vda de manalo v ca
Post on 28-Feb-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
1/7
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. NO. 129242 January 16, 2001
PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO, ORLANDO S.
MANALO, an ISA!ELITA MANALO ,petitioners,
vs.
"ON. COURT O# APPEALS, "ON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT O# MANILA
$!RANC" %&', PURITA S. JA(ME, MILAGROS M. TERRE, !ELEN M.
ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. ACUIN, ROMEO S. MANALO, RO!ERTO S.
MANALO, AMALIA MANALO an IMELDA MANALO,respondents.
DE LEON, JR., J.)
his is a petition for revie! on certiorari filed b" petitioners Pilar S. Vda De Manalo,
et. #l., see$in% to annul the Resolution&of the Court of #ppeals'affir(in% the
Orders)of the Re%ional rial Court and the Resolution*!hich denied petitioner+
(otion for reconsideration.
he antecedent factsare as follo!s-
roadio Manalo, a resident of &/ Maria Clara Street, Sa(paloc, Manila died
intestate on 0ebruar" &*, &'. 1e !as survived b" his !ife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his
eleven 2&&3 children, na(el"- Purita M. 4a"(e, #ntonio Manalo, Mila%ros M. erre,
5elen M. Orillano, Isabelita Manalo, Rosalina M. #cuin, Ro(eo Manalo, Roberto
Manalo, #(alia Manalo, Orlando Manalo and I(elda Manalo, !ho are all of le%al
a%e.1wphi1.nt
#t the ti(e of his death on 0ebruar" &*, &', roadio Manalo left several real
properties located in Manila and in the province of arlac includin% a business under
the na(e and st"le Manalo+s Machine Shop !ith offices at No. & Calavite Street, 6a6o(a, 7ue8on Cit" and at NO. * 9eneral inio Street, #rt" Subdivision, Valen8uela,
Metro Manila.
On Nove(ber '/, &', herein respondents, !ho are ei%ht 2:3 of the survivin%
children of the late roadio Manalo, na(el"; Purita, Mila%ros, 5elen Rocalina,
Ro(eo, Roberto, #(alia, and I(elda filed a petition /!ith the respondent Re%ional
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
2/7
rial Court of Manila
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
3/7
E. o set the application of Ro(eo Manalo for appoint(ent as re%ular
ad(inistrator in the intestate estate of the deceased roadio Manalo for hearin%
on Septe(ber , &) at '-@@ o+cloc$ in the afternoon.
1erein petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule / of the Rules of Court
!ith the Court of #ppeals, doc$eted as C#B9.R. SP. No. ):&, after the trial court inits Order&@dated Septe(ber &, &). In their petition for i(properl" laid in SP.
PROC. No. 'B/)/'/; 2'3 the trial court did not acAuire =urisdiction over their
persons; 2)3 the share of the survivin% spouse !as included in the intestate
proceedin%s; 2*3 there !as absence of earnest efforts to!ard co(pro(ise a(on%
(e(bers of the sa(e fa(il"; and 23 no certification of nonBforu( shoppin% !as
attached to the petition.
0indin% the contentions untenable, the Court of #ppeals dis(issed the petition for
certiorari in its Resolution&&pro(ul%ated on Septe(ber )@, &/. On Ma" /, &< the
(otion for reconsideration of the said resolution !as li$e!ise dis(issed.&'
he onl" issue raised b" herein petitioners in the instant petition for revie! is !hether
or not the respondent Court of #ppeals erred in upholdin% the Auestioned orders of the
respondent trial court !hich denied their (otion for the outri%ht dis(issal of the
petition for =udicial settle(ent of estate despite the failure of the petitioners therein to
aver that earnest efforts to!ard a co(pro(ise involvin% (e(bers of the sa(e fa(il"
have been (ade prior to the fillin% of the petition but that the sa(e have failed.
1erein petitioners clai( that the petition in SP. PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ is actuall" an
ordinar" civil action involvin% (e(bers of the sa(e fa(il". he" point out that itcontains certain aver(ents, !hich, accordin% to the(, are indicative of its adversarial
nature, to !it-
Par.
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
4/7
Par. &'. hat said #NONIO M#N#6O is (ana%in% and controllin% the estate
of the deceased RO#DIO M#N#6O to his o!n advanta%e and to the da(a%e
and pre=udice of the herein petitioners and their coBheirs >>>.
Par. &*. 0or the protection of their ri%hts and interests, petitioners !ere
co(pelled to brin% this suit and !ere forced to liti%ate and incur e>penses and
!ill continue to incur e>penses of not less than, P'@,@@@.@@ and en%a%ed the
services of herein counsel co((ittin% to pa" P'@@,@@@.@@ as and attorne"+s fees
plus honorariu( of P',@@.@@ per appearance in court >>>.&)
ConseAuentl", accordin% to herein petitioners, the sa(e should be dis(issed under
Rule &/, Section &2=3 of the Revised Rules of Court !hich provides that a (otion to
dis(iss a co(plaint (a" be filed on the %round that a condition precedent for fillin%
the clai( has not been co(plied !ith, that is, that the petitioners therein failed to averin the petition in SP. PROC. No. 'B/)/'/, that earnest efforts to!ard a co(pro(ise
have been (ade involvin% (e(bers of the sa(e fa(il" prior to the fillin% of the
petition pursuant to #rticle '''&*of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
he instant petition is not i(pressed !ith (erit.
It is a funda(ental rule that in the deter(ination of the nature of an action or
proceedin%, the aver(ents&and the character of the relief sou%ht&/in the co(plaint,
or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controllin%. # careful srutin" of the Petition
for Issuance of 6etters of #d(inistration, Settle(ent and Distribution of Estatein SP.PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ belies herein petitioners+ clai( that the sa(e is in the nature of
an ordinar" civil action. he said petition contains sufficient =urisdictional facts
reAuired in a petition for the settle(ent of estate of a deceased person such as the fat
of death of the late roadio Manalo on 0ebruar" &*, &', as !ell as his residence in
the Cit" of Manila at the ti(e of his said death. he fact of death of the decedent and
of his residence !ithin he countr" are foundation facts upon !hich all the subseAuent
proceedin%s in the ad(inistration of the estate rest.&
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
5/7
1ERE0ORE, pre(ises considered, it is respectfull" pra"ed for of this 1onorable
Court-
a. hat after due hearin%, letters of ad(inistration be issued to petitioner
ROMEO M#N#6O for the ad(inistration of the estate of the deceased
RO#DIO M#N#6O upon the %ivin% of a bond in such reasonable su( thatthis 1onorable Court (a" fi>.
b. hat after all the properties of the deceased RO#DIO M#N#6O have been
inventoried and e>penses and =ust debts, if an", have been paid and the le%al
heirs of the deceased full" deter(ined, that the said estate of RO#DIO
M#N#6O be settled and distributed a(on% the le%al heirs all in accordance
!ith la!.
c. hat the liti%ation e>penses of these proceedin%s in the a(ount of
P'@,@@@.@@ and attorne"+s fees in the a(ount of P)@@,@@@.@@ plus honorariu(of P',@@.@@ per appearance in court in the hearin% and trial of this case and
costs of suit be ta>ed solel" a%ainst #NONIO M#N#6O.&:
Concededl", the petition in SP. PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ contains certain aver(ents
!hich (a" be t"pical of an ordinar" civil action. 1erein petitioners, as oppositors
therein, too$ advanta%e of the said defect in the petition and filed their soBcalled
Opposition thereto !hich, as observed b" the trial court, is actuall" an #ns!er
containin% ad(issions and denials, special and affir(ative defenses and co(pulsor"
counterclai(s for actual, (oral and e>e(plar" da(a%es, plus attorne"+s fees and
costs&in an apparent effort to (a$e out a case of an ordinar" civil action andulti(atel" see$ its dis(issal under Rule &/, Section &2=3 of the Rules of Court vis--
vis,#rticle ''' of civil of the Civil Code.
It is our vie! that herein petitioners (a" not be allo!ed to defeat the purpose of the
essentiall" valid petition for the settle(ent of the estate of the late roadio Manalo b"
raisin% (atters that as irrelevant and i((aterial to the said petition. It (ust be
e(phasi8ed that the trial court, sitin% as a probate court, has li(ited and special
=urisdiction'@and cannot hear and dispose of collateral (atters and issues !hich (a"
be properl" threshed out onl" in an ordinar" civil action. In addition, the rule has
al!a"s been to the effect that the =urisdiction of a court, as !ell as the conco(itantnature of an action, is deter(ined b" the aver(ents in the co(plaint and not b" the
defenses contained in the ans!er. If it !ere other!ise, it !ould not be too difficult to
have a case either thro!n out of court or its proceedin%s undul" dela"ed b" si(ple
strate%e(.'&So it should be in the instant petition for settle(ent of estate.
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
6/7
1erein petitioners ar%ue that even if the petition in SP. PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ !ere to
be considered as a special proceedin% for the settle(ent of estate of a deceased
person, Rule &/, Section &2=3 of the Rules of Court vis--vis#rticle ''' of the Civil
Code of the Philippines !ould nevertheless appl" as a %round for the dis(issal of the
sa(e b" virtue of ule &, Section ' of the Rules of Court !hich provides that the +rules
shall be liberall" construed in order to pro(ote their ob=ect and to assist the parties inobtainin% =ust, speed" and ine>pensive deter(ination of ever" action and
proceedin%s.+ Petitioners contend that the ter( ?proceedin%? is so broad that it (ust
necessaril" include special proceedin%s.
he ar%u(ent is (isplaced. 1erein petitioners (a" not validl" ta$e refu%e under the
provisions of Rule &, Section ', of the Rules of Court to =ustif" the invocation of
#rticle ''' of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dis(issal of the petition for
settle(ent of the estate of the deceased roadio Manalo inas(uch as the latter
provision is clear enou%h. o !it-
#rt. '''. No suit shall be filed or (aintained bet!een (e(bers of the sa(e fa(il"
unless it should appear that earnest efforts to!ard a co(pro(ise have been (ade, but
that the sa(e have failed, sub=ect to the li(itations in #rticle '@)2underscoring
supplied3.''
he aboveBAuoted provision of the la! is applicable onl" to ordinar" civil actions.
his is clear fro( the ter( +suit+ that it refers to an action b" one person or persons
a%ainst another or other in a court of =ustice in !hich the plaintiff pursues the re(ed"
!hich the la! affords hi( for the redress of an in=ur" or the enforce(ent of a ri%ht,
!hether at la! or in eAuit".')# civil action is thus an action filed in a court of =ustice,!hereb" a part" sues another for the enforce(ent of a ri%ht, or the prevention or
redress of a !ron%.'*5esides, an e>cerpt for( the Report of the Code Co((ission
un(ista$abl" reveals the intention of the Code Co((ission to (a$e that le%al
provision applicable onl" to civil actions !hich are essentiall" adversarial and involve
(e(bers of the sa(e fa(il", thus-
It is difficult to i(a%ine a sadder and (ore tra%ic spectacle than a liti%ation
bet!een (e(bers of the sa(e fa(il". It is necessar" that ever" effort should be
(ade to!ard a co(pro(ise before liti%ation is allo!ed to breed hate and
passion in the fa(il". It is $no! that la!suit bet!een close relatives %enerates
deeper bitterness than stran%er.'
It (ust be e(phasi8ed that the oppositors 2herein petitioners3 are not bein% sued in SP.
PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ for an" cause of action as in fact no defendant !as i(ploded
therein. he Petition for issuance of letters of #d(inistration, Settle(ent and
Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 'B/)/'/ is a special proceedin% and, as
-
7/25/2019 vda de manalo v ca
7/7
such, it is a re(ed" !hereb" the petitioners therein see$ to establish a status, a ri%ht,
or a particular fact.'/the petitioners therein 2private respondents herein3 (erel" see$ to
establish the fat of death of their father and subseAuentl" to be dul" reco%ni8ed as
a(on% the heirs of the said deceased so that the" can validl" e>ercise their ri%ht to
participate in the settle(ent and liAuidation of the estate of the decedent consistent
!ith the li(ited and special =urisdiction of the probate court.1wphi1.nt
1ERE0ORE, the petition in the aboveBentitled case, is DENIED for lac$ of (erit,
Costs a%ainst petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, .,concur.
top related