Case Digest (G.R. No. 199885) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Jesusa Dujali Buot v. Roque Rasay Dujali (G.R. No. 199885, October 2, 2017), petitioner Jesusa Buot sought letters of administration over the intestate estate of her father, Gregorio Dujali, before Branch 34 of the RTC, Panabo City. She alleged that she and seven siblings were the only heirs, that respondent Dujali had unlawfully seized and managed properties to their exclusion, and that no settlement efforts had been made. Buot attached a list of publicly known assets. Dujali opposed with a motion to dismiss, arguing Buot lacked capacity to sue since she failed to prove filiation and submitting a marriage certificate of Gregorio to show no prior marriage to her alleged mother. Buot replied that evidentiary matters belong to trial and, to meet the protest, attached a necrological program listing her as heir, a mayoral certification of her filiation, and an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement including some properties. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss but, on reconsideration Case Digest (G.R. No. 199885) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Petition for letters of administration
- Jesusa Dujali Buot (Buot), claiming to be a surviving heir of the intestate Gregorio Dujali, filed a petition to appoint an administrator, inventory property, establish heirs, and distribute the net estate.
- Buot alleged that respondent Roque Dujali excluded other heirs and refused to settle the estate; she annexed a list of publicly known properties.
- Opposition, comment, and trial court proceedings
- Dujali filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss, arguing Buot lacked legal capacity and failed to prove filiation; he attached a marriage certificate showing no prior marriage of Gregorio.
- Buot replied that evidentiary matters should await trial; she attached a necrological services program listing her as heir, a mayoral certification of filiation, and an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement (2001) that included her among heirs for certain parcels.
- On May 3, 2011, RTC Branch 34 denied Dujali’s motion to dismiss, treating capacity as an evidentiary issue.
- Subsequent RTC orders and motion for reconsideration
- Dujali filed a motion for reconsideration; on September 19, 2011, the RTC granted it, holding that an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement barred judicial administration when the estate had no debts.
- Buot’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 8, 2011, as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
- Petition for review under Rule 45
- Buot filed this Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, raising pure questions of law:
- Whether her motion for reconsideration was a first or prohibited second motion.
- Whether extrajudicial settlement of certain properties properly barred administration.
Issues:
- Procedural:
- Was Buot’s motion for reconsideration of the September 19, 2011 order a prohibited “second motion for reconsideration” under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court?
- Substantive:
- Did the RTC correctly dismiss Buot’s petition for letters of administration on the ground that Gregorio’s estate had been extrajudicially settled under Rule 74, Section 1, leaving no debts and permitting partition instead of administration?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)