Facts:

The case involves Engracia Bacate Amberti (petitioner) and several respondents, including the Court of Appeals and Maria Teresa Amberti Talag, represented by her husband Wilfredo M. Talag. Engracia was married to Pietro Amberti, an Italian citizen, on September 16, 1965, and they had one child, Maria Teresa. Pietro died on June 6, 1970, in Torino, Italy, leaving considerable properties in the Philippines along with a holographic will designating Maria Teresa as his universal heir. This will was admitted to probate in the Philippines on August 2, 1971, where Engracia was initially appointed as the executrix but later removed for maladministration of the estate. The probate court noted her failure to account for the estate over eight years, prompting the court to replace her with her daughter Maria Teresa.

After the removal, Engracia sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the Appellate Court but was dismissed due to her failure to account and various irregularities in her

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: Engracia Bacate Amberti, who was married to Pietro Amberti.
• Private respondent: Maria Teresa Amberti, the only daughter of Engracia and Pietro, later married to Wilfredo M. Talag.
• Marriage and Family:
• Pietro Amberti, an Italian citizen, married Engracia Bacate on September 16, 1965.
• The couple had one child, Maria Teresa Amberti.
• Death and Will:
• Pietro Amberti died in June 1970 in Torino, Italy.
• He left behind considerable properties in the Philippines and a holographic will that designated Maria Teresa as his universal heir under Italian law.

Probate Proceedings and Estate Administration

• Probate Process:
• The holographic will was admitted to probate in the Philippines on August 2, 1971.
• Engracia was initially named as the executrix of Pietro’s estate.
• Removal for Maladministration:
• After eight years, the probate court removed Engracia for maladministration of the estate.
• Specific deficiencies noted included her failure to:
• Submit an inventory.
• Render an accounting for more than eight years.
• Account for money received from the estate totaling over ₱7,000,000.00.
• Maria Teresa Amberti, the daughter, was appointed as the replacement administratrix upon her motion filed with the probate court.

Chronology of Litigation

• Early Proceedings:
• Engracia filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the Appellate Court to challenge her removal and replacement as administratrix.
• The Court of Appeals, in its April 10, 1980 decision, dismissed her petition for lack of merit, noting her irregular administration—particularly her failure to render an accounting for eight years.
• Subsequent Estate Actions:
• After settling the estate and paying the required taxes, Maria Teresa moved to terminate the administration proceedings.
• She submitted an inventory of the estate’s properties, revealing:
• The sale by Engracia of one-half of a 975-square meter property in West Avenue, Quezon City.
• The disposal of mining equipment from a marble business amounting to ₱687,500.00.
• On January 10, 1986, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in Special Proceedings No. 5958, awarding the remainder of the estate’s real and personal properties to Maria Teresa as the universal heir.
• Engracia’s Subsequent Appeals and Motions:
• On April 14, 1986, Engracia moved for reconsideration of the January 10, 1986 decision, disputing the validity of the holographic will and asserting a right of usufruct over half of the estate.
• The trial court denied her motion on November 4, 1986, citing that the motion was filed too late after the judgment became final.
• Engracia then sought recourse in the Court of Appeals:
• Initially filing petition CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 on December 8, 1986, alleging that the notice of the January 10, 1986 order was not “actually” received by her counsel, thereby depriving her of due process.
• Before Maria Teresa could respond, Engracia filed a motion to withdraw CA-G.R. SP No. 10786, stating her disinterest in pursuing the action.
• The Appellate Court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 in its January 9, 1987 resolution, confirming that the petition was withdrawn.
• Despite the withdrawal, Engracia instituted a new action in CA-G.R. SP No. 10991 on January 12, 1987 to annul and reverse the January 10, 1986 judgment and the November 4, 1986 order, alleging extrinsic fraud for:
• Furnishing the motion to terminate administration through her former counsel rather than her new counsel.
• Inclusion of properties in the submitted inventory purportedly belonging to her or her conjugal partnership with Pietro.
• Final Appellate Decision:
• On March 24, 1987, the resolution dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 became final — the record was remanded for execution of judgment.
• On September 16, 1987, the Court of Appeals rendered its final decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 10991, dismissing the petition on the grounds that:
• The earlier withdrawal rendered any new petition on the same subject matter impermissible.
• The dismissal was with prejudice, barring Engracia from re-litigating the contested issues.

Issue:

• Whether the withdrawal and final dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 10786, being with prejudice, bars Engracia from instituting a second petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 10991) on the same subject matter.
• Whether the allegation of lack of due process—specifically the claim that the January 10, 1986 order was not actually received by her current counsel—has any merit when a prior withdrawal had already precluded such claim.
• Whether a party may evade the effects of res judicata by varying the form of the action or presenting the same claim through a different procedural vehicle.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)