on t"e alle#ed #round of t"e RTC9s la%: of 6urisdi%tion over t"e su'6e%t &atter of t"e Co&plaint. T"e
petitioners ar#ued t"at sin%e t"e /&ended Co&plaint sou#"t t"e release of t"e CPP/ to t"e
respondents, t"e latter9s de%laration as "eirs of /ntonio, and t"e propriet, of Ra&on9s disin"eritan%e,
t"e suit parta:es of t"e nature of a spe%ial pro%eedin# and not an ordinar, a%tion for de%laration of
nullit,. Aen%e, 6urisdi%tion pertains to a pro'ate or intestate %ourt and not to t"e RTC a%tin# as an
ordinar, %ourt.
On 7ar%" 1!, ())8, t"e RTC issued an Order
1*
den,in# t"e petitioners9 7otion to $is&iss on #rounds5
In t"e %ase at 'ar, an e@a&ination of t"e Co&plaint would dis%lose t"at t"e a%tion delves &ainl, on t"e
Cuestion of owners"ip of t"e properties des%ri'ed in t"e Co&plaint w"i%" %an 'e properl, settled in an
ordinar, %ivil a%tion. /nd as pointed out ', t"e defendants, t"e a%tion see:s to de%lare t"e nullit, of t"e
/#ree&ent, >aiver, /ffidavit of E@tra2+udi%ial Settle&ent, $eed of /'solute Sale, Transfer Certifi%ates
of Title, w"i%" were all alle#edl, e@e%uted ', defendant Ra&on C"in# to defraud t"e plaintiffs. T#e
re.!e- o- e$(&b.!$#!"+ (#e $(&(,$ o- (#e '.&!"(!--$ 5#!%# %o,.* #&ve (r&"$.&(e* (#!$ &%(!o" !"(o &
$'e%!&. 'ro%ee*!"+ 5&$ "o5#ere $(&(e* !" (#e Ame"*e* Com'.&!"(. W!(# re+&r* 6(o7 (#e 'r&)er (o
*e%.&re (#e '.&!"(!--$ &$ (#e r!+#(-,. o5"er6$7 o- (#e CPPA &"* (#&( (#e $&me be !mme*!&(e.)
re.e&$e* (o (#em, !" !($e.- 'o$e$ &" !$$,e o- o5"er$#!' 5#!%# m,$( be 'rove* b) '.&!"(!--$ b)
$,b$(&"(!&. ev!*e"%e. /nd as e&p"asiGed ', t"e plaintiffs, t"e /&ended Co&plaint was intended to
i&plead 7etro'an: as a %o2defendant.
/s re#ards t"e issue of disin"eritan%e, t"e %ourt notes t"at durin# t"e Pre2trial of t"is %ase, one of t"e
issues raised ', t"e defendants Ra&on C"in# and Po >in# Properties is5 >"et"er or not t"ere %an 'e
disin"eritan%e in intestate su%%essionH >"et"er or not defendant Ra&on C"in# %an 'e le#all,
disin"erited fro& t"e estate of "is fat"erH To t"e &ind of t"e Court, t"e issue of disin"eritan%e, w"i%" is
one of t"e %auses of a%tion in t"e Co&plaint, %an 'e full, settled after a trial on t"e &erits. /nd at t"is
sta#e, it "as not 'een suffi%ientl, esta'lis"ed w"et"er or not t"ere is a will.
()
0E&p"asis supplied.1
T"e a'ove Order, and a su'seCuent Order dated 7a, 14, ())8 den,in# t"e petitioners9 7otion for
Re%onsideration, 'e%a&e t"e su'6e%ts of a petition for certiorari filed wit" t"e C/. T"e petition,
do%:eted as C/23.R. SP No. **-!4, raised t"e issue of w"et"er or not t"e RTC #ravel, a'used its
dis%retion w"en it denied t"e petitioners9 7otion to $is&iss despite t"e fa%t t"at t"e /&ended
Co&plaint sou#"t to esta'lis" t"e status or ri#"ts of t"e respondents w"i%" su'6e%ts are wit"in t"e a&'it
of a spe%ial pro%eedin#.
On $e%e&'er 1, ())*, t"e C/ rendered t"e now assailed $e%ision
(1
den,in# t"e petition for
certiorari on #rounds5
Our in2dept" assess&ent of t"e %ondensed alle#ations supportin# t"e %auses of a%tion of t"e a&ended
%o&plaint indu%ed us to infer t"at "o(#!"+ !" (#e $&!* %om'.&!"( $#o5$ (#&( (#e &%(!o" o- (#e 'r!v&(e
re$'o"*e"($ $#o,.* be (#re$#e* o,( !" & $'e%!&. 'ro%ee*!"+, !( &''e&r!"+ (#&( (#e!r &..e+&(!o"$
5ere $,b$(&"(!&..) -or (#e e"-or%eme"( o- (#e!r r!+#($ &+&!"$( (#e &..e+e* -r&,*,.e"( &%($
%omm!((e* b) (#e 'e(!(!o"er R&mo" C#!"+. T#e 'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"($ &.$o !"$(!(,(e* (#e $&!*
&me"*e* %om'.&!"( !" or*er (o 'ro(e%( (#em -rom (#e %o"$e8,e"%e o- (#e -r&,*,.e"( &%($ o-
R&mo" C#!"+ b) $ee9!"+ (o *!$8,&.!-) R&mo" C#!"+ -rom !"#er!(!"+ -rom A"(o"!o C#!"+ &$ 5e..
&$ (o e":o!" #!m -rom *!$'o$!"+ or &.!e"&(!"+ (#e $,b:e%( 'ro'er(!e$, !"%.,*!"+ (#e P; M!..!o"
*e'o$!( 5!(# Me(rob&"9. T"e intestate or pro'ate %ourt "as no 6urisdi%tion to ad6udi%ate su%" issues,
w"i%" &ust 'e su'&itted to t"e %ourt in t"e e@er%ise of its #eneral 6urisdi%tion as a re#ional trial %ourt.
?urt"er&ore, we a#ree wit" t"e trial %ourt t"at t"e pro'ate %ourt %ould not ta:e %o#niGan%e of t"e pra,er
to disin"erit Ra&on C"in#, #iven t"e undisputed fa%t t"at t"ere was no will to 'e %ontested in a pro'ate
%ourt.
T"e petition at 'en%" apparentl, %avils t"e su'6e%t a&ended %o&plaint and %o&pli%ates t"e issue of
6urisdi%tion ', reiteratin# t"e #rounds or defenses set up in t"e petitioners9 earlier pleadin#s.
Notwit"standin#, t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e %ourt over t"e su'6e%t &atter is deter&ined ', t"e alle#ations of
t"e %o&plaint wit"out re#ard to w"et"er or not t"e private respondents 0plaintiffs1 are entitled to
re%over upon all or so&e of t"e %auses of a%tion asserted t"erein. In t"is re#ard, t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e
%ourt does not depend upon t"e defenses pleaded in t"e answer or in t"e &otion to dis&iss, lest t"e
Cuestion of 6urisdi%tion would al&ost entirel, depend upon t"e petitioners 0defendants1.
((
Aen%e, we
fo%us our resolution on t"e issue of 6urisdi%tion on t"e alle#ations in t"e a&ended %o&plaint and not on
t"e defenses pleaded in t"e &otion to dis&iss or in t"e su'seCuent pleadin#s of t"e petitioners.
In fine, under t"e %ir%u&stan%es of t"e present %ase, t"ere 'ein# "o %om'e..!"+ re&$o" (o $(!.. $,b:e%(
(#e &%(!o" o- (#e 'e(!(!o"er$ !" & $'e%!&. 'ro%ee*!"+ $!"%e (#e ",..!-!%&(!o" o- (#e $,b:e%(
*o%,me"($ %o,.* be &%#!eve* !" (#e %!v!. %&$e, t"e lower %ourt s"ould pro%eed to evaluate t"e
eviden%e of t"e parties and render a de%ision t"ereon upon t"e issues t"at it defined durin# t"e pre2trial
in Civil Case No. )(21)!(!1.
(.
0e&p"asis supplied1
T"e petitioners9 7otion for Re%onsideration was denied ', t"e C/ t"rou#" a Resolution
(
issued on
+ul, -, ()1).
T#e I$$,e
T"e instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
(!
is an%"ored on t"e issue of<
>"et"er or not t"e RTC s"ould "ave #ranted t"e 7otion to $is&iss filed ', t"e PETITIONERS on t"e
alle#ed #round of t"e RTC9s la%: of 6urisdi%tion over t"e su'6e%t &atter of t"e /&ended Co&plaint, to
wit, 0a1 filiations wit" /ntonio of Ra&on, +ai&e and +osep"D 0'1 ri#"ts of %o&&on2law wives, Lu%ina
and 7er%edes, to 'e %onsidered as "eirs of /ntonioD 0%1 deter&ination of t"e e@tent of /ntonio9s estateD
and 0d1 ot"er &atters w"i%" %an onl, 'e resolved in a spe%ial pro%eedin# and not in an ordinar, %ivil
a%tion.
T"e petitioners ar#ue t"at onl, a pro'ate %ourt "as t"e aut"orit, to deter&ine 0a1 w"o are t"e "eirs of a
de%edentD 0'1 t"e validit, of a waiver of "ereditar, ri#"tsD 0%1 t"e status of ea%" "eirD and 0d1 w"et"er
t"e propert, in t"e inventor, is %on6u#al or t"e e@%lusive propert, of t"e de%eased spouse.
(4
?urt"er,
t"e e@tent of /ntonio9s estate, t"e status of t"e %ontendin# parties and t"e respondents9 alle#ed
entitle&ent as "eirs to re%eive t"e pro%eeds of /ntonio9s CPP/ now in 7etro'an:9s %ustod, are &atters
w"i%" are &ore appropriatel, t"e su'6e%ts of a spe%ial pro%eedin# and not of an ordinar, %ivil a%tion.
T"e respondents opposed
(8
t"e instant petition %lai&in# t"at t"e petitioners are en#a#ed in foru&
s"oppin#. Spe%ifi%all,, 3.R. Nos. 18!!)8
(-
and 1-.-),
(*
'ot" involvin# t"e %ontendin# parties in t"e
instant petition were filed ', t"e petitioners and are %urrentl, pendin# 'efore t"is Court. ?urt"er, in
+endo,a v* -on* Teh,
.)
t"e SC de%lared t"at w"et"er a parti%ular &atter s"ould 'e resolved ', t"e RTC
in t"e e@er%ise of its #eneral 6urisdi%tion or its li&ited pro'ate 6urisdi%tion, is not a 6urisdi%tional issue
'ut a &ere Cuestion of pro%edure. Besides, t"e petitioners, "avin# validl, su'&itted t"e&selves to t"e
6urisdi%tion of t"e RTC and "avin# a%tivel, parti%ipated in t"e trial of t"e %ase, are alread, estopped
fro& %"allen#in# t"e RTC9s 6urisdi%tion over t"e respondents9 Co&plaint and /&ended Co&plaint.
.1
T#e Co,r(=$ R,.!"+
>e resolve to den, t"e instant petition.
T"e petitioners failed to %o&pl, wit" a lawful order of t"is Court dire%tin# t"e& to file t"eir repl, to
t"e respondents9 Co&&ent=Opposition to t"e instant Petition. >"ile t"e pres%ri'ed period to %o&pl,
e@pired on 7ar%" 1!, ()11, t"e petitioners filed t"eir 7anifestation t"at t"e, will no lon#er file a repl,
onl, on O%to'er 1), ()11 or after t"e lapse of al&ost seven &ont"s.
?urt"er, no reversi'le errors were %o&&itted ', t"e RTC and t"e C/ w"en t"e, 'ot" ruled t"at t"e
denial of t"e petitioners9 se%ond &otion to dis&iss Civil Case No. )(21)!(!1 was proper.
Even wit"out delvin# into t"e pro%edural alle#ations of t"e respondents t"at t"e petitioners en#a#ed in
foru& s"oppin# and are alread, estopped fro& Cuestionin# t"e RTC9s 6urisdi%tion after "avin# validl,
su'&itted to it w"en t"e latter parti%ipated in t"e pro%eedin#s, t"e denial of t"e instant Petition is still in
order. /lt"ou#" t"e respondents9 Co&plaint and /&ended Co&plaint sou#"t, a&on# ot"ers, t"e
disin"eritan%e of Ra&on and t"e release in favor of t"e respondents of t"e CPP/ now under
7etro'an:9s %ustod,, Civil Case No. )(21)!(!1 re&ains to 'e an ordinar, %ivil a%tion, and not a
spe%ial pro%eedin# pertainin# to a settle&ent %ourt.
/n a%tion for re%onve,an%e and annul&ent of title wit" da&a#es is a %ivil a%tion, w"ereas &atters
relatin# to settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%eased person su%" as advan%e&ent of propert, &ade ', t"e
de%edent, parta:e of t"e nature of a spe%ial pro%eedin#, w"i%" %on%o&itantl, reCuires t"e appli%ation of
spe%ifi% rules as provided for in t"e Rules of Court.
.(
/ spe%ial pro%eedin# is a re&ed, ', w"i%" a
part, see:s to esta'lis" a status, a ri#"t, or a parti%ular fa%t.
..
It is distin#uis"ed fro& an ordinar, %ivil
a%tion w"ere a part, sues anot"er for t"e enfor%e&ent or prote%tion of a ri#"t, or t"e prevention or
redress of a wron#.
.
To initiate a spe%ial pro%eedin#, a petition and not a %o&plaint s"ould 'e filed.
Under /rti%le *14 of t"e NCC, disin"eritan%e %an 'e effe%ted onl, t"rou#" a will w"erein t"e le#al
%ause t"erefor s"all 'e spe%ified. T"is Court a#rees wit" t"e RTC and t"e C/ t"at w"ile t"e respondents
in t"eir Co&plaint and /&ended Co&plaint sou#"t t"e disin"eritan%e of Ra&on, no will or an,
instru&ent supposedl, effe%tin# t"e disposition of /ntonio9s estate was ever &entioned. Aen%e, despite
t"e pra,er for Ra&on9s disin"eritan%e, Civil Case No. )(21)!(!1 does not parta:e of t"e nature of a
spe%ial pro%eedin# and does not %all for t"e pro'ate %ourt9s e@er%ise of its li&ited 6urisdi%tion.
T"e petitioners also ar#ue t"at t"e pra,ers in t"e /&ended Co&plaint, see:in# t"e release in favor of
t"e respondents of t"e CPP/ under 7etro'an:9s %ustod, and t"e nullifi%ation of t"e instru&ents su'6e%t
of t"e %o&plaint, ne%essaril, reCuire t"e deter&ination of t"e respondents9 status as /ntonio9s "eirs.
It 'ears stressin# t"at w"at t"e respondents pra,ed for was t"at t"e, 'e de%lared as t"e ri#"tful owners
of t"e CPP/ w"i%" was in 7er%edes9 possession prior to t"e e@e%ution of t"e /#ree&ent and >aiver.
T"e respondents also pra,ed for t"e alternative relief of se%urin# t"e issuan%e ', t"e RTC of a "old
order relative to t"e CPP/ to preserve /ntonio9s deposits wit" 7etro'an: durin# t"e penden%, of t"e
%ase. It %an t"us 'e said t"at t"e respondents9 pra,er relative to t"e CPP/ was pre&ised on 7er%edes9
prior possession of and t"eir alle#ed %olle%tive owners"ip of t"e sa&e, and not on t"e de%laration of
t"eir status as /ntonio9s "eirs. ?urt"er, it also "as to 'e e&p"asiGed t"at t"e respondents were parties to
t"e e@e%ution of t"e /#ree&ent
.!
and >aiver
.4
pra,ed to 'e nullified. Aen%e, even wit"out t"e
ne%essit, of 'ein# de%lared as "eirs of /ntonio, t"e respondents "ave t"e standin# to see: for t"e
nullifi%ation of t"e instru&ents in t"e li#"t of t"eir %lai&s t"at t"ere was no %onsideration for t"eir
e@e%ution, and t"at Ra&on e@er%ised undue influen%e and %o&&itted fraud a#ainst t"e&. ConseCuentl,,
t"e respondents t"en %lai&ed t"at t"e /ffidavit of E@tra2+udi%ial Settle&ent of /ntonioIs estate
e@e%uted ', Ra&on, and t"e TCTs issued upon t"e aut"orit, of t"e said affidavit, are null and void as
well. Ra&on9s aver&ent t"at a resolution of t"e issues raised s"all first reCuire a de%laration of t"e
respondents9 status as "eirs is a &ere defense w"i%" is not deter&inative of w"i%" %ourt s"all properl,
e@er%ise 6urisdi%tion.
In +ar)orie adimas v* +arites arrion and .emma -ugo,
.8
t"e Court de%lared5
It is an ele&entar, rule of pro%edural law t"at 6urisdi%tion of t"e %ourt over t"e su'6e%t &atter is
deter&ined ', t"e alle#ations of t"e %o&plaint irrespe%tive of w"et"er or not t"e plaintiff is entitled to
re%over upon all or so&e of t"e %lai&s asserted t"erein. /s a ne%essar, %onseCuen%e, t"e 6urisdi%tion of
t"e %ourt %annot 'e &ade to depend upon t"e defenses set up in t"e answer or upon t"e &otion to
dis&iss, for ot"erwise, t"e Cuestion of 6urisdi%tion would al&ost entirel, depend upon t"e defendant.
>"at deter&ines t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e %ourt is t"e nature of t"e a%tion pleaded as appearin# fro& t"e
alle#ations in t"e %o&plaint. T"e aver&ents in t"e %o&plaint and t"e %"ara%ter of t"e relief sou#"t are
t"e &atters to 'e %onsulted./0!&hi/
In su&, t"is Court a#rees wit" t"e C/ t"at t"e nullifi%ation of t"e do%u&ents su'6e%t of Civil Case No.
)(21)!(!1 %ould 'e a%"ieved in an ordinar, %ivil a%tion, w"i%" in t"is spe%ifi% %ase was instituted to
prote%t t"e respondents fro& t"e supposedl, fraudulent a%ts of Ra&on* %n the event that the 'T !ill
find grounds to grant the reliefs &rayed for by the res&ondents, the only conse1uence !ill be the
reversion of the &ro&erties sub)ect of the dis&ute to the estate of Antonio* ivil ase No* 23-/2434/
!as not instituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the administration, li1uidation and
distribution of Antonio5s estate, hence, not the &ro&er sub)ect of a s&ecial &roceeding for the settlement
of the estate of a deceased &erson under 'ules 67-8/ of the 'ules of ourt*
T"e respondents9 resort to an ordinar, %ivil a%tion 'efore t"e RTC &a, not 'e strate#i%all, sound,
'e%ause a settle&ent pro%eedin# s"ould t"ereafter still follow, if t"eir intent is to re%over fro& Ra&on
t"e properties alle#ed to "ave 'een ille#all, transferred in "is na&e. Be t"at as it &a,, t"e RTC, in t"e
e@er%ise of its #eneral 6urisdi%tion, %annot 'e restrained fro& ta:in# %o#niGan%e of respondents9
Co&plaint and /&ended Co&plaint as t"e issues raised and t"e pra,ers indi%ated t"erein are &atters
w"i%" need not 'e t"res"ed out in a spe%ial pro%eedin#.
WHERE3ORE, t"e instant petition is DENIED. T"e petitioners9 0a1 Opposition to t"e respondents9
7otion to /d&it Su'stitution of Part,D
.-
and 0'1 7anifestation
.*
t"rou#" %ounsel t"at t"e, will no
lon#er file a repl, to t"e respondents9 Co&&ent=Opposition to t"e instant petition are NOTED.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1>;9>? J&",&r) 20, 2009
1UISA @HO MONTAAER, A1EJANDRO MONTAAER, JR., 1I11I/ETH MONTAAERB
/ARRIOS, AND RHODORA E1EANOR MONTAAERBDA1UPAN, Petitioners,
vs.
SHARI=A DISTRICT COURT, 3OURTH SHARI=A JUDICIA1 DISTRICT, MARAWI CIT2,
1I1ING DISANGCOPAN, AND A1MAH1EEN 1I1ING S. MONTAAER, Respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
T"is Petition for ertiorari and Pro"i'ition see:s to set aside t"e Orders of t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court,
?ourt" S"ariIa +udi%ial $istri%t, 7arawi Cit,, dated /u#ust ((, ())4
1
and Septe&'er (1, ())4.
(
On /u#ust 18, 1*!4, petitioner Luisa J"o 7ontaKer, a Ro&an Cat"oli%, &arried /le6andro 7ontaKer,
Sr. at t"e I&&a%ulate Con%eption Paris" in Cu'ao, LueGon Cit,.
.
Petitioners /le6andro 7ontaKer, +r.,
Lilli'et" 7ontaKer2Barrios, and R"odora Eleanor 7ontaKer2$alupan are t"eir %"ildren.

On 7a, (4,
1**!, /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr. died.
!
On /u#ust 1*, ())!, private respondents Lilin# $isan#%opan and "er dau#"ter, /l&a"leen Lilin# S.
7ontaKer, 'ot" 7usli&s, filed a <Co&plaint< for t"e 6udi%ial partition of properties 'efore t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court.
4
T"e said %o&plaint was entitled </l&a"leen Lilin# S. 7ontaKer and Lilin# 7.
$isan#%opan v. t"e Estates and Properties of Late /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr., Luisa J"o 7ontaKer,
Lilli'et" J. 7ontaKer, /le6andro J"o 7ontaKer, +r., and R"odora Eleanor J. 7ontaKer,< and do%:eted
as <Spe%ial Civil /%tion No. 82)!.<
8
In t"e said %o&plaint, private respondents &ade t"e followin#
alle#ations5 011 in 7a, 1**!, /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr. diedD 0(1 t"e late /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr. is a
7usli&D 0.1 petitioners are t"e first fa&il, of t"e de%edentD 01 Lilin# $isan#%opan is t"e widow of t"e
de%edentD 0!1 /l&a"leen Lilin# S. 7ontaKer is t"e dau#"ter of t"e de%edentD and 041 t"e esti&ated
value of and a list of t"e properties %o&prisin# t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
-
Private respondents pra,ed
for t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court to order, a&on# ot"ers, t"e followin#5 011 t"e partition of t"e estate of t"e
de%edentD and 0(1 t"e appoint&ent of an ad&inistrator for t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
*

Petitioners filed an /nswer wit" a 7otion to $is&iss &ainl, on t"e followin# #rounds5 011 t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court "as no 6urisdi%tion over t"e estate of t"e late /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr., 'e%ause "e was a
Ro&an Cat"oli%D 0(1 private respondents failed to pa, t"e %orre%t a&ount of do%:et feesD and 0.1 private
respondentsI %o&plaint is 'arred ', pres%ription, as it see:s to esta'lis" filiation 'etween /l&a"leen
Lilin# S. 7ontaKer and t"e de%edent, pursuant to /rti%le 18! of t"e ?a&il, Code.
1)
On Nove&'er ((, ())!, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court dis&issed t"e private respondentsI %o&plaint. T"e
distri%t %ourt "eld t"at /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr. was not a 7usli&, and its 6urisdi%tion e@tends onl, to
t"e settle&ent and distri'ution of t"e estate of de%eased 7usli&s.
11

On $e%e&'er 1(, ())!, private respondents filed a 7otion for Re%onsideration.
1(
On $e%e&'er (-,
())!, petitioners filed an Opposition to t"e 7otion for Re%onsideration, alle#in# t"at t"e &otion for
re%onsideration la%:ed a noti%e of "earin#.
1.
On +anuar, 18, ())4, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court denied
petitionersI opposition.
1
$espite findin# t"at t"e said &otion for re%onsideration <la%:ed noti%e of
"earin#,< t"e distri%t %ourt "eld t"at su%" defe%t was %ured as petitioners <were notified of t"e e@isten%e
of t"e pleadin#,< and it too: %o#niGan%e of t"e said &otion.
1!
T"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court also reset t"e
"earin# for t"e &otion for re%onsideration.
14
In its first assailed order dated /u#ust ((, ())4, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court re%onsidered its order of
dis&issal dated Nove&'er ((, ())!.
18
T"e distri%t %ourt allowed private respondents to addu%e furt"er
eviden%e.
1-
In its se%ond assailed order dated Septe&'er (1, ())4, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court ordered
t"e %ontinuation of trial, trial on t"e &erits, addu%e&ent of furt"er eviden%e, and pre2trial %onferen%e.
1*

See:in# re%ourse 'efore t"is Court, petitioners raise t"e followin# issues5
I.
RESPON$ENT SA/RII/ $ISTRICT COURT M 7/R/>I CITN L/CJS
+URIS$ICTION O;ER PETITIONERS >AO /RE RO7/N C/TAOLICS /N$ NON2
7USLI7S.
II.
RESPON$ENT SA/RII/ $ISTRICT COURT M 7/R/>I CITN $I$ NOT /CLUIRE
+URIS$ICTION O;ER <TAE EST/TES /N$ PROPERTIES O? TAE L/TE
/LE+/N$RO 7ONT/OER, SR.< >AICA IS NOT / N/TUR/L OR +URI$IC/L
PERSON >ITA C/P/CITN TO BE SUE$.
III.
RESPON$ENT SA/RII/ $ISTRICT COURT $I$ NOT /CLUIRE +URIS$ICTION
O;ER TAE CO7PL/INT O? PRI;/TE RESPON$ENTS /3/INST PETITIONERS
$UE TO NON2P/N7ENT O? TAE ?ILIN3 /N$ $OCJETIN3 ?EES.
I;.
RESPON$ENT SA/RII/ $ISTRICT COURTP7/R/>I CITN CO77ITTE$ 3R/;E
/BUSE O? $ISCRETION /7OUNTIN3 TO L/CJ O? +URIS$ICTION >AEN IT
$ENIE$ TAE OPPOSITION O? PETITIONERS /N$ TAEN 3R/NTE$ TAE 7OTION
?OR RECONSI$ER/TION O? RESPON$ENTS LILIN3 $IS/N3COP/N, ET /L.
>AICA >/S ?/T/LLN $E?ECTI;E ?OR L/CJ O? / <NOTICE O? AE/RIN3.<
;.
RESPON$ENT SA/RII/ $ISTRICT COURTP7/R/>I CITN CO77ITTE$ 3R/;E
/BUSE O? $ISCRETION /7OUNTIN3 TO L/CJ O? +URIS$ICTION >AEN IT
SET SPL. CI;IL /CTION 82)! ?OR TRI/L E;EN I? TAE CO7PL/INT PL/INLN
RE;E/LS TA/T RESPON$ENT /L7/ALEEN LILIN3 S. 7ONT/OER SEEJS
RECO3NITION ?RO7 /LE+/N$RO 7ONT/OER, SR. >AICA C/USE O? /CTION
PRESCRIBE$ UPON TAE $E/TA O? /LE+/N$RO 7ONT/OER, SR. ON 7/N (4,
1**!.
In t"eir Co&&ent to t"e Petition for ertiorari, private respondents stress t"at t"e S"ariIa $istri%t
Court &ust 'e #iven t"e opportunit, to "ear and de%ide t"e Cuestion of w"et"er t"e de%edent is a
7usli& in order to deter&ine w"et"er it "as 6urisdi%tion.
()

+urisdi%tion5 Settle&ent of t"e Estate of $e%eased 7usli&s
PetitionersI first ar#u&ent, re#ardin# t"e S"ariIa $istri%t CourtIs 6urisdi%tion, is dependent on a
Cuestion of fa%t, w"et"er t"e late /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr. is a 7usli&. In"erent in t"is ar#u&ent is t"e
pre&ise t"at t"ere "as alread, 'een a deter&ination resolvin# su%" a Cuestion of fa%t. It 'ears e&p"asis,
"owever, t"at t"e assailed orders did not deter&ine w"et"er t"e de%edent is a 7usli&. T"e assailed
orders did, "owever, set a "earin# for t"e purpose of resolvin# t"is issue.
/rti%le 1.0'1 of Presidential $e%ree No. 1)-., ot"erwise :nown as t"e Code of 7usli& Personal
Laws of t"e P"ilippines, provides t"at t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Courts "ave e@%lusive ori#inal 6urisdi%tion
over t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of de%eased 7usli&s5
/RTICLE 1.. Ori#inal 6urisdi%tion. P 011 T"e S"ari9a $istri%t Court s"all "ave e@%lusive ori#inal
6urisdi%tion over5
@ @ @ @
0'1 /ll %ases involvin# disposition, distri'ution and settle&ent of t"e estate of de%eased 7usli&s,
pro'ate of wills, issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration or appoint&ent of ad&inistrators or e@e%utors
re#ardless of t"e nature or t"e a##re#ate value of t"e propert,.
T"e deter&ination of t"e nature of an a%tion or pro%eedin# is %ontrolled ', t"e aver&ents and %"ara%ter
of t"e relief sou#"t in t"e %o&plaint or petition.
(1
T"e desi#nation #iven ', parties to t"eir own
pleadin#s does not ne%essaril, 'ind t"e %ourts to treat it a%%ordin# to t"e said desi#nation. Rat"er t"an
rel, on <a falsa descri&tio or defe%tive %aption,< %ourts are <#uided ', t"e su'stantive aver&ents of t"e
pleadin#s.<
((

/lt"ou#" private respondents desi#nated t"e pleadin# filed 'efore t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court as a
<Co&plaint< for 6udi%ial partition of properties, it is a petition for t"e issuan%e of letters of
ad&inistration, settle&ent, and distri'ution of t"e estate of t"e de%edent. It %ontains suffi%ient
6urisdi%tional fa%ts reCuired for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%eased 7usli&,
(.
su%" as t"e fa%t of
/le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr.Is deat" as well as t"e alle#ation t"at "e is a 7usli&. T"e said petition also
%ontains an enu&eration of t"e na&es of "is le#al "eirs, so far as :nown to t"e private respondents, and
a pro'a'le list of t"e properties left ', t"e de%edent, w"i%" are t"e ver, properties sou#"t to 'e settled
'efore a pro'ate %ourt. ?urt"er&ore, t"e reliefs pra,ed for reveal t"at it is t"e intention of t"e private
respondents to see: 6udi%ial settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
(
T"ese in%lude t"e followin#5 011
t"e pra,er for t"e partition of t"e estate of t"e de%edentD and 0(1 t"e pra,er for t"e appoint&ent of an
ad&inistrator of t"e said estate.
>e %annot a#ree wit" t"e %ontention of t"e petitioners t"at t"e distri%t %ourt does not "ave 6urisdi%tion
over t"e %ase 'e%ause of an alle#ation in t"eir answer wit" a &otion to dis&iss t"at 7ontaKer, Sr. is not
a 7usli&. +urisdi%tion of a %ourt over t"e nature of t"e a%tion and its su'6e%t &atter does not depend
upon t"e defenses set fort" in an answer
(!
or a &otion to dis&iss.
(4
Ot"erwise, 6urisdi%tion would
depend al&ost entirel, on t"e defendant
(8
or result in "avin# <a %ase eit"er t"rown out of %ourt or its
pro%eedin#s undul, dela,ed ', si&ple strata#e&.
(-
Indeed, t"e <defense of la%: of 6urisdi%tion w"i%" is
dependent on a Cuestion of fa%t does not render t"e %ourt to lose or 'e deprived of its 6urisdi%tion.<
(*

T"e sa&e rationale applies to an answer wit" a &otion to dis&iss.
.)
In t"e %ase at 'ar, t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court is not deprived of 6urisdi%tion si&pl, 'e%ause petitioners raised as a defense t"e
alle#ation t"at t"e de%eased is not a 7usli&. T"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court "as t"e aut"orit, to "ear and
re%eive eviden%e to deter&ine w"et"er it "as 6urisdi%tion, w"i%" reCuires an a &riori deter&ination t"at
t"e de%eased is a 7usli&. If after "earin#, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court deter&ines t"at t"e de%eased was
not in fa%t a 7usli&, t"e distri%t %ourt s"ould dis&iss t"e %ase for la%: of 6urisdi%tion.
Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s
T"e underl,in# assu&ption in petitionersI se%ond ar#u&ent, t"at t"e pro%eedin# 'efore t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court is an ordinar, %ivil a%tion a#ainst a de%eased person, rests on an erroneous understandin#
of t"e pro%eedin# 'efore t"e %ourt a 1uo. Part of t"e %onfusion &a, 'e attri'uted to t"e pro%eedin#
'efore t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court, w"ere t"e parties were desi#nated eit"er as plaintiffs or defendants
and t"e %ase was deno&inated as a spe%ial %ivil a%tion. >e reiterate t"at t"e pro%eedin#s 'efore t"e
%ourt a 1uo are for t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration, settle&ent, and distri'ution of t"e estate of
t"e de%eased, w"i%" is a spe%ial pro%eedin#. Se%tion .0%1 of t"e Rules of Court 0Rules1 defines a spe%ial
pro%eedin# as <a re&ed, ', w"i%" a part, see:s to esta'lis" a status, a ri#"t, or a parti%ular fa%t.< T"is
Court "as applied t"e Rules, parti%ularl, t"e rules on spe%ial pro%eedin#s, for t"e settle&ent of t"e
estate of a de%eased 7usli&.
.1
In a petition for t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration, settle&ent, and
distri'ution of estate, t"e appli%ants see: to esta'lis" t"e fa%t of deat" of t"e de%edent and later to 'e
dul, re%o#niGed as a&on# t"e de%edentIs "eirs, w"i%" would allow t"e& to e@er%ise t"eir ri#"t to
parti%ipate in t"e settle&ent and liCuidation of t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
.(
Aere, t"e respondents see:
to esta'lis" t"e fa%t of /le6andro 7ontaKer, Sr.Is deat" and, su'seCuentl,, for private respondent
/l&a"leen Lilin# S. 7ontaKer to 'e re%o#niGed as a&on# "is "eirs, if su%" is t"e %ase in fa%t.
PetitionersI ar#u&ent, t"at t"e pro"i'ition a#ainst a de%edent or "is estate fro& 'ein# a part, defendant
in a %ivil a%tion
..
applies to a spe%ial pro%eedin# su%" as t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%eased, is
&ispla%ed. Unli:e a %ivil a%tion w"i%" "as definite adverse parties, a spe%ial pro%eedin# "as no definite
adverse part,. T"e definitions of a %ivil a%tion and a spe%ial pro%eedin#, respe%tivel,, in t"e Rules
illustrate t"is differen%e. / %ivil a%tion, in w"i%" <a part, sues anot"er for t"e enfor%e&ent or prote%tion
of a ri#"t, or t"e prevention or redress of a wron#<
.
ne%essaril, "as definite adverse parties, w"o are
eit"er t"e plaintiff or defendant.
.!
On t"e ot"er "and, a spe%ial pro%eedin#, <', w"i%" a part, see:s to
esta'lis" a status, ri#"t, or a parti%ular fa%t,<
.4
"as one definite part,, w"o petitions or applies for a
de%laration of a status, ri#"t, or parti%ular fa%t, 'ut no definite adverse part,. In t"e %ase at 'ar, it 'ears
e&p"asis t"at t"e estate of t"e de%edent is not 'ein# sued for an, %ause of a%tion. /s a spe%ial
pro%eedin#, t"e purpose of t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%edent is to deter&ine all t"e assets of
t"e estate,
.8
pa, its lia'ilities,
.-
and to distri'ute t"e residual to t"ose entitled to t"e sa&e.
.*

$o%:et ?ees
PetitionersI t"ird ar#u&ent, t"at 6urisdi%tion was not validl, a%Cuired for non2pa,&ent of do%:et fees, is
untena'le. Petitioners point to private respondentsI petition in t"e pro%eedin# 'efore t"e %ourt a 1uo,
w"i%" %ontains an alle#ation esti&atin# t"e de%edentIs estate as t"e 'asis for t"e %on%lusion t"at w"at
private respondents paid as do%:et fees was insuffi%ient. PetitionersI ar#u&ent essentiall, involves two
aspe%ts5 011 w"et"er t"e %ler: of %ourt %orre%tl, assessed t"e do%:et feesD and 0(1 w"et"er private
respondents paid t"e %orre%t assess&ent of t"e do%:et fees.
?ilin# t"e appropriate initiator, pleadin# and t"e pa,&ent of t"e pres%ri'ed do%:et fees vest a trial
%ourt wit" 6urisdi%tion over t"e su'6e%t &atter.
)
If t"e part, filin# t"e %ase paid less t"an t"e %orre%t
a&ount for t"e do%:et fees 'e%ause t"at was t"e a&ount assessed ', t"e %ler: of %ourt, t"e
responsi'ilit, of &a:in# a defi%ien%, assess&ent lies wit" t"e sa&e %ler: of %ourt.
1
In su%" a %ase, t"e
lower %ourt %on%erned will not auto&ati%all, lose 6urisdi%tion, 'e%ause of a part,Is relian%e on t"e %ler:
of %ourtIs insuffi%ient assess&ent of t"e do%:et fees.
(
/s <ever, %itiGen "as t"e ri#"t to assu&e and
trust t"at a pu'li% offi%er %"ar#ed ', law wit" %ertain duties :nows "is duties and perfor&s t"e& in
a%%ordan%e wit" law,< t"e part, filin# t"e %ase %annot 'e penaliGed wit" t"e %ler: of %ourtIs insuffi%ient
assess&ent.
.
Aowever, t"e part, %on%erned will 'e reCuired to pa, t"e defi%ien%,.

In t"e %ase at 'ar, petitioners did not present t"e %ler: of %ourtIs assess&ent of t"e do%:et fees.
7oreover, t"e re%ords do not in%lude t"is assess&ent. T"ere %an 'e no deter&ination of w"et"er private
respondents %orre%tl, paid t"e do%:et fees wit"out t"e %ler: of %ourtIs assess&ent.
E@%eption to Noti%e of Aearin#
PetitionersI fourt" ar#u&ent, t"at private respondentsI &otion for re%onsideration 'efore t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court is defe%tive for la%: of a noti%e of "earin#, &ust fail as t"e uniCue %ir%u&stan%es in t"e
present %ase %onstitute an e@%eption to t"is reCuire&ent. T"e Rules reCuire ever, written &otion to 'e
set for "earin# ', t"e appli%ant and to address t"e noti%e of "earin# to all parties %on%erned.
!
T"e
Rules also provide t"at <no written &otion set for "earin# s"all 'e a%ted upon ', t"e %ourt wit"out
proof of servi%e t"ereof.<
4
Aowever, t"e Rules allow a li'eral %onstru%tion of its provisions <in order
to pro&ote Et"eF o'6e%tive of se%urin# a 6ust, speed,, and ine@pensive disposition of ever, a%tion and
pro%eedin#.<
8
7oreover, t"is Court "as up"eld a li'eral %onstru%tion spe%ifi%all, of t"e rules of noti%e
of "earin# in %ases w"ere <a ri#id appli%ation will result in a &anifest failure or &is%arria#e of 6usti%e
espe%iall, if a part, su%%essfull, s"ows t"at t"e alle#ed defe%t in t"e Cuestioned final and e@e%utor,
6ud#&ent is not apparent on its fa%e or fro& t"e re%itals %ontained t"erein.<
-
In t"ese e@%eptional
%ases, t"e Court %onsiders t"at <no part, %an even %lai& a vested ri#"t in te%"ni%alities,< and for t"is
reason, %ases s"ould, as &u%" as possi'le, 'e de%ided on t"e &erits rat"er t"an on te%"ni%alities.
*

T"e %ase at 'ar falls under t"is e@%eption. To den, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court of an opportunit, to
deter&ine w"et"er it "as 6urisdi%tion over a petition for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%edent
alle#ed to 'e a 7usli& would also den, its in"erent power as a %ourt to %ontrol its pro%ess to ensure
%onfor&it, wit" t"e law and 6usti%e. To san%tion su%" a situation si&pl, 'e%ause of a lapse in fulfillin#
t"e noti%e reCuire&ent will result in a &is%arria#e of 6usti%e.
In addition, t"e present %ase %alls for a li'eral %onstru%tion of t"e rules on noti%e of "earin#, 'e%ause t"e
ri#"ts of t"e petitioners were not affe%ted. T"is Court "as "eld t"at an e@%eption to t"e rules on noti%e
of "earin# is w"ere it appears t"at t"e ri#"ts of t"e adverse part, were not affe%ted.
!)
T"e purpose for
t"e noti%e of "earin# %oin%ides wit" pro%edural due pro%ess,
!1
for t"e %ourt to deter&ine w"et"er t"e
adverse part, a#rees or o'6e%ts to t"e &otion, as t"e Rules do not fi@ an, period wit"in w"i%" to file a
repl, or opposition.
!(
In pro'ate pro%eedin#s, <w"at t"e law pro"i'its is not t"e a'sen%e of previous
noti%e, 'ut t"e a'solute a'sen%e t"ereof and la%: of opportunit, to 'e "eard.<
!.
In t"e %ase at 'ar, as
evident fro& t"e S"ariIa $istri%t CourtIs order dated +anuar, 18, ())4, petitionersI %ounsel re%eived a
%op, of t"e &otion for re%onsideration in Cuestion. Petitioners were %ertainl, not denied an opportunit,
to stud, t"e ar#u&ents in t"e said &otion as t"e, filed an opposition to t"e sa&e. Sin%e t"e S"ariIa
$istri%t Court reset t"e "earin# for t"e &otion for re%onsideration in t"e sa&e order, petitioners were
not denied t"e opportunit, to o'6e%t to t"e said &otion in a "earin#. Ta:en to#et"er, t"ese
%ir%u&stan%es s"ow t"at t"e purpose for t"e rules of noti%e of "earin#, pro%edural pro%ess, was dul,
o'served.
Pres%ription and ?iliation
PetitionersI fift" ar#u&ent is pre&ature. /#ain, t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court "as not ,et deter&ined
w"et"er it "as 6urisdi%tion to settle t"e estate of t"e de%edent. In t"e event t"at a spe%ial pro%eedin# for
t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%edent is pendin#, Cuestions re#ardin# "eirs"ip, in%ludin#
pres%ription in relation to re%o#nition and filiation, s"ould 'e raised and settled in t"e said
pro%eedin#.
!
T"e %ourt, in its %apa%it, as a pro'ate %ourt, "as 6urisdi%tion to de%lare w"o are t"e "eirs
of t"e de%edent.
!!
In t"e %ase at 'ar, t"e deter&ination of t"e "eirs of t"e de%edent depends on an
affir&ative answer to t"e Cuestion of w"et"er t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court "as 6urisdi%tion over t"e estate
of t"e de%edent.
IN CIEW WHEREO3, t"e petition is $ENIE$. T"e Orders of t"e S"ariIa $istri%t Court, dated
/u#ust ((, ())4 and Septe&'er (1, ())4 respe%tivel,, are /??IR7E$. Cost a#ainst petitioners.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1?>912 De%ember 1D, 200>
A1AN JOSEPH A. SHE@ER, Petitioner,
vs.
ESTATE O3 A1ICE O. SHE@ER, CICTORIA S. MEDINABA*m!"!$(r&(r!4, Respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
AUSTRIABMARTINE, J.:
T"is resolves t"e Petition for Review on ertiorari see:in# t"e reversal of t"e Order
1
of t"e Re#ional
Trial Court of Ili#an Cit,, Bran%" 4 0RTC1 dated +anuar, 1!, ()). and its O&ni'us Order dated /pril
*, ())..
T"e undisputed fa%ts are as follows.
T"e RTC ad&itted to pro'ate t"e "olo#rap"i% will of /li%e O. S"e:er and t"ereafter issued an order for
all t"e %reditors to file t"eir respe%tive %lai&s a#ainst t"e estate. In %o&plian%e t"erewit", petitioner
filed on O%to'er 8, ())( a %ontin#ent %lai& for a#ent9s %o&&ission due "i& a&ountin# to
appro@i&atel, P()4,(!).)) in t"e event of t"e sale of %ertain par%els of land 'elon#in# to t"e estate,
and t"e a&ount of P(8!,))).)), as rei&'urse&ent for e@penses in%urred and=or to 'e in%urred ',
petitioner in t"e %ourse of ne#otiatin# t"e sale of said realties.
T"e e@e%utri@ of t"e Estate of /li%e O. S"e:er 0respondent1 &oved for t"e dis&issal of said &one,
%lai& a#ainst t"e estate on t"e #rounds t"at 011 t"e reCuisite do%:et fee, as pres%ri'ed in Se%tion 80a1,
Rule 11 of t"e Rules of Court, "ad not 'een paidD 0(1 petitioner failed to atta%" a %ertifi%ation a#ainst
non2foru& s"oppin#D and 0.1 petitioner failed to atta%" a written e@planation w", t"e &one, %lai& was
not filed and served personall,.
On +anuar, 1!, ())., t"e RTC issued t"e assailed Order dis&issin# wit"out pre6udi%e t"e &one, %lai&
'ased on t"e #rounds advan%ed ', respondent. Petitioner9s &otion for re%onsideration was denied per
O&ni'us Order dated /pril *, ())..
Petitioner t"en filed t"e present petition for review on certiorari, raisin# t"e followin# Cuestions5
0a1 &ust a %ontin#ent %lai& filed in t"e pro'ate pro%eedin# %ontain a %ertifi%ation a#ainst non2
foru& s"oppin#, failin# w"i%" su%" %lai& s"ould 'e dis&issedH
0'1 &ust a %ontin#ent %lai& filed a#ainst an estate in a pro'ate pro%eedin# 'e dis&issed for
failin# to pa, t"e do%:et fees at t"e ti&e of its filin# t"ereatH
0%1 &ust a %ontin#ent %lai& filed in a pro'ate pro%eedin# 'e dis&issed 'e%ause of its failure to
%ontain a written e@planation on t"e servi%e and filin# ', re#istered &ailH
(
Petitioner &aintains t"at t"e RTC erred in stri%tl, appl,in# to a pro'ate pro%eedin# t"e rules reCuirin# a
%ertifi%ation of non2foru& s"oppin#, a written e@planation for non2personal filin#, and t"e pa,&ent of
do%:et fees upon filin# of t"e %lai&. Ae insists t"at Se%tion (, Rule 8( of t"e Rules of Court provides
t"at rules in ordinar, a%tions are appli%a'le to spe%ial pro%eedin#s onl, in a suppletor, &anner.
T"e Court #ave due %ourse to t"e petition for review on certiorari alt"ou#" dire%tl, filed wit" t"is
Court, pursuant to Se%tion (0%1, Rule 1 of t"e Rules of Court.
.
T"e petition is i&'ued wit" &erit.
Aowever, it &ust 'e e&p"asiGed t"at petitioner9s %ontention t"at rules in ordinar, a%tions are onl,
supple&entar, to rules in spe%ial pro%eedin#s is not entirel, %orre%t.
Se%tion (, Rule 8(, Part II of t"e sa&e Rules of Court provides5
Se%. (. A&&licability of rules of ivil Actions. 2 I" (#e &b$e"%e o- $'e%!&. 'rov!$!o"$, t"e rules
provided for in ordinar, a%tions s"all 'e, as far as pra%ti%a'le, appli%a'le in spe%ial pro%eedin#s.
Stated differentl,, spe%ial provisions under Part II of t"e Rules of Court #overn spe%ial pro%eedin#sD 'ut
in t"e a'sen%e of spe%ial provisions, t"e rules provided for in Part I of t"e Rules #overnin# ordinar,
%ivil a%tions s"all 'e appli%a'le to spe%ial pro%eedin#s, as far as pra%ti%a'le.
T"e word <pra%ti%a'le< is defined as5 &ossible to &ractice or &erform9 ca&able of being &ut into
&ractice, done or accom&lished.

T"is &eans t"at in t"e a'sen%e of spe%ial provisions, rules in ordinar,

a%tions &a, 'e applied in spe%ial pro%eedin#s as &u%" as possi'le and w"ere doin# so would not pose
an o'sta%le to said pro%eedin#s. Now"ere in t"e Rules of Court does it %ate#ori%all, sa, t"at rules in
ordinar, a%tions are inappli%a'le or &erel, suppletor, to spe%ial pro%eedin#s. Provisions of t"e Rules
of Court reCuirin# a %ertifi%ation of non2foru& s"oppin# -or %om'.&!"($ &"* !"!(!&(or) '.e&*!"+$, a
written e@planation for non2personal servi%e and filin#, and t"e pa,&ent of filin# fees for &one, %lai&s
a#ainst an estate would not in an, wa, o'stru%t pro'ate pro%eedin#s, t"us, t"e, are appli%a'le to spe%ial
pro%eedin#s su%" as t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%eased person as in t"e present %ase.
T"us, t"e prin%ipal Cuestion in t"e present %ase is5 did t"e RTC err in dis&issin# petitioner9s %ontin#ent
&one, %lai& a#ainst respondent estate for failure of petitioner to atta%" to "is &otion a %ertifi%ation
a#ainst non2foru& s"oppin#H
T"e Court rules in t"e affir&ative.
T"e %ertifi%ation of non2foru& s"oppin# is re8,!re* o".) -or %om'.&!"($ &"* o(#er !"!(!&(or)
'.e&*!"+$. T"e RTC erred in rulin# t"at a %ontin#ent &one, %lai& a#ainst t"e estate of a de%edent is an
initiator, pleadin#. In t"e present %ase, (#e 5#o.e 'rob&(e 'ro%ee*!"+ 5&$ !"!(!&(e* ,'o" (#e -!.!"+
o- (#e 'e(!(!o" -or &..o5&"%e o- (#e *e%e*e"(=$ 5!... Under Se%tions 1 and !, Rule -4 of t"e Rules of
Court, after #rantin# letters of testa&entar, or of ad&inistration, all persons "avin# &one, %lai&s
a#ainst t"e de%edent are &andated to file or notif, t"e %ourt and t"e estate ad&inistrator of t"eir
respe%tive &one, %lai&sD ot"erwise, t"e, would 'e 'arred, su'6e%t to %ertain e@%eptions.
!
Su%" 'ein# t"e %ase, a &one, %lai& a#ainst an estate is &ore a:in to a &otion for %reditors9 %lai&s to 'e
re%o#niGed and ta:en into %onsideration in t"e proper disposition of t"e properties of t"e estate. In
Ar1ui,a v* ourt of A&&eals,
4
t"e Court e@plained t"us5
@ @ @ T"e o--!%e o- & mo(!o" !$ "o( (o !"!(!&(e "e5 .!(!+&(!o", b,( (o br!"+ & m&(er!&. b,( !"%!*e"(&.
m&((er &r!$!"+ !" (#e 'ro+re$$ o- (#e %&$e !" 5#!%# (#e mo(!o" !$ -!.e*. / &otion is "o( &"
!"*e'e"*e"( r!+#( or reme*), 'ut is %onfined to in%idental &atters in t"e pro#ress of a %ause. It
re.&(e$ (o $ome 8,e$(!o" (#&( !$ %o..&(er&. (o (#e m&!" ob:e%( o- (#e &%(!o" &"* !$ %o""e%(e* 5!(#
&"* *e'e"*e"( ,'o" (#e 'r!"%!'&. reme*).
8
0E&p"asis supplied1
/ &one, %lai& is onl, an in%idental &atter in t"e &ain a%tion for t"e settle&ent of t"e de%edent9s
estateD &ore so if t"e %lai& is %ontin#ent sin%e t"e %lai&ant %annot even institute a separate a%tion for a
&ere %ontin#ent %lai&. Aen%e, #ere!" 'e(!(!o"er9$ %o"(!"+e"( mo"e) %.&!m, "o( be!"+ &" !"!(!&(or)
'.e&*!"+, *oe$ "o( re8,!re & %er(!-!%&(!o" &+&!"$( "o"B-or,m $#o''!"+.
On t"e issue of filin# fees, t"e Court ruled in "ascual v* ourt of A&&eals,
-
t"at t"e trial %ourt "as
6urisdi%tion to a%t on a &one, %lai& 0attorne,9s fees1 a#ainst an estate for servi%es rendered ', a law,er
to t"e ad&inistratri@ to assist "er in fulfillin# "er duties to t"e estate even wit"out pa,&ent of separate
do%:et fees 'e%ause t"e filin# fees s"all %onstitute a lien on t"e 6ud#&ent pursuant to Se%tion (, Rule
11 of t"e Rules of Court, or t"e trial %ourt &a, order t"e pa,&ent of su%" filin# fees wit"in a
reasona'le ti&e.
*
/fter all, t"e trial %ourt "ad alread, assu&ed 6urisdi%tion over t"e a%tion for
settle&ent of t"e estate. Clearl,, t"erefore, non2pa,&ent of filin# fees for a &one, %lai& a#ainst t"e
estate is not one of t"e #rounds for dis&issin# a &one, %lai& a#ainst t"e estate.
>it" re#ard to t"e reCuire&ent of a written e@planation, +aceda v* De .u,man :da* de +acatangay
1)
is sCuarel, in point. T"erein, t"e Court "eld t"us5
In Solar Tea& Entertain&ent, In%. v. Ri%afort, t"is Court, passin# upon Se%tion 11 of Rule 1. of t"e
Rules of Court, "eld t"at a %ourt "as t"e dis%retion to %onsider a pleadin# or paper as not filed if said
rule is not %o&plied wit".
Per$o"&. servi%e and filin# are preferred for o'vious reasons. Plainl,, su%" s"ould e@pedite a%tion or
resolution on a pleadin#, &otion or ot"er paperD and %onversel,, &ini&iGe, if not eli&inate, dela,s
li:el, to 'e in%urred if servi%e or filin# is done ', &ail, %onsiderin# t"e ineffi%ien%, of t"e postal
servi%e. Li:ewise, personal servi%e will do awa, wit" t"e pra%ti%e of so&e law,ers w"o, wantin# to
appear %lever, resort to t"e followin# less t"an et"i%al pra%ti%es5 011 servin# or filin# pleadin#s ', &ail
to %at%" opposin# %ounsel off2#uard, t"us leavin# t"e latter wit" little or no ti&e to prepare, for
instan%e, responsive pleadin#s or an oppositionD or 0(1 upon re%eivin# noti%e fro& t"e post offi%e t"at
t"e re#istered &ail %ontainin# t"e pleadin# of or ot"er paper fro& t"e adverse part, &a, 'e %lai&ed,
undul, pro%rastinatin# 'efore %lai&in# t"e par%el, or, worse, not %lai&in# it at all, t"ere', %ausin#
undue dela, in t"e disposition of su%" pleadin# or ot"er papers.
If onl, to unders%ore t"e &andator, nature of t"is innovation to our set of ad6e%tive rules reCuirin#
personal servi%e w"enever pra%ti%a'le, Se%tion 11 of Rule 1. t"en #ives t"e %ourt t"e dis%retion to
%onsider a pleadin# or paper as not filed if t"e ot"er &odes of servi%e or filin# were not resorted to and
no written e@planation was &ade as to w", personal servi%e was not done in t"e first pla%e. The
exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the &racticability of &ersonal service, for Section //
itself begins !ith the clause ;!henever &racticable<.
>e t"us ta:e t"is opportunit, to %larif, t"at under Se%tion 11, Rule 1. of t"e 1**8 Rules of Civil
Pro%edure, personal service and filin# is t"e #eneral rule, and resort to ot"er &odes of servi%e and
filin#, t"e e@%eption. Aen%efort", !henever &ersonal service or filing is &racticable, in t"e li#"t of t"e
%ir%u&stan%es of ti&e, pla%e and person, personal servi%e or filin# is mandatory* Onl, w"en personal
servi%e or filin# is not pra%ti%a'le &a, resort to ot"er &odes 'e "ad, w"i%" &ust t"en 'e a%%o&panied
', a written e@planation as to w", personal servi%e or filin# was not pra%ti%a'le to 'e#in wit". In
ad6ud#in# t"e plausi'ilit, of an e@planation, a %ourt s"all li:ewise %onsider t"e i&portan%e of t"e
su'6e%t &atter of t"e %ase or t"e issues involved t"erein, and t"e pri&a fa%ie &erit of t"e pleadin#
sou#"t to 'e e@pun#ed for violation of Se%tion 11. 0E&p"asis and itali%s supplied1
In 7usa v. /&or, t"is Court, on notin# t"e i&pra%ti%alit, of personal servi%e, e@er%ised its dis%retion
and li'erall, applied Se%tion 11 of Rule 1.5
</s ESe%tion 11, Rule 1. of t"e Rules of CourtF reCuires, servi%e and filin# of pleadin#s &ust 'e done
personall, w"enever pra%ti%a'le. T"e %ourt notes t"at in t"e present %ase, personal servi%e would not 'e
pra%ti%a'le. onsidering the distance bet!een the ourt of A&&eals and Donsol, Sorsogon w"ere t"e
petition was posted, %learl,, service by registered mail #sic$ !ould have entailed considerable time,
effort and ex&ense* A !ritten ex&lanation !hy service !as not done &ersonally might have been
su&erfluous. I" &") %&$e, &$ (#e r,.e !$ $o 5or*e* 5!(# (#e ,$e o- Em&)E, $!+"!-)!"+
'erm!$$!ve"e$$, & v!o.&(!o" (#ereo- +!ve$ (#e %o,r( *!$%re(!o" 5#e(#er or "o( (o %o"$!*er (#e '&'er
&$ "o( -!.e*. W#!.e !( !$ (r,e (#&( 'ro%e*,r&. r,.e$ &re "e%e$$&r) (o $e%,re &" or*er.) &"* $'ee*)
&*m!"!$(r&(!o" o- :,$(!%e, rigid a&&lication of Section //, 'ule /7 may be relaxed in this case in the
interest of substantial )ustice. 0E&p"asis and itali%s supplied1/0!&hi/
In t"e %ase at 'ar, t"e address of respondentIs %ounsel is LopeG, LueGon, w"ile petitioner SoniaIs
%ounselIs is Lu%ena Cit,. LopeG, LueGon is -. :ilo&eters awa, fro& Lu%ena Cit,. Su%" distan%e &a:es
personal servi%e i&pra%ti%a'le. /s in 7usa v. /&or, a written e@planation w", servi%e was not done
personall, <&i#"t "ave 'een superfluous.<
/s t"is Court "eld in Tan v. Court of /ppeals, li'eral %onstru%tion of a rule of pro%edure "as 'een
allowed w"ere, a&on# ot"er %ases, <t"e in6usti%e to t"e adverse part, is not %o&&ensurate wit" t"e
de#ree of "is t"ou#"tlessness in not %o&pl,in# wit" t"e pro%edure pres%ri'ed.<
11
0E&p"asis supplied1
In t"e present %ase, petitioner "olds offi%e in Sal%edo ;illa#e, 7a:ati Cit,, w"ile %ounsel for
respondent and t"e RTC w"i%" rendered t"e assailed orders are 'ot" in Ili#an Cit,. T"e lower %ourt
s"ould "ave ta:en 6udi%ial noti%e of t"e #reat distan%e 'etween said %ities and realiGed t"at it is indeed
not pra%ti%a'le to serve and file t"e &one, %lai& personall,. T"us, followin# +edina v* ourt of
A&&eals,
1(
t"e failure of petitioner to su'&it a written e@planation w", servi%e "as not 'een done
personall,, &a, 'e %onsidered as superfluous and t"e RTC s"ould "ave e@er%ised its dis%retion under
Se%tion 11, Rule 1., not to dis&iss t"e &one, %lai& of petitioner, in t"e interest of su'stantial 6usti%e.
T"e rulin# spirit of t"e pro'ate law is t"e speed, settle&ent of estates of de%eased persons for t"e
'enefit of %reditors and t"ose entitled to residue ', wa, of in"eritan%e or le#a%, after t"e de'ts and
e@penses of ad&inistration "ave 'een paid.
1.
T"e ulti&ate purpose for t"e rule on &one, %lai&s was
furt"er e@plained in <nion =an> of the "hil* v* Santiba?e,,
1
t"us5
T"e filin# of a &one, %lai& a#ainst t"e de%edentIs estate in t"e pro'ate %ourt is &andator,. /s we "eld
in t"e vinta#e %ase of P, En# C"on# v. Aerrera5
@ @ @ T#!$ re8,!reme"( !$ -or (#e ',r'o$e o- 'ro(e%(!"+ (#e e$(&(e o- (#e *e%e&$e* b) !"-orm!"+ (#e
e4e%,(or or &*m!"!$(r&(or o- (#e %.&!m$ &+&!"$( !(, t"us ena'lin# "i& to e@a&ine ea%" %lai& and to
deter&ine w"et"er it is a proper one w"i%" s"ould 'e allowed. T"e plain and o'vious desi#n of t"e rule
is t"e speed, settle&ent of t"e affairs of t"e de%eased and t"e earl, deliver, of t"e propert, to t"e
distri'utees, le#atees, or "eirs. T#e .&5 $(r!%(.) re8,!re$ (#e 'rom'( 're$e"(&(!o" &"* *!$'o$!(!o" o-
(#e %.&!m$ &+&!"$( (#e *e%e*e"(=$ e$(&(e !" or*er (o $e((.e (#e &--&!r$ o- (#e e$(&(e &$ $oo" &$
'o$$!b.e, pa, off its de'ts and distri'ute t"e residue.
1!
0E&p"asis supplied1
T"e RTC s"ould "ave rela@ed and li'erall, %onstrued t"e pro%edural rule on t"e reCuire&ent of a
written e@planation for non2personal servi%e, a#ain in t"e interest of su'stantial 6usti%e.
WHERE3ORE, t"e petition is GRANTED. T"e Orders of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of Ili#an Cit,,
Bran%" 4 dated +anuar, 1!, ()). and /pril *, ())., respe%tivel,, are RECERSED and SET ASIDE.
T"e Re#ional Trial Court of Ili#an Cit,, Bran%" 4, is "ere', DIRECTED to #ive due %ourse and ta:e
appropriate a%tion on petitioner9s &one, %lai& in a%%ordan%e wit" Rule -( of t"e Rules of Court.
No pronoun%e&ent as to %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1B18>99 M&r%# D1, 190;
HON. JOSE 3. 3ERNANDE, J,*+e o- (#e Co,r( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e, Ne+ro$ O%%!*e"(&.,
ASUNCION MARACI11A, ET A1., petitioners,
vs.
HERMINIO MARACI11A, respondent.
Jose .utierre, David, A* Aveto, A* +irasol and "* * 'amos for &etitioners*
"aredes, "oblador, ru, and Na,areno for res&ondent*
/ARRERA, J.:
Petitioners "erein appeal ', certiorari fro& t"e de%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals 0in C/23.R. No.
(8())2R1 w"erein, over t"eir o'6e%tion, raisin# t"e Cuestion of 6urisdi%tion petition, t"e appellate %ourt
too: %o#niGan%e of t"e petition for certiorari and pro"i'ition filed ', Aer&inio 7aravilla and, in
%onseCuen%e t"ereof, set aside t"e appoint&ent of petitioner ElieGar LopeG as a spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator
of t"e estate of t"e de%eased $i#na 7aravilla. T"e pertinent ante%edent fa%ts are as follows5
On /u#ust (!, 1*!-, respondent Aer&inio 7aravilla filed wit" "e Court of ?irst Instan%e of Ne#ros
O%%idental a petition for pro'ate of t"e will 0Spe%. Pro%. No. *881 of "is de%eased wife $i#na
7aravilla w"o died on /u#ust 1( of t"at sa&e ,ear. In t"e will t"e survivin# spouse was na&ed as t"e
universal "eir and e@e%utor.
On Septe&'er .), 1*!-, Pedro, /sun%ion, and Re#ina 7aravilla 0'rot"er and sisters of t"e de%eased
$i#na 7aravilla1 filed an opposition to t"e pro'ate of t"e will, on t"e #round, inter alia, t"at t"e will
was not si#ned on ea%" pa#e ', t"e testatri@ in t"e presen%e of t"e attestin# witnesses and of one
anot"er.
On 7ar%" 14, 1*!*, on &otion of respondent Aer&inio, w"i%" was opposed ', Pedro, /sun%ion, and
Re#ina 7aravilla, t"e %ourt issued an order appointin# "i& spe%ial ad&inistrator of t"e estate of t"e
de%eased, for t"e reason t"at5
... all t"e properties su'6e%t of t"e will are %on6u#al properties of t"e petitioner and "is late wife,
$i#na 7aravilla, and 'efore an, partition of t"e %on6u#al propert, is done, t"e Court %annot
pinpoint w"i%" of t"e propert, su'6e%t of t"e >ill 'elon#s to $i#na 7aravilla, e@%lusivel,, t"at
s"all 'e ad&inistered ', t"e spe%ial ad&inistrator. Aen%e, alt"ou#" it is true t"at t"e petitioner
Aer&inio 7aravilla "as an adverse interest in t"e propert, su'6e%t of t"e >ill, t"e Court finds it
i&possi'le for t"e present ti&e to appoint an, person ot"er t"an t"e petitioner as spe%ial
ad&inistrator of t"e propert, until after t"e partition is ordered, for t"e reason t"at t"e properties
&entioned in t"e >ill are in t"e na&e of t"e petitioner w"o is t"e survivin# spouse of t"e
de%eased.
On ?e'ruar, -, 1*4), t"e %ourt rendered a de%ision den,in# pro'ate of t"e will, as it was not dul,
si#ned on ea%" pa#e ', t"e testatri@ in t"e presen%e of t"e attestin# witnesses and of one anot"er.
On ?e'ruar, 18, 1*4), Pedro, /sun%ion, and Re#ina 7aravilla, filed wit" t"e %ourt a petition for
appoint&ent of ElieGar LopeG 0son of /sun%ion 7aravilla1 as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator to prote%t t"eir
interests, on t"e #round t"at t"e will, "avin# 'een denied pro'ate, t"e, are t"e le#al "eirs of t"e
de%edent. Said petition was "eard on ?e'ruar, (), at w"i%" "earin#, respondent9s %ounsel orall, &oved
for postpone&ent, 'e%ause respondent9s prin%ipal %ounsel 0Salon#a1 "ad not 'een notified and was not
present. T"e %ourt ordered presentation of oral eviden%e, %onsistin# of t"e testi&onies of ElieGar LopeG,
and Re#ina and ?ran%is%o 7aravilla.
On ?e'ruar, (4, 1*4), respondent filed wit" t"e %ourt "is noti%e of appeal, appeal 'ond and re%ord on
appeal, fro& t"e de%ision den,in# pro'ate of t"e will. So&e devisees under t"e will, li:ewise, appealed
fro& said de%ision.
On ?e'ruar, (!, 1*4), Pedro, /sun%ion, and Re#ina 7aravilla, filed wit" t"e %ourt a petition for t"e
re&oval of respondent as spe%ial ad&inistrator, as "e failed to file an inventor, wit"in . &ont"s fro&
"is appoint&ent and Cualifi%ation as spe%ial ad&inistrator, as provided for in Se%tion 1, Rule -, of t"e
Rules of Court. To t"is petition, respondent filed an opposition, on t"e #round t"at said provision of t"e
Rules of Court does not appl, to a spe%ial ad&inistrator, and an inventor, "ad alread, 'een su'&itted
', "i&, 'efore said petition for "is re&oval was filed./@!&hA/*?Bt
On ?e'ruar, (8, 1*4), t"e devisees Con%"ita and Rose 7arie Jo"l"aas filed wit" t"e %ourt a petition
for appoint&ent of Con%"ita as spe%ial %o2ad&inistratri@. $evisee /delina Sa6o, li:ewise, filed a
si&ilar petition ?e'ruar, (*.
On 7ar%" !, 1*4), t"e %ourt "eld a 6oint "earin# t"e 011 petition to appoint ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial
ad&inistrator, 0(1 approval of respondent9s re%ord appeal and appeal 'ond, 0.1 petition to re&ove
respondent as spe%ial ad&inistrator, 01 petition to appoint Con%"ita Jo"l"aas as spe%ial %o2
ad&inistratri@, and 0!1 petition to appoint /delina Sa6o as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator. /t said "earin#,
respondent o'6e%ted to t"e appoint&ent of ElieGar LopeG was spe%ial %o2ad&inistratri@, on #rounds t"at
0a1 t"e law allows onl, one spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator 0'1 t"e order of 7ar%" 14, 1*!* estops t"e %ourt
fro& appointin# ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator 0%1 su%" appoint&ent is unfair to respondent,
'e%ause owns at least .= of t"e w"ole propert,, %on6u#al nature, w"i%" would 'e su'6e%ted to t"e
ad&inistrate of a stran#er, and 0d1 a deadlo%: 'etween two spe%ial ad&inistrators would ruin t"e
&ana#e&ent of t"e propert,, in%ludin# t"ose of respondent. On %ross2e@a&ination of ElieGar LopeG,
respondent9s %ounsel eli%ited t"e fa%ts t"at 011 LopeG was e&plo,ed full ti&e in t"e PC/PE, wit" offi%e
in 7anila. and %ould not dis%"ar#e t"e fun%tions of a %o2ad&inistrator, and 0(1 t"ere was &erel,
intention on LopeG part to resi#n fro& offi%e.
/fter said 6oint "earin#, t"e %ourt appointed ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator in an order
di%tated open %ourt, to prote%t t"e interests of Pedro, /sun%ion and Re#ina 7aravilla.
?ro& t"is order, respondent, on 7ar%" 8, 1*4), filed wit" t"e Court of /ppeals a petition for certiorari
and pro"i'ition 0wit" pra,er for preli&inar, in6un%tion1 to annul t"e order appointin# ElieGar LopeG as
spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator, and to pro"i'it t"e pro'ate %ourt fro& furt"er pro%eedin# wit" t"e petition for
t"e re&oval of respondent as spe%ial ad&inistrator. T"e Court of /ppeals issued a writ of preli&inar,
in6un%tion on 7ar%" *, 1*4) w"i%" was a&ended on 7ar%" 11, 1*4) to &a:e it &ore spe%ifi%.
On O%to'er 4, 1*4), petitioners Re#ina 7aravilla, et al. filed wit" t"e Court of /ppeals a petition to
%ertif, t"e %ase to t"e Supre&e Court, on t"e #rounds t"at t"e prin%ipal a&ount in %ontrovers, in t"is
%ase e@%eeds P()),))).)), and t"e writs 0of certiorari and pro"i'ition1 pra,ed for are not in aid of
appellate 6urisdi%tion of t"e Court of /ppeals, sin%e t"e pro'ate %ase is not on appeal 'efore it. To t"is
petition, respondent filed an opposition. on t"e #rounds t"at t"e a&ount in %ontrovers, is less t"an
P()),))).)) and t"e de%ision of t"e pro'ate %ourt 0of ?e'ruar, -, 1*4)1 is now on appeal 'efore t"e
Court of /ppeals 0C/23.R. No. (88-2R1D "en%e, t"e writ pra,ed for is in aid of its appellate
6urisdi%tion, and t"e present %ase does not involve title to or possession of real estate e@%eedin# in value
P()),))).)).
1
On 7a, 14, 1*41, t"e Court of /ppeals rendered a de%ision #rantin# t"e writs 0certiorari and
pro"i'ition1 pra,ed for ', respondent, and de%larin# null and void t"e appoint&ent of ElieGar LopeG as
spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator.
Petitioners Re#ina 7aravilla, et al. filed a &otion for re%onsideration of said de%ision, 'ut it was denied
', t"e Court of /ppeals. Aen%e, t"is appeal.
Petitioners %lai& t"at t"e Court of /ppeals "ad no 6urisdi%tion to issue t"e writs of certiorari and
pro"i'ition pra,ed for ', respondent, t"e sa&e not 'ein# in aid of its appellate 6urisdi%tion.
>e a#ree wit" petitioners. T"e Court of /ppeals, in t"e de%ision appealed fro&, assu&ed 6urisdi%tion
over t"e present %ase on t"e t"eor, t"at <t"e a&ount in %ontrovers, relative to t"e appoint&ent of
ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator to prote%t t"e interests of respondents 0"erein petitioners1 is
onl, P*),))).)) &ore or less, i.e., one fourt" of t"e %on6u#al propert,< 0of respondent and t"e de%eased
$i#na 7aravilla1 w"i%", is per inventor, su'&itted ', respondent as spe%ial ad&inistrator is valued at
P.4(,(.*). T"is t"eor, is untena'le. Note t"at t"e pro%eedin#s "ad on t"e appoint&ent of ElieGar
LopeG as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator are &erel, in%idental to t"e pro'ate or testate pro%eedin#s of t"e
de%eased $i#na 7aravilla presentl, on appeal 'efore t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/23.R. No. (88-2R1
w"ere petitioners9 &otion to elevate t"e sa&e to t"e Supre&e Court, on t"e #round t"at t"e a&ount
"erein involved is wit"in t"e latter9s e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion, is still pendin#, resolution. T"at t"e Court of
/ppeals "as no appellate 6urisdi%tion over said testate pro%eedin#s %annot 'e dou'ted, %onsiderin# t"at
t"e properties t"erein involved are valued at P.4(,(,*), as per inventor, of t"e spe%ial ad&inistrator.
Under Se%tion (, Rule 8!, of t"e Rules of Court, t"e propert, to 'e ad&inistered and liCuidated in
testate or intestate pro%eedin#s of t"e de%eased spouse is, not onl, t"at part of t"e %on6u#al estate
pertainin# to t"e de%eased spouse, 'ut t"e entire %on6u#al estate. T"is Court "as alread, "eld t"at even
if t"e de%eased "ad left no de'ts, upon t"e dissolution of t"e &arria#e ', t"e deat" of t"e "us'and or
wife, t"e %o&&unit, propert, s"all 'e inventoried, ad&inistered, and liCuidated in t"e testate or
intestate pro%eedin#s of t"e de%eased spouse 0;da. de Ro@as v. Pe%son, et al., L2((11, $e%e&'er (),
1*-D -( P"il. )8D see also ;da. de C"anten#%o v. C"anten#%o, et al., L21)44., O%to'er .1, 1*!-1. In
a nu&'er of %ases w"ere appeal was ta:en fro& an order of a pro'ate %ourt disallowin# a will, t"is
Court, in effe%t, re%o#niGed t"at t"e a&ount or value involved or in %ontrovers, t"erein is t"at of t"e
entire estate 0Sunta, v. Sunta,, L2.)-8, +ul, .1, 1*!, !) O.3. !.(1D ;ano v. ;da. de 3ar%es, et al., L2
4.)., +une .), 1*!, !) O.3. .)!1. Not "avin# appellate 6urisdi%tion over t"e pro%eedin#s in pro'ate
0C/23.R. No. (88-2R1, %onsiderin# t"at t"e a&ount involved t"erein is &ore t"an P()),))).)), t"e
Court of /ppeals %annot also "ave ori#inal 6urisdi%tion to #rant t"e writs of certiorari and pro"i'ition
pra,ed for ', respondent in t"e instant %ase, w"i%" are &erel, in%idental t"ereto.
In t"e United States, t"e rule is t"at <pro%eedin#s in pro'ate are appeala'le w"ere t"e a&ount or value
involved is redu%i'le to a pe%uniar, standard, t"e a&ount involved 'ein# eit"er t"e appellant9s interest
or t"e value of t"e entire estate a%%ordin# as t"e issues on appeal involve onl, t"e appellant9s ri#"ts or
t"e entire ad&inistration of t"e estate. ... In a %ontest for ad&inistration of an estate t"e a&ount or value
of t"e assets of t"e estate is t"e a&ount in %ontrovers, for purposes of appeal.< 0 C.+.S. ()1. In line
wit" t"is rulin#, it is to 'e o'served t"at respondent9s interest as appellant in t"e pro'ate pro%eedin#s
0C/23.R. No. (88-2R1 is, a%%ordin# to "is t"eor,, t"e w"ole estate a&ountin# to P.4(,(.*), or, at
least &ore t"an .= t"ereof, or appro@i&atel, P(8),))).)). Su%" interest, redu%ed to a pe%uniar,
standard on t"e 'asis of t"e inventor,, is t"e a&ount or value of t"e &atter in %ontrovers,, and su%"
a&ount 'ein# &ore t"an P()),))).)), it follows t"at t"e appeal ta:en in said pro%eedin#s falls wit"in
t"e e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion of t"e Supre&e Court and s"ould, t"erefore, 'e %ertified to it pursuant to
Se%tion 18 of t"e +udi%iar, /%t of 1*-, as a&ended.
Note also t"at t"e present pro%eedin#s under review were for t"e annul&ent of t"e appoint&ent of
ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator and to restrain t"e pro'ate %ourt fro& re&ovin# respondent as
spe%ial ad&inistrator. It is t"erefore, a %ontest for t"e ad&inistration of t"e estate and, %onseCuentl,, t"e
a&ount or value of t"e assets of t"e w"ole estate is t"e value in %ontrovers, 0 C.+.S. ()1. It appearin#
t"at t"e value of t"e estate in dispute is &u%" &ore t"an P()),))).)), t"e Court of /ppeals %learl, "ad
no ori#inal 6urisdi%tion to issue t"e writs in Cuestion.
T"e Court of /ppeals, in t"e de%ision appealed fro&, arrived at t"e a&ount of <P*),))).)) &ore or
less<, as t"e a&ount involved in t"e %ase, upon aut"orit, of t"e %ase of :istan v* Archbisho& 08. P"il.
()1. But t"is %ase is inappli%a'le, as it does not refer to t"e Cuestion of ad&inistration of t"e estate, nor
to an order den,in# pro'ate of a will, 'ut onl, to t"e re%over, of a parti%ular le#a%, %onsistin# of t"e
rentals of a fis"pond 'elon#in# to t"e estate. In an analo#ous %ase involvin# t"e ad&inistration of a
trust fund, t"e United States Supre&e Court "eld5
>"ere t"e trust fund ad&inistered and ordered to 'e distri'uted ', t"e %ir%uit %ourt, in a suit to
%o&pel t"e sto%:"olders of a %orporation to pa, t"eir su's%riptions to sto%: to realiGe t"e fund,
a&ounts to &ore t"an Q!,))).)), t"is %ourt "as 6urisdi%tion of t"e appeal, w"i%" is not affe%ted
', t"e fa%t t"at t"e a&ounts de%reed to so&e of t"e %reditors are less t"an t"at su& 0Aandl, et
al. vs. StutG, et al., . Law Ed. 8)41.
Respondent also %ontends t"at appeals in spe%ial pro%eedin#s, as distin#uis"ed fro& ordinar, %ivil
%ases, are wit"in t"e e@%lusive appellate 6urisdi%tion of t"e Court of /ppeals, sin%e t"e, are not
enu&erated in Se%tion 18 of t"e +udi%iar, /%t, as a&ended. 3rantin#, arguendo, t"at a spe%ial
pro%eedin# is not a %ivil a%tion, it "as never 'een de%ided t"at a spe%ial pro%eedin# is not a <%ivil %ase<
0Carpenter v. +ones, 1(1 Cal. .4(D !- p. -(1. On t"e ot"er "and, it "as 'een "eld t"at t"e ter& <%ivil
%ase< in%ludes spe%ial pro%eedin#s 0Aer:i&er v. Jeeler, 1)) Iowa 4-), N.>. 18-1. 7oreover, Se%tion
(, Rule 8., of t"e Rules of Court provides t"at t"e rules on ordinar, %ivil a%tions are appli%a'le in
spe%ial pro%eedin#s w"ere t"e, are not in%onsistent wit", or w"en t"e, &a, serve to supple&ent t"e
provisions relatin# to spe%ial pro%eedin#s. ConseCuentl,, t"e pro%edure of appeal is t"e sa&e in %ivil
a%tions as in spe%ial pro%eedin#s. 0See 7oran9s Co&&ents on t"e Rules of Court, ;ol. II, 1*!8 Ed., p.
.(4.1
T"e %ases %ited ', respondent w"ere t"is Court ruled t"at t"e separate total %lai& of t"e parties and not
t"e %o&'ined %lai&s a#ainst ea%" ot"er deter&ine t"e appellate 6urisdi%tional a&ount, are not
appli%a'le to, t"e instant %ase, 'e%ause Se%tion (, Rule 8! of t"e Rules of Court is e@pli%it t"at t"e
a&ount or value involved or in %ontrovers, in pro'ate pro%eedin#s is t"at of t"e entire estate.
/ssu&in#, ar#uendo, t"at t"e rule in t"e %ases %ited ', respondent is "ere appli%a'le, it s"ould 'e noted
t"at respondent %lai&s t"e w"ole estate of at least &ore t"an .= t"ereof. Said %lai&, redu%ed to a
pe%uniar, standard, on t"e 'asis of t"e inventor,, would a&ount to &ore t"an P()),))).)) and,
%onseCuentl,, wit"in t"e e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion of t"e Supre&e Court.
T"e %ase of Cedesma v* Natividad 0L2411!, 7a, 1), 1*!1 %ited ', respondent in "is 'rief, is also
inappli%a'le, 'e%ause unli:e t"e instant %ase, it did not involve a %ontest in t"e ad&inistration of t"e
estate.
>"ile it is true t"at Cuestions of fa%t "ave 'een raised in t"e pro'ate pro%eedin#s 0Spe%. Pro%. No.
*88, C?I of Ne#ros O%%idental1 w"i%" was appealed ', respondent to t"e Court of /ppeals, it
'e%o&es i&&aterial, in view of Se%tions 18 and .1 of t"e +udi%iar, /%t of 1*-, as a&ended, providin#
t"at t"e Supre&e Court s"all "ave e@%lusive appellate 6urisdi%tion over <all %ases in w"i%" t"e value in
%ontrovers, e@%eeds two "undred t"ousand pesos, e@%lusive of interests and %osts<, and t"at <all %ases
w"i%" &a, 'e erroneousl, 'rou#"t to t"e Supre&e Court, or to t"e Court of /ppeals s"all 'e sent to t"e
proper %ourt, w"i%" s"all "ear t"e sa&e as if it "ad ori#inall, 'een 'rou#"t 'efore it<.
On t"e Cuestion of t"e appoint&ent of petitioner ElieGar LopeG as spe%ial ad&inistrator, we a#ree wit"
respondent t"at t"ere was no need for it. Note t"at t"e Rules of Court %ontain no provision on spe%ial
%o2ad&inistrator, t"e reason 'ein#, t"at t"e appoint&ent of su%" spe%ial ad&inistrator is &erel,
te&porar, and su'sists onl, until a re#ular e@e%utor or ad&inistrator is dul, appointed. T"us, it would
not onl, 'e unne%essar, 'ut also i&pra%ti%al, if for t"e te&porar, duration of t"e need for a spe%ial
ad&inistrator, anot"er one is appointed aside fro& t"e "us'and, in t"is %ase, upon w"o& t"e dut, to
liCuidate t"e %o&&unit, propert, devolves &erel, to prote%t t"e interests of petitioners w"o, in t"e
event t"at t"e disputed will is allowed to pro'ate, would even "ave no ri#"t to parti%ipate in t"e
pro%eedin#s at all. 0Ro@as v. Pe%son, -( P"il. )8.1
In view of t"e %on%lusion "erein rea%"ed, in %onne%tion wit" t"e a&ount involved in t"e %ontrovers,, it
is su##ested t"at appropriate steps 'e ta:en on t"e appeal pendin# in t"e Court of /ppeals involvin# t"e
pro'ate of t"e will 0C/23.R. No. (88-2R1 to %o&pl, wit" t"e provisions of t"e +udi%iar, /%t on t"e
&atter.
>AERE?ORE, t"e de%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals of 7a, 14, 1*41 is set aside and anot"er one
entered also settin# aside t"e order of t"e trial %ourt of 7ar%" !, 1*4), appointin# ElieGar LopeG as
spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator. >it"out %osts. So ordered.
G.R. No. 20>?1 J&",&r) D1, 1909
JOSE S. MATUTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT O3 APPEA1S FT#!r* D!v!$!o"G &"* MATIAS S. MATUTE, respondents.
222222222222222222222222222
G.R. No. 1B2008? J&",&r) D1, 1909
JOSE S. MATUTE, !" #!$ 'er$o"&. %&'&%!() &"* &$ J,*!%!&. CoBA*m!"!$(r&(or o- (#e E$(&(e o-
AMADEO MATUTE O1ACE, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE CICENTE P. /U11ECER, J,*+e o- (#e Co,r( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e o- D&v&o, /r&"%#
IC, &"* MARIANO NASSER, respondents.
222222222222222222222222222
G.R. No. 1B20100 J&",&r) D1, 1909
JOSE S. MATUTE AND 1UIS S. MATUTE, &$ I"(erve"or$ !" (#e!r 'er$o"&. %&'&%!(!e$ !" C!v!.
C&$e No. ;2?2 o- (#e Co,r( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e o- D&v&o, petitioners,
vs.
HON. CICENTE P. /U11ECER, J,*+e o- (#e Co,r( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e o- D&v&o, /r&"%# ICH
ATT2. PATERNO R. CAN1AS, DANIE1 RICERA, SR., PA/1O C. DE1 ROSARIO &"*
NICANOR D. CERGARA, &$ De-e"*&"($ !" C!v!. C&$e No. ;2?2, o- (#e Co,r( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e o-
D&v&o, respondents.
Antonio Enrile %nton for &etitioners*
"aterno '* anlas for and in his o!n behalf as res&ondent*
CASTRO, J.:
T"e present t"ree petitions for certiorari wit" preli&inar, in6un%tion 0L2(4!81, L2(4)-! and L2
(41)41 were separatel, interposed wit"in t"e s"ort span of five &ont"s ', +ose S. 7atute, one of t"e
fifteen "eirs to t"e /&adeo 7atute Olave estate. Be%ause t"ese petitions are intertwined in several
&aterial aspe%ts and arose fro& a %o&&on environ&ental settin# P t"e intra2fraternal strife a&on# t"e
7atute "eirs w"i%" "as undul, dela,ed for &ore t"an a de%ade t"e settle&ent of t"e 7atute estate P
t"is Court "as de%ided to e&'od, in a sin#le de%ision t"e independentl, dis%ussed resolutions of t"e
issues raised in t"e said petitions.
C-3D64/
/lt"ou#" t"e petition in L2(48!1 was filed t"e latest 0O%to'er (8, 1*441, we s"all dispose of it first
'e%ause our pronoun%e&ents and o'servations in t"is %ase "ave dire%t and %on%rete relevan%e to t"e
ot"er two.
T"e ante%edent events tra%e t"eir ori#in to /u#ust (), 1*4! w"en Carlos S. 7atute, one of t"e 7atute
"eirs and a full2'lood 'rot"er of 'ot" t"e petitioner and t"e "erein respondent 7atias S. 7atute, filed in
spe%ial pro%eedin# (!-84 0settle&ent of t"e 7atute estate1 a petition pra,in# for t"e re&oval of 7atias
as %o2ad&inistrator and "is 0Carlos91 appoint&ent in su%" %apa%it,. Carlos alle#ed t"at <for a period of
&ore t"an two ,ears fro& t"e date of "is appoint&ent 0on 7a, (*, 1*4.1, said 7atias S. 7atute "as
ne#le%ted to render a true, 6ust and %o&plete a%%ount of "is ad&inistration,< and t"at "e <is not onl,
in%o&petent 'ut also ne#li#ent in "is &ana#e&ent of t"e estate under "is %"ar#e %onsistin# of five
"a%iendas on a%%ount of a %ri&inal %"ar#e for &urder filed a#ainst "i& w"i%" is o%%up,in# &ost of "is
ti&e.</a!&hil*?Et
T"e respondent 7atias %lai&s t"at "e fort"wit" interposed an opposition to t"e aforesaid petition, and
t"e re%ord dis%loses t"at "e later filed an a&ended opposition dated /u#ust (!, 1*4! w"erein "e
%ontended.
1. T"at t"e alle#ation ... t"at t"e "erein %o2ad&inistrator for t"e two ,ears of "is ad&inistration,
1*4. and 1*4, did not render an, a%%ountin# is %o&pletel, wit"out 'asis and false, 'e%ause t"e
re%ords s"ow t"at under date of 7a, (),1*4, "e su'&itted to t"is Aonora'le Court wit" %opies
furnis"ed to all t"e parties %on%erned, in%ludin# Carlos S. 7atute, "is a%%ountin# for 1*4., t"at
on ?e'. -, 1*4!, "e filed "is a%%ountin# for 1*4, w"i%" a%%ounts for 1*4. and 1*4 "ave 'een
approved ', &a6orit, of t"e "eirs %o&posin# of 4.B interests in t"e estate as s"own ', t"e
atta%"ed &anifestation....
(. T"at "is %o&peten%e to a%t as ad&inistrator "as 'een esta'lis"ed to t"e satisfa%tion of t"is
Aonora'le Court as eviden%ed ', "is appoint&ent ', a fixed, final and executory order dated
7a, (*, 1*4.D and Carlos S. 7atute is now estopped fro& den,in# "is E7atias S. 7atute9sF
%o&peten%e and Cualifi%ation ', reason of "is failure to o'6e%t to t"e appoint&ent of "erein
+udi%ial /d&inistrator at t"e ti&e t"e appli%ation was &ade t"ereforD
.. .... T"e re%ords of t"e pertinent %ase in t"e Court of ?irst Instan%e of$avao will easil,
dis%over t"at t"e <%ri&inal %"ar#e< supported ', per6uredtesti&on, is not"in# 'ut a tru&ped2up
affair initiated ', persons intent oninti&idatin# t"e "erein +udi%ial /d&inistrator into 'etra,in#
"is sworn dut,to prote%t and safe#uard t"e interest of t"e Estate. T"e re%ords of t"e said%ase
will also reveal t"at it has not occu&ied any time at all of the herein Judicial Administrator, for
aside fro& a sin#le "earin# last $e%e&'er 1*4 on"is appli%ation for 'ail ... no "earin# "as 'een
"eld on t"e said %ase up tot"e present.
Su'seCuentl,, 7atias filed a &e&orandu& dated Septe&'er 1(, 1*4! in support of "is fore#oin#
opposition.
On Septe&'er (1, 1*4! t"e "eirs of /#ustina 7atute Candelario, Elena 7atuteCandelario and
/&adeo 7atute Candelario and t"eir &ot"er and le#atee /nun%ia%ionCandelario, &oved for t"e
i&&ediate appoint&ent of /#ustina 7atute Candelario,Carlos S. 7atute and +ose S. 7atute, "erein
petitioner, as 6oint %o2ad&inistratorsor an,one of t"e& in pla%e of 7atias S. 7atute, w"ose re&oval
t"e, also sou#"tto#et"er wit" t"e ouster of t"e #eneral ad&inistrator Carlos ;. 7atute, on t"efollowin#
additional #rounds5
1. $espite t"e vast resour%es and in%o&e of t"e estate, t"e present ad&inistrators "ave failed to
pa, even t"e annual real propert, ta@ for t"e ,ears 1*4 and 1*4!D
(. T"e finan%ial state&ents of 'ot" ad&inistrators were not properl, si#ned andaut"enti%ated ',
a %ertified pu'li% a%%ountant, and do not %ontain t"e e@a%tentries as filed ', for&er
ad&inistrators %ontainin# t"e dail, and &ont"l, entriesof re%eipts and dis'urse&entsD
.. Bot" ad&inistrators "ave deli'eratel, failed to file t"eir inventories andstate&ents of
a%%ounts of ti&e, and did so onl, w"en ordered ', t"e pro'ate%ourtD
. Bot" ad&inistrators "ave &ade unaut"oriGed dis'urse&ents as s"own ', t"eirfinan%ial
state&entsD and
!. T"e pro'ate %ourt "as dis%retion to re&ove t"e ad&inistrator.
It appears t"at durin# t"e re%eption of eviden%e %ondu%ted on $e%e&'er (*, 1*4!', t"e pro'ate %ourt
0Bran%" I; of t"e Court of ?irst Instan%e of 7anila wit"Aonora'le E&i#dio Nietes as t"e t"en
presidin# 6ud#e1, Carlos S. 7atute and t"eCandelario27atute "eirs su'&itted respe%tive lists of e@"i'its
in support oft"eir &otion to oust 7atias. On +anuar, -, 1*44 7atias filed a written o'6e%tionto t"e
ad&ission of t"e &ovants9 e@"i'its on t"e #round t"at t"e sa&e were "earsa,,self2servin#, irrelevant
and=or &ere p"otostati% %opies of supposed ori#inalsw"i%" were never properl, identified nor s"own in
%ourt. ?our da,s later, or on+anuar, 1(, 1*44, t"e %ounsel for 7atias filed wit" leave of %ourt a <7otion
to$is&iss and=or $e&urrer to Eviden%e< w"i%" avers t"at <t"ere is no suffi%ienteviden%e on re%ord to
6ustif, and support t"e &otions for t"e re&oval of t"e"erein %o2ad&inistrator 7atias S. 7atute.< In t"e
sa&e &otion, said %ounselreserved t"e ri#"t to introdu%e eviden%e in 'e"alf of "is %lient s"ould
t"efore#oin# &otion 'e denied.
On +anuar, .1, 1*44 t"e pro'ate %ourt issued an order, t"e dispositive portionof w"i%" reads5
?OR /LL TAE ?ORE3OIN3, t"e Court "ere', re&oves %o2ad&inistrator, 7atias S.7atute,
as su%" %o2ad&inistrator of t"e estate and orders "i& to su'&it a finala%%ountin# of "is
ad&inistration to#et"er wit" "is past ad&inistration a%%ountsw"i%" "ave not 'een approved,
and, in "is stead appoints +ose S. 7atute, a 'rot"er ', t"e sa&e &ot"er of 7atias S. 7atute, as
%o2ad&inistrator, w"o is"ere', reCuired to put up a 'ond of P1!,))).)), and t"ereafter
i&&ediatel,Cualif, in "is %o&&ission and assu&e t"e responsi'ilit, of %o2ad&inistrator....
?ort"wit", 7atias interposed wit" t"e Court of /ppeals a petition for certiorari wit" preli&inar,
&andator, in6un%tion 0C/23.R. .8).*2R1 dated ?e'ruar, 1, 1*44, pra,in# t"at t"e aforesaid order of
+anuar, .1, 1*44 'e set aside as a nullit,for "avin# de%reed "is re&oval wit"out due pro%ess and t"e
appoint&ent of +oseS. 7atute wit"out t"e reCuisite "earin#.
On 7ar%" , 1*44 t"e Court of /ppeals #ave due %ourse to t"e aforesaid petitionand resolved to #rant
a writ of preli&inar, in6un%tion a#ainst +ose S. 7atuteand t"e Aonora'le +ud#e E&i#dio Nietes,
respondents in C/23.R. .8).*2R, %onditioned on t"e filin# of a P1,))) 'ond ', t"e t"erein petitioner
7atias, t"e respondent"erein. On 7ar%" ((, 1*44 +ose S. 7atute &oved for t"e dis&issal of t"e
a'ove&entionedpetition on t"e #round t"at t"e Court of /ppeals does not "ave 6urisdi%tion tota:e
%o#niGan%e of t"e sa&e sin%e t"e value of t"e estate involved is &ore t"anP()),))). Ae furt"er
%ontended t"at t"e value of t"e /&adeo 7atute Olave estatefor purposes of 6urisdi%tion "ad alread,
'een resolved in C/23.R. .!1(2R w"eret"e Court of /ppeals refused to ta:e 6urisdi%tion over a
petition for certiorari %ontestin# t"e appoint&ent of 7atias 7atute as %o2ad&inistrator, on t"e
#roundt"at t"e value of t"e 7atute estate was pla%ed at P(,1.(,(-(.8( as eviden%ed ', a <Co&pro&ise
/#ree&ent< dated /pril 1(, 1*!4 w"i%" was dul, si#ned ', all of t"e "eirs.
$espite repeated ur#ent &otions filed ', +ose S. 7atute pra,in# t"at t"e Courtof /ppeals resolve wit"
dispat%" t"e issue of 6urisdi%tion, t"e said appelatetri'unal instead reCuired t"en respondent +ose S.
7atute to answer, w"i%" "e did.Aowever, on O%to'er (8, 1*44 "erein petitioner +ose S. 7atute
interposed t"einstant petition for certiorari wit" preli&inar, in6un%tion a#ainst t"e Court of /ppeals
and 7atias 7atute, %"allen#in# t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e respondentCourt of /ppeals upon two 'asi%
%ontentions5
T"e Court of /ppeals "as no 6urisdi%tion to entertain, #ive due %ourse, and&u%" &ore to issue
a writ of preli&inar, in6un%tion, a#ainst t"e petitioner, +ose S. 7atute, and respondent +ud#e
E&i#dio Nietes in C/23.R. No. .8).*2R ... 'e%ause t"e estate of /&adeo 7atute Olave is
wort" &ore t"an P()),))).))D and
T"e sa&e Court of /ppeals in C/23.R. No. .!1(2R, on +anuar, (8, 1*4!, spe%ialfourt"
division, "as ruled t"at t"e Court of /ppeals "as no 6urisdi%tion on t"eestate of /&adeo 7atute
Olave in t"e &atter of t"e appoint&ent and re&oval ofits ad&inistrators.
T"e respondent 7atias 7atute does not %ontrovert t"e petitioner9s %lai& t"at t"evalue of t"e estate of
t"eir de%eased fat"er e@%eeds P()),))). Ae &aintains,"owever, t"at t"e respondent Court of /ppeals
"as 6urisdi%tion over C/23.R..8).*2R <'e%ause t"e su'6e%t &atter involved is &erel, ... t"e ri#"t to
%olle%tt"e 0&ont"l,1 rentals due t"e Estate in t"e su& of P!,))).))< pursuant to a%ontra%t of lease
w"i%" "e e@e%uted in favor of one 7ariano Nasser %overin#five haciendas of t"e estate under "is
separate ad&inistration.
T"e fore#oin# assertion does not &erit %reden%e. / sear%"in# review of t"e re%ord P fro& t"e initial
petition filed ', Carlos 7atute to oust t"e respondentas %o2ad&inistrator up to t"e latter9s petition for
certiorari filed wit" t"eCourt of /ppeals i&pu#nin# t"e validit, of t"e a'ove&entioned order of
+anuar,.1, 1*44 w"i%" re&oved "i& as %o2ad&inistrator and appointed t"e petitioner in"is pla%e P
reveals no sin#le pleadin#, state&ent, %ontention, referen%e or eveninferen%e w"i%" would 6ustif, t"e
respondent9s pretension t"at t"e instant%ontrovers, is a &ere %ontest over t"e ri#"t to %olle%t a P!,)))
rental. In 'old %ontrast, t"e re%ord vividl, %"roni%les t"e %ontrovers, as a 'itter fi#"t for %o2
ad&inistration5 t"e re&oval of t"e respondent as %o2ad&inistrator and t"e appoint&ent of an,one of t"e
&ovants and t"e "erein petitioner as new %o2ad&inistrator. Indeed, t"e prin%ipal %onfli%t #ravitates over
t"e ri#"t to %o2ad&inister t"e vast /&adeo 7atute Olave estate. T"is is t"e sa&e issue underl,in# t"e
respondent9sa'ove&entioned petition in C/23.R. .8).*2R. T"e respondent9s pra,er in said petition
un&ista:a'l, indi%ates t"at t"e dispute pertains to t"e ri#"t to co-administer in #eneral, not t"e &ere
aut"orit, to %olle%t a P!,))) &ont"l, rental.T"e said pra,er reads5
1. T"at an ex &arte writ of preli&inar, &andator, in6un%tion 'e issued en6oinin#and=or
pro"i'itin# t"e respondent +ud#e fro& approvin# t"e ad&inistrator9s 'ondt"at will 'e filed ',
respondent +ose S. 7atute and in issuin# t"e letters ofad&inistration of t"e latter, and fro&
issuin# Orders in%idental and=or %onne%tedwit" t"e e@er%ise and perfor&an%e of a%ts of
ad&inistration of said respondent +ose S. 7atuteD li:ewise en6oinin# and pro"i'itin# respondent
+ose S. 7atute"i&self, and=or t"rou#" "is %ounsels, a#ents and representatives fro&
ta:in#p",si%al possession of t"e different "a%iendas under t"e e@%lusive ad&inistrationand
&ana#e&ent of "erein petitioner and fro& perfor&in# and e@er%isin# a%ts ofa dul, and le#all,
appointed ad&inistrator, upon filin# a 'ond in su%" a&ountt"at t"is Aonora'le Tri'unal &a,
fi@D
(. T"at t"e Order of t"e respondent +ud#e dated +anuar, .1, 1*44, re&ovin# "erein petitioner
as %o2ad&inistrator of t"e Estate of /&adeo 7atute Olave andappointin# respondent +ose S.
7atute as %o2ad&inistrator wit"out presentationof eviden%e, 'e de%lared null and void and of no
for%e and effe%t....
In fine, t"e pit" of t"e %ontrovers, is t"e ri#"t to co-administer t"e entire estate. In t"is re#ard, t"e
rulin# in Fernande,, et al* vs* +aravilla
1
is deter&inative of t"e 6urisdi%tional issue posed "ere. In said
%ase, t"is Courtruled t"at in a %ontest for t"e ad&inistration of an estate, t"e a&ount in%ontrovers, is
dee&ed to 'e t"e value of t"e w"ole estate, w"i%" total values"ould 'e t"e proper 'asis of t"e
6urisdi%tional a&ount. ConseCuentl, t"e Courtpro%eeded to %on%lude t"at t"e Court of /ppeals does not
"ave 6urisdi%tion toissue writs of certiorari and preli&inar, in6un%tion pra,ed for in a petition
%on%ernin# a %onfli%t over ad&inistration arisin# as an in%ident in t"e &ainpro'ate or settle&ent
pro%eedin# if in the first &lace the &rinci&al case or &roceeding falls outside its a&&elate )urisdiction
considering the total value of the sub)ect estate. T"is Court in t"e aforesaid 7aravilla %ase ela'orated
t"us5
T"e Court of /ppeals, in t"e de%ision appealed fro&, assu&ed 6urisdi%tion overt"e present %ase
on t"e t"eor, t"at <t"e a&ount in %ontrovers, relative to t"eappoint&ent of ElieGar LopeG as
spe%ial %o2ad&inistrator to prote%t t"e interestsof t"e respondents 0"erein petitioners1 is onl,
P*),))).)) &ore or less, i.e.,one fourt" of t"e %on6u#al propert,< 0of respondent and t"e
de%eased $i#na7aravilla1 w"i%", as per inventor, su'&itted ', t"e respondent as spe%ial
ad&inistrator, is valued at P.4(,(.*). T"is t"eor, is untena'le. Note that the&roceedings had
on the a&&ointment of Elie,ar Co&e, as s&ecial co-administrator are merely incidental to the
&robate or testate &roceedings of the deceased Digna +aravilla.

That the ourt of A&&eals have no a&&elate )urisdiction over the said testate&roceedings
cannot be doubted, considering the &ro&erties therein involved arevalued at "7D3,G3G*22, as
&er inventory of the s&ecial administrator*
*** Not having a&&elate )urisdiction over the &roceedings in &robate HA-.*'*No* 36G6I-'J,
considering that the amount involved therein is more than "322,222*22,the ourt of A&&eals
cannot also have original )urisdiction to grant the !ritsof certiorari and &rohibition &rayed for
by res&ondent in the instant case, !hichare merely incidental thereto****
Note also t"at the &resent &roceedings under revie! !ere for the annulment ofthe a&&ointment
of Elie,ar Co&e, as s&ecial co-administrator and to restrain the&robate court from removing
res&ondent as s&ecial administrator* %t is therefore,a contest for the administration of the estate
and, conse1uently, the amount orvalue of the assets of the !hole estate is the value in
controversy. 0 C.+.S. ().1 It appearin# t"at t"e value of t"e estate in dispute is &u%" &ore t"an
P()),))).)), t"e Court of /ppeals %learl, "ad no ori#inal 6urisdi%tion to issuet"e writs in
Cuestion. 0e&p"asis supplied1
Li:e in t"e afore%ited +aravilla %ase, t"e instant intra2fraternal %ontrovers, involves a %ontest over
ad&inistration, an in%ident in t"e settle&ent of t"e vast 7atute estate. Considerin# t"at t"e value of t"e
said estate is &ore t"anP()),))), and %onsiderin# furt"er t"at as enun%iated in t"e 7aravilla %ase
t"etotal value of t"e su'6e%t estate deter&ines t"e 6urisdi%tional a&ount anentdisputes over
ad&inistration arisin# as in%idents in a pro'ate or settle&entpro%eedin#, li:e t"e %ase at 'ar, t"en it is
indu'ita'le t"at t"e respondent Court of /ppeals does not "ave 6urisdi%tion over C/23.R. .8).*2R nor
t"e 6udi%ial aut"orit, to #rant t"e writs of certiorari and pro"i'ition pra,ed fort"erein.
Aerein respondent insists, "owever, t"at even #rantin# t"at t"e a%tual %ontrovers, pertains to
ad&inistration, su%" %ontested ad&inistration does not en%o&passt"e w"ole estate 'ut is li&ited to t"e
%olle%tion of a P!,))) &ont"l, rental,w"i%" su& s"ould 'e t"e 'asis of t"e 6urisdi%tional a&ount, not
t"e value oft"e w"ole estate. In support of "is t"esis, t"e respondent alle#es t"at durin#"is in%u&'en%,
as %o2ad&inistrator, five haciendas in $avao 'elon#in# to t"eestate of "is de%eased fat"er were
%onsi#ned to "is separate ad&inistrationD t"at in "is %apa%it, as %o2ad&inistrator "e leased on ?e'ruar,
1), 1*4! said haciendas to one 7ariano Nasser for P!,))) a &ont"D t"at ', virtue of said lease%ontra%t,
t"e possession, &ana#e&ent and ad&inistration of t"e said properties were transferred to t"e lessee
until t"e e@piration of t"e %ontra%tD t"at %onseCuentl,, onl, t"e %olle%tion of t"e &ont"l, rental of
P!,))) re&ains ast"e su'6e%t of t"e ad&inistration.
T"e fore#oin# %ontention of t"e respondent is patentl, untena'le.
1. T"e aver&ent of t"e respondent t"at t"e %ontrovers, %enters on t"e %olle%tionof t"e alle#ed
P!,))) &ont"l, rental and t"at t"e %ontest over ad&inistrationis li&ited t"ereto, does not find
an, support in t"e re%ord.
(. T"e rule re&ains t"at t"e 6urisdi%tional a&ount is deter&ined ', t"e totalvalue of t"e estate,
not ', value of t"e parti%ular propert, or portion of t"e estate su'6e%t to ad&inistration, sin%e
t"e Cuestion of ad&inistration is &erel, in%idental to t"e prin%ipal pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent
and distri'ution oft"e w"ole estate.
.. T"e respondent9s i&pression t"at a %o2ad&inistrator9s trust and responsi'ilit,are
%ir%u&s%ri'ed and deli&ited ', t"e siGe and value of t"e parti%ular propert,or portion of t"e
estate su'6e%t to "is separate ad&inistration, is erroneous. /lt"ou#" a %o2ad&inistrator is
desi#nated to ad&ininister a portion of t"eestate, "e is no less an ad&inistrator of t"e w"ole
'e%ause "is 6udi%ious&ana#e&ent of a &ere par%el en"an%es t"e value of t"e entire estate, w"ile
"isineffi%ient or %orrupt ad&inistration t"ereof ne%essaril, di&inis"es t"e valueof t"e w"ole
estate. 7oreover, w"en two or &ore ad&inistrators are appointed toad&inister separate parts of
a lar#e estate t"e, are not to dis%"ar#e t"eirfun%tions in distant isolation 'ut in %lose %ooperation
so as to safe#uard andpro&ote t"e #eneral interests of t"e entire estate. T"e tea%"in# in Sison
vs*Teodoro
(
is of positive relevan%e. In t"e said %ase, t"e pro'ate %ourt %"ar#eda#ainst t"e entire
estate t"e %o&pensation of an ad&inistrator w"o was assi#nedas 6udi%ial ad&inistrator
representin# t"e interests of one of t"e two "eiresses.T"e ot"er "eiress w"ose interest was
represented ', t"e e@e%utor opposed t"eaward on t"e #round t"at t"e said ad&inistrator "ad not
rendered servi%e to t"eestate 'ut onl, to "is wife, t"e "eiress w"o& "e represented. On appeal,
t"is Court up"eld t"e award and dis&issed t"e opposition5
T"is ar#u&ent erroneousl, assu&es t"at 'e%ause Carlos 7oran Sison was <6udi%ial
ad&inistrator representin# t"e interests of Pris%illa ?. Sison< "e was su%" ad&inistrator <solely
for t"e purpose of prote%tin# Pris%illa9s interests,< and not to prote%t t"ose of t"e estate. No
!ords are needed to ex&lain that in general,the interest of the heir coincides !ith those of the
estate K the bigger theestate the better for the heir* Therefore to &rotect the interest of
heiress"riscilla usually meant to favor the interest of the estate HsicJ**** Again, the argument
&resumes that an administrator a&&ointed by the ourt for the&ur&ose of giving re&resentation
to designated heirs, is not deemed administratorof the estate* This assum&tion has no legal
foundation, 'e%ause it is ad&itted pra%ti%e, w"ere t"e estate is lar#e, to appoint two or &ore
ad&inistrators ofsu%" estate to "ave different interests represented and satisfied, and
furt"er&ore,to "ave such re&resentatives !or> in harmony for the best interests of such estate.
0In re $rew9s Estate, (.4 N.>. 8)1, ( C.+. p. 11-.1 0e&p"asis supplied1
;eril,, t"erefore, t"e s%ope of a %o2ad&inistrator9s trust en%o&passes t"e entireestate and is %o2
e@tensive in effe%t wit" t"ose of t"e ot"er ad&inistratorsD %onseCuentl,, t"e value of t"e entire estate
s"ould 'e t"e proper 'asis of t"e 6urisdi%tional a&ount irrespe%tive of t"e value of t"e parti%ular
propert, orassets of t"e estate w"i%" are t"e o'6e%ts of a separate ad&inistration pendin# t"e settle&ent
pro%eedin#s.
In view of all t"e fore#oin#, we are of t"e %onsensus t"at t"e respondent Courtof /ppeals "as no
6urisdi%tion to ta:e %o#niGan%e of C/23.R. .8).*2R, and %onseCuentl, was wit"out power to issue or
#rant t"e writs of certiorari and &rohibition pra,ed for in said %ase.
Notwit"standin# t"at t"e "erein petitioner deli&ited t"e issue, as set fort" in"is petition of certiorari,
to one of 6urisdi%tion of t"e respondent Court of /ppeals over C/23.R. .8).*2R, in su'seCuent
pleadin#s and &anifestations, "owever, t"e parties t"erein &utuall, e@panded t"e issue to in%lude t"e
Cuestion of t"e le#alit, of t"e %ontroverted order of +anuar, .1, 1*44 in C/23.R. .8).*2R. /s a &atter
of fa%t, t"e respondent, in a <Petition to Resolve< dated +ul, 1-,1*48, pra,ed <t"at a decision on the
merits in t"is %ase 'e now rendered.< To t"is &anifestation, t"e petitioner replied <t"at "e "as no
ob)ection, as in fa%t, "e also pra,s t"at t"is %ase 'e de%ided at t"e earliest ', t"e Ai#"est Tri'unal.<
Sin%e t"e respondent Court of /ppeals does not "ave 6urisdi%tion over C/23.R. .8).*2R, we are of
t"e %onsidered opinion t"at t"is Court %an forestall furt"er dela, in t"e alread, protra%ted pro%eedin#s
re#ardin# t"e settle&ent of t"e 7atute estate if it now pro%eeds to resolve t"e issue of le#alit, of t"e
a'ove&entioned disputed order, rat"er t"an wait for t"e parties to %o&e anew on a separate petition in
Cuest for a verdi%t on t"e said issue. 7oreover, 'ot" t"e petitioner and t"e respondent private part,
"ave &anifested and ela'orated t"eir respe%tive views on t"is issue and pra,ed and pressed for a
de%ision t"ereon.
>e s"all now dis%uss separatel, t"e twin aspe%ts of t"e fore#oin# %ontroverted order, na&el,, 011 t"e
re&oval of t"e respondent as %o2ad&inistrator of t"e 7atute estate, and 0(1 t"e appoint&ent of t"e
petitioner as t"e new %o2ad&inistrator.
T"e respondent %ontends t"at t"e disputed order re&ovin# "i& as %o2ad&inistrator is a patent nullit,
for t"e followin# reasons5
011 Ae was re&oved in wanton disre#ard of due pro%ess of law 'e%ause t"e pro'ate6ud#e
ar'itraril, deprived "i& of "is da, in %ourtD
0(1 T"e eviden%e addu%ed ', t"e &ovants is &anifestl, insuffi%ient, if not devoid of pro'ative
value, to warrant "is re&ovalD and
0.1 Ae was re&oved not on t"e #rounds spe%ifi%all, invo:ed ', t"e &ovants 'ut for %auses
dis%overed motu &ro&io ', t"e pro'ate 6ud#e in t"e re%ords of spe%ialpro%eedin# (!-84 and
wit"out affordin# "i& t"e opportunit, to re'ut t"e findin#sof t"e said 6ud#e.
Upon t"e ot"er "and, t"e petitioner advan%es t"e followin# reasons in support of t"e order of re&oval5
011 T"e pro'ate 6ud#e a%%orded t"e respondent all t"e opportunit, to addu%e "iseviden%e 'ut t"e
latter resorted to dilator, ta%ti%s su%" as filin# a <&otion to dis&iss or de&urrer to eviden%e<D
0(1 T"e eviden%es presented to sustain t"e re&oval of t"e respondent are in%ontroverti'le sin%e
aside fro& 'ein# do%u&entar,, t"e, are parts of t"e re%ord of spe%ial pro%eedin# (!-84D and
0.1 T"e eviden%e on re%ord %on%lusivel, supports t"e findin#s of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e.
T"e settled rule is t"at t"e re&oval of an ad&inistrator under se%tion ( of Rule -( lies wit"in t"e
dis%retion of t"e %ourt appointin# "i&. /s aptl, e@pressed in one %ase,
.
<T"e suffi%ien%, of an, #round
for re&oval s"ould t"us 'e deter&ined ', t"e said %ourt, w"ose sensi'ilities are, in t"e first pla%e,
affe%ted ', an, a%t or o&ission on t"e part of t"e ad&inistrator not %onfor&a'le to or in disre#ard of
t"e rules or t"e orders of t"e %ourt.< ConseCuentl,, appellate tri'unals are disin%lined to interfere wit"
t"e a%tion ta:en ', a pro'ate %ourt in t"e &atter of t"e re&oval of an e@e%utor or ad&inistrator unless
&ositive error or gross abuse of discretion is sho!n.

In t"e %ase at 'ar, we are %onstrained, "owever to nullif, t"e disputed order of re&oval 'e%ause it is
indu'ita'le t"at t"e pro'ate 6ud#e ousted t"e respondent fro& "is trust wit"out affordin# "i& t"e full
'enefit of a da, in %ourt, t"us den,in# "i& "is %ardinal ri#"t to due pro%ess.
It appears t"at s"ortl, after t"e re%eption of eviden%e for t"e &ovants Carlos 7atute and t"e
Candelario27atute "eirs, t"e respondent filed on +anuar, -, 1*44a verified o'6e%tion to t"e ad&ission
in eviden%e of t"e &ovants9 e@"i'its on t"e #round t"at t"e sa&e were "earsa,, self2servin#, irrelevant
and=or &ere p"otostati% %opies of supposed ori#inals w"i%" were never properl, identified nor
produ%ed in %ourt. ?our da,s later, or on +anuar, 1(, 1*44, t"e respondent filed !ith leave of court a
<7otion to $is&iss and=or $e&urrer to Eviden%e<, t"e pertinent and &aterial portion of w"i%" reads5
... %onsiderin# t"e spe%ifi% o'6e%tion to ea%" e@"i'it %ontained in said O'6e%tions to /d&ission
of 7ovants9 E@"i'its and %onsiderin# furt"er t"e rulin# of t"is Aonora'le Court in open %ourt
t"at pleadin#s filed in t"is %ase are eviden%e onl, of t"e fa%t of t"eir filin# and not of t"e trut" of
t"e state&ents %ontained t"erein and %onsiderin# still furt"er t"e fa%t t"at no %o&petent sin#le
witness was presented ', &ovants in support of t"eir respe%tive %ontentions, we su'&it t"at
there is no sufficient evidence on record to )ustify and su&&ort the motions for removal of the
herein co-administrator +atias S* +atute and in t"e li#"t of t"e aut"orities "erein'elow %ited,
t"e &otions to re&ove 7atias S. 7atute &ust 'e dis&issed for insuffi%ien%, of eviden%e.

... Aowever, in t"e re&ote possi'ilit, t"at t"is instant &otion 'e denied ', t"is Aonora'le
Court, the herein co-administrator ex&ressly reserves his right to &resent his o!n evidence *** at
least five H4J days from the recei&t of said denial.... 0e&p"asis supplied1
Instead of resolvin# t"e fore#oin# &otion, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e issued t"e %ontroverted order re&ovin#
t"e respondent as %o2ad&inistrator wit"out #ivin# "i& t"e opportunit, to addu%e "is own eviden%e
despite "is e@pli%it reservation t"at "e 'e afforded t"e %"an%e to introdu%e eviden%e in "is 'e"alf in t"e
event of denial of "is &otion to dis&iss and=or de&urrer to eviden%e. >e are of t"e view t"at t"e a'ove
a%tuation of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e %onstituted #rave a'use of dis%retion w"i%" doo&s "is i&provident order
as a nullit,. In fa%t, even wit"out t"e respondent9s reservation, it was t"e 'ounden dut, of t"e pro'ate
6ud#e to s%"edule t"e presentation and re%eption of t"e respondent9s eviden%e 'efore disposin# of t"e
%ase on t"e &erits 'e%ause onl, t"e &ovants at t"at ti&e "ad presented t"eir eviden%e. T"is dut, is
pro6e%ted into 'older relief if we %onsider, w"i%" we &ust, t"at t"e aforesaid &otion is in for& as well
as in su'stan%e a demurrer to evidence allowed ', Rule .!, ', virtue of w"i%" t"e defendant does not
lose "is ri#"t to offer eviden%e in t"e event t"at "is &otion is denied. Said Rule states5
/fter t"e plaintiff "as %o&pleted t"e presentation of "is eviden%e, t"e defendant !ithout
!aiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, &a, &ove for a
dis&issal on t"e #round t"at upon t"e fa%ts and law t"e plaintiff "as s"own no ri#"t to relief.
0e&p"asis supplied1
T"e appli%ation of t"e a'ove%ited Rule in spe%ial pro%eedin#s, li:e t"e %ase at 'ar, is aut"oriGed ',
se%tion ( of Rule 8( w"i%" dire%t t"at in t"e <a'sen%e of spe%ial provisions, t"e rules provided for in
ordinar, %ivil a%tions s"all 'e, as far as pra%ti%a'le, appli%a'le in spe%ial pro%eedin#s.<
But w"at is patentl, %ensura'le is t"e a%tuation of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e in re&ovin# t"e respondent, not
on t"e stren#t" of t"e eviden%e addu%ed ', t"e &ovants 0not a sin#le e@"i'it or do%u&ent introdu%ed ',
t"e &ovants was spe%ifi%all, %ited in t"e disputed order as a 6ustifi%ation of t"e respondent9s ouster1,
'ut on t"e 'asis of "is 06ud#e9s1 findin#s, w"i%" "e motu &ro&io #leaned fro& t"e re%ords of spe%ial
pro%eedin# (!-84, wit"out affordin# t"e respondent an opportunit, to %ontrovert said findin#s or in t"e
ver, least to e@plain w", "e s"ould not 'e re&oved on t"e 'asis t"ereof.
T"e pro'ate 6ud#e did find, as essa,ed in "is disputed order, t"at t"e respondent <"as s"own
indifferen%e to "is duties as su%" %o2ad&inistrator of t"e estate< as eviden%ed ',5
011 t"e disapproval of "is 1*4 a%%ount ', t"e pro'ate %ourt in an order dated +anuar, !, 1*44
due to "is <non2appearan%e and non2su'&ission of eviden%e to sustain "is a%%ount on t"e date
set for t"e presentation of t"e sa&eD<
0(1 t"e %onsidera'le de%rease in t"e in%o&e of t"e properties under "is %"ar#e, as refle%ted in
said 1*4 a%%ount, w"i%" %ir%u&stan%e <does not spea: well of "is dili#en%e and attention to t"e
ad&inistration of said propertiesD< and
0.1 t"e failure of said 1*4 a%%ount to dis%lose t"e nu&'er of %alves 'orn durin# t"e a%%ountin#
period, <t"ere', indi%atin# a palpa'le o&ission of fa%t w"i%" dire%tl, redu%ed t"e value of t"e
in%o&e or t"e in%rease of t"e assets of t"e estate.<
But, si#nifi%antl,, t"e &ovants did not spe%ifi%all, invo:e t"e aforesaid #rounds in support of t"eir
petition to oust t"e respondent. /ll of t"e said #rounds, w"i%" in t"e &ind of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e e@posed
t"e supposed indifferen%e and in%o&peten%e of t"e respondent in t"e dis%"ar#e of "is trust, are 'ased on
alle#ed defe%ts of t"e respondent9s 1*4 a%%ount. Under t"ese %ir%u&stan%es, it 'e"ooved t"e pro'ate
6ud#e to infor& t"e respondent of "is findin#s 'efore orderin# t"e latter9s re&oval. >e %on%ede t"at t"e
pro'ate 6ud#e en6o,s a wide latitude of dis%retion in t"e &atter of t"e re&oval of e@e%utors and
ad&inistrators and "e %an %ause t"eir ouster at "is own instan%e. Aowever, 'efore t"e, are deprived of
t"eir offi%e t"e, &ust 'e #iven t"e full 'enefit of a da, in %ourt, an opportunit, not a%%orded to t"e
respondent "erein.
>it"out for#ettin# su%" patent denial of due pro%ess, w"i%" rendered t"e order of re&oval a nullit,, let
us e@a&ine t"e &erits of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e9s &otu propio findin#s to deter&ine w"et"er t"e, warrant
t"e ouster of t"e respondent.
/s proof of t"e respondent9s <indifferen%e< in t"e dis%"ar#e of "is duties, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e %ited t"e
%ourt9s order of +anuar, !, 1*44 disapprovin# t"e respondent9s 1*4 a%%ount for "is failure to
personall, appear on t"e date set for t"e su'&ission of eviden%e in support of t"e said a%%ount. It &ust
'e e&p"asiGed, "owever, t"at t"e respondent, two da,s 'efore t"e issuan%e of t"e aforesaid order
re&ovin# "i& as %o2ad&inistrator, seasona'l, &oved for t"e re%onsideration of t"e afore%ited order of
+anuar, !, 1*44 on t"e #round t"at "is failure to personall, attend t"e s%"eduled "earin# was due to
illness on "is part. Evidentl,, w"en t"e pro'ate %ourt de%reed t"e re&oval of t"e respondent, t"e order
disapprovin# "is 1*4 a%%ount, w"i%" was used as one of t"e prin%ipal 6ustifi%ations for "is re&oval as
%o2ad&ininistrator, was not yet final as it was still su'6e%t to possi'le re%onsideration. /s a &atter of
fa%t, on ?e'ruar, 1*, 1*44 t"e sa&e pro'ate 6ud#e set aside t"e aforesaid order of +anuar, !, 1*44,
t"us5
Considerin# t"at it will 'e t"e 'enefit of all t"e parties %on%erned if for&er %o2ad&inistrator
7atias S. 7atute will 'e allowed to su'stantiate t"e a%%ountin# w"i%" "e su'&itted to t"is
Court 'ut w"i%" was disapproved on +anuar, !, 1*44 for "is failure to personall, appear at t"e
"earin# "eld for t"e purpose of su'stantiatin# said a%%ountin#, his motion for reconsideration
filed on January 3I, /8DD is hereby granted and the order dated January 4, /8DD disa&&roving
the accounting submitted by +atias S* +atute is set aside. 0e&p"asis supplied1
>it" t"e order of +anuar, !, 1*44 t"us revo:ed, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e9s %on%lusion t"at t"e respondent
was <indifferent< to "is duties as %o2ad&inistrator as eviden%ed ', t"e disapproval of "is 1*4 a%%ount
loses its prin%ipal 'asis.
/#ain usin# t"e 1*4 a%%ount of t"e respondent as 'asis of "is findin# t"at t"e respondent was #uilt,
of disinterest in t"e dis%"ar#e of "is trust, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e stressed t"at <a verifi%ation of said
a%%ountin# s"ows t"e in%o&e of t"e properties under "is 0respondent9s1 %"ar#e were ver, &u%" redu%ed
w"i%" does not spea: well of "is dili#en%e and attention to t"e ad&inistration of t"e said properties,<
and t"at said a%%ount failed to report t"e nu&'er of <offsprin# of t"e %attle durin# t"e period of
a%%ountin# 'elon#in# to t"e estate, t"ere', indi%atin# a palpa'le o&ission of fa%t w"i%" dire%tl,
redu%ed t"e value of t"e in%o&e or in%rease of t"e assets of t"e estate.< It is pertinent to e&p"asiGe "ere
t"at t"e said /8DG account is still &ending a&&roval, "en%e it was pre&ature to use alle#ed defe%ts in
said a%%ount as #rounds for t"e re&oval of t"e respondent. If it is now ruled t"at t"e respondent is unfit
to %ontinue as %o2ad&inistrator 'e%ause of t"e alle#ed infir&ities in "is a%%ount for 1*4, t"e
respondent will 'e #reatl, pre6udi%ed in t"e event t"at said a%%ount is finall, approved and t"e said
defe%ts are found to 'e none@istent or so trivial as not to affe%t t"e #eneral validit, and vera%it, of t"e
a%%ount. /ssu&in#, "owever, t"at t"e pro'ate 6ud#e %orre%tl, o'served t"at t"e said a%%ount refle%ts a
'i# redu%tion in t"e in%o&e of t"e haciendas under t"e separate ad&inistration of t"e respondent, t"is
fa%t alone does not 6ustif, t"e %on%lusion t"at t"e latter did not e@er%ise due %are and Geal. T"ere is no
proof t"at t"e de%rease in in%o&e "ad 'een %aused ', t"e respondent9s willful ne#li#en%e or dis"onest,.
Needless to stress, varied fa%tors, so&e 'e,ond t"e %ontrol of an ad&inistrator, &a, %ause t"e
di&inution of an estate9s in%o&e.
/nent t"e failure to report t"e nu&'er of %alves 'orn durin# t"e a%%ountin# period, #rantin# t"at t"e
sa&e is true, t"ere is "owever no eviden%e on re%ord to prove t"at t"e said o&ission was deli'erate or
desi#ned to pre6udi%e t"e estate. It %ould "ave 'een eit"er an "onest &ista:e or &ere inadverten%e. In
t"e a'sen%e of %o&petent proof to t"e %ontrar,, #ood fait" &ust 'e presu&ed. T"e pro'ate 6ud#e s"ould
"ave reCuired t"e respondent to e@plain t"e said o&ission instead of 'randin# outri#"t said o&ission as
<palpa'le.<
In "is e@%ursion into t"e re%ords of spe%ial pro%eedin# (!-84, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e also found a %op, of a
so2%alled <Co&plian%e< su'&itted ', t"e respondent w"i%" reported <a ver, sta##erin# a&ount of over
One 7illion Pesos supposedl, #iven to t"e "eirs< as advan%es. T"e pro'ate 6ud#e pro%eeded to o'serve
t"at t"e <re%ord does not s"ow t"at t"e said advan%es to t"e "eirs were aut"oriGed ', t"e Court in t"e
a&ounts &ade to appear in t"e 9Co&plian%e.9< Ae added t"at a <verifi%ation of t"e re%ord will s"ow t"at
&a, 'e part of t"is a&ount supposedl, paid ', t"e %o2ad&inistrator to t"e "eirs were aut"oriGed ', t"e
Court 'ut a #reater volu&e of t"e sa&e was o'viousl, not aut"oriGed.< On a%%ount of t"is parti%ular
findin#, t"e pro'ate %ourt %on%luded, wit"out eCuivo%ation, t"at t"e respondent "ad 'een a%tin# wit"out
previous aut"orit, fro& t"e pro'ate %ourt. Unfortunatel, a#ain, t"e respondent was not afforded t"e
opportunit, to present "is side and if possi'le to %ontrovert t"e said findin# or %orre%t t"e i&pressions
of t"e 6ud#e. Aearin# t"e respondent on t"is point is i&perative 'e%ause, li:e t"e ot"er #rounds upon
w"i%" t"e pro'ate 6ud#e an%"ored t"e order of re&oval, it was not put in issue ', t"e &ovants, neit"er
was a %op, of said <Co&plian%e< su'&itted in eviden%e. It 'ears e&p"asis t"at it t"ere were
unaut"oriGed pa,&ents of advan%es to so&e "eirs or si&ulated #rants as t"e pro'ate 6ud#e appears to
t"eoriGe, t"en it is &ost surprisin# w", t"e pre6udi%ed 7atute "eirs, liti#ation2proned as t"e, are, did
not i&pu#n t"e so2%alled <Co&plian%e.< ?urt"er&ore, not one of t"e &ovants interested in t"e re&oval
of t"e respondent spe%ifi%all, %"ar#ed t"e latter wit" unaut"oriGed or fi%titious pa,&ents of advan%es. It
s"ould also 'e noted t"at t"e said <Co&plian%e< was su'&itted ', t"e respondent in response to t"e
pro'ate %ourt9s order for t"e su'&ission of <a list of t"e "eirs w"o "ave personall, re%eived t"e
advan%es fro& t"e administration,< not fro& t"e respondent alone. It stands to reason, t"erefore, t"at
t"e said <Co&plian%e< %ould ver, well 'e a cumulative list of all t"e advan%es #iven and re%eived ',
t"e 7atute "eirs fro& t"e several ad&inistrators of t"e 7atute estate sin%e 1*!!. In t"e a'sen%e of
%on%rete eviden%e t"at t"e said <sta##erin# a&ount< of over a &illion pesos advan%es was dis'ursed ',
t"e respondent alone durin# "is 'elea#uered ter& w"i%" %o&&en%ed onl, in 1*4., we "ave no re%ourse
'ut to 6ettison t"e adverse %on%lusion of t"e pro'ate 6ud#e. >"at t"e pro'ate 6ud#e s"ould "ave done
was to afford 7atias t"e %"an%e to e@plain and su'stantiate t"e fa%ts and t"e fi#ures appearin# in t"e
aforesaid <Co&plian%e,< w"i%" unfortunatel, does not for& part of t"e re%ord 'efore us. T"e
respondent asserts t"at if onl, t"e pro'ate 6ud#e <too: pains to e@a&ine full, t"e volu&inous re%ords of
t"e 7atute estate, and as refle%ted in t"e ver, 9Co&plian%e9 su'&itted to t"e Court ... an, dis'urse&ent
#iven to t"e "eirs ', all the administrators of t"e Estate were ', virtue of t"e several Orders of t"e
Pro'ate Court issued upon 6oint &otion of all t"e "eirs for t"eir &ont"l, &aintenan%e and support.<
It li:ewise appears t"at t"e respondent was re&oved partl, due to "is failure to pa, t"e in"eritan%e
and estate ta@es. In t"is re#ard, it 'ears e&p"asis t"at t"e failure to pa, t"e ta@es due fro& t"e estate is
&er se not a %o&pellin# reason for t"e re&oval of an ad&inistrator, for <it &a, 'e true t"at t"e
respondent ad&inistrator failed to pa, all t"e ta@es due fro& t"e estate, 'ut said failure &a, 'e due to
la%: of funds, and not to a willful o&ission.<
!
In t"e %ase at 'ar t"ere is no eviden%e t"at t"e non2
pa,&ent of ta@es was willful. On t"e %ontrar,, t"e respondent alle#ed, and t"is was un%"allen#ed ', t"e
&ovants, t"at w"ile t"e previous ad&inistrators left t"e ta@es unpaid, "e "ad paid t"e real propert,
ta@es in $avao %overin# t"e ,ears 1*! to 1*44.
>e now %o&e to t"e se%ond part of t"e %ontroverted order P t"e appoint&ent of t"e petitioner as %o2
ad&inistrator vi%e t"e respondent. Sin%e t"e re&oval of 7atias was done wit" inordinate "aste and
wit"out due pro%ess, aside fro& t"e fa%t t"at t"e #rounds upon w"i%" "e was re&oved "ave no
evidentiar, 6ustifi%ation, t"e sa&e is void, and, %onseCuentl,, t"ere is no va%an%, to w"i%" t"e
petitioner %ould 'e appointed.
Even #rantin# arguendo t"at t"e re&oval of 7atias is free fro& infir&it,, t"is Court is not prepared to
sustain t"e validit, of t"e appoint&ent of t"e petitioner in pla%e of t"e for&er. To start wit", t"e re%ord
does not dis%lose t"at an, "earin# was %ondu%ted, &u%" less t"at noti%es were sent to t"e ot"er "eirs
and interested parties, anent t"e petition for t"e appoint&ent of +ose S. 7atute, a&on# ot"ers, as %o2
ad&inistrator vi%e 7atias S. 7atute. In t"is re#ard, it is pertinent to o'serve t"at an, "earin# %ondu%ted
', t"e pro'ate %ourt was %onfined solel, to t"e pri&ar, pra,ers of t"e separate petitions of Carlos S.
7atute, and t"e Candelario27atute "eirs see:in# t"e ouster of 7atias S. 7atute. T"e %orollar, pra,ers
%ontained in t"e sa&e petitions for t"e appoint&ent of Carlos S. 7atute, +ose S. 7atute and /#ustina
7atute Candelario or an,one of t"e& as %o2ad&inistrator were never even %onsidered at an, of t"e
"earin#s. T"e reCuire&ent of a "earin# and t"e notifi%ation to all :nown "eirs and ot"er interested
parties as to t"e date t"ereof is essential to t"e validit, of t"e pro%eedin# for t"e appoint&ent of and
ad&inistrator <in order t"at no person &a, 'e deprived of "is ri#"t or propert, wit"out due pro%ess of
law.< 0Euse'io vs. ;al&ores, *8 P"il. 14.1 7oreover, a "earin# is ne%essar, in order to full, deter&ine
t"e suita'ilit, of t"e appli%ant to t"e trust, ', #ivin# "i& t"e opportunit, to prove "is Cualifi%ations and
affordin# oppositors, if an,, to %ontest t"e said appli%ation.
T"e provision of Rule -. t"at if <t"ere is no re&ainin# e@e%utor or ad&inistrator, ad&inistration &a,
'e #ranted to an, suita'le person,< %annot 'e used to 6ustif, t"e institution of +ose S. 7atute even
wit"out a "earin#, 'e%ause su%" institution "as no fa%tual 'asis %onsiderin# t"at t"ere was a #eneral
ad&inistrator 0Carlos ;. 7atute1 w"o re&ained in %"ar#e of t"e affairs of t"e 7atute estate after t"e
re&oval of 7atias S. 7atute. T"e a'ove%ited provision evidentl, envisions a situation w"en after t"e
re&oval of t"e in%u&'ent ad&inistrator no one is left to ad&inister t"e estate, t"us e&powerin# t"e
pro'ate %ourt, as a &atter of ne%essit,, to na&e a te&porar, ad&inistrator 0or %areta:er1, pendin# t"e
appoint&ent of a new ad&inistrator after due "earin#. Su%" %ir%u&stan%e does not o'tain in t"e %ase at
'ar.
Upon t"e fore#oin# disCuisition, we "old t"at t"e respondent Court of /ppeals was wit"out
6urisdi%tion over C/23.R. .8).*2R, and t"at t"e %ontroverted order of +anuar, .1, 1*44 is a nullit, and
&ust t"erefore 'e set aside in its entiret,.
/CCOR$IN3LN, 011 in C-3D64/ t"e petition for certiorari is "ere', #rantedD t"e respondent Court of
/ppeals is ad6ud#ed as wit"out 6urisdi%tion over C/23.R. .8).*2RD t"e pro'ate %ourt9s %ontroverted
order of +anuar, .1, 1*44 is "ere', set aside in its entiret,, t"ere', &aintainin# t"e respondent 7atias
S. 7atute in "is trust as %o2ad&inistrator of t"e /&adeo 7atute Olave estate
G.R. NO. 1292;2 J&",&r) 10, 2001
PI1AR S. CDA. DE MANA1O, ANTONIO S. MANA1O, OR1ANDO S. MANA1O, &"*
ISA/E1ITA MANA1O ,petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT O3 APPEA1S, HON. REGIONA1 TRIA1 COURT O3 MANI1A F/RANCH D?G,
PURITA S. JA2ME, MI1AGROS M. TERRE, /E1EN M. ORI11ANO, ROSA1INA M.
ACUIN, ROMEO S. MANA1O, RO/ERTO S. MANA1O, AMA1IA MANA1O &"* IME1DA
MANA1O, respondents.
DE 1EON, JR., J.<
T"is is a petition for review on %ertiorari filed ', petitioners Pilar S. ;da $e 7analo, et. /l., see:in# to
annul t"e Resolution
1
of t"e Court of /ppeals
(
affir&in# t"e Orders
.
of t"e Re#ional Trial Court and
t"e Resolution

w"i%" denied petitioner9 &otion for re%onsideration.
T"e ante%edent fa%ts
!
are as follows5
Troadio 7analo, a resident of 1**4 7aria Clara Street, Sa&palo%, 7anila died intestate on ?e'ruar,
1, 1**(. Ae was survived ', "is wife, Pilar S. 7analo, and "is eleven 0111 %"ildren, na&el,5 Purita 7.
+a,&e, /ntonio 7analo, 7ila#ros 7. Terre, Belen 7. Orillano, Isa'elita 7analo, Rosalina 7. /%uin,
Ro&eo 7analo, Ro'erto 7analo, /&alia 7analo, Orlando 7analo and I&elda 7analo, w"o are all of
le#al a#e./0!&hi/*nEt
/t t"e ti&e of "is deat" on ?e'ruar, 1, 1**(, Troadio 7analo left several real properties lo%ated in
7anila and in t"e provin%e of Tarla% in%ludin# a 'usiness under t"e na&e and st,le 7analo9s 7a%"ine
S"op wit" offi%es at No. 1* Calavite Street, La Lo&a, LueGon Cit, and at NO. ! 3eneral Tinio Street,
/rt, Su'division, ;alenGuela, 7etro 7anila.
On Nove&'er (4, 1**(, "erein respondents, w"o are ei#"t 0-1 of t"e survivin# %"ildren of t"e late
Troadio 7analo, na&el,D Purita, 7ila#ros, Belen Ro%alina, Ro&eo, Ro'erto, /&alia, and I&elda filed
a petition
4
wit" t"e respondent Re#ional Trial Court of 7anila
8
of t"e 6udi%ial settle&ent of t"e estate
of t"eir late fat"er, Troadio 7analo, and for t"e appoint&ent of t"eir 'rot"er, Ro&eo 7analo, as
ad&inistrator t"ereof.
On $e%e&'er 1!, 1**(, t"e trial %ourt issued an order settin# t"e said petition for "earin# on ?e'ruar,
11, 1**. and dire%tin# t"e pu'li%ation of t"e order for t"ree 0.1 %onse%utive wee:s in a newspaper of
#eneral %ir%ulation in 7etro 7anila, and furt"er dire%tin# servi%e ', re#istered &ail of t"e said order
upon t"e "eirs na&ed in t"e petition at t"eir respe%tive addresses &entioned t"erein.
On ?e'ruar, 11, 1**., t"e date set for "earin# of t"e petition, t"e trial %ourt issued an order 9de%larin#
t"e w"ole world in default, e@%ept t"e #overn&ent,< and set t"e re%eption of eviden%e of t"e petitioners
t"erein on 7ar%" 14, 1**.. Aowever, t"e trial %ourt upon &otion of set t"is order of #eneral default
aside "erein petitioners 0oppositors t"erein1 na&el,5 Pilar S. ;da. $e 7analo, /ntonio, Isa'elita and
Orlando w"o were #ranted t"en 01)1 da,s wit"in w"i%" to file t"eir opposition to t"e petition.
Several pleadin#s were su'seCuentl, filed ', "erein petitioners, t"rou#" %ounsel, %ul&inatin# in t"e
fillin# of an O&ni'us 7otion
-
on +ul, (., 1**. see:in#D 011 to seat aside and re%onsider t"e Order of
t"e trial %ourt dated +ul, *, 1**. w"i%" denied t"e &otion for additional e@tension of ti&e file
oppositionD 0(1 to set for preli&inar, "earin# t"eir affir&ative defenses as #rounds for dis&issal of t"e
%aseD 0.1 to de%lare t"at t"e trial %ourt did not a%Cuire 6urisdi%tion over t"e persons of t"e oppositorsD
and 01 for t"e i&&ediate in"i'ition of t"e presidin# 6ud#e.
On +ul, .), 1**., t"e trial %ourt issued an order
*
w"i%" resolved, t"us5
/. To ad&it t"e so2%alled Opposition filed ', %ounsel for t"e oppositors on +ul, (), 1**., onl,
for t"e purpose of %onsiderin# t"e &erits t"ereofD
B. To den, t"e pra,er of t"e oppositors for a preli&inar, "earin# of t"eir affir&ative defenses as
#round for t"e dis&issal of t"is pro%eedin#, said affir&ative defenses 'ein# irrelevant and
i&&aterial to t"e purpose and issue of t"e present pro%eedin#D
C. To de%lare t"at t"is %ourt "as a%Cuired 6urisdi%tion over t"e persons of t"e oppositorsD
$. To den, t"e &otion of t"e oppositors for t"e in"i'ition of t"is Presidin# +ud#eD
E. To set t"e appli%ation of Ro&eo 7analo for appoint&ent as re#ular ad&inistrator in t"e
intestate estate of t"e de%eased Troadio 7analo for "earin# on Septe&'er *, 1**. at (5))
o9%lo%: in t"e afternoon.
Aerein petitioners filed a petition for %ertiorari under Rule 4! of t"e Rules of Court wit" t"e Court of
/ppeals, do%:eted as C/23.R. SP. No. .*-!1, after t"e trial %ourt in its Order
1)
dated Septe&'er 1!,
1**.. In t"eir petition for i&properl, laid in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4D 0(1 t"e trial %ourt did not
a%Cuire 6urisdi%tion over t"eir personsD 0.1 t"e s"are of t"e survivin# spouse was in%luded in t"e
intestate pro%eedin#sD 01 t"ere was a'sen%e of earnest efforts toward %o&pro&ise a&on# &e&'ers of
t"e sa&e fa&il,D and 0!1 no %ertifi%ation of non2foru& s"oppin# was atta%"ed to t"e petition.
?indin# t"e %ontentions untena'le, t"e Court of /ppeals dis&issed t"e petition for %ertiorari in its
Resolution
11
pro&ul#ated on Septe&'er .), 1**4. On 7a, 4, 1**8 t"e &otion for re%onsideration of
t"e said resolution was li:ewise dis&issed.
1(
T"e onl, issue raised ', "erein petitioners in t"e instant petition for review is w"et"er or not t"e
respondent Court of /ppeals erred in up"oldin# t"e Cuestioned orders of t"e respondent trial %ourt
w"i%" denied t"eir &otion for t"e outri#"t dis&issal of t"e petition for 6udi%ial settle&ent of estate
despite t"e failure of t"e petitioners t"erein to aver t"at earnest efforts toward a %o&pro&ise involvin#
&e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il, "ave 'een &ade prior to t"e fillin# of t"e petition 'ut t"at t"e sa&e "ave
failed.
Aerein petitioners %lai& t"at t"e petition in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4 is a%tuall, an ordinar, %ivil a%tion
involvin# &e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il,. T"e, point out t"at it %ontains %ertain aver&ents, w"i%",
a%%ordin# to t"e&, are indi%ative of its adversarial nature, to wit5
R R R
Par. 8. One of t"e survivin# sons, /NTONIO 7/N/LO, sin%e t"e deat" of "is fat"er,
TRO/$IO 7/N/LO, "ad not &ade an, settle&ent, 6udi%ial or e@tra26udi%ial of t"e properties
of t"e de%eased fat"er TRO/$IO 7/N/LO.
Par. -. @@@ t"e said survivin# son %ontinued to &ana#e and %ontrol t"e properties
afore&entioned, wit"out proper a%%ountin#, to "is own 'enefit and advanta#e @@@.
R R R
Par. 1(. T"at said /NTONIO 7/N/LO is &ana#in# and %ontrollin# t"e estate of t"e de%eased
TRO/$IO 7/N/LO to "is own advanta#e and to t"e da&a#e and pre6udi%e of t"e "erein
petitioners and t"eir %o2"eirs @@@.
R R R
Par. 1. ?or t"e prote%tion of t"eir ri#"ts and interests, petitioners were %o&pelled to 'rin# t"is
suit and were for%ed to liti#ate and in%ur e@penses and will %ontinue to in%ur e@penses of not
less t"an, P(!),))).)) and en#a#ed t"e servi%es of "erein %ounsel %o&&ittin# to pa,
P()),))).)) as and attorne,9s fees plus "onorariu& of P(,!)).)) per appearan%e in %ourt @@@.
1.
ConseCuentl,, a%%ordin# to "erein petitioners, t"e sa&e s"ould 'e dis&issed under Rule 14, Se%tion
1061 of t"e Revised Rules of Court w"i%" provides t"at a &otion to dis&iss a %o&plaint &a, 'e filed on
t"e #round t"at a %ondition pre%edent for fillin# t"e %lai& "as not 'een %o&plied wit", t"at is, t"at t"e
petitioners t"erein failed to aver in t"e petition in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4, t"at earnest efforts toward
a %o&pro&ise "ave 'een &ade involvin# &e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il, prior to t"e fillin# of t"e petition
pursuant to /rti%le (((
1
of t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines.
T"e instant petition is not i&pressed wit" &erit.
It is a funda&ental rule t"at in t"e deter&ination of t"e nature of an a%tion or pro%eedin#, t"e
aver&ents
1!
and t"e %"ara%ter of t"e relief sou#"t
14
in t"e %o&plaint, or petition, as in t"e %ase at 'ar,
s"all 'e %ontrollin#. / %areful srutin, of t"e Petition for Issuan%e of Letters of /d&inistration,
Settle&ent and $istri'ution of Estatein SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4 'elies "erein petitioners9 %lai& t"at
t"e sa&e is in t"e nature of an ordinar, %ivil a%tion. T"e said petition %ontains suffi%ient 6urisdi%tional
fa%ts reCuired in a petition for t"e settle&ent of estate of a de%eased person su%" as t"e fat of deat" of
t"e late Troadio 7analo on ?e'ruar, 1, 1**(, as well as "is residen%e in t"e Cit, of 7anila at t"e ti&e
of "is said deat". T"e fa%t of deat" of t"e de%edent and of "is residen%e wit"in "e %ountr, are
foundation fa%ts upon w"i%" all t"e su'seCuent pro%eedin#s in t"e ad&inistration of t"e estate rest.
18
T"e petition is SP.PROC No. *(24.4(4 also %ontains an enu&eration of t"e na&es of "is le#al "eirs
in%ludin# a tentative list of t"e properties left ', t"e de%eased w"i%" are sou#"t to 'e settled in t"e
pro'ate pro%eedin#s. In addition, t"e relief9s pra,ed for in t"e said petition leave no roo& for dou't as
re#ard t"e intention of t"e petitioners t"erein 0private respondents "erein1 to see: 6udi%ial settle&ent of
t"e estate of t"eir de%eased fat"er, Troadio 7analo, to witD
PR/NER
>AERE?ORE, pre&ises %onsidered, it is respe%tfull, pra,ed for of t"is Aonora'le Court5
a. T"at after due "earin#, letters of ad&inistration 'e issued to petitioner RO7EO 7/N/LO
for t"e ad&inistration of t"e estate of t"e de%eased TRO/$IO 7/N/LO upon t"e #ivin# of a
'ond in su%" reasona'le su& t"at t"is Aonora'le Court &a, fi@.
'. T"at after all t"e properties of t"e de%eased TRO/$IO 7/N/LO "ave 'een inventoried and
e@penses and 6ust de'ts, if an,, "ave 'een paid and t"e le#al "eirs of t"e de%eased full,
deter&ined, t"at t"e said estate of TRO/$IO 7/N/LO 'e settled and distri'uted a&on# t"e
le#al "eirs all in a%%ordan%e wit" law.
%. T"at t"e liti#ation e@penses of t"ese pro%eedin#s in t"e a&ount of P(!),))).)) and attorne,9s
fees in t"e a&ount of P.)),))).)) plus "onorariu& of P(,!)).)) per appearan%e in %ourt in t"e
"earin# and trial of t"is %ase and %osts of suit 'e ta@ed solel, a#ainst /NTONIO 7/N/LO.
1-
Con%ededl,, t"e petition in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4 %ontains %ertain aver&ents w"i%" &a, 'e t,pi%al
of an ordinar, %ivil a%tion. Aerein petitioners, as oppositors t"erein, too: advanta#e of t"e said defe%t
in t"e petition and filed t"eir so2%alled Opposition t"ereto w"i%", as o'served ', t"e trial %ourt, is
a%tuall, an /nswer %ontainin# ad&issions and denials, spe%ial and affir&ative defenses and
%o&pulsor, %ounter%lai&s for a%tual, &oral and e@e&plar, da&a#es, plus attorne,9s fees and %osts
1*
in
an apparent effort to &a:e out a %ase of an ordinar, %ivil a%tion and ulti&atel, see: its dis&issal under
Rule 14, Se%tion 1061 of t"e Rules of Court vis-L-vis, /rti%le ((( of %ivil of t"e Civil Code.
It is our view t"at "erein petitioners &a, not 'e allowed to defeat t"e purpose of t"e essentiall, valid
petition for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e late Troadio 7analo ', raisin# &atters t"at as irrelevant
and i&&aterial to t"e said petition. It &ust 'e e&p"asiGed t"at t"e trial %ourt, sitin# as a pro'ate %ourt,
"as li&ited and spe%ial 6urisdi%tion
()
and %annot "ear and dispose of %ollateral &atters and issues
w"i%" &a, 'e properl, t"res"ed out onl, in an ordinar, %ivil a%tion. In addition, t"e rule "as alwa,s
'een to t"e effe%t t"at t"e 6urisdi%tion of a %ourt, as well as t"e %on%o&itant nature of an a%tion, is
deter&ined ', t"e aver&ents in t"e %o&plaint and not ', t"e defenses %ontained in t"e answer. If it
were ot"erwise, it would not 'e too diffi%ult to "ave a %ase eit"er t"rown out of %ourt or its pro%eedin#s
undul, dela,ed ', si&ple strate#e&.
(1
So it s"ould 'e in t"e instant petition for settle&ent of estate.
Aerein petitioners ar#ue t"at even if t"e petition in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4 were to 'e %onsidered as a
spe%ial pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent of estate of a de%eased person, Rule 14, Se%tion 1061 of t"e Rules
of Court vis-L-vis /rti%le ((( of t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines would nevert"eless appl, as a #round
for t"e dis&issal of t"e sa&e ', virtue of ule 1, Se%tion ( of t"e Rules of Court w"i%" provides t"at t"e
9rules s"all 'e li'erall, %onstrued in order to pro&ote t"eir o'6e%t and to assist t"e parties in o'tainin#
6ust, speed, and ine@pensive deter&ination of ever, a%tion and pro%eedin#s.9 Petitioners %ontend t"at
t"e ter& <pro%eedin#< is so 'road t"at it &ust ne%essaril, in%lude spe%ial pro%eedin#s.
T"e ar#u&ent is &ispla%ed. Aerein petitioners &a, not validl, ta:e refu#e under t"e provisions of Rule
1, Se%tion (, of t"e Rules of Court to 6ustif, t"e invo%ation of /rti%le ((( of t"e Civil Code of t"e
P"ilippines for t"e dis&issal of t"e petition for settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%eased Troadio 7analo
inas&u%" as t"e latter provision is %lear enou#". To wit5
/rt. (((. No suit s"all 'e filed or &aintained 'etween &e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il, unless it s"ould
appear t"at earnest efforts toward a %o&pro&ise "ave 'een &ade, 'ut t"at t"e sa&e "ave failed, su'6e%t
to t"e li&itations in /rti%le ().!0underscoring su&&lied1.
((
T"e a'ove2Cuoted provision of t"e law is appli%a'le onl, to ordinar, %ivil a%tions. T"is is %lear fro&
t"e ter& 9suit9 t"at it refers to an a%tion ', one person or persons a#ainst anot"er or ot"er in a %ourt of
6usti%e in w"i%" t"e plaintiff pursues t"e re&ed, w"i%" t"e law affords "i& for t"e redress of an in6ur,
or t"e enfor%e&ent of a ri#"t, w"et"er at law or in eCuit,.
(.
/ %ivil a%tion is t"us an a%tion filed in a
%ourt of 6usti%e, w"ere', a part, sues anot"er for t"e enfor%e&ent of a ri#"t, or t"e prevention or
redress of a wron#.
(
Besides, an e@%erpt for& t"e Report of t"e Code Co&&ission un&ista:a'l,
reveals t"e intention of t"e Code Co&&ission to &a:e t"at le#al provision appli%a'le onl, to %ivil
a%tions w"i%" are essentiall, adversarial and involve &e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il,, t"us5
It is diffi%ult to i&a#ine a sadder and &ore tra#i% spe%ta%le t"an a liti#ation 'etween &e&'ers of
t"e sa&e fa&il,. It is ne%essar, t"at ever, effort s"ould 'e &ade toward a %o&pro&ise 'efore
liti#ation is allowed to 'reed "ate and passion in t"e fa&il,. It is :now t"at lawsuit 'etween
%lose relatives #enerates deeper 'itterness t"an stran#er.
(!
It &ust 'e e&p"asiGed t"at t"e oppositors 0"erein petitioners1 are not 'ein# sued in SP. PROC. No. *(2
4.4(4 for an, %ause of a%tion as in fa%t no defendant was i&ploded t"erein. T"e Petition for issuan%e
of letters of /d&inistration, Settle&ent and $istri'ution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. *(24.4(4 is a
spe%ial pro%eedin# and, as su%", it is a re&ed, w"ere', t"e petitioners t"erein see: to esta'lis" a status,
a ri#"t, or a parti%ular fa%t.
(4
t"e petitioners t"erein 0private respondents "erein1 &erel, see: to
esta'lis" t"e fat of deat" of t"eir fat"er and su'seCuentl, to 'e dul, re%o#niGed as a&on# t"e "eirs of
t"e said de%eased so t"at t"e, %an validl, e@er%ise t"eir ri#"t to parti%ipate in t"e settle&ent and
liCuidation of t"e estate of t"e de%edent %onsistent wit" t"e li&ited and spe%ial 6urisdi%tion of t"e
pro'ate %ourt./0!&hi/*nEt
>AERE?ORE, t"e petition in t"e a'ove2entitled %ase, is $ENIE$ for la%: of &erit, Costs a#ainst
petitioners.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 10?>;; A,+,$( 11, 2008
OSCAR C. RE2ES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. REGIONA1 TRIA1 COURT O3 MA@ATI, /r&"%# 1;2, ENITH INSURANCE
CORPORATION, &"* RODRIGO C. RE2ES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
/RION, J.<
T"is Petition for Review on ertiorari under Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court see:s to set aside t"e
$e%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/1
1
pro&ul#ated on 7a, (4, ()) in C/23.R. SP No. 8*8). T"e
C/ $e%ision affir&ed t"e Order of t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0'T1, Bran%" 1(, 7a:ati Cit, dated
Nove&'er (*, ())(
(
in Civil Case No. ))21!!. 0entitled </%%ountin# of /ll Corporate ?unds and
/ssets, and $a&a#es<1 w"i%" denied petitioner Os%ar C. Re,esI 0Os%ar1 7otion to $e%lare Co&plaint
as Nuisan%e or Aarass&ent Suit.
/AC@GROUND 3ACTS
Os%ar and private respondent Rodri#o C. Re,es 0'odrigo1 are two of t"e four %"ildren of t"e spouses
Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,es. Pedro, /nasta%ia, Os%ar, and Rodri#o ea%" owned s"ares of sto%: of Senit"
Insuran%e Corporation 0Senit"1, a do&esti% %orporation esta'lis"ed ', t"eir fa&il,. Pedro died in 1*4,
w"ile /nasta%ia died in 1**.. /lt"ou#" PedroIs estate was 6udi%iall, partitioned a&on# "is "eirs
so&eti&e in t"e 1*8)s, no si&ilar settle&ent and partition appear to "ave 'een &ade wit" /nasta%iaIs
estate, w"i%" in%luded "er s"are"oldin#s in Senit". /s of +une .), 1**), /nasta%ia owned 1.4,!*-
s"ares of Senit"D Os%ar and Rodri#o owned -,81!,4.8 and ,(!) s"ares, respe%tivel,.
.
On 7a, *, ())), Senit" and Rodri#o filed a %o&plaint

wit" t"e Se%urities and E@%"an#e Co&&ission

0SEC1 a#ainst Os%ar, do%:eted as SEC Case No. )!2))2441!. The com&laint stated that it is ;a
derivative suit initiated and filed by the com&lainant 'odrigo * 'eyes to obtain an accounting of the
funds and assets of ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION !hich are no! or formerly in the
control, custody, andMor &ossession of res&ondent #herein &etitioner (scar$ and to dete!ine the
shaes of stoc" of deceased s#ouses Pedo and Anastacia Re$es that !ere arbitrarily and fraudulently
a&&ro&riated #by (scar$ for himself #and$ !hich !ere not collated and ta>en into account in the
&artition, distribution, andMor settlement of the estate of the deceased s&ouses, for !hich he should be
ordered to account for all the income from the time he too> these shares of stoc>, and should no!
deliver to his brothers and sisters their )ust and res&ective shares.<
!
EE&p"asis supplied.F
In "is /nswer wit" Counter%lai&,
4
Os%ar denied t"e %"ar#e t"at "e ille#all, a%Cuired t"e s"ares of
/nasta%ia Re,es. Ae asserted, as a defense, t"at "e pur%"ased t"e su'6e%t s"ares wit" "is own funds
fro& t"e unissued sto%:s of Senit", and t"at t"e suit is not a bona fide derivative suit 'e%ause t"e
reCuisites t"erefor "ave not 'een %o&plied wit". Ae t"us Cuestioned t"e SECIs 6urisdi%tion to entertain
t"e %o&plaint 'e%ause it pertains to t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of /nasta%ia Re,es.
>"en Repu'li% /%t 0'*A.1 No. -8**
8
too: effe%t, t"e SECIs e@%lusive and ori#inal 6urisdi%tion over
%ases enu&erated in Se%tion ! of Presidential $e%ree 0"*D.1 No. *)(2/ was transferred to t"e RTC
desi#nated as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt.
-
T"e re%ords of Rodri#oIs SEC %ase were t"us turned over to
t"e RTC, Bran%" 1(, 7a:ati, and do%:eted as Civil Case No. ))21!!..
On O%to'er ((, ())(, Os%ar filed a 7otion to $e%lare Co&plaint as Nuisan%e or Aarass&ent Suit.
*
Ae
%lai&ed t"at t"e %o&plaint is a &ere nuisan%e or "arass&ent suit and s"ould, a%%ordin# to t"e Interi&
Rules of Pro%edure for Intra2Corporate Controversies, 'e dis&issedD and t"at it is not a bona fide
derivative suit as it parta:es of t"e nature of a petition for t"e settle&ent of estate of t"e de%eased
/nasta%ia t"at is outside t"e 6urisdi%tion of a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt. T"e RTC, in its Order dated
Nove&'er (*, ())( 0'T (rder1, denied t"e &otion in part and de%lared5
/ %lose readin# of t"e Co&plaint dis%losed t"e presen%e of two 0(1 %auses of a%tion, na&el,5 a1
a derivative suit for a%%ountin# of t"e funds and assets of t"e %orporation w"i%" are in t"e
%ontrol, %ustod,, and=or possession of t"e respondent E"erein petitioner Os%arF wit" pra,er to
appoint a &ana#e&ent %o&&itteeD and '1 an a%tion for deter&ination of t"e s"ares of sto%: of
de%eased spouses Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,es alle#edl, ta:en ', respondent, its a%%ountin# and
t"e %orrespondin# deliver, of t"ese s"ares to t"e partiesI 'rot"ers and sisters. T"e latter is not a
derivative suit and s"ould properl, 'e t"res"ed out in a petition for settle&ent of estate.
/%%ordin#l,, t"e &otion is denied. Aowever, onl, t"e derivative suit %onsistin# of t"e first %ause
of a%tion will 'e ta:en %o#niGan%e of ', t"is Court.
1)

Os%ar t"ereupon went to t"e C/ on a petition for certiorari, pro"i'ition, and mandamus
11
and pra,ed
t"at t"e RTC Order 'e annulled and set aside and t"at t"e trial %ourt 'e pro"i'ited fro& %ontinuin# wit"
t"e pro%eedin#s. T"e appellate %ourt affir&ed t"e RTC Order and denied t"e petition in its $e%ision
dated 7a, (4, ()). It li:ewise denied Os%arIs &otion for re%onsideration in a Resolution dated
O%to'er (1, ()).
Petitioner now %o&es 'efore us on appeal t"rou#" a petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of
t"e Rules of Court.
ASSIGNMENT O3 ERRORS
Petitioner Os%ar presents t"e followin# points as %on%lusions t"e C/ s"ould "ave &ade5
1. t"at t"e %o&plaint is a &ere nuisan%e or "arass&ent suit t"at s"ould 'e dis&issed under t"e Interi&
Rules of Pro%edure of Intra2Corporate ControversiesD and
(. t"at t"e %o&plaint is not a bona fide derivative suit 'ut is in fa%t in t"e nature of a petition for
settle&ent of estateD "en%e, it is outside t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e RTC a%tin# as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial
%ourt.
/%%ordin#l,, "e pra,s for t"e settin# aside and annul&ent of t"e C/ de%ision and resolution, and t"e
dis&issal of Rodri#oIs %o&plaint 'efore t"e RTC.
THE COURTIS RU1ING
We -!"* (#e 'e(!(!o" mer!(or!o,$.
T"e %ore Cuestion for our deter&ination is w"et"er t"e trial %ourt, sittin# as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt,
"as 6urisdi%tion over t"e su'6e%t &atter of Rodri#oIs %o&plaint. To resolve it, we rel, on t"e 6udi%ial
prin%iple t"at <6urisdi%tion over t"e su'6e%t &atter of a %ase is %onferred ', law and is deter&ined ',
t"e alle#ations of t"e %o&plaint, irrespe%tive of w"et"er t"e plaintiff is entitled to all or so&e of t"e
%lai&s asserted t"erein.<
1(

JURISDICTION O3 SPECIA1 COMMERCIA1 COURTS
P.$. No. *)(2/ enu&erates t"e %ases over w"i%" t"e SEC 0now t"e RTC a%tin# as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial
%ourt1 e@er%ises e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion5
SECTION !. In addition to t"e re#ulator, and ad6udi%ative fun%tions of t"e Se%urities and
E@%"an#e Co&&ission over %orporations, partners"ip, and ot"er for&s of asso%iations
re#istered wit" it as e@pressl, #ranted under e@istin# laws and de%rees, it s"all "ave ori#inal and
e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion to "ear and de%ide %ases involvin#5
a1 $evi%es or s%"e&es e&plo,ed ', or an, a%ts of t"e 'oard of dire%tors, 'usiness
asso%iates, its offi%ers or partners, a&ountin# to fraud and &isrepresentation w"i%" &a,
'e detri&ental to t"e interest of t"e pu'li% and=or of t"e sto%:"olders, partners, &e&'ers
of asso%iations or or#aniGations re#istered wit" t"e Co&&ission.
'1 Controversies arisin# out of intra2%orporate or partners"ip relations, 'etween and
a&on# sto%:"olders, &e&'ers, or asso%iatesD 'etween an, or all of t"e& and t"e
%orporation, partners"ip or asso%iation of w"i%" t"e, are sto%:"olders, &e&'ers, or
asso%iates, respe%tivel,D and 'etween su%" %orporation, partners"ip or asso%iation and
t"e State insofar as it %on%erns t"eir individual fran%"ise or ri#"t to e@ist as su%" entit,D
and
%1 Controversies in t"e ele%tion or appoint&ent of dire%tors, trustees, offi%ers, or
&ana#ers of su%" %orporations, partners"ips, or asso%iations.
T"e alle#ations set fort" in Rodri#oIs %o&plaint prin%ipall, invo:e Se%tion !, para#rap"s 0a1 and 0'1
a'ove as 'asis for t"e e@er%ise of t"e RTCIs spe%ial %ourt 6urisdi%tion. Our fo%us in e@a&inin# t"e
alle#ations of t"e %o&plaint s"all t"erefore 'e on t"ese two provisions.
%audu&ent 'e(ices and Sche!es
T"e rule is t"at a %o&plaint &ust %ontain a plain, %on%ise, and dire%t state&ent of t"e ulti&ate fa%ts
%onstitutin# t"e plaintiffIs %ause of a%tion and &ust spe%if, t"e relief sou#"t.
1.
Se%tion !, Rule - of t"e
Revised Rules of Court provides t"at !" &.. &verme"($ o- -r&,* or m!$(&9e, (#e %!r%,m$(&"%e$
%o"$(!(,(!"+ -r&,* or m!$(&9e m,$( be $(&(e* 5!(# '&r(!%,.&r!().
1
T"ese rules find spe%ifi%
appli%ation to Se%tion !0a1 of P.$. No. *)(2/ w"i%" spea:s of %orporate devi%es or s%"e&es t"at
a&ount to fraud or &isrepresentation detri&ental to t"e pu'li% and=or to t"e sto%:"olders.
In an atte&pt to "old Os%ar responsi'le for %orporate fraud, Rodri#o alle#ed in t"e %o&plaint t"e
followin#5
.. T"is is a %o&plaintT(o *e(erm!"e (#e $#&re$ o- $(o%9 o- (#e *e%e&$e* $'o,$e$ Pe*ro &"*
A"&$(&%!& Re)e$ (#&( 5ere &rb!(r&r!.) &"* -r&,*,.e"(.) &''ro'r!&(e* -or #!m$e.- 6#ere!"
'e(!(!o"er O$%&r7 w"i%" were not %ollated and ta:en into a%%ount in t"e partition, distri'ution,
and=or settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%eased Spouses Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,es, for w"i%" "e
s"ould 'e ordered to a%%ount for all t"e in%o&e fro& t"e ti&e "e too: t"ese s"ares of sto%:, and
s"ould now deliver to "is 'rot"ers and sisters t"eir 6ust and respe%tive s"ares wit" t"e
%orrespondin# eCuivalent a&ount of P8,)**,*..-( plus interest t"ereon fro& 1*8- representin#
"is o'li#ations to t"e /sso%iated CitiGensI Ban: t"at was paid for "is a%%ount ', "is late &ot"er,
/nasta%ia C. Re,es. T"is a&ount was not %ollated or ta:en into a%%ount in t"e partition or
distri'ution of t"e estate of t"eir late &ot"er, /nasta%ia C. Re,es.
..1. Re$'o"*e"( O$%&r C. Re)e$, (#ro,+# o(#er $%#eme$ o- -r&,* !"%.,*!"+
m!$re're$e"(&(!o", ,"!.&(er&..), &"* -or #!$ o5" be"e-!(, %&'r!%!o,$.) (r&"$-erre* &"* (oo9
'o$$e$$!o" &"* %o"(ro. o- (#e m&"&+eme"( o- e"!(# I"$,r&"%e Cor'or&(!o" w"i%" is
%onsidered as a fa&il, %orporation, and ot"er properties and 'usinesses 'elon#in# to Spouses
Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,es.
@ @ @ @
.1. $urin# t"e in%rease of %apitaliGation of Senit" Insuran%e Corporation, so&eti&e in 1*4-,
t"e propert, %overed ', TCT No. ((!.( was ille#all, and fraudulentl, used ', respondent as a
%ollateral.
@ @ @ @
!. T"e %o&plainant Rodri#o C. Re,es dis%overed t"at b) $ome m&"!',.&(!ve $%#eme, (#e
$#&re#o.*!"+$ o- (#e!r *e%e&$e* mo(#er, DoJ& A"&$(&%!& C. Re)e$, $#&re$ o- $(o%9$ &"*
6$!%7 v&.,e* !" (#e %or'or&(e boo9$ &( P>,099,9D;.28, more or .e$$, e@%ludin# interest and=or
dividends, #&* bee" (r&"$-erre* $o.e.) !" (#e "&me o- re$'o"*e"(. B, su%" fraudulent
&anipulations and &isrepresentation, t"e s"are"oldin#s of said respondent Os%ar C. Re,es
a'ruptl, in%reased to P-,81!,4.8.)) Esi%F and 'e%o&es Esi%F t"e &a6orit, sto%:"older of Senit"
Insuran%e Corporation, w"i%" portion of said s"ares &ust 'e distri'uted eCuall, a&on#st t"e
'rot"ers and sisters of t"e respondent Os%ar C. Re,es in%ludin# t"e %o&plainant "erein.
@ @ @ @
*.1 T"e $#&re#o.*!"+$ o- *e%e&$e* Spouses Pedro Re,es and A"&$(&%!& C. Re)e$ v&.,e* &(
P>,099,9D;.28 5ere !..e+&..) &"* -r&,*,.e"(.) (r&"$-erre* $o.e.) (o (#e re$'o"*e"(I$ 6#ere!"
'e(!(!o"er O$%&r7 "&me &"* !"$(&..e* #!m$e.- &$ & m&:or!() $(o%9#o.*er o- e"!(# Insuran%e
Corporation EandF t"ere', deprived "is 'rot"ers and sisters of t"eir respe%tive eCual s"ares
t"ereof in%ludin# %o&plainant "ereto.
@ @ @ @
1).1 /) re-,$&. o- (#e re$'o"*e"( (o &%%o,"( o- #!$ 6$!%7 $#&re#o.*!"+$ !" (#e %om'&"), #e
!..e+&..) &"* -r&,*,.e"(.) (r&"$-erre* $o.e.) !" #!$ "&me 5#ere!" 6$!%7 (#e $#&re$ o- $(o%9 o-
(#e *e%e&$e* A"&$(&%!& C. Re)e$ 65#!%#7 m,$( be 'ro'er.) %o..&(e* &"*Kor *!$(r!b,(e*
e8,&..) &mo"+$( (#e %#!.*re", !"%.,*!"+ (#e %om'.&!"&"( Ro*r!+o C. Re)e$ #ere!", (o (#e!r
*&m&+e &"* 're:,*!%e.
@ @ @ @
11.1 B, %ontinuous refusal of t"e respondent to a%%ount of "is Esi%F s"are"oldin# wit" Senit"
Insuran%e CorporationE,F parti%ularl, t"e nu&'er of s"ares of sto%:s ille#all, and fraudulentl,
transferred to "i& fro& t"eir de%eased parents Sps. Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,esE,F w"i%" are all
su'6e%t for %ollation and=or partition in eCual s"ares a&on# t"eir %"ildren. EE&p"asis supplied.F
/lle#ations of de%eit, &a%"ination, false pretenses, &isrepresentation, and t"reats are lar#el,
%on%lusions of law t"at, wit"out supportin# state&ents of t"e fa%ts to w"i%" t"e alle#ations of fraud
refer, do not suffi%ientl, state an effe%tive %ause of a%tion.
1!
T"e late +usti%e +ose ?eria, a noted
aut"orit, in Re&edial Law, de%lared t"at fraud and &ista:e are reCuired to 'e averred wit" parti%ularit,
in order to ena'le t"e opposin# part, to %ontrovert t"e parti%ular fa%ts alle#edl, %onstitutin# su%" fraud
or &ista:e.
14

Tested a#ainst t"ese standards, we find t"at t"e %"ar#es of fraud a#ainst Os%ar were not properl,
supported ', t"e reCuired fa%tual alle#ations. >"ile t"e %o&plaint %ontained alle#ations of fraud
purportedl, %o&&itted ', "i&, t"ese alle#ations are not parti%ular enou#" to 'rin# t"e %ontrovers,
wit"in t"e spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourtIs 6urisdi%tionD t"e, are not state&ents of ulti&ate fa%ts, 'ut are
&ere %on%lusions of law5 "ow and w", t"e alle#ed appropriation of s"ares %an 'e %"ara%teriGed as
<ille#al and fraudulent< were not e@plained nor ela'orated on.
Not ever, alle#ation of fraud done in a %orporate settin# or perpetrated ', %orporate offi%ers will 'rin#
t"e %ase wit"in t"e spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourtIs 6urisdi%tion. To fall wit"in t"is 6urisdi%tion, t"ere &ust 'e
suffi%ient ne@us s"owin# t"at t"e %orporationIs nature, stru%ture, or powers were used to fa%ilitate t"e
fraudulent devi%e or s%"e&e. Contrar, to t"is %on%ept, t"e %o&plaint presented a reverse situation. No
%orporate power or offi%e was alle#ed to "ave fa%ilitated t"e transfer of t"e s"aresD rat"er, Os%ar, as an
individual and wit"out referen%e to "is %orporate personalit,, was alle#ed to "ave transferred t"e s"ares
of /nasta%ia to "is na&e, allowin# "i& to 'e%o&e t"e &a6orit, and %ontrollin# sto%:"older of Senit",
and eventuall,, t"e %orporationIs President. T"is is t"e essen%e of t"e %o&plaint read as a w"ole and is
parti%ularl, de&onstrated under t"e followin# alle#ations5
!. T"e %o&plainant Rodri#o C. Re,es dis%overed t"at ', so&e &anipulative s%"e&e, t"e
s"are"oldin#s of t"eir de%eased &ot"er, $oKa /nasta%ia C. Re,es, s"ares of sto%:s and Esi%F
valued in t"e %orporate 'oo:s at P8,4**,*..(-, &ore or less, e@%ludin# interest and=or
dividends, "ad 'een transferred solel, in t"e na&e of respondent. /) $,%# -r&,*,.e"(
m&"!',.&(!o"$ &"* m!$re're$e"(&(!o", (#e $#&re#o.*!"+$ o- $&!* re$'o"*e"( O$%&r C.
Re)e$ &br,'(.) !"%re&$e* (o P8,>1?,0D>.00 6$!%7 &"* be%ome$ 6$!%7 (#e m&:or!() $(o%9#o.*er
o- e"!(# I"$,r&"%e Cor'or&(!o", w"i%" portion of said s"ares &ust 'e distri'uted eCuall,
a&on#st t"e 'rot"ers and sisters of t"e respondent Os%ar C. Re,es in%ludin# t"e %o&plainant
"erein.
@ @ @ @
*.1 T#e $#&re#o.*!"+$ o- *e%e&$e* Spouses Pedro Re,es and A"&$(&%!& C. Re)e$ valued at
P8,)**,*..(- 5ere !..e+&..) &"* -r&,*,.e"(.) (r&"$-erre* $o.e.) (o (#e re$'o"*e"(I$ 6#ere!"
'e(!(!o"er O$%&r7 "&me &"* !"$(&..e* #!m$e.- &$ & m&:or!() $(o%9#o.*er o- e"!(# Insuran%e
Corporation EandF t"ere', deprived "is 'rot"ers and sisters of t"eir respe%tive eCual s"ares
t"ereof in%ludin# %o&plainant "ereto. EE&p"asis supplied.F
In ordinar, %ases, t"e failure to spe%ifi%all, alle#e t"e fraudulent a%ts does not %onstitute a #round for
dis&issal sin%e su%" defe%t %an 'e %ured ', a 'ill of parti%ulars. In %ases #overned ', t"e Interi& Rules
of Pro%edure on Intra2Corporate Controversies, "owever, a 'ill of parti%ulars is a pro"i'ited pleadin#.
18
It is essential, t"erefore, for t"e %o&plaint to s"ow on its fa%e w"at are %lai&ed to 'e t"e fraudulent
%orporate a%ts if t"e %o&plainant wis"es to invo:e t"e %ourtIs spe%ial %o&&er%ial 6urisdi%tion.
>e note t"at twi%e in t"e %ourse of t"is %ase, Rodri#o "ad 'een #iven t"e opportunit, to stud, t"e
propriet, of a&endin# or wit"drawin# t"e %o&plaint, 'ut "e %onsistentl, refused. T"e %ourtIs fun%tion
in resolvin# issues of 6urisdi%tion is li&ited to t"e review of t"e alle#ations of t"e %o&plaint and, on t"e
'asis of t"ese alle#ations, to t"e deter&ination of w"et"er t"e, are of su%" nature and su'6e%t t"at t"e,
fall wit"in t"e ter&s of t"e law definin# t"e %ourtIs 6urisdi%tion. Re#retfull,, we %annot read into t"e
%o&plaint an, spe%ifi%all, alle#ed %orporate fraud t"at will %all for t"e e@er%ise of t"e %ourtIs spe%ial
%o&&er%ial 6urisdi%tion. T"us, we %annot affir& t"e RTCIs assu&ption of 6urisdi%tion over Rodri#oIs
%o&plaint on t"e 'asis of Se%tion !0a1 of P.$. No. *)(2/.
1-

Inta)Co#oate Conto(es$
/ review of relevant 6urispruden%e s"ows a develop&ent in t"e CourtIs approa%" in %lassif,in# w"at
%onstitutes an intra2%orporate %ontrovers,. Initiall,, t"e &ain %onsideration in deter&inin# w"et"er a
dispute %onstitutes an intra2%orporate %ontrovers, was li&ited to a %onsideration of t"e intra2%orporate
relations"ip e@istin# 'etween or a&on# t"e parties.
1*
T"e t,pes of relations"ips e&'ra%ed under
Se%tion !0'1, as de%lared in t"e %ase of <nion .lass N ontainer or&* v* SE,
()
were as follows5
a1 'etween t"e %orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation and t"e pu'li%D
'1 'etween t"e %orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation and its sto%:"olders, partners, &e&'ers,
or offi%ersD
%1 'etween t"e %orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation and t"e State as far as its fran%"ise,
per&it or li%ense to operate is %on%ernedD and
d1 &mo"+ (#e $(o%9#o.*er$, '&r("er$, or &$$o%!&(e$ (#em$e.ve$. EE&p"asis supplied.F
T"e e@isten%e of an, of t"e a'ove intra2%orporate relations was suffi%ient to %onfer 6urisdi%tion to t"e
SEC, re#ardless of t"e su'6e%t &atter of t"e dispute. T"is %a&e to 'e :nown as t"e re.&(!o"$#!' (e$(.
Aowever, in t"e 1*- %ase of D+' Enter&rises v* Esta del Sol +ountain 'eserve, %nc.,
(1
t"e Court
introdu%ed t"e "&(,re o- (#e %o"(rover$) (e$(. >e de%lared in t"is %ase t"at it is not t"e &ere e@isten%e
of an intra2%orporate relations"ip t"at #ives rise to an intra2%orporate %ontrovers,D to rel, on t"e
relations"ip test alone will divest t"e re#ular %ourts of t"eir 6urisdi%tion for t"e sole reason t"at t"e
dispute involves a %orporation, its dire%tors, offi%ers, or sto%:"olders. >e saw t"at t"ere is no le#al
sense in disre#ardin# or &ini&iGin# t"e value of t"e nature of t"e transa%tions w"i%" #ives rise to t"e
dispute.
Under t"e nature of t"e %ontrovers, test, t"e incidents of t"at relations"ip &ust also 'e %onsidered for
t"e purpose of as%ertainin# w"et"er t"e %ontrovers, itself is intra2%orporate.
((
T"e %ontrovers, &ust
not onl, 'e rooted in t"e e@isten%e of an intra2%orporate relations"ip, 'ut &ust as well pertain to t"e
enfor%e&ent of t"e partiesI %orrelative ri#"ts and o'li#ations under t"e Corporation Code and t"e
internal and intra2%orporate re#ulator, rules of t"e %orporation. If t"e relations"ip and its in%idents are
&erel, in%idental to t"e %ontrovers, or if t"ere will still 'e %onfli%t even if t"e relations"ip does not
e@ist, t"en no intra2%orporate %ontrovers, e@ists.
T"e Court t"en %o&'ined t"e two tests and de%lared t"at 6urisdi%tion s"ould 'e deter&ined ',
%onsiderin# not onl, t"e status or relations"ip of t"e parties, 'ut also t"e nature of t"e Cuestion under
%ontrovers,.
(.
T"is two2tier test was adopted in t"e re%ent %ase of S&eed Distribution, %nc* v* ourt of
A&&eals5
(

To deter&ine w"et"er a %ase involves an intra2%orporate %ontrovers,, and is to 'e "eard and
de%ided ', t"e 'ran%"es of t"e RTC spe%ifi%all, desi#nated ', t"e Court to tr, and de%ide su%"
%ases, two ele&ents &ust %on%ur5 0a1 t"e status or relations"ip of t"e partiesD and 0(1 t"e nature
of t"e Cuestion t"at is t"e su'6e%t of t"eir %ontrovers,.
T"e first ele&ent reCuires t"at t"e %ontrovers, &ust arise out of intra2%orporate or partners"ip
relations 'etween an, or all of t"e parties and t"e %orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation of
w"i%" t"e, are sto%:"olders, &e&'ers or asso%iatesD 'etween an, or all of t"e& and t"e
%orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation of w"i%" t"e, are sto%:"olders, &e&'ers, or asso%iates,
respe%tivel,D and 'etween su%" %orporation, partners"ip, or asso%iation and t"e State insofar as
it %on%erns t"eir individual fran%"ises. T"e se%ond ele&ent reCuires t"at t"e dispute a&on# t"e
parties 'e intrinsi%all, %onne%ted wit" t"e re#ulation of t"e %orporation. If t"e nature of t"e
%ontrovers, involves &atters t"at are purel, %ivil in %"ara%ter, ne%essaril,, t"e %ase does not
involve an intra2%orporate %ontrovers,.
3iven t"ese standards, we now ta%:le t"e Cuestion posed for our deter&ination under t"e spe%ifi%
%ir%u&stan%es of t"is %ase5
A&&lication of the 'elationshi& Test
Is t"ere an intra2%orporate relations"ip 'etween t"e parties t"at would %"ara%teriGe t"e %ase as an intra2
%orporate disputeH
>e point out at t"e outset t"at w"ile Rodri#o "olds s"ares of sto%: in Senit", "e "olds t"e& in two
%apa%ities5 in "is own ri#"t wit" respe%t to t"e ,(!) s"ares re#istered in "is na&e, and as one of t"e
"eirs of /nasta%ia Re,es wit" respe%t to t"e 1.4,!*- s"ares re#istered in "er na&e. >"at is &aterial in
resolvin# t"e issues of t"is %ase under t"e alle#ations of t"e %o&plaint is Rodri#oIs interest as an heir
sin%e t"e su'6e%t &atter of t"e present %ontrovers, %enters on t"e s"ares of sto%:s 'elon#in# to
/nasta%ia, not on Rodri#oIs personall,2owned s"ares nor on "is personalit, as s"are"older ownin#
t"ese s"ares. In t"is li#"t, all referen%e to s"ares of sto%:s in t"is %ase s"all pertain to t"e s"are"oldin#s
of t"e de%eased /nasta%ia and t"e partiesI interest t"erein as "er "eirs.
/rti%le 888 of t"e Civil Code de%lares t"at t"e su%%essional ri#"ts are trans&itted fro& t"e &o&ent of
deat" of t"e de%edent. /%%ordin#l,, upon /nasta%iaIs deat", "er %"ildren a%Cuired le#al title to "er
estate 0w"i%" title in%ludes "er s"are"oldin#s in Senit"1, and t"e, are, prior to t"e estateIs partition,
dee&ed %o2owners t"ereof.
(!
T"is status as %o2owners, "owever, does not i&&ediatel, and ne%essaril,
&a:e t"e& sto%:"olders of t"e %orporation. Unless and until t"ere is %o&plian%e wit" Se%tion 4. of t"e
Corporation Code on t"e &anner of transferrin# s"ares, t"e "eirs do not 'e%o&e re#istered sto%:"olders
of t"e %orporation. Se%tion 4. provides5
Se%tion 4.. ertificate of stoc> and transfer of shares. M T"e %apital sto%: of sto%: %orporations
s"all 'e divided into s"ares for w"i%" %ertifi%ates si#ned ', t"e president or vi%e2president,
%ountersi#ned ', t"e se%retar, or assistant se%retar,, and sealed wit" t"e seal of t"e %orporation
s"all 'e issued in a%%ordan%e wit" t"e ',2laws. S"ares of sto%: so issued are personal propert,
and &a, 'e transferred ', deliver, of t"e %ertifi%ate or %ertifi%ates indorsed ', t"e owner or "is
attorne,2in2fa%t or ot"er person le#all, aut"oriGed to &a:e t"e transfer. No (r&"$-er, #o5ever,
$#&.. be v&.!*, e4%e'( &$ be(5ee" (#e '&r(!e$, ,"(!. (#e (r&"$-er !$ re%or*e* !" (#e boo9$ o-
(#e %or'or&(!o" $o &$ (o $#o5 (#e "&me$ o- (#e '&r(!e$ (o (#e (r&"$&%(!o", (#e *&(e o- (#e
(r&"$-er, (#e ",mber o- (#e %er(!-!%&(e or %er(!-!%&(e$, &"* (#e ",mber o- $#&re$
(r&"$-erre*. EE&p"asis supplied.F
No s"ares of sto%: a#ainst w"i%" t"e %orporation "olds an, unpaid %lai& s"all 'e transfera'le in
t"e 'oo:s of t"e %orporation.
Si&pl, stated, t"e transfer of title ', &eans of su%%ession, t"ou#" effe%tive and valid 'etween t"e
parties involved 0i.e., 'etween t"e de%edentIs estate and "er "eirs1, does not 'ind t"e %orporation and
t"ird parties. T"e transfer &ust 'e re#istered in t"e 'oo:s of t"e %orporation to &a:e t"e transferee2"eir
a sto%:"older entitled to re%o#nition as su%" 'ot" ', t"e %orporation and ', t"ird parties.
(4
>e note, in relation wit" t"e a'ove state&ent, t"at in Abe)o v* Dela ru,
(8
and TC Sales or&oration
v* ourt of A&&eals
(-
we did not reCuire t"e re#istration of t"e transfer 'efore %onsiderin# t"e
transferee a sto%:"older of t"e %orporation 0in effe%t up"oldin# t"e e@isten%e of an intra2%orporate
relation 'etween t"e parties and 'rin#in# t"e %ase wit"in t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e SEC as an intra2
%orporate %ontrovers,1. / &ar:ed differen%e, "owever, e@ists 'etween t"ese %ases and t"e present one.
In /'e6o and TCL Sales, t"e transferees "eld *e-!"!(e &"* ,"%o"(e$(e* (!(.e$ (o & $'e%!-!% ",mber o-
$#&re$ o- (#e %or'or&(!o"D after t"e transferee "ad esta'lis"ed &rima facie owners"ip over t"e s"ares
of sto%:s in Cuestion, re#istration 'e%a&e a &ere for&alit, in %onfir&in# t"eir status as sto%:"olders.
In t"e present %ase, ea%" of /nasta%iaIs "eirs "olds onl, an undivided interest in t"e s"ares. T"is
interest, at t"is point, is still in%"oate and su'6e%t to t"e out%o&e of a settle&ent pro%eedin#D t"e ri#"t of
t"e "eirs to spe%ifi%, distri'utive s"ares of in"eritan%e will not 'e deter&ined until all t"e de'ts of t"e
estate of t"e de%edent are paid. In s"ort, t"e "eirs are onl, entitled to w"at re&ains after pa,&ent of t"e
de%edentIs de'tsD
(*
w"et"er t"ere will 'e residue re&ains to 'e seen. +usti%e +urado aptl, puts it as
follows5
No su%%ession s"all 'e de%lared unless and until a liCuidation of t"e assets and de'ts left ', t"e
de%edent s"all "ave 'een &ade and all "is %reditors are full, paid. Until a final liCuidation is
&ade and all t"e de'ts are paid, t"e ri#"t of t"e "eirs to in"erit re&ains in%"oate. T"is is so
'e%ause under our rules of pro%edure, .!8,!*&(!o" !$ "e%e$$&r) !" or*er (o *e(erm!"e 5#e(#er
or "o( (#e *e%e*e"( #&$ .e-( &") .!8,!* &$$e($ 5#!%# m&) be (r&"$m!((e* (o #!$ #e!r$.
.)
EE&p"asis supplied.F
Rodri#o &ust, t"erefore, "urdle two o'sta%les 'efore "e %an 'e %onsidered a sto%:"older of Senit" wit"
respe%t to t"e s"are"oldin#s ori#inall, 'elon#in# to /nasta%ia. First, "e &ust prove t"at t"ere are
s"are"oldin#s t"at will 'e left to "i& and "is %o2"eirs, and t"is %an 'e deter&ined onl, in a settle&ent
of t"e de%edentIs estate. No su%" pro%eedin# "as 'een %o&&en%ed to date. Second, "e &ust re#ister t"e
transfer of t"e s"ares allotted to "i& to &a:e it 'indin# a#ainst t"e %orporation. Ae %annot de&and t"at
t"is 'e done unless and until "e "as esta'lis"ed "is spe%ifi% allot&ent 0and &rima facie owners"ip1 of
t"e s"ares. >it"out t"e settle&ent of /nasta%iaIs estate, t"ere %an 'e no definite partition and
distri'ution of t"e estate to t"e "eirs. >it"out t"e partition and distri'ution, t"ere %an 'e no re#istration
of t"e transfer. /nd wit"out t"e re#istration, we %annot %onsider t"e transferee2"eir a sto%:"older w"o
&a, invo:e t"e e@isten%e of an intra2%orporate relations"ip as pre&ise for an intra2%orporate
%ontrovers, wit"in t"e 6urisdi%tion of a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt.
In su&, we find t"at M insofar as t"e su'6e%t s"ares of sto%: 0i*e*, /nasta%iaIs s"ares1 are %on%erned M
Rodri#o %annot 'e %onsidered a sto%:"older of Senit". ConseCuentl,, we %annot de%lare t"at an intra2
%orporate relations"ip e@ists t"at would serve as 'asis to 'rin# t"is %ase wit"in t"e spe%ial %o&&er%ial
%ourtIs 6urisdi%tion under Se%tion !0'1 of P$ *)(2/, as a&ended. Rodri#oIs %o&plaint, t"erefore, fails
t"e relations"ip test.
A&&lication of the Nature of ontroversy Test
T"e 'od, rat"er t"an t"e title of t"e %o&plaint deter&ines t"e nature of an a%tion.
.1
Our e@a&ination of
t"e %o&plaint ,ields t"e %on%lusion t"at, &ore t"an an,t"in# else, t"e %o&plaint is a'out t"e prote%tion
and enfor%e&ent of su%%essional ri#"ts. T"e %ontrovers, it presents is purel, %ivil rat"er t"an %orporate,
alt"ou#" it is deno&inated as a <%o&plaint for a%%ountin# of all %orporate funds and assets.<
Contrar, to t"e findin#s of 'ot" t"e trial and appellate %ourts, we read onl, one %ause of a%tion alle#ed
in t"e %o&plaint. T"e <derivative suit for a%%ountin# of t"e funds and assets of t"e %orporation w"i%"
are in t"e %ontrol, %ustod,, and=or possession of t"e respondent E"erein petitioner Os%arF< does not
%onstitute a separate %ause of a%tion 'ut is, as %orre%tl, %lai&ed ', Os%ar, onl, an in%ident to t"e
<a%tion for deter&ination of t"e s"ares of sto%: of de%eased spouses Pedro and /nasta%ia Re,es
alle#edl, ta:en ', respondent, its a%%ountin# and t"e %orrespondin# deliver, of t"ese s"ares to t"e
partiesI 'rot"ers and sisters.< T"ere %an 'e no &ista:e of t"e relations"ip 'etween t"e <a%%ountin#<
&entioned in t"e %o&plaint and t"e o'6e%tive of partition and distri'ution w"en Rodri#o %lai&ed in
para#rap" 1).1 of t"e %o&plaint t"at5
1).1 B, refusal of t"e respondent to a%%ount of Esi%F "is s"are"oldin#s in t"e %o&pan,, "e
ille#all, and fraudulentl, transferred solel, in "is na&e w"erein Esi%F t"e s"ares of sto%: of t"e
de%eased /nasta%ia C. Re,es Ew"i%"F &ust 'e properl, %ollated and=or distri'uted eCuall,
a&on#st t"e %"ildren in%ludin# t"e %o&plainant Rodri#o C. Re,es "erein to t"eir da&a#e and
pre6udi%e.
>e parti%ularl, note t"at t"e %o&plaint %ontained no suffi%ient alle#ation t"at 6ustified t"e need for an
a%%ountin# other than to deter&ine t"e e@tent of /nasta%iaIs s"are"oldin#s for purposes of distri'ution.
/not"er si#nifi%ant indi%ator t"at points us to t"e real nature of t"e %o&plaint are Rodri#oIs repeated
%lai&s of ille#al and fraudulent transfers of /nasta%iaIs s"ares ', Os%ar to t"e pre6udi%e of t"e ot"er
"eirs of t"e de%edentD "e %ited t"ese alle#edl, fraudulent a%ts as 'asis for "is de&and for t"e %ollation
and distri'ution of /nasta%iaIs s"ares to t"e "eirs. T"ese %lai&s tell us uneCuivo%all, t"at t"e present
%ontrovers, arose fro& t"e partiesI relations"ip as "eirs of /nasta%ia and not as shareholders of Oenith.
Rodri#o, in filin# t"e %o&plaint, is enfor%in# "is ri#"ts as a %o2"eir and not as a sto%:"older of Senit".
T"e in6ur, "e see:s to re&ed, is one suffered ', an "eir 0for t"e i&pair&ent of "is su%%essional ri#"ts1
and not ', t"e %orporation nor ', Rodri#o as a s"are"older on re%ord.
7ore t"an t"e &atters of in6ur, and redress, w"at Rodri#o %learl, ai&s to a%%o&plis" t"rou#" "is
alle#ations of ille#al a%Cuisition ', Os%ar is t"e distri'ution of /nasta%iaIs s"are"oldin#s wit"out a
prior settle&ent of "er estate M an o'6e%tive t"at, ', law and esta'lis"ed 6urispruden%e, %annot 'e done.
T"e RTC of 7a:ati, a%tin# as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt, "as no 6urisdi%tion to settle, partition, and
distri'ute t"e estate of a de%eased. / relevant provision M Se%tion ( of Rule *) of t"e Revised Rules of
Court M t"at %onte&plates properties of t"e de%edent "eld ', one of t"e "eirs de%lares5
L,e$(!o"$ &$ (o &*v&"%eme"( &ade or alle#ed to "ave 'een &ade ', t"e de%eased to an, "eir
m&) be #e&r* &"* *e(erm!"e* b) (#e cout ha(ing *uisdiction of the estate #oceedingsD and
t"e final order of t"e %ourt t"ereon s"all 'e 'indin# on t"e person raisin# t"e Cuestions and on
t"e "eir. EE&p"asis supplied.F
>ort" notin# are t"is CourtIs state&ents in t"e %ase of Natcher v* ourt of A&&ealsP
.(
M&((er$ 5#!%# !"vo.ve $e((.eme"( &"* *!$(r!b,(!o" o- (#e e$(&(e o- (#e *e%e*e"( -&.. 5!(#!"
(#e e4%.,$!ve 'rov!"%e o- (#e 'rob&(e %o,r( in t"e e@er%ise of its li&ited 6urisdi%tion.
@ @ @ @
It is %lear t"at trial %o,r($ (r)!"+ &" or*!"&r) &%(!o" %&""o( re$o.ve (o 'er-orm &%($
'er(&!"!"+ (o & $'e%!&. 'ro%ee*!"+ 'e%ause it is su'6e%t to spe%ifi% pres%ri'ed rules. EE&p"asis
supplied.F
T"at an a%%ountin# of t"e funds and assets of Senit" to deter&ine t"e e@tent and value of /nasta%iaIs
s"are"oldin#s will 'e underta:en ', a pro'ate %ourt and not ', a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt is
%o&pletel, %onsistent wit" t"e pro'ate %ourtIs li&ited 6urisdi%tion. It "as t"e power to enfor%e an
a%%ountin# as a ne%essar, &eans to its aut"orit, to deter&ine t"e properties in%luded in t"e inventor, of
t"e estate to 'e ad&inistered, divided up, and distri'uted. Be,ond t"is, t"e deter&ination of title or
owners"ip over t"e su'6e%t s"ares 0w"et"er 'elon#in# to /nasta%ia or Os%ar1 &a, 'e %on%lusivel,
settled ', t"e pro'ate %ourt as a Cuestion of %ollation or advan%e&ent. >e "ad o%%asion to re%o#niGe
t"e %ourtIs aut"orit, to a%t on Cuestions of title or owners"ip in a %ollation or advan%e&ent situation in
oca v* "angilinan
..
w"ere we ruled5
It s"ould 'e %larified t"at w"et"er a parti%ular &atter s"ould 'e resolved ', t"e Court of ?irst
Instan%e in t"e e@er%ise of its #eneral 6urisdi%tion or of its li&ited pro'ate 6urisdi%tion is in
realit, not a 6urisdi%tional Cuestion. In essen%e, it is a pro%edural Cuestion involvin# a &ode of
pra%ti%e <w"i%" &a, 'e waived.<
/s a #eneral rule, t"e Cuestion as to title to propert, s"ould not 'e passed upon in t"e testate or
intestate pro%eedin#. T"at Cuestion s"ould 'e ventilated in a separate a%tion. T"at #eneral rule
"as Cualifi%ations or e@%eptions 6ustified ', e@pedien%, and %onvenien%e.
T"us, t"e pro'ate %ourt &a, provisionall, pass upon in an intestate or testate pro%eedin# t"e
Cuestion of in%lusion in, or e@%lusion fro&, t"e inventor, of a pie%e of propert, wit"out
pre6udi%e to its final deter&ination in a separate a%tion.
A.(#o,+# +e"er&..), & 'rob&(e %o,r( m&) "o( *e%!*e & 8,e$(!o" o- (!(.e or o5"er$#!', )e( !-
t"e interested parties are all "eirs, or (#e 8,e$(!o" !$ o"e o- %o..&(!o" or &*v&"%eme"(, or t"e
parties %onsent to t"e assu&ption of 6urisdi%tion ', t"e pro'ate %ourt and t"e ri#"ts of t"ird
parties are not i&paired, (#e 'rob&(e %o,r( !$ %om'e(e"( (o *e%!*e (#e 8,e$(!o" o- o5"er$#!'.
ECitations o&itted. E&p"asis supplied.F
In su&, we "old t"at t"e nature of t"e present %ontrovers, is not one w"i%" &a, 'e %lassified as an
intra2%orporate dispute and is 'e,ond t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt to resolve. In
s"ort, Rodri#oIs %o&plaint also fails t"e nature of t"e %ontrovers, test.
DERICATICE SUIT
Rodri#oIs 'are %lai& t"at t"e %o&plaint is a derivative suit will not suffi%e to %onfer 6urisdi%tion on t"e
RTC 0as a spe%ial %o&&er%ial %ourt1 if "e %annot %o&pl, wit" t"e reCuisites for t"e e@isten%e of a
derivative suit. T"ese reCuisites are5
a. t"e part, 'rin#in# suit s"ould 'e a s"are"older durin# t"e ti&e of t"e a%t or transa%tion
%o&plained of, t"e nu&'er of s"ares not 'ein# &aterialD
'. t"e part, "as tried to e@"aust intra2%orporate re&edies, i.e., "as &ade a de&and on t"e 'oard
of dire%tors for t"e appropriate relief, 'ut t"e latter "as failed or refused to "eed "is pleaD and
%. t"e %ause of a%tion a%tuall, devolves on t"e %orporationD t"e wron#doin# or "ar& "avin# 'een
or 'ein# %aused to t"e %orporation and not to t"e parti%ular sto%:"older 'rin#in# t"e suit.
.
Based on t"ese standards, we "old t"at t"e alle#ations of t"e present %o&plaint do not a&ount to a
derivative suit.
First, as alread, dis%ussed a'ove, Rodri#o is not a s"are"older wit" respe%t to t"e s"are"oldin#s
ori#inall, 'elon#in# to /nasta%iaD "e onl, stands as a transferee2"eir w"ose ri#"ts to t"e s"are are
in%"oate and unre%orded. >it" respe%t to "is own individuall,2"eld s"are"oldin#s, Rodri#o "as not
alle#ed an, individual %ause or 'asis as a s"are"older on re%ord to pro%eed a#ainst Os%ar.
Second, in order t"at a sto%:"older &a, s"ow a ri#"t to sue on 'e"alf of t"e %orporation, "e &ust alle#e
wit" so&e parti%ularit, in "is %o&plaint t"at "e "as e@"austed "is re&edies !ithin the cor&oration ',
&a:in# a suffi%ient de&and upon t"e dire%tors or ot"er offi%ers for appropriate relief wit" t"e e@pressed
intent to sue if relief is denied.
.!
Para#rap" - of t"e %o&plaint "ardl, satisfies t"is reCuire&ent sin%e
w"at t"e rule %onte&plates is t"e e@"austion of re&edies !ithin t"e %orporate settin#5
-. /s &e&'ers of t"e sa&e fa&il,, %o&plainant Rodri#o C. Re,es "as resorted EtoF and
e@"austed all le#al &eans of resolvin# t"e dispute wit" t"e end view of a&i%a'l, settlin# t"e
%ase, 'ut t"e dispute 'etween t"e& ensued.
Castly, we find no in6ur,, a%tual or t"reatened, alle#ed to "ave 'een done to t"e %orporation due to
Os%arIs a%ts. If indeed "e ille#all, and fraudulentl, transferred /nasta%iaIs s"ares in "is own na&e,
t"en t"e da&a#e is not to t"e %orporation 'ut to "is %o2"eirsD t"e wron#ful transfer did not affe%t t"e
%apital sto%: or t"e assets of Senit". /s alread, &entioned, neit"er "as Rodri#o alle#ed an, parti%ular
%ause or wron#doin# a#ainst t"e %orporation t"at "e %an %"a&pion in "is %apa%it, as a s"are"older on
re%ord.
.4
In su&&ar,, w"et"er as an individual or as a derivative suit, t"e RTC M sittin# as spe%ial %o&&er%ial
%ourt M "as no 6urisdi%tion to "ear Rodri#oIs %o&plaint sin%e w"at is involved is t"e deter&ination and
distri'ution of su%%essional ri#"ts to t"e s"are"oldin#s of /nasta%ia Re,es. Rodri#oIs proper re&ed,,
under t"e %ir%u&stan%es, is to institute a spe%ial pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e
de%eased /nasta%ia Re,es, a &ove t"at is not fore%losed ', t"e dis&issal of "is present %o&plaint.
WHERE3ORE, we "ere', GRANT t"e petition and RECERSE t"e de%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals
dated 7a, (4, ()) in C/23.R. SP No. 8*8). T"e %o&plaint 'efore t"e Re#ional Trial Court, Bran%"
1(, 7a:ati, do%:eted as Civil Case No. ))21!!., is ordered DISMISSED for la%: of 6urisdi%tion.
SO ORDERED
G.R. No. 1>>000 Se'(ember 11, 2009
JOSE1ITO MUSNI PUNO F&$ #e!r o- (#e .&(e C&r.o$ P,"oG, Petitioner,
vs.
PUNO ENTERPRISES, INC., re're$e"(e* b) JESUSA PUNO, Respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Upon t"e deat" of a sto%:"older, t"e "eirs do not auto&ati%all, 'e%o&e sto%:"olders of t"e %orporationD
neit"er are t"e, &andatoril, entitled to t"e ri#"ts and privile#es of a sto%:"older. T"is, we de%lare in
t"is petition for review on %ertiorari of t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/1 $e%ision
1
dated O%to'er 11, ())4
and Resolution dated 7ar%" 4, ())8 in C/23.R. C; No. -41.8.
T"e fa%ts of t"e %ase follow5
Carlos L. Puno, w"o died on +une (!, 1*4., was an in%orporator of respondent Puno Enterprises, In%.
On 7ar%" 1, ())., petitioner +oselito 7usni Puno, %lai&in# to 'e an "eir of Carlos L. Puno, initiated
a %o&plaint for spe%ifi% perfor&an%e a#ainst respondent. Petitioner averred t"at "e is t"e son of t"e
de%eased wit" t"e latterIs %o&&on2law wife, /&elia Puno. /s survivin# "eir, "e %lai&ed entitle&ent to
t"e ri#"ts and privile#es of "is late fat"er as sto%:"older of respondent. T"e %o&plaint t"us pra,ed t"at
respondent allow petitioner to inspe%t its %orporate 'oo:, render an a%%ountin# of all t"e transa%tions it
entered into fro& 1*4(, and #ive petitioner all t"e profits, earnin#s, dividends, or in%o&e pertainin# to
t"e s"ares of Carlos L. Puno.
(
Respondent filed a &otion to dis&iss on t"e #round t"at petitioner did not "ave t"e le#al personalit, to
sue 'e%ause "is 'irt" %ertifi%ate na&es "i& as <+oselito 7usni 7uno.< /propos, t"ere was ,et a need
for a 6udi%ial de%laration t"at <+oselito 7usni Puno< and <+oselito 7usni 7uno< were one and t"e
sa&e.
T"e %ourt ordered t"at t"e pro%eedin#s 'e "eld in a'e,an%e, ratio%inatin# t"at petitionerIs %ertifi%ate of
live 'irt" was no proof of "is paternit, and relation to Carlos L. Puno.
Petitioner su'&itted t"e %orre%ted 'irt" %ertifi%ate wit" t"e na&e <+oselito 7. Puno,< %ertified ', t"e
Civil Re#istrar of t"e Cit, of 7anila, and t"e Certifi%ate of ?inalit, t"ereof. To "asten t"e disposition of
t"e %ase, t"e %ourt %onditionall, ad&itted t"e %orre%ted 'irt" %ertifi%ate as #enuine and aut"enti% and
ordered respondent to file its answer wit"in fifteen da,s fro& t"e order and set t"e %ase for pretrial.
.
On O%to'er 11, ())!, t"e %ourt rendered a $e%ision, t"e dispositive portion of w"i%" reads5
>AERE?ORE, 6ud#&ent is "ere', rendered orderin# +esusa Puno and=or ?eli%idad ?er&in to allow
t"e plaintiff to inspe%t t"e %orporate 'oo:s and re%ords of t"e %o&pan, fro& 1*4( up to t"e present
in%ludin# t"e finan%ial state&ents of t"e %orporation.
T"e %osts of %op,in# s"all 'e s"ouldered ', t"e plaintiff. /n, e@penses to 'e in%urred ', t"e defendant
to 'e a'le to %o&pl, wit" t"is order s"all 'e t"e su'6e%t of a 'ill of %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.

On appeal, t"e C/ ordered t"e dis&issal of t"e %o&plaint in its $e%ision dated O%to'er 11, ())4.
/%%ordin# to t"e C/, petitioner was not a'le to esta'lis" t"e paternit, of and "is filiation to Carlos L.
Puno sin%e "is 'irt" %ertifi%ate was prepared wit"out t"e intervention of and t"e parti%ipator,
a%:nowled#&ent of paternit, ', Carlos L. Puno. /%%ordin#l,, t"e C/ said t"at petitioner "ad no ri#"t
to de&and t"at "e 'e allowed to e@a&ine respondentIs 'oo:s. 7oreover, petitioner was not a
sto%:"older of t"e %orporation 'ut was &erel, %lai&in# ri#"ts as an "eir of Carlos L. Puno, an
in%orporator of t"e %orporation. Ais a%tion for spe%ifi% perfor&an%e t"erefore appeared to 'e pre&atureD
t"e proper a%tion to 'e ta:en was to prove t"e paternit, of and "is filiation to Carlos L. Puno in a
petition for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e latter.
!
PetitionerIs &otion for re%onsideration was denied ', t"e C/ in its Resolution
4
dated 7ar%" 4, ())8.
In t"is petition, petitioner raises t"e followin# issues5
I. TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN NOT RULIN3 TA/T TAE
+OSELITO PUNO IS ENTITLE$ TO TAE RELIE?S $E7/N$E$ AE BEIN3 TAE
AEIR O? TAE L/TE C/RLOS PUNO, ONE O? TAE INCORPOR/TORS EO?F
RESPON$ENT CORPOR/TION.
II. AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN RULIN3 TA/T ?ILI/TION O?
+OSELITO PUNO, TAE PETITIONERE,F IS NOT $ULN PRO;EN OR EST/BLISAE$.
III. TAE AONOR/BLE COURT ERRE$ IN NOT RULIN3 TA/T +OSELITO 7UNO
/N$ +OSELITO PUNO RE?ERS TO TAE ONE /N$ TAE S/7E PERSON.
I;. TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN NOT RULIN3 TA/T >A/T
RESPON$ENT 7ERELN $ISPUTES IS TAE SURN/7E O? TAE PETITIONER
>AICA >/S 7ISSPELLE$ /N$ TAE ?/CTU/L /LLE3/TION E.3. RI3ATS O?
PETITIONER /S AEIR O? C/RLOS PUNO /RE $EE7E$ /$7ITTE$
ANPOTAETIC/LLN IN TAE RESPON$ENTEISF 7OTION TO $IS7ISS.
;. TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS TAERE?ORE ERRE$ IENF $ECREEIN3
TA/T PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLE$ TO INSPECT TAE CORPOR/TE BOOJS O?
$E?EN$/NT CORPOR/TION.
8
T"e petition is wit"out &erit. Petitioner failed to esta'lis" t"e ri#"t to inspe%t respondent %orporationIs
'oo:s and re%eive dividends on t"e sto%:s owned ', Carlos L. Puno.
Petitioner an%"ors "is %lai& on "is 'ein# an "eir of t"e de%eased sto%:"older. Aowever, we a#ree wit"
t"e appellate %ourt t"at petitioner was not a'le to prove satisfa%toril, "is filiation to t"e de%eased
sto%:"olderD t"us, t"e for&er %annot %lai& to 'e an "eir of t"e latter.
In%essantl,, we "ave de%lared t"at fa%tual findin#s of t"e C/ supported ', su'stantial eviden%e, are
%on%lusive and 'indin#.
-
In an appeal via certiorari, t"e Court &a, not review t"e fa%tual findin#s of
t"e C/. It is not t"e CourtIs fun%tion under Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court to review, e@a&ine, and
evaluate or wei#" t"e pro'ative value of t"e eviden%e presented.
*
/ %ertifi%ate of live 'irt" purportedl, identif,in# t"e putative fat"er is not %o&petent eviden%e of
paternit, w"en t"ere is no s"owin# t"at t"e putative fat"er "ad a "and in t"e preparation of t"e
%ertifi%ate. T"e lo%al %ivil re#istrar "as no aut"orit, to re%ord t"e paternit, of an ille#iti&ate %"ild on
t"e infor&ation of a t"ird person.
1)
/s %orre%tl, o'served ', t"e C/, onl, petitionerIs &ot"er supplied
t"e data in t"e 'irt" %ertifi%ate and si#ned t"e sa&e. T"ere was no eviden%e t"at Carlos L. Puno
a%:nowled#ed petitioner as "is son.
/s for t"e 'aptis&al %ertifi%ate, we "ave alread, de%reed t"at it %an onl, serve as eviden%e of t"e
ad&inistration of t"e sa%ra&ent on t"e date spe%ified 'ut not of t"e vera%it, of t"e entries wit" respe%t
to t"e %"ildIs paternit,.
11

In an, %ase, Se%tions 8 and 8! of t"e Corporation Code enu&erate t"e persons w"o are entitled to t"e
inspe%tion of %orporate 'oo:s, t"us P
Se%. 8. Boo:s to 'e :eptD sto%: transfer a#ent. P @ @ @.
T"e re%ords of all 'usiness transa%tions of t"e %orporation and t"e &inutes of an, &eetin# s"all 'e open
to t"e inspe%tion of an, dire%tor, trustee, sto%:"older or &e&'er of t"e %orporation at reasona'le "ours
on 'usiness da,s and "e &a, de&and, in writin#, for a %op, of e@%erpts fro& said re%ords or &inutes,
at "is e@pense.
@ @ @ @
Se%. 8!. Ri#"t to finan%ial state&ents. P >it"in ten 01)1 da,s fro& re%eipt of a written reCuest of an,
sto%:"older or &e&'er, t"e %orporation s"all furnis" to "i& its &ost re%ent finan%ial state&ent, w"i%"
s"all in%lude a 'alan%e s"eet as of t"e end of t"e last ta@a'le ,ear and a profit or loss of state&ent for
said ta@a'le ,ear, s"owin# in reasona'le detail its assets and lia'ilities and t"e result of its operations.
1(
T"e sto%:"olderIs ri#"t of inspe%tion of t"e %orporationIs 'oo:s and re%ords is 'ased upon "is
owners"ip of s"ares in t"e %orporation and t"e ne%essit, for self2prote%tion. /fter all, a s"are"older "as
t"e ri#"t to 'e intelli#entl, infor&ed a'out %orporate affairs.
1.
Su%" ri#"t rests upon t"e sto%:"olderIs
underl,in# owners"ip of t"e %orporationIs assets and propert,.
1
Si&ilarl,, onl, sto%:"olders of re%ord are entitled to re%eive dividends de%lared ', t"e %orporation, a
ri#"t in"erent in t"e owners"ip of t"e s"ares.
1!
/avv&hi/
Upon t"e deat" of a s"are"older, t"e "eirs do not auto&ati%all, 'e%o&e sto%:"olders of t"e %orporation
and a%Cuire t"e ri#"ts and privile#es of t"e de%eased as s"are"older of t"e %orporation. T"e sto%:s &ust
'e distri'uted first to t"e "eirs in estate pro%eedin#s, and t"e transfer of t"e sto%:s &ust 'e re%orded in
t"e 'oo:s of t"e %orporation. Se%tion 4. of t"e Corporation Code provides t"at no transfer s"all 'e
valid, e@%ept as 'etween t"e parties, until t"e transfer is re%orded in t"e 'oo:s of t"e %orporation.
14
$urin# su%" interi& period, t"e "eirs stand as t"e eCuita'le owners of t"e sto%:s, t"e e@e%utor or
ad&inistrator dul, appointed ', t"e %ourt 'ein# vested wit" t"e le#al title to t"e sto%:.
18
Until a
settle&ent and division of t"e estate is effe%ted, t"e sto%:s of t"e de%edent are "eld ', t"e ad&inistrator
or e@e%utor.
1-
ConseCuentl,, durin# su%" ti&e, it is t"e ad&inistrator or e@e%utor w"o is entitled to
e@er%ise t"e ri#"ts of t"e de%eased as sto%:"older.
T"us, even if petitioner presents suffi%ient eviden%e in t"is %ase to esta'lis" t"at "e is t"e son of Carlos
L. Puno, "e would still not 'e allowed to inspe%t respondentIs 'oo:s and 'e entitled to re%eive
dividends fro& respondent, a'sent an, s"owin# in its transfer 'oo: t"at so&e of t"e s"ares owned ',
Carlos L. Puno were transferred to "i&. T"is would onl, 'e possi'le if petitioner "as 'een re%o#niGed
as an "eir and "as parti%ipated in t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%eased.
Corollar, to t"is is t"e do%trine t"at a deter&ination of w"et"er a person, %lai&in# proprietar, ri#"ts
over t"e estate of a de%eased person, is an "eir of t"e de%eased &ust 'e ventilated in a spe%ial
pro%eedin# instituted pre%isel, for t"e purpose of settlin# t"e estate of t"e latter. T"e status of an
ille#iti&ate %"ild w"o %lai&s to 'e an "eir to a de%edentIs estate %annot 'e ad6udi%ated in an ordinar,
%ivil a%tion, as in a %ase for t"e re%over, of propert,.
1*
T"e do%trine applies to t"e instant %ase, w"i%" is
one for spe%ifi% perfor&an%e P to dire%t respondent %orporation to allow petitioner to e@er%ise ri#"ts
t"at pertain onl, to t"e de%eased and "is representatives.
>AERE?ORE, pre&ises %onsidered, t"e petition is $ENIE$. T"e Court of /ppeals $e%ision dated
O%to'er 11, ())4 and Resolution dated 7ar%" 4, ())8 are /??IR7E$.
SO OR$ERE$
G.R. No. 1089>0 J&",&r) 1?, 2010
CE1ESTINO /A1US, Petitioner,
vs.
SATURNINO /A1US &"* 1EONARDA /A1US CDA. DE CA1UNOD, Respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
PERA1TA, J.<
/ssailed in t"e present petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court is t"e
$e%ision
1
of t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/1 dated 7a, .1, ())! in C/23.R. C; No. !-)1 w"i%" set aside
t"e ?e'ruar, 8, 1**8 $e%ision of t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0RTC1 of Lanao del Norte, Bran%" in Civil
Case No. .(4..
T"e fa%ts of t"e %ase are as follows5
Aerein petitioner and respondents are t"e %"ildren of t"e spouses Rufo and Se'astiana Balus.
Se'astiana died on Septe&'er 4, 1*8-, w"ile Rufo died on +ul, 4, 1*-.
On +anuar, ., 1*8*, Rufo &ort#a#ed a par%el of land, w"i%" "e owns, as se%urit, for a loan "e o'tained
fro& t"e Rural Ban: of 7ai#o, Lanao del Norte 0Ban:1. T"e said propert, was ori#inall, %overed ',
Ori#inal Certifi%ate of Title No. P2.*08--1 and &ore parti%ularl, des%ri'ed as follows5
/ par%el of land wit" all t"e i&prove&ents t"ereon, %ontainin# an area of ..)8) "e%tares, &ore or less,
situated in t"e Barrio of La#undan#, Bunawan, Ili#an Cit,, and 'ounded as follows5 Bounded on t"e
NE., alon# line 12(, ', Lot !1((, Csd2(*(D alon# line (21(, ', $odion#an RiverD alon# line 1(21. ',
Lot 4*, Csd2(*(D and alon# line 1(21, ', Lot 441, Csd2(*(. @ @ @
(

Rufo failed to pa, "is loan. /s a result, t"e &ort#a#ed propert, was fore%losed and was su'seCuentl,
sold to t"e Ban: as t"e sole 'idder at a pu'li% au%tion "eld for t"at purpose. On Nove&'er (), 1*-1, a
Certifi%ate of Sale
.
was e@e%uted ', t"e s"eriff in favor of t"e Ban:. T"e propert, was not redee&ed
wit"in t"e period allowed ', law. 7ore t"an two ,ears after t"e au%tion, or on +anuar, (!, 1*-, t"e
s"eriff e@e%uted a $efinite $eed of Sale

in t"e Ban:9s favor. T"ereafter, a new title was issued in t"e

na&e of t"e Ban:.
On O%to'er 1), 1*-*, "erein petitioner and respondents e@e%uted an E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent of Estate
!
ad6udi%atin# to ea%" of t"e& a spe%ifi% one2t"ird portion of t"e su'6e%t propert, %onsistin# of 1),(4
sCuare &eters. T"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent also %ontained provisions w"erein t"e parties ad&itted
:nowled#e of t"e fa%t t"at t"eir fat"er &ort#a#ed t"e su'6e%t propert, to t"e Ban: and t"at t"e,
intended to redee& t"e sa&e at t"e soonest possi'le ti&e.
T"ree ,ears after t"e e@e%ution of t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent, "erein respondents 'ou#"t t"e su'6e%t
propert, fro& t"e Ban:. On O%to'er 1(, 1**(, a $eed of Sale of Re#istered Land
4
was e@e%uted ', t"e
Ban: in favor of respondents. Su'seCuentl,, Transfer Certifi%ate of Title 0TCT1 No. T2.*,-0a.f.1
8
was
issued in t"e na&e of respondents. 7eanw"ile, petitioner %ontinued possession of t"e su'6e%t lot.
On +une (8, 1**!, respondents filed a Co&plaint
-
for Re%over, of Possession and $a&a#es a#ainst
petitioner, %ontendin# t"at t"e, "ad alread, infor&ed petitioner of t"e fa%t t"at t"e, were t"e new
owners of t"e disputed propert,, 'ut t"e petitioner still refused to surrender possession of t"e sa&e to
t"e&. Respondents %lai&ed t"at t"e, "ad e@"austed all re&edies for t"e a&i%a'le settle&ent of t"e
%ase, 'ut to no avail.
On ?e'ruar, 8, 1**8, t"e RTC rendered a $e%ision
*
disposin# as follows5
>AERE?ORE, 6ud#&ent is "ere', rendered, orderin# t"e plaintiffs to e@e%ute a $eed of Sale in favor
of t"e defendant, t"e one2t"ird s"are of t"e propert, in Cuestion, presentl, possessed ', "i&, and
des%ri'ed in t"e deed of partition, as follows5
/ one2t"ird portion of Transfer Certifi%ate of Title No. T2.*,- 0a.f.1, for&erl, Ori#inal Certifi%ate of
Title No. P28--, now in t"e na&e of Saturnino Balus and Leonarda B. ;da. de Calunod, situated at
La#undan#, Bunawan, Ili#an Cit,, 'ounded on t"e Nort" ', Lot !1((D East ', s"ares of Saturnino
Balus and Leonarda Balus2CalunodD Sout" ', Lot 4*, $odion#an RiverD >est ', Lot 441,
%onsistin# of 1),(4 sCuare &eters, in%ludin# i&prove&ents t"ereon.
and dis&issin# all ot"er %lai&s of t"e parties.
T"e a&ount of P4,8..... %onsi#ned ', t"e defendant wit" t"e Cler: of Court is "ere', ordered
delivered to t"e plaintiffs, as pur%"ase pri%e of t"e one2t"ird portion of t"e land in Cuestion.
Plaintiffs are ordered to pa, t"e %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.
1)
T"e RTC "eld t"at t"e ri#"t of petitioner to pur%"ase fro& t"e respondents "is s"are in t"e disputed
propert, was re%o#niGed ', t"e provisions of t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent of Estate, w"i%" t"e parties
"ad e@e%uted 'efore t"e respondents 'ou#"t t"e su'6e%t lot fro& t"e Ban:.
/##rieved ', t"e $e%ision of t"e RTC, "erein respondents filed an appeal wit" t"e C/.
On 7a, .1, ())!, t"e C/ pro&ul#ated t"e presentl, assailed $e%ision, reversin# and settin# aside t"e
$e%ision of t"e RTC and orderin# petitioner to i&&ediatel, surrender possession of t"e su'6e%t
propert, to t"e respondents. T"e C/ ruled t"at w"en petitioner and respondents did not redee& t"e
su'6e%t propert, wit"in t"e rede&ption period and allowed t"e %onsolidation of owners"ip and t"e
issuan%e of a new title in t"e na&e of t"e Ban:, t"eir %o2owners"ip was e@tin#uis"ed.
Aen%e, t"e instant petition raisin# a sole issue, to wit5
>AETAER OR NOT CO2O>NERSAIP /7ON3 TAE PETITIONER /N$ TAE RESPON$ENTS
O;ER TAE PROPERTN PERSISTE$=CONTINUE$ TO ERIST 0E;EN /?TER TAE TR/NS?ER
O? TITLE TO TAE B/NJ1 BN ;IRTUE O? TAE P/RTIES9 /3REE7ENT PRIOR TO TAE
REPURCA/SE TAEREO? BN TAE RESPON$ENTSD TAUS, >/RR/NTIN3 TAE
PETITIONER9S /CT O? EN?ORCIN3 TAE /3REE7ENT BN REI7BURSIN3 TAE
RESPON$ENTS O? AIS 0PETITIONER9S1 +UST SA/RE O? TAE REPURCA/SE PRICE.
11
T"e &ain issue raised ', petitioner is w"et"er %o2owners"ip ', "i& and respondents over t"e su'6e%t
propert, persisted even after t"e lot was pur%"ased ', t"e Ban: and title t"ereto transferred to its na&e,
and even after it was eventuall, 'ou#"t 'a%: ', t"e respondents fro& t"e Ban:.
Petitioner insists t"at despite respondents9 full :nowled#e of t"e fa%t t"at t"e title over t"e disputed
propert, was alread, in t"e na&e of t"e Ban:, t"e, still pro%eeded to e@e%ute t"e su'6e%t E@tra6udi%ial
Settle&ent, "avin# in &ind t"e intention of pur%"asin# 'a%: t"e propert, to#et"er wit" petitioner and of
%ontinuin# t"eir %o2owners"ip t"ereof.
Petitioner posits t"at t"e su'6e%t E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent is, in and ', itself, a %ontra%t 'etween "i&
and respondents, 'e%ause it %ontains a provision w"ere', t"e parties a#reed to %ontinue t"eir %o2
owners"ip of t"e su'6e%t propert, ', <redee&in#< or <repur%"asin#< t"e sa&e fro& t"e Ban:. T"is
a#ree&ent, petitioner %ontends, is t"e law 'etween t"e parties and, as su%", 'inds t"e respondents. /s a
result, petitioner asserts t"at respondents9 a%t of 'u,in# t"e disputed propert, fro& t"e Ban: wit"out
notif,in# "i& inures to "is 'enefit as to #ive "i& t"e ri#"t to %lai& "is ri#"tful portion of t"e propert,,
%o&prisin# 1=. t"ereof, ', rei&'ursin# respondents t"e eCuivalent 1=. of t"e su& t"e, paid to t"e
Ban:.
T"e Court is not persuaded.
Petitioner and respondents are ar#uin# on t"e wron# pre&ise t"at, at t"e ti&e of t"e e@e%ution of t"e
E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent, t"e su'6e%t propert, for&ed part of t"e estate of t"eir de%eased fat"er to w"i%"
t"e, &a, la, %lai& as "is "eirs.
/t t"e outset, it 'ears to e&p"asiGe t"at t"ere is no dispute wit" respe%t to t"e fa%t t"at t"e su'6e%t
propert, was e@%lusivel, owned ', petitioner and respondents9 fat"er, Rufo, at t"e ti&e t"at it was
&ort#a#ed in 1*8*. T"is was stipulated ', t"e parties durin# t"e "earin# %ondu%ted ', t"e trial %ourt on
O%to'er (-, 1**4.
1(
Eviden%e s"ows t"at a $efinite $eed of Sale
1.
was issued in favor of t"e Ban: on
+anuar, (!, 1*-, after t"e period of rede&ption e@pired. T"ere is neit"er an, dispute t"at a new title
was issued in t"e Ban:9s na&e 'efore Rufo died on +ul, 4, 1*-. Aen%e, t"ere is no Cuestion t"at t"e
Ban: a%Cuired e@%lusive owners"ip of t"e %ontested lot durin# t"e lifeti&e of Rufo.
T"e ri#"ts to a person9s su%%ession are trans&itted fro& t"e &o&ent of "is deat".
1
In addition, t"e
in"eritan%e of a person %onsists of t"e propert, and trans&issi'le ri#"ts and o'li#ations e@istin# at t"e
ti&e of "is deat", as well as t"ose w"i%" "ave a%%rued t"ereto sin%e t"e openin# of t"e su%%ession.
1!
In
t"e present %ase, sin%e Rufo lost owners"ip of t"e su'6e%t propert, durin# "is lifeti&e, it onl, follows
t"at at t"e ti&e of "is deat", t"e disputed par%el of land no lon#er for&ed part of "is estate to w"i%" "is
"eirs &a, la, %lai&. Stated differentl,, petitioner and respondents never in"erited t"e su'6e%t lot fro&
t"eir fat"er.
Petitioner and respondents, t"erefore, were wron# in assu&in# t"at t"e, 'e%a&e %o2owners of t"e
su'6e%t lot. T"us, an, issue arisin# fro& t"e supposed ri#"t of petitioner as %o2owner of t"e %ontested
par%el of land is ne#ated ', t"e fa%t t"at, in t"e e,es of t"e law, t"e disputed lot did not pass into t"e
"ands of petitioner and respondents as %o&pulsor, "eirs of Rufo at an, #iven point in ti&e.
T"e fore#oin# notwit"standin#, t"e Court finds a ne%essit, for a %o&plete deter&ination of t"e issues
raised in t"e instant %ase to loo: into petitioner9s ar#u&ent t"at t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent is an
independent %ontra%t w"i%" #ives "i& t"e ri#"t to enfor%e "is ri#"t to %lai& a portion of t"e disputed lot
'ou#"t ', respondents./avv&hi/
It is true t"at under /rti%le 1.1! of t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines, %ontra%ts are perfe%ted ', &ere
%onsentD and fro& t"at &o&ent, t"e parties are 'ound not onl, to t"e fulfill&ent of w"at "as 'een
e@pressl, stipulated 'ut also to all t"e %onseCuen%es w"i%", a%%ordin# to t"eir nature, &a, 'e in
:eepin# wit" #ood fait", usa#e and law.
/rti%le 1.)4 of t"e sa&e Code also provides t"at t"e %ontra%tin# parties &a, esta'lis" su%"
stipulations, %lauses, ter&s and %onditions as t"e, &a, dee& %onvenient, provided t"ese are not
%ontrar, to law, &orals, #ood %usto&s, pu'li% order or pu'li% poli%,.
In t"e present %ase, "owever, t"ere is not"in# in t"e su'6e%t E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent to indi%ate an,
e@press stipulation for petitioner and respondents to %ontinue wit" t"eir supposed %o2owners"ip of t"e
%ontested lot.
On t"e %ontrar,, a plain readin# of t"e provisions of t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent would not, in an, wa,,
support petitioner9s %ontention t"at it was "is and "is si'lin#9s intention to 'u, t"e su'6e%t propert, fro&
t"e Ban: and %ontinue w"at t"e, 'elieved to 'e %o2owners"ip t"ereof. It is a %ardinal rule in t"e
interpretation of %ontra%ts t"at t"e intention of t"e parties s"all 'e a%%orded pri&ordial %onsideration.
14
It is t"e dut, of t"e %ourts to pla%e a pra%ti%al and realisti% %onstru%tion upon it, #ivin# due
%onsideration to t"e %onte@t in w"i%" it is ne#otiated and t"e purpose w"i%" it is intended to serve.
18
Su%" intention is deter&ined fro& t"e e@press ter&s of t"eir a#ree&ent, as well as t"eir
%onte&poraneous and su'seCuent a%ts.
1-
/'surd and illo#i%al interpretations s"ould also 'e avoided.
1*
?or petitioner to %lai& t"at t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent is an a#ree&ent 'etween "i& and "is si'lin#s to
%ontinue w"at t"e, t"ou#"t was t"eir owners"ip of t"e su'6e%t propert,, even after t"e sa&e "ad 'een
'ou#"t ', t"e Ban:, is stret%"in# t"e interpretation of t"e said E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent too far.
In t"e first pla%e, as earlier dis%ussed, t"ere is no %o2owners"ip to tal: a'out and no propert, to
partition, as t"e disputed lot never for&ed part of t"e estate of t"eir de%eased fat"er.
7oreover, petitioner9s asseveration of "is and respondents9 intention of %ontinuin# wit" t"eir supposed
%o2owners"ip is ne#ated ', no less t"an "is assertions in t"e present petition t"at on several o%%asions
"e "ad t"e %"an%e to pur%"ase t"e su'6e%t propert, 'a%:, 'ut "e refused to do so. In fa%t, "e %lai&s t"at
after t"e Ban: a%Cuired t"e disputed lot, it offered to re2sell t"e sa&e to "i& 'ut "e i#nored su%" offer.
Aow t"en %an petitioner now %lai& t"at it was also "is intention to pur%"ase t"e su'6e%t propert, fro&
t"e Ban:, w"en "e ad&itted t"at "e refused t"e Ban:9s offer to re2sell t"e su'6e%t propert, to "i&H
In addition, it appears fro& t"e re%itals in t"e E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent t"at, at t"e ti&e of t"e e@e%ution
t"ereof, t"e parties were not ,et aware t"at t"e su'6e%t propert, was alread, e@%lusivel, owned ', t"e
Ban:. Nonet"eless, t"e la%: of :nowled#e on t"e part of petitioner and respondents t"at t"e &ort#a#e
was alread, fore%losed and title to t"e propert, was alread, transferred to t"e Ban: does not #ive t"e&
t"e ri#"t or t"e aut"orit, to unilaterall, de%lare t"e&selves as %o2owners of t"e disputed propert,D
ot"erwise, t"e disposition of t"e %ase would 'e &ade to depend on t"e 'elief and %onvi%tion of t"e
part,2liti#ants and not on t"e eviden%e addu%ed and t"e law and 6urispruden%e appli%a'le t"ereto.
?urt"er&ore, petitioner9s %ontention t"at "e and "is si'lin#s intended to %ontinue t"eir supposed %o2
owners"ip of t"e su'6e%t propert, %ontradi%ts t"e provisions of t"e su'6e%t E@tra6udi%ial Settle&ent
w"ere t"e, %learl, &anifested t"eir intention of "avin# t"e su'6e%t propert, divided or partitioned ',
assi#nin# to ea%" of t"e petitioner and respondents a spe%ifi% 1=. portion of t"e sa&e. Partition %alls for
t"e se#re#ation and %onve,an%e of a deter&inate portion of t"e propert, owned in %o&&on. It see:s a
severan%e of t"e individual interests of ea%" %o2owner, vestin# in ea%" of t"e& a sole estate in a spe%ifi%
propert, and #ivin# ea%" one a ri#"t to en6o, "is estate wit"out supervision or interferen%e fro& t"e
ot"er.
()
In ot"er words, t"e purpose of partition is to put an end to %o2owners"ip,
(1
an o'6e%tive w"i%"
ne#ates petitioner9s %lai&s in t"e present %ase.
WHERE3ORE, t"e instant petition is DENIED. T"e assailed $e%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals, dated
7a, .1, ())! in C/23.R. C; No. !-)1, is A33IRMED.
SO ORDERED
G.R. No. 12;>1? J&",&r) 2;, 2000
RU3INA 1U2 1IM, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O3 APPEA1S, AUTO TRUC@ T/A CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRI/UTING, INC.,
ACTICE DISTRI/UTORS, A11IANCE MAR@ETING CORPORATION, ACTION
COMPAN2, INC. respondents.
/UENA, J.:
7a, a %orporation, in its universalit,, 'e t"e proper su'6e%t of and 'e in%luded in t"e inventor, of t"e
estate of a de%eased personH
Petitioner disputes 'efore us t"rou#" t"e instant petition for review on certiorari, t"e de%ision
1
of t"e
Court of /ppeals pro&ul#ated on 1- /pril 1**4, in C/23R SP No. .-418, w"i%" nullified and set
aside t"e orders dated ) +ul, 1**!
(
, 1( Septe&'er 1**!
.
and 1! Septe&'er 1**!

of t"e Re#ional
Trial Court of LueGon Cit,, Bran%" *., sittin# as a pro'ate %ourt.
Petitioner Rufina Lu, Li& is t"e survivin# spouse of late Pastor N. Li& w"ose estate is t"e su'6e%t of
pro'ate pro%eedin#s in Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s L2*!2(..., entitled, <In Re5 Intestate Estate of Pastor N.
Li& Rufina Lu, Li&, represented ', 3eor#e Lu,, Petitioner<./0!&hi/*nEt
Private respondents /uto Tru%: Corporation, /llian%e 7ar:etin# Corporation, Speed $istri'utin#, In%.,
/%tive $istri'utin#, In%. and /%tion Co&pan, are %orporations for&ed, or#aniGed and e@istin# under
P"ilippine laws and w"i%" owned real properties %overed under t"e Torrens s,ste&.
On 11 +une 1**, Pastor N. Li& died intestate. Aerein petitioner, as survivin# spouse and dul,
represented ', "er nep"ew 3eor#e Lu,, fried on 18 7ar%" 1**!, a 6oint petition
!
for t"e ad&inistration
of t"e estate of Pastor N. Li& 'efore t"e Re#ional Trial Court of LueGon Cit,.
Private respondent %orporations, w"ose properties were in%luded in t"e inventor, of t"e estate of Pastor
N. Li&, t"en filed a &otion
4
for t"e liftin# of lis &endens and &otion
8
for e@%lusion of %ertain
properties fro& t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
In an order
-
dated )- +une 1**!, t"e Re#ional Trial Court of LueGon Cit,, Bran%" *., sittin# as a
pro'ate %ourt, #ranted t"e private respondents9 twin &otions, in t"is wise5
>"erefore, t"e Re#ister of $eeds of LueGon Cit, is "ere', ordered to lift, e@pun#e or delete t"e
annotation of lis &endens on Transfer Certifi%ates of Title Nos. 114814, 114818, 11481-, 11481*
and !1-( and it is "ere', furt"er ordered t"at t"e properties %overed ', t"e sa&e titles as well as
t"ose properties ', 0sic1 Transfer Certifi%ate of Title Nos. 41.*, .4.1(., (.4(.4 and (4.(.4
are e@%luded fro& t"ese pro%eedin#s.
SO OR$ERE$.
Su'seCuentl,, Rufina Lu, Li& filed a verified a&ended petition
*
w"i%" %ontained t"e followin#
aver&ents5
.. T"e late Pastor N. Li& personall, owned durin# "is lifeti&e t"e followin# 'usiness entities, to
wit5
/,$!"e$$ E"(!() A**re$$<
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
/llian%e 7ar:etin#, In%. Blo%: ., Lot 4,
$a%%a B?
Ao&es,
ParaKaCue,
7etro 7anila.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
Speed $istri'utin# In%. *1) Barrio
Nio#,
/#uinaldo
Ai#"wa,,
Ba%oor, Cavite.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
/uto Tru%: TB/ Corp. ((!1 Roosevelt
/venue,
LueGon Cit,.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
/%tive $istri'utors, In%. Blo%: ., Lot 4,
$a%%a B?
Ao&es,
ParaKaCue,
7etro 7anila.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
/%tion Co&pan, 1)) ()t"
/venue
7urp",,
LueGon Cit, or
*(2$ 7%2
/rt"ur
Ai#"wa,
;alenGuela
Bula%an.
..1 /lt"ou#" t"e a'ove 'usiness entities dealt and en#a#ed in 'usiness wit" t"e pu'li% as
%orporations, all t"eir %apital, assets and eCuit, were "owever, personall, owned ', t"e
late Pastor N Li&. Aen%e t"e alle#ed sto%:"olders and offi%ers appearin# in t"e
respe%tive arti%les of in%orporation of t"e a'ove 'usiness entities were &ere du&&ies of
Pastor N. Li&, and t"e, were listed t"erein onl, for purposes of re#istration wit" t"e
Se%urities and E@%"an#e Co&&ission.
. Pastor Li&, li:ewise, "ad Ti&e, Savin#s and Current $eposits wit" t"e followin# 'an:s5 0a1
7etro'an:, 3ra%e Par:, Caloo%an Cit, and LueGon /venue, LueGon Cit, Bran%"es and 0'1
?irst Intestate Ban: 0for&erl, Produ%ers Ban:1, RiGal Co&&er%ial Ban:in# Corporation and in
ot"er 'an:s w"ose identities are ,et to 'e deter&ined.
!. T"at t"e followin# real properties, alt"ou#" re#istered in t"e na&e of t"e a'ove entities, were
a%tuall, a%Cuired ', Pastor N. Li& durin# "is &arria#e wit" petitioner, to wit5
Cor'or&(!o" T!(.e 1o%&(!o"
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
:. /uto Tru%: TCT No. 4188(4 Sto. $o&in#o TB/
Corporation Cainta, RiGal
C. /llian%e 7ar:etin# TCT No. (8-*4 Pran%e, 7etro 7anila
Copies of t"e a'ove2&entioned Transfer Certifi%ate of Title and=or Ta@ $e%larations are "ereto
atta%"ed as /nne@es <C< to <><.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
8. T"e afore&entioned properties and=or real interests left ', t"e late Pastor N. Li&, are all
%on6u#al in nature, "avin# 'een a%Cuired ', "i& durin# t"e e@isten%e of "is &arria#e wit"
petitioner.
-. T"ere are ot"er real and personal properties owned ', Pastor N. Li& w"i%" petitioner %ould
not as ,et identif,. Petitioner, "owever will su'&it to t"is Aonora'le Court t"e identities t"ereof
and t"e ne%essar, do%u&ents %overin# t"e sa&e as soon as possi'le.
On ) +ul, 1**!, t"e Re#ional Trial Court a%tin# on petitioner9s &otion issued an order
1)
, t"us5
>"erefore, t"e order dated )- +une 1**! is "ere', set aside and t"e Re#istr, of $eeds of
LueGon Cit, is "ere', dire%ted to reinstate t"e annotation of lis &endens in %ase said annotation
"ad alread, 'een deleted and=or %an%elled said TCT Nos. 114814, 114818, 11481-, 11481* and
!1(-(.
?urt"er &ore 0sic1, said properties %overed ', TCT Nos. 41.*, .4!1(., (.4(!4 and (.4(.8
', virtue of t"e petitioner are in%luded in t"e instant petition.
SO OR$ERE$.
On ) Septe&'er 1**!, t"e pro'ate %ourt appointed Rufina Li& as spe%ial ad&inistrator
11
and 7i#uel
Li& and Law,er $onald Lee, as %o2spe%ial ad&inistrators of t"e estate of Pastor N. Li&, after w"i%"
letters of ad&inistration were a%%ordin#l, issued.
In an order
1(
dated 1( Septe&'er 1**!, t"e pro'ate %ourt denied anew private respondents9 &otion for
e@%lusion, in t"is wise5
T"e issue pre%isel, raised ', t"e petitioner in "er petition is w"et"er t"e %orporations are t"e
&ere alter e#os or instru&entalities of Pastor Li&, Ot"erwise 0sic1 stated, t"e issue involves t"e
pier%in# of t"e %orporate veil, a &atter t"at is %learl, wit"in t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"is Aonora'le
Court and not t"e Se%urities and E@%"an#e Co&&ission. T"us, in t"e %ase of ease vs* ourt of
A&&eals, *. SCR/ -., t"e %ru%ial issue de%ided ', t"e re#ular %ourt was w"et"er t"e
%orporation involved t"erein was t"e &ere e@tension of t"e de%edent. /fter findin# in t"e
affir&ative, t"e Court ruled t"at t"e assets of t"e %orporation are also assets of t"e estate.
/ readin# of P.$. *)(, t"e law relied upon ', oppositors, s"ows t"at t"e SEC9s e@%lusive 0sic1
applies onl, to intra2%orporate %ontrovers,. It is si&pl, a suit to settle t"e intestate estate of a
de%eased person w"o, durin# "is lifeti&e, a%Cuired several properties and put up %orporations as
"is instru&entalities.
SO OR$ERE$.
On 1! Septe&'er 1**!, t"e pro'ate %ourt a%tin# on an ex &arte &otion filed ', petitioner, issued an
order
1.
t"e dispositive portion of w"i%" reads5
>"erefore, t"e parties and t"e followin# 'an:s %on%erned "erein under enu&erated are "ere',
ordered to %o&pl, stri%tl, wit" t"is order and to produ%e and su'&it to t"e spe%ial
ad&inistrators, t"rou#" t"is Aonora'le Court wit"in 0!1 five da,s fro& re%eipt of t"is order t"eir
respe%tive re%ords of t"e savin#s=%urrent a%%ounts=ti&e deposits and ot"er deposits in t"e na&es
of Pastor Li& and=or %orporations a'ove2&entioned, s"owin# all t"e transa%tions &ade or done
%on%ernin# savin#s=%urrent a%%ounts fro& +anuar, 1** up to t"eir re%eipt of t"is %ourt order.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
SO OR$ERE$.
Private respondent filed a spe%ial %ivil a%tion for certiorari
1
, wit" an ur#ent pra,er for a restrainin#
order or writ of preli&inar, in6un%tion, 'efore t"e Court of /ppeals Cuestionin# t"e orders of t"e
Re#ional Trial Court, sittin# as a pro'ate %ourt.
On 1- /pril 1**4, t"e Court of /ppeals, findin# in favor of "erein private respondents, rendered t"e
assailed de%ision
1!
, t"e de%retal portion of w"i%" de%lares5
>"erefore, pre&ises %onsidered, t"e instant spe%ial %ivil a%tion for certiorari is "ere', #ranted,
T"e i&pu#ned orders issued ', respondent %ourt on +ul, , 1**! and Septe&'er 1(, 1**! are
"ere', nullified and set aside. T"e i&pu#ned order issued ', respondent on Septe&'er 1!, 1**!
is nullified insofar as petitioner %orporations< 'an: a%%ounts and re%ords are %on%erned.
SO OR$ERE$.
T"rou#" t"e e@pedien%, of Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court, "erein petitioner Rufina Lu, Li& now %o&es
'efore us wit" a lone assi#n&ent of
error
14
5
T"e respondent Court of /ppeals erred in reversin# t"e orders of t"e lower %ourt w"i%" &erel,
allowed t"e preli&inar, or provisional in%lusion of t"e private respondents as part of t"e estate
of t"e late de%eased 0sic1 Pastor N. Li& wit" t"e respondent Court of /ppeals arro#atin# unto
itself t"e power to repeal, to diso'e, or to i#nore t"e %lear and e@pli%it provisions of Rules
-1,-.,- and -8 of t"e Rules of Court and t"ere', preventin# t"e petitioner, fro& perfor&in#
"er dut, as spe%ial ad&inistrator of t"e estate as e@pressl, provided in t"e said Rules.
Petitioner9s %ontentions tread on perilous #rounds.
In t"e instant petition for review, petitioner pra,s t"at we affir& t"e orders issued ', t"e pro'ate %ourt
w"i%" were su'seCuentl, set aside ', t"e Court of /ppeals.
Net, 'efore we delve into t"e &erits of t"e %ase, a review of t"e rules on 6urisdi%tion over pro'ate
pro%eedin#s is indeed in order.
T"e provisions of Repu'li% /%t 84*1
18
, w"i%" introdu%ed a&end&ents to Batas Pa&'ansa Bl#. 1(*,
are pertinent5
Se%. 1. Se%tion 1* of Batas Pa&'ansa Bl#. 1(*, ot"erwise :nown as t"e <+udi%iar,
Reor#aniGation /%t of 1*-)<, is "ere', a&ended to read as follows5
Se%. 1*. +urisdi%tion in %ivil %ases. Re#ional Trial Courts s"all e@er%ise e@%lusive 6urisdi%tion5
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
01 In all &atters of pro'ate, 'ot" testate and intestate, w"ere t"e #ross value of t"e estate
e@%eeds One Aundred T"ousand Pesos 0P1)),)))1 or, in pro'ate &atters in 7etro 7anila,
w"ere su%" #ross value e@%eeds Two Aundred T"ousand Pesos 0P()),)))1D
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
Se%. .. Se%tion .. of t"e sa&e law is "ere', a&ended to read as follows5
Se%. ... +urisdi%tion of 7etropolitan Trial Courts, 7uni%ipal Trial Courts and 7uni%ipal
Cir%uit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. P 7etropolitan Trial Courts, 7uni%ipal Trial Courts
and 7uni%ipal Cir%uit Trial Courts s"all e@er%ise5
1. E@%lusive ori#inal 6urisdi%tion over %ivil a%tions and pro'ate pro%eedin#s, testate and
intestate, in%ludin# t"e #rant of provisional re&edies in proper %ases, w"ere t"e value of
t"e personal propert,, estate or a&ount of t"e de&and does not e@%eed One Aundred
T"ousand Pesos 0P1)),)))1 or, in 7etro 7anila w"ere su%" personal propert,, estate or
a&ount of t"e de&and does not e@%eed Two Aundred T"ousand Pesos 0P()),)))1,
e@%lusive of interest, da&a#es of w"atever :ind, attorne,9s fees, liti#ation e@penses and
%osts, t"e a&ount of w"i%" &ust 'e spe%ifi%all, alle#ed, "rovided, t"at interest, da&a#es
of w"atever :ind, attorne,9s, liti#ation e@penses and %osts s"all 'e in%luded in t"e
deter&ination of t"e filin# fees, "rovided further, t"at w"ere t"ere are several %lai&s or
%auses of a%tions 'etween t"e sa&e or different parties, e&'odied in t"e sa&e %o&plaint,
t"e a&ount of t"e de&and s"all 'e t"e totalit, of t"e %lai&s in all t"e %auses of a%tion,
irrespe%tive of w"et"er t"e %auses of a%tion arose out of t"e sa&e or different
transa%tionsD
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
Si&pl, put, t"e deter&ination of w"i%" %ourt e@er%ises 6urisdi%tion over &atters of pro'ate depends
upon t"e #ross value of t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
/s to t"e power and aut"orit, of t"e pro'ate %ourt, petitioner relies "eavil, on t"e prin%iple t"at a
pro'ate %ourt &a, pass upon title to %ertain properties, al'eit provisionall,, for t"e purpose of
deter&inin# w"et"er a %ertain propert, s"ould or s"ould not 'e in%luded in t"e inventor,.
In a litan, of %ases, >e defined t"e para&eters ', w"i%" t"e %ourt &a, e@tend its pro'in# ar&s in t"e
deter&ination of t"e Cuestion of title in pro'ate pro%eedin#s.
T"is Court, in "AST(', J'. vs. (<'T (F A""EACS,
1-
"eld5
. . . /s a rule, t"e Cuestion of owners"ip is an e@traneous &atter w"i%" t"e pro'ate %ourt %annot
resolve wit" finalit,. T"us, for t"e purpose of deter&inin# w"et"er a %ertain propert, s"ould or
s"ould not 'e in%luded in t"e inventor, of estate properties, t"e Pro'ate Court &a, pass upon
t"e title t"ereto, 'ut su%" deter&ination is provisional, not %on%lusive, and is su'6e%t to t"e final
de%ision in a separate a%tion to resolve title.
>e reiterated t"e rule in "E'E%'A vs. (<'T (F A""EACS
1*
5
. . . T"e fun%tion of resolvin# w"et"er or not a %ertain propert, s"ould 'e in%luded in t"e
inventor, or list of properties to 'e ad&inistered ', t"e ad&inistrator is one %learl, wit"in t"e
%o&peten%e of t"e pro'ate %ourt. Aowever, t"e %ourt9s deter&ination is onl, provisional in
%"ara%ter, not %on%lusive, and is su'6e%t to t"e final de%ision in a separate a%tion w"i%" &a, 'e
instituted ', t"e parties.
?urt"er, in +('ACES vs. F% (F A:%TE
()
%itin# <%O(N vs. 'A+(CETE
(1
, >e &ade an
e@position on t"e pro'ate %ourt9s li&ited 6urisdi%tion5
It is a well2settled rule t"at a pro'ate %ourt or one in %"ar#e of pro%eedin#s w"et"er testate or
intestate %annot ad6udi%ate or deter&ine title to properties %lai&ed to 'e a part of t"e estate and
w"i%" are eCuall, %lai&ed to 'elon# to outside parties. /ll t"at t"e said %ourt %ould do as
re#ards said properties is to deter&ine w"et"er t"e, s"ould or s"ould not 'e in%luded in t"e
inventor, or list of properties to 'e ad&inistered ', t"e ad&inistrator. If t"ere is no dispute, well
and #oodD 'ut if t"ere is, t"en t"e parties, t"e ad&inistrator and t"e opposin# parties "ave to
resort to an ordinar, a%tion for a final deter&ination of t"e %onfli%tin# %lai&s of title 'e%ause t"e
pro'ate %ourt %annot do so.
/#ain, in :ACE'A vs. %NSE'T(
((
, >e "ad o%%asion to elu%idate, t"rou#" 7r. +usti%e /ndres
Narvasa
(.
5
Settled is t"e rule t"at a Court of ?irst Instan%e 0now Re#ional Trial Court1, a%tin# as a pro'ate
%ourt, e@er%ises 'ut li&ited 6urisdi%tion, and t"us "as no power to ta:e %o#niGan%e of and
deter&ine t"e issue of title to propert, %lai&ed ', a t"ird person adversel, to t"e de%edent,
unless t"e %lai&ant and all ot"er parties "avin# le#al interest in t"e propert, %onsent, e@pressl,
or i&pliedl,, to t"e su'&ission of t"e Cuestion to t"e pro'ate %ourt for ad6ud#&ent, or t"e
interests of t"ird persons are not t"ere', pre6udi%ed, t"e reason for t"e e@%eption 'ein# t"at t"e
Cuestion of w"et"er or not a parti%ular &atter s"ould 'e resolved ', t"e %ourt in t"e e@er%ise of
its #eneral 6urisdi%tion or of its li&ited 6urisdi%tion as a spe%ial %ourt 0e.g. pro'ate, land
re#istration, et%.1, is in realit, not a 6urisdi%tional 'ut in essen%e of pro%edural one, involvin# a
&ode of pra%ti%e w"i%" &a, 'e waived. . . .
. . . . T"ese %onsiderations assu&e #reater %o#en%, w"ere, as "ere, t"e Torrens title is not in t"e
de%edent9s na&e 'ut in ot"ers, a situation on w"i%" t"is Court "as alread, "ad o%%asion to
rule . . . . 0e&p"asis Ours1
Petitioner, in t"e present %ase, ar#ues t"at t"e par%els of land %overed under t"e Torrens s,ste& and
re#istered in t"e na&e of private respondent %orporations s"ould 'e in%luded in t"e inventor, of t"e
estate of t"e de%edent Pastor N. Li&, alle#in# t"at after all t"e deter&ination ', t"e pro'ate %ourt of
w"et"er t"ese properties s"ould 'e in%luded or not is &erel, provisional in nature, t"us, not %on%lusive
and su'6e%t to a final deter&ination in a separate a%tion 'rou#"t for t"e purpose of ad6ud#in# on%e and
for all t"e issue of title.
Net, under t"e pe%uliar %ir%u&stan%es, w"ere t"e par%els of land are re#istered in t"e na&e of private
respondent %orporations, t"e 6urispruden%e pronoun%ed in =(C%SAQ vs., AC%D
(
is of #reat essen%e
and finds appli%a'ilit,, t"us5
It does not &atter t"at respondent2ad&inistratri@ "as eviden%e purportin# to support "er %lai& of
owners"ip, for, on t"e ot"er "and, petitioners "ave a Torrens title in t"eir favor, w"i%" under t"e
law is endowed wit" in%ontesta'ilit, until after it "as 'een set aside in t"e &anner indi%ated in
t"e law itself, w"i%" of %ourse, does not in%lude, 'rin#in# up t"e &atter as a &ere in%ident in
spe%ial pro%eedin#s for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of de%eased persons. . . .
. . . . In re#ard to su%" in%ident of in%lusion or e@%lusion, >e "old t"at if a propert, %overed ',
Torrens title is involved, t"e presu&ptive %on%lusiveness of su%" title s"ould 'e #iven due
wei#"t, and in t"e a'sen%e of stron# %o&pellin# eviden%e to t"e %ontrar,, t"e "older t"ereof
s"ould 'e %onsidered as t"e owner of t"e propert, in %ontrovers, until "is title is nullified or
&odified in an appropriate ordinar, a%tion, parti%ularl,, w"en as in t"e %ase at 'ar, possession of
t"e propert, itself is in t"e persons na&ed in t"e title. . . .
/ perusal of t"e re%ords would reveal t"at no stron# %o&pellin# eviden%e was ever presented ',
petitioner to 'olster "er 'are assertions as to t"e title of t"e de%eased Pastor N. Li& over t"e properties.
Even so, P.$. 1!(*, ot"erwise :nown as, <T"e Propert, Re#istration $e%ree<, pros%ri'es %ollateral
atta%: on Torrens Title, "en%e5
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
Se%. -. ertificate not sub)ect to collateral attac>. P / %ertifi%ate of title s"all not 'e su'6e%t
to %ollateral atta%:. It %annot 'e altered, &odified or %an%elled e@%ept in a dire%t pro%eedin# in
a%%ordan%e wit" law.
In <%O(N vs. 'A+(CETE, w"ere si&ilarl, as in t"e %ase at 'ar, t"e propert, su'6e%t of t"e
%ontrovers, was dul, re#istered under t"e Torrens s,ste&, >e %ate#ori%all, stated5
. . . Aavin# 'een apprised of t"e fa%t t"at t"e propert, in Cuestion was in t"e possession of t"ird
parties and &ore i&portant, %overed ', a transfer %ertifi%ate of title issued in t"e na&e of su%"
t"ird parties, t"e respondent %ourt s"ould "ave denied t"e &otion of t"e respondent
ad&inistrator and e@%luded t"e propert, in Cuestion fro& t"e inventor, of t"e propert, of t"e
estate. It "ad no aut"orit, to deprive su%" t"ird persons of t"eir possession and owners"ip of t"e
propert,. . . .
Inas&u%" as t"e real properties in%luded in t"e inventor, of t"e estate of t"e Late Pastor N. Li& are in
t"e possession of and are re#istered in t"e na&e of private respondent %orporations, w"i%" under t"e
law possess a personalit, separate and distin%t fro& t"eir sto%:"olders, and in t"e a'sen%e of an,
%o#en%, to s"red t"e veil of %orporate fi%tion, t"e presu&ption of %on%lusiveness of said titles in favor
of private respondents s"ould stand undistur'ed.
/%%ordin#l,, t"e pro'ate %ourt was re&iss in den,in# private respondents9 &otion for e@%lusion. >"ile
it &a, 'e true t"at t"e Re#ional Trial Court, a%tin# in a restri%ted %apa%it, and e@er%isin# li&ited
6urisdi%tion as a pro'ate %ourt, is %o&petent to issue orders involvin# in%lusion or e@%lusion of %ertain
properties in t"e inventor, of t"e estate of t"e de%edent, and to ad6ud#e, al'eit, provisionall, t"e
Cuestion of title over properties, it is no less true t"at su%" aut"orit, %onferred upon ', law and
reinfor%ed ', 6urispruden%e, s"ould 'e e@er%ised 6udi%iousl,, wit" due re#ard and %aution to t"e
pe%uliar %ir%u&stan%es of ea%" individual %ase.
Notwit"standin# t"at t"e real properties were dul, re#istered under t"e Torrens s,ste& in t"e na&e of
private respondents, and as su%" were to 'e afforded t"e presu&ptive %on%lusiveness of title, t"e
pro'ate %ourt o'viousl, opted to s"ut its e,es to t"is #lea&, fa%t and still pro%eeded to issue t"e
i&pu#ned orders.
B, its denial of t"e &otion for e@%lusion, t"e pro'ate %ourt in effe%t a%ted in utter disre#ard of t"e
presu&ption of %on%lusiveness of title in favor of private respondents. Certainl,, t"e pro'ate %ourt
t"rou#" su%" 'raGen a%t trans#ressed t"e %lear provisions of law and infrin#ed settled 6urispruden%e on
t"is &atter.
7oreover, petitioner ur#es t"at not onl, t"e properties of private respondent %orporations are properl,
part of t"e de%edent9s estate 'ut also t"e private respondent %orporations t"e&selves. To rivet su%"
fli&s, %ontention, petitioner %ited t"at t"e late Pastor N. Li& durin# "is lifeti&e, or#aniGed and w"oll,2
owned t"e five %orporations, w"i%" are t"e private respondents in t"e instant %ase.
(!
Petitioner t"us
atta%"ed as /nne@es <?<
(4
and <3<
(8
of t"e petition for review affidavits e@e%uted ', Teresa Li& and
Lani >en%eslao w"i%" a&on# ot"ers, %ontained aver&ents t"at t"e in%orporators of Uniwide
$istri'utin#, In%. in%luded on t"e list "ad no a%tual and parti%ipation in t"e or#aniGation and
in%orporation of t"e said %orporation. T"e affiants added t"at t"e persons w"ose na&es appeared on t"e
arti%les of in%orporation of Uniwide $istri'utin#, In%., as in%orporators t"ereof, are &ere du&&ies
sin%e t"e, "ave not a%tuall, %ontri'uted an, a&ount to t"e %apital sto%: of t"e %orporation and "ave
'een &erel, as:ed ', t"e late Pastor N. Li& to affi@ t"eir respe%tive si#natures t"ereon.
It is settled t"at a %orporation is %lot"ed wit" personalit, separate and distin%t fro& t"at of t"e persons
%o&posin# it. It &a, not #enerall, 'e "eld lia'le for t"at of t"e persons %o&posin# it. It &a, not 'e
"eld lia'le for t"e personal inde'tedness of its sto%:"olders or t"ose of t"e entities %onne%ted wit" it.
(-

Rudi&entar, is t"e rule t"at a %orporation is invested ', law wit" a personalit, distin%t and separate
fro& its sto%:"olders or &e&'ers. In t"e sa&e vein, a %orporation ', le#al fi%tion and %onvenien%e is
an entit, s"ielded ', a prote%tive &antle and i&'ued ', law wit" a %"ara%ter alien to t"e persons
%o&prisin# it.
Nonet"eless, t"e s"ield is not at all ti&es invin%i'le. T"us, in F%'ST "-%C%""%NE %NTE'NAT%(NAC
=ANR vs. (<'T (F A""EACS
(*
, >e enun%iated5
. . . >"en t"e fi%tion is ur#ed as a &eans of perpetratin# a fraud or an ille#al a%t or as a ve"i%le
for t"e evasion of an e@istin# o'li#ation, t"e %ir%u&vention of statutes, t"e a%"ieve&ent or
perfe%tion of a &onopol, or #enerall, t"e perpetration of :naver, or %ri&e, t"e veil wit" w"i%"
t"e law %overs and isolates t"e %orporation fro& t"e &e&'ers or sto%:"olders w"o %o&pose it
will 'e lifted to allow for its %onsideration &erel, as an a##re#ation of individuals. . . .
Pier%in# t"e veil of %orporate entit, reCuires t"e %ourt to see t"rou#" t"e prote%tive s"roud w"i%"
e@e&pts its sto%:"olders fro& lia'ilities t"at ordinaril,, t"e, %ould 'e su'6e%t to, or distin#uis"es one
%orporation fro& a see&in#l, separate one, were it not for t"e e@istin# %orporate fi%tion.
.)
T"e %orporate &as: &a, 'e lifted and t"e %orporate veil &a, 'e pier%ed w"en a %orporation is 6ust 'ut
t"e alter e#o of a person or of anot"er %orporation. >"ere 'ad#es of fraud e@ist, w"ere pu'li%
%onvenien%e is defeatedD w"ere a wron# is sou#"t to 'e 6ustified t"ere',, t"e %orporate fi%tion or t"e
notion of le#al entit, s"ould %o&e to nau#"t.
.1
?urt"er, t"e test in deter&inin# t"e appli%a'ilit, of t"e do%trine of pier%in# t"e veil of %orporate fi%tion
is as follows5 11 Control, not &ere &a6orit, or %o&plete sto%: %ontrol, 'ut %o&plete do&ination, not
onl, of finan%es 'ut of poli%, and 'usiness pra%ti%e in respe%t to t"e transa%tion atta%:ed so t"at t"e
%orporate entit, as to t"is transa%tion "ad at t"e ti&e no separate &ind, will or e@isten%e of its ownD 0(1
Su%" %ontrol &ust "ave 'een used ', t"e defendant to %o&&it fraud or wron#, to perpetuate t"e
violation of a statutor, or ot"er positive le#al dut,, or dis"onest and un6ust a%t in %ontravention of
plaintiffs le#al ri#"tD and 0.1 T"e aforesaid %ontrol and 'rea%" of dut, &ust pro@i&atel, %ause t"e
in6ur, or un6ust loss %o&plained of. T"e a'sen%e of an, of t"ese ele&ents prevent <pier%in# t"e
%orporate veil<.
.(
7ere owners"ip ', a sin#le sto%:"older or ', anot"er %orporation of all or nearl, all of t"e %apital
sto%: of a %orporation is not of itself a suffi%ient reason for disre#ardin# t"e fi%tion of separate
%orporate personalities.
..
7oreover, to disre#ard t"e separate 6uridi%al personalit, of a %orporation, t"e wron#2doin# &ust 'e
%learl, and %onvin%in#l, esta'lis"ed. It %annot 'e presu&ed.
.
3rantin# arguendo t"at t"e Re#ional Trial Court in t"is %ase was not &erel, a%tin# in a li&ited %apa%it,
as a pro'ate %ourt, petitioner nonet"eless failed to addu%e %o&petent eviden%e t"at would "ave 6ustified
t"e %ourt to i&pale t"e veil of %orporate fi%tion. Trul,, t"e relian%e reposed ', petitioner on t"e
affidavits e@e%uted ', Teresa Li& and Lani >en%eslao is unavailin# %onsiderin# t"at t"e
afore&entioned do%u&ents possess no wei#"t, pro'ative value pursuant to t"e "earsa, rule. Besides it
is i&perative for us to stress t"at su%" affidavits are inad&issi'le in eviden%e inas&u%" as t"e affiants
were not at all presented durin# t"e %ourse of t"e pro%eedin#s in t"e lower %ourt. To put it differentl,,
for t"is Court to up"old t"e ad&issi'ilit, of said do%u&ents would 'e to rele#ate fro& Our dut, to
appl, su%" 'asi% rule of eviden%e in a &anner %onsistent wit" t"e law and 6urispruden%e.
Our pronoun%e&ent in "E("CE =ANR AND T'<ST (+"ANQ vs. CE(N%DAS
.!
finds pertinen%e5
/ffidavits are %lassified as "earsa, eviden%e sin%e t"e, are not #enerall, prepared ', t"e affiant
'ut ', anot"er w"o uses "is own lan#ua#e in writin# t"e affiant9s state&ents, w"i%" &a, t"us 'e
eit"er o&itted or &isunderstood ', t"e one writin# t"e&. 7oreover, t"e adverse part, is
deprived of t"e opportunit, to %ross2e@a&ine t"e affiants. ?or t"is reason, affidavits are
#enerall, re6e%ted for 'ein# "earsa,, unless t"e affiant t"e&selves are pla%ed on t"e witness
stand to testif, t"ereon.
/s to t"e order
.4
of t"e lower %ourt, dated 1! Septe&'er 1**!, t"e Court of /ppeals %orre%tl, o'served
t"at t"e Re#ional Trial Court, Bran%" *. a%ted wit"out 6urisdi%tion in issuin# said orderD T"e pro'ate
%ourt "ad no aut"orit, to de&and t"e produ%tion of 'an: a%%ounts in t"e na&e of t"e private respondent
%orporations.
>AERE?ORE, in view of t"e fore#oin# disCuisitions, t"e instant petition is "ere', $IS7ISSE$ for
la%: of &erit and t"e de%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals w"i%" nullified and set aside t"e orders issued ',
t"e Re#ional Trial Court, Bran%" *., a%tin# as a pro'ate %ourt, dated ) +ul, 1**! and 1( Septe&'er
1**! is /??IR7E$./0!&hi/*nEt
G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1973
ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT O A!!EALS, TH"R# #"$"S"ON, %ANUEL CUENCO, LOUR#ES CUENCO, CONCE!C"ON CUENCO %ANGUERRA, CAR%EN
CUENCO, CONSUELO CUENCO REYES, &'( TERES"TA CUENCO GON)ALE), respondents.
Ambrosio Padilla Law Office for petitioner.
Jalandoni and Jamir for respondents.

TEEHAN*EE, J.:
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 34104-R, proul!ated "1 Nove#er 1$%4, and its su#se&uent
Resolution proul!ated ' (ul) 1$%4 den)in! petitioner*s +otion for Reconsideration.
,he pertinent facts which !ave rise to the herein petition follow-
.n 25 February 196 /enator +ariano (esus Cuenco died at the +anila 0octors* 1ospital, +anila. 1e was survived #) his widow, the herein petitioner, and their
two 2"3 inor sons, +ariano (esus, (r. and (esus /alvador, #oth surnaed Cuenco, all residin! at %$ Pi ) +ar!al /t., /ta. +esa 1ei!hts, 4ue5on Cit), and #)
his children of the first arria!e, respondents herein, nael), +anuel Cuenco, 6ourdes Cuenco, Concepcion Cuenco +an!uera, Caren Cuenco, Consuelo
Cuenco Re)es and ,eresita Cuenco Gon5ales, all of le!al a!e and residin! in Ce#u.
.n 5 !arc" 196, 2the $th da) after the death of the late /enator3

1
respondent 6ourdes Cuenco filed a Petition for 6etters of
Adinistration with the court of first instance of Ce#u 2/p. Proc. No. "433-R3, alle!in! aon! other thin!s, that
the late senator died intestate in +anila on "7 8e#ruar) 1$%49 that he was a resident of Ce#u at the tie of his
death9 and that he left real and personal properties in Ce#u and 4ue5on Cit). .n the sae date, the Ce#u court
issued an order settin! the petition for hearin! on 10 April 1$%4, directin! that due notice #e !iven to all the heirs
and interested persons, and orderin! the re&uisite pu#lication thereof at 6A PR:N/A, a newspaper of !eneral
circulation in the Cit) and Province of Ce#u.
,he aforesaid order, however, was later suspended and cancelled and a new and odified one released on 13
+arch 1$%4, in view of the fact that the petition was to #e heard at ;ranch << instead of ;ranch < of the said Ce#u
court. .n the sae date, a third order was further issued statin! that respondent 6ourdes Cuenco*s petition for
the appointent of a special adinistrator dated 4 +arch 1$%4 was not )et read) for the consideration of the
said court, !ivin! as reasons the followin!-
<t will #e premature for this Court to act thereon, it not havin! )et re!ularl) ac&uired =urisdiction to
tr) this proceedin!, the re&uisite pu#lication of the notice of hearin! not )et havin! #een
coplied with. +oreover, copies of the petition have not #een served on all of the heirs specified
in the #asic petition for the issuance of letters of adinistration.
2
<n the eantie, or specificall) on 12 !arc" 196, 2a wee> after the filin! of the Ce#u petition3 herein petitioner
Rosa Ca)etano Cuenco filed a petition with the court of first instance of Ri5al 24ue5on Cit)3 for the probate of
the deceased*s last will and testament and for the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor, as the survivin!
widow and e?ecutri? in the said last will and testaent. ,he said proceedin! was doc>eted as /pecial
Proceedin! No. 4-@'$'.
1avin! learned of the intestate proceedin! in the Ce#u court, petitioner Rosa Ca)etano Cuenco filed in said
Ce#u court an .pposition and +otion to 0isiss, dated #$ !arc" 196, as well as an .pposition to Petition for
Appointent of /pecial Adinistrator, dated ' April 1$%4. .n 1$ April 196, the Ce#u court issued an order
holdin! in a#e)ance its resolution on petitioner*s otion to disiss Auntil after the Court of 8irst <nstance of
4ue5on Cit) shall have acted on the petition for probate of that docuent purportin! to #e the last will and
testaent of the deceased 0on +ariano (esus Cuenco.A
3
/uch order of the Ce#u court deferrin! to the probate
proceedin!s in the 4ue5on Cit) court was neither e?cepted to nor sou!ht #) respondents to #e reconsidered or
set aside #) the Ce#u court nor did the) challen!e the sae #) certiorari or prohi#ition proceedin!s in the
appellate courts.
<nstead, respondents filed in the 4ue5on Cit) court an .pposition and +otion to 0isiss, dated 1$ April 196,
opposin% probate of the will and assailin! the =urisdiction of the said 4ue5on Cit) court to entertain petitioner*s
petition for pro#ate and for appointent as e?ecutri? in /p. Proc. No. 4-@'$' in view of the alle!ed e?clusive
=urisdiction vested #) her petition in the Ce#u court in /p. Proc. No. "433-R. /aid respondent pra)ed that /p.
Proc. No. 4-@'$' #e disissed for lac& of 'urisdiction andBor improper (enue.
<n its order of 11 April 196, the 4ue5on Cit) court denied the otion to disiss, !ivin! as a principal reason the
Aprecedence of pro#ate proceedin! over an intestate proceedin!.A
4
,he said court further found in said order
that the residence of the late senator at the tie of his death was at No. %$ Pi ) +ar!al, /ta. +esa 1ei!hts,
)ue*on +ity. ,he pertinent portion of said order follows-
.n the &uestion of residence of the decedent, para!raph 7 of the opposition and otion to
disiss reads as follows- Athat since the decedent 0on +ariano (esus Cuenco was a resident of
the Cit) of Ce#u at the tie of his death, the aforesaid petition filed #) Rosa Ca)etano Cuenco
on 1" +arch 1$%4 was not filed with the proper Court 2wron! venue3 in view of the provisions of
/ection 1 of Rule @3 of the New Rules of Court ...A. 8ro the afore&uoted alle!ation, the Court is
ade to understand that the oppositors do not ean to sa) that the decedent #ein! a resident of
Ce#u Cit) when he died, the intestate proceedin!s in Ce#u Cit) should prevail over the pro#ate
proceedin!s in 4ue5on Cit), #ecause as stated a#ove the pro#ate of the will should ta>e
precedence, #ut that the pro#ate proceedin!s should #e filed in the Ce#u Cit) Court of 8irst
<nstance. <f the last proposition is the desire of the oppositors as understood #) this Court, that
could not also #e entertained as proper #ecause para!raph 1 of the petition for the pro#ate of
the will indicates that ,on !ariano Jesus +uenco at t"e time of "is deat" was a resident of
)ue*on +ity at 69 Pi y !ar%al. Anne? A 26ast Cill and ,estaent of +ariano (esus Cuenco3 of
the petition for pro#ate of the will shows that the decedent at the tie when he e?ecuted his 6ast
Cill clearl) stated that he is a resident of %$ Pi ) +ar!al, /ta. +esa 1ei!hts, 4ue5on Cit), and
also of the Cit) of Ce#u. 1e ade the forer as his first choice and the latter as his second
choice of residence.A <f a part) has two residences, the one will #e deeed or presued to his
doicile which he hiself selects or considers to #e his hoe or which appears to #e the center
of his affairs. ,he petitioner, in thus filin! the instant petition #efore this Court, follows the first
choice of residence of the decedent and once this court ac&uires =urisdiction of the pro#ate
proceedin! it is to the e?clusion of all others.
+
Respondent 6ourdes Cuenco*s otion for reconsideration of the 4ue5on Cit) court*s said order of 11 April 1$%4
assertin! its e?clusive =urisdiction over the pro#ate proceedin! as deferred to #) the Ce#u court was denied on
2- April 196 and a second otion for reconsideration dated 2$ !ay 196 was li>ewise denied.
.n 11 !ay 196, pursuant to its earlier order of 11 April 1$%4, the hearin! for pro#ate of the last will of the
decedent was called three ties at half-hour intervals, #ut notwithstandin! due notification none of the
oppositors appeared and the 4ue5on Cit) court proceeded at $-00 a.. with the hearin! in their a#sence.
As per the order issued #) it su#se&uentl) on 17 +a) 1$%4, the 4ue5on Cit) court noted that respondents-
oppositors had opposed pro#ate under their opposition and otion to disiss on the followin! !rounds-
2a3 ,hat the will was not e?ecuted and attested as re&uired #) law9
2#3 ,hat the will was procured #) undue and iproper pressure and influence on the part of the
#eneficiar) or soe other persons for his #enefit9
2c3 ,hat the testator*s si!nature was procured #) fraud andBor that the testator acted #) ista>e
and did not intend that the instruent he si!ned should #e his will at the tie he affi?ed his
si!nature thereto.
6
,he 4ue5on Cit) court further noted that the re&uisite pu#lication of the notice of the hearin! had #een dul)
coplied with and that all the heirs had #een dul) notified of the hearin!, and after receivin! the testion) of the
three instruental witnesses to the decedent*s last will, nael) Att). 8lorencio Al#ino, 0r. Guillero A. Picache
and 0r. (ose P. .=eda, and of the notar) pu#lic, Att). ;raulio A. Arriola, (r., who ratified the said last will, and the
docuentar) evidence 2such as the decedent*s residence certificates, incoe ta? return, diploatic passport,
deed of donation3 all indicatin! that the decedent was a resident of %$ Pi ) +ar!al /t., 4ue5on Cit), as also
affired #) hi in his last will, the 4ue5on Cit) court in its said order of 15 !ay 196 admitted to probate the late
senator*s last will and testaent as havin! #een Afreel) and voluntaril) e?ecuted #) the testatorA and Awith all
foralities of the lawA and appointed petitioner-widow as e?ecutri? of his estate without #ond Afollowin! the
desire of the testatorA in his will as pro#ated.
<nstead of appealin! fro the 4ue5on Cit) court*s said order admittin% t"e will to probate and nain! petitioner-
widow as e?ecutri? thereof, respondents filed a special civil action of certiorari and prohi#ition with preliinar)
in=unction with respondent Court of Appeals 2doc>eted as case CA-G.R. No. 34104-R3 to #ar the Ri5al court fro
proceedin! with case No. 4-@'$'.
.n "1 Nove#er 1$%4, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of respondents 2petitioners therein3
and a!ainst the herein petitioner, holdin! that-
/ection 1, Rule @3, which fi?es the venue in proceedin!s for the settleent of the estate of a
deceased person, covers bot" testate and intestate proceedin!s. /p. Proc. "433-R of the Ce#u
C8< havin! #een filed ahead, it is that court whose =urisdiction was first invo>ed and which first
attached. <t is that court which can properl) and e?clusivel) pass upon the factual issues of 213
whether the decedent left or did not leave a valid will, and 2"3 whether or not the decedent was a
resident of Ce#u at the tie of his death.
Considerin! therefore that the first proceedin! was instituted in the Ce#u C8< 2/pecial
Proceedin! "433-R3, it follows that the said court ust e?ercise =urisdiction to the e?clusion of
the Ri5al C8<, in which the petition for pro#ate was filed #) the respondent Rosa Ca)etano
Cuenco 2/pecial Proceedin! 4-@'$'3. ,he said respondent should assert her ri!hts within the
fraewor> of the proceedin! in the Ce#u C8<, instead of invo>in! the =urisdiction of another
court.
,he respondents tr) to a>e capital of the fact that on +arch 13, 1$%4, (ud!e Aador Goe5 of
the Ce#u C8<, actin! in /p. Proc. "433-R, stated that the petition for appointent of special
adinistrator was Anot )et read) for the consideration of the Court toda). <t would #e preature
for this Court to act thereon, it not havin! )et re!ularl) ac&uired =urisdiction to tr) this
proceedin! ... . A <t is sufficient to state in this connection that the said =ud!e was certainl) not
referrin! to the court*s =urisdiction over the res, not to =urisdiction itself which is ac&uired fro the
oent a petition is filed, #ut onl) to the e.ercise of =urisdiction in relation to the sta!e of the
proceedin!s. At all events, =urisdiction is conferred and deterined #) law and does not depend
on the pronounceents of a trial =ud!e.
,he dispositive part of respondent appellate court*s =ud!ent provided as follows-
ACC.R0<NG6D, the writ of prohi#ition will issue, coandin! and directin! the respondent
Court of 8irst <nstance of Ri5al, ;ranch <E, 4ue5on Cit), and the respondent (ud!e 0aaso ;.
,en!co to refrain perpetuall) fro proceedin! and ta>in! an) action in /pecial Proceedin! 4-
@'$' pendin! #efore the said respondent court. All orders heretofore issued and actions
heretofore ta>en #) said respondent court and respondent (ud!e, therein and connected
therewith, are here#) annulled. ,he writ of in=unction heretofore issued is here#) ade
peranent. No pronounceent as to costs.
Petitioner*s otion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, dated ' (ul)
1$%79 hence the herein petition for review on certiorari.
,he principal and decisive issue at #ar is, theretofore, whether the appellate court erred in law in issuin! the writ
of prohi#ition a!ainst the 4ue5on Cit) court orderin! it to refrain perpetuall) fro proceedin! with the testate
proceedin!s and annullin! and settin! aside all its orders and actions, particularl) its adission to pro#ate of the
decedent*s last will and testaent and appointin! petitioner-widow as e?ecutri? thereof without #ond in
copliance with the testator*s e?press wish in his testaent. ,his issue is tied up with the issue su#itted to the
appellate court, to wit, whether the 4ue5on Cit) court acted without =urisdiction or with !rave a#use of discretion
in ta>in! co!ni5ance and assuin! e?clusive =urisdiction over the pro#ate proceedin!s filed with it, in pursuance
of the Ce#u court*s order of 10 April 1$%4 e?pressl) consentin% in deference to the precedence of pro#ate over
intestate proceedin!s that it 2the 4ue5on Cit) court3 should first act Aon the petition for pro#ate of the docuent
purportin! to #e the last will and testaent of the deceased 0on +ariano (esus CuencoA - which order of the
Ce#u court respondents never &uestioned nor challen!ed #) prohi#ition or certiorari proceedin!s and thus
ena#led the 4ue5on Cit) court to proceed without an) ipedient or o#struction, once it denied respondent
6ourdes Cuenco*s otion to disiss the pro#ate proceedin! for alle!ed lac> of =urisdiction or iproper venue, to
proceed wit" t"e "earin% of the petition and to admit t"e will to probate upon havin! #een satisfied as to its due
e?ecution and authenticit).
,he Court finds under the a#ove-cited facts that the appellate court erred in law in issuin! the writ of prohi#ition
a!ainst the 4ue5on Cit) court fro proceedin! with the testate proceedin!s and annullin! and settin! aside all
its orders and actions, particularl) its adission to pro#ate of the deceased*s last will and testaent and
appointin! petitioner-widow as e?ecutri? thereof without #ond pursuant to the deceased testator*s e?press wish,
for the followin! considerations- F
1. ,he (udiciar) Act
7
concededl) confers ori!inal 'urisdiction upon all Courts of 8irst <nstance over Aall atter of
pro#ate, #oth of testate and intestate estates.A .n the other hand, Rule @3, section of the Rules of Court la)s
down the rule of venue, as the ver) caption of the Rule indicates, and in order to prevent conflict aon! the
different courts which otherwise a) properl) assue =urisdiction fro doin! so, the Rule specifies that Athe
court first ta&in% co%ni*ance of t"e settlement of t"e estate of a decedent, shall e.ercise 'urisdiction to t"e
e.clusion of all ot"er courts.A ,he cited Rule provides-
/ection 1. /"ere estate of deceased persons settled. <f the decedent is an inha#itant of the
Philippines at the tie of his death, whether a citi5en or an alien, "is will s"all be pro(ed0 or
letters of administration %ranted0 and "is estate settled0 in t"e +ourt of First 1nstance in t"e
Pro(ince in w"ic" "e resides at t"e time of "is deat", and if he is an inha#itant of a forei!n
countr), the Court of 8irst <nstance of the province in which he had estate. ,he court first ta&in%
co%ni*ance of the settlement of t"e estate of a decedent, shall e.ercise 'urisdiction to the
e.clusion of all other courts. ,he 'urisdiction assumed #) a court, so far as it depends on the
place of residence, of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not #e contested in a
suit or proceedin!, e.cept in an appeal fro that court, in t"e ori%inal case, or when the want of
'urisdiction appears on the record. 2Rule @33
,
<t is e&uall) conceded that the residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is not an eleent of
=urisdiction over the su#=ect atter #ut erel) of (enue. ,his was lucidl) stated #) the late Chief (ustice +oran in
2y Oa (s. +o 3o
9
as follows-
Ce are not unaware of e?istin! decisions to the effect that in pro#ate cases the place of
residence of the deceased is re!arded as a &uestion of =urisdiction over the su#=ect-atter. ;ut
we decline to follow this view #ecause of its ischievous conse&uences. 8or instance, a pro#ate
case has #een su#itted in !ood faith to the Court of 8irst <nstance of a province where the
deceased had not resided. All the parties, however, includin! all the creditors, have su#itted
theselves to the =urisdiction of the court and the case is therein copletel) finished e?cept for a
clai of a creditor who also voluntaril) filed it with said court #ut on appeal fro an adverse
decision raises for the first tie in this Court the &uestion of =urisdiction of the trial court for lac>
of residence of the deceased in the province. <f we consider such &uestion of residence as one
affectin! the =urisdiction of the trial court over the su#=ect-atter, the effect shall #e that the
w"ole proceedin%s includin! all decisions on the different incidents which have arisen in court
will have to #e annulled and the same case will have to #e commenced anew #efore anot"er
court of the same ran& in another province. ,hat this is of misc"ie(ous effect in the prompt
administration of 'ustice is too o#vious to re&uire coent. 2Cf. ,anunchuan vs. 0) ;uncio G
Co., G.R. No. 4'"0%, 0ece#er 31, 1$4"3 8urtherore, section %00 of Act No. 1$0,
1-
providin!
that the estate of a deceased person shall #e settled in the province where he had last resided,
could not have #een intended as definin! the =urisdiction of the pro#ate court over the su#=ect-
atter, #ecause such le!al provision is contained in a law of procedure dealin! erel) with
procedural atters, and, as we have said tie and a!ain, procedure is one thin! and =urisdiction
over the su#=ect atter is another. 2Attorne)-General vs. +anila Railroad Copan), "0 Phil.
7"3.3 ,he law of =urisdiction F Act No. 13%,
11
/ection 7%, No. 7 F confers upon Courts of 8irst
<nstance =urisdiction over all pro#ate cases independentl) of the place of residence of the
deceased. /ince, however, there are an) courts of 8irst <nstance in the Philippines, the 6aw of
Procedure, Act No. 1$0, section %00, fi?es the venue or the place where each case shall #e
#rou!ht. ,hus, the place of residence of the deceased is not an element of 'urisdiction over the
su#=ect-atter #ut merely of (enue. And it is upon this !round that in the new Rules of Court the
province where the estate of a deceased person shall #e settled is properl) called A(enueA.
<t should #e noted that the Rule on venue does not state that the court with who the estate or intestate petition
is first filed ac&uires e?clusive =urisdiction.
,he Rule precisel) and deli#eratel) provides that 4t"e court first ta&in% co%ni*ance of t"e settlement of t"e estate
of a decedent, shall e.ercise 'urisdiction to t"e e.clusion of all ot"er courts.A
A fair readin! of the Rule F since it deals with venue and coit) #etween courts of e&ual and co-ordinate
=urisdiction F indicates that the court with who the petition is first filed, ust also first ta&e co%ni*ance of t"e
settlement of t"e estate in order to e.ercise 'urisdiction o(er it to t"e e.clusion of all ot"er courts.
+on(ersely, such court, a) upon learnin! that a petition for probate of the decedent*s last will has #een
presented in another court where the decedent o#viousl) had his con=u!al doicile and resided with his
survivin! widow and their inor children, and that the alle!ation of the intestate petition #efore it statin! that the
decedent died intestate a) #e actuall) false, a) decline to ta&e co%ni*ance of the petition and hold the
petition #efore it in a#e)ance, and instead defer to the second court which has #efore it the petition for probate of
the decedent*s alle!ed last will.
". ,his e?actl) what the Ce#u court did. Hpon petitioner-widow*s filin! with it a otion to disiss 6ourdes*
intestate petition, it issued its order holdin! in a#e)ance its action on the disissal otion and deferred to the
4ue5on Cit) court, awaitin! its action on the petition for probate #efore that court. <plicit in the Ce#u court*s
order was that if the will was dul) aditted to pro#ate, #) the 4ue5on Cit) court, then it would definitel) decline
to ta>e co!ni5ance of 6ourdes* intestate petition which would there#) #e shown to #e false and improper, and
leave the e.ercise of =urisdiction to the )ue*on +ity court, to the e?clusion of all other courts. 6i>ewise #) its act
of deference, the Ce#u court left it to the 4ue5on Cit) court to resolve the &uestion #etween the parties whether
the decedent*s residence at the tie of his death was in 4ue5on Cit) where he had his con'u%al domicile rather
than in Ce#u Cit) as claied #) respondents. ,he Ce#u court thus indicated that it would decline to ta>e
co!ni5ance of the intestate petition #efore it and instead defer to the 4ue5on Cit) court, unless the latter would
a>e a ne!ative findin! as to the probate petition and the residence of the decedent within its territor) and
venue.
3. Hnder these facts, the Ce#u court could not #e held to have acted without =urisdiction or with !rave a#use of
=urisdiction in declinin! to ta>e co!ni5ance of the intestate petition and deferrin! to the 4ue5on Cit) court.
Necessaril), neither could the 4ue5on Cit) court #e deeed to have acted without =urisdiction in ta>in!
co!ni5ance of and actin! on the pro#ate petition since under Rule @3, section 1, the Ce#u court ust first ta&e
co%ni*ance over the estate of the decedent and ust e.ercise 'urisdiction to e?clude all other courts, which the
Ce#u court declined to do. 8urtherore, as is undisputed, said rule onl) la)s down a rule of (enue and the
4ue5on Cit) court indisputa#l) had at least e&ual and coordinate 'urisdiction over the estate.
/ince the 4ue5on Cit) court too& co%ni*ance over the probate petition #efore it and assumed 'urisdiction over
the estate, with the consent and deference of the Ce#u court, the 4ue5on Cit) court should #e left now, #) the
sae rule of venue of said Rule @3, to e?ercise =urisdiction to the e?clusion of all other courts.
Hnder the facts of the case and where respondents su#itted to the 4ue5on Cit) court their opposition to
pro#ate of the will, #ut failed to appear at the scheduled hearin! despite due notice, the 4ue5on Cit) court
cannot #e declared, as the appellate court did, to have acted without =urisdiction in adittin! to pro#ate the
decedent*s will and appointin! petitioner-widow as e?ecutri? thereof in accordance with the testator*s
testamentary disposition.
4. ,he relativel) recent case of 5riarte (s. +ourt of First 1nstance of 6e%ros Occidental
12
with facts analo!ous to
the present case
13
is authorit) a!ainst respondent appellate court*s &uestioned decision.
<n said case, the Court upheld the doctrine of precedence of pro#ate proceedin!s over intestate proceedin!s in
this wise-
<t can not #e denied that a special proceedin! intended to effect the distri#ution of the estate of a
deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance
with his will, is a Apro#ate atterA or a proceedin! for the settleent of his estate. 1t is e7ually
true0 "owe(er0 t"at in accordance wit" settled 'urisprudence in t"is 'urisdiction0 testate
proceedin%s for t"e settlement of t"e estate of a deceased person ta&e precedence o(er
intestate proceedin%s for t"e same purpose. 8"us it "as been "eld repeatedly t"at0 if in t"e
course of intestate proceedin%s pendin% before a court of first instance it is found t"at t"e
decedent "ad left a last will0 proceedin%s for t"e probate of t"e latter s"ould replace t"e intestate
proceedin%s even if at that state an adinistrator had alread) #een appointed, the latter #ein!
re&uired to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the e?ecutor
su#se&uentl) appointed. 8"is "owe(er0 is understood to be wit"out pre'udice t"at s"ould t"e
alle%ed last will be re'ected or is disappro(ed0 t"e proceedin% s"all continue as an intestacy. As
already ad(erted to0 t"is is a clear indication t"at proceedin%s for t"e probate of a will en'oy
priority o(er intestate proceedin%s.
14
,he Court li>ewise therein upheld the 'urisdiction of the second court, 2in this case, the 4ue5on Cit) court3
althou!h opinin! that certain considerations therein Awould see to support the view that Itherein respondentJ
should have su#itted said will for pro#ate to the Ne!ros Court, Iin this case, the Ce#u courtJ either in a
separate special proceedin! or in an appropriate otion for said purpose filed in the alread) pendin! /pecial
Proceedin! No. %344,A
1+
thus-
;ut the fact is that instead of the aforesaid will #ein! presented for pro#ate to the Ne!ros Court, (uan Hriarte
Kaacona filed the petition for the purpose with the +anila Court. Ce can not accept petitioner*s contention in
this re!ard that the latter court had no =urisdiction to consider said petition, al#eit we sa) that it was not the
proper (enue therefor.
<t is well settled in this =urisdiction that wron% (enue is erel) a wai(able procedural defect, and,
in the li!ht of the circustances o#tainin! in the instant case, we are of the opinion, and so hold,
that petitioner has waived the ri!ht to raise such o#=ection or is precluded fro doin! so #)
laches. <t is enou!h to consider in this connection that petitioner >new of the e?istence of a will
e?ecuted #) (uan Hriarte ) Goite since 0ece#er 1$, 1$%1 when 1i!inio Hriarte filed his
opposition to the initial petition filed in /pecial Proceedin! No. %3449 that petitioner li>ewise was
served with notice of the e?istence 2presence3 of the alle!ed last will in the Philippines and of the
filin! of the petition for its pro#ate with the +anila Court since Au!ust "', 1$%" when (uan
Hriarte Kaacona filed a otion for the disissal of /pecial Proceedin! No. %344. All these
notwithstandin!, it was onl) on April 17, 1$%3 that he filed with the +anila Court in /pecial
Proceedin! No. 713$% an .ni#us otion as>in! for leave to intervene and for the disissal
and annulent of all the proceedin!s had therein up to that date9 thus ena#lin! the +anila Court
not onl) to appoint an adinistrator with the will anne?ed #ut also to adit said will to pro#ate
ore than five onths earlier, or ore specificall), on .cto#er 31, 1$%". ,o allow hi now to
assail the e?ercise of =urisdiction over the pro#ate of the will #) the +anila Court and the validit)
of all the proceedin!s had in /pecial Proceedin! No. 713$% would put a preiu on his
ne!li!ence. +oreover, it ust #e ree#ered that this Court is not inclined to annul proceedin!s
re!ularl) had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper (enue therefor, if the net result
would #e to have the sae proceedin!s repeated in soe other court of siilar =urisdiction9
ore so in a case li>e the present where the o#=ection a!ainst said proceedin!s is raised too
late.
16
7. Hnder Rule @3, section 1 itself, the 4ue5on Cit) court*s assumption of 'urisdiction over the decedent*s estate
on the #asis of the will dul) presented for pro#ate #) petitioner-widow and findin! that 4ue5on Cit) was the first
c"oice of residence of the decedent, who had his con=u!al hoe and doicile therein F with the deference in
coit) dul) !iven #) the Ce#u court F could not #e contested e?cept #) appeal fro said court in the ori!inal
case. ,he last para!raph of said Rule e?pressl) provides-
... ,he 'urisdiction assumed #) a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the
decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not #e contested in a suit or proceedin!, e.cept in
an appeal from t"at court, in the ori!inal case, or when the want of =urisdiction appears on the
record. 2Rule @33
,he e?ception therein !iven, (i*, Awhen the want of =urisdiction appears on the recordA could pro#a#l) #e
properl) invo>ed, had such deference in coit) of the Ce#u court to the 4ue5on Cit) court not appeared in the
record, or had the record otherwise shown that the Ce#u court had ta>en co!ni5ance of the petition #efore it and
assued =urisdiction.
%. .n the &uestion that 4ue5on Cit) esta#lished to #e the residence of the late senator, the appellate court while
reco!ni5in! that Athe issue is a le!itiate oneA held in reliance on 9or'a (s. 8an
17
that.
... ,he issue of residence coes within the copetence of whichever court is considered to
prevail in the e?ercise =urisdiction - in this case, the Court of 8irst <nstance of Ce#u as held #)
this Court. Parentheticall), we note that the &uestion of the residence of the deceased is a
serious one, re&uirin! #oth factual and le!al resolution on the #asis of aple evidence to #e
su#itted in the ordinar) course of procedure in the first instance, particularl) in view of the fact
that the deceased was #etter >nown as the /enator fro Ce#u and the will purportin! to #e his
also !ives Ce#u, #esides 4ue5on Cit), as his residence. Ce reiterate that this atter re&uires
airin! in the proper court, as so indicated in the leadin! and controllin! case of 9or'a (s. 3on.
9ien(enido 8an0 et al., G.R. 6-@@$", (ul) "@, 1$77.
<n the case at #ar, however, the Ce#u court declined to ta>e co!ni5ance of the intestate petition first filed with it
and deferred to the testate proceedin!s filed with the 4ue5on Cit) court and in effect as>ed the 4ue5on Cit)
court to deterine the residence of the decedent and whether he did leave a last will and testaent upon which
would depend the proper venue of the estate proceedin!s, Ce#u or 4ue5on Cit). ,he 4ue5on Cit) court havin!
thus deterined in effect for #oth courts F at t"e be"est and wit" t"e deference and consent of t"e +ebu court
F that )ue*on +ity was the actual residence of the decedent who died testate and therefore the proper (enue,
the ;or=a rulin! would see to have no applica#ilit). <t would not serve the practical ends of =ustice to still re&uire
the Ce#u court, if the ;or=a rulin! is to #e held applica#le and as indicated in the decision under review, to
deterine for itself the actual residence of the decedent 2when the 4ue5on Cit) court had alread) so deterined
4ue5on Cit) as the actual residence at the Ce#u court*s #ehest and respondents have not seriousl) &uestioned
this factual findin! #ased on docuentar) evidence3 and if the Ce#u court should li>ewise deterine 4ue5on
Cit) as the actual residence, or its contrar) findin! reversed on appeal, only t"en to allow petitioner-widow after
)ears of waitin! and inaction to institute the correspondin! proceedin!s in 4ue5on Cit).
@. Cith ore reason should the 4ue5on Cit) proceedin!s #e upheld when it is ta>en into consideration that Rule
@%, section " re&uires that the petition for allowance of a will ust show- A2a3 the 'urisdictional facts.A /uch
A=urisdictional factsA in pro#ate proceedin!s, as held #) the Court in Fernando (s. +risostomo
1,
A are the death
of the decedent, his residence at the tie of his death in the province where the pro#ate court is sittin!, or if he is
an inha#itant of a forei!n countr), his havin! left his estate in such province.A
,his tallies with the esta#lished le!al concept as restated #) +oran that A2,3he probate of a will is a proceedin!
in rem. ,he notice #) pu#lication as a pre-re&uisite to the allowance of a will, is a constructive notice to the whole
world, and when pro#ate is !ranted, the =ud!ent of the court is bindin% upon ever)#od), even a!ainst the /tate.
8"e probate of a will by a court "a(in% 'urisdiction t"ereof is conclusi(e as to its due e.ecution and (alidity.A
19
,he 4ue5on Cit) court acted re!ularl) wit"in its 'urisdiction 2even if it were to #e conceded that 4ue5on Cit) was
not the proper venue notwithstandin! the Ce#u court*s !ivin! wa) and deferrin! to it,3 in adittin! the decedent*s
last will to pro#ate and nain! petitioner-widow as e?ecutri? thereof. 1ence, the 4ue5on cit) court*s action
should not #e set aside #) a writ of prohi#ition for supposed lac> of =urisdiction as per the appellate court*s
appealed decision, and should instead #e sustained in line with 5riarte0 supra, where the Court, in disissin! the
certiorari petition challen!in! the +anila court*s action adittin! the decedent*s will to pro#ate and distri#utin!
the estate in accordance therewith in the second proceedin!, held that Ait ust #e ree#ered that this Court is
not inclined to annul proceedin!s re!ularl) had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue
therefor, if t"e net result would be to "a(e t"e same proceedin%s repeated in some ot"er court of similar
'urisdiction.A As stressed #) Chief (ustice +oran in 2y Oa0 supra, Athe ischievous effect in the adinistration of
=usticeA of considerin! the &uestion of residence as affectin! the =urisdiction of the trial court and annullin! the
whole proceedin!s onl) to start all over a!ain the sae proceedin!s #efore another court of the sae ran> in
another province Ais too o#vious to re&uire coent.A
'. <f the &uestion of 'urisdiction were to #e ade to depend onl) on who of the decedent*s relatives !ets first to
file a petition for settleent of the decedent*s estate, then the esta#lished =urisprudence of the Court that Rule
@3, section 1 provides onl) a rule of (enue in order to preclude different courts which a) properl) assue
'urisdiction fro doin! so and creatin! conflicts #etween the to the detrient of the adinistration of =ustice,
and that venue is wai(able, would #e set at nau!ht. As #etween relatives who unfortunatel) do not see e)e to
e)e, it would #e converted into a race as to who can file the petition faster in the court of hisBher choice
re!ardless of whether the decedent is still in cuerpo presente and in disre!ard of the decedent*s actual last
doicile, the fact that he left a last will and testaent and the ri!ht of his survivin! widow naed as e?ecutri?
thereof. /uch dire conse&uences were certainl) not intended #) the Rule nor would the) #e in consonance with
pu#lic polic) and the orderl) adinistration of =ustice.
$. <t would finall) #e un=ust and ine&uita#le that petitioner-widow, who under all the applica#le rules of (enue,
and despite the fact that the Ce#u court 2where respondent 6ourdes Cuenco had filed an intestate petition in the
Ce#u court earlier #) a wee>*s tie on 7 +arch 1$%43 deferred to the 4ue5on Cit) court where petitioner had
within fifteen da)s 2on +arch 1", 1$%43 after the decedent*s death 2on 8e#ruar) "7, 1$%43 tiel) filed the
decedent*s last will and petitioned for letters testaentar) and is adittedl) entitled to preference in the
adinistration of her hus#and*s estate,
2-
would #e copelled under the appealed decision to have to !o all the
wa) to Ce#u and su#it anew the decedent*s will there for pro#ate either in a new proceedin! or #) as>in! that
the intestate proceedin!s #e con(erted into a testate proceedin! F when under the Rules, the proper (enue for
the testate proceedin!s, as per the facts of record and as alread) affired #) the 4ue5on Cit) court is 4ue5on
Cit), where the decedent and petitioner-widow had their con=u!al doicile.
<t would #e an unfair iposition upon petitioner as the one naed and entitled to #e e?ecutri? of the decedent*s
last will and settle his estate in accordance therewith, and a disre!ard of her ri!hts under the rule on venue and
the law on =urisdiction to re&uire her to spend uch ore tie, one) and effort to have to !o fro 4ue5on Cit)
to the Ce#u court ever)tie she has an iportant atter of the estate to ta>e up with the pro#ate court.
<t would dou#l) #e an unfair iposition when it is considered that under Rule @3, section ",
21
since petitioner*s
arria!e has #een dissolved with the death of her hus#and, their counit) propert) and con=u!al estate have
to #e administered and li7uidated in t"e estate proceedin%s of t"e deceased spouse. Hnder the appealed
decision, notwithstandin! that petitioner resides in 4ue5on Cit), and the proper venue of the testate proceedin!
was in 4ue5on Cit) and the 4ue5on Cit) court properl) too> co!ni5ance and e?ercised e?clusive =urisdiction with
the deference in coit) and consent of the Ce#u court, such proper e?ercise of =urisdiction would #e nullified and
petitioner would have to continuall) leave her residence in 4ue5on Cit) and !o to Ce#u to settle and li&uidate
even "er own community property and con'u%al estate with the decedent.
10. ,he Court therefore holds under the facts of record that the +ebu court did not act wit"out 'urisdiction nor
wit" %ra(e abuse of discretion in declinin% to ta>e co!ni5ance of the intestate petition and instead deferrin% to
the testate proceedin!s filed =ust a wee> later #) petitioner as survivin! widow and desi!nated e?ecutri? of the
decedent*s last will, since the record #efore it 2the petitioner*s opposition and otion to disiss3 showed the
falsity of the alle!ation in the intestate petition that the decedent had died wit"out a will. <t is noteworth) that
respondents never challen!ed #) certiorari or prohi#ition proceedin!s the Ce#u court*s order of 10 April 1$%4
deferrin! to the pro#ate proceedin!s #efore the 4ue5on Cit) court, thus leavin! the latter free 2pursuant to the
Ce#u court*s order of deference3 to e.ercise 'urisdiction and adit the decedent*s will to pro#ate.
8or the sae reasons, neit"er could t"e )ue*on +ity court be "eld to "a(e acted wit"out 'urisdiction nor wit"
%ra(e abuse of discretion in adittin! the decedent*s will to pro#ate and appointin! petitioner as e?ecutri? in
accordance with its testaentar) disposition, in the li!ht of the settled doctrine that the provisions of Rule @3,
section 1 la) down onl) a rule of (enue, not of =urisdiction.
/ince respondents undisputedl) failed to appeal fro the 4ue5on Cit) court*s order of +a) 17, 1$%4 adittin!
the will to pro#ate and appointin! petitioner as e?ecutri? thereof, and said court concededl) has =urisdiction to
issue said order, t"e said order of probate "as lon% since become final and can not be o(erturned in a special
ci(ic action of pro"ibition.
11. 8inall), it should #e noted that in the /upree Court*s e?ercise of its supervisor) authorit) over all inferior
courts,
22
it a) properl) deterine, as it has done in the case at #ar, that (enue was properly assumed #) and
transferred to the )ue*on +ity court and that it is the interest of =ustice and in avoidance of needless dela) that
the 4ue5on Cit) court*s e?ercise of =urisdiction over the testate estate of the decedent 2with the due deference
and consent of the Ce#u court3 and its adission to pro#ate of his last will and testaent and appointent of
petitioner-widow as adinistratri? without #ond in pursuance of the decedent*s e?press will and all its orders and
actions ta>en in the testate proceedin!s #efore it #e approved and authori5ed rather than to annul all such
proceedin!s re!ularl) had and to repeat and duplicate the sae proceedin!s #efore the Ce#u court onl) to
revert once ore to the 4ue5on Cit) court should the Ce#u court find that indeed and in fact, as alread)
deterined #) the 4ue5on Cit) court on the stren!th of incontroverti#le docuentar) evidence of record,
4ue5on Cit) was the con=u!al residence of the decedent.
ACC.R0<NG6D, =ud!ent is here#) rendered reversin! the appealed decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals and the petition for certiorari and prohi#ition with preliinar) in=unction ori!inall) filed #) respondents
with the Court of Appeals 2CA-G.R. No. 34104-R3 is ordered disissed. No costs.
G.R. No. 1DD>;D 3ebr,&r) 0, 200>
EDGAR SAN 1UIS, Petitioner,
vs.
3E1ICIDAD SAN 1UIS, Respondent.
@ 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 @
G.R. No. 1D;029 3ebr,&r) 0, 200>
RODO13O SAN 1UIS, Petitioner,
vs.
3E1ICIDAD SAGA1ONGOS &.!&$ 3E1ICIDAD SAN 1UIS, Respondent.
D E % S % ( N
2NARESBSANTIAGO, J.:
Before us are %onsolidated petitions for review assailin# t"e ?e'ruar, , 1**- $e%ision
1
of t"e Court
of /ppeals in C/23.R. C; No. !(48, w"i%" reversed and set aside t"e Septe&'er 1(, 1**!
(
and
+anuar, .1, 1**4
.
Resolutions of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of 7a:ati Cit,, Bran%" 1. in SP. Pro%. No.
72.8)-D and its 7a, 1!, 1**- Resolution

den,in# petitionersI &otion for re%onsideration.

T"e instant %ase involves t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of ?eli%isi&o T. San Luis 0?eli%isi&o1, w"o was
t"e for&er #overnor of t"e Provin%e of La#una. $urin# "is lifeti&e, ?eli%isi&o %ontra%ted t"ree
&arria#es. Ais first &arria#e was wit" ;ir#inia Sulit on 7ar%" 18, 1*( out of w"i%" were 'orn si@
%"ildren, na&el,5 Rodolfo, 7ila, Ed#ar, Linda, E&ilita and 7anuel. On /u#ust 11, 1*4., ;ir#inia
prede%eased ?eli%isi&o.
?ive ,ears later, on 7a, 1, 1*4-, ?eli%isi&o &arried 7err, Lee Corwin, wit" w"o& "e "ad a son,
To'ias. Aowever, on O%to'er 1!, 1*81, 7err, Lee, an /&eri%an %itiGen, filed a Co&plaint for $ivor%e
!
'efore t"e ?a&il, Court of t"e ?irst Cir%uit, State of Aawaii, United States of /&eri%a 0U.S./.1,
w"i%" issued a $e%ree 3rantin# /'solute $ivor%e and /wardin# C"ild Custod, on $e%e&'er 1, 1*8..
4

On +une (), 1*8, ?eli%isi&o &arried respondent ?eli%idad San Luis, t"en surna&ed Sa#alon#os,
'efore Rev. ?r. >illia& 7e,er, 7inister of t"e United Pres',terian at >ils"ire Boulevard, Los
/n#eles, California, U.S./.
8
Ae "ad no %"ildren wit" respondent 'ut lived wit" "er for 1- ,ears fro&
t"e ti&e of t"eir &arria#e up to "is deat" on $e%e&'er 1-, 1**(.
T"ereafter, respondent sou#"t t"e dissolution of t"eir %on6u#al partners"ip assets and t"e settle&ent of
?eli%isi&oIs estate. On $e%e&'er 18, 1**., s"e filed a petition for letters of ad&inistration
-
'efore t"e
Re#ional Trial Court of 7a:ati Cit,, do%:eted as SP. Pro%. No. 72.8)- w"i%" was raffled to Bran%"
14 t"ereof.
Respondent alle#ed t"at s"e is t"e widow of ?eli%isi&oD t"at, at t"e ti&e of "is deat", t"e de%edent was
residin# at 1)) San +uani%o Street, New /la'an# ;illa#e, /la'an#, 7etro 7anilaD t"at t"e de%edentIs
survivin# "eirs are respondent as le#al spouse, "is si@ %"ildren ', "is first &arria#e, and son ', "is
se%ond &arria#eD t"at t"e de%edent left real properties, 'ot" %on6u#al and e@%lusive, valued at
P.),.),18-.)) &ore or lessD t"at t"e de%edent does not "ave an, unpaid de'ts. Respondent pra,ed t"at
t"e %on6u#al partners"ip assets 'e liCuidated and t"at letters of ad&inistration 'e issued to "er.
On ?e'ruar, , 1**, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of t"e %"ildren of ?eli%isi&o ', "is first
&arria#e, filed a &otion to dis&iss
*
on t"e #rounds of i&proper venue and failure to state a %ause of
a%tion. Rodolfo %lai&ed t"at t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration s"ould "ave 'een filed in t"e
Provin%e of La#una 'e%ause t"is was ?eli%isi&oIs pla%e of residen%e prior to "is deat". Ae furt"er
%lai&ed t"at respondent "as no le#al personalit, to file t"e petition 'e%ause s"e was onl, a &istress of
?eli%isi&o sin%e t"e latter, at t"e ti&e of "is deat", was still le#all, &arried to 7err, Lee.
On ?e'ruar, 1!, 1**, Linda invo:ed t"e sa&e #rounds and 6oined "er 'rot"er Rodolfo in see:in# t"e
dis&issal
1)
of t"e petition. On ?e'ruar, (-, 1**, t"e trial %ourt issued an Order
11
den,in# t"e two
&otions to dis&iss.
Unaware of t"e denial of t"e &otions to dis&iss, respondent filed on 7ar%" !, 1** "er opposition
1(
t"ereto. S"e su'&itted do%u&entar, eviden%e s"owin# t"at w"ile ?eli%isi&o e@er%ised t"e powers of
"is pu'li% offi%e in La#una, "e re#ularl, went "o&e to t"eir "ouse in New /la'an# ;illa#e, /la'an#,
7etro 7anila w"i%" t"e, 'ou#"t so&eti&e in 1*-(. ?urt"er, s"e presented t"e de%ree of a'solute
divor%e issued ', t"e ?a&il, Court of t"e ?irst Cir%uit, State of Aawaii to prove t"at t"e &arria#e of
?eli%isi&o to 7err, Lee "ad alread, 'een dissolved. T"us, s"e %lai&ed t"at ?eli%isi&o "ad t"e le#al
%apa%it, to &arr, "er ', virtue of para#rap" (,
1.
/rti%le (4 of t"e ?a&il, Code and t"e do%trine laid
down in ;an $orn v. Ro&illo, +r.
1

T"ereafter, Linda, Rodolfo and "erein petitioner Ed#ar San Luis, separatel, filed &otions for
re%onsideration fro& t"e Order den,in# t"eir &otions to dis&iss.
1!
T"e, asserted t"at para#rap" (,
/rti%le (4 of t"e ?a&il, Code %annot 'e #iven retroa%tive effe%t to validate respondentIs 'i#a&ous
&arria#e wit" ?eli%isi&o 'e%ause t"is would i&pair vested ri#"ts in dero#ation of /rti%le (!4
14
of t"e
?a&il, Code.
On /pril (1, 1**, 7ila, anot"er dau#"ter of ?eli%isi&o fro& "is first &arria#e, filed a &otion to
disCualif, /%tin# Presidin# +ud#e /nt"on, E. Santos fro& "earin# t"e %ase.
On O%to'er (, 1**, t"e trial %ourt issued an Order
18
den,in# t"e &otions for re%onsideration. It
ruled t"at respondent, as widow of t"e de%edent, possessed t"e le#al standin# to file t"e petition and
t"at venue was properl, laid. 7eanw"ile, t"e &otion for disCualifi%ation was dee&ed &oot and
a%ade&i%
1-
'e%ause t"en /%tin# Presidin# +ud#e Santos was su'stituted ', +ud#e Salvador S. Tensuan
pendin# t"e resolution of said &otion.
7ila filed a &otion for in"i'ition
1*
a#ainst +ud#e Tensuan on Nove&'er 14, 1**. On even date,
Ed#ar also filed a &otion for re%onsideration
()
fro& t"e Order den,in# t"eir &otion for
re%onsideration ar#uin# t"at it does not state t"e fa%ts and law on w"i%" it was 'ased.
On Nove&'er (!, 1**, +ud#e Tensuan issued an Order
(1
#rantin# t"e &otion for in"i'ition. T"e %ase
was re2raffled to Bran%" 1. presided ', +ud#e Paul T. /r%an#el.
On /pril (, 1**!,
((
t"e trial %ourt reCuired t"e parties to su'&it t"eir respe%tive position papers on
t"e twin issues of venue and le#al %apa%it, of respondent to file t"e petition. On 7a, !, 1**!, Ed#ar
&anifested
(.
t"at "e is adoptin# t"e ar#u&ents and eviden%e set fort" in "is previous &otion for
re%onsideration as "is position paper. Respondent and Rodolfo filed t"eir position papers on +une 1,
(
and +une (),
(!
1**!, respe%tivel,.
On Septe&'er 1(, 1**!, t"e trial %ourt dis&issed t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration. It "eld t"at,
at t"e ti&e of "is deat", ?eli%isi&o was t"e dul, ele%ted #overnor and a resident of t"e Provin%e of
La#una. Aen%e, t"e petition s"ould "ave 'een filed in Sta. CruG, La#una and not in 7a:ati Cit,. It also
ruled t"at respondent was wit"out le#al %apa%it, to file t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration 'e%ause
"er &arria#e wit" ?eli%isi&o was 'i#a&ous, t"us, void a' initio. It found t"at t"e de%ree of a'solute
divor%e dissolvin# ?eli%isi&oIs &arria#e to 7err, Lee was not valid in t"e P"ilippines and did not 'ind
?eli%isi&o w"o was a ?ilipino %itiGen. It also ruled t"at para#rap" (, /rti%le (4 of t"e ?a&il, Code
%annot 'e retroa%tivel, applied 'e%ause it would i&pair t"e vested ri#"ts of ?eli%isi&oIs le#iti&ate
%"ildren.
Respondent &oved for re%onsideration
(4
and for t"e disCualifi%ation
(8
of +ud#e /r%an#el 'ut said
&otions were denied.
(-

Respondent appealed to t"e Court of /ppeals w"i%" reversed and set aside t"e orders of t"e trial %ourt
in its assailed $e%ision dated ?e'ruar, , 1**-, t"e dispositive portion of w"i%" states5
>AERE?ORE, t"e Orders dated Septe&'er 1(, 1**! and +anuar, .1, 1**4 are "ere', RE;ERSE$
and SET /SI$ED t"e Orders dated ?e'ruar, (- and O%to'er (, 1** are REINST/TE$D and t"e
re%ords of t"e %ase is RE7/N$E$ to t"e trial %ourt for furt"er pro%eedin#s.
(*

T"e appellante %ourt ruled t"at under Se%tion 1, Rule 8. of t"e Rules of Court, t"e ter& <pla%e of
residen%e< of t"e de%edent, for purposes of fi@in# t"e venue of t"e settle&ent of "is estate, refers to t"e
personal, a%tual or p",si%al "a'itation, or a%tual residen%e or pla%e of a'ode of a person as
distin#uis"ed fro& le#al residen%e or do&i%ile. It noted t"at alt"ou#" ?eli%isi&o dis%"ar#ed "is
fun%tions as #overnor in La#una, "e a%tuall, resided in /la'an#, 7untinlupa. T"us, t"e petition for
letters of ad&inistration was properl, filed in 7a:ati Cit,.
T"e Court of /ppeals also "eld t"at ?eli%isi&o "ad le#al %apa%it, to &arr, respondent ', virtue of
para#rap" (, /rti%le (4 of t"e ?a&il, Code and t"e rulin#s in ;an $orn v. Ro&illo, +r.
.)
and Pilapil v.
I'a,2So&era.
.1
It found t"at t"e &arria#e 'etween ?eli%isi&o and 7err, Lee was validl, dissolved ',
virtue of t"e de%ree of a'solute divor%e issued ', t"e ?a&il, Court of t"e ?irst Cir%uit, State of Aawaii.
/s a result, under para#rap" (, /rti%le (4, ?eli%isi&o was %apa%itated to %ontra%t a su'seCuent &arria#e
wit" respondent. T"us M
>it" t"e well2:nown rule M e@press &andate of para#rap" (, /rti%le (4, of t"e ?a&il, Code of t"e
P"ilippines, t"e do%trines in ;an $orn, Pilapil, and t"e reason and p"ilosop", 'e"ind t"e ena%t&ent of
E.O. No. ((8, P t"ere is no 6usti%ia'le reason to sustain t"e individual view P sweepin# state&ent P
of +ud#e /r%E"Fan#el, t"at </rti%le (4, par. ( of t"e ?a&il, Code, %ontravenes t"e 'asi% poli%, of our
state a#ainst divor%e in an, for& w"atsoever.< Indeed, %ourts %annot den, w"at t"e law #rants. /ll t"at
t"e %ourts s"ould do is to #ive for%e and effe%t to t"e e@press &andate of t"e law. T"e forei#n divor%e
"avin# 'een o'tained ', t"e ?orei#ner on $e%e&'er 1, 1**(,
.(
t"e ?ilipino divor%ee, <s"all @ @ @
"ave %apa%it, to re&arr, under P"ilippine laws<. ?or t"is reason, t"e &arria#e 'etween t"e de%eased
and petitioner s"ould not 'e deno&inated as <a 'i#a&ous &arria#e.
T"erefore, under /rti%le 1.) of t"e ?a&il, Code, t"e petitioner as t"e survivin# spouse %an institute t"e
6udi%ial pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e de%eased. @ @ @
..

Ed#ar, Linda, and Rodolfo filed separate &otions for re%onsideration
.
w"i%" were denied ', t"e
Court of /ppeals.
On +ul, (, 1**-, Ed#ar appealed to t"is Court via t"e instant petition for review on %ertiorari.
.!
Rodolfo later filed a &anifestation and &otion to adopt t"e said petition w"i%" was #ranted.
.4

In t"e instant %onsolidated petitions, Ed#ar and Rodolfo insist t"at t"e venue of t"e su'6e%t petition for
letters of ad&inistration was i&properl, laid 'e%ause at t"e ti&e of "is deat", ?eli%isi&o was a resident
of Sta. CruG, La#una. T"e, %ontend t"at pursuant to our rulin#s in Nuval v. 3ura,
.8
and Ro&ualdeG v.
RTC, Br. 8, Ta%lo'an Cit,,
.-
<residen%e< is s,non,&ous wit" <do&i%ile< w"i%" denotes a fi@ed
per&anent residen%e to w"i%" w"en a'sent, one intends to return. T"e, %lai& t"at a person %an onl,
"ave one do&i%ile at an, #iven ti&e. Sin%e ?eli%isi&o never %"an#ed "is do&i%ile, t"e petition for
letters of ad&inistration s"ould "ave 'een filed in Sta. CruG, La#una.
Petitioners also %ontend t"at respondentIs &arria#e to ?eli%isi&o was void and 'i#a&ous 'e%ause it
was perfor&ed durin# t"e su'sisten%e of t"e latterIs &arria#e to 7err, Lee. T"e, ar#ue t"at para#rap"
(, /rti%le (4 %annot 'e retroa%tivel, applied 'e%ause it would i&pair vested ri#"ts and ratif, t"e void
'i#a&ous &arria#e. /s su%", respondent %annot 'e %onsidered t"e survivin# wife of ?eli%isi&oD "en%e,
s"e "as no le#al %apa%it, to file t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration.
T"e issues for resolution5 011 w"et"er venue was properl, laid, and 0(1 w"et"er respondent "as le#al
%apa%it, to file t"e su'6e%t petition for letters of ad&inistration.
T"e petition la%:s &erit.
Under Se%tion 1,
.*
Rule 8. of t"e Rules of Court, t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration of t"e estate
of ?eli%isi&o s"ould 'e filed in t"e Re#ional Trial Court of t"e provin%e <in w"i%" "e resides at t"e
ti&e of "is deat".< In t"e %ase of 3ar%ia ?ule v. Court of /ppeals,
)
we laid down t"e do%trinal rule for
deter&inin# t"e residen%e M as %ontradistin#uis"ed fro& do&i%ile M of t"e de%edent for purposes of
fi@in# t"e venue of t"e settle&ent of "is estate5
ETF"e ter& <resides< %onnotes e@ vi ter&ini <a%tual residen%e< as distin#uis"ed fro& <le#al residen%e or
do&i%ile.< T"is ter& <resides,< li:e t"e ter&s <residin#< and <residen%e,< is elasti% and s"ould 'e
interpreted in t"e li#"t of t"e o'6e%t or purpose of t"e statute or rule in w"i%" it is e&plo,ed. In t"e
appli%ation of venue statutes and rules M Se%tion 1, Rule 8. of t"e Revised Rules of Court is of su%"
nature M residen%e rat"er t"an do&i%ile is t"e si#nifi%ant fa%tor. Even w"ere t"e statute uses t"e word
<do&i%ile< still it is %onstrued as &eanin# residen%e and not do&i%ile in t"e te%"ni%al sense. So&e
%ases &a:e a distin%tion 'etween t"e ter&s <residen%e< and <do&i%ile< 'ut as #enerall, used in statutes
fi@in# venue, t"e ter&s are s,non,&ous, and %onve, t"e sa&e &eanin# as t"e ter& <in"a'itant.< In
ot"er words, <resides< s"ould 'e viewed or understood in its popular sense, &eanin#, t"e personal,
a%tual or p",si%al "a'itation of a person, a%tual residen%e or pla%e of a'ode. It si#nifies p",si%al
presen%e in a pla%e and a%tual sta, t"ereat. In t"is popular sense, t"e ter& &eans &erel, residen%e, t"at
is, personal residen%e, not le#al residen%e or do&i%ile. Residen%e si&pl, reCuires 'odil, presen%e as an
in"a'itant in a #iven pla%e, w"ile do&i%ile reCuires 'odil, presen%e in t"at pla%e and also an intention
to &a:e it oneIs do&i%ile. No parti%ular len#t" of ti&e of residen%e is reCuired t"ou#"D "owever, t"e
residen%e &ust 'e &ore t"an te&porar,.
1
0E&p"asis supplied1
It is in%orre%t for petitioners to ar#ue t"at <residen%e,< for purposes of fi@in# t"e venue of t"e settle&ent
of t"e estate of ?eli%isi&o, is s,non,&ous wit" <do&i%ile.< T"e rulin#s in Nuval and Ro&ualdeG are
inappli%a'le to t"e instant %ase 'e%ause t"e, involve ele%tion %ases. Needless to sa,, t"ere is a
distin%tion 'etween <residen%e< for purposes of ele%tion laws and <residen%e< for purposes of fi@in# t"e
venue of a%tions. In ele%tion %ases, <residen%e< and <do&i%ile< are treated as s,non,&ous ter&s, t"at is,
t"e fi@ed per&anent residen%e to w"i%" w"en a'sent, one "as t"e intention of returnin#.
(
Aowever,
for purposes of fi@in# venue under t"e Rules of Court, t"e <residen%e< of a person is "is personal,
a%tual or p",si%al "a'itation, or a%tual residen%e or pla%e of a'ode, w"i%" &a, not ne%essaril, 'e "is
le#al residen%e or do&i%ile provided "e resides t"erein wit" %ontinuit, and %onsisten%,.
.
Aen%e, it is
possi'le t"at a person &a, "ave "is residen%e in one pla%e and do&i%ile in anot"er.
In t"e instant %ase, w"ile petitioners esta'lis"ed t"at ?eli%isi&o was do&i%iled in Sta. CruG, La#una,
respondent proved t"at "e also &aintained a residen%e in /la'an#, 7untinlupa fro& 1*-( up to t"e
ti&e of "is deat". Respondent su'&itted in eviden%e t"e $eed of /'solute Sale

dated +anuar, !,
1*-. s"owin# t"at t"e de%eased pur%"ased t"e aforesaid propert,. S"e also presented 'illin# state&ents
!
fro& t"e P"ilippine Aeart Center and C"inese 3eneral Aospital for t"e period /u#ust to $e%e&'er
1**( indi%atin# t"e address of ?eli%isi&o at <1)) San +uani%o, /,ala /la'an#, 7untinlupa.<
Respondent also presented proof of &e&'ers"ip of t"e de%eased in t"e /,ala /la'an# ;illa#e
/sso%iation
4
and /,ala Countr, Clu', In%.,
8
letter2envelopes
-
fro& 1*-- to 1**) sent ', t"e
de%easedIs %"ildren to "i& at "is /la'an# address, and t"e de%easedIs %allin# %ards
*
statin# t"at "is
"o&e=%it, address is at <1)) San +uani%o, /,ala /la'an# ;illa#e, 7untinlupa< w"ile "is
offi%e=provin%ial address is in <Provin%ial Capitol, Sta. CruG, La#una.<
?ro& t"e fore#oin#, we find t"at ?eli%isi&o was a resident of /la'an#, 7untinlupa for purposes of
fi@in# t"e venue of t"e settle&ent of "is estate. ConseCuentl,, t"e su'6e%t petition for letters of
ad&inistration was validl, filed in t"e Re#ional Trial Court
!)
w"i%" "as territorial 6urisdi%tion over
/la'an#, 7untinlupa. T"e su'6e%t petition was filed on $e%e&'er 18, 1**.. /t t"at ti&e, 7untinlupa
was still a &uni%ipalit, and t"e 'ran%"es of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of t"e National Capital +udi%ial
Re#ion w"i%" "ad territorial 6urisdi%tion over 7untinlupa were t"en seated in 7a:ati Cit, as per
Supre&e Court /d&inistrative Order No. ..
!1
T"us, t"e su'6e%t petition was validl, filed 'efore t"e
Re#ional Trial Court of 7a:ati Cit,.
/nent t"e issue of respondent ?eli%idadIs le#al personalit, to file t"e petition for letters of
ad&inistration, we &ust first resolve t"e issue of w"et"er a ?ilipino w"o is divor%ed ', "is alien spouse
a'road &a, validl, re&arr, under t"e Civil Code, %onsiderin# t"at ?eli%idadIs &arria#e to ?eli%isi&o
was sole&niGed on +une (), 1*8, or 'efore t"e ?a&il, Code too: effe%t on /u#ust ., 1*--. In
resolvin# t"is issue, we need not retroa%tivel, appl, t"e provisions of t"e ?a&il, Code, parti%ularl, /rt.
(4, par. 0(1 %onsiderin# t"at t"ere is suffi%ient 6urisprudential 'asis allowin# us to rule in t"e
affir&ative.
T"e %ase of ;an $orn v. Ro&illo, +r.
!(
involved a &arria#e 'etween a forei#ner and "is ?ilipino wife,
w"i%" &arria#e was su'seCuentl, dissolved t"rou#" a divor%e o'tained a'road ', t"e latter. Clai&in#
t"at t"e divor%e was not valid under P"ilippine law, t"e alien spouse alle#ed t"at "is interest in t"e
properties fro& t"eir %on6u#al partners"ip s"ould 'e prote%ted. T"e Court, "owever, re%o#niGed t"e
validit, of t"e divor%e and "eld t"at t"e alien spouse "ad no interest in t"e properties a%Cuired ', t"e
?ilipino wife after t"e divor%e. T"us5
In t"is %ase, t"e divor%e in Nevada released private respondent fro& t"e &arria#e fro& t"e standards of
/&eri%an law, under w"i%" divorce dissolves the marriage* /s stated ', t"e ?ederal Supre&e Court of
t"e United States in /t"erton vs. /t"erton, ! L. Ed. 8*, 8**5
<T"e purpose and effe%t of a de%ree of divor%e fro& t"e 'ond of &atri&on, ', a %o&petent 6urisdi%tion
are to %"an#e t"e e@istin# status or do&esti% relation of "us'and and wife, and to free t"e& 'ot" fro&
t"e 'ond. T"e &arria#e tie, w"en t"us severed as to one part,, %eases to 'ind eit"er. / "us'and wit"out
a wife, or a wife wit"out a "us'and, is un:nown to t"e law. >"en t"e law provides, in t"e nature of a
penalt,, t"at t"e #uilt, part, s"all not &arr, a#ain, t"at part,, as well as t"e ot"er, is still a'solutel,
freed fro& t"e 'ond of t"e for&er &arria#e.<
T"us, pursuant to "is national law, private respondent is no lon#er t"e "us'and of petitioner. Ae would
"ave no standin# to sue in t"e %ase 'elow as petitionerIs "us'and entitled to e@er%ise %ontrol over
%on6u#al assets. /s "e is 'ound ', t"e $e%ision of "is own %ountr,Is Court, w"i%" validl, e@er%ised
6urisdi%tion over "i&, and w"ose de%ision "e does not repudiate, "e is estopped ', "is own
representation 'efore said Court fro& assertin# "is ri#"t over t"e alle#ed %on6u#al propert,.
!.

/s to t"e effe%t of t"e divor%e on t"e ?ilipino wife, t"e Court ruled t"at s"e s"ould no lon#er 'e
%onsidered &arried to t"e alien spouse. ?urt"er, s"e s"ould not 'e reCuired to perfor& "er &arital
duties and o'li#ations. It "eld5
To m&!"(&!", &$ 'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"( *oe$, (#&(, ,"*er o,r .&5$, 'e(!(!o"er #&$ (o be %o"$!*ere* $(!..
m&rr!e* (o 'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"( &"* $(!.. $,b:e%( (o & 5!-e=$ ob.!+&(!o"$ ,"*er Ar(!%.e 109, e(. $e8. o-
(#e C!v!. Co*e %&""o( be :,$(. Petitioner s"ould not 'e o'li#ed to live to#et"er wit", o'serve respe%t
and fidelit,, and render support to private respondent. T"e latter s"ould not %ontinue to 'e one of "er
"eirs wit" possi'le ri#"ts to %on6u#al propert,. S#e $#o,.* "o( be *!$%r!m!"&(e* &+&!"$( !" #er o5"
%o,"(r) !- (#e e"*$ o- :,$(!%e &re (o be $erve*.
!
0E&p"asis added1
T"is prin%iple was t"ereafter applied in Pilapil v. I'a,2So&era
!!
w"ere t"e Court re%o#niGed t"e
validit, of a divor%e o'tained a'road. In t"e said %ase, it was "eld t"at t"e alien spouse is not a proper
part, in filin# t"e adulter, suit a#ainst "is ?ilipino wife. T"e Court stated t"at <the severance of the
marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former s&ouses from each other, "en%e t"e a%tuations of
one would not affe%t or %ast o'loCu, on t"e ot"er.<
!4

Li:ewise, in Suita v* ourt of A&&eals,
!8
t"e Court stated t"at w"ere a ?ilipino is divor%ed ', "is
naturaliGed forei#n spouse, t"e rulin# in :an Dorn applies.
!-
/lt"ou#" de%ided on $e%e&'er ((, 1**-,
t"e divor%e in t"e said %ase was o'tained in 1*! w"en t"e Civil Code provisions were still in effe%t.
T"e si#nifi%an%e of t"e :an Dorn %ase to t"e develop&ent of li&ited re%o#nition of divor%e in t"e
P"ilippines %annot 'e denied. T"e rulin# "as lon# 'een interpreted as severin# &arital ties 'etween
parties in a &i@ed &arria#e and %apa%itatin# t"e ?ilipino spouse to re&arr, as a ne%essar, %onseCuen%e
of up"oldin# t"e validit, of a divor%e o'tained a'road ', t"e alien spouse. In "is treatise, $r. /rturo 7.
Tolentino %ited :an Dorn statin# t"at <if t"e forei#ner o'tains a valid forei#n divor%e, t"e ?ilipino
spouse s"all "ave %apa%it, to re&arr, under P"ilippine law.<
!*
In .arcia v* 'ecio,
4)
t"e Court
li:ewise %ited t"e afore&entioned %ase in relation to /rti%le (4.
41

In t"e re%ent %ase of 'e&ublic v* (rbecido %%%,
4(
t"e "istori%al 'a%:#round and le#islative intent 'e"ind
para#rap" (, /rti%le (4 of t"e ?a&il, Code were dis%ussed, to wit5
Brief Aistori%al Ba%:#round
On +ul, 4, 1*-8, t"en President CoraGon /Cuino si#ned into law E@e%utive Order No. ()*, ot"erwise
:nown as t"e <?a&il, Code,< w"i%" too: effe%t on /u#ust ., 1*--. /rti%le (4 t"ereof states5
/ll &arria#es sole&niGed outside t"e P"ilippines in a%%ordan%e wit" t"e laws in for%e in t"e %ountr,
w"ere t"e, were sole&niGed, and valid t"ere as su%", s"all also 'e valid in t"is %ountr,, e@%ept t"ose
pro"i'ited under /rti%les .!, .8, and .-.
On +ul, 18, 1*-8, s"ortl, after t"e si#nin# of t"e ori#inal ?a&il, Code, E@e%utive Order No. ((8 was
li:ewise si#ned into law, a&endin# /rti%les (4, .4, and .* of t"e ?a&il, Code. / se%ond para#rap"
was added to /rti%le (4. /s so a&ended, it now provides5
/RT. (4. /ll &arria#es sole&niGed outside t"e P"ilippines in a%%ordan%e wit" t"e laws in for%e in t"e
%ountr, w"ere t"e, were sole&niGed, and valid t"ere as su%", s"all also 'e valid in t"is %ountr,, e@%ept
t"ose pro"i'ited under /rti%les .!011, 01, 0!1 and 041, .4, .8 and .-.
Where a marriage bet!een a Fili&ino citi,en and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien s&ouse ca&acitating him or her to remarry, the Fili&ino
s&ouse shall have ca&acity to remarry under "hili&&ine la!* 0E&p"asis supplied1
@ @ @ @
Cegislative %ntent
Re%ords of t"e pro%eedin#s of t"e ?a&il, Code deli'erations s"owed t"at t"e intent of Para#rap" ( of
/rti%le (4, a%%ordin# to +ud#e /li%ia Se&pio2$i,, a &e&'er of t"e Civil Code Revision Co&&ittee, is
to avoid t"e a'surd situation w"ere t"e ?ilipino spouse re&ains &arried to t"e alien spouse w"o, after
o'tainin# a divor%e, is no lon#er &arried to t"e ?ilipino spouse.
I"(ere$(!"+.), P&r&+r&'# 2 o- Ar(!%.e 20 (r&%e$ !($ or!+!" (o (#e 198? %&$e o- +an 'on (. Ro!i&&o,
J. T#e +an 'on %&$e !"vo.ve* & m&rr!&+e be(5ee" & 3!.!'!"o %!(!Me" &"* & -ore!+"er. T#e Co,r(
#e.* (#ere!" (#&( & *!vor%e *e%ree v&.!*.) ob(&!"e* b) (#e &.!e" $'o,$e !$ v&.!* !" (#e P#!.!''!"e$,
&"* %o"$e8,e"(.), (#e 3!.!'!"o $'o,$e !$ %&'&%!(&(e* (o rem&rr) ,"*er P#!.!''!"e .&5.
4.
0E&p"asis added1
/s su%", t"e ;an $orn %ase is suffi%ient 'asis in resolvin# a situation w"ere a divor%e is validl,
o'tained a'road ', t"e alien spouse. >it" t"e ena%t&ent of t"e ?a&il, Code and para#rap" (, /rti%le
(4 t"ereof, our law&a:ers %odified t"e law alread, esta'lis"ed t"rou#" 6udi%ial pre%edent./a!&hi/*net
Indeed, w"en t"e o'6e%t of a &arria#e is defeated ', renderin# its %ontinuan%e intolera'le to one of t"e
parties and produ%tive of no possi'le #ood to t"e %o&&unit,, relief in so&e wa, s"ould 'e o'taina'le.
4
7arria#e, 'ein# a &utual and s"ared %o&&it&ent 'etween two parties, %annot possi'l, 'e
produ%tive of an, #ood to t"e so%iet, w"ere one is %onsidered released fro& t"e &arital 'ond w"ile t"e
ot"er re&ains 'ound to it. Su%" is t"e state of affairs w"ere t"e alien spouse o'tains a valid divor%e
a'road a#ainst t"e ?ilipino spouse, as in t"is %ase.
Petitioners %ite /rti%les 1!
4!
and 18
44
of t"e Civil Code in statin# t"at t"e divor%e is void under
P"ilippine law insofar as ?ilipinos are %on%erned. Aowever, in li#"t of t"is CourtIs rulin#s in t"e %ases
dis%ussed a'ove, t"e ?ilipino spouse s"ould not 'e dis%ri&inated a#ainst in "is own %ountr, if t"e ends
of 6usti%e are to 'e served.
48
In /lonGo v. Inter&ediate /ppellate Court,
4-
t"e Court stated5
But as "as also 'een aptl, o'served, we test a law ', its resultsD and li:ewise, we &a, add, ', its
purposes. It is a %ardinal rule t"at, in see:in# t"e &eanin# of t"e law, t"e first %on%ern of t"e 6ud#e
s"ould 'e to dis%over in its provisions t"e intent of t"e law&a:er. UnCuestiona'l,, t"e law s"ould never
'e interpreted in su%" a wa, as to %ause in6usti%e as t"is is never wit"in t"e le#islative intent. /n
indispensa'le part of t"at intent, in fa%t, for we presu&e t"e #ood &otives of t"e le#islature, is to
render )ustice.
T"us, we interpret and appl, t"e law not independentl, of 'ut in %onsonan%e wit" 6usti%e. Law and
6usti%e are insepara'le, and we &ust :eep t"e& so. To 'e sure, t"ere are so&e laws t"at, w"ile #enerall,
valid, &a, see& ar'itrar, w"en applied in a parti%ular %ase 'e%ause of its pe%uliar %ir%u&stan%es. In
su%" a situation, we are not 'ound, 'e%ause onl, of our nature and fun%tions, to appl, t"e& 6ust t"e
sa&e, in slavis" o'edien%e to t"eir lan#ua#e. >"at we do instead is find a 'alan%e 'etween t"e word
and t"e will, t"at 6usti%e &a, 'e done even as t"e law is o'e,ed.
/s 6ud#es, we are not auto&atons. >e do not and &ust not unfeelin#l, appl, t"e law as it is worded,
,ieldin# li:e ro'ots to t"e literal %o&&and wit"out re#ard to its %ause and %onseCuen%e. <Courts are apt
to err ', sti%:in# too %losel, to t"e words of a law,< so we are warned, ', +usti%e Aol&es a#ain, <w"ere
t"ese words i&port a poli%, t"at #oes 'e,ond t"e&.<
@ @ @ @
7ore t"an twent, %enturies a#o, +ustinian defined 6usti%e <as t"e %onstant and perpetual wis" to render
ever, one "is due.< T"at wis" %ontinues to &otivate t"is Court w"en it assesses t"e fa%ts and t"e law in
ever, %ase 'rou#"t to it for de%ision. +usti%e is alwa,s an essential in#redient of its de%isions. T"us
w"en t"e fa%ts warrants, we interpret t"e law in a wa, t"at will render 6usti%e, presu&in# t"at it was t"e
intention of t"e law&a:er, to 'e#in wit", t"at t"e law 'e dispensed wit" 6usti%e.
4*

/ppl,in# t"e a'ove do%trine in t"e instant %ase, t"e divor%e de%ree alle#edl, o'tained ', 7err, Lee
w"i%" a'solutel, allowed ?eli%isi&o to re&arr,, would "ave vested ?eli%idad wit" t"e le#al personalit,
to file t"e present petition as ?eli%isi&oIs survivin# spouse. Aowever, t"e re%ords s"ow t"at t"ere is
insuffi%ient eviden%e to prove t"e validit, of t"e divor%e o'tained ', 7err, Lee as well as t"e &arria#e
of respondent and ?eli%isi&o under t"e laws of t"e U.S./. In 3ar%ia v. Re%io,
8)
t"e Court laid down
t"e spe%ifi% #uidelines for pleadin# and provin# forei#n law and divor%e 6ud#&ents. It "eld t"at
presentation solel, of t"e divor%e de%ree is insuffi%ient and t"at proof of its aut"enti%it, and due
e@e%ution &ust 'e presented. Under Se%tions ( and (! of Rule 1.(, a writin# or do%u&ent &a, 'e
proven as a pu'li% or offi%ial re%ord of a forei#n %ountr, ', eit"er 011 an offi%ial pu'li%ation or 0(1 a
%op, t"ereof attested ', t"e offi%er "avin# le#al %ustod, of t"e do%u&ent. If t"e re%ord is not :ept in
t"e P"ilippines, su%" %op, &ust 'e 0a1 a%%o&panied ', a %ertifi%ate issued ', t"e proper diplo&ati% or
%onsular offi%er in t"e P"ilippine forei#n servi%e stationed in t"e forei#n %ountr, in w"i%" t"e re%ord is
:ept and 0'1 aut"enti%ated ', t"e seal of "is offi%e.
81

>it" re#ard to respondentIs &arria#e to ?eli%isi&o alle#edl, sole&niGed in California, U.S./., s"e
su'&itted p"oto%opies of t"e 7arria#e Certifi%ate and t"e annotated te@t
8(
of t"e ?a&il, Law /%t of
California w"i%" purportedl, s"ow t"at t"eir &arria#e was done in a%%ordan%e wit" t"e said law. /s
stated in .arcia, "owever, t"e Court %annot ta:e 6udi%ial noti%e of forei#n laws as t"e, &ust 'e alle#ed
and proved.
8.

T"erefore, t"is %ase s"ould 'e re&anded to t"e trial %ourt for furt"er re%eption of eviden%e on t"e
divor%e de%ree o'tained ', 7err, Lee and t"e &arria#e of respondent and ?eli%isi&o.
Even assu&in# t"at ?eli%isi&o was not %apa%itated to &arr, respondent in 1*8, nevert"eless, we find
t"at t"e latter "as t"e le#al personalit, to file t"e su'6e%t petition for letters of ad&inistration, as s"e
&a, 'e %onsidered t"e %o2owner of ?eli%isi&o as re#ards t"e properties t"at were a%Cuired t"rou#"
t"eir 6oint efforts durin# t"eir %o"a'itation.
Se%tion 4,
8
Rule 8- of t"e Rules of Court states t"at letters of ad&inistration &a, 'e #ranted to t"e
survivin# spouse of t"e de%edent. Aowever, Se%tion (, Rule 8* t"ereof also provides in part5
SEC. (. Contents of petition for letters of ad&inistration. M / petition for letters of ad&inistration &ust
'e filed ', an interested person and &ust s"ow, as far as :nown to t"e petitioner5 @ @ @.
/n <interested person< "as 'een defined as one w"o would 'e 'enefited ', t"e estate, su%" as an "eir,
or one w"o "as a %lai& a#ainst t"e estate, su%" as a %reditor. T"e interest &ust 'e &aterial and dire%t,
and not &erel, indire%t or %ontin#ent.
8!

In t"e instant %ase, respondent would Cualif, as an interested person w"o "as a dire%t interest in t"e
estate of ?eli%isi&o ', virtue of t"eir %o"a'itation, t"e e@isten%e of w"i%" was not denied ',
petitioners. If s"e proves t"e validit, of t"e divor%e and ?eli%isi&oIs %apa%it, to re&arr,, 'ut fails to
prove t"at "er &arria#e wit" "i& was validl, perfor&ed under t"e laws of t"e U.S./., t"en s"e &a, 'e
%onsidered as a %o2owner under /rti%le 1
84
of t"e Civil Code. T"is provision #overns t"e propert,
relations 'etween parties w"o live to#et"er as "us'and and wife wit"out t"e 'enefit of &arria#e, or
t"eir &arria#e is void fro& t"e 'e#innin#. It provides t"at t"e propert, a%Cuired ', eit"er or 'ot" of
t"e& t"rou#" t"eir wor: or industr, or t"eir wa#es and salaries s"all 'e #overned ', t"e rules on %o2
owners"ip. In a %o2owners"ip, it is not ne%essar, t"at t"e propert, 'e a%Cuired t"rou#" t"eir 6oint la'or,
efforts and industr,. /n, propert, a%Cuired durin# t"e union is &rima facie presu&ed to "ave 'een
o'tained t"rou#" t"eir 6oint efforts. Aen%e, t"e portions 'elon#in# to t"e %o2owners s"all 'e presu&ed
eCual, unless t"e %ontrar, is proven.
88

7eanw"ile, if respondent fails to prove t"e validit, of 'ot" t"e divor%e and t"e &arria#e, t"e appli%a'le
provision would 'e /rti%le 1- of t"e ?a&il, Code w"i%" "as filled t"e "iatus in /rti%le 1 of t"e
Civil Code ', e@pressl, re#ulatin# t"e propert, relations of %ouples livin# to#et"er as "us'and and
wife 'ut are in%apa%itated to &arr,.
8-
In Saguid v* ourt of A&&eals,
8*
we "eld t"at even if t"e
%o"a'itation or t"e a%Cuisition of propert, o%%urred 'efore t"e ?a&il, Code too: effe%t, /rti%le 1-
#overns.
-)
T"e Court des%ri'ed t"e propert, re#i&e under t"is provision as follows5
T"e re#i&e of li&ited %o2owners"ip of propert, #overnin# t"e union of parties w"o are not le#all,
%apa%itated to &arr, ea%" ot"er, 'ut w"o nonet"eless live to#et"er as "us'and and wife, applies to
properties a%Cuired durin# said %o"a'itation in proportion to t"eir respe%tive %ontri'utions. Co2
owners"ip will onl, 'e up to t"e e@tent of t"e proven a%tual %ontri'ution of &one,, propert, or
industr,. /'sent proof of t"e e@tent t"ereof, t"eir %ontri'utions and %orrespondin# s"ares s"all 'e
presu&ed to 'e eCual.
@ @ @ @
In t"e %ases of Aga&ay v* "alang, and Tumlos v* Fernande,, w"i%" involved t"e issue of %o2owners"ip
of properties a%Cuired ', t"e parties to a 'i#a&ous &arria#e and an adulterous relations"ip,
respe%tivel,, we ruled t"at proof of a%tual %ontri'ution in t"e a%Cuisition of t"e propert, is essential. @ @
@
/s in ot"er %ivil %ases, t"e 'urden of proof rests upon t"e part, w"o, as deter&ined ', t"e pleadin#s or
t"e nature of t"e %ase, asserts an affir&ative issue. Contentions &ust 'e proved ', %o&petent eviden%e
and relian%e &ust 'e "ad on t"e stren#t" of t"e part,Is own eviden%e and not upon t"e wea:ness of t"e
opponentIs defense. @ @ @
-1

In view of t"e fore#oin#, we find t"at respondentIs le#al %apa%it, to file t"e su'6e%t petition for letters
of ad&inistration &a, arise fro& "er status as t"e survivin# wife of ?eli%isi&o or as "is %o2owner under
/rti%le 1 of t"e Civil Code or /rti%le 1- of t"e ?a&il, Code.
>AERE?ORE, t"e petition is $ENIE$. T"e $e%ision of t"e Court of /ppeals reinstatin# and
affir&in# t"e ?e'ruar, (-, 1** Order of t"e Re#ional Trial Court w"i%" denied petitionersI &otion to
dis&iss and its O%to'er (, 1** Order w"i%" dis&issed petitionersI &otion for re%onsideration is
/??IR7E$. Let t"is %ase 'e RE7/N$E$ to t"e trial %ourt for furt"er pro%eedin#s.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 7++79 Se.te/ber 3-, 1991
TO%AS TR"N"#A#, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT O A!!EALS, respondent.
8omas 8rinidad for "imself.

!ARAS, J.:p
,his is a petition for review on certiorari see>in! the reversal of 13 the decision 0 dated 8e#ruar) 14, 1$'% of the then <nterediate Appellate Court 2now Court of
Appeals3 in AC-G.R. N 014'3 entitled- 4People of t"e P"ilippines (s. Atty. 8om 8rinidad04 affirin! the decision of the Re!ional ,rial Court +anila dated (anuar)
7, 1$'4, which convicted herein petitioner of violation of /ection "7 in relation to /ection 3$ of P $7@ sentencin! hi to pa) a fine of P"0,000.00 and to suffer the
accessor) penalties provided #) law and to pa) the costs, and the resolution of said appellate court dated +a) $, 1$'%, den)in! the otion for reconsideration of
herein petitioner.
<n an inforation that was filed in the then Court of 8irst <nstance of +anila 2now Re!ional ,rial Court3, herein petitioner, Att). ,oas ,rinidad, was char!ed with
violation of P.0. $7@ for non-deliver) of title alle!edl) coitted in this anner-
,hat on or a#out 8e#ruar) "0, 1$@' and continuousl) up to the present, in +anila, Philippines, and within the =urisdiction of this 1onora#le
Court, the said accused, #ein! the adinistrator of the estate of the late N<C.6A< 0R:P<N, President and General +ana!er of the +other
:arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, owner-developer of the +untin! ;a!uio Lilla!e /u#division, located at Antipolo, Ri5al, and havin!
>nowled!e of the sale of 6ot No. 1$, ;loc> No. 71 of the said /u#division to 8RANC</CA ,. 0<+A;HD. for the purchase price of
P14,000,00, did then and there wilfull), unlawfull) and feloniousl) fail to deliver the title of said su#division lot to the said lot #u)er upon full
pa)ent thereof in violation of the aforeentioned P.0. No. $7@. 2Rollo, p. "73
After the accused had #een arrai!ned, pleadin! not !uilt), the prosecution presented onl) one witness nael) 8rancisca ,. 0ia#u)u, who is 4$ )ears old,
arried, pu#lic school teacher, residin! at 311 Po#lacion, +a#alacat, Papan!a. <n her direct and cross e?aination she testified to the followin!- that she filed
a case a!ainst the accused ,oas ,rinidad with the ,as> 8orce of the +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice for Liolation of P.0. No. $7@ for non-deliver) of title
and she e?ecuted an affidavit in support of her coplaint #efore the ,as> 8orce of the +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice. /he identified the Affidavit, :?hi#it A
in her coplaint. /he filed this coplaint a!ainst ,oas ,rinidad for the non-issuance of title wherein there was a contract e?ecuted #) her with the +other :arth
Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, and that the accused ,oas ,rinidad was the adinistrator of the estate of the late Nicolai 0repin. /he identified the contract
e?ecuted #) her presented and ar>ed as :?hi#it ; and the total price of the lot #ou!ht #) her was 8.HR ,1.H/AN0 P:/./ 2P4,000.003. /he was pa)in!
,hirt) :i!ht Pesos and /i?t) ;i!ht Centavos 2P3'.%'3 onthl) until she ade the full pa)ent. /he was !iven receipts and entered in her #oo>let presented and
ar>ed as :?hi#it C. /he was a#le to pa) /:L:N ,1.H/AN0 2P@,000.003 P:/./ includin! aorti5ation, and this lot which she #ou!ht is located at Antipolo,
Ri5al. /he had visited the place #efore she #ou!ht the sae. /he identified :?hi#it 0, which is the certification of the secretar) of the accused. /he has also
receipts to prove her pa)ents to the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, of which the accused is the President and General +ana!er and owner
developer of the +untin! ;a!uio Lilla!e /u#division located at Antipolo, Ri5al. /he identified these receipts of pa)ent paid #) her. :?hi#its :, :-1 to :-3
inclusive. /he also identified a pass#oo> wherein the pa)ent ade #) her were posted #) the eplo)ee of the said corporation, :?hi#its 8 to 8-1. /he further
stated that she never e the accused in his office. /he called hi #) phone and he proised her to deliver the title after she had ade the full pa)ent. /he
waited for several onths #ut no title was issue to her. /he dropped in the office of the accused and she never saw hi there, onl) a cler> told her that he is
#us). ,wo onth after she paid the last pa)ent she ade in&uiries of her title. /he was a#le to tal> with the accused in 1$@', and the accused told her that she
should #e patient for her title would arrive. /he went to the office of the accused for so an), an) ties and in&uired a#out her title and the office of the
accused in situated at :scolta, Re!ina ;uildin!, +anila. /he was a#le to tal> with the accused two ties usin! the telephone in his office and the accused told
her that she ust not worr) for her title would #e forthcoin!. 1er son was a#le to tal> with the accused #ut the accused told her son that her title was coin!.
/he wen to the National 1ousin! Authorit) and in&uired if the corporation of the accused is fa>e. Att). 6a!unsa! of the National 1ousin! Authorit) set a hearin!
#etween her and the accused #ut the accused did not appear. /he received the notification 2Aar>ed as :?hi#it G3 fro the National 1ousin! Authorit) a#out the
hearin!. ,he hearin! was a#out the title she was claiin! fro the accused. A hearin!. was also held at the +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice on +arch @,
1$'1 #ut the accused did not appear. ,he +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice handled the case to help her and it was 8iscal Rodri!o Cosico, state Prosecutor
of the +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice who handled the case. ,here was a resolution of the +inistr) 2now 0epartent3 of (ustice in her favor, ar>ed an
presented as :?hi#it 1 and 1-1. /he did not approach an law)er for she could not afford to pa) a law)er. Chenever she coes to +anila to clai her title and
confront ,oas ,rinidad she used to spend 8<8,D P:/./ 2P70.003 per da). /he felt frustrated and was ad with the accused.
<n the cross-e?aination of this witness she said she had #een teachin! Grade <L at Papan!a for "0 )ears then. /he aditted that she is a si!nator) to the
contract, :?hi#it ;. aditted that she did not pa) the real estate ta?es of this land. /he aditted that she did not !o to the Pro#ate Court.
<n the re-direct, she said that she has not paid the ta?es #ecause she was not notified a#out the deand of pa)ent. /he paid the installent as evidenced #)
receipts :?hi#its :, :-< :-30 of 6ots Nos. 1$ and 71 of said su#division ana!ed #) the accused. /he said that the accused was the adinistrator of land
wherein the portion was #ou!ht #) her.
After the testion) of the coplainant 8rancesca 0ia#u)u, the prosecution rested its case and offered :?hi#its A, ;, C, 0, :, :-< to :-30, inclusive, 8, 8-< to 8-
7, inclusive, and 1, and 1-1, which were all aditted #) the court. 2<#id., pp. "@-"$3.
.n the other hand, herein petitioner, in his direct testion) and cross, testified to the fact that in the <ntestate Proceedin!s of the estate of the late Nicolai 0repin,
he #ecae the (udicial Adinistrator appointed in the )ear 1$@%, and he presented his appointent and ar>ed as :?hi#it 3. 1e testified that he too> hold of the
propert) of the deceased includin! the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, and also the unre!istered propert) situated at Antipolo, Ri5al. ,he whole
lot is titled in the nae of testator. 1e aditted that he is the adinistrator of the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, and that said corporation has
lots for sale. 1e continued to receive pa)ents of lots for sale in installent. <n 1$@' the National 1ousin! Authorit) stopped the sale of lots, and his corporation
was told to stop operatin! the propert) now the place #ein! under control of the +inistr) of 1uan /ettleents. Accordin! to hi the coplainant 2+s.
8rancesca ,. 0ia#u)u3 had not coplied with all the re&uireents for the coplainant had not paid the ta?es. 1e as>ed the Pro#ate Court as adinistrator to
allow hi to e?ecute a 0eed of /ale to his lot #u)ers and he was allowed in Nove#er 1$'", the authorit) was presented and ar>ed as :?hi#it 7. ,he +other
:arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, accordin! to hi, is not in #usiness now, and he is not the adinistrator. 1e was appointed #) the Court as adinistrator
in place of Att). Guico, and he has letters of adinistration presented and ar>ed as :?hi#it 3. 1is duties as adinistrator are with the full authorit) to ta>e
possession of all properties of the deceased.
<n the cross e?aination of this witness he aditted that he was not a#le to deliver an) title to the coplainant for accordin! to hi the coplainant had not
actuall) paid all her o#li!ations #ecause there is no ad=ustent considerin! the value of the peso which has declined these da)s. ,he coplainant has not even
paid the ta?es of the land so that the contract has not #een dul) coplied with.
.n (anuar) 7, 1$'4, the Re!ional ,rial Court of +anila rendered =ud!ent, the dispositive portion of which reads-
C1:R:8.R: <N L<:C .8 ,1: 8.R:G.<NG C.N/<0:RA,<.N, the !uilt of the accused havin! #een proven #e)ond reasona#le dou#t
for violation of /ec. "7 in relation to /ection 3$ of P.0. $7@ here#) sentences hi to pa) a fine of ,C:N,D ,1.H/AN0 P:/./
2P"0,000.3 and to suffer the accessor) penalties provided #) law and to pa) the costs. 21bid., P. %"3
Not satisfied with the fore!oin! decision, herein petitioner elevated the case to the then <nterediate Appellate Court, which rendered =ud!ent, the dispositive
portion of which reads-
C1:R:8.R:, the decision appealed fro is A88<R+:0 in toto with costs a!ainst accused-appellant. 21bid., p. 343
,he otion for reconsideration havin! #een denied 21bid., p. 3$3, herein petitioner filed the instant petition, raisin! the followin! issues-
<
<, </ AN A;H/: .8 (H0<C<A6 0</CR:,<.N A+.HN,<NG ,. 6ACM .8 (HR</0<C,<.N ,. :EPAN0 ,1: ,:R+ <N A P:NA6
PR.L</<.N .8 P0 $7@ ,. <NC6H0: ,1A, C1<C1 </ N., /P:C<8<CA66D PR.L<0:0 8.R ,1:R:<N. 21bid., p. 103
<<
,1: C.NC6H/<.N .8 ,1: <.A.C. ,1A, ,1: A0+<N</,RA,.R .8 ,1: +.,1:R R:A6,D 0:L. C.RP. 2sic3 8<N0/ N. /ANC,<.N
<N R:A/.N AN0 6.G<C AN0 A GRAL: A;H/: .8 0</CR:,<.N A+.HN,<NG ,. 6ACM .8 (HR</0<C,<.N. 21bid., 133
<<<
<, </ A /:R<.H/ :RR.R .8 ,1: <AC. N., ,. C.HN,:NANC: ,1: /P:C<8<C PR.L</<.N .8 6AC .N ,1: :EC6H/<L:
(HR</0<C,<.N .8 ,1: PR.;A,: C.HR, <N R:8:R:NC: ,. ,1: /:,,6:+:N, .8 ,1: :/,A,: .8 A 0:C:0:N, .8 C1<C1 A
0:6<L:RD .8 ,<,6: ,. A 6., </ .N: /HC1. 21bid., p. 173
<L
:N8.RC<NG P0 $7@ ,. R:,R.AC, ,. A C.N,RAC, 6.NG ;:8.R: :/,A;6</1:0 LA6<0 AN0 6:GA6 ,1:N, L<.6A,:/ ,1:
;<66 .8 R<G1,/ <N ,1: 1$@3 C.N/,<,H,<.N, 1:NC: <, </ R:L:R/<;6: :RR.R. 21bid., p. 1@3
L
D.HR P:,<,<.N:R, (H0<C<A6 A0+<N</,RA,.R .8 ,1: :/,A,: .8 N<C.6A< 0R:P<N </ CAHG1, <N ,1: 1.RN/ .8 A 0<6:++A
AN0 A N. C<N P./<,<.N A, ,1A,. 21bid., p. 1'3
Hnder the first two assi!ned errors, herein petitioner assails the =ud!ent of the respondent appellate court for havin! e?panded the ter in a penal provision of
P0 $7@, i.e., /ection 3$, to include that which is not specificall) provided for therein. +oreover, he assails respondent appellate court*s findin! that he is also the
adinistrator of +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation as non se7uitur.
,he contentions are without erit.
/ections "7 and 3$ of Presidential 0ecree $7@ provide, thus-
/ec. "7. 1ssuance of 8itle. F ,he owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the #u)er upon full pa)ent of the lot or unit.
No fee, e?cept those re&uired for the re!istration of the deed of sale in the Re!istr) of 0eeds, shall #e collected for the issuance of such
title. <n the event a ort!a!e over the lot or unit is outstandin! at the tie of the issuance of the title to the #u)er, the owner or developer
shall redee the ort!a!e or the correspondin! portion thereof within si? onths fro such issuance in order that the title over full) paid
lo or unit a) #e secured and delivered to the #u)er in accordance herewith.
/ec. 3$. Penalties. F An) person who shall violate an) of th provision of this decree andBor an) rule or re!ulation that a) #e issued
pursuant to this 0ecree shall upon conviction, #e punished #) fine of not ore than twent) thousand 2P"0,000.003 pesos andBor
iprisonent of not ore than ten )ears- Provided, that in the case of corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, or associations, the
President, +ana!er or Adinistrator or the person who has char!e with the adinistration of the #usiness shall #e criinall) responsi#le
for an) violation of this 0ecree andBor the rules and re!ulations proul!ated pursuant thereto.
8ro the fore!oin!, it is clear that an) person who violate /ection "7 thereof #) non-deliver) of the title upon full pa)ent of the lot or in case of a corporation,
partnership, cooperative, or association, the president, ana!er or adinistrator or the person who has char!e of the adinistration of the #usiness shall #e
criinall) responsi#le.
<n the case at #ar, +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation is the developer of the propert) in &uestion which #elon!s to the deceased, Nicolai 0repin. As
adinistrator of the estate of the said decedent, herein petitioner too> over the adinistration of all the properties of said deceased includin! the propert) in
&uestion. ,hus undenia#l) he is also the adinistrator of the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation which is handlin! the developent and disposition of
said propert). ,his is deonstrated #) the fact that when said corporation was sued #) +s. 0ia#u)u #efore the Nation 1ousin! Authorit) 2N1A3 for non-
issuance of title, herein petitioner appeared as the adinistrator of said corporation an appealed to the +inister 2now /ecretar)3 of (ustice fro resolution of the
,as> 8orce 0ivision of said +inistr) 2no 0epartent3 in the sae capacit). <n his appeal he did not den) that he is the adinistrator of the said corporation and
propert) in #ehalf of the deceased. Chat he clais is that the title was not issued due to the failure of the proper !overnent a!enc) to approve the technical
description of the lot preparator) to the issuance of the correspondin! torrens title and that P0 $7@ cannot #e !iven retroactive effect to appl) to contracts
entered into ten )ears #efore its passa!e. A!ain, in his letter of 0ece#er @, 1$'" to +s. 0ia#u)u delineatin! the procedure to secure the title of ownership of
the propert) in &uestion, herein petitioner si!ned as adinistrator not onl) of the testate estate of Nicolai 0repin #ut also of the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent
Corporation. 21bid., pp. 31-3"3.
Hnder the third assi!ned error, herein petitioner contends that the trial court and the respondent appellate court had e?ceeded their =urisdiction #) totall)
disre!ardin! the law and penali5in! an act when the law shows the anner of perforin! the sae.
,he contention is without erit.
/ection 41 of Presidential 0ecree $7@ provides, thus-
/ection 41. Ot"er :emedies. F ,he ri!hts and reedies provided in this 0ecree shall #e in addition to an) and all other ri!hts and
reedies that a) #e availa#le under e?istin! laws.
8ro the fore!oin!, it is apparent that whatever ri!hts or reedies accruin! to a lot #u)er, +s. 0ia#u)u in this case, under other laws do not foreclose the
application of P0 $7@.
<n the case at #ar, it is uncontroverted that +s. 0ia#u)u has full) paid in onthl) installents the a!reed purchase price for the lot. Notwithstandin! full
pa)ent, herein petitioner has failed and refused to deliver to +s. 0ia#u)u the certificate of title correspondin! to the lot despite nuerous deands.
Hnder the fourth assi!ned error, herein petitioner aintains that P0 $7@ ipairs the o#li!ations of the vendee 2+s. 0ia#u)u3 in the contract to sell and that it is
an e. post facto law as the provision thereof provides retroactive effect.
,he contention is li>ewise without erit.
4uotin! the /olicitor General, the respondent appellate court aptl) re#utted this ar!uent, thus-
Hnder P.0. $7@, after the coplainant had full) paid for the lo in &uestion, appellant 2herein petitioner3 as adinistrator of t +other :arth
Realt) 0evelopent Corporation, was le!all) #ound cause the issuance of the correspondin! transfer certificate of title in the nae of the
#u)er. ,he failure of appellant 2herein petitioner3 to do so is punisha#le under the penal provisions of /ection 3$ of said decree.
6i>ewise, under P.0. $7@, it is not re&uired that the #u)er should pa) the ta?es. ,he #u)er is onl) re&uired to pa) for the re!istration of the
0eed of /ale with the Re!ister of 0eeds for the issuance of the title #ut it does not ention the pa)ent of ta?es. Cith respect to th
alle!ed devaluation of the peso, suffice it to state that at the tie thde contract was e?ecuted, the full price of the lot was alread) a!reed
upon #) the coplainant and the corporation.
6astl), appellant 2herein petitioner3 asserts that P.0. $7@ is an e. post facto law as the penal provision thereof provides retroactive effect.
P.0. $7@ cannot #e assailed as an e. post facto law. ,he act ade punisha#le thereunder is the failure of the owner-developer or
adinistrator to deliver the title of the lot or unit to the #u)er upon full pa)ent, not the e?ecution of a deed of sale or contract to sell over
such lot or unit #efore the passa!e of the law. <n the instant case althou!h the contract to sell was e?ecuted lon! #efore the enactent of
P.0. $7@, the failure of appellant 2herein petitioner3 to deliver the title over the lot upon full pa)ent transpired when the decree was
alread) in effect. /uch law is not e. post facto for the siple reason that what is #ein! punished is the failure to deliver such title after the
enactent of the 0ecree on (ul) 1", 1$@%. 21bid., pp. 33-343
Ce however find that the fifth or last issue to #e eritorious and the sae deserves .ur careful consideration.
<n said issue, herein petitioner aintains that to proceed e?ecute the deed of a#solute sale without the !o-si!nal of th Pro#ate Court is to #e recreant to his
sworn dut) as adinistrator, as well as to render void his actuations done without the perission of the Pro#ate Court.
,his contention is correct and is ipressed with erit. <nasuch as the owner-seller of the propert) was alread) deceased and there were proceedin!s in the
Pro#ate Court, it was incu#ent for the Pro#ate Court to first !ive authori5ation to adinistrator of the estate to deliver titles of lots which had previousl) #een
sold. ,he decedent after all, i!ht #e considered the alter e!o of the +other :arth Realt) 0evelopent Corporation. ,he private coplainant had #een dul)
instructs #) the accused herein to file the proper petition or otion wit the Pro#ate Court for deliver) of said title #ut said coplainant for one reason or another,
disre!arded said instructions. <f at an)#od) should #e #laed, it should #e private coplainant herself for her failure to o#tain the needed authori5ation fro the
court. <ndeed, &uestions of title to an) propert) apparent still #elon!in! to estate of the deceased a) #e passed upon in the Pro#ate Court, with consent of all
the parties, without pre=udice to third persons such as the herein private coplainant. <n fact, third persons a) even intervene in the testate or intestate
proceedin!s to protect their interest I/ee Cunanan vs. Aparo, 47 ..G. 2No. $3, 3@$%J. (ust as ordinar) claiant a!ainst the estate of the deceased are dut)
#ound to present clai #efore the Pro#ate Court so was private coplainant herein re&uired to file her clai for redress in said Pro#ate Court. ,his is so
#ecause in the ascertainent of clais a!ainst the estate of the decedent, the Pro#ate Court ust wei!h the e?tent of the lia#ilit) of the estate when copared
vis-a-vis it solvenc). Ce uphold petitioner*s contention therefore that if he had proceeded to iediatel) cause the deliver) of the title of private coplainant
herein, he could have #een held lia#le for a #latant disre!ard of the =urisdiction and function of the Pro#ate Court. ,rul), he was cau!ht #etween the horns of a
dilea which was not of his own a>in!. Ce therefore see no criinal intent whatsoever on his part and accordin!l) the =ud!ent of the appellate court is
here#) R:L:R/:0 and /:, A/<0:, with costs de officio.
<f the pro#ate proceedin!s referred to in this case are still !oin! on, the proper reed) of the private coplainant herein is to file #efore said Pro#ate Court her
clai for the deliver) of the title of the lot she has purchased. <f on the other hand, said pro#ate proceedin!s are alread) closed and terinated, the +other :arth
Realt) 0evelopent Corporation throu!h its present President or General +ana!er is here#) ordered to cause the deliver) of said title to +s. 0ia#u)u, within
the shortest possi#le tie, as soon as all the re&uireents therefore have #een coplied with. Ce are !ivin! this reed) to prevent +s. 0ia#u)u fro #ein!
pre=udiced.
/. .R0:R:0.
G.R. No. 1;9920 3ebr,&r) 2D, 200?
UNION /AN@ O3 THE PHI1IPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
EDMUND SANTI/AAE &"* 31ORENCE SANTI/AAE ARIO1A, respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
CA11EJO, SR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on %ertiorari under Rule ! of t"e Revised Rules of Court w"i%" see:s
t"e reversal of t"e $e%ision
1
of t"e Court of /ppeals dated 7a, .), ())1 in C/23.R. C; No. --.1
affir&in# t"e dis&issal
(
of t"e petitionerIs %o&plaint in Civil Case No. 1-*)* ', t"e Re#ional Trial
Court 0RTC1 of 7a:ati Cit,, Bran%" 4..
T"e ante%edent fa%ts are as follows5
On 7a, .1, 1*-), t"e ?irst Countr,side Credit Corporation 0?CCC1 and Efrai& 7. Santi'aKeG entered
into a loan a#ree&ent
.
in t"e a&ount of P1(-,))).)). T"e a&ount was intended for t"e pa,&ent of t"e
pur%"ase pri%e of one 011 unit ?ord 44)) /#ri%ultural /ll2Purpose $iesel Tra%tor. In view t"ereof,
Efrai& and "is son, Ed&und, e@e%uted a pro&issor, note in favor of t"e ?CCC, t"e prin%ipal su&
pa,a'le in five eCual annual a&ortiGations of P.,8!.*4 due on 7a, .1, 1*-1 and ever, 7a, .1st
t"ereafter up to 7a, .1, 1*-!.
On $e%e&'er 1., 1*-), t"e ?CCC and Efrai& entered into anot"er loan a#ree&ent,

t"is ti&e in t"e

a&ount of P1(.,1!4.)). It was intended to pa, t"e 'alan%e of t"e pur%"ase pri%e of anot"er unit of ?ord
44)) /#ri%ultural /ll2Purpose $iesel Tra%tor, wit" a%%essories, and one 011 unit Aoward Rota&otor
7odel /R 4)J. /#ain, Efrai& and "is son, Ed&und, e@e%uted a pro&issor, note for t"e said a&ount in
favor of t"e ?CCC. /side fro& su%" pro&issor, note, t"e, also si#ned a Continuin# 3uarant,
/#ree&ent
!
for t"e loan dated $e%e&'er 1., 1*-).
So&eti&e in ?e'ruar, 1*-1, Efrai& died, leavin# a "olo#rap"i% will.
4
Su'seCuentl, in 7ar%" 1*-1,
testate pro%eedin#s %o&&en%ed 'efore t"e RTC of Iloilo Cit,, Bran%" 8, do%:eted as Spe%ial
Pro%eedin#s No. (8)4. On /pril *, 1*-1, Ed&und, as one of t"e "eirs, was appointed as t"e spe%ial
ad&inistrator of t"e estate of t"e de%edent.
8
$urin# t"e penden%, of t"e testate pro%eedin#s, t"e
survivin# "eirs, Ed&und and "is sister ?loren%e Santi'aKeG /riola, e@e%uted a +oint /#ree&ent
-
dated
+ul, ((, 1*-1, w"erein t"e, a#reed to divide 'etween t"e&selves and ta:e possession of t"e t"ree 0.1
tra%torsD t"at is, two 0(1 tra%tors for Ed&und and one 011 tra%tor for ?loren%e. Ea%" of t"e& was to
assu&e t"e inde'tedness of t"eir late fat"er to ?CCC, %orrespondin# to t"e tra%tor respe%tivel, ta:en ',
t"e&.
On /u#ust (), 1*-1, a $eed of /ssi#n&ent wit" /ssu&ption of Lia'ilities
*
was e@e%uted ', and
'etween ?CCC and Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban:, w"erein t"e ?CCC as t"e assi#nor, a&on#
ot"ers, assi#ned all its assets and lia'ilities to Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban:.
$e&and letters
1)
for t"e settle&ent of "is a%%ount were sent ', petitioner Union Ban: of t"e
P"ilippines 0UBP1 to Ed&und, 'ut t"e latter failed to "eed t"e sa&e and refused to pa,. T"us, on
?e'ruar, !, 1*--, t"e petitioner filed a Co&plaint
11
for su& of &one, a#ainst t"e "eirs of Efrai&
Santi'aKeG, Ed&und and ?loren%e, 'efore t"e RTC of 7a:ati Cit,, Bran%" 1!), do%:eted as Civil Case
No. 1-*)*. Su&&onses were issued a#ainst 'ot", 'ut t"e one intended for Ed&und was not served
sin%e "e was in t"e United States and t"ere was no infor&ation on "is address or t"e date of "is return
to t"e P"ilippines.
1(
/%%ordin#l,, t"e %o&plaint was narrowed down to respondent ?loren%e S. /riola.
On $e%e&'er 8, 1*--, respondent ?loren%e S. /riola filed "er /nswer
1.
and alle#ed t"at t"e loan
do%u&ents did not 'ind "er sin%e s"e was not a part, t"ereto. Considerin# t"at t"e 6oint a#ree&ent
si#ned ', "er and "er 'rot"er Ed&und was not approved ', t"e pro'ate %ourt, it was null and voidD
"en%e, s"e was not lia'le to t"e petitioner under t"e 6oint a#ree&ent.
On +anuar, (*, 1**), t"e %ase was unloaded and re2raffled to t"e RTC of 7a:ati Cit,, Bran%" 4..
1
ConseCuentl,, trial on t"e &erits ensued and a de%ision was su'seCuentl, rendered ', t"e %ourt
dis&issin# t"e %o&plaint for la%: of &erit. T"e de%retal portion of t"e RTC de%ision reads5
>AERE?ORE, 6ud#&ent is "ere', rendered $IS7ISSIN3 t"e %o&plaint for la%: of &erit.
1!
T"e trial %ourt found t"at t"e %lai& of t"e petitioner s"ould "ave 'een filed wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt
'efore w"i%" t"e testate estate of t"e late Efrai& Santi'aKeG was pendin#, as t"e su& of &one, 'ein#
%lai&ed was an o'li#ation in%urred ', t"e said de%edent. T"e trial %ourt also found t"at t"e +oint
/#ree&ent apparentl, e@e%uted ', "is "eirs, Ed&und and ?loren%e, on +ul, ((, 1*-1, was, in effe%t, a
partition of t"e estate of t"e de%edent. Aowever, t"e said a#ree&ent was void, %onsiderin# t"at it "ad
not 'een approved ', t"e pro'ate %ourt, and t"at t"ere %an 'e no valid partition until after t"e will "as
'een pro'ated. T"e trial %ourt furt"er de%lared t"at petitioner failed to prove t"at it was t"e now defun%t
Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban: to w"i%" t"e ?CCC "ad assi#ned its assets and lia'ilities. T"e %ourt
also a#reed to t"e %ontention of respondent ?loren%e S. /riola t"at t"e list of assets and lia'ilities of t"e
?CCC assi#ned to Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban: did not %learl, refer to t"e de%edentIs a%%ount.
Rulin# t"at t"e 6oint a#ree&ent e@e%uted ', t"e "eirs was null and void, t"e trial %ourt "eld t"at t"e
petitionerIs %ause of a%tion a#ainst respondent ?loren%e S. /riola &ust ne%essaril, fail.
T"e petitioner appealed fro& t"e RTC de%ision and elevated its %ase to t"e Court of /ppeals 0C/1,
assi#nin# t"e followin# as errors of t"e trial %ourt5
1. TAE COURT A S<( ERRE$ IN ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAE +OINT /3REE7ENT 0ERAIBIT
/1 SAOUL$ BE /PPRO;E$ BN TAE PROB/TE COURT.
(. TAE COURT A S<( ERRE$ IN ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAERE C/N BE NO ;/LI$
P/RTITION /7ON3 TAE AEIRS UNTIL /?TER TAE >ILL A/S BEEN PROB/TE$.
.. TAE COURT A S<( ERRE$ IN NOT ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAE $E?EN$/NT A/$
>/I;E$ AER RI3AT TO A/;E TAE CL/I7 RE2LITI3/TE$ IN TAE EST/TE
PROCEE$IN3.
14
T"e petitioner asserted 'efore t"e C/ t"at t"e o'li#ation of t"e de%eased "ad passed to "is le#iti&ate
%"ildren and "eirs, in t"is %ase, Ed&und and ?loren%eD t"e un%onditional si#nin# of t"e 6oint a#ree&ent
&ar:ed as E@"i'it </< estopped respondent ?loren%e S. /riola, and t"at s"e %annot den, "er lia'ilit,
under t"e said do%u&entD as t"e a#ree&ent "ad 'een si#ned ', 'ot" "eirs in t"eir personal %apa%it,, it
was no lon#er ne%essar, to present t"e sa&e 'efore t"e pro'ate %ourt for approvalD t"e propert,
partitioned in t"e a#ree&ent was not one of t"ose enu&erated in t"e "olo#rap"i% will &ade ', t"e
de%easedD and t"e a%tive parti%ipation of t"e "eirs, parti%ularl, respondent ?loren%e S. /riola, in t"e
present ordinar, %ivil a%tion was tanta&ount to a waiver to re2liti#ate t"e %lai& in t"e estate
pro%eedin#s.
On t"e ot"er "and, respondent ?loren%e S. /riola &aintained t"at t"e &one, %lai& of t"e petitioner
s"ould "ave 'een presented 'efore t"e pro'ate %ourt.
18
T"e appellate %ourt found t"at t"e appeal was not &eritorious and "eld t"at t"e petitioner s"ould "ave
filed its %lai& wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt as provided under Se%tions 1 and !, Rule -4 of t"e Rules of Court.
It furt"er "eld t"at t"e partition &ade in t"e a#ree&ent was null and void, sin%e no valid partition &a,
'e "ad until after t"e will "as 'een pro'ated. /%%ordin# to t"e C/, pa#e (, para#rap" 0e1 of t"e
"olo#rap"i% will %overed t"e su'6e%t properties 0tra%tors1 in #eneri% ter&s w"en t"e de%eased referred
to t"e& as <all ot"er properties.< 7oreover, t"e a%tive parti%ipation of respondent ?loren%e S. /riola in
t"e %ase did not a&ount to a waiver. T"us, t"e C/ affir&ed t"e RTC de%ision, vi,*5
>AERE?ORE, pre&ises %onsidered, t"e appealed $e%ision of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of 7a:ati Cit,,
Bran%" 4., is "ere', /??IR7E$ in toto.
SO OR$ERE$.
1-
In t"e present re%ourse, t"e petitioner as%ri'es t"e followin# errors to t"e C/5
I.
TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAE +OINT
/3REE7ENT SAOUL$ BE /PPRO;E$ BN TAE PROB/TE COURT.
II.
TAE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAERE C/N BE NO ;/LI$
P/RTITION /7ON3 TAE AEIRS O? TAE L/TE E?R/I7 S/NTIB/OES UNTIL
/?TER TAE >ILL A/S BEEN PROB/TE$.
III.
TAE COURT O? /PPE/LS ERRE$ IN NOT ?IN$IN3 TA/T TAE RESPON$ENT
A/$ >/I;E$ AER RI3AT TO A/;E TAE CL/I7 RE2LITI3/TE$ IN TAE EST/TE
PROCEE$IN3.
I;.
RESPON$ENTS C/N, IN ?/CT, BE AEL$ +OINTLN /N$ SE;ER/LLN LI/BLE
>ITA TAE PRINCIP/L $EBTOR TAE L/TE E?R/I7 S/NTIB/OES ON TAE
STREN3TA O? TAE CONTINUIN3 3U/R/NTN /3REE7ENT ERECUTE$ IN
?/;OR O? PETITIONER2/PPELL/NT UNION B/NJ.
;.
TAE PRO7ISSORN NOTES $/TE$ 7/N .1, 1*-) IN TAE SU7 O? P1(-,))).)) /N$
$ECE7BER 1., 1*-) IN TAE /7OUNT O? P1(.,))).)) C/TE3ORIC/LLN
EST/BLISAE$ TAE ?/CT TA/T TAE RESPON$ENTS BOUN$ TAE7SEL;ES
+OINTLN /N$ SE;ER/LLN LI/BLE >ITA TAE L/TE $EBTOR E?R/I7
S/NTIB/OES IN ?/;OR O? PETITIONER UNION B/NJ.
1*
T"e petitioner %lai&s t"at t"e o'li#ations of t"e de%eased were trans&itted to t"e "eirs as provided in
/rti%le 88 of t"e Civil CodeD t"ere was t"us no need for t"e pro'ate %ourt to approve t"e 6oint
a#ree&ent w"ere t"e "eirs partitioned t"e tra%tors owned ', t"e de%eased and assu&ed t"e o'li#ations
related t"ereto. Sin%e respondent ?loren%e S. /riola si#ned t"e 6oint a#ree&ent wit"out an, %ondition,
s"e is now estopped fro& assertin# an, position %ontrar, t"ereto. T"e petitioner also points out t"at t"e
"olo#rap"i% will of t"e de%eased did not in%lude nor &ention an, of t"e tra%tors su'6e%t of t"e
%o&plaint, and, as su%" was 'e,ond t"e a&'it of t"e said will. T"e a%tive parti%ipation and resistan%e of
respondent ?loren%e S. /riola in t"e ordinar, %ivil a%tion a#ainst t"e petitionerIs %lai& a&ounts to a
waiver of t"e ri#"t to "ave t"e %lai& presented in t"e pro'ate pro%eedin#s, and to allow an, one of t"e
"eirs w"o e@e%uted t"e 6oint a#ree&ent to es%ape lia'ilit, to pa, t"e value of t"e tra%tors under
%onsideration would 'e eCuivalent to allowin# t"e said "eirs to enri%" t"e&selves to t"e da&a#e and
pre6udi%e of t"e petitioner.
T"e petitioner, li:ewise, avers t"at t"e de%isions of 'ot" t"e trial and appellate %ourts failed to %onsider
t"e fa%t t"at respondent ?loren%e S. /riola and "er 'rot"er Ed&und e@e%uted loan do%u&ents, all
esta'lis"in# t"e vinculum )uris or t"e le#al 'ond 'etween t"e late Efrai& Santi'aKeG and "is "eirs to 'e
in t"e nature of a solidar, o'li#ation. ?urt"er&ore, t"e Pro&issor, Notes dated 7a, .1, 1*-) and
$e%e&'er 1., 1*-) e@e%uted ', t"e late Efrai& Santi'aKeG, to#et"er wit" "is "eirs, Ed&und and
respondent ?loren%e, &ade t"e o'li#ation solidar, as far as t"e said "eirs are %on%erned. T"e petitioner
also proffers t"at, %onsiderin# t"e e@press provisions of t"e %ontinuin# #uarant, a#ree&ent and t"e
pro&issor, notes e@e%uted ', t"e na&ed respondents, t"e latter &ust 'e "eld lia'le 6ointl, and
severall, lia'le t"ereon. T"us, t"ere was no need for t"e petitioner to file its &one, %lai& 'efore t"e
pro'ate %ourt. ?inall,, t"e petitioner stresses t"at 'ot" survivin# "eirs are 'ein# sued in t"eir respe%tive
personal %apa%ities, not as "eirs of t"e de%eased.
In "er %o&&ent to t"e petition, respondent ?loren%e S. /riola &aintains t"at t"e petitioner is tr,in# to
re%over a su& of &one, fro& t"e de%eased Efrai& Santi'aKeGD t"us t"e %lai& s"ould "ave 'een filed
wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt. S"e points out t"at at t"e ti&e of t"e e@e%ution of t"e 6oint a#ree&ent t"ere was
alread, an e@istin# pro'ate pro%eedin#s of w"i%" t"e petitioner :new a'out. Aowever, to avoid a %lai&
in t"e pro'ate %ourt w"i%" &i#"t dela, pa,&ent of t"e o'li#ation, t"e petitioner opted to reCuire t"e&
to e@e%ute t"e said a#ree&ent./aTUM&hi/*net
/%%ordin# to t"e respondent, t"e trial %ourt and t"e C/ did not err in de%larin# t"at t"e a#ree&ent was
null and void. S"e asserts t"at even if t"e a#ree&ent was voluntaril, e@e%uted ', "er and "er 'rot"er
Ed&und, it s"ould still "ave 'een su'6e%ted to t"e approval of t"e %ourt as it &a, pre6udi%e t"e estate,
t"e "eirs or t"ird parties. ?urt"er&ore, s"e "ad not waived an, ri#"ts, as s"e even stated in "er answer
in t"e %ourt a 1uo t"at t"e %lai& s"ould 'e filed wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt. T"us, t"e petitioner %ould not
invo:e or %lai& t"at s"e is in estoppel.
Respondent ?loren%e S. /riola furt"er asserts t"at s"e "ad not si#ned an, %ontinuin# #uarant,
a#ree&ent, nor was t"ere an, do%u&ent presented as eviden%e to s"ow t"at s"e "ad %aused "erself to 'e
'ound ', t"e o'li#ation of "er late fat"er.
T"e petition is 'ereft of &erit.
T"e Court is posed to resolve t"e followin# issues5 a1 w"et"er or not t"e partition in t"e /#ree&ent
e@e%uted ', t"e "eirs is validD '1 w"et"er or not t"e "eirsI assu&ption of t"e inde'tedness of t"e
de%eased is validD and %1 w"et"er t"e petitioner %an "old t"e "eirs lia'le on t"e o'li#ation of t"e
de%eased./a!&hi/*nVt
/t t"e outset, well2settled is t"e rule t"at a pro'ate %ourt "as t"e 6urisdi%tion to deter&ine all t"e
properties of t"e de%eased, to deter&ine w"et"er t"e, s"ould or s"ould not 'e in%luded in t"e inventor,
or list of properties to 'e ad&inistered.
()
T"e said %ourt is pri&aril, %on%erned wit" t"e ad&inistration,
liCuidation and distri'ution of t"e estate.
(1
In our 6urisdi%tion, t"e rule is t"at t"ere %an 'e no valid partition a&on# t"e "eirs until after t"e will "as
'een pro'ated5
In testate su%%ession, t"ere %an 'e no valid partition a&on# t"e "eirs until after t"e will "as 'een
pro'ated. T"e law en6oins t"e pro'ate of a will and t"e pu'li% reCuires it, 'e%ause unless a will is
pro'ated and noti%e t"ereof #iven to t"e w"ole world, t"e ri#"t of a person to dispose of "is propert, ',
will &a, 'e rendered nu#ator,. T"e aut"enti%ation of a will de%ides no ot"er Cuestion t"an su%" as
tou%" upon t"e %apa%it, of t"e testator and t"e %o&plian%e wit" t"ose reCuire&ents or sole&nities
w"i%" t"e law pres%ri'es for t"e validit, of a will.
((
T"is, of %ourse, presupposes t"at t"e properties to 'e partitioned are t"e sa&e properties e&'ra%ed in
t"e will.
(.
In t"e present %ase, t"e de%eased, Efrai& Santi'aKeG, left a "olo#rap"i% will
(
w"i%"
%ontained, inter alia, t"e provision w"i%" reads as follows5
0e1 /ll ot"er properties, real or personal, w"i%" I own and &a, 'e dis%overed later after &, de&ise,
s"all 'e distri'uted in t"e proportion indi%ated in t"e i&&ediatel, pre%edin# para#rap" in favor of
Ed&und and ?loren%e, &, %"ildren.
>e a#ree wit" t"e appellate %ourt t"at t"e a'ove2Cuoted is an all2en%o&passin# provision e&'ra%in# all
t"e properties left ', t"e de%edent w"i%" &i#"t "ave es%aped "is &ind at t"at ti&e "e was &a:in# "is
will, and ot"er properties "e &a, a%Cuire t"ereafter. In%luded t"erein are t"e t"ree 0.1 su'6e%t tra%tors.
T"is 'ein# so, an, partition involvin# t"e said tra%tors a&on# t"e "eirs is not valid. T"e 6oint
a#ree&ent
(!
e@e%uted ', Ed&und and ?loren%e, partitionin# t"e tra%tors a&on# t"e&selves, is invalid,
spe%iall, so sin%e at t"e ti&e of its e@e%ution, t"ere was alread, a pendin# pro%eedin# for t"e pro'ate of
t"eir late fat"erIs "olo#rap"i% will %overin# t"e said tra%tors.
It &ust 'e stressed t"at t"e pro'ate pro%eedin# "ad alread, a%Cuired 6urisdi%tion over all t"e properties
of t"e de%eased, in%ludin# t"e t"ree 0.1 tra%tors. To dispose of t"e& in an, wa, wit"out t"e pro'ate
%ourtIs approval is tanta&ount to divestin# it wit" 6urisdi%tion w"i%" t"e Court %annot allow.
(4
Ever,
a%t intended to put an end to indivision a&on# %o2"eirs and le#atees or devisees is dee&ed to 'e a
partition, alt"ou#" it s"ould purport to 'e a sale, an e@%"an#e, a %o&pro&ise, or an, ot"er
transa%tion.
(8
T"us, in e@e%utin# an, 6oint a#ree&ent w"i%" appears to 'e in t"e nature of an e@tra2
6udi%ial partition, as in t"e %ase at 'ar, %ourt approval is i&perative, and t"e "eirs %annot 6ust divest t"e
%ourt of its 6urisdi%tion over t"at part of t"e estate. 7oreover, it is wit"in t"e 6urisdi%tion of t"e pro'ate
%ourt to deter&ine t"e identit, of t"e "eirs of t"e de%edent.
(-
In t"e instant %ase, t"ere is no s"owin#
t"at t"e si#natories in t"e 6oint a#ree&ent were t"e onl, "eirs of t"e de%edent. >"en it was e@e%uted,
t"e pro'ate of t"e will was still pendin# 'efore t"e %ourt and t"e latter "ad ,et to deter&ine w"o t"e
"eirs of t"e de%edent were. T"us, for Ed&und and respondent ?loren%e S. /riola to ad6udi%ate unto
t"e&selves t"e t"ree 0.1 tra%tors was a pre&ature a%t, and pre6udi%ial to t"e ot"er possi'le "eirs and
%reditors w"o &a, "ave a valid %lai& a#ainst t"e estate of t"e de%eased.
T"e Cuestion t"at now %o&es to fore is w"et"er t"e "eirsI assu&ption of t"e inde'tedness of t"e
de%edent is 'indin#. >e rule in t"e ne#ative. Perusin# t"e 6oint a#ree&ent, it provides t"at t"e "eirs as
parties t"ereto <have agreed to divide bet!een themselves and ta>e &ossession and use the above-
described chattel and each of them to assume the indebtedness corres&onding to the chattel ta>en as
herein after stated !hich is in favor of First ountryside redit or&*<
(*
T"e assu&ption of lia'ilit,
was %onditioned upon t"e "appenin# of an event, t"at is, t"at ea%" "eir s"all ta:e possession and use of
t"eir respe%tive s"are under t"e a#ree&ent. It was &ade dependent on t"e validit, of t"e partition, and
t"at t"e, were to assu&e t"e inde'tedness %orrespondin# to t"e %"attel t"at t"e, were ea%" to re%eive.
T"e partition 'ein# invalid as earlier dis%ussed, t"e "eirs in effe%t did not re%eive an, su%" tra%tor. It
follows t"en t"at t"e assu&ption of lia'ilit, %annot 'e #iven an, for%e and effe%t.
T"e Court notes t"at t"e loan was %ontra%ted ', t"e de%edent.lUvv&hi/*net T"e petitioner, purportedl, a
%reditor of t"e late Efrai& Santi'aKeG, s"ould "ave t"us filed its &one, %lai& wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt in
a%%ordan%e wit" Se%tion !, Rule -4 of t"e Revised Rules of Court, w"i%" provides5
Se%tion !. laims !hich must be filed under the notice* %f not filed barred9 exce&tions. P /ll %lai&s for
&one, a#ainst t"e de%edent, arisin# fro& %ontra%t, e@press or i&plied, w"et"er t"e sa&e 'e due, not
due, or %ontin#ent, all %lai&s for funeral e@penses for t"e last si%:ness of t"e de%edent, and 6ud#&ent
for &one, a#ainst t"e de%edent, &ust 'e filed wit"in t"e ti&e li&ited in t"e noti%eD ot"erwise t"e, are
'arred forever, e@%ept t"at t"e, &a, 'e set fort" as %ounter%lai&s in an, a%tion t"at t"e e@e%utor or
ad&inistrator &a, 'rin# a#ainst t"e %lai&ants. >"ere an e@e%utor or ad&inistrator %o&&en%es an
a%tion, or prose%utes an a%tion alread, %o&&en%ed ', t"e de%eased in "is lifeti&e, t"e de'tor &a, set
fort" ', answer t"e %lai&s "e "as a#ainst t"e de%edent, instead of presentin# t"e& independentl, to t"e
%ourt as "erein provided, and &utual %lai&s &a, 'e set off a#ainst ea%" ot"er in su%" a%tionD and if
final 6ud#&ent is rendered in favor of t"e defendant, t"e a&ount so deter&ined s"all 'e %onsidered t"e
true 'alan%e a#ainst t"e estate, as t"ou#" t"e %lai& "ad 'een presented dire%tl, 'efore t"e %ourt in t"e
ad&inistration pro%eedin#s. Clai&s not ,et due, or %ontin#ent, &a, 'e approved at t"eir present value.
T"e filin# of a &one, %lai& a#ainst t"e de%edentIs estate in t"e pro'ate %ourt is &andator,.
.)
/s we
"eld in t"e vinta#e %ase of "y Eng hong v* -errera5
.1
T T"is reCuire&ent is for t"e purpose of prote%tin# t"e estate of t"e de%eased ', infor&in# t"e
e@e%utor or ad&inistrator of t"e %lai&s a#ainst it, t"us ena'lin# "i& to e@a&ine ea%" %lai& and to
deter&ine w"et"er it is a proper one w"i%" s"ould 'e allowed. T"e plain and o'vious desi#n of t"e rule
is t"e speed, settle&ent of t"e affairs of t"e de%eased and t"e earl, deliver, of t"e propert, to t"e
distri'utees, le#atees, or "eirs. UT"e law stri%tl, reCuires t"e pro&pt presentation and disposition of t"e
%lai&s a#ainst t"e de%edent9s estate in order to settle t"e affairs of t"e estate as soon as possi'le, pa, off
its de'ts and distri'ute t"e residue.
.(
Perusin# t"e re%ords of t"e %ase, not"in# t"erein %ould "old private respondent ?loren%e S. /riola
a%%ounta'le for an, lia'ilit, in%urred ', "er late fat"er. T"e do%u&entar, eviden%e presented,
parti%ularl, t"e pro&issor, notes and t"e %ontinuin# #uarant, a#ree&ent, were e@e%uted and si#ned
onl, ', t"e late Efrai& Santi'aKeG and "is son Ed&und. /s t"e petitioner failed to file its &one, %lai&
wit" t"e pro'ate %ourt, at &ost, it &a, onl, #o after Ed&und as %o2&a:er of t"e de%edent under t"e
said pro&issor, notes and %ontinuin# #uarant,, of %ourse, su'6e%t to an, defenses Ed&und &a, "ave as
a#ainst t"e petitioner. /s t"e %ourt "ad not a%Cuired 6urisdi%tion over t"e person of Ed&und, we find it
unne%essar, to delve into t"e &atter furt"er.
>e a#ree wit" t"e findin# of t"e trial %ourt t"at t"e petitioner "ad not suffi%ientl, s"own t"at it is t"e
su%%essor2in2interest of t"e Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban: to w"i%" t"e ?CCC assi#ned its assets
and lia'ilities.
..
T"e petitioner in its %o&plaint alle#ed t"at <by virtue of the Deed of Assignment dated
August 32, /8I/ executed by and bet!een First ountryside redit or&oration and <nion =an> of the
"hili&&inesT<
.
Aowever, t"e do%u&entar, eviden%e
.!
%learl, refle%ts t"at t"e parties in t"e deed of
assi#n&ent wit" assu&ption of lia'ilities were t"e ?CCC, and t"e Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban:,
wit" t"e %onfor&it, of Ban%o& P"ilippine Aoldin#s, In%. Now"ere %an t"e petitionerIs parti%ipation
t"erein as a part, 'e found. ?urt"er&ore, no do%u&entar, or testi&onial eviden%e was presented durin#
trial to s"ow t"at Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban: is now, in fa%t, petitioner Union Ban: of t"e
P"ilippines. /s t"e trial %ourt de%lared in its de%ision5
T ETF"e %ourt also finds &erit to t"e %ontention of defendant t"at plaintiff failed to prove or did not
present eviden%e to prove t"at Union Savin#s and 7ort#a#e Ban: is now t"e Union Ban: of t"e
P"ilippines. +udi%ial noti%e does not appl, "ere. <T"e power to ta:e 6udi%ial noti%e is to E'eF e@er%ised
', t"e %ourts wit" %autionD %are &ust 'e ta:en t"at t"e reCuisite notoriet, e@istsD and ever, reasona'le
dou't upon t"e su'6e%t s"ould 'e pro&ptl, resolved in t"e ne#ative.< 0Repu'li% vs. Court of /ppeals,
1)8 SCR/ !)1.
.4
T"is 'ein# t"e %ase, t"e petitionerIs personalit, to file t"e %o&plaint is wantin#. ConseCuentl,, it failed
to esta'lis" its %ause of a%tion. T"us, t"e trial %ourt did not err in dis&issin# t"e %o&plaint, and t"e C/
in affir&in# t"e sa&e.
IN 1IGHT O3 A11 THE 3OREGOING, t"e petition is "ere', $ENIE$. T"e assailed Court of
/ppeals $e%ision is /??IR7E$. No %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 10;108 M&) 8, 2009
A13REDO HI1ADO, 1OPE SUGAR CORPORATION, 3IRST 3ARMERS HO1DING
CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORA/1E COURT O3 APPEA1S, THE HONORA/1E AMOR A. RE2ES, Pre$!*!"+
J,*+e, Re+!o"&. Tr!&. Co,r( o- M&"!.&, /r&"%# 21 &"* ADMINISTRATRIN JU1ITA CAMPOS
/ENEDICTO, Respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
T"e well2:nown su#ar &a#nate Ro'erto S. Benedi%to died intestate on 1! 7a, ())). Ae was survived
', "is wife, private respondent +ulita Ca&pos Benedi%to 0ad&inistratri@ Benedi%to1, and "is onl,
dau#"ter, ?ran%is%a Benedi%to2Paulino.
1
/t t"e ti&e of "is deat", t"ere were two pendin# %ivil %ases
a#ainst Benedi%to involvin# t"e petitioners. T"e first, Civil Case No. *!2*1.8, was t"en pendin# wit"
t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0RTC1 of Ba%olod Cit,, Bran%" , wit" petitioner /lfredo Ailado as one of
t"e plaintiffs t"erein. T"e se%ond, Civil Case No. 1118-, was t"en pendin# wit" t"e RTC of Ba%olod
Cit,, Bran%" , wit" petitioners LopeG Su#ar Corporation and ?irst ?ar&ers Aoldin# Corporation as
one of t"e plaintiffs t"erein.
(
On (! 7a, ())), private respondent +ulita Ca&pos Benedi%to filed wit" t"e RTC of 7anila a petition
for t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration in "er favor, pursuant to Se%tion 4, Rule 8- of t"e Revised
Rules of Court. T"e petition was raffled to Bran%" (1, presided ', respondent +ud#e /&or /. Re,es.
Said petition a%:nowled#ed t"e value of t"e assets of t"e de%edent to 'e P! 7illion, <net of lia'ilities.<
.
On ( /u#ust ())), t"e 7anila RTC issued an order appointin# private respondent as ad&inistrator of
t"e estate of "er de%eased "us'and, and issuin# letters of ad&inistration in "er favor.

In +anuar, ())1,
private respondent su'&itted an Inventor, of t"e Estate, Lists of Personal and Real Properties, and
Lia'ilities of t"e Estate of "er de%eased "us'and.
!
In t"e List of Lia'ilities atta%"ed to t"e inventor,,
private respondent in%luded as a&on# t"e lia'ilities, t"e a'ove2&entioned two pendin# %lai&s t"en
'ein# liti#ated 'efore t"e Ba%olod Cit, %ourts.
4
Private respondent stated t"at t"e a&ounts of lia'ilit,
%orrespondin# to t"e two %ases as P1.4,)!,88(.!) for Civil Case No. *!2*1.8 and P.!,1*-,4*8.) for
Civil Case No. 1118-.
8
T"ereafter, t"e 7anila RTC reCuired private respondent to su'&it a %o&plete
and updated inventor, and appraisal report pertainin# to t"e estate.
-
On ( Septe&'er ())1, petitioners filed wit" t"e 7anila RTC a 7anifestation=7otion E@ /'undanti
Cautela,
*
pra,in# t"at t"e, 'e furnis"ed wit" %opies of all pro%esses and orders pertainin# to t"e
intestate pro%eedin#s. Private respondent opposed t"e &anifestation=&otion, disputin# t"e personalit,
of petitioners to intervene in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s of "er "us'and. Even 'efore t"e 7anila RTC
a%ted on t"e &anifestation=&otion, petitioners filed an o&ni'us &otion pra,in# t"at t"e 7anila RTC set
a deadline for t"e su'&ission ', private respondent of t"e reCuired inventor, of t"e de%edentIs estate.
1)
Petitioners also filed ot"er pleadin#s or &otions wit" t"e 7anila RTC, alle#in# lapses on t"e part of
private respondent in "er ad&inistration of t"e estate, and assailin# t"e inventor, t"at "ad 'een
su'&itted t"us far as unverified, in%o&plete and ina%%urate.
On ( +anuar, ())(, t"e 7anila RTC issued an order den,in# t"e &anifestation=&otion, on t"e #round
t"at petitioners are not interested parties wit"in t"e %onte&plation of t"e Rules of Court to intervene in
t"e intestate pro%eedin#s.
11
/fter t"e 7anila RTC "ad denied petitionersI &otion for re%onsideration, a
petition for %ertiorari was filed wit" t"e Court of /ppeals. T"e petition ar#ued in #eneral t"at
petitioners "ad t"e ri#"t to intervene in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s of Ro'erto Benedi%to, t"e latter 'ein#
t"e defendant in t"e %ivil %ases t"e, lod#ed wit" t"e Ba%olod RTC.
On (8 ?e'ruar, ()), t"e Court of /ppeals pro&ul#ated a de%ision
1(
dis&issin# t"e petition and
de%larin# t"at t"e 7anila RTC did not a'use its dis%retion in refusin# to allow petitioners to intervene
in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s. T"e allowan%e or disallowan%e of a &otion to intervene, a%%ordin# to t"e
appellate %ourt, is addressed to t"e sound dis%retion of t"e %ourt. T"e Court of /ppeals %ited t"e fa%t
t"at t"e %lai&s of petitioners a#ainst t"e de%edent were in fa%t %ontin#ent or e@pe%tant, as t"ese were
still pendin# liti#ation in separate pro%eedin#s 'efore ot"er %ourts.
Aen%e, t"e present petition. In essen%e, petitioners ar#ue t"at t"e lower %ourts erred in den,in# t"e& t"e
ri#"t to intervene in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s of t"e estate of Ro'erto Benedi%to. Interestin#l,, t"e rules
of pro%edure t"e, %ite in support of t"eir ar#u&ent is not t"e rule on intervention, 'ut rat"er various
ot"er provisions of t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s.
1.
To re%all, petitioners "ad sou#"t t"ree spe%ifi% reliefs t"at were denied ', t"e %ourts a Cuo. ?irst, t"e,
pra,ed t"at t"e, 'e "en%efort" furnis"ed <%opies of all pro%esses and orders issued< ', t"e intestate
%ourt as well as t"e pleadin#s filed ', ad&inistratri@ Benedi%to wit" t"e said %ourt.
1
Se%ond, t"e,
pra,ed t"at t"e intestate %ourt set a deadline for t"e su'&ission ', ad&inistratri@ Benedi%to to su'&it a
verified and %o&plete inventor, of t"e estate, and upon su'&ission t"ereof, order t"e in"eritan%e ta@
appraisers of t"e Bureau of Internal Revenue to assist in t"e appraisal of t"e fair &ar:et value of t"e
sa&e.
1!
T"ird, petitioners &oved t"at t"e intestate %ourt set a deadline for t"e su'&ission ', t"e
ad&inistrator of "er verified annual a%%ount, and, upon su'&ission t"ereof, set t"e date for "er
e@a&ination under oat" wit" respe%t t"ereto, wit" due noti%e to t"e& and ot"er parties interested in t"e
%ollation, preservation and disposition of t"e estate.
14
T"e Court of /ppeals %"ose to view t"e &atter fro& a perspe%tive solel, infor&ed ', t"e rule on
intervention. >e %an readil, a#ree wit" t"e Court of /ppeals on t"at point. Se%tion 1 of Rule 1* of t"e
1**8 Rules of Civil Pro%edure reCuires t"at an intervenor <"as a le#al interest in t"e &atter in liti#ation,
or in t"e su%%ess of eit"er of t"e parties, or an interest a#ainst 'ot", or is so situated as to 'e adversel,
affe%ted ', a distri'ution or ot"er disposition of propert, in t"e %ustod, of t"e %ourt @ @ @< >"ile t"e
lan#ua#e of Se%tion 1, Rule 1* does not literall, pre%lude petitioners fro& intervenin# in t"e intestate
pro%eedin#s, %ase law "as %onsistentl, "eld t"at t"e le#al interest reCuired of an intervenor <&ust 'e
a%tual and &aterial, dire%t and i&&ediate, and not si&pl, %ontin#ent and e@pe%tant.<
18
Nonet"eless, it is not i&&ediatel, evident t"at intervention under t"e Rules of Civil Pro%edure
ne%essaril, %o&es into operation in spe%ial pro%eedin#s. T"e settle&ent of estates of de%eased persons
fall wit"in t"e rules of spe%ial pro%eedin#s under t"e Rules of Court,
1-
not t"e Rules on Civil
Pro%edure. Se%tion (, Rule 8( furt"er provides t"at <EiFn t"e a'sen%e of spe%ial provisions, t"e rules
provided for in ordinar, a%tions s"all 'e, as far as pra%ti%a'le, appli%a'le to spe%ial pro%eedin#s.<
>e %an readil, %on%lude t"at notwit"standin# Se%tion ( of Rule 8(, intervention as set fort" under Rule
1* does not e@tend to %reditors of a de%edent w"ose %redit is 'ased on a %ontin#ent %lai&. T"e
definition of <intervention< under Rule 1* si&pl, does not a%%o&&odate %ontin#ent %lai&s.
Net, even as petitioners now %ontend 'efore us t"at t"e, "ave t"e ri#"t to intervene in t"e intestate
pro%eedin#s of Ro'erto Benedi%to, t"e reliefs t"e, "ad sou#"t t"en 'efore t"e RTC, and also now
'efore us, do not sCuare wit" t"eir re%o#nition as intervenors. In s"ort, even if it were de%lared t"at
petitioners "ave no ri#"t to intervene in a%%ordan%e wit" Rule 1*, it would not ne%essaril, &ean t"e
disallowan%e of t"e reliefs t"e, "ad sou#"t 'efore t"e RTC sin%e t"e ri#"t to intervene is not one of
t"ose reliefs.
To 'etter put a%ross w"at t"e ulti&ate disposition of t"is petition s"ould 'e, let us now turn our fo%us to
t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s.
In several instan%es, t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s entitle <an, interested persons< or <an, persons
interested in t"e estate< to parti%ipate in var,in# %apa%ities in t"e testate or intestate pro%eedin#s.
Petitioners %ite t"ese provisions 'efore us, na&el,5 011 Se%tion 1, Rule 8*, w"i%" re%o#niGes t"e ri#"t
of <an, person interested< to oppose t"e issuan%e of letters testa&entar, and to file a petition for
ad&inistrationD< 0(1 Se%tion ., Rule 8*, w"i%" &andates t"e #ivin# of noti%e of "earin# on t"e petition
for letters of ad&inistration to t"e :nown "eirs, %reditors, and <to an, ot"er persons 'elieved to "ave
interest in t"e estateD< 0.1 Se%tion 1, Rule 84, w"i%" allows a <person interested in t"e estate< to petition
for t"e allowan%e of a willD 01 Se%tion 4 of Rule -8, w"i%" allows an individual interested in t"e estate
of t"e de%eased <to %o&plain to t"e %ourt of t"e %on%eal&ent, e&'eGGle&ent, or %onve,an%e of an,
asset of t"e de%edent, or of eviden%e of t"e de%edentIs title or interest t"ereinD< 0!1 Se%tion 1) of Rule
-!, w"i%" reCuires noti%e of t"e ti&e and pla%e of t"e e@a&ination and allowan%e of t"e
/d&inistratorIs a%%ount <to persons interestedD< 041 Se%tion 80'1 of Rule -*, w"i%" reCuires t"e %ourt to
#ive noti%e <to t"e persons interested< 'efore it &a, "ear and #rant a petition see:in# t"e disposition or
en%u&'ran%e of t"e properties of t"e estateD and 081 Se%tion 1, Rule *), w"i%" allows <an, person
interested in t"e estate< to petition for an order for t"e distri'ution of t"e residue of t"e estate of t"e
de%edent, after all o'li#ations are eit"er satisfied or provided for.
Aad t"e %lai&s of petitioners a#ainst Benedi%to 'een 'ased on %ontra%t, w"et"er e@press or i&plied,
t"en t"e, s"ould "ave filed t"eir %lai&, even if %ontin#ent, under t"e ae#is of t"e noti%e to %reditors to
'e issued ', t"e %ourt i&&ediatel, after #rantin# letters of ad&inistration and pu'lis"ed ', t"e
ad&inistrator i&&ediatel, after t"e issuan%e of su%" noti%e.
1*
Aowever, it appears t"at t"e %lai&s
a#ainst Benedi%to were 'ased on tort, as t"e, arose fro& "is a%tions in %onne%tion wit" P"ilsu%o&,
Nasutra and Traders Ro,al Ban:. Civil a%tions for tort or Cuasi2deli%t do not fall wit"in t"e %lass of
%lai&s to 'e filed under t"e noti%e to %reditors reCuired under Rule -4.
()
T"ese a%tions, 'ein# as t"e,
are %ivil, survive t"e deat" of t"e de%edent and &a, 'e %o&&en%ed a#ainst t"e ad&inistrator pursuant
to Se%tion 1, Rule -8. Indeed, t"e re%ords indi%ate t"at t"e intestate estate of Benedi%to, as represented
', its ad&inistrator, was su%%essfull, i&pleaded in Civil Case No. 1118-, w"ereas t"e ot"er %ivil
%ase
(1
was alread, pendin# review 'efore t"is Court at t"e ti&e of Benedi%toIs deat".
Evidentl,, t"e &erits of petitionersI %lai&s a#ainst Benedi%to are to 'e settled in t"e %ivil %ases w"ere
t"e, were raised, and not in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s. In t"e event t"e %lai&s for da&a#es of petitioners
are #ranted, t"e, would "ave t"e ri#"t to enfor%e t"e 6ud#&ent a#ainst t"e estate. Net until su%" ti&e, to
w"at e@tent &a, t"e, 'e allowed to parti%ipate in t"e intestate pro%eedin#sH
Petitioners pla%e "eav, relian%e on our rulin# in $in#lasan v. /n# C"ia,
((
and it does provide us wit"
#uidan%e on "ow to pro%eed. / 'rief narration of t"e fa%ts t"erein is in order. $in#lasan "ad filed an
a%tion for re%onve,an%e and da&a#es a#ainst respondents, and durin# a "earin# of t"e %ase, learned
t"at t"e sa&e trial %ourt was "earin# t"e intestate pro%eedin#s of Lee Lion# to w"o& $in#lasan "ad
sold t"e propert, ,ears earlier. $in#lasan t"us a&ended "is %o&plaint to i&plead /n# C"ia,
ad&inistrator of t"e estate of "er late "us'and. Ae li:ewise filed a verified %lai&2in2intervention,
&anifestin# t"e penden%, of t"e %ivil %ase, pra,in# t"at a %o2ad&inistrator 'e appointed, t"e 'ond of
t"e ad&inistrator 'e in%reased, and t"at t"e intestate pro%eedin#s not 'e %losed until t"e %ivil %ase "ad
'een ter&inated. >"en t"e trial %ourt ordered t"e in%rease of t"e 'ond and too: %o#niGan%e of t"e
pendin# %ivil %ase, t"e ad&inistrator &oved to %lose t"e intestate pro%eedin#s, on t"e #round t"at t"e
"eirs "ad alread, entered into an e@tra6udi%ial partition of t"e estate. T"e trial %ourt refused to %lose t"e
intestate pro%eedin#s pendin# t"e ter&ination of t"e %ivil %ase, and t"e Court affir&ed su%" a%tion.
If t"e appellants filed a %lai& in intervention in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s it was onl, pursuant to t"eir
desire to prote%t t"eir interests it appearin# t"at t"e propert, in liti#ation is involved in said pro%eedin#s
and in fa%t is t"e onl, propert, of t"e estate left su'6e%t of ad&inistration and distri'utionD and t"e %ourt
is 6ustified in ta:in# %o#niGan%e of said %ivil %ase 'e%ause of t"e unavoida'le fa%t t"at w"atever is
deter&ined in said %ivil %ase will ne%essaril, refle%t and "ave a far rea%"in# %onseCuen%e in t"e
deter&ination and distri'ution of t"e estate. In so ta:in# %o#niGan%e of %ivil %ase No. ;2..1 t"e %ourt
does not assu&e #eneral 6urisdi%tion over t"e %ase 'ut &erel, &a:es of re%ord its e@isten%e 'e%ause of
t"e %lose interrelation of t"e two %ases and %annot t"erefore 'e 'randed as "avin# a%ted in e@%ess of its
6urisdi%tion.
/ppellants9 %lai& t"at t"e lower %ourt erred in "oldin# in a'e,an%e t"e %losin# of t"e intestate
pro%eedin#s pendin# deter&ination of t"e separate %ivil a%tion for t"e reason t"at t"ere is no rule or
aut"orit, 6ustif,in# t"e e@tension of ad&inistration pro%eedin#s until after t"e separate a%tion
pertainin# to its #eneral 6urisdi%tion "as 'een ter&inated, %annot 'e entertained. Se%tion 1, Rule --, of
t"e Rules of Court, e@pressl, provides t"at <a%tion to re%over real or personal propert, fro& t"e estate
or to enfor%e a lien t"ereon, and a%tions to re%over da&a#es for an in6ur, to person or propert,, real or
personal, &a, 'e %o&&en%ed a#ainst t"e e@e%utor or ad&inistrator.< >"at pra%ti%al value would t"is
provision "ave if t"e a%tion a#ainst t"e ad&inistrator %annot 'e prose%uted to its ter&ination si&pl,
'e%ause t"e "eirs desire to %lose t"e intestate pro%eedin#s wit"out first ta:in# an, step to settle t"e
ordinar, %ivil %aseH T"is rule is 'ut a %orollar, to t"e rulin# w"i%" de%lares t"at Cuestions %on%ernin#
owners"ip of propert, alle#ed to 'e part of t"e estate 'ut %lai&ed ', anot"er person s"ould 'e
deter&ined in a separate a%tion and s"ould 'e su'&itted to t"e %ourt in t"e e@er%ise of its #eneral
6urisdi%tion. T"ese rules would 'e rendered nu#ator, if we are to "old t"at an intestate pro%eedin#s %an
'e %losed ', an, ti&e at t"e w"i& and %apri%e of t"e "eirs @ @ @
(.
0E&p"asis supplied1 ECitations
o&ittedF
It is not %lear w"et"er t"e %lai&2in2intervention filed ', $in#lasan %onfor&ed to an a%tion2in2
intervention under t"e Rules of Civil Pro%edure, 'ut we %an parta:e of t"e spirit 'e"ind su%"
pronoun%e&ent. Indeed, a few ,ears later, t"e Court, %itin# $in#lasan, stated5 <EtF"e rulin#s of t"is
%ourt "ave alwa,s 'een to t"e effe%t t"at in t"e spe%ial pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a
de%eased person, persons not "eirs, intervenin# t"erein to prote%t t"eir interests are allowed to do so to
prote%t t"e sa&e, 'ut not for a de%ision on t"eir a%tion.<
(
PetitionersI interests in t"e estate of Benedi%to &a, 'e in%"oate interests, 'ut t"e, are via'le interests
nonet"eless. >e are &indful t"at t"e Rules of Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s allows not 6ust %reditors, 'ut also
<an, person interested< or <persons interested in t"e estate< various spe%ified %apa%ities to prote%t t"eir
respe%tive interests in t"e estate. /n,'od, wit" a %ontin#ent %lai& 'ased on a pendin# a%tion for Cuasi2
deli%t a#ainst a de%edent &a, 'e reasona'l, %on%erned t"at ', t"e ti&e 6ud#&ent is rendered in t"eir
favor, t"e estate of t"e de%edent would "ave alread, 'een distri'uted, or di&inis"ed to t"e e@tent t"at
t"e 6ud#&ent %ould no lon#er 'e enfor%ed a#ainst it.
In t"e sa&e &anner t"at t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s do not provide a %reditor or an, person
interested in t"e estate, t"e ri#"t to parti%ipate in ever, aspe%t of t"e testate or intestate pro%eedin#s, 'ut
instead provides for spe%ifi% instan%es w"en su%" persons &a, a%%ordin#l, a%t in t"ose pro%eedin#s, we
dee& t"at w"ile t"ere is no #eneral ri#"t to intervene on t"e part of t"e petitioners, t"e, &a, 'e allowed
to see: %ertain pra,ers or reliefs fro& t"e intestate %ourt not e@pli%itl, provided for under t"e Rules, if
t"e pra,er or relief sou#"t is ne%essar, to prote%t t"eir interest in t"e estate, and t"ere is no ot"er
&odalit, under t"e Rules ', w"i%" su%" interests %an 'e prote%ted. It is under t"is standard t"at we
assess t"e t"ree pra,ers sou#"t ', petitioners.
T"e first is t"at petitioners 'e furnis"ed wit" %opies of all pro%esses and orders issued in %onne%tion
wit" t"e intestate pro%eedin#s, as well as t"e pleadin#s filed ', t"e ad&inistrator of t"e estate. T"ere is
no Cuestionin# as to t"e utilit, of su%" relief for t"e petitioners. T"e, would 'e dul, alerted of t"e
develop&ents in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s, in%ludin# t"e status of t"e assets of t"e estate. Su%" a
runnin# a%%ount would allow t"e& to pursue t"e appropriate re&edies s"ould t"eir interests 'e
%o&pro&ised, su%" as t"e ri#"t, under Se%tion 4, Rule -8, to %o&plain to t"e intestate %ourt if propert,
of t"e estate %on%ealed, e&'eGGled, or fraudulentl, %onve,ed.
/t t"e sa&e ti&e, t"e fa%t t"at petitionersI interests re&ain in%"oate and %ontin#ent %ounter'alan%es
t"eir a'ilit, to parti%ipate in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s. >e are &indful of respondentIs su'&ission t"at
if t"e Court were to entitle petitioners wit" servi%e of all pro%esses and pleadin#s of t"e intestate %ourt,
t"en an,'od, %lai&in# to 'e a %reditor, w"et"er %ontin#ent or ot"erwise, would "ave t"e ri#"t to 'e
furnis"ed su%" pleadin#s, no &atter "ow wantin# of &erit t"e %lai& &a, 'e. Indeed, to i&pose a
pre%edent t"at would &andate t"e servi%e of all %ourt pro%esses and pleadin#s to an,'od, posin# a
%lai& to t"e estate, &u%" less %ontin#ent %lai&s, would undul, %o&pli%ate and 'urden t"e intestate
pro%eedin#s, and would ulti&atel, offend t"e #uidin# prin%iple of speed, and orderl, disposition of
%ases.
?ortunatel,, t"ere is a &edian t"at not onl, e@ists, 'ut also "as 'een re%o#niGed ', t"is Court, wit"
respe%t to t"e petitioners "erein, t"at addresses t"e %ore %on%ern of petitioners to 'e apprised of
develop&ents in t"e intestate pro%eedin#s. In -ilado v* Judge 'eyes,
(!
t"e Court "eard a petition for
&anda&us filed ', t"e sa&e petitioners "erein a#ainst t"e RTC 6ud#e, pra,in# t"at t"e, 'e allowed
a%%ess to t"e re%ords of t"e intestate pro%eedin#s, w"i%" t"e respondent 6ud#e "ad denied fro& t"e&.
Se%tion ( of Rule 1.! %a&e to fore, t"e provision statin# t"at <t"e re%ords of ever, %ourt of 6usti%e s"all
'e pu'li% re%ords and s"all 'e availa'le for t"e inspe%tion of an, interested person @ @ @.< T"e Court
ruled t"at petitioners were <interested persons< entitled to a%%ess t"e %ourt re%ords in t"e intestate
pro%eedin#s. >e said5
Petitioners9 stated &ain purpose for a%%essin# t"e re%ords toP&onitor pro&pt %o&plian%e wit" t"e
Rules #overnin# t"e preservation and proper disposition of t"e assets of t"e estate, e*g., t"e %o&pletion
and appraisal of t"e Inventor, and t"e su'&ission ', t"e /d&inistratri@ of an annual a%%ountin#
P
appears le#iti&ate, for, as t"e plaintiffs in t"e %o&plaints for su& of &one, a#ainst Ro'erto Benedi%to,
et al., t"e, "ave an interest over t"e out%o&e of t"e settle&ent of "is estate. T"e, are in fa%t <interested
persons< under Rule 1.!, Se%. ( of t"e Rules of Court @ @ @
(4
/llowin# %reditors, %ontin#ent or ot"erwise, a%%ess to t"e re%ords of t"e intestate pro%eedin#s is an
e&inentl, prefera'le pre%edent t"an &andatin# t"e servi%e of %ourt pro%esses and pleadin#s upon t"e&.
In eit"er %ase, t"e interest of t"e %reditor in seein# to it t"at t"e assets are 'ein# preserved and disposed
of in a%%ordan%e wit" t"e rules will 'e dul, satisfied. /%:nowled#in# t"eir ri#"t to a%%ess t"e re%ords,
rat"er t"an entitlin# t"e& to t"e servi%e of ever, %ourt order or pleadin# no &atter "ow relevant to t"eir
individual %lai&, will 'e less %u&'erso&e on t"e intestate %ourt, t"e ad&inistrator and t"e "eirs of t"e
de%edent, w"ile providin# a via'le &eans ', w"i%" t"e interests of t"e %reditors in t"e estate are
preserved./a!&hi/
Nonet"eless, in t"e instan%es t"at t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s do reCuire noti%e to an, or all
<interested parties< t"e petitioners as <interested parties< will 'e entitled to su%" noti%e. T"e instan%es
w"en noti%e "as to 'e #iven to interested parties are provided in5 011 Se%. 1), Rule -! in referen%e to t"e
ti&e and pla%e of e@a&inin# and allowin# t"e a%%ount of t"e e@e%utor or ad&inistratorD 0(1 Se%. 80'1 of
Rule -* %on%ernin# t"e petition to aut"oriGe t"e e@e%utor or ad&inistrator to sell personal estate, or to
sell, &ort#a#e or ot"erwise en%u&'er real estatesD andD 0.1 Se%. 1, Rule *) re#ardin# t"e "earin# for t"e
appli%ation for an order for distri'ution of t"e estate residue. /fter all, even t"e ad&inistratri@ "as
a%:nowled#ed in "er su'&itted inventor,, t"e e@isten%e of t"e pendin# %ases filed ', t"e petitioners.
>e now turn to t"e re&ainin# reliefs sou#"t ', petitionersD t"at a deadline 'e set for t"e su'&ission ',
ad&inistratri@ Benedi%to to su'&it a verified and %o&plete inventor, of t"e estate, and upon
su'&ission t"ereof5 t"e in"eritan%e ta@ appraisers of t"e Bureau of Internal Revenue 'e reCuired to
assist in t"e appraisal of t"e fair &ar:et value of t"e sa&eD and t"at t"e intestate %ourt set a deadline for
t"e su'&ission ', t"e ad&inistratri@ of "er verified annual a%%ount, and, upon su'&ission t"ereof, set
t"e date for "er e@a&ination under oat" wit" respe%t t"ereto, wit" due noti%e to t"e& and ot"er parties
interested in t"e %ollation, preservation and disposition of t"e estate. >e %annot #rant said reliefs.
Se%tion 1 of Rule -. reCuires t"e ad&inistrator to return to t"e %ourt a true inventor, and appraisal of
all t"e real and personal estate of t"e de%eased wit"in t"ree 0.1 &ont"s fro& appoint&ent, w"ile
Se%tion - of Rule -! reCuires t"e ad&inistrator to render an a%%ount of "is ad&inistration wit"in one
011 ,ear fro& re%eipt of t"e letters testa&entar, or of ad&inistration. >e do not dou't t"at t"ere are
reliefs availa'le to %o&pel an ad&inistrator to perfor& eit"er dut,, 'ut a person w"ose %lai& a#ainst
t"e estate is still %ontin#ent is not t"e part, entitled to do so. Still, even if t"e ad&inistrator did dela, in
t"e perfor&an%e of t"ese duties in t"e %onte@t of dissipatin# t"e assets of t"e estate, t"ere are
prote%tions enfor%ed and availa'le under Rule -- to prote%t t"e interests of t"ose wit" %ontin#ent
%lai&s a#ainst t"e estate.
Con%ernin# %o&plaints a#ainst t"e #eneral %o&peten%e of t"e ad&inistrator, t"e proper re&ed, is to
see: t"e re&oval of t"e ad&inistrator in a%%ordan%e wit" Se%tion (, Rule -(. >"ile t"e provision is
silent as to w"o &a, see: wit" t"e %ourt t"e re&oval of t"e ad&inistrator, we do not dou't t"at a
%reditor, even a %ontin#ent one, would "ave t"e personalit, to see: su%" relief. /fter all, t"e interest of
t"e %reditor in t"e estate relates to t"e preservation of suffi%ient assets to answer for t"e de't, and t"e
#eneral %o&peten%e or #ood fait" of t"e ad&inistrator is ne%essar, to fulfill su%" purpose.
/ll told, t"e ulti&ate disposition of t"e RTC and t"e Court of /ppeals is %orre%t. Nonet"eless, as we
"ave e@plained, petitioners s"ould not 'e deprived of t"eir prero#atives under t"e Rules on Spe%ial
Pro%eedin#s as enun%iated in t"is de%ision.
>AERE?ORE, t"e petition is $ENIE$, su'6e%t to t"e Cualifi%ation t"at petitioners, as persons
interested in t"e intestate estate of Ro'erto Benedi%to, are entitled to su%" noti%es and ri#"ts as
provided for su%" interested persons in t"e Rules on Settle&ent of Estates of $e%eased Persons under
t"e Rules on Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s. No pronoun%e&ents as to %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 198080 J,.) 8, 201D
HEIRS O3 MAGDA1ENO 2PON, NAME12, A1CARO 2PON, ERUDITA 2. /ARON, CICERO
2PON, WI1SON 2PON, CICTOR 2PON, AND HINIDINO 2. PEAA1OSA, PETITIONERS,
vs.
GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICA3ORTE A.@.A. EGAUDIOSO E. 2PON,E AND THE
REGISTER O3 DEEDS O3 TO1EDO CIT2, RESPON$ENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER1ASB/ERNA/E, J.:
T"is is a dire%t re%ourse to t"e Court fro& t"e Re#ional Trial Court of Toledo Cit,, Bran%" !* 0RTC1,
t"rou#" a petition for review on %ertiorari
1
under Rule ! of t"e Rules of Court, raisin# a pure Cuestion
of law. In parti%ular, petitioners assail t"e +ul, (8, ()11
(
and /u#ust .1, ()11
.
Orders of t"e RTC,
dis&issin# Civil Case No. T2((4 for la%: of %ause of a%tion.
T"e ?a%ts
On +ul, (*, ()1), petitioners, to#et"er wit" so&e of t"eir %ousins,

filed a %o&plaint for Can%ellation

of Title and Re%onve,an%e wit" $a&a#es 0su'6e%t %o&plaint1 a#ainst respondent 3audioso Ponteras
Ri%aforte a.:.a. <3audioso E. Npon< 03audioso1, do%:eted as Civil Case No. T2((4.
!
In t"eir
%o&plaint, t"e, alle#ed t"at 7a#daleno Npon 07a#daleno1 died intestate and %"ildless on +une (-,
1*4-, leavin# 'e"ind Lot Nos. (2//, (2C, (2?, and (2+ w"i%" were t"en %overed ', Transfer
Certifi%ates of Title 0TCT1 Nos. T2 and T2882/.
4
Clai&in# to 'e t"e sole "eir of 7a#daleno,
3audioso e@e%uted an /ffidavit of Self2/d6udi%ation and %aused t"e %an%ellation of t"e afore&entioned
%ertifi%ates of title, leadin# to t"eir su'seCuent transfer in "is na&e under TCT Nos. T2(4.8 and T2
(4.-,
8
to t"e pre6udi%e of petitioners w"o are 7a#dalenoIs %ollateral relatives and su%%essors2in2
interest.
-
In "is /nswer, 3audioso alle#ed t"at "e is t"e lawful son of 7a#daleno as eviden%ed ',5 0a1 "is
%ertifi%ate of Live Birt"D 0'1 two 0(1 letters fro& Pol,te%"ni% S%"oolD and 0%1 a %ertified true %op, of "is
passport.
*
?urt"er, ', wa, of affir&ative defense, "e %lai&ed t"at5 0a1 petitioners "ave no %ause of
a%tion a#ainst "i&D 0'1 t"e %o&plaint fails to state a %ause of a%tionD and 0%1 t"e %ase is not prose%uted
', t"e real parties2in2interest, as t"ere is no s"owin# t"at t"e petitioners "ave 'een 6udi%iall, de%lared
as 7a#dalenoIs lawful "eirs.
1)
T"e RTC Rulin#
On +ul, (8, ()11, t"e RTC issued t"e assailed +ul, (8, ()11 Order,
11
findin# t"at t"e su'6e%t %o&plaint
failed to state a %ause of a%tion a#ainst 3audioso. It o'served t"at w"ile t"e plaintiffs t"erein "ad
esta'lis"ed t"eir relations"ip wit" 7a#daleno in a previous spe%ial pro%eedin# for t"e issuan%e of
letters of ad&inistration,
1(
t"is did not &ean t"at t"e, %ould alread, 'e %onsidered as t"e de%edentIs
%o&pulsor, "eirs. Luite t"e %ontrar,, 3audioso satisfa%toril, esta'lis"ed t"e fa%t t"at "e is
7a#dalenoIs son M and "en%e, "is %o&pulsor, "eir M t"rou#" t"e do%u&entar, eviden%e "e su'&itted
w"i%" %onsisted of5 0a1 a &arria#e %ontra%t 'etween 7a#daleno and Epe#enia Evan#elistaD 0'1 a
Certifi%ate of Live Birt"D 0%1 a Letter dated ?e'ruar, 1*, 1*4)D and 0d1 a passport.
1.
T"e plaintiffs t"erein filed a &otion for re%onsideration w"i%" was, "owever, denied on /u#ust .1,
()11 due to t"e %ounselIs failure to state t"e date on w"i%" "is 7andator, Continuin# Le#al Edu%ation
Certifi%ate of Co&plian%e was issued.
1
/##rieved, petitioners, w"o were a&on# t"e plaintiffs in Civil Case No. T2((4,
1!
sou#"t dire%t
re%ourse to t"e Court t"rou#" t"e instant petition.
T"e Issue Before t"e Court
T"e %ore of t"e present %ontrovers, revolves around t"e issue of w"et"er or not t"e RTCIs dis&issal of
t"e %ase on t"e #round t"at t"e su'6e%t %o&plaint failed to state a %ause of a%tion was proper.
T"e CourtIs Rulin#
T"e petition "as no &erit.
Cause of a%tion is defined as t"e a%t or o&ission ', w"i%" a part, violates a ri#"t of anot"er.
14
It is
well2settled t"at t"e e@isten%e of a %ause of a%tion is deter&ined ', t"e alle#ations in t"e %o&plaint.
18
In t"is relation, a %o&plaint is said to assert a suffi%ient %ause of a%tion if, ad&ittin# w"at appears
solel, on its fa%e to 'e %orre%t, t"e plaintiff would 'e entitled to t"e relief pra,ed for.
1-
/%%ordin#l,, if
t"e alle#ations furnis" suffi%ient 'asis ', w"i%" t"e %o&plaint %an 'e &aintained, t"e sa&e s"ould not
'e dis&issed, re#ardless of t"e defenses t"at &a, 'e averred ', t"e defendants.
1*
/s stated in t"e su'6e%t %o&plaint, petitioners, w"o were a&on# t"e plaintiffs t"erein, alle#ed t"at t"e,
are t"e lawful "eirs of 7a#daleno and 'ased on t"e sa&e, pra,ed t"at t"e /ffidavit of Self2
/d6udi%ation e@e%uted ', 3audioso 'e de%lared null and void and t"at t"e transfer %ertifi%ates of title
issued in t"e latterIs favor 'e %an%elled. >"ile t"e fore#oin# alle#ations, if ad&itted to 'e true, would
%onseCuentl, warrant t"e reliefs sou#"t for in t"e said %o&plaint, t"e rule t"at t"e deter&ination of a
de%edentIs lawful "eirs s"ould 'e &ade in t"e %orrespondin# spe%ial pro%eedin#
()
pre%ludes t"e RTC,
in an ordinar, a%tion for %an%ellation of title and re%onve,an%e, fro& #rantin# t"e sa&e. In t"e %ase of
Aeirs of Teofilo 3a'atan v. C/,
(1
t"e Court, %itin# several ot"er pre%edents, "eld t"at t"e deter&ination
of w"o are t"e de%edentIs lawful "eirs &ust 'e &ade in t"e proper spe%ial pro%eedin# for su%" purpose,
and not in an ordinar, suit for re%over, of owners"ip and=or possession, as in t"is %ase5
+urispruden%e di%tates t"at t"e deter&ination of w"o are t"e le#al "eirs of t"e de%eased &ust 'e &ade in
t"e proper spe%ial pro%eedin#s in %ourt, and not in an ordinar, suit for re%over, of owners"ip and
possession of propert,./0!&hi/ T"is &ust ta:e pre%eden%e over t"e a%tion for re%over, of possession
and owners"ip. T"e Court "as %onsistentl, ruled t"at t"e trial %ourt %annot &a:e a de%laration of
"eirs"ip in t"e %ivil a%tion for t"e reason t"at su%" a de%laration %an onl, 'e &ade in a spe%ial
pro%eedin#. Under Se%tion ., Rule 1 of t"e 1**8 Revised Rules of Court, a %ivil a%tion is defined as
one ', w"i%" a part, sues anot"er for t"e enfor%e&ent or prote%tion of a ri#"t, or t"e prevention or
redress of a wron# w"ile a spe%ial pro%eedin# is a re&ed, ', w"i%" a part, see:s to esta'lis" a status, a
ri#"t, or a parti%ular fa%t. It is t"en de%isivel, %lear t"at t"e de%laration of "eirs"ip %an 'e &ade onl, in
a spe%ial pro%eedin# inas&u%" as t"e petitioners "ere are see:in# t"e esta'lis"&ent of a status or ri#"t.
In t"e earl, %ase of Lita&, et al. v. Rivera, t"is Court ruled t"at t"e de%laration of "eirs"ip &ust 'e
&ade in a spe%ial pro%eedin#, and not in an independent %ivil a%tion. T"is do%trine was reiterated in
Solivio v. Court of /ppeals @ @ @5
In t"e &ore re%ent %ase of 7ila#ros +oaCuino v. Lourdes Re,es, t"e Court reiterated its rulin# t"at
&atters relatin# to t"e ri#"ts of filiation and "eirs"ip &ust 'e ventilated in t"e proper pro'ate %ourt in a
spe%ial pro%eedin# instituted pre%isel, for t"e purpose of deter&inin# su%" ri#"ts. Citin# t"e %ase of
/#apa, v. Palan#, t"is Court "eld t"at t"e status of an ille#iti&ate %"ild w"o %lai&ed to 'e an "eir to a
de%edent9s estate %ould not 'e ad6udi%ated in an ordinar, %ivil a%tion w"i%", as in t"is %ase, was for t"e
re%over, of propert,.
((
0E&p"asis and unders%orin# suppliedD %itations o&itted1
B, wa, of e@%eption, t"e need to institute a separate spe%ial pro%eedin# for t"e deter&ination of
"eirs"ip &a, 'e dispensed wit" for t"e sa:e of pra%ti%alit,, as w"en t"e parties in t"e %ivil %ase "ad
voluntaril, su'&itted t"e issue to t"e trial %ourt and alread, presented t"eir eviden%e re#ardin# t"e
issue of "eirs"ip, and t"e RTC "ad %onseCuentl, rendered 6ud#&ent t"ereon,
(.
or w"en a spe%ial
pro%eedin# "ad 'een instituted 'ut "ad 'een finall, %losed and ter&inated, and "en%e, %annot 'e re2
opened.
(
In t"is %ase, none of t"e fore#oin# e@%eptions, or t"ose of si&ilar nature, appear to e@ist. Aen%e, t"ere
lies t"e need to institute t"e proper spe%ial pro%eedin# in order to deter&ine t"e "eirs"ip of t"e parties
involved, ulti&atel, resultin# to t"e dis&issal of Civil Case No. T2((4.
;eril,, w"ile a %ourt usuall, fo%uses on t"e %o&plaint in deter&inin# w"et"er t"e sa&e fails to state a
%ause of a%tion, a %ourt %annot disre#ard de%isions &aterial to t"e proper appre%iation of t"e Cuestions
'efore it.
(!
T"us, %on%ordant wit" appli%a'le 6urispruden%e, sin%e a deter&ination of "eirs"ip %annot 'e
&ade in an ordinar, a%tion for re%over, of owners"ip and=or possession, t"e dis&issal of Civil Case
No. T2((4 was alto#et"er proper. In t"is li#"t, it &ust 'e pointed out t"at t"e RTC erred in rulin# on
3audiosoIs "eirs"ip w"i%" s"ould, as "erein dis%ussed, 'e t"res"ed out and deter&ined in t"e proper
spe%ial pro%eedin#. /s su%", t"e fore#oin# pronoun%e&ent s"ould t"erefore 'e devoid of an, le#al
effe%t.
>AERE?ORE, t"e petition is $ENIE$. T"e dis&issal of Civil Case No. T2((4 is "ere',
/??IR7E$, wit"out pre6udi%e to an, su'seCuent pro%eedin# to deter&ine t"e lawful "eirs of t"e late
7a#daleno Npon and t"e ri#"ts %on%o&itant t"erewit".
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 189121 J,.) D1, 201D
AME1IA GARCIABLUIAON, JENNETH LUIAON &"* MARIA JENNI3ER LUIAON,
Petitioners,
vs.
MA. 1OURDES /E1EN, -or &"* !" be#&.- o- MARIA 1OURDES E1ISE LUIAON,
Respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
PERE, J.:
T"is is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule ! of t"e Revised Rules of Court,
pri&aril, assailin# t"e (- Nove&'er ())- $e%ision rendered ', t"e Nint" $ivision of t"e Court of
/ppeals in C/23.R. C; No. --!-*,
1
t"e de%retal portion of w"i%" states5
>AERE?ORE, pre&ises %onsidered, t"e appeal is "ere', $ENIE$. T"e assailed $e%ision dated
7ar%" 11, ())!, and t"e Order dated 7ar%" (, ())4 of t"e Re#ional Trial Court, Bran%" (8!, Las
PiKas Cit, are /??IR7E$ in toto.
(
T"e ?a%ts
T"is %ase started as a Petition for Letters of /d&inistration of t"e Estate of Eliseo LuiaGon 0Eliseo1,
filed ', "erein respondents w"o are EliseoIs %o&&on2law wife and dau#"ter. T"e petition was opposed
', "erein petitioners /&elia 3ar%ia2LuaiGon 0/&elia1 to w"o& Eliseo was &arried. /&elia was 6oined
', "er %"ildren, +ennet" LuiaGon 0+ennet"1 and 7aria +ennifer LuiaGon 0+ennifer1.
Eliseo died intestate on 1( $e%e&'er 1**(.
On 1( Septe&'er 1**, 7aria Lourdes Elise LuiaGon 0Elise1, represented ', "er &ot"er, 7a. Lourdes
Belen 0Lourdes1, filed a Petition for Letters of /d&inistration 'efore t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0RTC1 of
Las PiKas Cit,.
.
In "er Petition do%:eted as SP Pro%. No. 72.*!8, Elise %lai&s t"at s"e is t"e natural
%"ild of Eliseo "avin# 'een %on%eived and 'orn at t"e ti&e w"en "er parents were 'ot" %apa%itated to
&arr, ea%" ot"er. Insistin# on t"e le#al %apa%it, of Eliseo and Lourdes to &arr,, Elise i&pu#ned t"e
validit, of EliseoIs &arria#e to /&elia ', %lai&in# t"at it was 'i#a&ous for "avin# 'een %ontra%ted
durin# t"e su'sisten%e of t"e latterIs &arria#e wit" one ?ilipito Sandi%o 0?ilipito1. To prove "er filiation
to t"e de%edent, Elise, a&on# ot"ers, atta%"ed to t"e Petition for Letters of /d&inistration "er
Certifi%ate of Live Birt"

si#ned ', Eliseo as "er fat"er. In t"e sa&e petition, it was alle#ed t"at Eliseo
left real properties wort" P(,)),))).)) and personal properties wort" P(,1)),))).)). In order to
preserve t"e estate of Eliseo and to prevent t"e dissipation of its value, Elise sou#"t "er appoint&ent as
ad&inistratri@ of "er late fat"erIs estate.
Clai&in# t"at t"e venue of t"e petition was i&properl, laid, /&elia, to#et"er wit" "er %"ildren, +ennet"
and +ennifer, opposed t"e issuan%e of t"e letters of ad&inistration ', filin# an Opposition=7otion to
$is&iss.
!
T"e petitioners asserted t"at as s"own ', "is $eat" Certifi%ate,
4
Eliseo was a resident of
Capas, Tarla% and not of Las PiKas Cit,, at t"e ti&e of "is deat". Pursuant to Se%tion 1, Rule 8. of t"e
Revised Rules of Court,
8
t"e petition for settle&ent of de%edentIs estate s"ould "ave 'een filed in
Capas, Tarla% and not in Las PiKas Cit,. In addition to t"eir %lai& of i&proper venue, t"e petitioners
averred t"at t"ere are no fa%tual and le#al 'ases for Elise to 'e appointed ad&inistrati@ of EliseoIs
estate.
In a $e%ision
-
dated 11 7ar%" ())!, t"e RTC dire%ted t"e issuan%e of Letters of /d&inistration to
Elise upon postin# t"e ne%essar, 'ond. T"e lower %ourt ruled t"at t"e venue of t"e petition was
properl, laid in Las PiKas Cit,, t"ere', dis%reditin# t"e position ta:en ', t"e petitioners t"at EliseoIs
last residen%e was in Capas, Tarla%, as "earsa,. T"e dispositive of t"e RTC de%ision reads5
Aavin# attained le#al a#e at t"is ti&e and t"ere 'ein# no s"owin# of an, disCualifi%ation or
in%o&peten%e to serve as ad&inistrator, let letters of ad&inistration over t"e estate of t"e de%edent
Eliseo LuiaGon, t"erefore, 'e issued to petitioner, 7a. Lourdes Elise LuiaGon, after t"e approval ', t"is
Court of a 'ond in t"e a&ount of P1)),))).)) to 'e posted ', "er.
*
On appeal, t"e de%ision of t"e trial %ourt was affir&ed in toto in t"e (- Nove&'er ())- $e%ision
1)
rendered ', t"e Court of /ppeals in C/23.R.C; No. --!-*. In validatin# t"e findin#s of t"e RTC, t"e
Court of /ppeals "eld t"at Elise was a'le to prove t"at Eliseo and Lourdes lived to#et"er as "us'and
and wife ', esta'lis"in# a %o&&on residen%e at No. (4 Everlastin# Road, P"ase !, Pilar ;illa#e, Las
PiKas Cit,, fro& 1*8! up to t"e ti&e of EliseoIs deat" in 1**(. ?or purposes of fi@in# t"e venue of t"e
settle&ent of EliseoIs estate, t"e Court of /ppeals up"eld t"e %on%lusion rea%"ed ', t"e RTC t"at t"e
de%edent was a resident of Las PiKas Cit,. T"e petitionersI 7otion for Re%onsideration was denied ',
t"e Court of /ppeals in its Resolution
11
dated 8 /u#ust ())*.
T"e Issues
T"e petitioners now ur#e Us to reverse t"e assailed Court of /ppeals $e%ision and Resolution on t"e
followin# #rounds5
I. TAE COURT O? /PPE/LS 3R/;ELN ERRE$ IN /??IR7IN3 TA/T ELISEO
LUI/SON >/S / RESI$ENT O? L/S PIO/S /N$ TAERE?ORE, TAE PETITION ?OR
LETTERS O? /$7INISTR/TION >/S PROPERLN ?ILE$ >ITA TAE RTC O? L/S
PIO/SD
II. TAE COURT O? /PPE/LS 3R/;ELN ERRE$ IN $ECL/RIN3 TA/T /7ELI/
3/RCI/2LUI/SON >/S NOT LE3/LLN 7/RRIE$ TO ELISEO LUI/SON $UE TO
PREERISTIN3 7/RRI/3ED /N$
III. TAE COURT O? /PPE/LS O;ERLOOJE$ TAE ?/CT TA/T ELISE LUI/SON A/S
NOT SAO>N /NN INTEREST IN TAE PETITION ?OR LETTERS O?
/$7INISTR/TION.
1(
T"e CourtIs Rulin#
>e find t"e petition 'ereft of &erit.
Under Se%tion 1, Rule 8. of t"e Rules of Court, t"e petition for letters of ad&inistration of t"e estate of
a de%edent s"ould 'e filed in t"e RTC of t"e provin%e w"ere t"e de%edent resides at t"e ti&e of "is
deat"5
Se%. 1. >"ere estate of de%eased persons settled. M If t"e de%edent is an in"a'itant of t"e P"ilippines at
t"e ti&e of "is deat", w"et"er a %itiGen or an alien, "is will s"all 'e proved, or letters of ad&inistration
#ranted, and "is estate settled, in t"e Court of ?irst Instan%e now Re#ional Trial Court in t"e provin%e in
w"i%" "e resides at t"e ti&e of "is deat", and if "e is an in"a'itant of a forei#n %ountr,, t"e Court of
?irst Instan%e now Re#ional Trial Court of an, provin%e in w"i%" "e "ad estate. T"e %ourt first ta:in#
%o#niGan%e of t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of a de%edent, s"all e@er%ise 6urisdi%tion to t"e e@%lusion of
all ot"er %ourts. T"e 6urisdi%tion assu&ed ', a %ourt, so far as it depends on t"e pla%e of residen%e of
t"e de%edent, or of t"e lo%ation of "is estate, s"all not 'e %ontested in a suit or pro%eedin#, e@%ept in an
appeal fro& t"at %ourt, in t"e ori#inal %ase, or w"en t"e want of 6urisdi%tion appears on t"e re%ord.
0E&p"asis supplied1.
T"e ter& <resides< %onnotes e@ vi ter&ini <a%tual residen%e< as distin#uis"ed fro& <le#al residen%e or
do&i%ile.< T"is ter& <resides,< li:e t"e ter&s <residin#< and <residen%e,< is elasti% and s"ould 'e
interpreted in t"e li#"t of t"e o'6e%t or purpose of t"e statute or rule in w"i%" it is e&plo,ed. In t"e
appli%ation of venue statutes and rules M Se%tion 1, Rule 8. of t"e Revised Rules of Court is of su%"
nature M residen%e rat"er t"an do&i%ile is t"e si#nifi%ant fa%tor.
1.
Even w"ere t"e statute uses word
<do&i%ile< still it is %onstrued as &eanin# residen%e and not do&i%ile in t"e te%"ni%al sense.
1
So&e
%ases &a:e a distin%tion 'etween t"e ter&s <residen%e< and <do&i%ile< 'ut as #enerall, used in statutes
fi@in# venue, t"e ter&s are s,non,&ous, and %onve, t"e sa&e &eanin# as t"e ter& <in"a'itant.<
1!
In
ot"er words, <resides< s"ould 'e viewed or understood in its popular sense, &eanin#, t"e personal,
a%tual or p",si%al "a'itation of a person, a%tual residen%e or pla%e of a'ode.
14
It si#nifies p",si%al
presen%e in a pla%e and a%tual sta, t"ereat.
18
;enue for ordinar, %ivil a%tions and t"at for spe%ial
pro%eedin#s "ave one and t"e sa&e &eanin#.
1-
/s t"us defined, <residen%e,< in t"e %onte@t of venue
provisions, &eans not"in# &ore t"an a personIs a%tual residen%e or pla%e of a'ode, provided "e resides
t"erein wit" %ontinuit, and %onsisten%,.
1*
;iewed in li#"t of t"e fore#oin# prin%iples, t"e Court of /ppeals %annot 'e faulted for affir&in# t"e
rulin# of t"e RTC t"at t"e venue for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of Eliseo was properl, laid in Las PiKas
Cit,. It is evident fro& t"e re%ords t"at durin# "is lifeti&e, Eliseo resided at No. (4 Everlastin# Road,
P"ase !, Pilar ;illa#e, Las PiKas Cit,. ?or t"is reason, t"e venue for t"e settle&ent of "is estate &a, 'e
laid in t"e said %it,.
In opposin# t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration, t"e petitioners "arp on t"e entr, in EliseoIs $eat"
Certifi%ate t"at "e is a resident of Capas, Tarla% w"ere t"e, insist "is estate s"ould 'e settled. >"ile t"e
re%itals in deat" %ertifi%ates %an 'e %onsidered proofs of a de%edentIs residen%e at t"e ti&e of "is deat",
t"e %ontents t"ereof, "owever, is not 'indin# on t"e %ourts. Bot" t"e RTC and t"e Court of /ppeals
found t"at Eliseo "ad 'een livin# wit" Lourdes, deportin# t"e&selves as "us'and and wife, fro& 1*8(
up to t"e ti&e of "is deat" in 1**!. T"is findin# is %onsistent wit" t"e fa%t t"at in 1*-!, Eliseo filed an
a%tion for 6udi%ial partition of properties a#ainst /&elia 'efore t"e RTC of LueGon Cit,, Bran%" 1)4,
on t"e #round t"at t"eir &arria#e is void for 'ein# 'i#a&ous.
()
T"at Eliseo went to t"e e@tent of ta:in#
"is &arital feud wit" /&elia 'efore t"e %ourts of law renders untena'le petitionersI position t"at Eliseo
spent t"e final da,s of "is life in Tarla% wit" /&elia and "er %"ildren. It disproves rat"er t"an supports
petitionersI su'&ission t"at t"e lower %ourtsI findin#s arose fro& an erroneous appre%iation of t"e
eviden%e on re%ord. ?a%tual findin#s of t"e trial %ourt, w"en affir&ed ', t"e appellate %ourt, &ust 'e
"eld to 'e %on%lusive and 'indin# upon t"is Court.
(1
Li:ewise un&eritorious is petitionersI %ontention t"at t"e Court of /ppeals erred in de%larin# /&eliaIs
&arria#e to Eliseo as void a' initio. In a void &arria#e, it was t"ou#" no &arria#e "as ta:en pla%e,
t"us, it %annot 'e t"e sour%e of ri#"ts. /n, interested part, &a, atta%: t"e &arria#e dire%tl, or
%ollaterall,. / void &arria#e %an 'e Cuestioned even 'e,ond t"e lifeti&e of t"e parties to t"e
&arria#e.
((
It &ust 'e pointed out t"at at t"e ti&e of t"e %ele'ration of t"e &arria#e of Eliseo and
/&elia, t"e law in effe%t was t"e Civil Code, and not t"e ?a&il, Code, &a:in# t"e rulin# in NiKal v.
Ba,ado#
(.
appli%a'le four2sCuare to t"e %ase at "and. In NiKal, t"e Court, in no un%ertain ter&s,
allowed t"erein petitioners to file a petition for t"e de%laration of nullit, of t"eir fat"erIs &arria#e to
t"erein respondent after t"e deat" of t"eir fat"er, ', %ontradistin#uis"in# void fro& voida'le &arria#es,
to wit5
ConseCuentl,, void &arria#es %an 'e Cuestioned even after t"e deat" of eit"er part, 'ut voida'le
&arria#es %an 'e assailed onl, durin# t"e lifeti&e of t"e parties and not after deat" of eit"er, in w"i%"
%ase t"e parties and t"eir offsprin# will 'e left as if t"e &arria#e "ad 'een perfe%tl, valid. T"at is w",
t"e a%tion or defense for nullit, is i&pres%ripti'le, unli:e voida'le &arria#es w"ere t"e a%tion
pres%ri'es. Onl, t"e parties to a voida'le &arria#e %an assail it 'ut an, proper interested part, &a,
atta%: a void &arria#e.
(
It was e&p"asiGed in NiKal t"at in a void &arria#e, no &arria#e "as ta:en pla%e and it %annot 'e t"e
sour%e of ri#"ts, su%" t"at an, interested part, &a, atta%: t"e &arria#e dire%tl, or %ollaterall, wit"out
pres%ription, w"i%" &a, 'e filed even 'e,ond t"e lifeti&e of t"e parties to t"e &arria#e.
(!
Relevant to t"e fore#oin#, t"ere is no dou't t"at Elise, w"ose su%%essional ri#"ts would 'e pre6udi%ed
', "er fat"erIs &arria#e to /&elia, &a, i&pu#n t"e e@isten%e of su%" &arria#e even after t"e deat" of
"er fat"er. T"e said &arria#e &a, 'e Cuestioned dire%tl, ', filin# an a%tion atta%:in# t"e validit,
t"ereof, or %ollaterall, ', raisin# it as an issue in a pro%eedin# for t"e settle&ent of t"e estate of t"e
de%eased spouse, su%" as in t"e %ase at 'ar. Inelu%ta'l,, Elise, as a %o&pulsor, "eir,
(4
"as a %ause of
a%tion for t"e de%laration of t"e a'solute nullit, of t"e void &arria#e of Eliseo and /&elia, and t"e
deat" of eit"er part, to t"e said &arria#e does not e@tin#uis" su%" %ause of a%tion.
Aavin# esta'lis"ed t"e ri#"t of Elise to i&pu#n EliseoIs &arria#e to /&elia, we now pro%eed to
deter&ine w"et"er or not t"e de%edentIs &arria#e to /&elia is void for 'ein# 'i#a&ous.
Contrar, to t"e position ta:en ', t"e petitioners, t"e e@isten%e of a previous &arria#e 'etween /&elia
and ?ilipito was suffi%ientl, esta'lis"ed ', no less t"an t"e Certifi%ate of 7arria#e issued ', t"e
$io%ese of Tarla% and si#ned ', t"e offi%iatin# priest of t"e Paris" of San Ni%olas de Tolentino in
Capas, Tarla%. T"e said &arria#e %ertifi%ate is a %o&petent eviden%e of &arria#e and t"e %ertifi%ation
fro& t"e National /r%"ive t"at no infor&ation relative to t"e said &arria#e e@ists does not di&inis" t"e
pro'ative value of t"e entries t"erein. >e ta:e 6udi%ial noti%e of t"e fa%t t"at t"e first &arria#e was
%ele'rated &ore t"an !) ,ears a#o, t"us, t"e possi'ilit, t"at a re%ord of &arria#e %an no lon#er 'e
found in t"e National /r%"ive, #iven t"e interval of ti&e, is not %o&pletel, re&ote. ConseCuentl,, in
t"e a'sen%e of an, s"owin# t"at su%" &arria#e "ad 'een dissolved at t"e ti&e /&elia and EliseoIs
&arria#e was sole&niGed, t"e ines%apa'le %on%lusion is t"at t"e latter &arria#e is 'i#a&ous and,
t"erefore, void a' initio.
(8
Neit"er are we in%lined to lend %reden%e to t"e petitionersI %ontention t"at Elise "as not s"own an,
interest in t"e Petition for Letters of /d&inistration.
Se%tion 4, Rule 8- of t"e Revised Rules of Court la,s down t"e preferred persons w"o are entitled to
t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration, t"us5
Se%. 4. >"en and to w"o& letters of ad&inistration #ranted. P If no e@e%utor is na&ed in t"e will, or
t"e e@e%utor or e@e%utors are in%o&petent, refuse t"e trust, or fail to #ive 'ond, or a person dies
intestate, ad&inistration s"all 'e #ranted5
0a1 To t"e survivin# "us'and or wife, as t"e %ase &a, 'e, or ne@t of :in, or 'ot", in t"e
dis%retion of t"e %ourt, or to su%" person as su%" survivin# "us'and or wife, or ne@t of :in,
reCuests to "ave appointed, if %o&petent and willin# to serveD
0'1 If su%" survivin# "us'and or wife, as t"e %ase &a, 'e, or ne@t of :in, or t"e person sele%ted
', t"e&, 'e in%o&petent or unwillin#, or if t"e "us'and or widow, or ne@t of :in, ne#le%ts for
t"irt, 0.)1 da,s after t"e deat" of t"e person to appl, for ad&inistration or to reCuest t"at
ad&inistration 'e #ranted to so&e ot"er person, it &a, 'e #ranted to one or &ore of t"e
prin%ipal %reditors, if %o&petent and willin# to serveD
0%1 If t"ere is no su%" %reditor %o&petent and willin# to serve, it &a, 'e #ranted to su%" ot"er
person as t"e %ourt &a, sele%t.
Upon t"e ot"er "and, Se%tion ( of Rule 8* provides t"at a petition for Letters of /d&inistration &ust 'e
filed ', an interested person, t"us5
Se%. (. Contents of petition for letters of ad&inistration. P / petition for letters of ad&inistration &ust
'e filed ', an interested person and &ust s"ow, so far as :nown to t"e petitioner5
0a1 T"e 6urisdi%tional fa%tsD
0'1 T"e na&es, a#es, and residen%es of t"e "eirs, and t"e na&es and residen%es of t"e %reditors,
of t"e de%edentD
0%1 T"e pro'a'le value and %"ara%ter of t"e propert, of t"e estateD
0d1 T"e na&e of t"e person for w"o& letters of ad&inistration are pra,ed.
But no defe%t in t"e petition s"all render void t"e issuan%e of letters of ad&inistration.
/n <interested part,,< in estate pro%eedin#s, is one w"o would 'e 'enefited in t"e estate, su%" as an
"eir, or one w"o "as a %lai& a#ainst t"e estate, su%" as a %reditor. /lso, in estate pro%eedin#s, t"e
p"rase <ne@t of :in< refers to t"ose w"ose relations"ip wit" t"e de%edent Is su%" t"at t"e, are entitled to
s"are in t"e estate as distri'utees.
(-
In t"e instant %ase, Elise, as a %o&pulsor, "eir w"o stands to 'e 'enefited ', t"e distri'ution of EliseoIs
estate, is dee&ed to 'e an interested part,. >it" t"e overw"el&in# eviden%e on re%ord produ%ed ',
Elise to prove "er filiation to Eliseo, t"e petitionersI poundin# on "er la%: of interest in t"e
ad&inistration of t"e de%edentIs estate, is 6ust a desperate atte&pt to swa, t"is Court to reverse t"e
findin#s of t"e Court of /ppeals. Certainl,, t"e ri#"t of Elise to 'e appointed ad&inistrati@ of t"e estate
of Eliseo is on #ood #rounds. It is founded on "er ri#"t as a %o&pulsor, "eir, w"o, under t"e law, is
entitled to "er le#iti&ate after t"e de'ts of t"e estate are satisfied.
(*
Aavin# a vested ri#"t in t"e
distri'ution of EliseoIs estate as one of "is natural %"ildren, Elise %an ri#"tfull, 'e %onsidered as an
interested part, wit"in t"e purview of t"e law.
>AERE?ORE, pre&ises %onsidered, t"e petition is $ENIE$ for la%: of &erit. /%%ordin#l,, t"e Court
of /ppeals assailed (- Nove&'er ())- $e%ision and 8 /u#ust ())* Resolution, ar% /??IR7E$ in
toto.
SO OR$ERE$.
A.M. No. PB01B1;;8 J,"e 2?, 201D
F3ormer.) OCA IPI No. 99B00;BPG
RODO13O C. SA/IDONG, Co&plainant,
vs.
NICO1ASITO S. SO1AS FC.er9 o- Co,r( ICG, Respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
CI11ARAMA, JR., J.:
T"e present ad&inistrative %ase ste&&ed fro& a sworn letter2%o&plaint
1
dated 7a, (*, 1*** filed
'efore t"is Court ', Rodolfo C. Sa'idon# 0%o&plainant1 %"ar#in# respondent Ni%olasito S. Solas, Cler:
of Court I;, 7uni%ipal Trial Court in Cities 07TCC1, Iloilo Cit, wit" #rave and serious &is%ondu%t,
dis"onest,, oppression and a'use of aut"orit,.
T"e ?a%ts
Trinidad Sa'idon#, %o&plainantIs &ot"er, is one of t"e lon#ti&e o%%upants of a par%el of land,
desi#nated as Lot 11 0Lot 1(-)2$2211 of %onsolidation2su'division plan ELRCF P%s2-.1 ori#inall,
re#istered in t"e na&e of C. N. Aod#es and situated at Baran#a, San ;i%ente, +aro, Iloilo Cit,.
(
T"e
Sa'idon#s are in possession of one2"alf portion of Lot 11 of t"e said Estate 0Aod#es Estate1, as t"e
ot"er "alf2portion was o%%upied ', Pris%ila Sapla#io. Lot 11 was t"e su'6e%t of an e6e%t&ent suit filed
', t"e Aod#es Estate, do%:eted as Civil Case No. 18)4 of t"e 7TCC Iloilo Cit,, Bran%" 0<Rosita R.
Natividad in "er %apa%it, as /d&inistratri@ of C.N. Aod#es Estate, plaintiff vs. Pris%ila Sapla#io,
defendant<1. On 7a, .1, 1*-., a de%ision was rendered in said %ase orderin# t"e defendant to
i&&ediatel, va%ate t"e portion of Lot 11 leased to "er and to pa, t"e plaintiff rentals due, attorne,Is
fees, e@penses and %osts.
.
/t t"e ti&e, respondent was t"e Cler: of Court III of 7TCC, Bran%" ., Iloilo
Cit,.
So&eti&e in O%to'er 1*-, respondent su'&itted an Offer to Pur%"ase on install&ent Lots 11 and 1(.
In a letter dated +anuar, 8, 1*-4, t"e /d&inistratri@ of t"e Aod#es Estate re6e%ted respondentIs offer in
view of an appli%ation to pur%"ase alread, filed ', t"e a%tual o%%upant of Lot 1(, <in line wit" t"e
poli%, of t"e Pro'ate Court to #ive priorit, to t"e a%tual o%%upants in awardin# approval of Offers<.
>"ile t"e %"e%: for initial down pa,&ent tendered ', respondent was returned to "i&, "e was
nevert"eless infor&ed t"at "e &a, file an offer to pur%"ase Lot 11 and t"at if "e %ould put up a
suffi%ient down pa,&ent, t"e Estate %ould i&&ediatel, endorse it for approval of t"e Pro'ate Court so
t"at t"e propert, %an 'e awarded to "i& <s"ould t"e o%%upant fail to avail of t"e priorit, #iven to
t"e&.<

T"e followin# da,, +anuar, -, 1*-4, respondent a#ain su'&itted an Offer to Pur%"ase Lot 11 wit" an
area of (. sCuare &eters for t"e a&ount of P.!,1)). Under t"e Order dated Nove&'er 1-, 1*-4 issued
', t"e pro'ate %ourt 0Re#ional Trial Court of Iloilo, Bran%" (81 in Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s No. 148(
0<Testate Estate of t"e Late C"arles Newton Aod#es, Rosita R. Natividad, /d&inistratri@<1,
respondentIs Offer to Pur%"ase Lot 11 was approved upon t"e %ourtIs o'servation t"at t"e o%%upants of
t"e su'6e%t lots <"ave not &anifested t"eir desire to pur%"ase t"e lots t"e, are o%%up,in# up to t"is date
and %onsiderin# ti&e restraint and %onsiderin# furt"er, t"at t"e sales in favor of t"e @ @ @ offerors are
&ost 'enefi%ial to t"e estate @ @ @<. On +anuar, (1, 1*-8, t"e pro'ate %ourt issued anot"er Order
#rantin# respondentIs &otion for issuan%e of a writ of possession in "is favor. T"e writ of possession
over Lot 11 was eventuall, issued on +une (8, 1*-*.
!
On Nove&'er (1, 1**, a $eed of Sale >it" 7ort#a#e %overin# Lot 11 was e@e%uted 'etween
respondent and t"e Aod#es Estate represented ', its /d&inistratri@, 7rs. Rut" R. $io%ares. Lot 11 was
t"ere', %onve,ed to respondent on install&ent for t"e total pur%"ase pri%e of P!),))).
ConseCuentl,, Transfer Certifi%ate of Title 0TCT1 No. T211-.4 in t"e na&e of C. N. Aod#es was
%an%elled and a new %ertifi%ate of title, TCT No. T21)8!1* in t"e na&e of respondent was issued on
$e%e&'er !, 1**. Lot 11 was later su'divided into two lots, Lots 112/ and 112B for w"i%" t"e
%orrespondin# titles 0TCT Nos. T211448 and T21144-1, also in t"e na&e of respondent, were issued
on ?e'ruar, (-, 1**8.
4
On &otion of Ernesto Pe Benito, /d&inistrator of t"e Aod#es Estate, a writ of de&olition was issued
on 7ar%" ., 1**- ', t"e pro'ate %ourt in favor of respondent and a#ainst all adverse o%%upants of Lot
11.
8
On +une 1, 1***, t"is Court re%eived t"e sworn letter2%o&plaint assertin# t"at as %ourt e&plo,ee
respondent %annot 'u, propert, in liti#ation 0%onseCuentl, "e is not a 'u,er in #ood fait"1, %o&&it
de%eption, dis"onest,, oppression and #rave a'use of aut"orit,. Co&plainant spe%ifi%all, alle#ed t"e
followin#5
.. Co&plainant and "is si'lin#s, are possessors and o%%upants of a par%el of land situated at
Br#,. San ;i%ente, +aro, Iloilo Cit,, t"en identified as Lot No. 1(-)2$2211, later %onsolidated
and su'divided and 'e%a&e :nown as Lot 11, t"en re#istered and titled in t"e na&e of C"arles
Newton Aod#es. T"e Sa'idon# fa&il, started o%%up,in# t"is lot in 1*- and paid t"eir &ont"l,
rentals until so&eti&e in 1*8* w"en t"e Estate of Aod#es stopped a%%eptin# rentals. @ @ @
. Upon :nowin# so&eti&e in 1*-8 t"at t"e propert, over w"i%" t"eir "ouse is standin#, was
'ein# offered for sale ', t"e Estate, t"e &ot"er of %o&plainant, TRINI$/$ CL/;ERIO
S/BI$ON3 0now de%eased1, too: interest in 'u,in# said propert,, Lot 11D
!. TRINI$/$ CL/;ERIO S/BI$ON3, was t"en an ordinar, "ouse:eeper and a
laundr,wo&an, w"o never re%eived an, for&al edu%ation, and did not even :now "ow to read
and write. >"en Trinidad Claverio Sa'idon#, to#et"er wit" "er %"ildren and t"e %o&plainant in
t"is %ase, tried to ne#otiate wit" t"e Estate for t"e sale of t"e su'6e%t propert,, t"e, were
infor&ed t"at all papers for transa%tion &ust pass t"rou#" t"e respondent in t"is %ase, Ni%olasito
Solas. T"is is unusual, so t"e, &ade inCuiries and t"e, learned t"at, Ni%olasito Solas was t"en
t"e Cler: of Court 111, Bran%" ., 7uni%ipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo Cit, and presentl,, t"e
Cit, S"eriff of Iloilo Cit,D
4. T"e respondent Ni%olasito Solas, t"en Cler: of Court III, 7TCC, Iloilo Cit,, "as :nowled#e,
', reason of "is position t"at in 1*-. Aod#es Estate was e6e%tin# o%%upants of its land. @ @ @
Ta:in# advanta#e of t"is inside infor&ation t"at t"e land su'6e%t of an e6e%t&ent %ase in t"e
7uni%ipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo Cit,, w"o& respondent is a Cler: of Court III, t"e
respondent surreptitiousl, offered to 'u, t"e said lot in liti#ation. @ @ @
8. Co&plainant nor an, &e&'er of "is fa&il, did not :now t"at as earl, as 1*-, t"e
respondent "ad offered to pur%"ase t"e su'6e%t lot fro& t"e estate @ @ @. /fter re%eivin# t"e
noti%e of denial of "is offer to pur%"ase, dated +anuar, 8, 1*-4, respondent &ade a se%ond offer
to pur%"ase t"e su'6e%t propert, t"e followin# da,, +anuar, -, 1*-4, :nowin# full, well t"at t"e
su'6e%t propert, was 'ein# o%%upied. @ @ @
-. Be%ause of t"is denial, respondent &et wit" t"e fa&il, of t"e %o&plainant and ne#otiated for
t"e sale of t"e propert, and transfer of t"e title in favor of t"e latter. Respondent &ade t"e
%o&plainant and "is fa&il, 'elieved t"at "e is t"e representative of t"e estate and t"at "e needed
a downpa,&ent ri#"t awa,. /ll t"e w"ile, t"e Sa'idon# fa&il, 0w"o were %arpenters,
laundr,wo&en, a 6anitor, persons w"o 'elon# to t"e underprivile#ed1 relied on t"e
representations of t"e respondent t"at "e was aut"oriGed to fa%ilitate t"e sale, wit" &ore reason
t"at respondent represented "i&self as t"e Cit, S"eriffD
*. T"at 'etween 1**(21**., a sister of t"e %o&plainant w"o was fortunate to "ave wor:ed
a'road, sent t"e a&ount of Ten T"ousand 0P1),))).))1 Pesos to %o&plainantIs &ot"er, to 'e
#iven to respondent Ni%olasito Solas. @ @ @ /fter re%eivin# t"e &one,, respondent assured t"e
Sa'idon# fa&il, t"at t"e, will not 'e e6e%ted fro& t"e lot, "e 'ein# t"e Cit, S"eriff will ta:e
%are of ever,t"in#, and ta:in# advanta#e of t"e illitera%, of Trinidad Claverio Sa'idon#, "e did
not issue an, re%eiptD
1). True enou#", t"e, were not e6e%ted instead it too: t"e respondent so&e ti&e to see t"e&
a#ain and de&anded additional pa,&ent. In t"e &eanw"ile, t"e %o&plainant waited for t"e
papers of t"e supposed sale and transfer of title, w"i%" respondent "ad pro&ised after re%eivin#
t"e downpa,&ent of P1),))).))D
11. T"at so&eti&e a#ain in 1**!, respondent a#ain re%eived fro& t"e &ot"er of %o&plainant t"e
a&ount of Two T"ousand 0P(,))).))1 Pesos, alle#edl, for t"e e@penses of t"e do%u&entation of
sale and transfer of title, and a#ain respondent pro&ised t"at t"e Sa'idon# fa&il, will not 'e
e6e%tedD
1(. To t"e pre6udi%e and surprise of t"e %o&plainant and "is fa&il,, respondent was a'le to
se%ure an order for t"e approval of "is offer to pur%"ase @ @ @ in Spe%ial Pro%eedin#s No. 148( @
@ @D
1.. >orse, respondent &oved for t"e issuan%e of a >rit of Possession in "is favor, w"i%" t"e
pro'ate %ourt a%ted favora'l, @ @ @. / writ of possession was issued on +une (8, 1*-* @ @ @D
1. @ @ @ respondent too: advanta#e of t"e trust and %onfiden%e w"i%" t"e Sa'idon# fa&il, "as
s"own, %onsiderin# t"at respondent was an offi%er of t"e %ourt and a Cit, S"eriff at t"at. T"e
%o&plainant and "is fa&il, t"ou#"t t"at respondent, 'ein# a Cit, S"eriff, %ould "elp t"e& in t"e
transfer of t"e title in t"eir favor. Never "ad t"e, ever i&a#ined t"at w"ile respondent "ad 'een
re%eivin# fro& t"e& "ard2earned &onies purportedl, for t"e sale of t"e su'6e%t propert,,
respondent was also e@er%isin# a%ts of owners"ip adverse to t"e interest of t"e %o&plainant and
"is fa&il,D
1!. Bein# an offi%er of t"e %ourt and supposed to 'e an e&'odi&ent of fairness and 6usti%e,
respondent a%ted wit" &ali%e, wit" #rave a'use of %onfiden%e and de%eit w"en "e represented
t"at "e %an fa%ilitate t"e sale and titlin# of t"e su'6e%t propert, in favor of t"e %o&plainant and
"is fa&il,D
14. T"at w"en several t"ousands of pesos were #iven to t"e respondent as pa,&ent for t"e sa&e
and in%idental e@penses relative t"ereto, "e was a'le to %ause t"e transfer of t"e title in "is favor.
@ @ @D
18. /fter t"e deat" of Trinidad Claverio Sa'idon# @ @ @ t"e respondent re%eived fro& t"e
%o&plainant t"e a&ount of ?ive T"ousand 0P!,))).))1 Pesos @ @ @ >"en a re%eipt was
de&anded, respondent refused to issue one, and instead pro&ised and assured t"e %o&plainant
t"at t"e, will not 'e e6e%tedD
@ @ @ @
1*. T"e %o&plainant a#ain, t"rou#" "is sister2in2law, So%orro Sa'idon#, delivered and #ave to
t"e respondent t"e a&ount of T"ree T"ousand 0P.,))).))1 Pesos as e@penses for t"e su'division
of t"e su'6e%t lot. T"e respondent fa%ilitated t"e su'division and after t"e sa&e was approved,
t"e %o&plainant did not :now t"at two 0(1 titles were issued in t"e na&e of t"e respondent. @ @
@D
(). 7eanw"ile, respondent prepared a Contra%t to Sell, for t"e %o&plainant and "is nei#"'or
Nor'erto Sapla#io to affi@ t"eir si#natures, pursuant to t"eir previous a#ree&ent for t"e 'u,ers
to avail of a "ousin# loan wit" t"e Ao&e $evelop&ent 7utual ?und 0P/32IBI31. Co&plainant
attended t"e se&inar of t"e A$7? for seven 081 ti&es, in "is desire to %onsu&&ate t"e sale.
Aowever, w"en t"e %o&plainant affi@ed "is si#nature in t"e %ontra%t, "e was surprised t"at t"e
owner of t"e su'6e%t propert, was t"e respondent. >"en %o&plainant raised a Cuestion a'out
t"is, respondent assured %o&plainant t"at ever,t"in# was alri#"t and t"at sooner %o&plainant
will 'e t"e owner of t"e propert,. Co&plainant and "is fa&il,, all t"ese ,ears, "ad 'elieved and
%ontinued to 'elieve t"at t"e owner was t"e estate of Aod#es and t"at respondent was onl, t"e
representative of t"e estateD
(1. T"e Contra%t to Sell, appeared to "ave 'een notariGed on +une ., 1**4, "owever, no %op,
t"ereof was #iven to t"e %o&plainant ', t"e respondent. Respondent t"en, too: t"e papers and
do%u&ents reCuired ', t"e A$7? to 'e %o&pleted, fro& t"e %o&plainant alle#edl, for t"e
purpose of personall, filin# t"e sa&e wit" t"e A$7?. Co&plainant freel, and voluntaril,
delivered all pertinent do%u&ents to t"e respondent, t"in:in# t"at respondent was "elpin# in t"e
fast and eas, release of t"e loan. >"ile t"e said do%u&ents were in t"e possession of t"e
respondent, "e never &ade an, transa%tion wit" t"e A$7?, worse, w"en %o&plainant tried to
se%ure a %op, of t"e Contra%t to Sell, t"e %op, #iven was not si#ned ', t"e Notar, Pu'li%, @ @ @D
((. T"e %o&plainant EwasF s"o%:ed to learn t"at respondent "ad %an%eled t"e sale and t"at
respondent refused to return t"e do%u&ents reCuired ', t"e A$7?. Respondent %lai&ed t"at as
S"eriff, "e %an %ause t"e de&olition of t"e "ouse of t"e %o&plainant and of "is fa&il,.
Respondent t"reatened t"e %o&plainant and "e is %apa'le of pursuin# a de&olition order and
serve t"e sa&e wit" t"e assistan%e of t"e &ilitar,. @ @ @D
(.. /fter learnin# of t"e de&olition order, %o&plainant atte&pted to settle t"e &atter wit" t"e
respondent, "owever, t"e sa&e proved futile as respondent 'oasted t"at t"e propert, would now
%ost at ?our T"ousand ?ive Aundred 0P,!)).))1 PesosD
(. T"e t"reats of de&olition is i&&inent. Clearl,, %o&plainant and "is fa&il, were duped ',
t"e respondent and are "elpless vi%ti&s of an offi%er of t"e %ourt w"o too: advanta#e of t"eir
#ood fait" and trust. Co&plainant later was infor&ed t"at t"e su'6e%t propert, was awarded to
t"e respondent as "is S"eriffIs ?ees, %onsiderin# t"at respondent e@e%uted t"e de%isions in
e6e%t&ent %ases filed ', t"e Aod#es estate a#ainst t"e adverse o%%upants of its vast propertiesD
(!. / %ivil %ase for t"e /nnul&ent of Title of t"e respondent over t"e su'6e%t propert, is
pendin# 'efore t"e Re#ional Trial Court of Iloilo, Bran%" .8 and a %ri&inal %o&plaint for Estafa
is also pendin# preli&inar, investi#ation 'efore t"e Offi%e of t"e Cit, Prose%utor of Iloilo Cit,,
:nown as I.S. No. 1!!*2**, 'ot" filed E',F t"e %o&plainant a#ainst t"e respondent.
-
/%tin# on t"e %o&plaint, Court /d&inistrator /lfredo L. Benipa,o issued a 1st Indorse&ent
*
dated
+ul, -, 1***, reCuirin# respondent to file "is %o&&ent on t"e Co&plaint dated 7a, (*, 1***. On
O%to'er (1, 1***, respondent su'&itted "is Co&&ent.
1)
In a Resolution
11
dated +ul, 1*, 1***, Pu'li% Prose%utor Constantino C. Tu'ille6a dis&issed t"e Estafa
%"ar#e a#ainst respondent for insuffi%ien%, of eviden%e.
On Nove&'er (*, ())), Court /d&inistrator Benipa,o issued an Evaluation and Re%o&&endation
1(
findin# respondent #uilt, of violatin# /rti%le 1*1
1.
of t"e Civil Code. Said rule pro"i'its t"e pur%"ase
', %ertain %ourt offi%ers of propert, and ri#"ts in liti#ation wit"in t"eir 6urisdi%tion. Court
/d&inistrator Benipa,o re%o&&ended t"at5
1. t"is ad&inistrative %o&plaint 'e treated as an ad&inistrative &atterD
(. respondent Ni%olasito S. Solas, Cler: of Court I;, OCC, 7TCC, Iloilo Cit, 'e SUSPEN$E$
for si@ 041 &ont"s, wit" warnin# t"at a repetition of t"e sa&e offense in t"e future will 'e dealt
wit" &ore severel,D
.. inas&u%" as t"ere are fa%tual issues re#ardin# t"e deliver, of su'stantial a&ounts w"i%"
%o&plainant alle#ed and w"i%" defendant denied, t"is issue s"ould 'e investi#ated and t"e
E@e%utive +ud#e of t"e Re#ional Trial Court of Iloilo Cit, s"ould 'e desi#nated to "ear t"e
eviden%e and to &a:e a report and re%o&&endation wit"in si@t, 04)1 da,s fro& re%eipt.
1
In a Resolution
1!
dated +anuar, ((, ())1, t"is Court adopted t"e re%o&&endation of t"e Court
/d&inistrator to treat t"e present ad&inistrative a%tion as a re#ular ad&inistrative &atter and to
desi#nate t"e E@e%utive +ud#e of t"e RTC of Iloilo Cit, to "ear t"e eviden%e of t"e parties.
T"e Court, "owever, noted wit"out a%tion t"e Court /d&inistratorIs re%o&&endation to suspend
respondent for si@ &ont"s.
On 7ar%" 1., ())1, /%tin# Court /d&inistrator Senaida N. ElepaKo forwarded t"e re%ords of t"is %ase
to E@e%utive +ud#e Tito 3. 3ustilo of t"e Iloilo Cit, RTC.
14
In a Resolution
18
dated +ul, 1-, ())1, t"e
Court referred t"is %ase to t"e E@e%utive +ud#e of t"e RTC of Iloilo Cit, for investi#ation, report and
re%o&&endation wit"in 4) da,s fro& noti%e. B, Order
1-
dated /u#ust .), ())1, E@e%utive +ud#e
3ustilo set t"e %ase for re%eption of eviden%e.
On 7ar%" 1*, ()), t"e RTC of Iloilo, Bran%" .8, dis&issed t"e %ase for annul&ent of title, da&a#es
and in6un%tion a#ainst respondent for la%: of &erit.
1*
In a Resolution
()
dated +une 1!, ())!, t"e Court resolved to reassi#n t"e instant ad&inistrative %ase to
E@e%utive +ud#e Rene S. Aortillo for investi#ation, report and re%o&&endation wit"in 4) da,s fro&
noti%e. In a Letter
(1
dated Septe&'er 1!, ())!, E@e%utive +ud#e Aortillo infor&ed t"e Court t"at per
t"e re%ords, t"e parties "ave presented t"eir testi&onial and do%u&entar, eviden%e 'efore retired
E@e%utive +ud#e Tito 3. 3ustilo.
On Septe&'er 1(, ())!, E@e%utive +ud#e Aortillo reCuired t"e parties to file t"eir respe%tive
&e&oranda wit"in 4) da,s fro& noti%e, upon su'&ission of w"i%" t"e %ase s"all 'e dee&ed su'&itted
for resolution.
((
In "is 7e&orandu&,
(.
respondent &aintained t"at "is pur%"ase of t"e su'6e%t land is not %overed ',
t"e pro"i'ition in para#rap" !, /rti%le 1*1 of t"e Civil Code. Ae pointed out t"at "e 'ou#"t Lot 112/ a
de%ade after t"e 7TCC of Iloilo, Bran%" ., "ad ordered t"e e6e%t&ent of Pris%ila Sapla#io and Trinidad
Sa'idon# fro& t"e su'6e%t lot. Ae insisted t"at pu'li% trust was o'served w"en %o&plainant was
a%%orded "is ri#"t of first refusal in t"e pur%"ase of Lot 112/, al'eit t"e latter failed to avail said ri#"t.
/ssertin# t"at "e is a 'u,er in #ood fait" and for value, respondent %ited t"e dis&issal of t"e %ases for
Estafa and annul&ent of title and da&a#es w"i%" %o&plainant filed a#ainst "i&.
On Septe&'er 1), ())8, respondent %o&pulsoril, retired fro& servi%e. Prior to t"is, "e wrote t"en
Senior $eput, Court /d&inistrator Senaida N. ElepaKo, reCuestin# for t"e release of "is retire&ent
'enefits pendin# resolution of t"e ad&inistrative %ases a#ainst "i&.
(
In a 7e&orandu&
(!
dated
Septe&'er (, ())8, Senior $eput, Court /d&inistrator ElepaKo &ade t"e followin#
re%o&&endations5
a1 T"e reCuest of Ni%olasito S. Solas, for&er Cler: of Court, 7TCC, Iloilo Cit, for partial
release of "is retire&ent 'enefits 'e 3R/NTE$D and
'1 /tt,. Lilian Barri'al Co, C"ief, ?inan%ial 7ana#e&ent Offi%e, Offi%e of t"e Court
/d&inistrator 'e $IRECTE$ to 011 >ITAAOL$ t"e a&ount of Two Aundred T"ousand Pesos
0P()),))).))1 fro& t"e retire&ent 'enefits of Ni%olasito S. Solas to answer for an,
ad&inistrative lia'ilit, t"at t"e Court &a, find a#ainst "i& in /.7. No. P2)121- 0?or&erl,
/d&inistrative 7atter OC/ IPI No. **2442P1D OC/ IPI No. **24!*2PD OC/ IPI No. **248)2PD
and OC/ IPI No. **28!.2PD and 0(1 RELE/SE t"e 'alan%e of "is retire&ent 'enefits.
(4
Eventuall,, t"e %ase was assi#ned to +ud#e Ro#er B. Patri%io, t"e new E@e%utive +ud#e of t"e Iloilo
Cit, RTC for investi#ation, report and re%o&&endation.
On +une (, ())-, +ud#e Patri%io su'&itted "is final Report and Re%o&&endation
(8
findin# respondent
lia'le for #rave &is%ondu%t and dis"onest, under /.7. No. ).2)421.2SC or t"e Code of Condu%t for
Court Personnel. Based on t"e eviden%e presented, +ud#e Patri%io %on%luded t"at respondent
&isappropriated t"e &one, w"i%" "e re%eived for t"e filin# of %o&plainantIs loan appli%ation. Su%"
&one, %ould not "ave 'een used for t"e partition of Lot No. 1(-)2$2211 sin%e t"e sa&e was alread,
su'divided into Lots 112/ and 112B w"en respondent presented t"e Contra%t to Sell to %o&plainant.
/nd despite respondentIs pro&ise to :eep %o&plainant and "is fa&il, in pea%eful possession of t"e
su'6e%t propert,, respondent %aused t"e issuan%e of a writ of de&olition a#ainst t"e&. T"us, +ud#e
Patri%io re%o&&ended t"e forfeiture of respondentIs salar, for si@ &ont"s to 'e dedu%ted fro& "is
retire&ent 'enefits.
In a Resolution
(-
dated Septe&'er (*, ())-, t"e Court noted +ud#e Patri%ioIs Investi#ation Report and
referred t"e sa&e to t"e Offi%e of t"e Court /d&inistrator 0OC/1 for evaluation, report and
re%o&&endation.
?indin#s and Re%o&&endation of t"e OC/
In a 7e&orandu&
(*
dated +anuar, 14, ())*, t"en Court /d&inistrator +ose P. PereG found respondent
lia'le for serious and #rave &is%ondu%t and dis"onest, and re%o&&ended t"e forfeiture of respondentIs
salar, for si@ &ont"s, w"i%" s"all 'e dedu%ted fro& "is retire&ent 'enefits.
T"e Court /d&inistrator "eld t"at ', "is unilateral a%ts of e@tin#uis"in# t"e %ontra%t to sell and
forfeitin# t"e a&ounts "e re%eived fro& %o&plainant and Sapla#io wit"out due noti%e, respondent
failed to a%t wit" 6usti%e and eCuit,. Ae found respondentIs denial to 'e an%"ored &erel, on t"e fa%t
t"at "e "ad not issued re%eipts w"i%" was 'elied ', "is ad&ission t"at "e "ad as:ed &one, for t"e
e@penses of partitionin# Lot 11 fro& %o&plainant and Sapla#io. Sin%e t"eir P/32IBI3 loan
appli%ations did not &aterialiGe, %o&plainant s"ould "ave returned t"e a&ounts #iven to "i& ',
%o&plainant and Sapla#io.
On ?e'ruar, 11, ())*, t"e Court issued a Resolution
.)
reCuirin# t"e parties to &anifest w"et"er t"e,
are willin# to su'&it t"e %ase for de%ision on t"e 'asis of t"e pleadin#s and re%ords alread, filed wit"
t"e Court. Aowever, t"e %op, of t"e Resolution dated ?e'ruar, 11, ())* w"i%" was sent to %o&plainant
was returned unserved wit" t"e postal %arrierIs notation <RTS2$e%eased.< 7eanw"ile, in a
Co&plian%e
.1
dated /u#ust (, ())*, respondent e@pressed "is willin#ness to su'&it t"e %ase for
de%ision and pra,ed for an earl, resolution of t"e %ase.
Our Rulin#
/rti%le 1*1, para#rap" ! of t"e Civil Code pro"i'its %ourt offi%ers su%" as %ler:s of %ourt fro&
a%Cuirin# propert, involved in liti#ation wit"in t"e 6urisdi%tion or territor, of t"eir %ourts. Said
provision reads5
/rti%le 1*1. T"e followin# persons %annot a%Cuire ', pur%"ase, even at a pu'li% or 6udi%ial au%tion,
eit"er in person or t"rou#" t"e &ediation of anot"er5
@ @ @ @
0!1 +usti%es, 6ud#es, prose%utin# attorne,s, %ler:s of superior and inferior %ourts, and ot"er offi%ers and
e&plo,ees %onne%ted wit" t"e ad&inistration of 6usti%e, t"e propert, and ri#"ts in liti#ation or levied
upon an e@e%ution 'efore t"e %ourt wit"in w"ose 6urisdi%tion or territor, t"e, e@er%ise t"eir respe%tive
fun%tionsD t"is pro"i'ition in%ludes t"e a%t of a%Cuirin# ', assi#n&ent and s"all appl, to law,ers, wit"
respe%t to t"e propert, and ri#"ts w"i%" &a, 'e t"e o'6e%t of an, liti#ation in w"i%" t"e, &a, ta:e part
', virtue of t"eir profession.
@ @ @ @ 0E&p"asis supplied.1
T"e rationale advan%ed for t"e pro"i'ition is t"at pu'li% poli%, disallows t"e transa%tions in view of t"e
fidu%iar, relations"ip involved, i.e., t"e relation of trust and %onfiden%e and t"e pe%uliar %ontrol
e@er%ised ', t"ese persons.
.(
<In so providin#, t"e Code tends to prevent fraud, or &ore pre%isel,,
tends not to #ive o%%asion for fraud, w"i%" is w"at %an and &ust 'e done.<
..
?or t"e pro"i'ition to appl,, t"e sale or assi#n&ent of t"e propert, &ust ta:e pla%e durin# t"e penden%,
of t"e liti#ation involvin# t"e propert,.
.
>"ere t"e propert, is a%Cuired after t"e ter&ination of t"e
%ase, no violation of para#rap" !, /rti%le 1*1 of t"e Civil Code atta%"es.
.!
In t"e %ase at 'ar, w"en respondent pur%"ased Lot 112/ on Nove&'er (1, 1**, t"e $e%ision in Civil
Case No. 18)4 w"i%" was pro&ul#ated on 7a, .1, 1*-. "ad lon# 'e%o&e final. Be t"at as it &a,, it
%an not 'e said t"at t"e propert, is no lon#er <in liti#ation< at t"at ti&e %onsiderin# t"at it was part of
t"e Aod#es Estate t"en under settle&ent pro%eedin#s 0Sp. Pro%. No. 148(1.
/ t"in# is said to 'e in liti#ation not onl, if t"ere is so&e %ontest or liti#ation over it in %ourt, 'ut also
fro& t"e &o&ent t"at it 'e%o&es su'6e%t to t"e 6udi%ial a%tion of t"e 6ud#e.
.4
/ propert, for&in# part
of t"e estate under 6udi%ial settle&ent %ontinues to 'e su'6e%t of liti#ation until t"e pro'ate %ourt issues
an order de%larin# t"e estate pro%eedin#s %losed and ter&inated. T"e rule is t"at as lon# as t"e order for
t"e distri'ution of t"e estate "as not 'een %o&plied wit", t"e pro'ate pro%eedin#s %annot 'e dee&ed
%losed and ter&inated.
.8
T"e pro'ate %ourt loses 6urisdi%tion of an estate under ad&inistration onl,
after t"e pa,&ent of all t"e de'ts and t"e re&ainin# estate delivered to t"e "eirs entitled to re%eive t"e
sa&e.
.-
Sin%e t"ere is no eviden%e to s"ow t"at Sp. Pro%. No. 148( in t"e RTC of Iloilo, Bran%" (8, "ad
alread, 'een %losed and ter&inated at t"e ti&e of t"e e@e%ution of t"e $eed of Sale >it" 7ort#a#e
dated Nove&'er (1, 1**, Lot 11 is still dee&ed to 'e <in liti#ation< su'6e%t to t"e operation of /rti%le
1*1 0!1 of t"e Civil Code.
T"is notwit"standin#, we "old t"at t"e sale of Lot 11 in favor of respondent did not violate t"e rule on
disCualifi%ation to pur%"ase propert, 'e%ause Sp. Pro%. No. 148( was t"en pendin# 'efore anot"er
%ourt 0RTC1 and not 7TCC w"ere "e was Cler: of Court.
On t"e %"ar#es a#ainst t"e respondent, we find "i& lia'le for dis"onest, and #rave &is%ondu%t.
7is%ondu%t is a trans#ression of so&e esta'lis"ed and definite rule of a%tion, &ore parti%ularl,,
unlawful 'e"avior as well as #ross ne#li#en%e ', a pu'li% offi%er. To warrant dis&issal fro& servi%e,
t"e &is%ondu%t &ust 'e #rave, serious, i&portant, wei#"t,, &o&entous and not triflin#. T"e
&is%ondu%t &ust i&pl, wron#ful intention and not a &ere error of 6ud#&ent. T"e &is%ondu%t &ust also
"ave a dire%t relation to and 'e %onne%ted wit" t"e perfor&an%e of t"e pu'li% offi%erIs offi%ial duties
a&ountin# eit"er to &alad&inistration or willful, intentional ne#le%t, or failure to dis%"ar#e t"e duties
of t"e offi%e.
.*
$is"onest, is t"e <disposition to lie, %"eat, de%eive, defraud or 'etra,D untrustwort"inessD la%: of
inte#rit,D la%: of "onest,, pro'it,, or inte#rit, in prin%ipleD and la%: of fairness and
strai#"tforwardness.<
)
In t"is %ase, respondent de%eived %o&plainantIs fa&il, w"o were led to 'elieve t"at "e is t"e le#al
representative of t"e Aod#es Estate, or at least possessed of su%" power to inter%ede for oversta,in#
o%%upants of t"e estateIs properties li:e %o&plainant. Boastin# of "is position as a %ourt offi%er, a Cit,
S"eriff at t"at, %o&plainantIs fa&il, %o&pletel, relied on "is repeated assuran%e t"at t"e, will not 'e
e6e%ted fro& t"e pre&ises. Upon learnin# t"at t"e lot t"e, were o%%up,in# was for sale and t"at t"e,
"ad to ne#otiate for it t"rou#" respondent, %o&plainantIs fa&il, readil, #ave t"e a&ounts "e de&anded
and, alon# wit" Sapla#io, %o&plied wit" t"e reCuire&ents for a loan appli%ation wit" P/32IBI3. /ll
t"e w"ile and un:nown to %o&plainantIs fa&il,, respondent was a%tuall, wor:in# to a%Cuire Lot 11 for
"i&self.
T"us, w"ile respondent was ne#otiatin# wit" t"e Aod#es Estate for t"e sale of t"e propert, to "i&, "e
%olle%ted as down pa,&ent P!,))) fro& %o&plainantIs fa&il, in +ul, 1*-4. ?our &ont"s later, on
Nove&'er 1-, 1*-4, t"e pro'ate %ourt approved respondentIs offer to pur%"ase Lot 11. T"e latter
re%eived furt"er down pa,&ent fro& %o&plainant in t"e a&ount of P1),))) 'etween 1**( and 1**., or
'efore t"e $eed of Sale wit" 7ort#a#e
1
dated Nove&'er (1, 1** %ould 'e e@e%uted in respondentIs
favor.
T"ereafter, respondent de&anded P.,))) fro& %o&plainant supposedl, for t"e su'division of Lot 11
'etween t"e latter and t"e Sapla#ios. Net, it was not until respondent o'tained title over said lot t"at t"e
sa&e was su'divided into Lots 112/ and 112B. T"e re%ords
(
of t"e %ase s"ow t"at t"e Su'division
Plan dated /pril (!, 1**4, dul, approved ', t"e Land 7ana#e&ent Servi%es 0$ENR1 su'dividin# Lot
11 into su'lots 112/ and 112B, was ins%ri'ed on ?e'ruar, (-, 1**8 M two ,ears after TCT No. T2
1)8!1* %overin# Lot 11 was issued in respondentIs na&e on $e%e&'er !, 1**.
?inall,, in 1**!, respondent re%eived t"e a&ount of P(,))) to defra, t"e e@penses for do%u&entation
and transfer of title in %o&plainantIs na&e. In t"e latter instan%e, w"ile it &a, 'e ar#ued t"at
respondent alread, "ad t"e %apa%it, to sell t"e su'6e%t propert,, t"e su& of all t"e %ir%u&stan%es 'elie
an "onest intention on "is part to %onve, Lot 112/ to %o&plainant. >e note t"e ins%ription in TCT No.
T211-.4
.
in t"e na&e of C.N. Aod#es t"at respondent e@e%uted a ReCuest dated ?e'ruar, 1*, 1**8
<for t"e issuan%e of separate titles in t"e na&e of t"e re#istered owner.<

Soon after, TCT No. T2

11448
!
%overin# Lot 112/ and TCT No. T21144-
4
%overin# Lot 112B were issued in t"e na&e of
respondent on ?e'ruar, (-, 1**8 M onl, ei#"t &ont"s after "e e@e%uted t"e Contra%t to Sell
8
in favor
of %o&plainant on +une ., 1**4.
RespondentIs 'are denials were %orre%tl, disre#arded ', t"e Court /d&inistrator in t"e li#"t of "is own
ad&ission t"at "e indeed as:ed &one, fro& 'ot" %o&plainant and Sapla#io. T"e eviden%e on re%ord
%learl, esta'lis"ed t"at ', &isrepresentin# "i&self as t"e estateIs representative and as a %ourt offi%er
"avin# t"e power to prote%t %o&plainantIs fa&il, fro& evi%tion, respondent was a'le to %olle%t su&s
totalin# P(),))) fro& %o&plainantIs fa&il,. Even after t"e latter realiGed t"e, were duped sin%e
respondent was alread, t"e owner of Lot 11, t"e, still offered to 'u, t"e propert, fro& "i&.
Respondent, "owever, %"an#ed "is &ind and no lon#er wanted to sell t"e propert, after not"in#
"appened to t"e loan appli%ations of %o&plainant and Sapla#io. T"is su'seCuent unilateral %an%ellation
', respondent of t"e %ontra%t to sell wit" %o&plainant &a, "ave 'een an aftert"ou#"t, and plainl,
un6ustified, 'ased &erel, on "is own assu&ption t"at %o&plainant %ould not &a:e full pa,&ent. But it
did not ne#ate t"e de%eption and fraudulent a%ts perpetrated a#ainst %o&plainantIs fa&il, w"o were
for%ed into su'&ission ', t"e %onstant t"reat of evi%tion. Su%" a%ts %onstitute #rave &is%ondu%t for
w"i%" respondent s"ould 'e "eld answera'le.
In Re5 Co&plaint ?iled ', PaG $e ;era LaGaro /#ainst Edna 7a#allanes, Court Steno#rap"er III, RTC
Br. (- and Bonifa%io 3. 7a#allanes, Pro%ess Server, RTC Br. .), Ba,o&'on#, Nueva ;iG%a,a,
-
t"e
Court stressed t"at to preserve de%en%, wit"in t"e 6udi%iar,, %ourt personnel &ust %o&pl, wit" 6ust
%ontra%tual o'li#ations, a%t fairl, and ad"ere to "i#" et"i%al standards. In t"at %ase, we said t"at %ourt
e&plo,ees are e@pe%ted to 'e para#ons of upri#"tness, fairness and "onest, not onl, in t"eir offi%ial
%ondu%t 'ut also in t"eir personal dealin#s, in%ludin# 'usiness and %o&&er%ial transa%tions to avoid
'e%o&in# t"e %ourtIs al'atross of infa&,.
*
7ore i&portantl,, Se%tion 0%1 of Repu'li% /%t No. 481.
!)
or t"e Code of Condu%t and Et"i%al
Standards for Pu'li% Offi%ials and E&plo,ees &andates t"at pu'li% offi%ials and e&plo,ees s"all
re&ain true to t"e people at all ti&es. T"e, &ust a%t wit" 6ustness and sin%erit, and s"all not
dis%ri&inate a#ainst an,one, espe%iall, t"e poor and t"e underprivile#ed./0!&hi/ T"e, s"all at all
ti&es respe%t t"e ri#"ts of ot"ers, and s"all refrain fro& doin# a%ts %ontrar, to law, #ood &orals, #ood
%usto&s, pu'li% poli%,, pu'li% order, pu'li% safet, and pu'li% interest.
Under Se%tion !(,
!1
Rule I; of t"e Unifor& Rules on /d&inistrative Cases in t"e Civil Servi%e,
dis"onest, and #rave &is%ondu%t are %lassified as #rave offenses wit" t"e %orrespondin# penalt, of
dis&issal for t"e first offense. Se%tion !-0a1 states t"at t"e penalt, of dis&issal s"all %arr, wit" it t"e
%an%ellation of eli#i'ilit,, forfeiture of retire&ent 'enefits, and t"e perpetual disCualifi%ation for
ree&plo,&ent in t"e #overn&ent servi%e.
Se%tion !. furt"er provides t"at &iti#atin# %ir%u&stan%es attendant to t"e %o&&ission of t"e offense
s"ould 'e %onsidered in t"e deter&ination of t"e penalt, to 'e i&posed on t"e errin# #overn&ent
e&plo,ee. Aowever, no su%" &iti#atin# %ir%u&stan%e "ad 'een s"own. On t"e %ontrar,, respondent "ad
'een previousl, "eld ad&inistrativel, lia'le for irre#ularities in t"e perfor&an%e of "is duties as Cler:
of Court. In /.7. No. P2)121-,
!(
t"is Court i&posed on respondent a fine of P!,))) for a%tin#
i&prudentl, in notariGin# do%u&ents and ad&inisterin# oat" on &atters alien to "is offi%ial duties. /nd
in /.7. Nos. P2)-2(!48 0for&erl, OC/ IPI No. **248)2P1 and P2)-2(!4- 0for&erl, OC/ IPI No. **2
8!.2P1,
!.
respondent was found lia'le for si&ple &is%ondu%t and ordered to pa, a fine eCuivalent to "is
t"ree 0.1 &ont"s salar, to 'e dedu%ted fro& "is retire&ent 'enefits.
Sin%e respondent "ad %o&pulsoril, retired fro& servi%e on Septe&'er 1), ())8, for t"is additional
ad&inistrative %ase "e s"ould 'e fined in an a&ount eCuivalent to "is salar, for si@ &ont"s w"i%" s"all
li:ewise 'e dedu%ted fro& "is retire&ent 'enefits.
>AERE?ORE, t"e Court finds respondent Ni%olasito S. Solas, retired Cler: of Court I;, 7uni%ipal
Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo Cit,, LI/BLE ?OR 3R/;E 7ISCON$UCT /N$ $ISAONESTN.
Respondent is ?INE$ in an a&ount eCuivalent to "is salar, for si@ 041 &ont"s to 'e dedu%ted fro& "is
retire&ent 'enefits.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1>2?;> J,"e D0, 2009
PREC2 /UN2I &"* MI1A /UN2I, Petitioners,
vs.
3E S. 3ACTOR, Respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
LUISUM/ING, J.:
?or review on %ertiorari are t"e $e%ision
1
dated +anuar, 14, ())4 and Resolution
(
dated /pril (4, ())4
of t"e Court of /ppeals in C/23.R. SP No. *).*8, w"i%" "ad affir&ed t"e $e%ision
.
dated 7ar%" 8,
())! of t"e Re#ional Trial Court 0RTC1 of Las PiKas Cit,, Bran%" 1*- in Civil Case No. LP2)2)14).
T"e ante%edent fa%ts are as follows5
Respondent ?e S. ?a%tor is one of t"e %o2owners of an 1-2"e%tare pie%e of land lo%ated in /l&anGa, Las
PiKas Cit,. T"e owners"ip of t"e land ori#inated fro& respondentIs paternal #randparents Constantino
?a%tor and 7aura 7a,u#a2?a%tor w"o "ad 'een in a%tual, %ontinuous, pea%eful, pu'li%, adverse and
e@%lusive possession and o%%upation of t"e land even 'efore 1*)4.

On $e%e&'er *, 1*8!, t"e %"ildren of Constantino ?a%tor and 7aura 7a,u#a2?a%tor filed a Petition
for Ori#inal Re#istration and Confir&ation of I&perfe%t Title to t"e said par%el of land, or Lots 1, (, .
and of Psu2(!.!48, 'efore t"e RTC of Pasi# Cit,, Bran%" 81.
!
On $e%e&'er -, 1**, t"e trial %ourt
#ranted t"e petition in LRC Case No. N2*)* and de%lared t"e %"ildren of Constantino ?a%tor and
7aura 7a,u#a2?a%tor as %o2owners of t"e propert,.
4
T"e %"ildren of Constantino ?a%tor and 7aura
7a,u#a2?a%tor t"ereafter sold seven 081 "e%tares of t"e ?a%tor fa&il, propert, durin# t"e sa&e ,ear.
T"e si'lin#s, e@%ept EnriCue ?a%tor, respondentIs fat"er, s"ared and divided t"e pro%eeds of t"e sale
a&on# t"e&selves, wit" t"e a#ree&ent t"at EnriCue would "ave as "is s"are t"e portion of t"e propert,
lo%ated in /ntio%" Street, Pilar E@e%utive ;illa#e, /l&anGa I, Las PiKas Cit,, :nown as t"e ?a%tor
%o&pound.
?ollowin# "is a%Cuisition t"ereof, EnriCue %aused t"e %onstru%tion of several "ouses in t"e %o&pound
in%ludin# t"e su'6e%t propert,, a rest "ouse, w"ere &e&'ers of t"e ?a%tor fa&il, sta,ed durin# #et2
to#et"ers and visits.
8
Petitioners Pre%, Bun,i and "er &ot"er, 7ila Bun,i, were tenants in one of t"e
"ouses inside t"e %o&pound, parti%ularl, in No. - /ntio%" St., Pilar ;illa#e, /l&anGa, Las PiKas Cit,
sin%e 1***.
-
>"en EnriCue ?a%tor died on /u#ust 8, 1**., t"e ad&inistration of t"e ?a%tor %o&pound in%ludin# t"e
su'6e%t rest "ouse and ot"er residential "ouses for lease was transferred and entrusted to EnriCueIs
eldest %"ild, 3loria ?a%tor2La'ao.
3loria ?a%tor2La'ao, to#et"er wit" "er "us'and Ru'en La'ao and t"eir son Re##ie ?. La'ao, lived in
TipaG, Ta#ui#, 7etro 7anila 'ut visited and so&eti&es sta,ed in t"e rest "ouse 'e%ause 3loria
%olle%ted t"e rentals of t"e residential "ouses and oversaw t"e ?a%tor %o&pound. >"en 3loria died on
+anuar, 1!, ())1, t"e ad&inistration and &ana#e&ent of t"e ?a%tor %o&pound in%ludin# t"e su'6e%t
rest "ouse, passed on to respondent ?e S. ?a%tor as %o2owner of t"e propert,. /s an a%t of #oodwill and
%o&passion, %onsiderin# t"at Ru'en La'ao was si%:l, and "ad no &eans of in%o&e, respondent
allowed "i& to sta, at t"e rest "ouse for 'rief, transient and inter&ittent visits as a #uest of t"e ?a%tor
fa&il,.
On 7a, .1, ())(, Ru'en La'ao &arried petitioner Pre%, Bun,i. On Nove&'er 1), ())(, Ru'en La'ao
died.
/t a'out t"is ti&e, respondent dis%overed t"at petitioners for%i'l, opened t"e doors of t"e rest "ouse
and stole all t"e personal properties owned ', t"e ?a%tor fa&il, and t"en auda%iousl, o%%upied t"e
pre&ises. Respondent alle#ed t"at petitioners unlawfull, deprived "er and t"e ?a%tor fa&il, of t"e
su'6e%t propert,Is lawful use and possession. Respondent also added t"at w"en s"e tried to enter t"e
rest "ouse on $e%e&'er 1, ())(, an unidentified person w"o %lai&ed to "ave 'een aut"oriGed ',
petitioners to o%%up, t"e pre&ises, 'arred, t"reatened and %"ased "er wit" a 6un#le 'olo. T"us, on
Septe&'er 1(, ())., respondent ?e S. ?a%tor filed a %o&plaint
*
for for%i'le entr, a#ainst "erein
petitioners Pre%, Bun,i and 7ila Bun,i.
Petitioners, for t"eir part, Cuestioned ?eIs %lai& of owners"ip of t"e su'6e%t propert, and t"e alle#ed
prior owners"ip of "er fat"er EnriCue ?a%tor. T"e, asserted t"at t"e su'6e%t propert, was owned ',
Ru'en La'ao, and t"at petitioner Pre%, wit" "er "us'and &oved into t"e su'6e%t propert,, w"ile
petitioner 7ila Bun,i, &ot"er of Pre%,, re&ained in No. - /ntio%" St.
On +ul, 1., ()), t"e 7etropolitan Trial Court 07eTC1 of Las PiKas Cit,, Bran%" 8* ruled in favor of
?e S. ?a%tor. T"e dispositive portion of t"e de%ision reads5
>AERE?ORE, 6ud#&ent is "ere', rendered in favor of t"e plaintiff and a#ainst t"e defendants
orderin# t"e latter and all persons %lai&in# ri#"ts under t"e& to5
1. To i&&ediatel, va%ate t"e su'6e%t pre&ises and surrender possession t"ereof to t"e plaintiff.
(. To pa, t"e &ont"l, rental of P(,))).)) fro& $e%e&'er 1, ())( up to t"e ti&e t"e, finall,
va%ate t"e pre&ises.
.. To pa, attorne,Is fee of P"p 1),))).)).
T"e %ounter2%lai& is dis&issed for la%: of &erit.
SO OR$ERE$.
1)
Petitioners appealed t"e de%ision to t"e RTC of Las PiKas Cit,, Bran%" 1*-, w"i%", "owever, affir&ed
in toto t"e de%ision of t"e 7eTC and later denied t"eir &otion for re%onsideration.
11
Undaunted,
petitioners filed a petition for review 'efore t"e Court of /ppeals 'ut it was denied also. Aen%e, t"e
instant petition 'efore us.
Petitioners su'&it t"e followin# issues for t"e CourtIs %onsideration5
I.
E>AETAERF TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS SERIOUSLN ERRE$ IN L/>
/N$ +URISPRU$ENCE >AEN IT /??IR7E$ TAE $ECISION O? TAE RE3ION/L
TRI/L COURT TA/T ?ORCE, TARE/T, INTI7I$/TION /N$ STE/LTA A/$ BEEN
CO77ITTE$ BN TAE PETITIONERS IN OCCUPNIN3 TAE SUB+ECT
RESI$ENTI/L AOUSED
II.
E>AETAERF TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS SERIOUSLN ERRE$ >AEN
IT 7IS/PPRECI/TE$ TAE ?/CT TA/T TAE RESPON$ENT A/S / BETTER RI3AT
O? PANSIC/L /N$ 7/TERI/L POSSESSION O? TAE SUB+ECT PROPERTND
III.
E>AETAERF TAE AONOR/BLE COURT O? /PPE/LS SERIOUSLN ERRE$ IN
/??IR7IN3 TAE ?IN$IN3 O? TAE RE3ION/L ETRI/LF COURT AOL$IN3
PETITIONERS LI/BLE TO P/N TAE 7ONTALN RENT/L O? P(,))).)) ?RO7
$ECE7BER 1, ())( UP TO TAE TI7E TAEN ?IN/LLN ;/C/TE PRE7ISES.
1(
T"e resolution of t"e first issue raised ', petitioners reCuires us to inCuire into t"e suffi%ien%, of t"e
eviden%e presented 'elow, a %ourse of a%tion w"i%" t"is Court will not do, %onsistent wit" our repeated
"oldin# t"at t"e Supre&e Court is not a trier of fa%ts.
1.
T"e resolution of fa%tual issues is t"e fun%tion
of lower %ourts, w"ose findin#s on t"ese &atters are re%eived wit" respe%t and %onsidered 'indin# ',
t"e Supre&e Court su'6e%t onl, to %ertain e@%eptions, none of w"i%" is present in t"e instant petition.
1
Notewort",, in t"is %ase, t"e %ited findin#s of t"e RTC "ave 'een affir&ed ', t"e Court of /ppeals.
/s to t"e se%ond issue, t"e resolution t"ereof 'oils down to a deter&ination of w"o, 'etween petitioners
and respondent, would 'e entitled to t"e p",si%al possession of t"e su'6e%t propert,.
Bot" parties an%"or t"eir ri#"t of &aterial possession of t"e disputed propert, on t"eir respe%tive %lai&s
of owners"ip. Petitioners insist t"at petitioner Pre%, "as a 'etter ri#"t of possession over t"e su'6e%t
propert, sin%e s"e in"erited t"e su'6e%t propert, as t"e survivin# spouse and sole "eir of Ru'en La'ao,
w"o owned t"e propert, 'efore "is deat".
Respondent, on t"e ot"er "and, "in#es "er %lai& of possession on t"e fa%t t"at "er prede%essor2in2
interest "ad prior possession of t"e propert, as earl, as 1*8!.
/fter %areful %onsideration, we find in favor of t"e respondent.
In e6e%t&ent %ases, t"e onl, issue for resolution is w"o is entitled to t"e p",si%al or &aterial possession
of t"e propert, involved, independent of an, %lai& of owners"ip set fort" ', an, of t"e part,2liti#ants.
T"e one w"o %an prove prior possession de fa%to &a, re%over su%" possession even fro& t"e owner
"i&self.
1!
Possession de fa%to is t"e p",si%al possession of real propert,. Possession de fa%to and not
possession de 6ure is t"e onl, issue in a for%i'le entr, %ase.
14
T"is rule "olds true re#ardless of t"e
%"ara%ter of a part,Is possession, provided, t"at "e "as in "is favor priorit, of ti&e w"i%" entitles "i&
to sta, on t"e propert, until "e is lawfull, e6e%ted ', a person "avin# a 'etter ri#"t ', eit"er a%%ion
pu'li%iana or a%%ion reivindi%atoria.
18
Petitioners ar#ue t"at respondent was never in possession of t"e su'6e%t propert, sin%e t"e latter never
o%%upied t"e sa&e. T"e, %lai& t"at t"e, "ave 'een in a%tual possession of t"e disputed propert, fro&
t"e ti&e petitioner Pre%, &arried Ru'en La'ao in ())(.
In t"is instan%e, "owever, petitionersI %ontention is un%onvin%in#.
?or one to 'e %onsidered in possession, one need not "ave a%tual or p",si%al o%%upation of ever, sCuare
in%" of t"e propert, at all ti&es.
1-
Possession %an 'e a%Cuired not onl, ', &aterial o%%upation, 'ut also
', t"e fa%t t"at a t"in# is su'6e%t to t"e a%tion of oneIs will or ', t"e proper a%ts and le#al for&alities
esta'lis"ed for a%Cuirin# su%" ri#"t.
1*
Possession %an 'e a%Cuired ', 6uridi%al a%ts. T"ese are a%ts to
w"i%" t"e law #ives t"e for%e of a%ts of possession. E@a&ples of t"ese are donations, su%%ession,
e@e%ution and re#istration of pu'li% instru&ents, and t"e ins%ription of possessor, infor&ation titles.
()
>"ile petitioners %lai& t"at respondent never p",si%all, o%%upied t"e su'6e%t propert,, t"e, failed to
prove t"at t"e, "ad prior possession of t"e su'6e%t propert,. On re%ord, petitioner Pre%, Bun,i ad&itted
t"at 3loria ?a%tor2La'ao and Ru'en La'ao, as spouses, resided in TipaG, Ta#ui#, 7etro 7anila and
used t"e su'6e%t propert, w"enever t"e, visit t"e sa&e.
(1
Li:ewise, as pointed out ', t"e 7eTC and
t"e RTC, Ru'en and petitioner Pre%,Is &arria#e %ertifi%ate revealed t"at at t"e ti&e of t"eir &arria#e,
Ru'en was residin# at 1(. /. La:e St., San +uan, 7etro 7anila. Even Ru'enIs deat" %ertifi%ate s"owed
t"at "is pla%e of deat" and residen%e was at V La'ao St., TipaG, Ta#ui#, 7etro 7anila. Considerin#
t"at "er "us'and was never a resident of t"e su'6e%t propert,, petitioner Pre%, failed to e@plain
%onvin%in#l, "ow s"e was a'le to &ove in wit" Ru'en La'ao in t"e su'6e%t propert, durin# t"eir
&arria#e.
On t"e ot"er "and, it was esta'lis"ed t"at respondentIs #randparents, Constantino ?a%tor and 7aura
7a,u#a2?a%tor, "ad 'een t"e o%%upants and in possession of various a#ri%ultural par%el of lands
situated in /l&anGa, Las PiKas Cit,, in t"e %on%ept of owners, for &ore t"an t"irt, ,ears prior to 1*8!.
In fa%t, t"e RTC in its $e%ision dated $e%e&'er -, 1** in LRC Case No. N2*)* "as %onfir&ed t"e
ri#"ts of respondentIs prede%essors over t"e su'6e%t propert, and ordered t"e issuan%e of t"e
%orrespondin# %ertifi%ate of title in t"eir favor.
((
T"e ri#"t of respondentIs prede%essors over t"e su'6e%t propert, is &ore t"an suffi%ient to up"old
respondentIs ri#"t to possession over t"e sa&e. RespondentIs ri#"t to t"e propert, was vested in "er
alon# wit" "er si'lin#s fro& t"e &o&ent of t"eir fat"erIs deat".
(.
/s "eir, respondent "ad t"e ri#"t to
t"e possession of t"e propert,, w"i%" is one of t"e attri'utes of owners"ip. Su%" ri#"ts are enfor%ed and
prote%ted fro& en%roa%"&ents &ade or atte&pted 'efore t"e 6udi%ial de%laration sin%e respondent
a%Cuired "ereditar, ri#"ts even 'efore 6udi%ial de%laration in testate or intestate pro%eedin#s.
(
/fter t"e deat" of EnriCue ?a%tor, it was "is eldest %"ild, 3loria ?a%tor2La'ao w"o too: over t"e
ad&inistration of t"e su'6e%t propert,. /nd as a %onseCuen%e of %o2owners"ip,
(!
soon after t"e deat" of
3loria, respondent, as one of t"e survivin# %o2owners, &a, 'e su'ro#ated to t"e ri#"ts of t"e de%eased
%o2owner, w"i%" in%ludes t"e ri#"t to t"e ad&inistration and &ana#e&ent of t"e su'6e%t propert,.
/s found ', t"e Court of /ppeals, petitionersI unsupported %lai& of possession &ust ,ield to t"at of t"e
respondent w"o tra%es "er possession of t"e su'6e%t propert, to "er prede%essors2in2interest w"o "ave
alwa,s 'een in possession of t"e su'6e%t propert,. Even assu&in# t"at respondent was never a resident
of t"e su'6e%t propert,, s"e %ould le#all, %ontinue possessin# t"e propert,. ;isitin# t"e propert, on
wee:ends and "olida,s is eviden%e of a%tual or p",si%al possession.
(4
T"e fa%t of "er residen%e
so&ew"ere else, ', itself, does not result in loss of possession of t"e su'6e%t propert,. T"e law does not
reCuire one in possession of a "ouse to reside in t"e "ouse to &aintain "is possession.
(8
?or, a#ain,
possession in t"e e,es of t"e law does not &ean t"at a &an "as to "ave "is feet on ever, sCuare &eter
of t"e #round 'efore "e is dee&ed in possession.
(-
T"ere is no %o#ent reason to deviate fro& t"is
do%trine.
/ll t"in#s %onsidered, t"is Court finds t"at respondent ?e S. ?a%tor su%%essfull, proved t"e e@tent and
%"ara%ter of "er possession over t"e disputed propert,. /s a %onseCuen%e of "er owners"ip t"ereof,
respondent is entitled to its possession, %onsiderin# petitionersI failure to prove prior possession. T"e
Court stresses, "owever, t"at its deter&ination of owners"ip in t"e instant %ase is not final. It is onl, a
provisional deter&ination for t"e sole purpose of resolvin# t"e issue of possession. It would not 'ar or
pre6udi%e a separate a%tion 'etween t"e sa&e parties involvin# t"e Cuietin# of title to t"e su'6e%t
propert,.
(*
/s re#ards t"e &eans upon w"i%" t"e deprivation too: effe%t, it is not ne%essar, t"at t"e respondent
&ust de&onstrate t"at t"e ta:in# was done wit" for%e, inti&idation t"reat, strate#, or stealt". T"e
Supre&e Court, in BaKes v. Lut"eran C"ur%" in t"e P"ilippines,
.)
e@plained5
In order to %onstitute for%e t"at would 6ustif, a for%i'le entr, %ase, t"e trespasser does not "ave to
institute a state of war. T"e a%t of #oin# to t"e propert, and e@%ludin# t"e lawful possessor t"erefro&
ne%essaril, i&plies t"e e@ertion of for%e over t"e propert, w"i%" is all t"at is ne%essar, and suffi%ient to
s"ow t"at t"e a%tion is 'ased on t"e provisions of Se%tion 1, Rule 8) of t"e Rules of Court.
.1
/s e@pressl, stated in $avid v. Cordova5
.(
T"e words W', for%e, inti&idation, t"reat, strate#, or stealt"I in%lude ever, situation or %ondition under
w"i%" one person %an wron#full, enter upon real propert, and e@%lude anot"er, w"o "as "ad prior
possession t"erefro&. If a trespasser enters upon land in open da,li#"t, under t"e ver, e,es of t"e
person alread, %lot"ed wit" lawful possession, 'ut wit"out t"e %onsent of t"e latter, and t"ere plants
"i&self and e@%ludes su%" prior possessor fro& t"e propert,, t"e a%tion of for%i'le entr, and detainer
%an unCuestiona'l, 'e &aintained, even t"ou#" no for%e is used ', t"e trespasser ot"er t"an su%" as is
ne%essaril, i&plied fro& t"e &ere a%ts of plantin# "i&self on t"e #round and e@%ludin# t"e ot"er
part,.
..
Respondent, as %o2owner, "as t"e %ontrol of t"e su'6e%t propert, even if s"e does not sta, in it. So
w"en petitioners entered said propert, wit"out t"e %onsent and per&ission of t"e respondent and t"e
ot"er %o2owners, t"e latter were deprived of its possession. 7oreover, t"e presen%e of an unidentified
&an for'iddin# respondent fro& enterin# t"e su'6e%t propert, %onstitutes for%e %onte&plated ',
Se%tion 1,
.
Rule 8) of t"e Rules of Court./avv&hi/
/s to t"e last issue, we "ave previousl, ruled t"at w"ile t"e %ourts &a, fi@ t"e reasona'le a&ount of
rent for t"e use and o%%upation of a disputed propert,, t"e, %ould not si&pl, rel, on t"eir own
appre%iation of land values wit"out %onsiderin# an, eviden%e. T"e reasona'le a&ount of an, rent %ould
not 'e deter&ined ', &ere 6udi%ial noti%e 'ut ', supportin# eviden%e.
.!
In t"e instant %ase, we find no
eviden%e on re%ord to support t"e 7eTCIs award of rent.
On t"e &atter of attorne,Is fees awarded to t"e respondent, we are in a#ree&ent to delete it. It is a well2
settled rule t"at w"ere attorne,Is fees are #ranted, t"e %ourt &ust e@pli%itl, state in t"e 'od, of t"e
de%ision, and not onl, in t"e dispositive portion t"ereof, t"e le#al reason for t"e award.
.4
/#ain,
not"in# in t"e 'od, of 'ot" de%isions of RTC and 7eTC e@pli%itl, stated t"e reasons for t"e award of
attorne,Is fees.
>AERE?ORE, t"e instant petition is $ENIE$. T"e %"allen#ed $e%ision dated +anuar, 14, ())4 and
Resolution dated /pril (4, ())4 of t"e Court of /ppeals in C/23.R. SP No. *).*8 are /??IR7E$
wit" 7O$I?IC/TION t"at t"e award of rentals and attorne,Is fees are $ELETE$.
No pronoun%e&ent as to %osts.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. ,34,4 ebr1&r2 12, 199-
CELE#ON"A SOL"$"O, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT O A!!EALS &'( CONCOR#"A 3A$ELLANA $"LLANUE$A, respondents.
:e. 2ui*a +astillon for petitioner.
2alas ; <illareal for pri(ate respondent.
%E#"AL#EA, J.:
,his is a petition for review of the decision dated (anuar) "%, 1$'' of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CL No. 0$010 2Concordia Lillanueva v. Celedonia /olivio3
affirin! the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 13"0@ for partition, reconve)ance of ownership and possession and daa!es, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows-
C1:R:8.R:, =ud!ent is here#) rendered for the plaintiff and a!ainst defendant-
a3 .rderin! that the estate of the late :ste#an (avellana, (r. #e divided into two 2"3 shares- one-half for the plaintiff and one-half for
defendant. 8ro #oth shares shall #e e&uall) deducted the e?penses for the #urial, ausoleu and related e?penditures. A!ainst the
share of defendants shall #e char!ed the e?penses for scholarship, awards, donations and the */alustia /olivio Lda. de (avellana
+eorial 8oundation9*
#3 0irectin! the defendant to su#it an inventor) of the entire estate propert), includin! #ut not liited to, specific ites alread)
entioned in this decision and to render an accountin! of the propert) of the estate, within thirt) 2303 da)s fro receipt of this =ud!ent9
one-half 21B"3 of this produce shall #elon! to plaintiff9
c3 .rderin! defendant to pa) plaintiff P7,000.00 as e?penses of liti!ation9 P10,000.00 for and as attorne)*s fees plus costs.
/. .R0:R:0. 2pp. 4"-43, Rollo3
,his case involves the estate of the late novelist, :ste#an (avellana, (r., author of the first post-war 8ilipino novel ACithout /eein! the 0awn,A who died a
#achelor, without descendants, ascendants, #rothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. 1is onl) survivin! relatives are- 213 his aternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia
/olivio, the spinster half-sister of his other, /alustia /olivio9 and 2"3 the private respondent, Concordia (avellana-Lillanueva, sister of his deceased father,
:ste#an (avellana, /r.
1e was a posthuous child. 1is father died #arel) ten 2103 onths after his arria!e in 0ece#er, 1$1% to /alustia /olivio and four onths #efore :ste#an, (r.
was #orn.
/alustia and her sister, Celedonia 2dau!hter of :n!racio /olivio and his second wife (osefa 8ernande53, a teacher in the <loilo Provincial 1i!h /chool, #rou!ht up
:ste#an, (r.
/alustia #rou!ht to her arria!e paraphernal properties 2various parcels of land in Calino!, <loilo covered #) "4 titles3 which she had inherited fro her other,
Gre!oria Celo, :n!racio /olivio*s first wife 2p. 3"7, Record3, #ut no con=u!al propert) was ac&uired durin! her short-lived arria!e to :ste#an, /r.
.n .cto#er 11, 1$7$, /alustia died, leavin! all her properties to her onl) child, :ste#an, (r., includin! a house and lot in 6a Pa5, <loilo Cit), where she, her son,
and her sister lived. <n due tie, the titles of all these properties were transferred in the nae of :ste#an, (r.
0urin! his lifetie, :ste#an, (r. had, ore than once, e?pressed to his aunt Celedonia and soe close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to
honor his other and to help poor #ut deservin! students o#tain a colle!e education. Hnfortunatel), he died of a heart attac> on 8e#ruar) "%,1$@@ without havin!
set up the foundation.
,wo wee>s after his funeral, Concordia and Celedonia tal>ed a#out what to do with :ste#an*s properties. Celedonia told Concordia a#out :ste#an*s desire to
place his estate in a foundation to #e naed after his other, fro who his properties cae, for the purpose of helpin! indi!ent students in their schoolin!.
Concordia a!reed to carr) out the plan of the deceased. ,his fact was aditted #) her in her A+otion to Reopen andBor Reconsider the .rder dated April 3, 1$@'A
which she filed on (ul) "@, 1$@' in /pecial Proceedin! No. "740, where she stated-
4. ,hat petitioner >new all alon! the narrated facts in the iediatel) precedin! para!raph Ithat herein ovant is also the relative of the
deceased within the third de!ree, she #ein! the )oun!er sister of the late :ste#an (avellana, father of the decedent hereinJ, #ecause prior
to t"e filin% of t"e petition t"ey =petitioner +eledonia 2oli(io and mo(ant +oncordia Ja(ellana> "a(e a%reed to ma&e t"e estate of t"e
decedent a foundation0 #esides the) have closel) >nown each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the) have #een visitin! each
other*s house which are not far awa) for 2sic3 each other. 2p. "34, Record9 :phasis supplied.3
Pursuant to their a!reeent that Celedonia would ta>e care of the proceedin!s leadin! to the foration of the foundation, Celedonia in !ood faith and upon the
advice of her counsel, filed on +arch ', 1$@@ /pl. Proceedin! No. "740 for her appointent as special adinistratri? of the estate of :ste#an (avellana, (r. 2:?h.
"3. 6ater, she filed an aended petition 2:?h. 73 pra)in! that letters of adinistration #e issued to her9 that she #e declared sole heir of the deceased9 and that
after pa)ent of all clais and rendition of inventor) and accountin!, the estate #e ad=udicated to her 2p. 117, Rollo3.
After due pu#lication and hearin! of her petition, as well as her aended petition, she was declared sole heir of the estate of :ste#an (avellana, (r. /he
e?plained that this was done for three reasons- 213 #ecause the properties of the estate had coe fro her sister, /alustia /olivio9 2"3 that she is the decedent*s
nearest relative on his other*s side9 and 233 with her as sole heir, the disposition of the properties of the estate to fund the foundation would #e facilitated.
.n April 3, 1$@', the court 2;ranch <<, C8<, now ;ranch "3, R,C3 declared her the sole heir of :ste#an, (r. ,hereafter, she sold properties of the estate to pa) the
ta?es and other o#li!ations of the deceased and proceeded to set up the 42AL5281A 2OL1<1O <,A. ,? JA<?LLA6A FO56,A81O64 which she caused to #e
re!istered in the /ecurities and :?chan!e Coission on (ul) 1@,1$'1 under Re!. No. 01000"@ 2p. $', Rollo3.
8our onths later, or on Au!ust @, 1$@', Concordia (avellana Lillanueva filed a otion for reconsideration of the court*s order declarin! Celedonia as Asole heirA
of :ste#an, (r., #ecause she too was an heir of the deceased. .n .cto#er "@, 1$@', her otion was denied #) the court for tardiness 2pp. '0-'1, Record3.
<nstead of appealin! the denial, Concordia filed on (anuar) @, 1$'0 2or one )ear and two onths later3, Civil Case No. 13"0@ in the Re!ional ,rial Court of <loilo,
;ranch "%, entitled 4+oncordia Ja(ellana@ <illanue(a (. +eledonia 2oli(io4 for partition, recover) of possession, ownership and daa!es.
.n /epte#er 3, 1$'4, the said trial court rendered =ud!ent in Civil Case No. 13"0@, in favor of Concordia (avellana-Lillanueva.
.n Concordia*s otion, the trial court ordered the e?ecution of its =ud!ent pendin! appeal and re&uired Celedonia to su#it an inventor) and accountin! of the
estate. <n her otions for reconsideration of those orders, Celedonia averred that the properties of the deceased had alread) #een transferred to, and were in the
possession of, the */alustia /olivio Lda. de (avellana 8oundation.A ,he trial court denied her otions for reconsideration.
<n the eantie, Celedonia perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals 2CA GR CL No. 0$0103. .n (anuar) "%, 1$'', the Court of Appeals, :leventh 0ivision,
rendered =ud!ent affirin! the decision of the trial court in toto. 1ence, this petition for review wherein she raised the followin! le!al issues-
1. whether ;ranch "% of the R,C of <loilo had =urisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 13"0@ for partition and recover) of Concordia
Lillanueva*s share of the estate of :ste#an (avellana, (r. even while the pro#ate proceedin!s 2/pl. Proc. No. "7403 were still pendin! in
;ranch "3 of the sae court9
". whether Concordia Lillanueva was prevented fro intervenin! in /pl. Proc. No. "740 throu!h e?trinsic fraud9
3. whether the decedent*s properties were su#=ect to reser(a troncal in favor of Celedonia, his relative within the third de!ree on his
other*s side fro who he had inherited the9 and
4. whether Concordia a) recover her share of the estate after she had a!reed to place the sae in the /alustia /olivio Lda. de
(avellana 8oundation, and notwithstandin! the fact that confora#l) with said a!reeent, the 8oundation has #een fored and properties
of the estate have alread) #een transferred to it.
<. 8"e 7uestion of 'urisdictionA
After a careful review of the records, we find erit in the petitioner*s contention that the Re!ional ,rial Court, ;ranch "%, lac>ed =urisdiction to entertain Concordia
Lillanueva*s action for partition and recover) of her share of the estate of :ste#an (avellana, (r. while the pro#ate proceedin!s 2/pl, Proc. No. "7403 for the
settleent of said estate are still pendin! in ;ranch "3 of the sae court, there #ein! as )et no orders for the su#ission and approval of the adinistrati?*s
inventor) and accountin!, distri#utin! the residue of the estate to the heir, and terinatin! the proceedin!s 2p. 31, Record3.
<t is the order of distri#ution directin! the deliver) of the residue of the estate to the persons entitled thereto that #rin!s to a close the intestate proceedin!s, puts
an end to the adinistration and thus far relieves the adinistrator fro his duties 2/antieste#an v. /antieste#an, %' Phil. 3%@, Philippine Coercial and
<ndustrial ;an> v. :scolin, et al., 6-"@'%0, +arch "$, 1$@4, 7% /CRA "%%3.
,he assailed order of (ud!e Adil in /pl. Proc. No. "740 declarin! Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate of :ste#an (avellana, (r. did not toll the end of the
proceedin!s. As a atter of fact, the last para!raph of the order directed the adinistratri? to Ahurr) up the settleent of the estate.A ,he pertinent portions of the
order are &uoted #elow-
". As re!ards the second incident I+otion for 0eclaration of +iss Celedonia /olivio as /ole 1eir, dated +arch @, 1$@'J, it appears fro
the record that despite the notices posted and the pu#lication of these proceedin!s as re&uired #) law, no other heirs cae out to
interpose an) opposition to the instant proceedin!. <t further appears that herein Adinistratri? is the onl) claiant-heir to the estate of the
late :ste#an (avellana who died on 8e#ruar) "%, 1$@@.
0urin! the hearin! of the otion for declaration as heir on +arch 1@, 1$@', it was esta#lished that the late :ste#an (avellana died sin!le,
without an) >nown issue, and without an) survivin! parents. 1is nearest relative is the herein Adinistratri?, an elder IsicJ sister of his late
other who reared hi and with who he had alwa)s #een livin! with IsicJ durin! his lifetie.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
". +iss Celedonia /olivio, Adinistratri? of this estate, is here#) declared as the sole and le!al heir of the late :ste#an /. (avellana, who
died intestate on 8e#ruar) "%, 1$@@ at 6a Pa5, <loilo Cit).
,he Adinistratri? is here#) instructed to hurr) up with the settleent of this estate so that it can #e terinated. 2pp, 14-1%, Record3
<n view of the pendenc) of the pro#ate proceedin!s in ;ranch 11 of the Court of 8irst <nstance 2now R,C, ;ranch "33, Concordia*s otion to set aside the order
declarin! Celedonia as sole heir of :ste#an, and to have herself 2Concordia3 declared as co-heir and recover her share of the properties of the deceased, was
properl) filed #) her in /pl. Proc. No. "740. 1er reed) when the court denied her otion, was to elevate the denial to the Court of Appeals for review on
certiorari. 1owever, instead of availin! of that reed), she filed ore than one )ear later, a separate action for the sae purpose in ;ranch "% of the court. Ce
hold that the separate action was iproperl) filed for it is the pro#ate court that has e.clusi(e =urisdiction to a>e a =ust and le!al distri#ution of the estate.
<n the interest of orderl) procedure and to avoid confusin! and conflictin! dispositions of a decedent*s estate, a court should not interfere with pro#ate
proceedin!s pendin! in a co-e&ual court. ,hus, did we rule in Builas (. Jud%e of t"e +ourt of First 1nstance of Pampan%a0 L@266950 January #10 19-20 43 /CRA
111, 11@, where a dau!hter filed a separate action to annul a pro=ect of partition e?ecuted #etween her and her father in the proceedin!s for the settleent of the
estate of her other-
,he pro#ate court loses =urisdiction of an estate under adinistration onl) after the pa)ent of all the de#ts and the reainin! estate
delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the sae. ,he finalit) of the approval of the pro=ect of ,he pro#ate court, in the e?ercise of its
=urisdiction to a>e distri#ution, has power to deterine the proportion or parts to which each distri#uted is entitled. ... ,he power to
deterine the le!alit) or ille!alit) of the testaentar) provision is inherent in the =urisdiction of the court a>in! a =ust and le!al
distri#ution of the inheritance. ... ,o hold that a separate and independent action is necessar) to that effect, would #e contrar) to the
!eneral tendenc) of the =urisprudence of avoidin! ultiplicit) of suits9 and is further, e?pensive, dilator), and ipractical. 2+arcelino v.
Antonio, @0 Phil. 3''3
A =udicial declaration that a certain person is the onl) heir of the decedent is e?clusivel) within the ran!e of the adinistratri? proceedin!s
and can not properl) #e ade an independent action. 26ita v. :spiritu, 100 Phil. 3%43
A separate action for the declaration of heirs is not proper. 2Pientel v. Palanca, 7 Phil. 43%3
partition #) itself alone does not terinate the pro#ate proceedin! 2,i#ol v. Cano, 1 /CRA 1"@1, 1"@%, 6-17447, April "$, 1$%19 /i!uion!
v. ,ecson, '$ Phil. pp. "', 303. As lon! as the order of the distri#ution of the estate has not #een coplied with, the pro#ate proceedin!s
cannot #e deeed closed and terinated /i!uion! v. ,ecson, supra39 #ecause a =udicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not
prevent the heirs fro #rin!in! an action to o#tain his share, provided the prescriptive period therefore has not elapsed 2+ari v. ;onilia, '3
Phil. 13@3. 8"e better practice0 "owe(er0 for t"e "eir w"o "as not recei(ed "is s"are0 is to demand "is s"are t"rou%" a proper motion in
t"e same probate or administration proceedin%s0 or for reopenin% of t"e probate or administrati(e proceedin%s if it "ad already been
closed0 and not t"rou%" an independent action0 which would #e tried #) another court or (ud!e which a) thus reverse a decision or
order of the pro#ate or intestate court alread) final and e?ecuted and re-shuffle properties lon! a!o distri#uted and disposed of. 2Raos v.
.rtu5ar, '$ Phil. @30, @41-@4"9 ,i#ol v. Cano, supraC (in!co v. 0alu5, 6-710@, April "4, 1$73, $" Phil. 10'"9 Roan Catholic v. A!ustines,
6-14@10, +arch "$, 1$%0, 10@ Phil. 477, 4%0-4%19 :phasis supplied3
<n Litam et al.0 (. :i(era0 100 Phil. 3%4, where despite the pendenc) of the special proceedin!s for the settleent of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael
6ita the plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil action in which the) claied that the) were the children #) a previous arria!e of the deceased to a Chinese woan,
hence, entitled to inherit his one-half share of the con=u!al properties ac&uired durin! his arria!e to +arcosa Rivera, the trial court in the civil case declared that
the plaintiffs-appellants were not children of the deceased, that the properties in &uestion were paraphernal properties of his wife, +arcosa Rivera, and that the
latter was his onl) heir. .n appeal to this Court, we ruled that Asuch declarations 2that +arcosa Rivera was the onl) heir of the decedent3 is iproper, in Civil
Case No. "0@1, it bein% wit"in t"e e.clusi(e competence of t"e court in 2pecial Proceedin%s 6o. 15#-0 in which it is not as )et, in issue, and, will not #e,
ordinaril), in issue until the presentation of the pro=ect of partition. 2p. 3@'3.
1owever, in the Guilas case, supra0 since the estate proceedin!s had #een closed and terinated for over three )ears, the action for annulent of the pro=ect of
partition was allowed to continue. Considerin! that in the instant case, the estate proceedin!s are still pendin!, #ut nonetheless, Concordia had lost her ri!ht to
have herself declared as co-heir in said proceedin!s, Ce have opted li>ewise to proceed to discuss the erits of her clai in the interest of =ustice.
,he orders of the Re!ional ,rial Court, ;ranch "%, in Civil Case No. 13"0@ settin! aside the pro#ate proceedin!s in ;ranch "3 2forerl) ;ranch 113 on the
!round of e?trinsic fraud, and declarin! Concordia Lillanueva to #e a co-heir of Celedonia to the estate of :ste#an, (r., orderin! the partition of the estate, and
re&uirin! the adinistratri?, Celedonia, to su#it an inventor) and accountin! of the estate, were iproper and officious0 to sa) the least, for these atters he
within the e?clusive copetence of the pro#ate court.
<<. 8"e 7uestion of e.trinsic fraudA
Cas Concordia prevented fro intervenin! in the intestate proceedin!s #) e.trinsic fraud eplo)ed #) CeledoniaN <t is noteworth) that e?trinsic fraud was not
alle%ed in Concordia*s ori!inal coplaint in Civil Case No. 13"0@. <t was onl) in her aended coplaint of +arch %, 1$'0, that e?trinsic fraud was alle!ed for the
first tie.
:?trinsic fraud, as a !round for annulent of =ud!ent, is an) act or conduct of the prevailin! part) which prevented a fair su#ission of
the controvers) 28rancisco v. 0avid, 3' ..G. @143. A fraud *which prevents a part) fro havin! a trial or presentin! all of his case to the
court, or one which operates upon atters pertainin!, not to the =ud!ent itself, #ut to the anner #) which such =ud!ent was procured
so uch so that there was no fair su#ission of the controvers). 8or instance, if throu!h fraudulent achination #) one Ihis adversar)J, a
liti!ant was induced to withdraw his defense or was prevented fro presentin! an availa#le defense or cause of action in the case
wherein the =ud!ent was o#tained, such that the a!!rieved part) was deprived of his da) in court throu!h no fault of his own, the
e&uita#le relief a!ainst such =ud!ent a) #e availed of. 2Datco v. /ua!ui, 44%"3-R, (ul) 31, 1$@13. 2cited in Philippine 6aw 0ictionar),
1$@" :d. #) +oreno9 Larela v. Lillanueva, et al., $% Phil. "4'3
A =ud!ent a) #e annulled on the !round of e?trinsic or collateral fraud, as distin!uished fro intrinsic fraud, which connotes an)
fraudulent schee e?ecuted #) a prevailin! liti!ant *outside the trial of a case a!ainst the defeated part), or his a!ents, attorne)s or
witnesses, where#) said defeated part) is prevented fro presentin! full) and fairl) his side of the case. ... ,he overridin! consideration is
that the fraudulent schee of the prevailin! liti!ant prevented a part) fro havin! his da) in court or fro presentin! his case. ,he fraud,
therefore, is one that affects and !oes into the =urisdiction of the court. 26i#udan v. Gil, 6-"11%3, +a) 1@, 1$@", 47 /CRA 1@, "@-"$9
/terlin! <nvestent Corp. v. Rui5, 6-30%$4, .cto#er 31, 1$%$, 30 /CRA 31', 3"33
,he char!e of e?trinsic fraud is, however, unwarranted for the followin! reasons-
1. Concordia was not unaware of the special proceedin! intended to #e filed #) Celedonia. /he aditted in her coplaint that she and
Celedonia had a!reed that the latter would Ainitiate the necessar) proceedin!A and pa) the ta?es and o#li!ations of the estate. ,hus
para!raph % of her coplaint alle!ed-
%. ... for the purpose of facilitatin! the settleent of the estate of the late :ste#an (avellana, (r. at the lowest possi#le cost and the least
effort, t"e plaintiff and t"e defendant a%reed t"at t"e defendant s"all initiate t"e necessary proceedin%0 cause the pa)ent of ta?es and
other o#li!ations, and to do ever)thin! else re&uired #) law, and thereafter, secure the partition of the estate #etween her and the plaintiff,
Ialthou!h Celedonia denied that the) a!reed to partition the estate, for their a!reeent was to place the estate in a foundation.J 2p. ",
Record9 ephasis supplied3
:videntl), Concordia was not pre(ented fro intervenin! in the proceedin!s. /he sta)ed awa) by c"oice. ;esides, she >new that the estate cae e?clusivel)
fro :ste#an*s other, /alustia /olivio, and she had a!reed with Celedonia to place it in a foundation as the deceased had planned to do.
". ,he pro#ate proceedin!s are proceedin!s in rem. Notice of the tie and place of hearin! of the petition is re&uired to #e pu#lished
2/ec. 3, Rule @% in relation to /ec. 3, Rule @$, Rules of Court3. Notice of the hearin! of Celedonia*s ori!inal petition was pu#lished in the
ALisa)an ,ri#uneA on April "7, +a) " and $, 1$@@ 2:?h 4, p. 1$@, Record3. /iilarl), notice of the hearin! of her aended petition of +a)
"%, 1$@@ for the settleent of the estate was, #) order of the court, pu#lished in A;a!on! Masana!A 2New 6i!ht3 issues of +a) "@, (une 3
and 10, 1$@@ 2pp. 1'"-307, Record3. ,he pu#lication of the notice of the proceedin!s was constructive notice to the whole world.
Concordia was not deprived of her ri!ht to intervene in the proceedin!s for she had actual, as well as constructive notice of the sae. As
pointed out #) the pro#ate court in its order of .cto#er "@, 1$@'-
... . ,he ove of Concordia (avellana, however, was filed a#out five onths after Celedonia /olivio was declared as the sole heir. ... .
Considerin! that this proceedin! is one in re and had #een dul) pu#lished as re&uired #) law, despite which the present ovant onl)
cae to court now, then she is !uilt) of laches for sleepin! on her alle!ed ri!ht. 2p. "", Record3
,he court noted that Concordia*s otion did not copl) with the re&uisites of a petition for relief fro =ud!ent nor a otion for new trial.
,he rule is stated in 4$ Corpus (uris /ecundu '030 as follows-
Chere petition was sufficient to invo>e statutor) =urisdiction of pro#ate court and proceedin% was in rem no su#se&uent errors or
irre!ularities are availa#le on collateral attac>. 2;edwell v. 0ean 13" /o. "03
Celedonia*s alle!ation in her petition that she was the sole heir of :ste#an within the third de!ree on his mot"erDs side was not false. +oreover, it was ade in
!ood faith and in the honest #elief that #ecause the properties of :ste#an had coe fro his other, not his father, she, as :ste#an*s nearest survivin! relative
on his other*s side, is the ri!htful heir to the. <t would have #een self-defeatin! and inconsistent with her clai of sole "eirs"ip if she stated in her petition that
Concordia was her co-heir. 1er oission to so state did not constitute e?trinsic fraud.
8ailure to disclose to the adversar), or to the court, atters which would defeat one*s own clai or defense is not such e?trinsic fraud as
will =ustif) or re&uire vacation of the =ud!ent. 24$ C.(./. 4'$, citin! Doun! v. Doun!, " /: "d %""9 8irst National ;an> G ,rust Co. of Min!
Cit) v. ;owan, 17 /C "d '4"9 Price v. /ith, 10$ /C "d 1144, 114$3
<t should #e ree#ered that a petition for adinistration of a decedent*s estate a) #e filed #) an) Ainterested personA 2/ec. ", Rule @$, Rules of Court3. ,he
filin! of Celedonia*s petition did not preclude Concordia fro filin! her own.
<<<. On t"e 7uestion of reser(a troncalA
Ce find no erit in the petitioner*s ar!uent that the estate of the deceased was su#=ect to reser(a troncal and that it pertains to her as his onl) relative within
the third de!ree on his other*s side. ,he reser(a troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article '$1 which reads as follows-
AR,. '$1. ,he ascendant who inherits fro his descendant an) propert) which the latter a) have ac&uired #) !ratuitous title fro
another ascendant, or a #rother or sister, is o#li!ed to reserve such propert) as he a) have ac&uired #) operation of law for the #enefit
of relatives who are within the third de!ree and who #elon! to the line fro which said propert) cae.
,he persons involved in reser(a troncal are-
1. ,he person o#li!ed to reserve is the reservor =reser(ista>Fthe ascendant who inherits #) operation of law propert) fro his
descendants.
". ,he persons for who the propert) is reserved are the reservees =reser(atarios>Frelatives within the third de!ree counted fro the
descendant =propositus>0 and #elon!in! to the line fro which the propert) cae.
3. ,he propositusFthe descendant who received #) !ratuitous title and died without issue, a>in! his other ascendant inherit #)
operation of law. 2p. %$", Civil 6aw #) Padilla, Lol. <<, 1$7% :d.3
Clearl), the propert) of the deceased, :ste#an (avellana, (r., is not reserva#le propert), for :ste#an, (r. was not an ascendant, #ut the descendant of his other,
/alustia /olivio, fro who he inherited the properties in &uestion. ,herefore, he did not hold his inheritance su#=ect to a reservation in favor of his aunt,
Celedonia /olivio, who is his relative within the third de!ree on his other*s side. ,he reser(a troncal applies to properties inherited #) an ascendant fro a
descendant who inherited it fro another ascendant or $ #rother or sister. <t does not appl) to propert) inherited #) a descendant fro his ascendant, the reverse
of the situation covered #) Article '$1.
/ince the deceased, :ste#an (avellana, (r., died without descendants, ascendants, ille!itiate children, survivin! spouse, #rothers, sisters, nephews or nieces,
what should appl) in the distri#ution of his estate are Articles 1003 and 100$ of the Civil Code which provide-
AR,. 1003. <f there are no descendants, ascendants, ille!itiate children, or a survivin! spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the followin! articles.
AR,. 100$. /hould there #e neither #rothers nor sisters, nor children of #rothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to
the estate.
,he latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference aon! the #) reason of relationship #) the whole #lood.
,herefore, the Court of Appeals correctl) held that-
;oth plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant #ein! relatives of the decedent within the third de!ree in the collateral line, each, therefore,
shall succeed to the su#=ect estate *without distinction of line or preference aon! the #) reason of relationship #) the whole #lood,* and
is entitled one-half 21B"3 share and share ali>e of the estate. 2p. 7@, Rollo3
<L. 8"e 7uestion of +oncordiaDs one@"alf s"areA
1owever, inasuch as Concordia had a!reed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in honor of his other, /alustia /olivio Lda. de (avellana
2fro who the estate cae3, an a!reeent which she ratified and confired in her A+otion to Reopen andBor Reconsider .rder dated April 3, 1$@'A which she
filed in /pl. Proceedin! No. "740-
4. ,hat ... prior to t"e filin% of t"e petition t"ey =petitioner +eledonia 2oli(io and mo(ant +oncordia Ja(ellana> "a(e a%reed to ma&e t"e
estate of t"e decedent a foundation0 #esides the) have closel) >nown each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the) have #een
visitin! each other*s house which are not far awa) for 2sic3 each other. 2p. "34, Record9 :phasis supplied3
she is #ound #) that a!reeent. <t is true that #) that a!reeent, she did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia, #ut she did a!ree to place all of
:ste#an*s estate in the A/alustia /olivio Lda. de (avellana 8oundationA which :ste#an, (r., durin! his lifetie, planned to set up to honor his other and to
finance the education of indi!ent #ut deservin! students as well.
1er adission a) not #e ta>en li!htl) as the lower court did. ;ein! a =udicial adission, it is conclusive and no evidence need #e presented to prove the
a!reeent 2Cunanan v. Aparo, '0 Phil. ""@9 Granada v. Philippine National ;an>, 6-"0@47, /ept. ", 1$%%, 1' /CRA 19 /ta. Ana v. +aliwat, 6-"30"3, Au!. 31,
1$%', "4 /CRA 101'9 People v. :ncipido, G.R.@00$1, 0ec. "$, 1$'%, 14% /CRA 4@'9 and Rodillas v. /andi!an#a)an, G.R. 7'%7", +a) "0, 1$'', 1%1 /CRA
34@3.
,he adission was never withdrawn or ipu!ned #) Concordia who, si!nificantl), did not even testif) in the case, althou!h she could have done so #)
deposition if she were supposedl) indisposed to attend the trial. .nl) her hus#and, Narciso, and son-in-law, (uanito 0oin, activel) participated in the trial. 1er
hus#and confired the a!reeent #etween his wife and Celedonia, #ut he endeavored to dilute it #) alle!in! that his wife did not intend to !ive all, #ut onl) one-
half, of her share to the foundation 2p. 3"3, Record3.
,he records show that the A/alustia /olivio Lda. de (avellana 8oundationA was esta#lished and dul) re!istered in the /ecurities and :?chan!e Coission
under Re!. No. 01000"@ for the followin! principal purposes-
1. ,o provide for the esta#lishent andBor settin! up of scholarships for such deservin! students as the ;oard of ,rustees of the
8oundation a) decide of at least one scholar each to stud) at Cest Lisa)as /tate Colle!e, and the Hniversit) of the Philippines in the
Lisa)as #oth located in <loilo Cit).
". ,o provide a scholarship for at least one scholar for /t. Cleents Redeptorist Counit) for a deservin! student who has the
reli!ious vocation to #ecoe a priest.
3. ,o foster, develop, and encoura!e activities that will proote the advanceent and enrichent of the various fields of educational
endeavors, especiall) in literar) arts. /cholarships provided for #) this foundation a) #e naed after its #enevolent #enefactors as a
to>en of !ratitude for their contri#utions.
4. ,o direct or underta>e surve)s and studies in the counit) to deterine counit) needs and #e a#le to alleviate partiall) or totall)
said needs.
7. ,o aintain and provide the necessar) activities for the proper care of the /olivio-(avellana ausoleu at Christ the Min! +eorial
Par>, (aro, <loilo Cit), and the (avellana +eorial at the Cest Lisa)as /tate Colle!e, as a to>en of appreciation for the contri#ution of the
estate of the late :ste#an /. (avellana which has ade this foundation possi#le. Also, in perpetuation of his Roan Catholic #eliefs and
those of his other, Gre!orian asses or their e&uivalents will #e offered ever) 8e#ruar) and .cto#er, and Re&uie asses ever)
8e#ruar) "7th and .cto#er llth, their death anniversaries, as part of this provision.
%. ,o receive !ifts, le!acies, donations, contri#utions, endowents and financial aids or loans fro whatever source, to invest and reinvest
the funds, collect the incoe thereof and pa) or appl) onl) the incoe or such part thereof as shall #e deterined #) the ,rustees for
such endeavors as a) #e necessar) to carr) out the o#=ectives of the 8oundation.
@. ,o ac&uire, purchase, own, hold, operate, develop, lease, ort!a!e, pled!e, e?chan!e, sell, transfer, or otherwise, invest, trade, or
deal, in an) anner peritted #) law, in real and personal propert) of ever) >ind and description or an) interest herein.
'. ,o do and perfor all acts and thin!s necessar), suita#le or proper for the accoplishents of an) of the purposes herein enuerated
or which shall at an) tie appear conducive to the protection or #enefit of the corporation, includin! the e?ercise of the powers, authorities
and attri#utes concerned upon the corporation or!ani5ed under the laws of the Philippines in !eneral, and upon doestic corporation of
li>e nature in particular. 2pp. $-10, Rollo3
As alle!ed without contradiction in the petition* for review-
,he 8oundation #e!an to function in (une, 1$'", and three 233 of its ei!ht :ste#an (avellana scholars !raduated in 1$'%, one 213 fro
HPL !raduated Cu 6aude and two 2"3 fro CL/H !raduated with honors9 one was a Cu 6aude and the other was a recipient of 6a!os
6ope5 award for teachin! for #ein! the ost outstandin! student teacher.
,he 8oundation has four 243 hi!h school scholars in Guiso ;aran!a) 1i!h /chool, the site of which was donated #) the 8oundation. ,he
/chool has #een selected as the Pilot ;aran!a) 1i!h /chool for Re!ion L<.
,he 8oundation has a special scholar, 8r. :l#ert Las&ue5, who would #e ordained this )ear. 1e studied at /t. 8rancis Eavier +a=or
Re!ional /einar) at 0avao Cit). ,he 8oundation li>ewise is a e#er of the Redeptorist Association that !ives )earl) donations to
help poor students who want to #ecoe Redeptorist priests or #rothers. <t !ives )earl) awards for Creative writin! >nown as the
:ste#an (avellana Award.
8urther, the 8oundation had constructed the :ste#an /. (avellana +ulti-purpose Center at the Cest Lisa)as /tate Hniversit) for teachers*
and students* use, and has li>ewise contri#uted to reli!ious civic and cultural fund-raisin! drives, aon!st other*s. 2p. 10, Rollo3
1avin! a!reed to contri#ute her share of the decedent*s estate to the 8oundation, Concordia is o#li!ated to honor her coitent as Celedonia has honored
hers.
C1:R:8.R:, the petition for review is !ranted. ,he decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are here#) /:, A/<0:. Concordia (. Lillanueva is
declared an heir of the late :ste#an (avellana, (r. entitled to one-half of his estate. 1owever, cofora#l) with the a!reeent #etween her and her co-heir,
Celedonia /olivio, the entire estate of the deceased should #e conve)ed to the A/alustia /olivio Lda. de (avallana 8oundation,A of which #oth the petitioner and
the private respondent shall #e trustees, and each shall #e entitled to noinate an e&ual nu#er of trustees to constitute the ;oard of ,rustees of the 8oundation
which shall adinister the sae for the purposes set forth in its charter. ,he petitioner, as adinistratri? of the estate, shall su#it to the pro#ate court an
inventor) and accountin! of the estate of the deceased preparator) to terinatin! the proceedin!s therein.
/. .R0:R:0.