Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

BRIONES vs. HENSON-CRUZ 563 SCRA 69 of.

Where multi-appeals are allowed, we see no


reason why a separate petition for certiorari cannot
be allowed on an interlocutory aspect of the case that
FACTS: is separate and distinct as an issue from the aspect
of the case that has been adjudged with finality by
Ruby filed a petition for the allowance of the will of the lower court. To reiterate, the matter appealed
Luz however, Lilia opposed it. The trial court matter was the special administrator's commission,
designated Atty. Briones as Special Administrator of a charge that is effectively a claim against the estate
the estate. The heirs of Luz filed a Notice of Appeal under administration, while the matter covered by
assailing the order as to the payment of Briones’ the petition for certiorari was the appointment of an
commission. They subsequently filed their record on auditor who would pass upon the special
appeal. The trial court denied the appeal and administrator's final account. By their respective
disapproved the record on appeal on the ground of natures, these matters can exist independently of
forum shopping. The heirs filed with CA a Petition for one another and can proceed separately as
certiorari. CA reversed the decision of the trial court envisioned by the Rules under Rule 109.
for the latter had no power or authority to deny the
appeal on the ground of forum shopping. CA also Salonga v. Pascual
refused to resolve the issue of forum shopping

ISSUE: WON multi- appeals are allowed in the same RIOFERIO vs. CA
case.
RIOFERIO vs. CA
RULING:
January 13, 2004
YES. The rationale behind allowing more than one
appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the
case to proceed in the event that a separate and FACTS:
distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be
final. In this multi-appeal mode, the probate court Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving
loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter of the several personal and real properties. He also left a widow,
appeal but retains jurisdiction over the special respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he had seven
proceeding from which the appeal was taken for
children who are the herein respondents.
purposes of further remedies the parties may avail
Also, the decedent also left his paramour and their accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil
children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero and co- Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the
petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. Respondents moment of the death of the decedent." The provision in turn
Alfonso James and Lourdes (legitimate children of the is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and
deceased) discovered that petitioner Teodora and her obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a
children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a person are transmitted through his death to another or
Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the properties of others by his will or by operation of law.
the estate of the decedent located in Dagupan City.

Respondent Alfonso filed a Petition for Letters of Even if administration proceedings have already been
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an
Administration. Respondents filed a Complaint for the administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper
Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the
rules on party representation.
Estate. Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that
respondents are not the real parties-in-interest but rather the IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL v.
Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of ZOILO S. SANTIAGO, GR No. 179859, 2010-08-09
the administration proceedings. Facts:
Basilio Santiago (Basilio) contracted three marriages--the
ISSUE:
first to Bibiana Lopez, the second to Irene Santiago, and the
third to Cecilia Lomotan.
Whether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover
After Basilio died testate on September 16, 1973, his
property of the estate pending the appointment of an
daughter by the second marriage petitioner Ma. Pilar filed
administrator. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan[2] a
petition for the probate of Basilio's will, docketed as SP No.
HELD: 1549-M. The... will was admitted to probate by Branch 10
of the RTC and Ma. Pilar was appointed executrix.
Pending the filing of administration proceedings, After the executrix-petitioner Ma. Pilar filed a "Final
the heirs without doubt have legal personality to Accounting, Partition and Distribution in Accordance with
the Will,"[5] the probate court approved the will by Order of
bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in
August 14, 1978 and directed the registers of deeds of RTC-Branch 17 decided Civil Case No. 562-M-90 (for
Bulacan and Manila... to register the certificates of title completion of legitime) in favor of the oppositors-heirs of the
indicated therein.[6] Accordingly, the titles to Lot Nos. 786, first marriage.
837, 7922, 836 and 838 in Malolos, Bulacan and Lot No. 8-
C in Manila were transferred in the name of petitioners Ma. On appeal (docketed as CA G.R. No. 45801), the Court of
Pilar and Clemente. Appeals, by Decision of January 25, 2002,[14] annulled the
decision of RTC-Branch 17, holding that the RTC Branch 17
The oppositors thereafter filed a Complaint-in- dismissal of the Complaint-in-Intervention in SP No. 1549-M
Intervention[8] with the probate court, alleging that Basilio's and its
second wife was not Irene but a certain Maria Arellano with
whom he had no child; and that Basilio's will violates August 14, 1978 Order approving the probate of the will
Articles 979-981 of the constitute res judicata with respect to Civil Case No. 562-M-
90
Civil Code.[9]
The Decision in Civil Case No. 562-M-90 is hereby
The probate court dismissed the Complaint-in-Intervention, ANNULLED on the ground of res judicata. Let the Decree
citing its previous approval of the "Final Accounting, of Distribution of the Estate of Basilio Santiago remain
Partition, and Distribution in Accordance with the Will."[10]
UNDISTURBED.
The oppositors-heirs of the first marriage thereupon filed a
complaint for completion of legitime before the Bulacan Oppositors-heirs of the first marriage challenged the
RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 562-M-90,[11] against the appellate court's decision in CA G.R. No. 45801 by petition
heirs of the second and third marriages. for review, docketed as G.R. No. 155606, which this Court
denied.[17] The denial became final and executory on April
I 9,... 2003.[18]
In their complaint, oppositors-heirs of the first marriage In the interregnum, or on October 17, 2000, respondent-
essentially maintained that they were partially preterited by heirs of the second marriage filed before the probate court
Basilio's will because their legitime was reduced.[12] They (RTC-Branch 10) a Motion for Termination of
thus prayed, inter alia, that an inventory and appraisal of all Administration, for Accounting, and for Transfer of Titles in
the... properties of Basilio be conducted and that Ma. Pilar the Names of the Legatees.[1... they alleged that:... the
and Clemente be required to submit a fresh accounting of twenty (20) year period within which subject properties
all the incomes of the properties from the time of Basilio's should be under administration of [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and
death up to the time of the filing of Civil Case No. 562-M- Clemente Santiago expired on September 16, 1993.
90.[13]
Consequently, [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago
should have ceased as such administrator[s] way back on
September 16, 1993 and they should have transferred the
above said titles to the named legatees in the Last Will and CA G.R. No. 83094 (the subject of the present petition for
Testament of the testator by then. review) fails.
S Both aspects of res judicata, however, do not find
application in the present case. The final judgment
Said [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago should regarding oppositors' complaint on the reduction of their
have also rendered an accounting of their administration legitime in CA-G.R. NO. 45801 does not dent the present
from such death of the testator up to the present or until petition, which solely tackles the propriety of the...
transfer of said properties and its administration to the said termination of administration, accounting and transfer of
legatees. titles in the names of the legatees-heirs of the second and
Issues: third marriages. There is clearly no similarity of claim,
demand or cause of action between the present petition and
AN THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSE G.R. No. 155606.
ITSELF"
the judgment in G.R. No. 155606 would only serve as an
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT BINDING estoppel as regards the issue on oppositors' supposed
ITSELF WITH ITS PREVIOUS DECISION INVOLVING THE preterition and reduction of legitime,... which issue is not
SAME PARTIES AND SAME PROPERTIES; even a subject, or at the very least even invoked, in the
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING present petition
THE RTC AS IT AGREED WITH THE RTC THAT THIS Apparently, petitioners emphasize on the directive of the
CASE IS NOT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA; appellate court in CA G.R. No. 45801 that the decree of
C. IN C.A.-G.R. NO. 45801, THE HONORABLE COURT OF distribution of the estate of Basilio should remain
APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS RES JUDICATA; IN undisturbed. But this directive goes only so far as to
C.A.-G.R. CV NO. 83094, THERE WAS NO RES prohibit the interference of the oppositors in the...
JUDICATA. distribution of Basilio's estate and does not pertain to
respondents' supervening right to demand the termination
petitioners object to the inclusion of the house and lot in of administration, accounting and transfer of titles in their
Manila, covered by TCT No. 131044, among those to be names.
transferred to the legatees-heirs as it would contravene the
testator's intent that no one is to own the same. It is clear from Basilio's will that he intended the house and
lot in Manila to be transferred in petitioners' names for
Ruling: administration purposes only, and that the property be
owned by the heirs in common
Petitioners' argument that the decision of the appellate court
in the earlier CA-G.R. NO. 45801 (upheld by this Court in Principles:
G.R. No. 155606) constitutes res judicata to the subsequent
Res judicata has two aspects, which are embodied in Petitioners were totally unaware of the plan of
Sections 47 (b) and 47 (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Agustin to mortgage and sell the estate properties.
Procedure.[30] The first, known as "bar by prior judgment,"
proscribes the prosecution of a second action upon the
There is no indication that mortgagor PNB and
same claim,... demand or cause of action already settled in vendee Arguna had notified petitioners of the
a prior action.[31] The second, known as "conclusiveness of contracts they had executed with Agustin.
judgment," ordains that issues actually and directly resolved
in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case
between the same parties... involving a different cause of It is not clear from the decision of the appellate court
action.[32] when petitioners actually learned of the existence of
said orders of the intestate court.
PAHAMOTANG VS PNB G.R.
No. 156403, March 21, 2005 The Court of Appeals cannot simply impute laches
against them in the absent of any indication of the
(SpecPro 2016) point in time when petitioners acquired knowledge
of those orders.
Posted onJUNE 23, 2016
FACTS: The late Agustin then executed several
mortgages and later sale of the properties with the Celedonia Solivio v. Court of Appeals
PNB and Arguna respectively without making a valid G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
notification with the legal heirs. The heirs later
FACTS:
questioned the validity of the transactions
prejudicial to them. The trial court declared the real On October 11, 1959, Esteban Javellana, Jr.’s mother
estate mortgage and the sale void. The decision was Salustia died leaving all her property, including a house
reversed by the Court of Appeals and lot in La Paz, Iloilo City, to him. Esteban Jr,” died
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers,
reversing the decision of the trial court sisters, nephews or nieces. His only surviving relatives are:
(1) his maternal aunt, petitioner CeledoniaSolivio,
RULING: No. In the present case, the appellate court
the spinster half-sister of his mother, SalustiaSolivio; and
makes a mistake in applying laches against (2) the private respondent, Concordia Javellana-
petitioners. Villanueva, sister of his deceased father, Esteban
Javellana, Sr.
Pursuant to an agreement between Concordia and ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant
Celedonia, the latter would take care of the proceedings any property which the latter may have acquired by
leading to the formation of the foundation. Celedonia gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or
in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed for sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have
a Special Proceeding for her appointment as special acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives
administratrix of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr., who are within the third degree and who belong to the line
praying that letters of administration be issued to her; that from which said property came.
she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after
payment of all claims and rendition of inventory and The persons involved in reservatroncal are:
accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her.
1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista)—
Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo for the
partition, recovery of possession, ownership and damages. ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from
Celedonia averred that the estate of Esteban his descendants.
Jr. was subject to reservatroncal and thus it should 2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are
redound to her as a relative within the 3rd degree on his the reservees (reservatarios)—relatives within the third
mother side. degree counted from the descendant (propositus), and
belonging to the line from which the property came.
ISSUE: 3. The propositus—the descendant who received by
gratuitous title and died without issue, making his other
Whether or not the estate of the deceased was subject to ascendant inherit by operation of law. (p. 692, Civil Law by
reservatroncal and that it pertains to her as his only Padilla, Vol. II, 1956 Ed.)
relative within the third degree on his mother’s side
Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana,
RULING: Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an
ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia
No. There is no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in
estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal, and question. Therefore, he did not hold
that it pertains to her as his only relative within the third his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt,
degree on his mother’s side. The reservatroncal provision Celedonia Solivio, who is his relative within the third
of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which reads as degree on his mother’s side. The reservatroncal applies
follows: to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant
who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or
sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a
descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the
or!er
or!er
o o

situation covered by Article 891.


partition )as
partition )as
a irme! in
a irme! in
toto b
toto b
N!"AL - t"e
vs. - t"e
vs. $o%rt o
CO!RT O# APPEALS $o%rt o
Appeals in
CO!RT O# APPEALS Appeals in
G.R. No. 94005 2%l- 19
G.R. No. 94005 2%l- 19
April 6, 1993 t"en
April 6, 1993 t"en
#ACTS$ reman!e! to
#ACTS$ reman!e! to
Som t"e lo)er
Som t"e lo)er
etieti co%rt an! t)o -ears later, a )rit o e ec%tion )as
me iss%e! b
me co%rt an! t)o -ears later, a )rit o e ec%tion )as
in in iss%e! b
Dec - t"e latter.
Dec - t"e latter.
emb n 2%l- 17, 19 4, ar- /-on artin, !a%#"ter o t"e
emb late &ran $. /-on an! ar- strom
er er n 2%l- 17, 19 4, ar- /-on artin, !a%#"ter o t"e
1974 late &ran $. /-on an! ar- strom
1974 /-on, assiste! b- "er co%nsel ile! a motion to %a
,, s" t"e or!er o e ec%tion )it" preliminar-
a ta t /-on, assiste! b- "er co%nsel ile! a motion to %a
er er s" t"e or!er o e ec%tion )it" preliminar-
tritri in %nction. 'n "er motion, s"e conten!s t"at not be
al al in# a part- to t"e above8entitle! case "er
an! in %nction. 'n "er motion, s"e conten!s t"at not be
an! in# a part- to t"e above8entitle! case "er
"ea ri#"ts, interests, o)ners"ip an! participation over
"ea t"e lan! s"o%l! not be a ecte! b- a %!#ment
rin ri#"ts, interests, o)ners"ip an! participation over
rin t"e lan! s"o%l! not be a ecte! b- a %!#ment
#, #, in in
t"e t"en t"t"
t"e t"en ee
$o% sasa
$o% i! i!
rt rt caca
o se
o se
&ir t"t"
&ir at at
st st t"t"
'ns ee
'ns oror
tan !e!e
tan rr
ce o
ce o
(no e e
(no ecec
)) %t%t
Re#ional *rial co%rt+ ren!ere! its %!#ment in avo ioio
r o private respon!ents an! or!ere! t"e nn
Re#ional *rial co%rt+ ren!ere! its %!#ment in avo is is
r o private respon!ents an! or!ere! t"e %n%n
partition enen
partition o o
o o rcrc
t"e eaea
t"e blbl
propert- ee
propert- inin
o o soso
t"e a a
t"e rr
late as
late as
&ran "e"e
&ran rr
$. s"s"
$. arar
/- e, e,
/- riri
on #"t
on #"t
an! ,,
an! o)n
ar- o)n
ar- ers
strom ers
strom "ip
/- "ip
/- an!
on. an!
on. part
*"e part
*"e iciici
pat e, t"e incl%sion o ar- /-on artin )o%l!
pat be in e cess o "is a%t"orit-
ion .
ion *"e reme!- o ar- /-on artin is to ile an in!epe
is is n!ent s%it a#ainst t"e parties in $ivil $ase
conc No.
conc 7
ern an!
ern all
e!, ot"er
e!, "eirs
sai or
sai "er
!! s"are
s"a in
s"a t"e
re re s%b ect
not propert-, in
not or!er
"av t"at
"av all
in# t"e
in# parties
bee in
bee interest can prove t"eir respective claims.
nn
bro
bro
%#"t )it"i
%#"t )it"i . MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA V. COLEGIO DE SAN
nn
t"e JOSE
t"e
2%ris!iction o t"e co%rt a %o. S"e
2%ris!iction o t"e co%rt a %o. S"e
%rt"er invo es Section 1 , R%le 69
%rt"er invo es Section 1 , R%le 69
FACTS: The Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna filed in the
o t"e R%les o $o%rt.
o t"e R%les o $o%rt. CFI a petition claiming the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan
n 2an%ar- 19 7, t"e lo)er co%rt iss%e! t"e assaile
! or!er !irectin# t"e incl%sion o ar- /-on by the right of Escheat. Colegio de San Jose, claiming to
n 2an%ar- 19 7, t"e lo)er co%rt iss%e! t"e assaile
! or!er !irectin# t"e incl%sion o ar- /-on
artin as co8o)ner )it" a s"are in t"e
be the exclusive owner of the said hacienda, assailed the
artin as co8o)ner )it" a s"are in t"e
partition o t"e propert-
petition upon the grounds that the petition does not
partition o t"e propert-
*"e petitioner ile! an appeal be ore t"e $A assail
allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the
in# t"e !ecision o t"e lo)er co%rt )"et"er or
not t"e trial co%rt ma- or!er t"e incl%sion o ar- remedy prayed for. Carlos Young, claiming to be a lessee
/. artin as co8"eir entitle! to participate in
t"e partition o t"e propert- consi!erin# t"at s"e of the hacienda under a contract legally entered with
)as neit"er a part- plainti nor a part-
!e en!ant in $ivil $ase No. 7 or partition an! a
cco%ntin# o t"e a oresai! propert- an! t"at
Coelegio de San Jose, also intervened in the case.
t"e !ecision ren!ere! in sai! case "as lon# become
inal an! e ec%tor-.
Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna objected to the
ISS!E$
:"et"er or not t"e proper reme!- to en orce a ri#"t
appearance and intervention of CdSJ and Carlos Young but
o an e cl%!e! "eir to a inal an! e ec%tor-
%!#ment o partition is a motion to %as" sai! %
such objection was overruled. Furthermore the lower court
!#ment;
HELD$ dismissed the petition filed for by Municipal Council of
*"e $o%rt "el! in t"e ne#ative. *"e $o%rt sai! t"at
)"en a inal %!#ment becomes e ec%tor-, it San Pedro.
t"ereb- becomes imm%table an! %nalterable. *"e %!#
ment ma- no lon#er be mo!i ie! in an-
respect, even i t"e mo!i ication is meant to corre
ct )"at is perceive! to be an erroneo%s
concl%sion o act or la), an! re#ar!less o )"et"e
ISSUE: W/N the petition for escheats should be dismissed?
r t"e mo!i ication is attempte! to be ma!e b-
t"e $o%rt ren!erin# it or b- t"e "i#"est $o%rt o l
an!. *"e onl- reco#ni<e! e ceptions are t"e
correction o clerical errors or t"e ma in# o so8c RULING: YES. According to Sec. 750 of the Code of Civil
alle! n%nc pro t%nc entries )"ic" ca%se no
pre %!ice to an- part-, an!, o co%rse, )"ere t"e Procedure (now Sec 1 of Rule 91), the essential facts
%!#ment is voi!.=
&%rt"ermore, =an- amen!ment or alteration )"ic" s%b which should be alleged in the petition, which are
stantiall- a ects a inal an! e ec%tor-

is
%!#ment jurisdictional because they confer jurisdiction upon the
n%ll an
!
CFI are:
voi!
or 1. That a person died intestate or without leaving
lac
o any will,
%ris!iction, incl%!in#
t"e
entire procee
2. That he has left real or personal property and
!in#s
"el!
he was the owner thereof,
or t"at
p%rpose.=
3. That he has not left any heir or person by law
'n t"e case at bar, t"e !ecision o t"e trial co%rt
in $ivil $ase No. 7 "as become inal an! entitled to the property, and
e ec%tor-. *"%s, %pon its inalit-, t"e trial %!#e
lost "is % 4. That the one who applies for the escheat is the
ris!iction over t"e case.
$onse %entl-,
an- mo!i ication t"at "e )o%l! ma e, as in t"is cas
municipality where deceased has his last residence
or in case he should have no residence in the the Municipality cannot claim that the same be escheated
country, the municipality where the property is to them, because it is no longer the case of real property
situated. owned by a deceased person who has not left any person
which may legally claim it (2nd requirement lacking).
Sec. 751 (now Sec 3 of Rule 91) provides that after
the publications and trial, if the court finds that the
deceased is in fact the owner of real and personal property
situated in the country and has not left any heir or other
person entitled there to, it may order, after payment of
debts and other legal expenses, the escheat and in such
case, it shall adjudicate the personal property to the
municipality where the deceased had his last residence and
the real property to the municipality/ies where they are
situated.
Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and
personal property of a deceased person become the property
of the State upon his death without leaving any will or
legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action but a special
proceeding. The proceeding should be commenced by a
petition and not by a complaint.
In a special proceeding for Escheat under section
750to 752 (now sec 1 to 3 of Rule 91), the petitioner is
not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person
alleging to have a direct right or Interest in the property
sought to be escheated is likewise an interested and
necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for
escheat.
When a petition for escheat does not state facts
which entitle the petitioner to the remedy prayed for and
even admitting them hypothetically, it is clear that there
is no ground for the court to proceed to the Inquisition
provided by law, an interested party should not be
disallowed from filing a motion to dismiss the petition
which is untenable from all standpoint. And when the
motion to dismiss is entertained upon this ground the
petition may be dismissed unconditionally.
In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young
had a right to intervene as an alleged exclusive owner and
a lessee of the property respectively.
The Municipal base its right to escheat on the fact
that the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, temporal property
of the Father of the Society of Jesus, were confiscated
by the order of the King of Spain. From the moment it was
confiscated, it became the property of the commonwealth
of the Philippines. Given this fact, it is evident that

Вам также может понравиться