Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Digests Specpro 1

    Hochgeladen von

    Mitch Tuazon
    7 Ansichten7 Seiten
    spec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    spec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    7 Ansichten7 Seiten

    Digests Specpro 1

    Hochgeladen von

    Mitch Tuazon
    spec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 7
    MENDOZA v, HON, TEH (2006) Petitioner: Adela C. Mendova, administra ofthe intestate estat of the late NatbertoB, Mendoza ‘Respondent: Hon. Angst Teh, Presiding Jude, te Ponencia: Francisco, 1 DOCTRINE: 1. Patitoner Mendoza, for horse ands sds ofthe intestate of her deceased husband Norberto Mendora ied before the RTC a ‘complaint for reconvevanco of bile and damages with petiion Tor )ycliminary injunction. The complain include parautaph stating that “Adeia Mendeva shouldbe appotnicd xx xa he udital administra 2. Private respondents filed its" motion to dismiss, lleging tha there's no «zie of action, and tha demand by petitioners had already been paid They flo theie 2° motion to dismiss, th time, invoking ack of juriadition, lack of cause of sein, estoppel, aches and preseription. For tho lok of jurisiiton, they arguod that a special proceedings ease far appoiniment of administra of a estate cannot be incorporated in the ordinary ation for ecomveyanee 4. Pooner opposed, stating that the allegation socking appointment is only incident, which sno ven prayed for in the complaint 5. Respondents replied sing that since potitioners husband resided in (Quezon City a the tne of his death, the appointment shouldbe fled in the RTC of that place ia accordance wih See 1 Rae 73 ofthe Rules of Court, essentially saying thatthe RTC of Batangas has no jurisdiction covert ease, 6. RTC dismissed the complain for lack of jrisdiston on the ground that ‘a ordinary ei action and a special proseing are ISSUES: 1. Whether of notin an action for reconvevanes, a allegation sooking appoinnent a5 administatrix of an estate would oust the RTC of is jarediction over he whole ese: NO PROVISION: Sec. 19, BP 129, a amended by RA 7691 Jaridition in Civil Cases: RTC shal exes exclusive exginaljurisditon X'xx (4) Inall mates of probate, bth estate and insta: Sec. 38, sme law: (1) Exclusive orginal jurisdiction over civil actions and proba proscedings, tesa nd intestate RULING + RATIO: 1. NO, ‘Am aeton for recomveyance, which involes ile to property rth millions of| ‘sso, Sch as i this casos cognizable by the RTC. Likows, falling within ts Jsditon are actions incapable pecuniary estimation such the appointment ‘ofan administra for an estate Event the Rae on venuo of eae froccodines (See. 1 of Rule 73) impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over aitoners for granting eters of administration. ‘On the other hand, probate proceedings fr te sttlement of estate ar within the ambit of ctr tho RTC of MTC depending onthe not worth of the oat. By fngung that tho allezation socking such appointment ousted the RTC of is jurisdiction, the respondents confuses jurisdiction with venue. Section 2 of Rule 4 ‘a5 rvisod by Cieular 15-05 provios that actions involving tie o propoty shall ‘be ted inthe province where the proper is located inthis ease, Batangas. The ‘mote ae that pstona'sdocased husband resides in QC ato time of his death affects ony the venue and nt the jurisdiction ofthe Cour, Tt must bo emphasized that this case merely included an allegation sooking appointment as estat administaix which doesnot necessaiy invalvesetlement ‘of esate that sould have init the exorigo of tho limited jurisdiction of & probuccourt Stated athorwis, tho quostion of whether a particular mato should be resolved by the RTC in the exerise of is oneal jurition or ts linited ‘robo radio, isnot a jurisdictional issue but a mre question of procodure ‘Considering thatthe RTC hs jurisdiction, whether tbe on the reconveyance suit ‘orasto the appointnen of an administaei, was propor or esponden jade to dismiss the whole complaint fr alleged lack of jurisdiction DISPOSITION: Reversed and st aside Natcher vs. CA (2001) Pestioners: PATRICIA NATCHER Respondents: HON, COURT OFAPPEALS AND THE HEIR OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO LETICIA DEL ROSARIO, EMILIA DEL RESORIO MANANGAN, ROSALINDA FUENTES LANA, RODOLFO FUENTES, ALBERTO FUENTES, EVELYN DEL ROSARIO, and EDUARDO DEL. ROSARIO Ponente: Buena DOCTRINE: Trial courts trying an ordinary action cannot resolve (0 perfor acceding hecause iti subject to specific prescribed rules. FACTS: 1. Spouses Grasana del Rosario and Gaciana Esguera wor ested ‘overs ofa parcel of land in Manis Upon Gravina's death, Graiano togcther with hie 6 cldrn entered into an extrajudicial stlement of Graciana’s estat diving among thom the said pace f land. Graciano ws ioreceie #14 while cach ofthe 6 children ecived 1/14 each A TCT was suo in he name of Gracano andthe & chilen ‘The said hers then subdivided among themssves the said parcel of land into several lots Graciano then donated to his children a portion o is interest leaving only 44760 sqm under his own name His twas then Further subaividd into 2 las (one was 80.90 sam, the other 396.70, sq.) Graciano sold the lt, but eained the 3. Gracano thon marred Patricia Natcher (btn petitioner). During thee marvage,Gracano sold the 2" lot his wife: Gracia thon did, Teavng his 2" wife Patrica and his children by his" marrage as heirs 4 Heroin private respandens the 6 sildon of Graian) fled a ‘complaint wih the RTC of Mania alleging that upon Graciano's doth, Nataho forged the TCT ofthe 2 lot to make appear that Graiana sold tho lotto er Th childon claim tha as cansequonee ofthe Fraudulent sae, thoi eitimes hae boon impaied 5. Natchor ave tha since she was legally morred to Graviano, she was ‘considered a compulsory ir as wll And that during Gracian'= Iiftime, he already distbutd, in advance, propertios to is chiden, thus the children cannot anymore elim agaist Grasiano's ea, or tgninet Nether proper 6, Tho Manila RTC decided against Nacho sine spouses are prohibited fiom entering ino a contrast of sale, However, it can be regarded as advance inheritance of Paci Natcer asa compulsory hei 7. On appeal the CA reversed declaring that tis the probate court that ‘has exclusive jurisdiction to distribute the contents of the estate Tho court went beyond its jurisdiction when performed ace proper only in ‘special procceding forthe stemont feria ofa deceased perso, 8, Thus the court erred in regarding the property as advance inheritance. The court should have just ruled on the validity of the ‘an Heft the ise om advancement tae resolved in a separate proceeding 9, Natcher ths appeal the CA decision ISSUE: 1. WoN the RTC cam rule onthe fsue of future advancement? RULING + RATIO: 1. NO. Tho RTC cannot rile on the sid isso Section 3, Role of the 1997 Rales of Civil Procedure define civil ation snd spoil proscoings, in his wise 4) A cil ston oe by which a par ses anoter For the enforcement of ‘rocetion af aright or the prevention or redress ofa Wrong, "cv ation may citer be eednary o special. Bth are government bythe rules for ordinary evil etions, subject to specific rales preserbod for a special i stion, "eA spacial proceeding i a remedy by which a par seeks to exabish a tas, aright ora patil fat. “There lies a marke distinction betwoen am action anda special proceeding An action sa formal demand of one's ight in a cour o justice ‘prescribed bs the court or by tho la. Tho lem spa peoceeding” defined as an application or procecding to establish he status or ight ofa pay ‘ora parca ac In special proceodinas, tho remedy i ranted general upon sn applization or motion An action for r-conveyance and annulment of ile with damages is a civil ‘ction, whereas matter relating to setlement ofthe estate ofa deceased person such as advancement of property made bythe decedent, partake of the nature of special proceeding, Which concomitant requires the application of specific rules as provided for inthe Rules of Court Clearly, ttre which insane satlement andl distribution ofthe estat ofthe scedon fall within the exclusive province ofthe pecbat cour in the exorcise of ‘Timid jurisdiction, nce. The RTC inthis eas, acting in its general jurisdiction docs not have amy authority co render adjudication and revolve the isue of advancement of the real praperty. The said bach ofthe RTC of Manila wae ‘ot propery constituted aa probate cout soa a vali pass upon the question ‘advancement. Previous cases hae allowed ordinary courts to act on special proeodi but only when said procedure has bsen waived by the pris, Thre is 0 uch savor inthis ease ‘A pers ofthe rcord inthe present cae reals thatthe tlc filed 10 observe exablsd rules of procedure governing the setement ofthe estate of GGraciano Del Rosario. The court ees no cogent reason fo sanction the ne observance of thse wol-enrenched le and heabs olds that ur the prevailing ccumstanes, a probate cou. in the exercise ofits limited Jrisition, i indo the best forum o ventilate and ajuda the isso of fdvancoment af vel a osher rote matters involving the sateen of Graciano Del Rosai’ estat DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered the assed decision of| the Cour of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED and tho instant pion is DISMISSED fortack of ment ancisco De Bora as Executor of esate of Josefa Tangco Jdge Ta an Jose De Boia DOCTRINE: (Appointnent of Co-dinistrator is apeatable) Amorderappiinting a regnlir adninsiratar i appectabe we an order ‘appointing special adinistratr is not eppeatable. A special administrator i pposnied only for a limited te and fora specific rose ind hus ws deme by law be nt appeal. (0 the other hand a eovadminisraor performs al de functions and duties and exercises al the powers ofa regular administrator acts the “apoiniment of eo-aministrator shld be treated he sae ate apne ‘fa regular aanmtstrtor sch can be subject to pel. FACTS: 1.” Francisco de Bora filed for the probate ofthe ast wil his deceased wife fosafaTanavo, sere ho was named a executor 2 Daciothe physical disability of Francisco to fll administer the estate, Mate de Bora filed potion to appoint Crisant de Boj as 0: sdinisatr and he was qualified as such oa Aug 29,1981 3 Thon on April 9, 1992 th trial cout according options, without Patton of or noice to ans one appointed respondent Jose de Bor 8 co ‘iministator afer considering an ampended account of Francisca 4. Francisco, Matilde and Crisanlo moved for resonsideraion bat the respondent Judge Tan indeed died the motion fr rconsieration and acting upon an alleged ex-prte petition ofthe his revoked the ppoitnent of Crisanto as co-admiisatr and diosted administatoe Jono to comment onthe emended account filed by’ Francisco de Bara 5 Pottionees led «natin of appeal bt was denied on the ground that the appointncn of Jose as co-administatr was interlocutory and was thus no appeaable ISSUES: 'WON the appointment of co-administrator is appelable ~ YES, itis RULING + RATIO: IL VES the appointment of a co-adminisrator ie appealable ait isnot the ‘same asthe appointment ofa special administrator but that ofa regular administrate. Am oxder sppoining a rogular minisiratr is sppealble while an order appointing a special administrators not appealable “The appoiming ofa oo-administator sno the same asthe appoinunent of ‘special adminstrtor boause a special administrate has limited powers and Fincdons as compared oa ordinary administatr A special administrate i appointed only whom there is delay in ganting Ltrs testamentary or of administation occasioned ty an apeal fom allowance ot Aisallowance of wil or fom any other case. Sach special admins is ‘auborizod to cllst and aks charg ofthe estate ual he qusstion causing th oly are decided. ‘And under Rule 87 section 8a special administrators also appointed when he ‘regular executor o administrator has claim aginst tho esa ho represen ad ‘aid specialadminsirator shall hae tho same power and subject othe same Tabi asa regular executr or administatr Inother words. «special administrator is appoined only fora limited time and for aspeciie purpose "Naturally, because ofthe temporary and special character af his apoinient, it was doce bythe law not advisable fr any par Yo appeal oa sid {temporary appointment ‘On he ether hand, a co-administator performs al the functions and duis and ‘exerts all he power of roglar administer, only that hos not lone i the ‘sminisraon “Taking into consideration the circumstances inthis at, petitioner Francisco for several years boon an administrator onl in name duct his phssical and mental

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen