Case Digest (G.R. No. 169700)
Facts:
Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad, Jr., G.R. No. 169700, July 30, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Apolonia Banayad Frianela filed Sp. Proc. No. 3664‑P with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City on June 3, 1991 for the allowance of the November 18, 1985 holographic will of her uncle, the decedent Moises F. Banayad. She alleged Moises died without issue and identified as estate property (1) a parcel of land under TCT No. 9741 in Pasay City, (2) religious images including a crown, and (3) all personal belongings; the petition made no allegation as to the gross value of the decedent’s estate.
Respondent Servillano Banayad, Jr., a cousin, opposed and counter‑petitioned for allowance of two different holographic wills dated September 27, 1989 and September 28, 1989. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on September 29, 1995, declaring the September 27, 1989 holographic will valid, revoking the November 18, 1985 will, allowing the former, and appointing respondent administrator of the estate (Sp. Proc. No. 3664‑P).
Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CV No. 53929, issued its Decision on June 17, 2005, modifying the RTC’s ruling by holding that the September 27, 1989 will revoked the 1985 will only insofar as testamentary disposition of real property was concerned and allowed both wills subject to that modification. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration by Resolution dated August 17, 2005.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Supreme Court, upon review, directed attention to a jurisdictional defect not addressed by the lower courts: because the original petition did not allege the gross value of the decedent’s estate, it was impossible to determine whether the RTC or the Metropolitan/Municip...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City have jurisdiction over Sp. Proc. No. 3664‑P for the probate of Moises F. Banayad’s will?
- If the RTC lacked jurisdiction, can the jurisdictional defect be waived or cured by delay or estoppel (i.e., does the exception in Tijam v....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)