20 apolonia banayad frianela v. servillano banayad jr.docx

5/19/2018 20 Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad Jr.docx

[CASE TITLE] Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad Jr.[CASE #] G.R. No. 169700[DATE] July 30, 2009[PONENTE] Nachura, J.[NATURE] Petition for review under Rule 45

DoctrineNowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross value of Moisess estate. Thus, from a

reading of the original petition filed, it cannot be determined which court has original and exclusive

jurisdiction over the proceedings. The lower court therefore committed gross error when it had

perfunctorily assumed jurisdiction despite the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did not

call for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The RTC should have, at the outset, dismissed the case for

lack of jurisdiction. Be it noted that the dismissal on the said ground may be ordered motu proprio

by the courts.

Facts:

Following the death of her uncle, the testator Moises F. Banayad, petitioner, who was named as

devisee in the will, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, on June 3, 1991, for the

allowance of the November 18, 1985 holographic will of the decedent. Petitioner alleged thatMoises died without issue and left to her the following properties, namely: (1) a parcel of land

situated in Pasay City and described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9741; (2) images of Oracion

del Huerto and Pieta including the crown; and (3) all personal belongings.

Respondent, a cousin of the petitioner, filed his opposition and counter-petitioned for the allowance

of two other holographic wills of the decedent, one dated September 27, 1989 and another dated

September 28, 1989.

After trial on the merits, the RTC, on September 29, 1995, rendered its Decision declaring the

September 27, 1989 holographic will as having revoked the November 18, 1985 will, allowing the

former, and appointing respondent as administrator of Moisess estate.

On appeal, the CA, in the assailed June 17, 2005 Decision, modified the decision of the trial court

and ruled that the September 27, 1989 holographic will had only revoked the November 18, 1985

will insofar as the testamentary disposition of Moisess real property was concerned.

Issues: Won the lower courts have jurisdiction over the matter.

Held: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, Sp. Proc. No. 3664-P before the Regional Trial Court ofPasay City is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Ratio:Since the RTC has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision

rendered, are null and void. With the above disquisition, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss and resolvethe other issues raised in the petition.

Sec. 19 and 33 of Batas Pambansa (B.P) 129, is the applicable law, which confers the jurisdiction on the RTCor the MTCs over probate proceedings depending on the gross value of the estate, which must be alleged inthe complaint or petition to be filed.

Nowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross value of Moisessestate. Thus, from a reading of theoriginal petition filed, it cannot be determined which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the


proceedings. The RTC therefore committed gross error when it had perfunctorily assumed jurisdictiondespite the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did not call for the exercise of its jurisdiction. TheRTC should have, at the outset, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Be it noted that the dismissal onthe said ground may be ordered motu proprio by the courts. Further, the CA, on appeal, should havedismissed the case on the same ground. Settled is the doctrine that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised byany of the parties or may be reckoned by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not

lost by waiver or by estoppel.

Note: I know the facts does not provide any information regarding the matter but rest assured the case didnot provide for any facts other than those that are copied and pasted.

The SC disregarded everything and focused on the fact that the initial petition did not provide estimation ofthe estate to confer jurisdiction to which court, making the petition void.

20 apolonia banayad frianela v. servillano banayad jr.docx

Documents