Title
Barrueco vs. Abeto
Case
G.R. No. L-47755
Decision Date
Dec 6, 1940
Dispute over intestate estate; petitioner claims exclusive heirship, challenges jurisdiction due to adjournments exceeding one month without Chief Justice's authorization. Court rules adjournments valid, provision directory.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47755)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioner: Linda Mohamed Barrueco, represented by her guardian ad litem, Ciriaca Sulayao.
    • Respondents:
      • Honorable Quirico Abeto, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI.
      • Juliana Veloso, represented by her guardian ad litem, Maria Blanco.
  2. Subject Matter:

    • The case involves the intestate estate of the deceased Julio Veloso Barrueco.
    • Linda Mohamed Barrueco claims to be the acknowledged natural daughter and exclusive heir of Julio Veloso Barrueco.
    • Juliana Veloso filed a petition for compulsory acknowledgment as a natural child of Julio Veloso Barrueco in the intestate proceedings (Civil Case No. 55129).
  3. Procedural History:

    • Juliana Veloso filed her petition on January 11, 1940, which was later amended on April 3, 1940.
    • The respondent Judge set the hearing for April 24, 1940, but due to delays, the hearing was postponed multiple times: May 4, June 3, June 11, June 21, and July 18, 1940.
    • On July 16, 1940, Juliana Veloso’s attorney moved for a postponement of the July 18 hearing, which was opposed by Linda Mohamed Barrueco.
    • The respondent Judge verbally set the continuation of the trial for August 1, 1940, but the petitioner’s counsel was not notified.
    • On August 19, 1940, the petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss Juliana Veloso’s petition, arguing that the respondent Judge had lost jurisdiction due to adjournments exceeding one month without written authorization from the Chief Justice.
    • The respondent Judge denied the motion and set the hearing for September 10, 1940.
  4. Petitioner’s Argument:

    • The petitioner contends that the respondent Judge violated Rule 31, Section 4 of the Rules of Court by adjourning the trial for more than one month without written authorization from the Chief Justice, thereby losing jurisdiction over the case.
  5. Respondents’ Argument:

    • The respondents argue that there was no single postponement exceeding one month because the trial was set for August 1, 1940, between July 18 and August 19, 1940.
    • They also contend that the petition was filed before July 1, 1940, and thus the respondent Judge had discretion to apply the former procedure under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Application of Rule 133:

    • Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules shall govern all cases brought after they take effect and all further proceedings in pending cases.
    • Adjournments before July 1, 1940, were governed by the former procedure and should not be counted under the new rules.
  2. Directory Nature of Rule 31, Section 4:

    • The provision limiting adjournments to one month without written authorization from the Chief Justice is directory, not mandatory.
    • A violation of this provision does not automatically result in the loss of jurisdiction but may lead to administrative consequences for the judge.
  3. Judicial Discretion:

    • Judges have discretion in managing court proceedings, but they must exercise this discretion responsibly to avoid unnecessary delays.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.