spec pro week 3

8/9/2019 spec pro week 3

1/28

G.R. No. 118671 January 29, 1996

THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EMON RUIZ, E!"#u$or,petitioner,vs.THE %OURT OF A&&EALS 'For("r S)"#*a+ S*!$ *-**on/, MARIA &ILAR RUIZ0MONTES,MARIA %ATHRN RUIZ, %ANI%E ALERTINE RUIZ, MARIA ANGELINE RUIZ an3 THE&RESIING JUGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL %OURT OF &ASIG,respondents.

E % I S I O N

&UNO, J.4

This petition for review on certiorariseeks to annul and set aside the decision dated November10, 1994 and the resolution dated January , 199 of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.%. &' No.((04.

The facts show that on June )*, 19+*, ilario -. %ui1e/ecuted a holoraphic will namin ashis heirs his only son, dmond %ui, his adopted dauhter, private respondent -aria 'ilar %ui-ontes, and his three randdauhters, private respondents -aria !athryn, !andice "lbertineand -aria "neline, all children of dmond %ui. The testator be2ueathed to his heirssubstantial cash, personal and real properties and named dmond %ui e/ecutor of his estate.)

3n "pril 1), 19++, ilario %ui died. mmediately thereafter, the cash component of his estatewas distributed amon dmond %ui and private respondents in accordance with the decedent5swill. 6or unbeknown reasons, dmond, the named e/ecutor, did not take any action for theprobate of his father5s holoraphic will.

3n June )9, 199), four years after the testator5s death, it was private respondent -aria 'ilar%ui -ontes who filed before the %eional Trial !ourt, 7ranch 18, 'asi, a petition for theprobate and approval of ilario %ui5s will and for the issuance of letters testamentary todmond %ui,(&urprisinly, dmond opposed the petition on the round that the will wase/ecuted under undue influence.

3n November ), 199), one of the properties of the estate the house and lot at No. ) 3liva&treet, :alle :erde :, 'asi which the testator be2ueathed to -aria !athryn, !andice "lbertineand -aria "neline4 was leased out by dmond %ui to third persons.

3n January 19, 199(, the probate court ordered dmond to deposit with the 7ranch !lerk of!ourt the rental deposit and payments totallin '40,000.00 representin the one#year lease ofthe :alle :erde property. n compliance, on January ), 199(, dmond turned over the amountof '(4+,+(.8, representin the balance of the rent after deductin '191,418.14 for repair andmaintenance e/penses on the estate.

n -arch 199(, dmond moved for the release of '0,000.00 to pay the real estate ta/es on thereal properties of the estate. The probate court approved the release of '*,*)).00.8

3n -ay 14, 199(, dmond withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will. !onse2uently, theprobate court, on -ay 1+, 199(, admitted the will to probate and ordered the issuance of letterstestamentary to dmond conditioned upon the filin of a bond in the amount of '0,000.00. Theletters testamentary were issued on June )(, 199(.

3n July )+, 199(, petitioner Testate state of ilario %ui, with dmond %ui as e/ecutor, filedan ;/#'arte -otion for %elease of 6unds.; t prayed for the release of the rent paymentsdeposited with the 7ranch !lerk of !ourt. %espondent -ontes opposed the motion andconcurrently filed a ;-otion for %elease of 6unds to !ertain eirs; and ;-otion for ssuance of

!ertificate of "llowance of 'robate


2/28

"s to the release of the titles be2ueathed to petitioner -aria 'ilar %ui#-ontes andthe above#named heirs, the same is hereby reconsidered and held in abeyance untilthe lapse of si/ @8A months from the date of first publication of Notice to !reditors.

ude, the appellate court dismissed the petition and sustained theprobate court5s order in a decision dated November 10, 199410and a resolution dated January ,199.11

ence, this petition.

'etitioner claims that?

T 'B7C! %&'3N=NT !3B%T 36 "''"C& !3--TT= $%": "7B&36 =&!%T3N "-3BNTN$ T3 C"!D 3% E!&& 36 JB%&=!T3N N

"66%-N$ "N= !3N6%-N$ T 3%=% 36 %&'3N=NT %$3N"C T%"C!3B%T 36 '"&$, 7%"N! 18, ="T= =!-7% )), 199(, ual partnership, the deceased5s leitimate spouse and children,reardless of their ae, civil status or ainful employment, are entitled to provisional support

from the funds of the estate.14The law is rooted on the fact that the riht and duty to support,especially the riht to education, subsist even beyond the ae of ma>ority.1

7e that as it may, randchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of thedecedent5s estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to ;widow and children; and does note/tend it to the deceased5s randchildren, reardless of their minority or incapacity.18t waserror, therefore, for the appellate court to sustain the probate court5s order rantin an allowanceto the randchildren of the testator pendin settlement of his estate.

%espondent courts also erred when they ordered the release of the titles of the be2ueathedproperties to private respondents si/ months after the date of first publication of notice tocreditors. "n order releasin titles to properties of the estate amounts to an advance distributionof the estate which is allowed only under the followin conditions?

&ec. ).Advance distribution in special proceedings . Nothwithstandin a pendincontroversy or appeal in proceedins to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may,in its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem proper and >ust, permit that suchpart of the estate as may not be affected by the controversy or appeal be distributedamon the heirs or leatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth in %ule 90of these %ules.1*

"nd %ule 90 provides that?

&ec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made . When the debts, funeralcharges, and expenses of administration the allowance to the widow, and inheritance

tax if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court,

on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the

estate, and after hearing upon notice shall assign the residue of the estate to the

persons entitled to the same, namin them and the proportions or parts, to which eachis entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares fromthe e/ecutor or administrator, or any other person havin the same in his possession.f there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of thedeceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitledunder the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.

No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obliations above#mentionedhas been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, ive a bond, ina sum to be fi/ed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obliations withinsuch time as the court directs.1+
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_118671_1996.html#fnt18


3/28

n settlement of estate proceedins, the distribution of the estate properties can only be made?@1A after all the debts, funeral chares, e/penses of administration, allowance to the widow, andestate ta/ have been paidH or @)A before payment of said obliations only if the distributees orany of them ives a bond in a sum fi/ed by the court conditioned upon the payment of saidobliations within such time as the court directs, or when provision is made to meet thoseobliations.19

n the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release of the titles to the :alle :erde propertyand the 7lue %ide apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of si/ months from the

date of first publication of the notice to creditors. The 2uestioned order speaks of ;notice; tocreditors, not payment of debts and obliations. ilario %ui alleedly left no debts when he diedbut the ta/es on his estate had not hitherto been paid, much less ascertained. The estate ta/ isone of those obliations that must be paid before distribution of the estate. f not yet paid, therule re2uires that the distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said ta/obliation in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance.)0Notably, at the time theorder was issued the properties of the estate had not yet been inventoried and appraised.

t was also too early in the day for the probate court to order the release of the titles si/ monthsafter admittin the will to probate. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due e/ecution ande/trinsic validity)1and settles only the 2uestion of whether the testator, bein of sound mind,freely e/ecuted it in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.))uestions as to theintrinsic validity and efficacy of the provisions of the will, the leality of any devise or leacy may

be raised even after the will has been authenticated.)(

The intrinsic validity of ilario5s holoraphic will was controverted by petitioner before theprobate court in his %eply to -ontes5 3pposition to his motion for release of funds)4and hismotion for reconsideration of the "uust )8, 199( order of the said court.)Therein, petitionerassailed the distributive shares of the devisees and leatees inasmuch as his father5s willincluded the estate of his mother and alleedly impaired his leitime as an intestate heir of hismother. The %ules provide that if there is a controversy as to who are the lawful heirs of thedecedent and their distributive shares in his estate, the probate court shall proceed to hear anddecide the same as in ordinary cases.)8

&till and all, petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order deprived him of his riht to

take possession of all the real and personal properties of the estate. The riht of an e/ecutor oradministrator to the possession and manaement of the real and personal properties of thedeceased is not absolute and can only be e/ercised ;so lon as it is necessary for the paymentof the debts and e/penses of administration,;)*&ection ( of %ule +4 of the %evised %ules of!ourt e/plicitly provides?

&ec. (. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay debts, and toadminister estate not willed. "n e/ecutor or administrator shall have the riht to thepossession and manaement of the real as well as the personal estate of thedeceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses foradministration.)+


4/28

2. ID.; ID.; REMO3AL OF ADMINISTRATOR; 4USTIFIED, FOR NEGLIGENCE TORENDER AN ACCOUNTING OF HIS ADMINISTRATION AS RE5UIRED BY LAW. ')e6'en( +0!%n&e !n rener!n" %n %&'n(!n" re#r( ! n#( 'r"e her #$ herne"0!"en&e !n n#( rener!n" %n %&'n(!n" $#r +#re (h%n ! *e%r, -h!&h 7'(!$!ee(!(!#ner8 re+#9%0 % %+!n!(r%(r! %n (he %#!n(+en( #$ r!9%(e re#nen( !nher 0%&e % +%n%(e )* Se&(!#n 2 #$ R'0e :2 #$ (he R'0e #$ C#'r(. A rre&(0*(%(e )* (he %e00%(e 'r( /The e((0e r'0e ! (h%( (he re+#9%0 #$ %n%+!n!(r%(#r 'ner Se&(!#n 2 #$ R'0e :2 0!e -!(h!n (he !&re(!#n #$ (he C#'r(%#!n(!n" h!+. A %(0* eree )* (he S're+e C#'r( !n (he &%e #$ De"%0% 9.Cen!=.&h%nr#)0e.+&r%0%-re

On 4'ne :, 1>=2, 3!&(#r!% L!+ %0%- $!0e %n %+ene e(!(!#n $#r (he !'%n&e #$Le((er #$ A+!n!(r%(!#n -!(h (he (hen C#'r( #$ F!r( In(%n&e #$ M%n!0% !n Se&!%0Pr#&ee!n" N#. :2 n%+!n" An% L!+ %0%- *e%r #0, 3!&(#r!% L!+ %0%- =*e%r #0, P'r% L!+ %0%- *e%r #0 %n R#% L!+ %0%- *e%r #0 % (he'r9!9!n" he!r #$ (he 0%(e C%r0# L!+ %0%-.

On Ar!0 2, 1>=, (he (r!%0 'r( !'e %n #rer %#!n(!n" e(!(!#ner An% L!+%0%- % e&!%0 %+!n!(r%(r!. C#ne6'en(0*, e(!(!#ner $!0e % re0!+!n%r*!n9en(#r* #$ %00 (he r#er(!e -h!&h &%+e !n(# her #e!#n % e&!%0%+!n!(r%(r! #$ (he e(%(e #$ her 0%(e $%(her #n 4'ne , 1>=.

On O&(#)er , 1>==, (he (r!%0 'r( !'e %n#(her #rer %#!n(!n" e(!(!#ner % (he7'!&!%0 %+!n!(r%(r! #$ %! e(%(e %n % Le((er #$ A+!n!(r%(!#n -% !'e (# (hee(!(!#ner %$(er (he 0%((er (##@ her #%(h #$ #$$!&e #n N#9e+)er 11, 1>==.

There%$(er, 4#e L!+ $!0e % +#(!#n (# re6'!re e(!(!#ner (# rener %n %&'n(!n" #$

her %+!n!(r%(!#n #$ %! e(%(e -h!&h -% "r%n(e )* re#nen( 4'"e R!&%r#D!%< !n %n #rer %(e De&e+)er :, 1>:2.&h%nr#)0e 0%- 0!)r%r*

On 4'0* 1, 1>:, re#nen( 7'"e !'e %n#(her #rer re6'!r!n" e(!(!#ner (#rener %n %&'n(!n" #$ her %+!n!(r%(!#n -!(h (he ere !n(r'&(!#n (h%( %!#rer )e er#n%00* er9e '#n (he e(!(!#ner !n&e (he #rer %(e De&e+)er :,1>:2 -% re('rne (# (he C#'r( 'ner9e. H#-e9er, %! #rer -% %0# n#(re&e!9e )* (he e(!(!#ner.

On 4%n'%r* 1, 1>:, r!9%(e re#nen( R#% L!+ %0%- (#"e(her -!(h her !(er

3!&(#r!% %n P'r% L!+ %0%- $!0e % +#(!#n (# re+#9e e(!(!#ner % %+!n!(r%(r! #$(he!r $%(her8 e(%(e %n (# %#!n( !n(e% r!9%(e re#nen( #n (he "r#'n #$ne"0!"en&e #n (he %r( #$ e(!(!#ner !n her '(!e $#r $%!0!n" (# rener %n %&'n(!n"#$ her %+!n!(r%(!#n !n&e her %#!n(+en( % %+!n!(r%(r! +#re (h%n ! *e%r%"# !n 9!#0%(!#n #$ Se&(!#n : #$ R'0e : #$ (he Re9!e R'0e #$ C#'r(. The +#(!#n-% e( $#r he%r!n" #n Fe)r'%r* 1, 1>:.

On Fe)r'%r* 21, 1>:, re#nen( 7'"e !'e %n#(her #rer re6'!r!n" e(!(!#ner(# rener %n %&'n(!n" -!(h!n %* $r#+ re&e!( (here#$ -h!&h he ! #n M%r&h22, 1>:. She 0!@e-!e $!0e #n (he %+e %(e, her O#!(!#n (# (he +#(!#n r%*!n"$#r her re+#9%0 % %+!n!(r%(r! %00e"!n" (h%( (he e0%* !n rener!n" %!%&'n(!n" -% 'e (# (he $%&( (h%( 4'"e C%r0# S'n!%+, -h# -% (he 7'"e-here (he !n(e(%(e r#&ee!n" -% %!"ne, h% (hen )een r#+#(e (# (he C#'r(#$ Ae%0 &%'!n" %! %0% (# )e 9%&%(e $#r % n!er%)0e 0en"(h #$ (!+e, -h!0e

ne-0*%#!n(e 4'"e 4#e0 T!#n" !e #$ &%r!%& %rre( ##n %$(er h!%#!n(+en( (# %! 9%&%n&*, # +'&h # (h%( he ! n#( @n#- (# -h#+ (# rener%n %&'n(!n" re#r(.

In (he!r Re7#!ner %n M%n!$e(%(!#n, r!9%(e re#nen( %n her +#9%n( %00e"e(h%( (he "r#'n re0!e '#n $#r e(!(!#ner8 re+#9%0 -% n#( (he e0%* )'( her $%!0're#r ne"0e&( (# rener %n %&'n(!n" #$ %00 (he r#er(!e -h!&h &%+e !n(# her#e!#n % re6'!re 'ner Se&(!#n 1 #$ R'0e : #$ (he Re9!e R'0e #$C#'r(.&h%nr#)0e.+ 9!r('%0 0%- 0!)r%r*

On 4%n'%r* , 1>:, (he (r!%0 'r( renere % e&!!#n, (he !#!(!9e #r(!#n #$-h!&h re%7"&&h%nr#)0e.+.h

/Fr#+ (he $#re"#!n", (he C#'r( $!n (h%( A+!n!(r%(r! An% L!+ %0%- 9!#0%(e (her#9!!#n #$ Se&(!#n :, R'0e : #$ (he R'0e #$ C#'r( $#r n#( rener!n" %n %&'n(#$ her %+!n!(r%(!#n -!(h!n #ne 1 *e%r $r#+ %(e #$ re&e!( #$ (he 0e((er #$%+!n!(r%(!#n %n (h! n(!('(e ne"0!"en&e #n her %r( (# er$#r+ her '(* %A+!n!(r%(r! %n 'ner Se&(!#n 2, R'0e :2 #$ (he R'0e #$ C#'r(, ne"0e&( #n (he%r( #$ (he %+!n!(r%(r! (# rener her %&'n( ! % "r#'n $#r her re+#9%0 % %n%+!n!(r%(r!. F!n!n" (he !n(%n( +#(!#n (# re+#9e A+!n!(r%(r! (# )e+er!(#r!#' %n -e00(%@en, (he %+e !, % !( ! here)*, GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, A+!n!(r%(r! An% L!+ %0%- ! here)* REMO3ED % '&hA+!n!(r%(r! #$ (he E(%(e #$ (he 0%(e C%r0# L!+ %0%-./ 2

On Se(e+)er 2, 1>:, Petitioner, -!(h#'( -%!(!n" $#r (he re#0'(!#n #$ (he +#(!#n$#r ren!er%(!#n -!(h (he (r!%0 'r(, $!0e % Pe(!(!#n $#r Certiorari-!(h Pre0!+!n%r*In7'n&(!#n #r Re(r%!n!n" Orer -!(h (he (hen In(er+e!%(e Ae00%(e C#'r( (# %nn'0%n e( %!e (he $#00#-!n" Orer !'e )* re#nen( 4'"e D!%


5/28

/%. Orer %(e 4%n'%r* , 1>: re+#9!n" (he Pe(!(!#ner % A+!n!(r%(r! #$ (hee(%(e #$ (he 0%(e C%r0# L!+ %0%-;

). Orer %(e Ar!0 , 1>: en*!n" Pe(!(!#ner8 M#(!#n $#r Ren!er%(!#n #$ (heOrer #$ 4%n'%r* , 1>:;

&. Orer %(e M%* 1, 1>: %#!n(!n" r!9%(e Re#nen( R#% L!+ %0%-, %A+!n!(r%(r! #$ %! E(%(e;&h%nr#)0e9!r('%0%-0!)r%r*

. Orer %(e 4'ne 1>, 1>: !re&(!n" (he (en%n( %nJ#r 0eee #$ (he C%r0# L!+

%0%- )'!0!n" (# e#!( (he ren(%0 !n 'r( %n %'(h#r!

On De&e+)er 2=, 1>:, (he %e00%(e 'r( renere % e&!!#n, (he !#!(!9e#r(!#n #$ -h!&h re%7"&&h%nr#)0e.+.h

/WHEREFORE, (he e(!(!#n $#r certiorari! DENIED. H#-e9er, re#nen( 4'"e !!re&(e (# re6'!re r!9%(e re#nen( R#% L!+ %0%- (# #( (he %r#r!%(e%+!n!(r%(#r8 )#n -!(h!n (en 1 %* $r#+ n#(!&e here#$. W!(h ( %"%!n(e(!(!#ner./

On 4%n'%r* 21, 1>:, e(!(!#ner $!0e % +#(!#n $#r ren!er%(!#n #$ %! e&!!#n-h!&h -% h#-e9er en!e $#r 0%&@ #$ +er!( #n M%* 12, 1>:.

Hen&e, (h! e(!(!#n %00e"!n" "r%9e %)'e #$ !&re(!#n #n (he %r( #$ (he %e00%(e'r( !n '(%!n!n" re#nen( 4'"e D!%== (# De&e+)er, 1>: !n +0!%n&e -!(hre#nen(8 4'"e #rer.

Se&(!#n : #$ R'0e : #$ (he Re9!e R'0e #$ C#'r( r#9!e(h%(7"&&h%nr#)0e.+.h

/SEC. :. When ee&'(#r #r %+!n!(r%(#r (# rener %&'n(. E9er* ee&'(#r #r%+!n!(r%(#r h%00 rener %n %&'n( #$ h! %+!n!(r%(!#n -!(h!n #ne 1 *e%r $r#+(he (!+e #$ re&e!9!n" 0e((er (e(%+en(%r* #r #$ %+!n!(r%(!#n, 'n0e (he 'r(#(her-!e !re&( )e&%'e #$ e(en!#n #$ (!+e $#r reen(!n" &0%!+ %"%!n(, #r%*!n" (he e)( #$, (he e(%(e, #r $#r !#!n" #$ (he e(%(e; %n he h%00 rener'&h $'r(her %&'n( % (he 'r( +%* re6'!re 'n(!0 (he e(%(e ! -h#00*e((0e./ &h%nr#)0e 0%- 0!)r%r*

The rener!n" #$ %n %&'n(!n" )* %n %+!n!(r%(#r #$ h! %+!n!(r%(!#n -!(h!n #ne*e%r $r#+ h! %#!n(+en( ! +%n%(#r*, % h#-n )* (he 'e #$ (he -#r /h%00/ !n%! r'0e. The #n0* e&e(!#n ! -hen (he C#'r( #(her-!e !re&( )e&%'e #$e(en!#n #$ (!+e $#r reen(!n" &0%!+ %"%!n( (he e(%(e #r $#r %*!n" (he e)(#r !#!n" (he %e( #$ (he e(%(e, -h!&h # n#( e!( !n (he &%e %( )%r.

F'r(her+#re, e(!(!#ner8 e&'e (h%( (he %0% -here (he !n(e(%(e r#&ee!n" -%en!n" -% 9%&%n( +#( #$ (he (!+e eer9e &%n( n!er%(!#n !n&e e(!(!#nerne9er %((e+(e (# $!0e -!(h %! 'r( %n %&'n(!n" re#r( #$ her %+!n!(r%(!#ne!(e (he $%&( (h%( %( #ne (!+e #r %n#(her, 4'"e S'n!%+ %n 4'"e T!#n" -erere!!n" #9er %! %0% 'r!n" (he!r !n&'+)en&*.

L!@e-!e, her ')e6'en( +0!%n&e !n rener!n" %n %&'n(!n" re#r( ! n#('r"e her #$ her ne"0!"en&e !n n#( rener!n" %n %&'n(!n" $#r +#re (h%n ! *e%r,

-h!&h 7'(!$!e e(!(!#ner8 re+#9%0 % %+!n!(r%(r! %n (he %#!n(+en( #$ r!9%(ere#nen( !n her 0%&e % +%n%(e )* Se&(!#n 2 #$ R'0e :2 #$ (he R'0e #$ C#'r(.

A rre&(0* (%(e )* (he %e00%(e 'r(7"&&h%nr#)0e.+.h

/The e((0e r'0e ! (h%( (he re+#9%0 #$ %n %+!n!(r%(#r 'ner Se&(!#n 2 #$ R'0e :20!e -!(h!n (he !&re(!#n #$ (he C#'r( %#!n(!n" h!+. A %(0* eree )* (heS're+e C#'r( !n (he &%e #$ De"%0% 9. Cen!:, (# -h!&h +#(!#n r!9%(e re#nen($!0e %n ##!(!#n #n 4%n'%r* 2, 1>:. Pe(!(!#ner $!0e % re7#!ner (# (he ##!(!#n#n Fe)r'%r* 1:, 1>:. Re#nen( 4'"e !'e h! #rer en*!n" (he +#(!#n $#rren!er%(!#n #n Ar!0 , 1>:. Th! re&!(%0 #$ e9en( !n')!(%)0* !r#9ee(!(!#ner8 %00e"%(!#n (h%( he -% n#( %$$#re 'e r#&e./ =

WHEREFORE, $!n!n" n# +er!( !n (he e(!(!#n $#r certiorari, r#h!)!(!#n %n+%n%+' -!(h re0!+!n%r* !n7'n&(!#n, (he %+e ! here)* DENIED. C#( %"%!n(e(!(!#ner.&h%nr#)0e9!r('%0%-0!)r%r*

SO ORDERED.

N%r9%%, C.J., P%!00% %n Re"%0%#, JJ., n&'r.

Me0#, J., (##@ n# %r(.


6/28

Endnotes:

1. Penne )* 4'(!&e S%n(!%"# M. %'n%n -!(h 4'(!&e F!e0 P. P'r!!+% %nA0$re# M. L%udicial uardian in anearlier case # &pecial !ivil !ase No. 1*+ K also of the !6 of =avao !ity, 7ranch :.

3n =ecember *, 19*), the intestate court issued an order rantin "ustinLs petition.

3n July 8, 19*(, respondent 'hilippine National 7ank @'N7A and "ustin e/ecutedan A("n3("n$ o= R"a+ an3 %a$$"+ Mor$


7/28

n an Or3"r o= O#$o;"r 19, 197, the intestate court ranted "ustin authority to seek additionalloan from 'N7 in an amount not e/ceedin ',000,000.00 to be secured by the land covered by3!T No. '#*1(1 of the %eistry of =eeds of =avao 3riental, but denied "ustinLs prayer fordeclaration of heirs for bein premature.

3n 3ctober )), 19*4, a real estate mortae contract for '4,00,000.00 was e/ecuted by 'N7and "ustin in his several capacities as? @1A administrator of the estate of his late wifeH @)Aeneral manaer of 'CH @(A attorney#in#fact of spouses sabelita 'ahamotan and 3rlando%ui, and spouses &usana 'ahamotan and 3ctavio GamoraH and @4A uardian of dauhters

!oncepcion and $enoveva and petitioners Josephine and leonor. 3ffered as securities for theadditional loan are three @(A parcels of reistered land covered by T!Ts No. T#)11(), (**+8 and4()84.

3n 6ebruary 19, 19+0, "ustin filed with the intestate court a &"$*$*on 'R"?u"$ =or Ju3*#*a+Au$or*$y To S"++ %"r$a*n &ro)"r$*" o= $" E$a$"/, therein prayin for authority to sellto Ar$uro Arudicial foreclosure ofthe mortae.

'etitioner Josephine filed a motion with the intestate court for the i ssuance of an orderrestrainin 'N7 from e/tra>udicially foreclosin the mortae. n its 3rder dated "uust 19,19+(, the intestate court denied JosephineLs motion. ence, 'N7 was able to foreclose themortae in its favor.

'etitioners Josephine and leanor, toether with their sister &usana 'ahamaton#Gamora, filed

motions with the intestate court to set aside i ts Or3"r o= "#"(;"r 1, 1972MNote? the orderdated July 1+, 19*( contained reference to an order dated =ecember 14, 19*) approvin themortae to 'N7 of certain properties of the estate, Ju+y 18, 197, O#$o;"r 19,197and F";ruary 25, 198.

n an 3rder dated &eptember , 19+(, the intestate court denied the motions, e/plainin?

;!arefully analyin the aforesaid motions and the rounds relied upon, as well as theopposition thereto, the !ourt holds that the supposed defects andFor irreularities complained ofare mainly formal or procedural and not substantial, for which reason, the !ourt is notpersuaded to still disturb all the orders, especially that i nterests of the parties to the variouscontracts already authoried or approved by the 3rders souht to be set aside will be adversely

affected;.(

&uch was the state of thins when, on -arch )0, 19+4, in the %eional Trial !ourt at =avao !ity,petitioners Josephine and leanor, toether with their sister &usana, filed their complaintfor Nu++*=*#a$*on o= Mor$ust ande2uitable under the premisesH
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt3


8/28

8.A 6or defendants to pay plaintiffs, >ointly and severally, the e/penses incurred in connectionwith this litiationH

*.A 6or defendants to pay plaintiffs, >ointly and severally attorney5s fees in an amount to beproven durin the trialH

+.A 6or defendants to pay the costs of the suit;.4

'N7 moved to dismiss the complaint, which the trial court ranted in its 3rder of January 11,19+.

owever, upon motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court reversed itself and ordered defendant 'N7to file its answer.

=efendant 'N7 did file its answer with counterclaim, accompanied by a cross#claim aainst co#defendants "ustin and 'C.

=urin the ensuin pre#trial conference, the parties submitted the followin issues for theresolution of the trial court, to wit?

;1.


9/28

(. Or3"r 3a$"3 F";ruary 25, 198, ivin "ustin permission to sell properties of the estate to"rturo "runa and 'CH and

4. Or3"r 3a$"3 January 7, 1981, cancelin the re2uirement of e/press conformity by the heirsas a condition for the disposal of estate properties.

To the appellate court, petitioners committed a fatal error of mountin a collateral attack on theforeoin orders instead of initiatin a direct action to annul them. /plains the !ourt of "ppeals?

;" null and void >udment is susceptible to direct as well as collateral attack. " direct attackaainst a >udment is made throuh an action or proceedin the main ob>ect of which is toannul, set aside, or en>oin the enforcement of such >udment, if not carried into effectH or if theproperty has been disposed of, the arieved party may sue for recovery. " collateral attack ismade when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the >udment is made asan incident in said action. This is proper only when the >udment, on its fact, is null and void, aswhere it is patent that the court which rendered such >udment has no >urisdiction. " >udmentvoid on its face may also be attacked directly.

/// /// ///

'erusin the above aruments and comparin them with the settled rulin, the plaintiffs#

appellees Mnow petitioners, we believe had availed themselves of the wron remedy before thetrial court. t is clear that they are collaterally attackin the various orders of the intestate court inan action for the nullification of the sub>ect mortaes, and foreclosure proceedins in favor of'N7, and the deeds of sale in favor of "runa. -ost of their aruments stemmed from theiralleations that the various orders of the intestate court were issued without a notification ivento them. "n e/amination, however, of the July 1+, 19*( order shows that the heirs of -elitonahave knowlede of the petition to increase mortae filed by "ustin, thus?

PThe petitioner testified that all his children includin those who are of ae have no ob>ection tothis petition and, as matter of fact, "na 'ahamotan, one of the heirs of -elitona 'ahamotan,who is the vice#president of the loin corporation, is the one at present neotiatin for theincrease of mortae with the 'hilippine National 7ank.5

The presumption arisin from those statements of the intestate court is that the heirs werenotified of the petition for the increase of mortae.

The same can be seen in the 3ctober 19, 19*4 order?

PThe records show that all the known heirs, namely "na, sabelita, !oraon, &usana, includinthe incompetent $enoveva, and the minors Josephine, leanor and !oncepcion all surnamedwere notified of the hearin of the petition.5

3n the other hand, the 6ebruary ), 19+0 order re2uired "ustin to obtain first e/pressconformity from the heirs before the sub>ect property be sold to "runa. The fact that this wasreconsidered by the intestate court in its January 0*, 19+1 is of no moment. The 2uestioned

orders are valid havin been issued in accordance with law and procedure. The problem with theplaintiffs#appellees is that, in tryin to nullify the sub>ect mortaes and the foreclosure

proceedins in favor of 'N7 and the deeds of sale in favor of "runa, they are assailin theaforesaid orders of the intestate court and in attackin the said orders, they attached documentsthat they believe would warrant the conclusion that the assailed orders are null and void. This isa clear collateral attack of the orders of the intestate court which is not void on its face and whichcannot be allowed in the present action. The defects alleed by the plaintiff#appellees are notapparent on the face of the assailed orders. Their recourse is to ask for the declaration of nullityof the said orders, not in a collateral manner, but a direct action to annul the same;.+

The same court added that petitionersL failure to assail said orders at the most opportune time

constitutes laches?

;n their complaint below, plaintiffs, appellees are assailin in their present action, four orders ofthe intestate court namely? July 1+, 19*(, 3ctober 19, 19*4, 6ebruary ), 19+0 and January 0*,19+1 orders which were then issued by Jude -artine. t should be recalled that e/cept for theJanuary 0*, 19+1 order, Jude Jacinto, upon takin over &p. No. 1*9), denied the motion of theplaintiffs#appellees to set aside the aforesaid orders. "side from their motion before JudeJacinto, nothin on the records would show that the plaintiffs#appellees availed of otherremedies to set aside the 2uestioned orders. 6urther, the records would not show that theplaintiffs#appellees appealed the order of Jude Jacinto. f an interval of two years, sevenmonths and ninety nine days were barred by laches, with more reason should the same doctrineapply to the present case, considerin that the plaintiffs#appellees did not avail of the remediesprovided by law in impunin the various orders of the intestate court. Thus, the 2uestioned

orders of the intestate court, by operation of law became final. t is a fundamental principle ofpublic policy in every >ural system that at the risk of occasional errors, >udments of courtsshould become final at some definite time fi/ed by law @interest rei publicae ut finis sit litumA. Thevery ob>ect of which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. 3nce a

>udment or an order of a court has become final, the issues raised therein should be laid torest. To date, e/cept as to the present action which we will later discuss as improper, theplaintiff#appellees have not availed themselves of other avenues to have the orders issued byJude -artine and Jude Jacinto annulled and set aside. n the present case, when JudeJacinto denied the motion of the plaintiffs#appellees, the latter had remedies provided by therules to assail such order. The rulin by Jude Jacinto denyin plaintiffs#appellees motion to setaside the 2uestioned orders of Jude -artine has lon ac2uired finality. t is well embedded inour >urisprudence, that >udment properly rendered by a court vested with >urisdiction, like the%T!, and which has ac2uired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no

loner be modified in any respect e/cept only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. Citiationmust have and always has an end. f not, >udicial function will lose its relevance;.

n time, petitioners moved for a reconsideration but their motion was denied by the appellatecourt in itsR"o+u$*on o= No-"(;"r 2, 22.

ence, petitionersL present recourse, basically prayin for the reversal of the !" decision andthe reinstatement of that of the trial court.


10/28

consented thereto. They assert that as heirs of their mother -elitona, they are entitled to noticeof "ustin5s several petitions in the intestate court seekin authority to mortae and sell estateproperties. ect orders in their desire to invalidate the contracts of mortae enteredinto by "ustin. To 'N7, the validity of the sub>ect orders of the intestate court can only bechallened in a direct action for such purpose and not in an action to annul contracts, as thepetitioners have done. This respondent adds that the mortae on the sub>ect properties is validbecause the same was made with the approval of the intestate court and with the knowlede ofthe heirs of -elitona, petitioners included.9

Bpon the other hand, respondent eirs of "rturo "runa likewise claim that petitioners knew ofthe filin with the intestate court by "ustin of petitions to mortae and sell the estateproperties. They reecho the !"Ls rulin that petitioners are barred by laches in filin !ivil !ase

No. 18,+0).10

"s we see it, the determinative 2uestion is whether or not petitioners can obtain relief from theeffects of contracts of sale and mortae entered into by "ustin without first initiatin a directaction aainst the orders of the intestate court authoriin the challened contracts.

urisdiction over the sub>ect matter of the case upon the alleations inthe complaint that said contracts were entered into despite lack of notices to the heirs of thepetition for the approval of those contracts by the intestate court.

!ontrary to the view of the !ourt of "ppeals, the action which petitioners loded with the trialcourt in !ivil !ase No. 18,+0) is not an action to annul the orders of the intestate court, which,accordin to !", cannot be done collaterally. t is the validity of the contracts of mortae andsale which is directly attacked in the action.

"nd, in the e/ercise of its >urisdiction, the trial court made a factual findin in its decision of

"uust *, 199+ that petitioners were, in fact, not notified by their father "ustin of the filin of hispetitions for permission to mortaeFsell the estate properties. The trial court made the correct

conclusion of law that the challened orders of the intestate court rantin "ustinLs petitionswere null and void for lack of compliance with the mandatory re2uirements of %ule +9 of the%ules of !ourt, particularly &ections ), 4, * thereof, which respectively read?

;S"#. 2. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of realty to pay debtsand legacies through personalty not exhausted. # ure the business or other interests of those interested in the estate,and where a testator has not otherwise made sufficient provision for the payment of such debts,

e/penses, and leacies, the court, on the application of the e/ecutor or administrator andon >r*$$"n no$*#" $o $" "*r, 3"-*"", an3 +"


11/28

&ettled is the rule in this >urisdiction that when an order authoriin the sale or encumbrance ofreal property was issued by the testate or intestate court without previous notice to the heirs,devisees and leatees as re2uired by the %ules, it is not only the contract itself which is null andvoid but also the order of the court authoriin the same.11

Thus, in Man"#+an< -. aun,1)the previous administrator of the estate filed a petition with theintestate court seekin authority to sell portion of the estate, which the court ranted despite lackof notice of hearin to the heirs of the decedent. The new administrator of the estate filed withthe %eional Trial !ourt an action for the annulment of the sales made by the previous

administrator. "fter trial, the trial court held that the order of the intestate court rantin authorityto sell, as well as the deed of sale, were void. 3n appeal directly to this !ourt, udicialauthority to sell estate properties to "rturo "runa and 'C.1

"s it were, the appellate court offered little e/planation on why it did not believe the trial court inits findin that petitioners were inorant of "ustinLs scheme to mortae and sell the estateproperties.

"side from merely 2uotin the or3"r o= Ju+y 18, 197and O#$o;"r 19, 197of the intestatecourt, the !ourt of "ppeals leaves us in the dark on its reason for disbelievin the trial court. The

appellate court did not publicie its appraisal of the evidence presented by the parties before thetrial court in the matter reardin the knowlede, or absence thereof, by the petitioners of

"ustinLs petitions. The appellate court cannot casually set aside the findins of the trial courtwithout statin clearly the reasons therefor. 6indins of the trial court are entitled to reat weiht,and absent any indication to believe otherwise, we simply cannot adopt the conclusion reachedby the !ourt of "ppeals.

Caches is nelience or omission to assert a riht within a reasonable time, warrantin thepresumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined the riht.18Theessential elements of laches are? @1A conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whomhe claims, ivin rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint

seeks a remedyH @)A delay in assertin the complainant5s rihts, the complainant havin hadknowlede or notice of the defendant5s conduct and havin been afforded an opportunity toinstitute a suitH @(A lack of knowlede or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainantwould assert the riht on which he bases his suitH and @4A in>ury or pre>udice to the defendant inthe event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.1*

n the present case, the appellate court erred in appreciatin laches aainst petitioners. Theelement of delay in 2uestionin the sub>ect orders of the intestate court is sorely lackin.'etitioners were totally unaware of the plan of "ustin to mortae and sell the estateproperties. There is no indication that mortaor 'N7 and vendee "runa had notifiedpetitioners of the contracts they had e/ecuted with "ustin. "lthouh petitioners finally obtainedknowlede of the sub>ect petitions filed by their father, and eventually challened the July 1+,19*(, 3ctober 19, 19*4, 6ebruary ), 19+0 and January *, 19+1 orders of the intestate court, it

is not clear from the challened decision of the appellate court when they @petitionersA actuallylearned of the e/istence of said orders of the intestate court. "bsent any indication of the point intime when petitioners ac2uired knowlede of those orders, their alleed delay in impunin thevalidity thereof certainly cannot be established. "nd the !ourt of "ppeals cannot simply imputelaches aainst them.

@HEREFORE, the assailed issuances of the !ourt of "ppeals are hereby %:%&= and &T"&= and the decision dated "uust *, 199+ of the trial court in its !ivil !ase No. 18,+0)%N&T"T=.

&3 3%=%=.

G.R. No. 1298 January 1, 2

TEOORA A. RIOFERIO, :ERONI%A O. E:ANGELISTA a*$"3 ;y "r u;an3 ZALE:ANGELISTA, ALERTO ORFINAA, an3 RO@ENA O. UNGOS, a*$"3 ;y "r u;an3EA UNGOS,petitioners,vs.%OURT OF A&&EALS, ES&ERANZA &. ORFINAA, LOURES &. ORFINAA, ALFONSOORFINAA, NAN% &. ORFINAA, ALFONSO JAMES &. ORFINAA, %HRISTO&HER &.ORFINAA an3 ANGELO &. ORFINAA,respondents.

= ! & 3 N

TINGA, J.4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_156403_2005.html#fnt17


12/28

ectof the e/tra#>udicial settlement.*

3n =ecember 1, 199, respondent "lfonso ;!lyde; '. 3rfinada filed a "etition for (etters ofAdministrationdocketed as &.'. !ase No. 11+ before the %eional Trial !ourt of "neles !ity,prayin that letters of administration encompassin the estate of "lfonso '. 3rfinada, Jr. beissued to him.+

3n =ecember 4, 199, respondents filed a #omplaint for the Annulment)escission of ExtraJudicial %ettlement of Estate of a Deceased "erson with &uitclaim, eal Estate 'ortgage and

#ancellation of *ransfer #ertificate of *itles with +os. -/-, -/0 and -/1 and 2ther

elated Documentswith =amaes aainst petitioners, the %ural 7ank of -analdan, nc. andthe %eister of =eeds of =aupan !ity before the %eional Trial !ourt, 7ranch 4), =aupan!ity.9

3n 6ebruary , 1998, petitioners filed theirAnswerto the aforesaid complaint interposin thedefense that the property sub>ect of the contested deed of e/tra#>udicial settlement pertained tothe properties oriinally belonin to the parents of Teodora %iofero 10and that the titles thereofwere delivered to her as an advance inheritance but the decedent had manaed to reister themin his name.11'etitioners also raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the realparties#in#interest but rather the state of "lfonso 3. 3rfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of the

administration proceedins.1)3n "pril )9, 1998, petitioners filed a 'otion to %et AffirmativeDefenses for 3earing1(on the aforesaid round.

The lower court denied the motion in its 2rder14dated June )*, 1998, on the round thatrespondents, as heirs, are the real parties#in#interest especially in the absence of anadministrator who is yet to be appointed in &.'. !ase No. 11+. 'etitioners moved for itsreconsideration1but the motion was likewise denied.18

This prompted petitioners to file before the !ourt of "ppeals their "etition for #ertiorari under%ule 8 of the %ules of !ourt docketed as !" $.%. &.'. No. 4)0(.1*'etitioners averred that the%T! committed rave abuse of discretion in issuin the assailed order which denied thedismissal of the case on the round that the proper party to file the complaint for the annulment

of the e/tra>udicial settlement of the estate of the deceased is the estate of the decedent and notthe respondents.1+

The !ourt of "ppeals rendered the assailed Decision19dated January (1, 199*, statin that itdiscerned no rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e/cess of >urisdiction by the publicrespondent >ude when he denied petitionersL motion to set affirmative defenses for hearin inview of its discretionary nature.

" 'otion for econsideration was filed by petitioners but it was denied.)0ence, the petitionbefore this !ourt.

The issue presented by the petitioners before this !ourt is whether the heirs have leal standin

to prosecute the rihts belonin to the deceased subse2uent to the commencement of theadministration proceedins.)1

'etitioners vehemently fault the lower court for denyin their motion to set the case forpreliminary hearin on their affirmative defense that the proper party to brin the action is theestate of the decedent and not the respondents. t must be stressed that the holdin of apreliminary hearin on an affirmative defense lies in the discretion of the court. This is clear fromthe %ules of !ourt, thus?

&!. . 'leadins rounds as affirmative defenses.# "ny of the rounds for dismissalprovided for in this rule, e/cept improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmativedefense, and a preliminary hearin (aybe had thereon as if a motion to dismiss hadbeen filed.))@mphasis supplied.A

!ertainly, the incorporation of the word ;may; in the provision is clearly indicative of the optionalcharacter of the preliminary hearin. The word denotes discretion and cannot be construed ashavin a mandatory effect.)(&ubse2uently, the electivity of the proceedin was firmed up beyondcavil by the 199* %ules of !ivil 'rocedure with the inclusion of the phrase ;in the discretion ofthe !ourt;, apart from the retention of the word ;may; in &ection 8,)4in %ule 18 thereof.

Just as no blame of abuse of discretion can be laid on the lower courtLs doorstep for not hearinpetitionersL affirmative defense, it cannot likewise be faulted for reconiin the leal standin ofthe respondents as heirs to brin the suit.

'endin the filin of administration proceedins, the heirs without doubt have leal personality to

brin suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of "rticle ***of the New !ivil !ode ;that @tAhe rihts to succession are transmitted from the moment of the


13/28

death of the decedent.; The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the property,rihts and obliations to the e/tent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmittedthrouh his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law.)

ven if administration proceedins have already been commenced, the heirs may still brin thesuit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the totallack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely &ection (, %ule()8and &ection ), %ule +*)*of the %ules of !ourt. n fact, in the case of 4ochan v. 5oung,)+this!ourt reconied the leal standin of the heirs to represent the rihts and properties of the

decedent under administration pendin the appointment of an administrator. Thus?

The above#2uoted rules,)9while permittin an e/ecutor or administrator to represent orto brin suits on behalf of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representinthe deceased. T"" ru+" ar" "a*+y a))+*#a;+" $o #a" *n >*# ana3(*n*$ra$or a a+r"a3y ;""n a))o*n$"3. u$ no ru+" #a$"


14/28

3n =ecember *, 19++, respondent 6lorence &. "riola filed her "nswer1(and alleed that theloan documents did not bind her since she was not a party thereto. !onsiderin that the >ointareement sined by her and her brother dmund was not approved by the probate court, it wasnull and voidH hence, she was not liable to the petitioner under the >oint areement.

3n January )9, 1990, the case was unloaded and re#raffled to the %T! of -akati !ity, 7ranch8(.14!onse2uently, trial on the merits ensued and a decision was subse2uently rendered by thecourt dismissin the complaint for lack of merit. The decretal portion of the %T! decision reads?

udment is hereby rendered =&-&&N$ the complaint for lack of merit.1

The trial court found that the claim of the petitioner should have been filed with the probate courtbefore which the testate estate of the late fraim &antibaQe was pendin, as the sum of moneybein claimed was an obliation incurred by the said decedent. The trial court also found that theJoint "reement apparently e/ecuted by his heirs, dmund and 6lorence, on July )), 19+1,was, in effect, a partition of the estate of the decedent. owever, the said areement was void,considerin that it had not been approved by the probate court, and that there can be no validpartition until after the will has been probated. The trial court further declared that petitionerfailed to prove that it was the now defunct Bnion &avins and -ortae 7ank to which the6!!! had assined its assets and liabilities. The court also areed to the contention ofrespondent 6lorence &. "riola that the list of assets and liabilities of the 6!!! assined to Bnion&avins and -ortae 7ank did not clearly refer to the decedentLs account. %ulin that the >oint

areement e/ecuted by the heirs was null and void, the trial court held that the petitionerLs causeof action aainst respondent 6lorence &. "riola must necessarily fail.

The petitioner appealed from the %T! decision and elevated its case to the !ourt of "ppeals@!"A, assinin the followin as errors of the trial court?

1. T !3B%TA &62%%= N 6N=N$ T"T T J3NT "$%-NT@E7T "A &3BC= 7 "''%3:= 7I T '%37"T !3B%T.

). T !3B%TA &62%%= N 6N=N$ T"T T% !"N 7 N3 :"C='"%TT3N "-3N$ T %& BNTC "6T% T


15/28

T 6"!T T"T T %&'3N=NT& 73BN= T-&C:& J3NTCI "N= &:%"CCIC"7C ointareement without any condition, she is now estopped from assertin any position contrary

thereto. The petitioner also points out that the holoraphic will of the deceased did not includenor mention any of the tractors sub>ect of the complaint, and, as such was beyond the ambit ofthe said will. The active participation and resistance of respondent 6lorence &. "riola in theordinary civil action aainst the petitionerLs claim amounts to a waiver of the riht to have theclaim presented in the probate proceedins, and to allow any one of the heirs who e/ecuted the

>oint areement to escape liability to pay the value of the tractors under consideration would bee2uivalent to allowin the said heirs to enrich themselves to the damae and pre>udice of thepetitioner.

The petitioner, likewise, avers that the decisions of both the trial and appellate courts failed toconsider the fact that respondent 6lorence &. "riola and her brother dmund e/ecuted loandocuments, all establishin thevinculum $urisor the leal bond between the late fraim&antibaQe and his heirs to be in the nature of a solidary obliation. 6urthermore, the

'romissory Notes dated -ay (1, 19+0 and =ecember 1(, 19+0 e/ecuted by the late fraim&antibaQe, toether with his heirs, dmund and respondent 6lorence, made the obliationsolidary as far as the said heirs are concerned. The petitioner also proffers that, considerin thee/press provisions of the continuin uaranty areement and the promissory notes e/ecuted bythe named respondents, the latter must be held liable >ointly and severally liable thereon. Thus,there was no need for the petitioner to file its money claim before the probate court. 6inally, thepetitioner stresses that both survivin heirs are bein sued in their respective personalcapacities, not as heirs of the deceased.

n her comment to the petition, respondent 6lorence &. "riola maintains that the petitioner istryin to recover a sum of money from the deceased fraim &antibaQeH thus the claim shouldhave been filed with the probate court. &he points out that at the time of the e/ecution of the

>oint areement there was already an e/istin probate proceedins of which the petitioner knew

about. owever, to avoid a claim in the probate court which miht delay payment of theobliation, the petitioner opted to re2uire them to e/ecute the said areement.7a89)phi7.net

"ccordin to the respondent, the trial court and the !" did not err in declarin that theareement was null and void. &he asserts that even if the areement was voluntarily e/ecutedby her and her brother dmund, it should still have been sub>ected to the approval of the courtas it may pre>udice the estate, the heirs or third parties. 6urthermore, she had not waived anyrihts, as she even stated in her answer in the court a :uothat the claim should be filed with theprobate court. Thus, the petitioner could not invoke or claim that she is in estoppel.

%espondent 6lorence &. "riola further asserts that she had not sined any continuin uarantyareement, nor was there any document presented as evidence to show that she had causedherself to be bound by the obliation of her late father.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The !ourt is posed to resolve the followin issues? aA whether or not the partition in the"reement e/ecuted by the heirs is validH bA whether or not the heirsL assumption of theindebtedness of the deceased is validH and cA whether the petitioner can hold the heirs liable onthe obliation of the deceased.7awphi7.n;t

"t the outset, well#settled is the rule that a probate court has the >urisdiction to determine all theproperties of the deceased, to determine whether they should or should not be included in the

inventory or list of properties to be administered.)0The said court is primarily concerned with theadministration, li2uidation and distribution of the estate.)1

n our >urisdiction, the rule is that there can be no valid partition amon the heirs until after thewill has been probated?

n testate succession, there can be no valid partition amon the heirs until after the will has beenprobated. The law en>oins the probate of a will and the public re2uires it, because unless a will isprobated and notice thereof iven to the whole world, the riht of a person to dispose of hisproperty by will may be rendered nuatory. The authentication of a will decides no other 2uestionthan such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with thosere2uirements or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of a will .))

This, of course, presupposes that the properties to be partitioned are the same propertiesembraced in the will.)(n the present case, the deceased, fraim &antibaQe, left a holoraphicwill)4which contained, inter alia, the provision which reads as follows?

@eA "ll other properties, real or personal, which own and may be discovered later after mydemise, shall be distributed in the proportion indicated in the immediately precedin pararaphin favor of dmund and 6lorence, my children.

ect tractors. This bein so, any partition involvin the said tractors amon the heirsis not valid. The >oint areement)e/ecuted by dmund and 6lorence, partitionin the tractorsamon themselves, is invalid, specially so since at the time of its e/ecution, there was already apendin proceedin for the probate of their late fatherLs holoraphic will coverin the saidtractors.

t must be stressed that the probate proceedin had already ac2uired >urisdiction over all theproperties of the deceased, includin the three @(A tractors. To dispose of them in any waywithout the probate courtLs approval is tantamount to divestin it with >urisdiction which the !ourtcannot allow.)8very act intended to put an end to indivision amon co#heirs and leatees ordevisees is deemed to be a partition, althouh it should purport to be a sale, an e/chane, acompromise, or any other transaction.)*Thus, in e/ecutin any >oint areement which appears tobe in the nature of an e/tra#>udicial partition, as in the case at bar, court approval is imperative,and the heirs cannot >ust divest the court of its >urisdiction over that part of the estate. -oreover,it is within the >urisdiction of the probate court to determine the identity of the heirs of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt27


16/28

decedent.)+n the instant case, there is no showin that the sinatories in the >oint areementwere the only heirs of the decedent. udment for money aainst the decedent, must be filed within the time limited inthe noticeH otherwise they are barred forever, e/cept that they may be set forth as counterclaimsin any action that the e/ecutor or administrator may brin aainst the claimants. udment is rendered in favorof the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance aainst the

estate, as thouh the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administrationproceedins. !laims not yet due, or continent, may be approved at their present value.

The filin of a money claim aainst the decedentLs estate in the probate court is mandatory.(0"swe held in the vintae case of "y Eng #hong v. 3errera?(1

S This re2uirement is for the purpose of protectin the estate of the deceased by informin thee/ecutor or administrator of the claims aainst it, thus enablin him to e/amine each claim andto determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. The plain and obvious desinof the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of theproperty to the distributees, leatees, or heirs. PThe law strictly re2uires the prompt presentationand disposition of the claims aainst the decedent5s estate in order to settle the affairs of theestate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue.()

'erusin the records of the case, nothin therein could hold private respondent 6lorence &."riola accountable for any liability incurred by her late father. The documentary evidencepresented, particularly the promissory notes and the continuin uaranty areement, weree/ecuted and sined only by the late fraim &antibaQe and his son dmund. "s the petitionerfailed to file its money claim with the probate court, at most, it may only o after dmund as co#maker of the decedent under the said promissory notes and continuin uaranty, of course,sub>ect to any defenses dmund may have as aainst the petitioner. "s the court had notac2uired >urisdiction over the person of dmund, we find it unnecessary to delve into the matterfurther.

irst #ountryside #redit

#orporation and 6nion Can< of the "hilippinesS;(4owever, the documentaryevidence(clearly reflects that the parties in the deed of assinment with assumption of liabilitieswere the 6!!!, and the Bnion &avins and -ortae 7ank, with the conformity of 7ancom'hilippine oldins, nc. Nowhere can the petitionerLs participation therein as a party be found.6urthermore, no documentary or testimonial evidence was presented durin trial to show thatBnion &avins and -ortae 7ank is now, in fact, petitioner Bnion 7ank of the 'hilippines. "sthe trial court declared in its decision?

S MThe court also finds merit to the contention of defendant that plaintiff failed to prove or didnot present evidence to prove that Bnion &avins and -ortae 7ank is now the Bnion 7ank ofthe 'hilippines. Judicial notice does not apply here. ;The power to take >udicial notice is to Mbee/ercised by the courts with cautionH care must be taken that the re2uisite notoriety e/istsH andevery reasonable doubt upon the sub>ect should be promptly resolved in the neative.;@%epublic vs. !ourt of "ppeals, 10* &!%" 04A.(8

This bein the case, the petitionerLs personality to file the complaint is wantin. !onse2uently, itfailed to establish its cause of action. Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissin the complaint,and the !" in affirmin the same.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,the petition is hereby =N=. The assailed !ourt of"ppeals =ecision is "66%-=. No costs.

&3 3%=%=.

$.%. No. 1)19* June )9, )001

'C''N N"T3N"C 7"ND, petitioner,vs.HON. %OURT OF A&&EALS, ALLAN M. %HUA a S)"#*a+ A3(*n*$ra$or o= $" In$"$a$"E$a$" o= $" +a$" ANTONIO M. %HUA an3 Mr. ASUN%ION M. %HUA,respondents.

BUISUMING, J.!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_149926_2005.html#fnt36


17/28

This petition assails the decision1of the !ourt of "ppeals dated July ), 199 in !"#$.%. !: No.(848, affirmin the decision dated &eptember 4, 1991 of the %eional Trial !ourt of 7alayan,7atanas, 7ranch 10 in !ivil !ase No. 19++.

The facts, as found by the trial court and by the !ourt of "ppeals, are not disputed.

The spouses "ntonio -. !hua and "suncion -. !hua were the owners of a parcel of landcovered by Transfer !ertificate of Title No. '#14) and reistered in their names. Bpon "ntonioLsdeath, the probate court appointed his son, private respondent "llan -. !hua, special

administrator of "ntonioLs intestate estate. The court also authoried "llan to obtain a loanaccommodation of five hundred fifty thousand @'0,000.00A pesos from petitioner 'hilippineNational 7ank to be secured by a real estate mortae over the above#mentioned parcel of land.

3n June )9, 19+9, "llan obtained a loan of '40,000.00 from petitioner 'N7 evidenced by apromissory note, payable on June )9, 1990, with interest at 1+.+ percent per annum. To securethe loan, "llan e/ecuted a deed of real estate mortae on the aforesaid parcel of land.

3n =ecember )*, 1990, for failure to pay the loan in full, the bank e/tra>udicially foreclosed thereal estate mortae, throuh the Ex=2fficio &heriff, who conducted a public auction of themortaed property pursuant to the authority provided for in the deed of real estate mortae.=urin the auction, 'N7 was the hihest bidder with a bid price '(08,(80.00. &ince 'N7Ls totalclaim as of the date of the auction sale was '8*9,1+.8(, the loan had a payable balanceof '(*),+).8(. To claim this deficiency, 'N7 instituted an action with the %T!, 7alayan,7atanas, 7ranch 10, docketed as !ivil !ase No. 19++, aainst both -rs. "suncion -. !huaand "llan !hua in his capacity as special administrator of his fatherLs intestate estate.

=espite summons duly served, private respondents did not answer the complaint. The trial courtdeclared them in default and received evidence ex parte.

3n &eptember 4, 1991, the %T! rendered its decision, orderin the dismissal of 'N7Lscomplaint.)

3n appeal, the !ourt of "ppeals affirmed the %T! decision by dismissin 'N7Ls appeal for l ackof merit.(

ence, the present petition for review on certiorari under %ule 4 of the %ules of !ourt.'etitioner cites two rounds?

T !" %%= N 3C=N$ T"T 'N7 !"N N3 C3N$% 'B%&B T&=6!N!I !C"- "$"N&T T &T"T 36 =!"&= "NT3N3 -. !B",":N$ C!T= 3N 36 T& "CT%N"T: %$T 'B%&B"NT T3 &!T3N *%BC +8 36 T %BC& 36 !3B%T =&'T " &'!"C N"!T-NT @"!T. N3.(1(A !3:%N$ ET%"JB=!"C 63%!C3&B% &"C "CC3


18/28

owever, it must be pointed out that petitionerLs cited cases involve ordinary debts secured by amortae. The case at bar, we must stress, involves a foreclosure of mortae arisin out of asettlement of estate, wherein the administrator mortaed a property belonin to the estate ofthe decedent, pursuant to an authority iven by the probate court. "s the !ourt of "ppealscorrectly stated, the %ules of !ourt on &pecial 'roceedins comes into play decisively.

To bein with, it is clear from the te/t of &ection *, %ule +9, that once the deed of real estatemortae is recorded in the proper %eistry of =eeds, toether with the correspondin courtorder authoriin the administrator to mortae the property, said deed shall be valid as if it has

been e/ecuted by the deceased himself. &ection * provides in part?

&ec. *. %ule +9. egulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwiseencumber estateK The court havin >urisdiction of the estate of the deceased mayauthorie the e/ecutor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortae, orotherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these rules when it appearsnecessary or beneficial under the followin reulations?

/ / /

@fA There shall be recorded in the reistry of deeds of the province in which the realestate thus sold, mortaed, or otherwise encumbered is situated, a certified copy ofthe order of the court, toether with the deed of the e/ecutor or administrator for suchreal estate, which shall be valid as if the deed had been executed by the deceased inhis lifetime.

n the present case, it is undisputed that the conditions under the aforecited rule have beencomplied with. t follows that we must consider &ec. * of %ule +8, appropriately applicable to thecontroversy at hand.

!ase law now holds that this rule rants to the mortaee three distinct, independent andmutually e/clusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the mortae creditor for thesatisfaction of his credit in case the mortaor dies, amon them?

@1A to waive the mortae and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortaor

as an ordinary claimH

@)A to foreclose the mortae >udicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claimHand

@(A to rely on the mortae e/clusively, foreclosin the same at any time before it isbarred by prescriptionwithout right to file a claim for any deficiency.9

n "erez v. "hilippine +ational Canudicially andprove any deficiency as an ordinary claimH and @(A to rely on the mortae e/clusively,foreclosin the same at any time before it is barred by prescription, without right to filea claim for any deficiency, the ma>ority opinion in "asno vs. avina, in re2uirin a

>udicial foreclosure, virtually wipes out the third alternative conceded by the %ules tothe mortae creditor, and which would precisely include extra=$udicial foreclosures bycontrast with the second alternative.

The plain result of adoptin the last mode of foreclosure is that the creditor waives his riht torecover any deficiency from the estate.1)6ollowin the "erezrulin that the third mode includese/tra>udicial foreclosure sales, the result of e/tra>udicial foreclosure is that the creditor waivesany further deficiency claim. The dissent in "asno,as adopted in "erez, supports this conclusion,thus?

ority opinionwill impose a burden upon theestates of deceased persons who have mortaed real property for the security ofdebts, without any compensatory advantae.

!learly, in our view, petitioner herein has chosen the mortae#creditorLs option of e/tra>udiciallyforeclosin the mortaed property of the !huas. This choice now bars any subse2uentdeficiency claim aainst the estate of the deceased, "ntonio -. !hua. 'etitioner may no loneravail of the complaint for the recovery of the balance of indebtedness aainst said estate, afterpetitioner foreclosed the property securin the mortae in its favor. t follows that in this case nofurther liability remains on the part of respondents and the late "ntonio -. !huaLs estate.

@HEREFORE, findin no reversible error committed by respondent !ourt of "ppeals, theinstant petition is herebyENIE. The assailed decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.%. !:No. (848 is AFFIRME. !osts aainst petitioner.7wphi7.nFt

SO ORERE.

G.R. No. L026 "#"(;"r 29, 199

GA:INO ALAMIZ, a a3(*n*$ra$or o= $" "$a$" o= $" 3"#"a"3 San$*a


19/28

Jose W. Dioustice to "ttorney Cuna, that durin the ten years heserved as attorney for the administrator and durin the ) years as leal consultants to &antiao%ementeria, $avino "ldami and Jose "ldami individually and as commercial partnershipunder the firm name ;"ldami y %ementeria,; he never took the trouble of charin them for hisprofessional services, thus showin disinterested and e/treme liberality on his part due tofriendship and other personal considerations toward his clients. "nd it is to be observed furtherthat even after ten years of active work in the testate proceedins, when he wanted to close the

same and it was then time for him to demand payment for his services, he showed no interest indemandin preferrin to leave the matter to the future neotiation or understandin with the

interested parties. "nd when the amount of his fees was fi/ed by the court and $avino "ldamiasked him for a substantial reduction, he answered that it was not he who had fi/ed the amountbut the court, and advised his client to file a motion for reconsideration, with the assurance thathe would offer no ob>ection to any reduction in amount and to any e/tension of the time forpayin what miht be ranted by the court. "nd aain, when $avino "ldami paid him ',000 onaccount, respondent attorney told him that he would be satisfied with any additional amount that$avino miht later desire to pay him. 3nly subse2uent occurrences which proved distasteful tothe parties, led them to take steps which culminated in the filin of the instant civil action.

"t the time respondent5s evidence was submitted to the court, the interested parties who wereresidin in the 'hilippines were $avino "ldami and his brother Jose "ldami. The others werethen residin in &pain. No written claim had ever been filed for respondent5s fees, and theinterested parties had not been notified thereof nor of the hearin, not even $avino "ldami whodid not know when he was called to testify that he would testify in connection with respondent5sfees. The !ourt, after considerin the whole evidence presented, issued its order of January )1,194*, awardin respondent "ttorney Cuna, in payment of his professional services, anareate sum of ')+,000 in the followin manner?

1. 6or the institution, preparation of the pleadins in the voluminous probate case,allowance of the will, pro>ect of partition and the final closin of this proceedin, '1,000H

). 6or the reistration of a parcel of land of seventy#eiht hectares in favor of thetestate, ',000H

(. 6or three naturaliation cases at the rate of '1,000 each, '(,000H and

4. 6or services rendered in the deduction of inheritance ta/ from ')+,000 to '4((.40 ',000.

The !ourt ordered payment of these amounts within thirty days. 'etitioner $avino "ldamireceived copy of this order on 6ebruary )1,194+. 3ut of the total amount of ')+,000, petitionerwas able to pay ',000 only, and upon his failure to pay the balance of ')(,000 after severaldemands made upon him by respondent attorney, the latter on "pril 1*, 194+, filed an e/#parte

motion for e/ecution which was ranted by the respondent !ourt on "pril 19,194+. 'ursuant tothe order of e/ecution on two parcels of land belonin, not to the testate estate of &antiao%ementeria y "ldamicoeascoa, but to the commercial partnership ;"ldami y %ementeria;with a total area of three hundred fifty seven@(*A hectares, more or less, assessed at onehundred eihty#two thousand, three hundred and si/ty pesos @'1+),(80A, which was sold at apublic auction on July )0,194+, in favor of respondent attorney for only twenty thousandpesos@')0,000A. This sale was made after preliminary in>unction had been issued by this court inthe instant case.


20/28

to the court. @By Tioco vs. mperial, ( 'hil., +0).A The attorney also may, instead of brininsuch an action, file a Mpetition in the testate or intestate proceedin ;askin that the court, afternotice to all persons interested, allow his claim and direct the administrator to pay it as ane/pense of administration.; @mphasis ours.A @scueta vs. &y Juillion, 'hil., 40.A

n the instance case, as above stated, no written petition for the payment of attorney5s fees hasever been filed by the respondent attorney and the interested parties had not been previouslynotified thereof nor of the hearin held by the court. !onse2uently, the order issued by therespondent court on January )1, 194*, and all subse2uent orders implementin it, are null and

void, as havin been issued an e/cess of >urisdiction.

urisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, afterhearin, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what mannereach person shall contribute, and may issue executionif circumstances re2uire; @%ule +9,section 8H see also%ule *4, section 4H mphasis oursA. "nd this is not the instant case.

t is alleed by respondent that petitioner is uilty of laches. True that petitioner failed to appealfrom the order of January )1, 194*, within the time provided by the %ules and the instant petitionfor certiorari was filed one @1A year, four @4A months and fourteen @14A days after petitioner hadreceived a copy of said order. "nd we have held in "rifeta vs. David, 40 3ff. $a., 14th &upp., p.

1),) that orders issued without previous notice to parties will be deemed cured if said partiesfail to appeal within time provided by the rules and their appeal is lost due to their ownnelience. 7ut here, aside from petitioner, there are interested parties who have never beennotified of the order complained of, and as to them, said order has not become final ande/ecutory . "nd with respect to petitioner, he has not lost his appeal throuh his own nelience.


21/28

ELLOSILLO, J.!

6 =. BT" and "rturo T. 'adlan, both 6ilipinos, were married in the 'hilippines on 1+ -ay1941. They were not however blessed with children. &omewhere alon the way their relationshipsoured. ventually 6e sued "rturo for divorce in &an 6rancisco, !alifornia, B.&.". &he submittedin the divorce proceedins a private writin dated 19 July 190 evidencin their areement tolive separately from each other and a settlement of their con>ual properties. 3n )( July 194

she obtained a final >udment of divorce. Three @(A weeks thereafter she married a certain 6eli/Tupa in the same locality but their relationship also ended in a divorce. &till in the B.&."., shemarried for the third time, to a certain udment of divorce between petitioner and "rturo. Cater%uperto T. 'adlan, claimin to be the sole survivin brother of the deceased "rturo, intervened.

3n * 3ctober 19+* petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent andthe distribution of his estate. "t the scheduled hearin on )( 3ctober 19+*, private respondentas well as the si/ @8A 'adlan children and %uperto failed to appear despite due notice. 3n thesame day, the trial court re2uired the submission of the records of birth of the 'adlan childrenwithin ten @10A days from receipt thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issueon the declaration of heirs would be considered submitted for resolution. The prescribed periodlapsed without the re2uired documents bein submitted.

The trial court invokin *enchavez v. EscaGo1which held that ;a foreindivorce between

6ilipino citiens souht and decreed after the effectivity of the present !ivil !ode @%ep. "ct (+8Awas not entitled to reconition as valid in this >urisdiction,; 2disrearded the divorce betweenpetitioner and "rturo. !onsecuently, it e/pressed the view that their marriae subsisted until thedeath of "rturo in 19*). Neither did it consider valid their e/tra>udicial settlement of con>ualproperties due to lack of >udicial approval. 3n the other hand, it opined that there was noshowin that marriae e/isted between private respondent and "rturo, much less was it shownthat the alleed 'adlan children had been acknowleded by the deceased as his children withher. "s reards %uperto, it found that he was a brother of "rturo. 3n )* November 19+* onlypetitioner and %uperto were declared the intestate heirs of "rturo. "ccordinly, e2ualad>udication of the net hereditary estate was ordered in favor of the two intestate heirs. 5

3n motion for reconsideration, 7landina and the 'adlan children were allowed to present proofsthat the reconition of the children by the deceased as his leitimate children, e/cept "le/is who

was reconied as his illeitimate child, had been made in their respective records of birth. Thuson 1 6ebruary 19++ 6partial reconsideration was ranted declarin the 'adlan children, with

the e/ception of "le/is, entitled to one#half of the estate to the e/clusion of %uperto 'adlan, andpetitioner to the other half. 7'rivate respondent was not declared an heir. "lthouh it was statedin the aforementioned records of birth that she and "rturo were married on )) "pril 194*, theirmarriae was clearly void since it was celebrated durin the e/istence of his previous marriaeto petitioner.

n their appeal to the !ourt of "ppeals, 7landina and her children assined as one of the errorsalleedly committed by the trial court the circumstance that the case was decided without ahearin, in violation of &ec. 1, %ule 90, of the %ules of !ourt, which provides that if there is a

controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to thedistributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heardand decided as in ordinary cases.

%espondent appellate court found this round alone sufficient to sustain the appealH hence, on11 &eptember 199 it declared null and void the )* November 19+* decision and 1 6ebruary19++ order of the trial court, and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for furtherproceedins. 83n 1+ "pril 1998 it denied reconsideration.9

&hould this case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedinsO 'etitioner insists thatthere is no need because, first, no leal or factual issue obtains for resolution either as to theheirship of the 'adlan children or as to the decedentH and, second, the issue as to who betweenpetitioner and private respondent is the proper hier of the decedent is one of law which can be

resolved in the present petition based on establish facts and admissions of the parties.


22/28

supportin or opposin the evidence. nstead, the lower court perfunctorily settled her claim inher favor by merely applyin the rulin in*enchavez v. EscaGo.

Then in private respondent5s motion to set aside andFor reconsider the lower court5s decision shestressed that the citienship of petitioner was relevant in the liht of the rulin in Han Dorn v.omillo Jr.1that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be reconied in the'hilippines, provided they are valid accordin to their national law. &he prayed therefore that thecase be set for hearin. 1'etitioner opposed the motion but failed to s2uarely address the i ssueon her citienship. 15The trial court did not rant private respondent5s prayer for a hearin but

proceeded to resolve her motion with the findin that both petitioner and "rturo were ;6ilipinocitiens and were married in the 'hilippines.; 16t maintained that their divorce obtained in 194in &an 6rancisco, !alifornia, B.&."., was not valid in 'hilippine >urisdiction.


23/28

!onse2uently, on "uust )0, 199), petitioner filed with the %T! a verified petition 4for thesettlement of -iuelitaLs estate. e prayed that 'a/letters of administration be issued in hisname, and ';/that the net residue of the estate be divided amon the compulsory heirs.

-iuelitaLs mother, -iuela !huatoco#!hin, herein respondent, filed an opposition, specificallyto petitionerLs prayer for the issuance of letters of administration on the roundsthat 'a/petitioner is incompetent and unfit to e/ercise the duties of an administratorH and ';/thebulk of -iuelitaLs estate is composed of ;)ara)"rna+)ro)"r$*".; %espondent prayed that theletters of administration be issued to her instead."fterwards, she also filed a motion for her

appointment as special administratri/.

8

'etitioner moved to strike out respondentLs opposition, allein that the latter has no direct andmaterial interest in the estate, she not bein a compulsory heir, and that he, bein the survivinspouse, has the preferential riht to be appointed as administrator under the law.*

%espondent countered that she has direct and material interest in the estate because she avehalf of her inherited properties to -iuelita on condition that both of them ;>ou+3 un3"r$aD">a$"-"r ;u*n" "n3"a-or $"y 3"#*3"3 $o, *n $" #a)a#*$y o= ;u*n" )ar$n"r .;+

n her omnibus motion9dated "pril )(, 199(, respondent no(*na$"3her son E((anu"+%*nual, paraphernal or owned in a >ointventure.;14R")on3"n$ #+a*("3 $a$ " o>n $" ;u+D o= M*n"r. Tu, " )ray"3 $a$ a "ar*n< ;" #"3u+"3 .

3n January 1*, 1998, the intestate court a++o>"3 $" )ay("n$ o= $" "$a$" $a!" an3a$$orn"y =""but denied petitionerLs prayer for partition and distribution of the estate, holdinthat it is indeed ;)r"(a$ur".; The intestate court ratiocinated as follows?

;3n the partition and distribution of the deceasedLs properties, amon the declared heirs, the!ourt finds the prayer of petitioner in this reard to be premature. Thus, a hearin on oppositorLsclaim as indicated in her opposition to the instant petition is necessary to determine U>"$"r$" )ro)"r$*" +*$"3 *n $" a("n3"3 #o()+a*n$ =*+"3 ;y )"$*$*on"r ar" "n$*r"+y #onun"r*) ;"$>""n $" o))o*$or an3

$" )"$*$*on"r *n $"*r )ar$n"r*) -"n$ur".L;

'etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the %esolution dated -ay *,1998.

6orthwith, petitioner filed with the !ourt of "ppeals a petition for certiorariseekin to annul andset aside the intestate courtLs 3rder dated January 1*, 1998 and %esolution dated -ay *, 1998which denied petitionerLs prayer for partition and distribution of the estate for bein premature,indicatin that it @intestate courtA will first resolve respondentLs claim of ownership.

The "ppellate !ourt dismissed the petition for certiorari, holdin that in issuin the challened3rder and %esolution, the intestate court did not commit rave abuse of discretion.

The "ppellate !ourt ruled?

;%eardin the second issue raised, respondent >ude did not commit rave abuse of discretionin entertainin private respondentLs unsupported claim of ownership aainst the estate. n fact,there is no indication that the probate court has already made a findin of title or ownership. t isinevitable that in probate proceedins, 2uestions of collation or of advancement are involved forthese are matters which can be passed upon in the course of the proceedins. The probatecourt in e/ercisin its preroative to schedule a hearin, to in2uire into the propriety of privaterespondentLs claim, is bein e/tremely cautious in determinin the composition of the estate.This act is not tainted with an iota of rave abuse of discretion.;

'etitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was likewise denied. ence, this petition for review

on certiorarianchored on the followin assinments of error?

;

%&'3N=NT !3B%TL& =!&3N


24/28

"$"N&T T &T"T, "& &"= 6BN!T3N & 3BT&= "N= 7I3N= TJB%&=!T3N 36 T NT&T"T !3B%T.

%&'3N=NT !3B%T $%":CI %%= N "66%-N$ T NT&T"T !3B%TL&3%=% "N= %&3CBT3N N3T $a$ "

a#?u*"#"3 >*$ )"$*$*on"r *n-"n$ory.

3bviously, respondentLs purpose here was not to obtain from the intestate court a rulin of whatproperties should or should not be included in the inventory. &he wanted somethin else, i.e., $o"#ur" =ro( $" *n$"$a$" #our$ a =*na+ 3"$"r(*na$*on o= "r #+a*( o= o>n"r*) o-"r)ro)"r$*" #o()r**n< $" ;u+D o= M*n $" ;u+Do= 'M*


25/28

;A )ro;a$" #our$ or on" *n #ar"++ an3 urisdiction. Theintestate court is not the appropriate forum for the resolution of her adverse claim of ownershipover properties ostensibly belonin to -iuelita5s estate.

Now, even assumin that the intestate court merely intended to make a provisional or primafaciedetermination of the issue of ownership, still respondentLs claim cannot prosper. t bearsstressin that the bulk of -iuelitaLs estate, as stated in petitionerLs inventory, comprises realestates covered by the Torrens &ystem which are reistered either in the name of -iuelitaalone or with petitioner. A u#, $"y ar" #on*3"r"3 $" o>n"r o= $" )ro)"r$*" un$*+$"*r $*$+" * nu++*=*"3 or (o3*=*"3 *n an a))ro)r*a$" or3*nary a#$*on. ect to collateral attack.

A #"r$*=*#a$" o= $*$+" a++ no$ ;" u;"#$ $o #o++a$"ra+ a$$a#D. I$ #anno$ ;" a+$"r"3, (o3*=*"3or #an#"++"3 "!#")$ *n a 3*r"#$ )ro#""3*n< *n a##or3an#" >*$ +a>. ;

&inificantly, a perusal of the records reveals that respondent failed to present convincinevidence to bolster her bare assertion of ownership. *$ r")"#$ $o $" "$a$" o= your +a$" u;an3

"? f only knew that this will happenS

B4 Sa(aDa$u>*3 )o ay >a+an< 3oDu("n$o

A4 @a+a )o.;)4

&he further testified as follows?

B4 A(on< $" )ro)"r$*" +*$"3 +*D" $" -ar*ou )ar#"+ o= +an3, $o#D, *n-"$("n$,;anD a##oun$ an3 3")o*$ ;o$ "r" an3 a;roa3, *n$"r"$ an3 )ar$*#*)a$*on *n IFS&ar(a#"u$*#a+ an3 M"3*#a+ Su))+*", In#. an3 -ar*ou (o$or -"*#+", )"r your)+"aur", Ma3a( @*$n", o> ou+3 $"" )ro)"r$*" ;" )ar$*$*on"3 or >a$ ou+3 ;"3on" >*$ $"" )ro)"r$*" A##or3*n< $o you "ar+*"r, you ar" a


26/28

"? Dun ano po an sa akin, iyon an dapat na bumalik sa akin, sir.

B Ha+*(;a>a ay ano )o *yon R"a+ "$a$" )ro)"r$*", )ar#"+ o= +an3 +o#a$"3 *n &a


27/28

3n 1* -arch 199* the 3ffice of the &olicitor $eneral representin public respondents %T! andthe %eister of =eeds @h

spec pro week 3

Documents

Transcript of spec pro week 3