Case Digest (G.R. No. 54919)
Facts:
This is Polly Cayetano v. Hon. Tomas T. Leonidas, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and Nenita Campos Paguia, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984, Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died leaving several heirs including her father, Hermogenes Campos, and daughters Nenita C. Paguia, Remedios C. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina. Shortly after the decedent's death Hermogenes, as the only compulsory heir, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication under Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, by which he adjudicated the entire estate to himself.
On November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition to reprobate a will allegedly executed by Adoracion in the United States (Pennsylvania) and for appointment as administratrix of the Philippine estate; the petition alleged the testatrix was an American citizen and permanent resident of Philadelphia, and that the will had been probated in the Orphan’s Court, Philadelphia. On January 11, 1978, Hermogenes filed an opposition alleging the will was a forgery and its provisions intrinsically void. However, on December 1, 1978, Hermogenes — through counsel Atty. Franco Loyola — filed a "Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With Waiver of Rights or Interests)" stating he then verified the will’s veracity; thereafter private respondent proceeded to an ex parte presentation of evidence.
On January 10, 1979, the respondent judge issued an order admitting the will to probate in the Philippines, appointing Nenita Campos Paguia administratrix and directing issuance of letters of administration with the will annexed upon a P5,000 bond under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. On April 14, 1979 Hermogenes filed a manifestation confirming withdrawal of his opposition as voluntary.
On May 25, 1979 Hermogenes filed a petition for relief claiming the December 1 motion withdrawing his opposition had been fraudulently inserted among papers he signed in connection with unrelated Deeds of Conditional Sale with CDCP, and that Atty. Loyola was not his counsel of record; he sought to set aside the January 10, 1979 order. The matter was repeatedly calendared for hearing; Hermogenes missed earlier settings and filed motions for postponement. On May 18, 1980 he filed a Motion to Vacate which was noticed for hearing; the hearing was reset to June 19, 1980. At that hearing the court dismissed the petition for relief for failure to present evidence in support thereof and denied the motion to vacate for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration was denied and Hermogenes appealed to the Supreme Court.
Hermogenes died on June 6, 1982 leaving a contested will that appointed Polly Cayetano executrix; Cayetano moved to substitute herself as petitioner and was permitted on September 13, 1982. A motion to dismiss the petition as merged upon Hermogenes' death was denied on September 12, 1983. Cayetano (as substituted petitioner) alleged, among other claims, that the trial judge (1) deprived the petitioner of notice by allowing withdrawal of the opposition and permitting an ex parte probate, (2) accepted a purported waiver/repudiation of forced-heir rights outside the forms required by law, (3) permitted a pr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the will to probate after the withdrawal of the opposition, thereby allowing an ex parte probate?
- Does the will's apparent preterition of a forced heir divest the forced heir's legitime, or must Philippine succession law on legitimes control?
- Was the petitioner denied due process when the trial court dismissed the petition for relief for lack of evidence without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard?
- Did the Court of First Instance of Manila lack jurisdiction to settle the estate becau...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)