Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3616)
Facts:
In the case of Testamentary Proceedings of the Deceased Epifanio Pabustan, Atanacia Mallari served as the administratrix of the estate, while Moises Carreon was one of the legatees and the appellant in this appeal. The case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, which issued an order on December 27, 1948, denying the petition of the appellants for relief from a final order under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Epifanio Pabustan passed away leaving behind a valid will, which designated his widow, Atanacia Mallari, and two relatives, Rosendo Manaloto and Moises Carreon, as legatees to an estate valued at P8,000. On May 9, 1941, the legatees and other supposed heirs reached an agreement on the partition of the estate and filed a petition to approve their partition documents, which included an agreement (Exhibit "X"), a ratification (Exhibit "A"), and a project of partition (Exhibit "B"). This petition was favorably resolved by the cour
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3616)
Facts:
- The Decedent and His Will
- Epifanio Pabustan died leaving a will that was admitted to probate.
- The will did not provide for forced heirs but instituted specific legatees:
- His widow, Atanacia Mallari (also the administratrix).
- Two relatives, namely Rosendo Manaloto and Moises Carreon.
- The value of the estate was appraised at P8,000.
- The Partition Agreement and Court Approval
- On May 9, 1941, a petition was filed by the legatees and other supposed heirs of the deceased.
- They claimed to have reached an understanding regarding the partition of the estate.
- To effectuate this partition, they executed three documents:
- An agreement of the parties (Exhibit "X").
- After due hearing, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac approved the documents.
- The court ordered the administratrix, Atanacia Mallari, to pay the inheritance tax within the legally prescribed period.
- It was also stipulated that upon payment, the case would be declared closed.
- The Petition for Relief and Allegations of Fraud and Intimidation
- On September 1, 1941, after the court order (dated July 15, 1941) had become final, Atanacia Mallari, in her capacity as administratrix, filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
- The petition alleged that:
- The approval of the partition documents was procured by fraud and intimidation.
- Atanacia Mallari, characterized as old and ignorant, was induced to consent to the partition agreement against her best interests.
- The petition was supported by affidavits highlighting the circumstances constituting fraud and intimidation:
- Affidavits of Atanacia Mallari herself.
- Affidavits of Moises Carreon.
- Affidavits of Leopoldo Mallari.
- The petition was reiterated on July 1, 1948, emphasizing the alleged undue influence.
- Conflicting Testimonies and Findings of the Probate Court
- The appellees (other heirs and parties) vehemently opposed the petition and attached several exhibits to refute the allegations of fraud and intimidation.
- The probate court, after hearing both sides, found the petition without merit and denied the relief sought.
- Critical findings of the probate court included:
- The statement of Atty. Regidor Y. Aglipay, who acted as the administratrix’s counsel at the time of the transaction and later served as provincial fiscal.
- It was found that Atanacia Mallari voluntarily and insistently consented to the partition documents even against the advice of her attorney.
- The court thus gave more credence to the sworn testimony of Atty. Aglipay than to the affidavits alleging coercion.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court
- The administratrix (Atanacia Mallari) and her co-legatee, Moises Carreon, appealed the denial of relief.
- Their appeal was based on the contention that the lower court failed to appreciate certain facts which allegedly induced Atanacia Mallari’s consent, namely:
- A visit by one Juan P. de la Cruz who warned that the other heirs would object to an early distribution if a new partition was not agreed upon.
- Persuasion by Rosendo Manaloto, who claimed that a failure to settle amicably would jeopardize his ability to pay obligations, particularly to Benigno Pantig, thereby risking criminal prosecution.
- Influence from relatives of her deceased husband who threatened that non-compliance would lead to serious, prejudicial consequences.
- The appeal raised the issue of whether these additional affidavits and circumstances, which were not given credit by the probate court, should have warranted a different outcome.
Issues:
- Whether the facts set forth in the affidavits of Atanacia Mallari and Moises Carreon alleging fraud and intimidation are true and sufficient to justify relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
- The appellants contended that the lower court improperly dismissed these affidavits.
- The issue revolves around the credibility of the affiants versus the statements of Atty. Regidor Y. Aglipay.
- Whether the case, which primarily involves factual determinations regarding coercion and undue influence, is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court.
- The appellant argued that the case involves only questions of law needing resolution.
- However, a perusal of the brief suggested that the matter is heavily fact-laden.
- The question of judicial propriety in certifying and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals given the relatively small value of the estate (P8,000).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)