Case Digest (G.R. No. 234203)
Facts:
The Heirs of Loreto San Jose Ferrer, namely, Roberto B. Ferrer, Melchor B. Ferrer, Arturo B. Ferrer, Maria Angelita B. Ferrer, Charito B. Ferrer, and Owen Brian B. Ferrer v. Rosita San Jose Ferrer, G.R. No. 234203, June 26, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute traces to the death of Fernando Ferrer in 1975. Fernando’s heirs — his widow Enrica San Jose vda. de Ferrer and children Loreto, Alfredo and Rosita — executed an extrajudicial settlement vesting a 5/8 share to Enrica and 1/8 each to Loreto, Alfredo and Rosita. After Alfredo’s death in 1984, Loreto filed Civil Case No. 97-85291 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26 (RTC‑Manila), seeking annulment of sale, partition, accounting and damages against Rosita and Enrica, and impleading as “unwilling plaintiffs” Alfredo’s heirs.
On February 14, 2006 the RTC‑Manila rendered judgment in favor of Loreto (and unwilling co‑plaintiffs), declaring void three deeds by which Enrica allegedly conveyed her 5/8 share to Rosita, ordering cancellation of several titles, directing accounting and awarding monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Rosita appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on August 13, 2009 denied the appeal with modifications. Rosita then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 192680), which the Court dismissed on September 15, 2010 as manifestly for delay.
Meanwhile, Enrica died on September 11, 2008 and probate proceedings on her will were commenced before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141 (RTC‑Makati). Loreto moved for execution of the final RTC‑Manila decision (August 24, 2010); the RTC‑Manila issued a writ of execution on October 18, 2010 and, after an auditor’s report, ordered Rosita to deposit amounts representing Loreto’s and Alfredo’s heirs’ shares. Rosita’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
After the RTC‑Makati admitted Enrica’s will, Rosita filed a motion for recusal before the RTC‑Manila, seeking to transfer “pending incidents” — specifically the partition of Enrica’s 5/8 share and the accounting — to the estate court on the ground these are claims against the estate. In an Amended Order dated April 11, 2014, the RTC‑Manila cited Rosita for contempt for non‑compliance but granted recusal “in order to prevent useless duplicity,” directing that the RTC‑Manila’s final decision and accounting order be presented to the estate court. Loreto’s partial motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2014.
Loreto (substituted after his death by his heirs) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, alleging that the RTC‑Manila committed grave abuse of discretion in totally recusing in favor of the RTC‑Makati. In a Decision dated December 9, 2016 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 136959), the CA denied the petition, holding that the properties were part of Enrica’s estate an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Regional Trial Court of Manila’s order recusing itself in favor of the Regional Trial Court of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)