Facts:

The case involves Edith Juinio Atienza (the petitioner) and the Court of Appeals, Hon. Sergio Pestano, Salvadora Atienza, and Maria Beatriz Atienza (the respondents). The case relates to the estate of Andres Atienza, who died intestate on June 26, 1987, leaving three heirs: Salvadora Atienza (mother), Edith Juinio Atienza (widow), and Maria Beatriz Atienza (adopted daughter). On September 21, 1987, Salvadora and Maria Beatriz filed Civil Case No. V-5456 for damages, accounting, and partition against Edith in the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. They alleged that Edith had used a fraudulent birth certificate to claim insurance, retirement, and other benefits, depriving Salvadora of her rightful share in Andres' estate. Instead of responding to the complaint, Edith initiated SP Proc. No. Q-52510 for the issuance of letters of administration in the Quezon City Court and filed a Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. V-5456 citing pending litigation concerning the same parties and

...

Facts:

Background of the Estate

• Andres I. Atienza died intestate on June 26, 1987, leaving three heirs:
• Salvadora Atienza, his mother;
• Edith Juinio Atienza, his widow (petitioner);
• Maria Beatriz Atienza, his adopted daughter.
• The estate became the subject of dispute among the heirs shortly after the decedent’s death.

Initiation of Separate Proceedings

• On September 21, 1987, Salvadora Atienza and Maria Beatriz Atienza filed Civil Case No. V-5456 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City.
• The case sought damages, an accounting, and partition against petitioner Edith Juinio Atienza.
• The complaint alleged that petitioner used a fake birth certificate of Maria Beatriz Atienza to claim various benefits (insurance, retirement, etc.), thereby allegedly defrauding Salvadora of her rightful share.
• Instead of timely answering the complaint, petitioner instituted a separate proceeding, SP Proc. No. Q-52510, before the Quezon City Court for the issuance of letters of administration of the deceased’s estate.

Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Actions

• Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. V-5456 on the ground of litis pendentia, contending that the pending SP Proc. No. Q-52510 covered the same parties and issues.
• The motion asserted that, under Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court (litis pendentia), one action should be dismissed in favor of another pending suit involving the same parties and cause.
• The trial court (Roxas City Court) denied the motion to dismiss and appointed Salvadora Atienza as guardian ad litem for Maria Beatriz Atienza.
• Petitioner later filed an answer to the complaint and further elevated a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss.

Developments in the Appellate Courts and Subsequent Substitutions

• The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 12, 1988, dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, affirming the trial court’s ruling that dismissal based on litis pendentia was not warranted.
• A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner before the Court of Appeals was likewise denied on October 18, 1988.
• On February 11, 1991, following the death of Salvadora Atienza, substitution was made, allowing her sole heir, Suzette Atienza del Rosario, to stand in her place.

Key Contentions Raised by the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that Civil Case No. V-5456 should be dismissed because:
• An action for partition should not be resorted to if the decedent left debts (citing Sec. 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court).
• SP Proc. No. Q-52510 was the proper proceeding for settling the estate, as it comprehensively resolved issues among heirs, creditors, and claimants.
• Petitioner further relied on precedents such as Teodoro v. Mirasol and Arcillas v. Montejo, contending that if the pending proceeding was more appropriate, it should render the civil action expendable.

Issue:

Whether or not litis pendentia attaches between Civil Case No. V-5456 and SP Proc. No. Q-52510.

• Is the pending special proceeding in Quezon City (SP Proc. No. Q-52510) a proper forum that precludes the continuation of Civil Case No. V-5456 filed in Roxas City?
• Do the two cases involving the same parties raise identical issues such that res judicata could or should result?

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia.

• Were the requisites for applying litis pendentia (identity of parties, identical rights asserted, and the substance of the controversy) fully met in this instance?
• Does the differentiation in the causes of action—damages arising from alleged tortious acts versus matters of estate administration—justify the non-dismissal of the case?

Whether an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss can be the proper basis for a petition for certiorari.

• Is it proper under the law to challenge an interlocutory ruling by means of certiorari rather than waiting for a final judgment?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)