Facts:

On February 2, 1948, intestate proceedings concerning the estate of Isabel V. Florendo were initiated in the Court of First Instance of La Union, under special proceedings No. 124. Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo filed the petition on behalf of all heirs, including petitioners Angel F. Alafriz and Pedro F. Alafriz. On November 21, 1950, Atty. Dominador Alafriz sent a letter to the clerk of court asking about the status of these proceedings, specifically inquiring about the administrator's name and the amount of his bond. In July 1952, Atty. Alafriz wrote again, requesting that no filing in the case should be acted upon without proof of service to him as the legal counsel for the petitioners, and asked to receive all orders issued since his representation began. The clerk replied, clarifying that Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo had been the sole representative for all heirs, including the petitioners, from the beginning. Notices were sent exclusively to Atty. Florendo, as is customary wh

...

Facts:

Initiation of Intestate Proceedings

• On February 2, 1948, intestate proceedings were commenced in the Court of First Instance of La Union for the estate of the deceased Isabel V. Florendo.
• The special proceedings (No. 124) were initiated by or on behalf of the heirs through Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo, who was retained as counsel for all the heirs, including Angel F. Alafriz and Pedro F. Alafriz.

Inquiries and Communications by Counsel for Petitioners

• On November 21, 1950, Atty. Dominador Alafriz, acting on behalf of the petitioners, made a formal inquiry to the clerk of court regarding:
• The status of the ongoing special proceedings.
• The name of the appointed administrator and the amount of his bond.
• In July 1952, Atty. Dominador Alafriz sent another letter to the same clerk requesting:
• That no motion or pleading filed by any party be acted upon without prior proof of service upon him as counsel for the petitioners.
• That he be furnished with copies of all orders pertaining to the proceedings from the date of his appearance on November 21, 1950.

Clerk’s Explanation on Service of Notices

• On July 23, 1952, the clerk of court clarified that:
• Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo had appeared as counsel for all the heirs from the commencement of the proceedings.
• In the extra-judicial settlement executed by the parties, all heirs were represented by Atty. Florendo.
• When a party is represented by two attorneys, official notices are customarily sent to only one attorney, which in this case was Atty. Florendo.

Filing and Approval of the Extra-Judicial Settlement

• Atty. Florendo had filed a motion to dismiss the case on December 16, 1951 on the basis that an extra-judicial settlement had been executed by all the heirs.
• Instead of dismissing the proceedings, on January 15, 1952, the court rendered a decision approving the extra-judicial settlement.
• Upon learning of the filing, Atty. Dominador Alafriz requested copies of the extra-judicial settlement and the court’s order approving it, which he eventually received in September 1952.

Attempt to Set Aside the Extra-Judicial Settlement

• On August 20, 1952, Atty. Constante Ayson, representing the petitioners and Sofia Chanliecco, filed a motion to set aside:
• The extra-judicial settlement.
• The January 15, 1952 order approving the settlement.
• The motion was denied on January 13, 1954 on the grounds that:
• The petitioners’ remedy should have been by appeal or by a separate action for annulment, given that the appropriate time limit for setting aside had lapsed.

Petition for Certiorari and Petitioners’ Main Contentions

• The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari in this Court challenging the denial of their motion to set aside.
• The petitioners advanced three main criticisms:
• Lack of timely notice to their attorney regarding the extra-judicial settlement and the court’s order approving it.
• The alleged nullity of the extra-judicial settlement on the ground that Atty. Florendo lacked authority to sign on behalf of all the heirs.
• The claim of lesion, contending that the settlement amounted to a loss of more than one-fourth of their legal share in the inheritance.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo was properly serving as counsel for all the heirs, including the petitioners, thereby justifying:
• The service of court notices solely upon him.
• His subsequent notification of all the heirs.
• Evidence of notice included the fact that:
• The petitioners had already received their respective shares of the inheritance.
• In particular, petitioner Angel F. Alafriz had, as a matter of fact, disposed of part of his share.
• The motion to set aside was filed more than six months after the January 15, 1952 decision, and was therefore untimely.
• The respondents also cited the case of Samaniada vs. Mata, emphasizing that:
• Although in that case a judgment might be considered interlocutory if further action was pending, the extra-judicial settlement in the present case had already been consummated.
• The petitioner had alternative remedies available (such as petition under Rule 38 or a new action for annulment).

Issue:

Whether the petitioners were timely and properly notified of the extra-judicial settlement and the corresponding court order approving the settlement.

• Examination of the service procedure when multiple attorneys represent the same party.
• Determination of the effectiveness of service rendered to a single attorney acting for all heirs.

Whether the extra-judicial settlement is null and void due to lack of authority on the part of Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo to sign for all the heirs.

• The legal effect of the motion to dismiss based on the executed extra-judicial settlement.
• Whether the legal share of the petitioners was unduly compromised (lesion) as alleged.

Whether the petitioners sought the proper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari rather than pursuing an appeal or a separate action for annulment.

• Evaluation of the timeliness of the motion to set aside the settlement.
• Consideration of jurisprudence regarding alternative remedies in cases of alleged fraud and lesion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)