TESTATE ESTATE OF VDA DE BIASCAN v. BIASCAN (2000) 11.
11. Trial Court issues Order DENYING Estate of Maria's appeal on the
QUICK FACTS: Motion to set aside appointment of Rosalina as special
administrator. Maria Vda de Biascan (legal wife of Florencio) is opposing the
appointment of Rosalina (Florencio's acknowledged natural child) as
administratrix of his intestate estate. RTC does not set aside appointment
and refuses to let her appeal ruling to CA because Notice and Record on
Appeal were filed late.
FACTS:
1. 13 Aug 1975: Rosalina was appointed regular administratrix of the
intestate estate of Florencio Biascan (and Timotea Zulueta).
2. 10 Oct 1975: Maria Vda de Biascan files a motion to intervene, a motion
to set aside the appointment of Rosalina as regular administratrix and a
motion to have herself appointed as administratrix of Florencio's estate.
3. 2 Apr 1981: CFI Manila under Judge Serafin Cuevas issued an Order
resolving that:
a. Maria is the lawful wife of Florencio
b. Rosalina and her brother German are the acknowledged natural
children of Florencio
c. All 3 are the legal heirs of Florencio and are entitled to participate in
the settlement proceedings
d. Motion to set aside the Order appointing Rosalina administratrix of
Florencio's estate IS DENIED
e. Motion to approve inventory and appraisal of Rosalina is deferred
4. 9 Apr 1981: Maria, through counsel receives above Order.
5. 6 Jun 1981: Maria files her motion for reconsideration (MR), which
Rosalina opposed. (58 days after receipt of Order)
6. 15 Nov 1981: Records of the case were completely lost in a fire that
gutted the 4th Flr of Manila City Hall. Petition for Reconstitution of the
records of the case was filed on 2 Jan 1985.
7. 30 Apr 1985: RTC Manila DENIES Maria's MR.
8. Maria dies sometime after. (No Date of Death). Her counsel, Atty Lopez
is appointed special administrator of her estate. He engages the services
of another law firm1 in behalf of Maria's estate.
9. 21 Aug 1996 or (almost 11 yrs after denial of MR): Law firm allegedly
made aware of denial of MR, but was able to secure a certification from
the Clerk of Court that there was no proof of service of the Order dated
30 Apr 1985 contained in the records.
10. 20 Sep 1996: Trial court received Notice of Appeal (dated 22 Aug 1996,
but stamped "Received on 20 Sep 1996"). A Record of Appeal was also
filed on the same date.
1
Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices
ground that it was filed out of time. (MR filed 65 days after Order and
Notice of Appeal filed 11 years after denial of MR)
12. Trial Court denies Estate of Maria's MR (to allow her to appeal)
13. CA denies Maria's Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Mandatory
Injunction which questioned the RTC's refusal to allow her to appeal the
Orders issued in 1981.
14. Estate of Maria: April 1981 Order did not become final and executory as
no opposition on its timeliness was filed and no ruling as regards to its
timeliness was made. (See Doctrine #3 – CivPro topic)
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Order issued in Apr 1981 is subject to appeal? (YES)
2. Whether the appeal was perfected on time? (NO)
HELD:
1. YES. The ruling of the trial court falls squarely under Sec 1(b) and 1(e)2
of Rule 109.(see Doctrine #1) Orders, decrees or judgments issued by a
court in a special proceeding which constitute a final determination of the
rights of the parties are the proper subject of an appeal. In contrast,
interlocutory orders are not appealable as these are merely incidental to
judicial proceedings.
The appointment of a special administrator for a limited time or specific
purpose should not be appealed because of its temporary and special
character.
2. NO. Party has 30 days to perfect appeal (file Notice of Appeal with
Record on Appeal) or file MR to interrupt the period. (See Doctrine #2)
9 Apr 1981: Received Order >>> Deadline 9 May 1981 (30days after
Order).
6 Jun 1981: Filed MR >>> Out of Time (58 days after Order). No
appeal period to interrupt as Order had become final. Trial court
would have been justified in not entertaining MR at all.
Even if the MR interrupted the period of appeal (ex. MR filed on 30th day)
and assuming the new law firm really found out about denial of MR only
on 21 Aug 1996:
21 Aug 1996: Allegedly found out about Denial of MR >>> Deadline
22 Aug 1996.
20 Sep 1996: Notice of Appeal with Record of Appeal filed. (Court
disapproves of law firm's attempt to pass of filing Notice on 22 Aug
1996)
2
Court has previously held that the appointment of a regular administrator is a final
determination of the rights of the parties, and is appealable.
 Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed out of time. Petition denied.

Rule 109 enumerates what orders or judgments by the RTC or Juvenile and
Domestic Courts may be subject to appeal by an interested party in a Special
Proceeding, where such order or judgment:
a. Allows and disallows a will
b. Determines who the lawful heirs are and their distributive shares in
the estate
c. Allows or disallows a claim against an estate (in whole or in part), or
any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against
it
d. Settles the account of an executor, administrator trustee or guardian
e. Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final
determination in the lower court of the rights of the party
appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the
appointment of a special administrator; and
f. Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the
substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting
or denying a motion for a new trial

In special proceedings, the period of appeal from any decision or final order
rendered therein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a record on
appeal being required to perfect the appeal. The appeal period may only
be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Once
the appeal period expires without an appeal or a motion for reconsideration
or new trial being perfected, the decision or order becomes final.

Judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of law and

not by judicial declaration. The trial court need not pronounce the finality of
an order, as this becomes fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of
appeal if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsideration or new trial is
filed.