G.R. No. 51278 - Heirs of Pizarro, Sr. vs. Consolacion

The case is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Heirs of Ramon Pizarro, Sr. (petitioners) against orders rendered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao.
The petition challenges two specific orders:

The Order of June 1, 1979, which dismissed the petitioners’ claims against the estate of the late Dominga Garcia.
The Order of July 17, 1979, which denied due course to the petitioners’ notice of appeal and directed them to file instead a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

The underlying dispute involves the estate of the late Dominga Garcia, who died intestate around 1930, leaving a parcel of land in Davao City.

On August 12, 1977, private respondent Luis Tan (alias Chen Yeh-An) filed a verified petition for the issuance of letters of administration in favor of Alfonso Atilano, asserting his status as the only surviving son of Dominga Garcia.
Petitioners, identifying themselves as heirs of Ramon Pizarro (deceased on June 16, 1974), opposed the petition on October 4, 1977, asserting that the deceased was the vendee of one-half (1/2) of the contested lot through an extrajudicial settlement and a deed of absolute sale executed on May 27, 1966.
A compromise was reached on December 6, 1977 whereby:

Petitioners agreed to withdraw their opposition to the appointment of private respondent’s recommendee.
The intestate proceedings were allowed to continue in due course.

On March 27, 1978, after the qualification and inventory approval of the judicial administrator, the CFI ordered that creditors’ claims against the estate be filed within six (6) months from the date of the first publication of the notice.
The notice of filing claims was published in the Mindanao Times with its first publication on March 30, 1978.
Subsequently, petitioners received the notice on March 28, 1979 through their counsel.

On January 23, 1979, a joint motion was filed by private respondent and the City of Davao, seeking to take notice of an agreement for a joint motion to determine the heirs of Dominga Garcia and their respective claims against the estate.
Petitioners opposed this joint motion on February 19, 1979, arguing a lack of procedural basis.
The proceedings evolved with:

A motion by private respondent on February 28, 1979 to drop and exclude the petitioners, alleging that they did not claim to be heirs and that the extrajudicial deeds executed in Hongkong were spurious.
Petitioners filing their opposition on March 5, 1979, and simultaneously initiating a claim against the estate for P350,000.00 based on alleged services rendered by their deceased father.
A second claim by petitioners for P200,000.00 filed on March 29, 1979, purportedly representing advances paid for taxes, with private respondent opposing on the grounds of lateness and perceiving it as a delaying tactic.

The CFI issued an Order on June 1, 1979 dismissing both of the petitioners’ claims on the ground that they were filed out of time.
Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal on June 26, 1979 contesting the dismissal, asserting that the claims were timely filed.
The appeal was met with an opposition by private respondent on July 5, 1979, arguing that the appeal raised a pure question of law and should be directed to the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the CFI on July 17, 1979 dismissed the notice of appeal, instructing petitioners to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the trial court’s order setting the period for the filing of claims against the estate at six (6) months from the publication of the notice is in conformity with Section 2, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Petitioners argued that the mandatory period should be measured from the sixth to the twelfth month after the first publication, not from the publication date itself, as required by law.
The issue centers on whether the period fixed by the trial court was legally and procedurally valid.

Whether the trial court had the authority to determine that the appeal raised was a pure question of law, thereby directing it to the Supreme Court rather than giving due course to the notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners contended that only the Court of Appeals has the authority to make such a determination under Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
The issue also examines the proper exercise of jurisdiction and competence in the appellate process.