vda de manalo v ca

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


2/7

rial Court of Manila


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.


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.&


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.


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


7/7

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.

vda de manalo v ca

Documents