special proceedings cases - day 1.doc

8/14/2019 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES - DAY 1.doc

1/28

G.R. NO. 129242 January 16, 2001

PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO, ORLANDO S. MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO, !"#"#$n!r%,

&%. 'ON. (O)RT O* APPEALS, 'ON. REGIONAL TRIAL (O)RT O* MANILA +BRAN(' -, P)RITA S. JA/ME,

MILAGROS M. TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. A()IN, ROMEO S. MANALO, ROBERTO S.

MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA MANALO, r!%$nd!n"%.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Pilar . !da De "analo, et. #l., see$in% to ann&l the Resol&tion ' of the

(o&rt of #ppeals ) affir*in% the Orders + of the Re%ional Trial (o&rt and the Resol&tion which denied petitioner- *otion forreconsideration.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Troadio "analo, a resident of '//0 "aria (lara treet, a*paloc, "anila died intestate on 1ebr&ary ', '//). 2e was s&rvived by his

wife, Pilar . "analo, and his eleven 3''4 children, na*ely: P&rita ". Jay*e, #ntonio "analo, "ila%ros ". Terre, 5elen ". Orillano,

6sabelita "analo, Rosalina ". #c&in, Ro*eo "analo, Roberto "analo, #*alia "analo, Orlando "analo and 6*elda "analo, who

are all of le%al a%e.'7wphi'.n8t

#t the ti*e of his death on 1ebr&ary ', '//), Troadio "analo left several real properties located in "anila and in the province of

Tarlac incl&din% a b&siness &nder the na*e and style "analo-s "achine hop with offices at No. '/ (alavite treet, La Lo*a, 9&eon

(ity and at NO. ;eneral Tinio treet, #rty &bdivision, !alen&ela, "etro "anila.

On Nove*ber )0, '//), herein respondents, who are ei%ht 3


2/28

/)0+0)0= 3)4 the trial co&rt did not acC&ire ?&risdiction over their persons= 3+4 the share of the s&rvivin% spo&se was incl&ded in the

intestate proceedin%s= 34 there was absence of earnest efforts toward co*pro*ise a*on% *e*bers of the sa*e fa*ily= and 34 no

certification of nonfor&* shoppin% was attached to the petition.

1indin% the contentions &ntenable, the (o&rt of #ppeals dis*issed the petition for certiorari in its Resol&tion'' pro*&l%ated onepte*ber +B, '//0. On "ay 0, '//> the *otion for reconsideration of the said resol&tion was li$ewise dis*issed.')

The only iss&e raised by herein petitioners in the instant petition for review is whether or not the respondent (o&rt of #ppeals erred in

&pholdin% the C&estioned orders of the respondent trial co&rt which denied their *otion for the o&tri%ht dis*issal of the petition for

?&dicial settle*ent of estate despite the fail&re of the petitioners therein to aver that earnest efforts toward a co*pro*ise involvin%*e*bers of the sa*e fa*ily have been *ade prior to the fillin% of the petition b&t that the sa*e have failed.

2erein petitioners clai* that the petition in P. PRO(. No. /)0+0)0 is act&ally an ordinary civil action involvin% *e*bers of thesa*e fa*ily. They point o&t that it contains certain aver*ents, which, accordin% to the*, are indicative of its adversarial nat&re, to

wit:

Par. >. One of the s&rvivin% sons, #NTON6O "#N#LO, since the death of his father, TRO#D6O "#N#LO, had not *ade any

settle*ent, ?&dicial or e@tra?&dicial of the properties of the deceased father TRO#D6O "#N#LO.

Par.


3/28

a. That after d&e hearin%, letters of ad*inistration be iss&ed to petitioner RO"EO "#N#LO for the ad*inistration of the estate of the

deceased TRO#D6O "#N#LO &pon the %ivin% of a bond in s&ch reasonable s&* that this 2onorable (o&rt *ay fi@.

b. That after all the properties of the deceased TRO#D6O "#N#LO have been inventoried and e@penses and ?&st debts, if any, have

been paid and the le%al heirs of the deceased f&lly deter*ined, that the said estate of TRO#D6O "#N#LO be settled and distrib&teda*on% the le%al heirs all in accordance with law.

c. That the liti%ation e@penses of these proceedin%s in the a*o&nt of P)B,BBB.BB and attorney-s fees in the a*o&nt of P+BB,BBB.BB

pl&s honorari&* of P),BB.BB per appearance in co&rt in the hearin% and trial of this case and costs of s&it be ta@ed solely a%ainst

#NTON6O "#N#LO.''B> for reconveyance and ann&l*ent of title with da*a%es is not, to o&r *ind, the proper vehicle to thresh o&t said C&estion.

"oreover, &nder the present circ&*stances, the RT( of "anila, 5ranch was not properly constit&ted as a probate co&rt so as to

validly pass &pon the C&estion of advance*ent *ade by the decedent ;raciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein petitioner Natcher.

#t this point, the appellate co&rt-s disC&isition is el&cidatin%:

A5efore a co&rt can *a$e a partition and distrib&tion of the estate of a deceased, it *&st first settle the estate in a special proceedin%

instit&ted for the p&rpose. 6n the case at hand, the co&rt a C&o deter*ined the respective le%iti*es of the plaintiffsappellants andassi%ned the s&b?ect property owned by the estate of the deceased to defendantappellee witho&t observin% the proper proceedin%s

provided 3for4 by the R&les of (o&rt. 1ro* the aforecited disc&ssions, it is clear that trial co&rts tryin% an ordinary action cannot

resolve to perfor* acts pertainin% to a special proceedin% beca&se it is s&b?ect to specific prescribed r&les. Th&s, the co&rt a C&o erred

in re%ardin% the s&b?ect property as an advance inheritance.A')

6n resolvin% the case at bench, this (o&rt is not &naware of o&r prono&nce*ent in (oca vs. 5orro*eo'+ and "endoa vs. Teh' that

whether a partic&lar *atter sho&ld be resolved by the Re%ional Trial (o&rt 3then (o&rt of 1irst 6nstance4 in the e@ercise of its %eneral

?&risdiction or its li*ited probate ?&risdiction is not a ?&risdictional iss&e b&t a *ere C&estion of proced&re. 6n essence, it is proced&ral

C&estion involvin% a *ode of practice Awhich *ay be waivedA.'

Notwithstandin%, we do not see any waiver on the part of herein private respondents inas*&ch as the si@ children of the decedent even

assailed the a&thority of the trail co&rt, actin% in its %eneral ?&risdiction, to r&le on this specific iss&e of advance*ent *ade by the

decedent to petitioner.

#nalo%o&sly, in a train of decisions, this (o&rt has consistently en&nciated the lon% standin% principle that altho&%h %enerally, a

probate co&rt *ay not decide a C&estion of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the C&estion is one of

collation or advance*ent, or the parties consent to the ass&*ption of ?&risdiction by the probate co&rt and the ri%hts of third parties are

not i*paired, then the probate co&rt is co*petent to decide the C&estion of ownership.'0

i*ilarly in "endoa vs. Teh, we had occasion to hold:

A6n the present s&it, no settle*ent of estate is involved, b&t *erely an alle%ation see$in% appoint*ent as estate ad*inistratri@ which

does not necessarily involve settle*ent of estate that wo&ld have invited the e@ercise of the li*ited ?&risdiction of a probate co&rt.'>3e*phasis s&pplied4

Of eC&al i*portance is that before any concl&sion abo&t the le%al share d&e to a co*p&lsory heir *ay be reached, it is necessary thatcertain steps be ta$en first.'< The net estate of the decedent *&st be ascertained, by ded&ctin% all payable obli%ations and char%es

fro* the val&e of the property owned by the deceased at the ti*e of his death= then, all donations s&b?ect to collation wo&ld be added

to it. Gith the partible estate th&s deter*ined, the le%iti*e of the co*p&lsory heir or heirs can be established= and only thereafter can it

be ascertained whether or not a donation had pre?&diced the le%iti*es.'/

# per&sal of the records, specifically the antecedents and proceedin%s in the present case, reveals that the trial co&rt failed to observe

established r&les of proced&re %overnin% the settle*ent of the estate of ;raciano Del Rosario. This (o&rt sees no co%ent reason to

sanction the nonobservance of these wellentrenched r&les and hereby holds that &nder the prevailin% circ&*stances, a probate co&rt,

in the e@ercise of its li*ited ?&risdiction, is indeed the best for&* to ventilate and ad?&d%e the iss&e of advance*ent as well as other

related *atters involvin% the settle*ent of ;raciano Del Rosario-s estate.'7wphi'.n8t

G2ERE1ORE, pre*ises considered, the assailed decision of the (o&rt of #ppeals is hereby #116R"ED and the instant petition is

D6"6ED for lac$ of *erit.

O ORDERED.

G.R. N$. 16604 May 6, 200-

REP)BLI( O* T'E P'ILIPPINES,petitioner, vs. T'E 'ON. (O)RT O* APPEALS +T3!n"#!" D#%#$n, 'ON.

PRESIDING J)DGE *ORT)NITO L. MADRONA, RT(5BR. - and APOLINARIA MALINAO JOMO(,respondents.

(#RP6O"OR#LE,J.:


7/28

6n A6n the "atter of Declaration of Pres&*ptive Death of #bsentee po&se (le*ente P. Jo*oc, #polinaria "alinao Jo*oc, petitioner,A

the Or*oc (ity, Re%ional Trial (o&rt, 5ranch +, by Order of epte*ber )/, '///,' %ranted the petition on the basis of the

(o**issioners Report) and accordin%ly declared the absentee spo&se, who had left his petitionerwife nine years earlier

pres&*ptively dead.

6n %rantin% the petition, the trial ?&d%e, J&d%e 1ort&nito L. "adrona, cited #rticle ', par. ) of the 1a*ily (ode. aid article provides

that for the p&rpose of contractin% a valid s&bseC&ent *arria%e d&rin% the s&bsistence of a previo&s *arria%e where the prior spo&se

had been absent for fo&r consec&tive years, the spo&se present *&st instit&te %uary r$!!d#n7% for the declaration o

pres&*ptive death of the absentee spo&se, witho&t pre?&dice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spo&se.

The Rep&blic, thro&%h the Office of the olicitor ;eneral, so&%ht to appeal the trial co&rts order by filin% a Notice of #ppeal.+

5y Order of Nove*ber )), '///s,the trial co&rt, notin% that no record of appeal was filed and served Aas reC&ired by and p&rs&ant to

ec. )3a4, R&le ' of the '//> R&les of (ivil Proced&re, the present case bein% a special proceedin%,A disapproved the Notice of

#ppeal.

The Rep&blics "otion for Reconsideration of the trial co&rts order of disapproval havin% been denied by Order of Jan&ary '+, )BBB,

it filed a Petition for Certiorari0before the (o&rt of #ppeals, it contendin% that the declaration of pres&*ptive death of a person &nder

#rticle ' of the 1a*ily (ode is not a special proceedin% or a case of *&ltiple or separate appeals reC&irin% a record on appeal.

5y Decision of "ay , )BB,>the (o&rt of #ppeals denied the Rep&blics petition on proced&ral and s&bstantive %ro&nds in this wise:

#t the o&tset, it *&st be stressed that the petition is not s&fficient in for*. 6t failed to attach to its petition a certified tr&e copy

of the assailed Order dated Jan&ary '+, )BBB Mdenyin% its "otion for Reconsideration of the Nove*ber )), '/// Order

disapprovin% its Notice of #ppeal. "oreover, the petition C&estioned the Mtrial co&rts Order dated #&%&st ', '///, which

declared (le*ente Jo*oc pres&*ptively dead, li$ewise for havin% been iss&ed with %rave ab&se of discretion a*o&ntin% tolac$ of ?&risdiction, yet, not even a copy co&ld be fo&nd in the records. On this score alone, the petition sho&ld have been

dis*issed o&tri%ht in accordance with ec. +, R&le 0 of the R&les of (o&rt.

2owever, despite the proced&ral lapses, the (o&rt resolves to delve deeper into the s&bstantive iss&e of the validityKn&llity of

the assailed order.

T! r#n#a8 #%%u! #n "#% a%! #% 3!"!r a !"#"#$n $r d!8ara"#$n $ "! r!%u"#&! d!a" $ a !r%$n #% #n "!

na"ur! $ a %!#a8 r$!!d#n7. 6f it is, the period to appeal is +B days and the party appealin% *&st, in addition to a notice of

appeal, file with the trial co&rt a record on appeal to perfect its appeal. Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action, the

period to appeal is ' days fro* notice or decision or final order appealed fro* and the appeal is perfected by filin% a notice

of appeal 3ection +, R&le ', R&les of (o&rt4.

#s defined in ection +3a4, R&le ' of the R&les of (o&rt, Aa civil action is one by which a party s&es another for the

enforce*ent or protection of a ri%ht, or the prevention of redress of a wron%A while a special proceedin% &nder ection +3c4 othe sa*e r&le is defined as Aa re*edy by which a party see$s to establish a stat&s, a ri%ht or a partic&lar fact 32eirs of

Faptinchay, et al. v. Del Rosario, et al., ;.R. No. ')+)B, "arch ), '///4.

(onsiderin% the afore*entioned distinction, this (o&rt finds that "! #n%"an" !"#"#$n #% #n "! na"ur! $ a %!#a

r$!!d#n7 and n$" an $rd#nary a"#$n. The petition *erely see$s for a declaration by the trial co&rt of the pres&*ptive

death of absentee spo&se (le*ente Jo*oc. 6t does not see$ the enforce*ent or protection of a ri%ht or the prevention or

redress of a wron%. Neither does it involve a de*and of ri%ht or a ca&se of action that can be enforced a%ainst any person.

On the basis of the fore%oin% disc&ssion, the s&b?ect Order dated Jan&ary '+, )BBB denyin% O;s "otion for

Reconsideration of the Order dated Nove*ber )), '/// disapprovin% its Notice of #ppeal was correctly iss&ed. T! #n%"an

!"#"#$n, !#n7 #n "! na"ur! $ a %!#a8 r$!!d#n7, OSG %$u8d a&! #8!d, #n add#"#$n "$ #"% N$"#! $ A!a8, a

r!$rd $n a!a8in accordance with ection '/ of the 6nteri* R&les and ;&idelines to 6*ple*ent 5P 5l%. ')/ and ection

)3a4, R&le ' of the R&les of (o&rt . . . 3E*phasis and &nderscorin% s&pplied4

The Rep&blic 3petitioner4 insists that the declaration of pres&*ptive death &nder #rticle ' of the 1a*ily (ode is not a specialproceedin% involvin% *&ltiple or separate appeals where a record on appeal shall be filed and served in li$e *anner.

Petitioner cites R&le 'B/ of the Revised R&les of (o&rt which en&*erates the cases wherein *&ltiple appeals are allowed and a record

on appeal is reC&ired for an appeal to be perfected. The petition for the declaration of pres&*ptive death of an absent spo&se not bein%

incl&ded in the en&*eration, petitioner contends that a *ere notice of appeal s&ffices.

5y Resol&tion of Dece*ber ', )BB,, )BB Resol&tion/reC&irin% respondent to file

her co**ent on the petition was ret&rned &nserved with post*asters notation AParty ref&sed,A Resolved to consider that copy dee*edserved &pon her.

The pertinent provisions on the G!n!ra8 Pr$%#$n% $n S!#a8 Pr$!!d#n7%, Part 66 of the Revised R&les of (o&rt entitled PE(6#L

PRO(EED6N;, read:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt9


8/28

R)LE :2

S)BJE(T MATTER AND APPLI(ABILIT/

O* GENERAL R)LES

ection '. Subject matter of special proceedings. R&les of special proceedin%s are provided for in the followin%:

3a4 ettle*ent of estate of deceased persons=

3b4 Escheat=

3c4 ;&ardianship and c&stody of children=

3d4 Tr&stees=

3e4 #doption=

3f4 Rescission and revocation of adoption=

3%4 2ospitaliation of insane persons=

3h4 2abeas corp&s=

3i4 (han%e of na*e=

3?4 !ol&ntary dissol&tion of corporations=

3$4 J&dicial approval of vol&ntary reco%nition of *inor nat&ral children=

3l4 (onstit&tion of fa*ily ho*e=3*4 Declaration of absence and death=

3n4 (ancellation or correction of entries in the civil re%istry.

ec. ).Applicability of rules of civil actions. 6n the absence of special provisions, the r&les provided for in ordinary actionsshall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedin%s. 3Inderscorin% s&pplied4

The pertinent provision of the (ivil (ode on pres&*ption of death provides:

#rt. +/B. #fter an absence of seven years, it bein% &n$nown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be pres&*ed dead

$r a88 ur$%!%, e@cept for those of s&ccession.

@ @ @ 3E*phasis and &nderscorin% s&pplied4

Ipon the other hand, #rticle ' of the 1a*ily (ode, &pon which the trial co&rt anchored its %rant of the petition for the declaration of

pres&*ptive death of the absent spo&se, provides:

#rt. '. # *arria%e contracted by any person d&rin% the s&bsistence of a previo&s *arria%e shall be n&ll and void, &nlessbefore the celebration of the s&bseC&ent *arria%e, the prior spo&ses had been absent for fo&r consec&tive years and the

spo&se present had a wellfo&nded belief that the absent spo&ses was already dead. 6n case of disappearance where there is

dan%er of death &nder the circ&*stances set forth in the provisions of #rticle +/' of the (ivil (ode, an absence of only two

years shall be s&fficient.

1or the p&rpose pf contractin% the s&bseC&ent *arria%e &nder the precedin% para%raph, the spo&ses present *&st instit&te a

%uary r$!!d#n7 a% r$d!d #n "#% ($d! for the declaration of pres&*ptive death of the absentee, witho&t pre?&diceto the effect of a reappearance of the absent spo&se. 3E*phasis and &nderscorin% s&pplied4

R&le ', ection ) of the Revised R&les of (o&rt, on "odes of #ppeal, invo$ed by the trial co&rt in disapprovin% petitioners Notice

of #ppeal, provides:

ec. ).Modes of appeal.

3a4 Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the (o&rt of #ppeals in cases decided by the Re%ional Trial (o&rt in the e@ercise of its

ori%inal ?&risdiction shall be ta$en by filin% a notice of appeal with the co&rt which rendered the ?&d%*ent or final order

appealed fro* and servin% a copy thereof &pon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be reC&ired e@cept in %!#a

r$!!d#n7% and other a%!% $ u8"#8! $r %!ara"! a!a8% 3!r! "! 8a3 $r "!%! Ru8!% %$ r!;u#r!. 6n s&ch cases, the

record on appeal shall be filed and served in li$e *anner. 3E*phasis and &nderscorin% s&pplied4

@ @ @

5y the trial co&rts citation of #rticle ' of the 1a*ily (ode, it is %athered that the petition of #polinaria Jo*oc to have her absent

spo&se declared pres&*ptively dead had for its p&rpose her desire to contract a valid s&bseC&ent *arria%e. Ergo, the petition for tha

p&rpose is a A%uary r$!!d#n7,A followin% aboveC&oted #rt. ', para%raph ) of the 1a*ily (ode.


9/28

ince Title 6 of the 1a*ily (ode, entitled I""#RF JID6(6#L PRO(EED6N; 6N T2E 1#"6LF L#G, contains the followin%

provision, inter alia:

@ @ @

#rt. )+B< re%istered in the na*e of one #lfonso (oncepcion.

#TO verified the a&thenticity of respondents titles with the Land Re%istration #&thority 3LR#4. On "ay '>, '//0, #tty. Jose

Lorie%a, head of the Land Title !erification Tas$ 1orce of the LR#, s&b*itted his report. The Re%istrar of Deeds of Pasay (ity had no

record of T(T No. '>B< and its ascendant title, T(T No. B. The land alle%edly covered by respondents titles was also fo&nd to

be within !illa*or #ir 5ase 3headC&arters of the Philippine #ir 1orce4 in Pasay (ity.

5y virt&e of the report, the Office of the olicitor ;eneral 3O;4, on epte*ber +, '//0, filed a co*plaint for revocation, ann&l*ent

and cancellation of certificates of title in behalf of the Rep&blic of the Philippines 3as represented by the LR#4 a%ainst respondent and

#lfonso (oncepcion. 6t was raffled to 5ranch '' of the Re%ional Trial (o&rt of Pasay (ity where it was doc$eted as (ivil (ase No./0''.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_163604_2005.html#fnt10


10/28

On Dece*ber , '//0, respondent filed its answer which was p&rportedly si%ned by #tty. Onofre ;arlitos, Jr. as co&nsel for

respondent.

ince #lfonso (oncepcion co&ld not be located and served with s&**ons, the trial co&rt ordered the iss&ance of an alias s&**ons by

p&blication a%ainst hi* on 1ebr&ary '/, '//>.

The case was thereafter p&nct&ated by vario&s incidents relative to *odes of discovery, pretrial, postpone*ents or contin&ances,

*otions to dis*iss, *otions to declare defendants in defa&lt and other proced&ral *atters.

D&rin% the pendency of the case, the enate 5l&e Ribbon (o**ittee and (o**ittee on J&stice and 2&*an Ri%hts cond&cted ahearin% in aid of le%islation on the *atter of land re%istration and titlin%. 6n partic&lar, the le%islative investi%ation loo$ed into the

iss&ance of fa$e titles and foc&sed on how respondent was able to acC&ire T(T Nos. '+0B, '+0B and '+0B0.

D&rin% the con%ressional hearin% held on Nove*ber )0, '//


11/28

3d4 replies by way of reb&ttal to so*e specific points raised by another b&t i%nores f&rther points which he or she has heard the other

*a$e '+ or

3e4 reads and si%ns a written state*ent *ade by another. '

2ere, respondent accepted the prono&nce*ents of #tty. ;arlitos and b&ilt its case on the*. #t no instance did it ever deny or

contradict its for*er co&nsels state*ents. 6t went to %reat len%ths to e@plain #tty. ;arlitos testi*ony as well as its i*plications, as

follows:

'. Ghile #tty. ;arlitos denied si%nin% the answer, the fact was that the answer was si%ned. 2ence, the pleadin% co&ld not beconsidered invalid for bein% an &nsi%ned pleadin%. The fact that the person who si%ned it was neither $nown to #tty. ;arlitos nor

specifically a&thoried by hi* was i**aterial. The i*portant thin% was that the answer bore a si%nat&re.

). Ghile the R&les of (o&rt reC&ires that a pleadin% *&st be si%ned by the party or his co&nsel, it does not prohibit a co&nsel fro*

%ivin% a %eneral a&thority for any person to si%n the answer for hi* which was what #tty. ;arlitos did. The person who act&ally

si%ned the pleadin% was of no *o*ent as lon% as co&nsel $new that it wo&ld be si%ned by another. This was si*ilar to addressin% an

a&thoriation letter Ato who* it *ay concernA s&ch that any person co&ld act on it even if he or she was not $nown beforehand.

+. #tty. ;arlitos testified that he prepared the answer= he never disowned its contents and he res&*ed actin% as co&nsel for respondent

s&bseC&ent to its filin%. These circ&*stances show that #tty. ;arlitos confor*ed to or ratified the si%nin% of the answer by another.

Respondent repeated these state*ents of #tty. ;arlitos in its *otion for reconsideration of the trial co&rts 1ebr&ary '/, '///

resol&tion. #nd a%ain in the petition it filed in the (o&rt of #ppeals as well as in the co**ent ' and *e*orand&* it s&b*itted tothis (o&rt.

Evidently, respondent co*pletely adopted #tty. ;arlitos state*ents as its own. Respondents adoptive ad*ission constit&ted a

?&dicial ad*ission which was concl&sive on it.

(ontrary to respondents position, a si%ned pleadin% is one that is si%ned either by the party hi*self or his co&nsel. ection +, R&le > is

clear on this *atter. 6t reC&ires that a pleadin% *&st be si%ned by the party or co&nsel representin% hi*.

Therefore, only the si%nat&re of either the party hi*self or his co&nsel operates to validly convert a pleadin% fro* one that is &nsi%ned

to one that is si%ned.

(o&nsels a&thority and d&ty to si%n a pleadin% are personal to hi*. 2e *ay not dele%ate it to ?&st any person.

The si%nat&re of co&nsel constit&tes an ass&rance by hi* that he has read the pleadin%= that, to the best of his $nowled%e, infor*ation

and belief, there is a %ood %ro&nd to s&pport it= and that it is not interposed for delay. '0 Inder the R&les of (o&rt, it is co&nsel alone,

by affi@in% his si%nat&re, who can certify to these *atters.

The preparation and si%nin% of a pleadin% constit&te le%al wor$ involvin% practice of law which is reserved e@cl&sively for the

*e*bers of the le%al profession. (o&nsel *ay dele%ate the si%nin% of a pleadin% to another lawyer '> b&t cannot do so

in favor of one who is not. The (ode of Professional Responsibility provides:

R&le /.B' # lawyer shall not dele%ate to any &nC&alified person the perfor*ance of any tas$ which by law *ay only be perfor*ed

by a *e*ber of the 5ar in %ood standin%.

"oreover, a si%nat&re by a%ents of a lawyer a*o&nts to si%nin% by &nC&alified persons, '< so*ethin% the law stron%ly proscribes.

Therefore, the blan$et a&thority respondent clai*s #tty. ;arlitos entr&sted to ?&st anyone was void. #ny act ta$en p&rs&ant to that

a&thority was li$ewise void. There was no way it co&ld have been c&red or ratified by #tty. ;arlitos s&bseC&ent acts.

"oreover, the transcript of the Nove*ber )0, '//< enate hearin% shows that #tty. ;arlitos consented to the si%nin% of the answer by

another Aas lon% as it confor*ed to his draft.A Ge %ive no val&e whatsoever to s&ch selfservin% state*ent.

No do&bt, #tty. ;arlitos co&ld not have validly %iven blan$et a&thority for ?&st anyone to si%n the answer. The trial co&rt correctlyr&led that respondents answer was invalid and of no le%al effect as it was an &nsi%ned pleadin%. Respondent was properly declared in

defa&lt and the Rep&blic was ri%htly allowed to present evidence e@ parte.


12/28

Respondent insists on the liberal application of the r&les. 6t *aintains that even if it were tr&e that its answer was s&pposedly an

&nsi%ned pleadin%, the defect was a *ere technicality that co&ld be set aside.

Proced&ral reC&ire*ents which have often been dispara%in%ly labeled as *ere technicalities have their own valid raison d etre in the

orderly ad*inistration of ?&stice. To s&**arily br&sh the* aside *ay res&lt in arbitrariness and in?&stice. '/

The (o&rts prono&nce*ent in ;arbo v. (o&rt of #ppeals )B is relevant:

Proced&ral r&les are Mtools desi%ned to facilitate the ad?&dication of cases. (o&rts and liti%ants ali$e are th&s Men?oined to abide

strictly by the r&les. #nd while the (o&rt, in so*e instances, allows a rela@ation in the application of the r&les, this, we stress, wasnever intended to for%e a bastion for errin% liti%ants to violate the r&les with i*p&nity. The liberality in the interpretation and

application of the r&les applies only in proper cases and &nder ?&stifiable ca&ses and circ&*stances. Ghile it is tr&e that liti%ation is

not a %a*e of technicalities, it is eC&ally tr&e that every case *&st be prosec&ted in accordance with the prescribed proced&re to ins&rean orderly and speedy ad*inistration of ?&stice.

Li$e all r&les, proced&ral r&les sho&ld be followed e@cept only when, for the *ost pers&asive of reasons, they *ay be rela@ed to

relieve a liti%ant of an in?&stice not co**ens&rate with the de%ree of his tho&%htlessness in not co*plyin% with the prescribed

proced&re. )' 6n this case, respondent failed to show any pers&asive reason why it sho&ld be e@e*pted fro* strictly abidin% by the

r&les.

#s a final note, the (o&rt cannot close its eyes to the acts co**itted by #tty. ;arlitos in violation of the ethics of the le%al profession.

Th&s, he sho&ld be *ade to acco&nt for his possible *iscond&ct.

G2ERE1ORE, the petition is hereby ;R#NTED. The "ay +', )BB' decision and #&%&st )B, )BB' resol&tion of the (o&rt of

#ppeals in (#;.R. P No. )/< are RE!ERED and ET #6DE and the 1ebr&ary '/, '/// resol&tion of the Re%ional Trial (o&rt

of Pasay (ity, 5ranch '' declarin% respondent in defa&lt is hereby RE6NT#TED.

Let a copy of this decision be f&rnished the (o**ission on 5ar Discipline of the 6nte%rated 5ar of the Philippines for the

co**ence*ent of disbar*ent proceedin%s a%ainst #tty. Onofre ;arlitos, Jr. for his possible &nprofessional cond&ct not befittin% his

position as an officer of the co&rt.

O ORDERED.

G.R. N$. 26:-1 January 1, 1969

JOSE S. MAT)TE, !"#"#$n!r, &%. T'E (O)RT O* APPEALS +T#rd D#%#$n and MATIAS S. MAT)TE, r!%$nd!n"%.

555555555555555555555555555

G.R. N$. L5260>- January 1, 1969

JOSE S. MAT)TE, #n #% !r%$na8 aa#"y and a% Jud##a8 ($5Ad#n#%"ra"$r $ "! E%"a"! $ AMADEO MAT)TE OLAVE,

!"#"#$n!r, &%. 'ON. J)DGE VI(ENTE P. B)LLE(ER, Jud7! $ "! ($ur" $ *#r%" In%"an! $ Da&a$, Bran IV, and

MARIANO NASSER, r!%$nd!n"%.

555555555555555555555555555

G.R. N$. L526106 January 1, 1969

JOSE S. MAT)TE AND L)IS S. MAT)TE, a% In"!r&!n$r% #n "!#r !r%$na8 aa#"#!% #n (# (a%! N$. 42-2 $ "! ($ur" $

*#r%" In%"an! $ Da&a$, !"#"#$n!r%, &%. 'ON. VI(ENTE P. B)LLE(ER, Jud7! $ "! ($ur" $ *#r%" In%"an! $ Da&a$,

Bran IV@ ATT/. PATERNO R. (ANLAS, DANIEL RIVERA, SR., PABLO V. DEL ROSARIO and NI(ANOR D.

VERGARA, a% D!!ndan"% #n (# (a%! N$. 42-2, $ "! ($ur" $ *#r%" In%"an! $ Da&a$, r!%$nd!n"%.

(#TRO, J.:

The present three petitions for certiorari with preli*inary in?&nction 3L)0>', L)0B


13/28

#ltho&%h the petition in L)0>' was filed the latest 3October )>, '/004, we shall dispose of it first beca&se o&r

prono&nce*ents and observations in this case have direct and concrete relevance to the other two.

The antecedent events trace their ori%in to #&%&st )B, '/0 when (arlos . "at&te, one of the "at&te heirs and a f&llblood

brother of both the petitioner and the herein respondent "atias . "at&te, filed in special proceedin% )0 3settle*ent of the "at&teestate4 a petition prayin% for the re*oval of "atias as coad*inistrator and his 3(arlos-4 appoint*ent in s&ch capacity. (arlos alle%ed

that Afor a period of *ore than two years fro* the date of his appoint*ent 3on "ay )/, '/0+4, said "atias . "at&te has ne%lected to

render a tr&e, ?&st and co*plete acco&nt of his ad*inistration,A and that he Ais not only inco*petent b&t also ne%li%ent in his

*ana%e*ent of the estate &nder his char%e consistin% of five haciendas on acco&nt of a cri*inal char%e for *&rder filed a%ainst hi*

which is occ&pyin% *ost of his ti*e.A'awphil.8t

The respondent "atias clai*s that he forthwith interposed an opposition to the aforesaid petition, and the record discloses that

he later filed an a*ended opposition dated #&%&st ), '/0 wherein he contended.

'. That the alle%ation ... that the herein coad*inistrator for the two years of his ad*inistration, '/0+ and '/0, did not render any

acco&ntin% is co*pletely witho&t basis and false, beca&se the records show that &nder date of "ay )B,'/0, he s&b*itted to this

2onorable (o&rt with copies f&rnished to all the parties concerned, incl&din% (arlos . "at&te, his acco&ntin% for '/0+, that on 1eb.


14/28

On Jan&ary +', '/00 the probate co&rt iss&ed an order, the dispositive portionof which reads:

1OR #LL T2E 1ORE;O6N;, the (o&rt hereby re*oves coad*inistrator, "atias ."at&te, as s&ch coad*inistrator of the

estate and orders hi* to s&b*it a finalacco&ntin% of his ad*inistration to%ether with his past ad*inistration acco&ntswhich have not

been approved, and, in his stead appoints Jose . "at&te, a brother by the sa*e *other of "atias . "at&te, as coad*inistrator, whoishereby reC&ired to p&t &p a bond of P',BBB.BB, and thereafter i**ediatelyC&alify in his co**ission and ass&*e the responsibility

of coad*inistrator....

1orthwith, "atias interposed with the (o&rt of #ppeals a petition for certiorari with preli*inary *andatory in?&nction 3(#

;.R. +>B+/R4 dated 1ebr&ary ', '/00, prayin% that the aforesaid order of Jan&ary +', '/00 be set aside as a n&llityfor havin% decreedhis re*oval witho&t d&e process and the appoint*ent of Jose. "at&te witho&t the reC&isite hearin%.

On "arch , '/00 the (o&rt of #ppeals %ave d&e co&rse to the aforesaid petitionand resolved to %rant a writ of preli*inaryin?&nction a%ainst Jose . "at&teand the 2onorable J&d%e E*i%dio Nietes, respondents in (#;.R. +>B+/R, conditioned on the filin%

of a P',BBB bond by the therein petitioner "atias, the respondentherein. On "arch )), '/00 Jose . "at&te *oved for the dis*issal of

the above*entionedpetition on the %ro&nd that the (o&rt of #ppeals does not have ?&risdiction tota$e co%niance of the sa*e since the

val&e of the estate involved is *ore thanP)BB,BBB. 2e f&rther contended that the val&e of the #*adeo "at&te Olave estatefor

p&rposes of ?&risdiction had already been resolved in (#;.R. +')R wherethe (o&rt of #ppeals ref&sed to ta$e ?&risdiction over a

petition for certiorari contestin% the appoint*ent of "atias "at&te as coad*inistrator, on the %ro&ndthat the val&e of the "at&te

estate was placed at P),'+),)) as evidenced by a A(o*pro*ise #%ree*entA dated #pril '), '/0 which was d&ly si%ned by all of

the heirs.

Despite repeated &r%ent *otions filed by Jose . "at&te prayin% that the (o&rtof #ppeals resolve with dispatch the iss&e of?&risdiction, the said appelatetrib&nal instead reC&ired then respondent Jose . "at&te to answer, which he did.2owever, on October

)>, '/00 herein petitioner Jose . "at&te interposed theinstant petition for certiorari with preli*inary in?&nction a%ainst the (o&rt of

#ppeals and "atias "at&te, challen%in% the ?&risdiction of the respondent(o&rt of #ppeals &pon two basic contentions:

The (o&rt of #ppeals has no ?&risdiction to entertain, %ive d&e co&rse, and*&ch *ore to iss&e a writ of preli*inary in?&nction,

a%ainst the petitioner, Jose . "at&te, and respondent J&d%e E*i%dio Nietes in (#;.R. No. +>B+/R ... beca&se the estate of #*adeo

"at&te Olave is worth *ore than P)BB,BBB.BB= and

The sa*e (o&rt of #ppeals in (#;.R. No. +')R, on Jan&ary )>, '/0, specialfo&rth division, has r&led that the (o&rt of

#ppeals has no ?&risdiction on theestate of #*adeo "at&te Olave in the *atter of the appoint*ent and re*oval ofits ad*inistrators.

The respondent "atias "at&te does not controvert the petitioner-s clai* that theval&e of the estate of their deceased father

e@ceeds P)BB,BBB. 2e *aintains,however, that the respondent (o&rt of #ppeals has ?&risdiction over (#;.R.+>B+/R Abeca&se thes&b?ect *atter involved is *erely ... the ri%ht to collectthe 3*onthly4 rentals d&e the Estate in the s&* of P,BBB.BBA p&rs&ant to

acontract of lease which he e@ec&ted in favor of one "ariano Nasser coverin%five haciendas of the estate &nder his separate

ad*inistration.

The fore%oin% assertion does not *erit credence. # searchin% review of the record Q fro* the initial petition filed by (arlos

"at&te to o&st the respondentas coad*inistrator &p to the latter-s petition for certiorari filed with the(o&rt of #ppeals i*p&%nin% the

validity of the above*entioned order of Jan&ary+', '/00 which re*oved hi* as coad*inistrator and appointed the petitioner inhis

place Q reveals no sin%le pleadin%, state*ent, contention, reference or eveninference which wo&ld ?&stify the respondent-s pretension

that the instantcontroversy is a *ere contest over the ri%ht to collect a P,BBB rental. 6n bold contrast, the record vividly chronicles the

controversy as a bitter fi%ht for coad*inistration: the re*oval of the respondent as coad*inistrator and the appoint*ent of anyone of

the *ovants and the herein petitioner as new coad*inistrator. 6ndeed, the principal conflict %ravitates over the ri%ht to coad*inister

the vast #*adeo "at&te Olave estate. This is the sa*e iss&e &nderlyin% the respondent-sabove*entioned petition in (#;.R. +>B+/

R. The respondent-s prayer in said petition &n*ista$ably indicates that the disp&te pertains to the ri%ht to coad*inister in %eneral, notthe *ere a&thority to collect a P,BBB *onthly rental.The said prayer reads:

'. That an e@ parte writ of preli*inary *andatory in?&nction be iss&ed en?oinin%andKor prohibitin% the respondent J&d%e fro*

approvin% the ad*inistrator-s bondthat will be filed by respondent Jose . "at&te and in iss&in% the letters ofad*inistration of the

latter, and fro* iss&in% Orders incidental andKor connectedwith the e@ercise and perfor*ance of acts of ad*inistration of said

respondent Jose . "at&te= li$ewise en?oinin% and prohibitin% respondent Jose . "at&tehi*self, andKor thro&%h his co&nsels, a%ents

and representatives fro* ta$in%physical possession of the different haciendas &nder the e@cl&sive ad*inistrationand *ana%e*ent of

herein petitioner and fro* perfor*in% and e@ercisin% acts ofa d&ly and le%ally appointed ad*inistrator, &pon filin% a bond in s&cha*o&ntthat this 2onorable Trib&nal *ay fi@=


15/28

). That the Order of the respondent J&d%e dated Jan&ary +', '/00, re*ovin% herein petitioner as coad*inistrator of the Estate

of #*adeo "at&te Olave andappointin% respondent Jose . "at&te as coad*inistrator witho&t presentationof evidence, be declared

n&ll and void and of no force and effect....

6n fine, the pith of the controversy is the ri%ht to coad*inister the entire estate. 6n this re%ard, the r&lin% in 1ernande, et al. vs"aravilla ' is deter*inative of the ?&risdictional iss&e posed here. 6n said case, this (o&rtr&led that in a contest for the ad*inistration

of an estate, the a*o&nt incontroversy is dee*ed to be the val&e of the whole estate, which total val&esho&ld be the proper basis of the

?&risdictional a*o&nt. (onseC&ently the (o&rtproceeded to concl&de that the (o&rt of #ppeals does not have ?&risdiction toiss&e writs

of certiorari and preli*inary in?&nction prayed for in a petition concernin% a conflict over ad*inistration arisin% as an incident in the

*ainprobate or settle*ent proceedin% if in the first place the principal case or proceedin% falls o&tside its appelate ?&risdictionconsiderin% the total val&e of the s&b?ect estate. This (o&rt in the aforesaid "aravilla case elaborated th&s:

The (o&rt of #ppeals, in the decision appealed fro*, ass&*ed ?&risdiction overthe present case on the theory that Athe a*o&ntin controversy relative to theappoint*ent of Eliear Lope as special coad*inistrator to protect the interestsof the respondents 3herein

petitioners4 is only P/B,BBB.BB *ore or less, i.e.,one fo&rth of the con?&%al propertyA 3of respondent and the deceased Di%na"aravilla4

which, as per inventory s&b*itted by the respondent as special ad*inistrator, is val&ed at P+0),)./B. This theory is &ntenable. Note

that theproceedin%s had on the appoint*ent of Eliear Lope as special coad*inistrator are *erely incidental to the probate or testate

proceedin%s of the deceased Di%na "aravilla.

That the (o&rt of #ppeals have no appelate ?&risdiction over the said testateproceedin%s cannot be do&bted, considerin% the

properties therein involved areval&ed at P+0),).BB, as per inventory of the special ad*inistrator.

... Not havin% appelate ?&risdiction over the proceedin%s in probate 3(#;.R.No. )>>


16/28

+. The respondent-s i*pression that a coad*inistrator-s tr&st and responsibilityare circ&*scribed and deli*ited by the sie and val&e

of the partic&lar propertyor portion of the estate s&b?ect to his separate ad*inistration, is erroneo&s. #ltho&%h a coad*inistrator is

desi%nated to ad*ininister a portion of theestate, he is no less an ad*inistrator of the whole beca&se his ?&dicio&s*ana%e*ent of a

*ere parcel enhances the val&e of the entire estate, while hisinefficient or corr&pt ad*inistration thereof necessarily di*inishes the

val&eof the whole estate. "oreover, when two or *ore ad*inistrators are appointed toad*inister separate parts of a lar%e estate theyare not to dischar%e theirf&nctions in distant isolation b&t in close cooperation so as to safe%&ard andpro*ote the %eneral interests of

the entire estate. The teachin% in ison vs.Teodoro ) is of positive relevance. 6n the said case, the probate co&rt char%eda%ainst the

entire estate the co*pensation of an ad*inistrator who was assi%nedas ?&dicial ad*inistrator representin% the interests of one of the

two heiresses.The other heiress whose interest was represented by the e@ec&tor opposed theaward on the %ro&nd that the said

ad*inistrator had not rendered service to theestate b&t only to his wife, the heiress who* he represented. On appeal, this (o&rt &pheldthe award and dis*issed the opposition:

This ar%&*ent erroneo&sly ass&*es that beca&se (arlos "oran ison was A?&dicial ad*inistrator representin% the interests ofPriscilla 1. isonA he was s&ch ad*inistrator Asolely for the p&rpose of protectin% Priscilla-s interests,A and not to protect those of the

estate. No words are needed to e@plain that in %eneral,the interest of the heir coincides with those of the estate Q the bi%%er theestate

the better for the heir. Therefore to protect the interest of heiressPriscilla &s&ally *eant to favor the interest of the estate 3sic4.... #%ain

the ar%&*ent pres&*es that an ad*inistrator appointed by the (o&rt for thep&rpose of %ivin% representation to desi%nated heirs, is not

dee*ed ad*inistratorof the estate. This ass&*ption has no le%al fo&ndation, beca&se it is ad*itted practice, where the estate is lar%e,

to appoint two or *ore ad*inistrators ofs&ch estate to have different interests represented and satisfied, and f&rther*ore,to have s&ch

representatives wor$ in har*ony for the best interests of s&ch estate. 36n re Drew-s Estate, )+0 N.G. >B', ) (.J. p. ''B+/R, and conseC&ently was witho&t power to iss&e or %rant the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed

for in said case.

Notwithstandin% that the herein petitioner deli*ited the iss&e, as set forth inhis petition of certiorari, to one of ?&risdiction of

the respondent (o&rt of #ppeals over (#;.R. +>B+/R, in s&bseC&ent pleadin%s and *anifestations, however, the parties therein

*&t&ally e@panded the iss&e to incl&de the C&estion of the le%ality of the controverted order of Jan&ary +', '/00 in (#;.R. +>B+/R.

#s a *atter of fact, the respondent, in a APetition to ResolveA dated J&ly '


17/28

3)4 The evidences presented to s&stain the re*oval of the respondent are incontrovertible since aside fro* bein% doc&*entary, they

are parts of the record of special proceedin% )0= and

3+4 The evidence on record concl&sively s&pports the findin%s of the probate ?&d%e.

The settled r&le is that the re*oval of an ad*inistrator &nder section ) of R&le


18/28

The probate ?&d%e did find, as essayed in his disp&ted order, that the respondent Ahas shown indifference to his d&ties as s&ch

coad*inistrator of the estateA as evidenced by:

3'4 the disapproval of his '/0 acco&nt by the probate co&rt in an order dated Jan&ary , '/00 d&e to his Anonappearance and non

s&b*ission of evidence to s&stain his acco&nt on the date set for the presentation of the sa*e=A

3)4 the considerable decrease in the inco*e of the properties &nder his char%e, as reflected in said '/0 acco&nt, which circ&*stance

Adoes not spea$ well of his dili%ence and attention to the ad*inistration of said properties=A and

3+4 the fail&re of said '/0 acco&nt to disclose the n&*ber of calves born d&rin% the acco&ntin% period, Athereby indicatin% a palpableo*ission of fact which directly red&ced the val&e of the inco*e or the increase of the assets of the estate.A

5&t, si%nificantly, the *ovants did not specifically invo$e the aforesaid %ro&nds in s&pport of their petition to o&st therespondent. #ll of the said %ro&nds, which in the *ind of the probate ?&d%e e@posed the s&pposed indifference and inco*petence of

the respondent in the dischar%e of his tr&st, are based on alle%ed defects of the respondent-s '/0 acco&nt. Inder these circ&*stances,

it behooved the probate ?&d%e to infor* the respondent of his findin%s before orderin% the latter-s re*oval. Ge concede that the

probate ?&d%e en?oys a wide latit&de of discretion in the *atter of the re*oval of e@ec&tors and ad*inistrators and he can ca&se their

o&ster at his own instance. 2owever, before they are deprived of their office they *&st be %iven the f&ll benefit of a day in co&rt, an

opport&nity not accorded to the respondent herein.

Githo&t for%ettin% s&ch patent denial of d&e process, which rendered the order of re*oval a n&llity, let &s e@a*ine the *erits

of the probate ?&d%e-s *ot& propio findin%s to deter*ine whether they warrant the o&ster of the respondent.

#s proof of the respondent-s AindifferenceA in the dischar%e of his d&ties, the probate ?&d%e cited the co&rt-s order of Jan&ary ,

'/00 disapprovin% the respondent-s '/0 acco&nt for his fail&re to personally appear on the date set for the s&b*ission of evidence in

s&pport of the said acco&nt. 6t *&st be e*phasied, however, that the respondent, two days before the iss&ance of the aforesaid order

re*ovin% hi* as coad*inistrator, seasonably *oved for the reconsideration of the aforecited order of Jan&ary , '/00 on the %ro&nd

that his fail&re to personally attend the sched&led hearin% was d&e to illness on his part. Evidently, when the probate co&rt decreed the

re*oval of the respondent, the order disapprovin% his '/0 acco&nt, which was &sed as one of the principal ?&stifications for his

re*oval as coad*ininistrator, was not yet final as it was still s&b?ect to possible reconsideration. #s a *atter of fact, on 1ebr&ary '/,

'/00 the sa*e probate ?&d%e set aside the aforesaid order of Jan&ary , '/00, th&s:

(onsiderin% that it will be the benefit of all the parties concerned if for*er coad*inistrator "atias . "at&te will be allowed

to s&bstantiate the acco&ntin% which he s&b*itted to this (o&rt b&t which was disapproved on Jan&ary , '/00 for his fail&re to

personally appear at the hearin% held for the p&rpose of s&bstantiatin% said acco&ntin%, his *otion for reconsideration filed on Jan&ary

)


19/28

probate ?&d%e sho&ld have reC&ired the respondent to e@plain the said o*ission instead of brandin% o&tri%ht said o*ission as

Apalpable.A

6n his e@c&rsion into the records of special proceedin% )0, the probate ?&d%e also fo&nd a copy of a socalled A(o*plianceA

s&b*itted by the respondent which reported Aa very sta%%erin% a*o&nt of over One "illion Pesos s&pposedly %iven to the heirsA asadvances. The probate ?&d%e proceeded to observe that the Arecord does not show that the said advances to the heirs were a&thoried

by the (o&rt in the a*o&nts *ade to appear in the -(o*pliance.-A 2e added that a Averification of the record will show that *ay be

part of this a*o&nt s&pposedly paid by the coad*inistrator to the heirs were a&thoried by the (o&rt b&t a %reater vol&*e of the sa*e

was obvio&sly not a&thoried.A On acco&nt of this partic&lar findin%, the probate co&rt concl&ded, witho&t eC&ivocation, that the

respondent had been actin% witho&t previo&s a&thority fro* the probate co&rt. Infort&nately a%ain, the respondent was not affordedthe opport&nity to present his side and if possible to controvert the said findin% or correct the i*pressions of the ?&d%e. 2earin% the

respondent on this point is i*perative beca&se, li$e the other %ro&nds &pon which the probate ?&d%e anchored the order of re*oval, it

was not p&t in iss&e by the *ovants, neither was a copy of said A(o*plianceA s&b*itted in evidence. 6t bears e*phasis that it therewere &na&thoried pay*ents of advances to so*e heirs or si*&lated %rants as the probate ?&d%e appears to theorie, then it is *ost

s&rprisin% why the pre?&diced "at&te heirs, liti%ationproned as they are, did not i*p&%n the socalled A(o*pliance.A 1&rther*ore,

not one of the *ovants interested in the re*oval of the respondent specifically char%ed the latter with &na&thoried or fictitio&s

pay*ents of advances. 6t sho&ld also be noted that the said A(o*plianceA was s&b*itted by the respondent in response to the probate

co&rt-s order for the s&b*ission of Aa list of the heirs who have personally received the advances fro* the ad*inistration,A not fro*

the respondent alone. 6t stands to reason, therefore, that the said A(o*plianceA co&ld very well be a c&*&lative list of all the advances

%iven and received by the "at&te heirs fro* the several ad*inistrators of the "at&te estate since '/. 6n the absence of concrete

evidence that the said Asta%%erin% a*o&ntA of over a *illion pesos advances was disb&rsed by the respondent alone d&rin% his

belea%&ered ter* which co**enced only in '/0+, we have no reco&rse b&t to ?ettison the adverse concl&sion of the probate ?&d%e.

Ghat the probate ?&d%e sho&ld have done was to afford "atias the chance to e@plain and s&bstantiate the facts and the fi%&resappearin% in the aforesaid A(o*pliance,A which &nfort&nately does not for* part of the record before &s. The respondent asserts that if

only the probate ?&d%e Atoo$ pains to e@a*ine f&lly the vol&*ino&s records of the "at&te estate, and as reflected in the very

-(o*pliance- s&b*itted to the (o&rt ... any disb&rse*ent %iven to the heirs by all the ad*inistrators of the Estate were by virt&e of the

several Orders of the Probate (o&rt iss&ed &pon ?oint *otion of all the heirs for their *onthly *aintenance and s&pport.A

6t li$ewise appears that the respondent was re*oved partly d&e to his fail&re to pay the inheritance and estate ta@es. 6n this

re%ard, it bears e*phasis that the fail&re to pay the ta@es d&e fro* the estate is per se not a co*pellin% reason for the re*oval of an

ad*inistrator, for Ait *ay be tr&e that the respondent ad*inistrator failed to pay all the ta@es d&e fro* the estate, b&t said fail&re *aybe d&e to lac$ of f&nds, and not to a willf&l o*ission.A 6n the case at bar there is no evidence that the nonpay*ent of ta@es was

willf&l. On the contrary, the respondent alle%ed, and this was &nchallen%ed by the *ovants, that while the previo&s ad*inistrators left

the ta@es &npaid, he had paid the real property ta@es in Davao coverin% the years '/ to '/00.

Ge now co*e to the second part of the controverted order Q the appoint*ent of the petitioner as coad*inistrator vice therespondent. ince the re*oval of "atias was done with inordinate haste and witho&t d&e process, aside fro* the fact that the %ro&nds

&pon which he was re*oved have no evidentiary ?&stification, the sa*e is void, and, conseC&ently, there is no vacancy to which the

petitioner co&ld be appointed.

Even %rantin% ar%&endo that the re*oval of "atias is free fro* infir*ity, this (o&rt is not prepared to s&stain the validity of

the appoint*ent of the petitioner in place of the for*er. To start with, the record does not disclose that any hearin% was cond&cted,

*&ch less that notices were sent to the other heirs and interested parties, anent the petition for the appoint*ent of Jose . "at&te,

a*on% others, as coad*inistrator vice "atias . "at&te. 6n this re%ard, it is pertinent to observe that any hearin% cond&cted by the

probate co&rt was confined solely to the pri*ary prayers of the separate petitions of (arlos . "at&te, and the (andelario"at&te heirs

see$in% the o&ster of "atias . "at&te. The corollary prayers contained in the sa*e petitions for the appoint*ent of (arlos . "at&te,

Jose . "at&te and #%&stina "at&te (andelario or anyone of the* as coad*inistrator were never even considered at any of the

hearin%s. The reC&ire*ent of a hearin% and the notification to all $nown heirs and other interested parties as to the date thereof is

essential to the validity of the proceedin% for the appoint*ent of and ad*inistrator Ain order that no person *ay be deprived of hisri%ht or property witho&t d&e process of law.A 3E&sebio vs. !al*ores, /> Phil. '0+4 "oreover, a hearin% is necessary in order to f&lly

deter*ine the s&itability of the applicant to the tr&st, by %ivin% hi* the opport&nity to prove his C&alifications and affordin%

oppositors, if any, to contest the said application.

The provision of R&le


20/28

Ipon the fore%oin% disC&isition, we hold that the respondent (o&rt of #ppeals was witho&t ?&risdiction over (#;.R. +>B+/

R, and that the controverted order of Jan&ary +', '/00 is a n&llity and *&st therefore be set aside in its entirety.

L5260>-

L)0B', co**enced with the iss&ance by the probate co&rt 3(o&rt of 1irst 6nstance of "anila4

of the order of Jan&ary +', '/00 re*ovin% "atias . "at&te as coad*inistrator and replacin% hi* with Jose . "at&te. #r*ed with

the letters of coad*inistration awarded to hi* on 1ebr&ary +, '/00, Jose atte*pted to ta$e possession of and e@ercise ad*inistrationover the five haciendas La Inion, i%aboy, "onserrat, (olatinan and P&nda%&itan, all belon%in% to the "at&te estate and sit&ated in

;overnor ;eneroso, Davao. aid five haciendas were previo&sly assi%ned to the separate ad*inistration of the deposed co

ad*inistrator, "atias . "at&te.

"ariano Nasser, herein plaintiffrespondent, who was in act&al possession of the said haciendas, opposed the pro?ected

ta$eover by the defendantpetitioner Jose . "at&te in the latter-s capacity as coad*inistrator. &bseC&ently, on 1ebr&ary ', '/00,

Nasser instit&ted civil case /0< in the (o&rt of 1irst 6nstance of Davao, a co*plain for in?&nction, alle%in% that the defendant

petitioner was forcibly wrestin% possession of the said haciendas with the aid of hired %oons, and prayin% that the said defendant

petitioner be en?oined fro* ta$in% physical possession, *ana%e*ent and ad*inistration of the aforesaid five haciendas. On 1ebr&ary

'0, '/00 the co&rt a C&o iss&ed a writ of preli*inary in?&nction e@ parte, prohibitin% AJose . "at&te andKor his co&nsels, a%ents,representatives or e*ployees fro* ta$in% physical possession, *ana%e*ent and ad*inistrationA of the above*entioned properties.

On 1ebr&ary )+, '/00, seven days after he received on 1ebr&ary '0, '/00, the s&**ons in civil case /0


21/28

#pril '0, '/00 and the s&bseC&ent ?&d%*ent by defa&lt dated #pril )+, '/00, copies of which had not been received by hi*. On the

followin% day, "ay 0, '/00, the defendantpetitioner filed an AIr%ent "otion to 6nvesti%ate the Office of the (ler$ of (o&rt for

"ailin% Discrepancy.A

The defendantpetitioner-s co&nsel clai*s Q and this is not controverted by the respondent J&d%e and the plaintiffrespondentQ that it was only "ay '>, '/00 that he received a copy of the ?&d%*ent by defa&lt and at the sa*e ti*e a copy of the order of

e@ec&tion dated "ay +, '/00, and that a copy of the order of defa&lt had never been f&rnished hi*.

5eca&se of the i*pendin% e@ec&tion of the ?&d%*ent by defa&lt with the followin% dispositive portion Q

6N !6EG O1 #LL T2E 1ORE;O6N; (ON6DER#T6ON, ?&d%*ent is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a%ainst

the defendant confir*in% the ri%ht of the plaintiff to the possession of the pre*ises leased in his favor by the ?&dicial ad*inistrator,

"atias . "at&te and the in?&nction a%ainst the defendant iss&ed in this case is hereby declared per*anent and defendant is herebyper*anently en?oined fro* interferin% in the peacef&l possession of the plaintiff over the haciendas La Inion, i%aboy, "onserrrat,

;olatinan and P&nda%&itan of the estate of #*adeo "at&te Olave, all sit&ated in ;overnor ;eneroso, Davao and fro* doin% any act

of ta$in% any step a%ainst the peacef&l possession of said properties by the plaintiff. The defendant is li$ewise ordered to pay the

plaintiff the a*o&nt of PB,BBB.BB as attorney-s fees d&e and payable to plaintiff-s co&nsel for filin% this action: P),BB.BB a *onth

be%innin% 1ebr&ary, '/00, representin% *onthly salaries of sec&rity %&ards e*ployed by the plaintiff in the haciendas leased pl&s

P>,BBB.BB representin% transportation hotel and representation e@penses inc&rred by the plaintiff for plaintiff-s co&nsel and another

P>BB.BB representin% the yearly pre*i&*s on the in?&nction bond filed by plaintiff.

the defendantpetitioner interposed the instant petition for certiorari with preli*inary in?&nction to ann&l the order of defa&lt,

the ?&d%*ent by defa&lt, and the order of e@ec&tion, and to restrain the e@ec&tion of the aforesaid ?&d%*ent pendin% the resol&tion ofthe instant petition.

On "ay )+, '/00 this (o&rt %ranted the writ of preli*inary in?&nction prayed for, conditioned on the petitioner-s postin% a

bond of P,BBB, which he did on J&ne , '/00.

Ge are of the consens&s that the herein petition sho&ld be %ranted.

R&le '', section ' of the Revised R&les of (o&rt %ives the defendant a period of fifteen 3'4 days after service of s&**onswithin which to file his answer and serve a copy thereof &pon the plaintiff, &nless a different period is fi@ed by the co&rt. 2owever,

within the period of ti*e for pleadin%, the defendant is entitled to *ove for dis*issal of the action on any of the %ro&nd en&*erated in

R&le '0. 6f the *otion to dis*iss is denied or if deter*ination thereof is deferred, the *ovant shall file his answer within the period

prescribed by R&le '', co*p&ted fro* the ti*e he received notice of the denial or defer*ent, &nless the co&rt provides a different

period 3R&le '0, section 4. 6n other words, the period for filin% a responsive pleadin% co**ence to r&n all over a%ain fro* the ti*ethe defendant received notice of the denial of his *otion to dis*iss. 0

Revertin% to the case at bar, the defendantpetitioner was served with s&**ons in connection with civil case /0< on 1ebr&ary'0, '/00, hence he had &ntil "arch +, '/00 to file his responsive pleadin%. 6nstead of filin% an answer, he seasonably interposed a

*otion to dis*iss on 1ebr&ary )+, '/00. #ltho&%h the aforesaid *otion to dis*iss was denied as early as "arch +', '/00, he received

notice of the denial, thro&%h his co&nsel of record, only on #pril ), '/00, a fact not traversed by either the respondent J&d%e or the

plaintiffrespondent. (onseC&ently, the defendantpetitioner had fifteen 3'4 days fro* #pril ), '/00, or &p to "ay 'B, '/00, to file

his answer.

The delay in the *ailin% of a copy of the order of denial to the defendantpetitioner-s co&nsel was confir*ed by the co&rt a C&o

in a report rendered after an investi%ation of the office of the cler$ of co&rt &pon &r%ent *otion of the defendantpetitioner. The report

reads in part:

1ro* its investi%ation of the e*ployee in char%e of (ivil (ases, the (o&rt fo&nd o&t that, indeed, there was a delay in the

*ailin% of the Order of this (o&rt dated "arch +', '/00 to co&nsel for the defendant, #tty. #ntonio Enril 6nton. This (o&rt, however,

is convinced of the sincerity of the reasons %iven by the e*ployee concerned, and that is: that her fail&re to ca&se to be *ailed the

copy intended for #tty. #ntonio Enrile 6nton on the sa*e date that she ca&sed to be *ailed the copy for #tty. Paterno (anlas

3plaintiffrespondent-s co&nsel4 was p&rely a case of an honest *ista$e and inadvertene on her part owin% to the vol&*e of her wor$=

the affidavit of the e*ployee in char%e of (ivil (ases bein% hereto attached.

The affidavit of the e*ployee concerned *entioned in the aboveC&oted portion of the report clearly ad*its the delay, th&s:


22/28

That d&e to the fact that 6 a* the only one handlin% *atters relative to (ivil (ases and, beca&se of the vol&*e of *y wor$ in

the office, 6 *&st have inadvertently *isplaced the envelop containin% a copy of the Order intended for #tty. #ntonio Enrile 6nton,

and only discovered by 3*y4 *ista$e on #pril ', '/00, when 6 went over so*e papers contained in the drawer of *y table=

That &pon discovery of the said envelope containin% the copy of the order dated "arch +', '/00, a*on% the papers in *y tabledrawer, 6 forthwith sent the sa*e to the one in char%e of *ailin% and who *ailed the sa*e on #pril '0, '/00, by re%istered air *ail

special delivery, as evidenced by Re%istry Receipt No. )0 now attached to the records of this case. 3e*phasis s&pplied4

6t is &n*ista$able fro* the fore%oin% e@position that when the defendantpetitioner was declared in defa&lt on #pril '0, '/00

the ti*e for filin% his answer had not yet even co**enced to r&n anew beca&se on the said date his co&nsel had not yet receivednotice of the denial of the *otion to dis*iss. The order of denial was received only on #pril ), '/00, or definitely after #pril '0,

'/00, the day when a copy of the said order was *ailed to the defendantpetitioner-s co&nsel and when the defendantpetitioner was

declared in defa&lt.

No f&rther elaboration is needed to show that the trial ?&d%e acted in e@cess of ?&risdiction when he declared the defendant

petitioner in defa&lt. (onseC&ently, the herein controverted order of defa&lt is a patent n&llity, an infir*ity which li$ewise afflicts,

necessarily, the s&bseC&ent ?&d%*ent by defa&lt and the order of e@ec&tion.

6t is not a*iss to say that, at the very least, the defendantpetitioner-s *otion to dis*iss sho&ld have been considered as an

answer, since it raised iss&es on the *erits of the case, s&ch as the invalidity of the alle%ed contract of lease. (onseC&ently, the

defendant petitioner sho&ld have been notified of the hearin%, and fail&re to %ive hi* an opport&nity to appear in the co&rt below

tainted the s&bseC&ent proceedin%s not only with irre%&larity b&t also with ille%ality. 6t follows, therefore, that the petitioner was

incorrectly declared in defa&lt, and the holdin% of the trial of the case on the *erits in his absences, witho&t d&e notice to hi*, was adenial of d&e process. >

6n opposin% the instant petition, the plaintiffrespondent contends that the re*edy of the defendantpetitioner is not a petition

for certiorari b&t an ordinary appeal p&rs&ant to R&le ', section ), para%raph + which reads:

# party who has been declared in defa&lt *ay li$ewise appeal fro* the ?&d%*ent rendered a%ainst hi* as contrary to the

evidence or to the law, even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of defa&lt has been presented by hi* in accordance with R&le

+


23/28

had been deprived of d&e process, ta$en to%ether with the circ&*stance that a writ of e@ec&tion had already been iss&ed, perforce

ta$es this case o&tside of the p&rview of the r&le reC&irin% a previo&s *otion for reconsideration.

The n&llity of the challen%ed orders relieves the defendantpetitioner fro* payin% the da*a%es assessed a%ainst hi* by the

co&rt a C&o= however, it does not entitle hi* to p&rs&e f&rther his clai* of possession and ad*inistration over the above*entioned fivehaciendas, considerin% that we have declared in L)0>' that his appoint*ent as coad*inistrator is void.

6n view of the fore%oin% disC&isition, the controverted order of defa&lt, ?&d%*ent by defa&lt and order of e@ec&tion sho&ld be

ann&lled and set aside.

L)0'B0

L)0'B0 is another petition for certiorari with preli*inary in?&nction instit&ted on "ay ), '/00 by Jose . "at&te 3the sa*epetitioner in L)0>' and L)0B


24/28

"at&te, on behalf of the Estate, witho&t a&thority of his %eneral ad*inistrator, (arlos !. "at&te, who filed a "otion to Dis*iss the

co*plaint in this case

That the records of (ivil (ase No. ')B< will show that after the (o*pro*ise J&d%*ent was rendered on Dece*ber , '/0), a

Petition for relief to set aside the said (o*pro*ise J&d%*ent was filed by two 3)4 of the heirs and f&llblooded sisters of plaintiff co

ad*inistrator, "atias . "at&te, na*ely, Rosario and Trinidad &ao "at&te on J&ne 0, '/0+, on %ro&nds of 3a4 fra&d and 3b4 lac$ of

the probate co&rt-s approval to the (o*pro*ise #%ree*ent, the very sa*e %ro&nds alle%ed in the present (o*plaint of plaintiff Estate

a copy of the Petition for Relief is hereto attached as #nne@ A(A of this "otion to Dis*iss. That on J&ne '+, '/0+, herein defendantPaterno R. (anlas filed his Opposition to petition for Relief, and, on J&ne )0, '/0+, a &pple*entary Opposition to Petition for Relief

and ref&tin% all the above iss&es raised in the Petition for Relief, copies of which are hereto attached as #nne@es ADA and AEA. Rosario

and Trinidad &ao "at&te filed Reply and defendant Paterno R. (anlas filed his Re?oinder on J&ly , '/0 the defendantsrespondents Daniel Rivera, r., Pablo del Rosario and Nicanor !er%ara filed their own?oint *otion to dis*iss, alle%in% a*on% other thin%s that they were innocent transferees and *ort%a%es for val&e of the properties

s&b?ect *atter of the co*plaint and adopted as their own the *otions to dis*iss filed by (anlas and (arlos !. "at&te.

On #pril '', '/0 the 2onorable J&d%e !icente N. (&si, Jr., e@ec&tive ?&d%e of the (o&rt of 1irst 6nstance of Davao, iss&ed an

order deferrin% to after the trial the final hearin% and deter*ination of the *otions to dis*iss since the %ro&nds alle%ed therein Ado notappear to be ind&bitable.A 1ro* this order, the defendants *oved for a reconsideration which was denied on Jan&ary '0, '/0.

"eanwhile, on #&%&st '>, '/0 Jose and L&is "at&te filed a *otion to intervene, as$in% that they be allowed to adopt theco*plaint of the plaintiffestate. aid *otion was %ranted on epte*ber , '/0.

#fter the aforesaid re?ection of the defendants- *otion for reconsideration of the order denyin% their separate *otions to

dis*iss, (anlas filed on 1ebr&ary ', '/0 his answer ad ca&tela*, traversin% the *aterial alle%ations of the co*plaint in civil case

)) and interposin% the %ro&nds stated in his *otion to dis*iss as affir*ative defenses. 2e also filed a co&nterclai* for da*a%es in

the a*o&nt of P'BB,BBB ?ointly a%ainst "atias "at&te, for filin% the Afrivolo&s and &nfo&ndedA action in the na*e of the estate, and

Jose an L&is "at&te, for intervenin% in the case. #ll there were char%ed in their personal capacities. On the sa*e date, the other

defendants, Rivera, del Rosario and !er%ara, filed their own answer ad ca&tela*, denyin% the essential aver*ents of the co*plaint

havin% relevance to the* and adoptin% the affir*ative defenses interposed by (anlas. aid defendants si*ilarly interposed a

co&nterclai* of PB,BBB for da*a%es, directed a%ainst the plaintiffestate.

On "arch ', '/0 "atias "at&te, representin% the plaintiffestate, filed the correspondin% answers to the fore%oin%

co&nterclai*s. The answer to (anlas- co&nterclai* specifically denied.

that the aboveentitled case is patently frivolo&s and &nfo&nded and was instit&ted in bad faith and calc&lated to *erely harass

the defendant in order to satisfy the personal reven%e, hatred and vindictiveness of the coad*inistrator "atias . "at&te, representin%

the plaintiff estate, and intervenors Jose . "at&te and L&is . "at&te, the tr&th bein% that the co*plaint in the aboveentitled case was

instit&ted precisely to prevent defendants fro* ille%ally and fra&d&lently transfor*in% and conveyin% the*selves val&able propertiesof plaintiff estate worth *ore than PBB,BBB.BB=

and disclai*ed any


25/28

$nowled%e of any act&al, *oral and conseC&ential da*a%e havin% been s&ffered by defendant Paterno R. (anlas.

"eanwhile, &pon *otion of the co&nsels for the defendants, J&d%e (&si ordered on #&%&st )


26/28

separate co&nterclai*. The sa*e decree incl&ded a ?&d%*ent by defa&lt conde*nin% the intervenors to ?ointly and severally pay the

s&* of P'BB,BBB as da*a%es to (anlas and li$ewise sentencin% the plaintiff estate to inde*nify the other defendants Rivera, del

Rosario and !er%ara in the s&* of PB,BBB. &bseC&ently, on #pril '), '/00 the respondent J&d%e ordered the iss&ance of a writ of

e@ec&tion to enforce the aforesaid ?&d%*ent by defa&lt.

2ence, the interposition by the intervenors of the instant petition for certiorari with preli*inary in?&nction.

#nent the order of 1ebr&ary ', '/00 dis*issin% with pre?&dice civil case )), the intervenorspetitioners 3now Jose "at&te

alone, as the other petitioner, L&is "at&te, has already withdrawn4 contend that the said order is a n&llity as it was predicated on a

void *otion to dis*iss andKor withdraw filed by "atias "at&te on 1ebr&ary ', '/00, two wee$s after the latter had been re*oved ascoad*inistrator by the probate co&rt in an order dated Jan&ary +', '/00. 6t is f&rther *aintained that when "atias "at&te interposed

the aforesaid *otion to dis*iss andKor to withdraw, he had no *ore a&thority to represent the "at&te estate as a conseC&ence of his

o&ster as coad*inistrator. The fore%oin% ar%&*ent is irredee*ably foreclosed by o&r e@plicit r&lin% in L)0>' settin% aside theabove*entioned order of Jan&ary +', '/00 and declarin% as void the re*oval of "atias "at&te and the appoint*ent of the herein

intervenorpetitioner Jose . "at&te as the new coad*inistrator. ;rantin%, therefore, that the controverted order of dis*issal was

rendered on acco&nt of "atias "at&te-s aforesaid *otion which was filed in behalf of the plaintiff estate, the validity of s&ch dis*issal

order cannot be challen%ed on the %ro&nd that the *ovant 3"atias "at&te4 lac$ed the capacity to represent the plaintiff estate

considerin% that his personality and a&thority as coad*inistrator re*ained &ni*paired beca&se the order of Jan&ary +', '/00 is a

n&llity.

2owever, the intervenorpetitioner is of the *ista$en i*pression that the disp&ted order of dis*issal was based on "atias

"at&te-s *otion to dis*iss andKor to withdraw. #s correctly pointed o&t by the defendantsrespondents, the said order was anchored

on their own *otion to dis*iss and s&pple*entary *otion to dis*iss. #ltho&%h both the *otions of the coad*inistrator inrepresentation of the plaintiff estate and of the defendants, either of which co&ld ?&stify the dis*issal of the co*plaint in civil case

)), were pro*inently *entioned in the body of the said controverted order, the &neC&ivocal i*port of the dispositive portion of said

decree, however, is that the dis*issal was predicated on the defendants- *otion to dis*iss and s&pple*entary *otion to dis*iss, th&s:

#s prayed for in defendants- *otion to dis*iss and s&pple*entary action to dis*iss, the action filed in this case is hereby

dis*issed with pre?&dice witho&t cost to plaintiff. 3e*phasis s&pplied4

"oreover, both the order of "arch '), '/00 declarin% the ter*ination of all other incidents in civil case )) and the order of#pril '', '/00 denyin% the intervenors- *otion for reconsideration, cate%orically affir* that the disp&ted order of dis*issal was

anchored on the defendants- *otion to dis*iss on the %ro&nd of res ?&dicata. The order of #pril '', '/00 specifically declares that the

dis*issal of civil case )) was based

... on the %ro&nd of res ?&dicata invo$ed by the defendants in their "otion to Dis*iss and &pple*entary "otion to Dis*issfor the reason that the (o*pro*ise J&d%*ent rendered in (ivil (ase No. ')B, '/0, they were not represented by co&nsel,

b&t they failed to disclose their respective addresses or at least the address of one of the*, contrary to the reC&ire*ent of section of

R&le > that a Aparty who is not represented by an attorney shall si%n his pleadin%s and state his address.A 3e*phasis s&pplied4

(onseC&ently, if the pertinent orders and notices were not sent to the intervenors, it was beca&se of their fail&re to disclose their

*ailin% addresses. #t all events, since the intervenors virt&ally allied with the plaintiff estate by adoptin% in toto the latter-s co*plaint

witho&t filin% a separate co*plaint in intervention, it is not witho&t ?&stification to r&le, considerin% the partic&lar circ&*stances

obtainin%, that notice to the plaintiff estate sho&ld be dee*ed s&fficient notice to the intervenors. "oreover, it is of record that both

#ttys. Genceslao La&reta and Robert Porter, who appeared on 1ebr&ary >, '/00 as co&nsels for the intervenor Jose . "at&te in hiscapacity as alle%ed coad*inistrator by virt&e of the abovecited order of the probate co&rt dated Jan&ary +', '/00, were d&ly f&rnished

with copies of all orders of the co&rt a C&o s&bseC&ent to their appearance. #nent the order of dis*issal dated 1ebr&ary ', '/00, the

lower co&rt reported, after an investi%ation of the dep&ty cler$ of co&rt for alle%ed *ailin% discrepancies &pon *otion of the


27/28

intervenors, that copies of the said order were Aeach *ailed to and received by #ttys. Genceslao La&reta and Robert E. Porter on

"arch '< and +, '/00, respectively, per re%istry ret&rn cards d&ly attached to the records of this case.A 6n other words, the intervenor

petitioner Jose . "at&te was f&rnished, thro&%h co&nsel, a copy of the order of dis*issal at the earliest on "arch +, '/00 when #tty.

Porter received a copy of the order. #fter a lapse of twentythree 3)+4 days fro* the receipt of the said copy, #ttys. La&reta and Porter

filed on "arch )0, '/00 a *otion for reconsideration of the order of dis*issal. 2ence, when the said *otion was filed, the intervenorpetitioner had still seven 3>4 days to perfect an appeal. &bseC&ently, on #pril '', '/00, the co&rt a C&o denied the aforesaid *otion

for reconsideration. eparate copies of said denial were received by #tty. La&reta on #pril '0, '/00 and by #tty. Porter on #pril '4 days or &p to

#pril )+, '/00 to perfect an appeal. 2owever, it was only on #pril ), '/00 that the reC&isite notice of appeal and appeal bond werefiled while the record on appeal was filed *&ch later, on "ay )0, '/00, clearly way beyond the re%le*entary period.

The intervenorpetitioner contends, however, that it was only on #pril ), '/00 that he received notice of the dis*issal of civilcase )) and on the very sa*e day he ca&sed the filin% of the necessary notice of appeal and appeal bond. (oncedin% that the

fore%oin% assertion is correct, the intervenorpetitioner-s pro?ected appeal was still o&t of ti*e since the reC&isite record on appeal was

filed only on "ay )0, '/00, or thirtyone days fro* #pril ), '/00.

6n passin%, it is pertinent to note that the dis*issal of the co*plaint in civil case ))*, after the iss&es were ?oined with the

filin% of the responsive pleadin%s, &pon the defendants- *otion to resolve a pendin% *otion to dis*iss, the resol&tion of which had

been previo&sly deferred &ntil after the trial by virt&e of an order of the sa*e co&rt &nder another ?&d%e, is a proced&ral deviation fro*

the standard seC&ence of trial in accordance with which the co&rt a C&o, after the reC&isite answers were filed, sho&ld have proceeded

with the trial on the *erits, and only thereafter resolved the *otion to dis*iss as was the i*port of the order of defendant.

Nevertheless, it is relevant to e*phasie, on the other hand, that an order deferrin% the resol&tion of a *otion to dis*iss, bein% aninterloc&tory order, *ay be altered or revo$ed by the trial co&rt d&rin% the pendency of the *ain action. 6t is settled that an

Ainterloc&tory order or decree *ade in the pro%ress of a case is always &nder the control of the co&rt &ntil the final decision of the s&it,

and *ay be *odified or rescinded &pon s&fficient %ro&nds shown at any ti*e before final ?&d%*ent....A '0 Of si*ilar i*port is the

r&lin% of this (o&rt declarin% that Ait is r&di*entary that s&ch 3interloc&tory4 orders are s&b?ect to chan%e in the discretion of the co&rt.

'> "oreover, one of the inherent powers of the co&rt is ATo a*end and control its process and orders so as to *a$e the* confor*able

to law and ?&stice.A '< 6n the lan%&a%e of (hief J&stice "oran, paraphrasin% the r&lin% in !el& vs. J&stice of the Peace of ariaya, '/

Asince ?&d%es are h&*an, s&sceptible to *ista$es, and are bo&nd to ad*inister ?&stice in accordance with law, they are %iven the

inherent power of a*endin% their orders or ?&d%*ents so as to *a$e the* confor*able to law and ?&stice, and they can do so beforethey los their ?&risdiction of the case that is before the ti*e to appeal has e@pired and no appeal has been perfected.A )B #nd in the

abovecited !el& case, this (o&rt held that A6f the trial co&rt sho&ld discover or be convinced that it had co**itted an error in its

?&d%*ent, or had done an in?&stice, before the sa*e has beco*e final, it *ay, &pon its own *otion or &pon a *otion of the parties,

correct s&ch error in order to do ?&stice between the parties.... 6t wo&ld see* to be the very hei%ht of abs&rdity to prohibit a trial ?&d%e

fro* correctin% an error, *ista$e, or in?&stice which is called to his attention before he has lost control of his ?&d%*ent.A (orollarily, ithas also been held Athat a ?&d%e of first instance is not le%ally prevented fro* revo$in% the interloc&tory order of another ?&d%e in the

very liti%ation s&bseC&ently assi%ned to hi* for ?&dicial action.A )'

6n view of the fore%oin% r&lin%s, it is then eno&%h to say that the above*entioned order of defer*ent, iss&ed by the 2onorable

J&d%e !icente (&si, Jr., to whose sala civil case )) was ori%inally assi%ned, is interloc&tory in nat&re, and as s&ch, the co&rt a C&o,

thro&%h the now respondent J&d%e !icente 5&llecer, had the power to set it aside, as it did by finally decidin% the pendin% *otion to

dis*iss on the %ro&nd of res ?&dicata. "oreover, as previo&sly stated, there is no evidence to show that the respondent J&d%e, in

iss&in% the order of dis*issal, acted with %rave ab&se of discretion or witho&t or in e@cess of ?&risdiction.

Ge now co*e to the challen%ed order of defa&lt and ?&d%*ent by defa&lt, both contained in the above*entioned order dated

"arch )/, '/00. #ttac$in% the validity of the said order of defa&lt, the intervenorpetitioner clai*s that the respondent J&d%e failed to

consider that "atias "at&te, representin% the plaintiff estate, filed on ti*e an answer dated "arch ', '/0 traversin% the alle%ations of

(anlas- co&nterclai*, which answer in&red to the benefit of not only "atias "at&te b&t also to the intervenors who were ?ointlyi*pleaded as defendants in the said co&nterclai*. The defendantrespondent (anlas, on the other hand, while not denyin% receipt of

the aforesaid answer to his co&nterclai*, contends that the herein intervenorpetitioner-s fail&re to personally answer said co&nterclai*

is fatal and that he co&ld not ta$e ref&%e &nder the answer interposed by "atias "at&te.

Ge are of the considered opinion that the herein disp&ted order of defa&lt is ille%al and void, and, conseC&ently, the

controverted ?&d%*ent by defa&lt and order of e@ec&tion were i*providently iss&ed.

'. The co&nterclai* interposed by (anlas raised a co**on ca&se of action for da*a%es a%ainst "atias "at&te, as therepresentative of the plaintiff estate, and Jose and L&is "at&te, as intervenors in civil case )), all in their personal capacities. The

co&nterclai* reads:


28/28

That for instit&tin% this patently frivolo&s and &nfo&nded action in bad faith calc&lated to *erely haras

special proceedings cases - day 1.doc

Documents