Case Digest (G.R. No. 194310)
Facts:
This case involves petitioner Felicitas Aguilar Bollozos and the respondents represented by Florentino Diputado, heirs of the late Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar. On December 28, 2007, respondent Florentino Diputado, as executor named in the will, filed a Verified Petition for the probate of Luisa Abrio’s will before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 17. The RTC set a hearing on February 13, 2008 and ordered the publication of the notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. On January 28, 2008, petitioner, claiming to be the daughter and sole surviving heir, filed an opposition and motion to dismiss citing lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of proper docket fees based on the alleged undervaluation of the estate. The RTC denied the opposition in October 2008 and subsequently denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and to make a definite appraisal of the estate’s value in March and April 2009. Petitioner
Case Digest (G.R. No. 194310)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Case
- The petitioner, Felicitas Aguilar Bollozos, claimed to be the daughter and sole surviving heir of Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar, deceased.
- The respondents, represented by Florentino Diputado, were the heirs of the deceased and Diputado was appointed as the named executor in the will.
- The case involved the petition for the probate of the will of Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar filed by respondent Diputado before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 17.
- Procedural History and Contentions
- On December 28, 2007, respondent Diputado filed a Verified Petition for probate of the will.
- RTC issued an Order on January 7, 2008, setting the petition for hearing on February 13, 2008, and ordered the publication of the notice as required by law.
- Petitioner filed an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on January 28, 2008, arguing mainly:
- The respondent’s payment of docket fees was insufficient and thus the RTC lacked jurisdiction.
- The publication of notice was defective.
- RTC denied the Opposition in a Resolution dated October 23, 2008.
- Petitioner filed two motions:
- Motion for Reconsideration of the October 23, 2008 RTC resolution.
- Motion to Make Definite Appraisal of Estate Value on February 27, 2009.
- Both motions were denied by RTC in Orders dated March 10, 2009 and April 21, 2009, respectively.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the said RTC Orders and resolution, alleging:
- Grave abuse of discretion in exercising jurisdiction despite deficient docket fees and defective publication.
- Denial of petitioner’s motion for definite appraisal was improper as it was necessary to determine the proper docket fees.
- There should have been a republication of notice after postponement of the initial hearing date.
- The CA denied due course to the petition for certiorari on June 30, 2009 for failure to file a motion for reconsideration first.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was denied on September 23, 2010.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner assigned errors on:
- CA’s ruling that no motion for reconsideration was filed or needed.
- CA’s decision allowing departure from the rule requiring full docket fee payment given deficient payment.
- CA’s refusal to annul the RTC order and to require republication of notice after postponement of initial hearing.
- Respondents contended that:
- There were no reversible errors; the docket fees paid were correct based on probable value.
- Publication requirements were complied with and no republication was needed as interested parties had been notified.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- On February 13, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution directing the parties to move in the case.
- On December 27, 2019, petitioner manifested the case was not moot as the RTC refused to proceed and remand accounting of rental income.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration before assailing the RTC orders;
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the probate proceedings considering the alleged insufficient payment of docket fees;
- Whether republication of the notice of hearing was required after the postponement of the initially scheduled date, affecting the validity of the probate proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)