Case Digest (G.R. No. L-74)
Facts:
Mateo Maningat and the Spouses Eugenio Pantoja and Leona Baltazar v. Modesto Castillo and Inigo S. Daza and Sixto de Jesus, G.R. No. L-74, December 08, 1945, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.In Special Proceeding No. 3174 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas for settlement of the estate of the deceased Gavino de Jesus, petitioners Mateo Maningat and the spouses Eugenio Pantoja and Leona Baltazar (who had purchased the hereditary interests of heirs Demetrio, Elena, and Maria de Jesus) filed motions in the probate proceedings seeking court approval of the sales and praying that they be subrogated to the rights of their vendors in the liquidation of the estate.
Sixto de Jesus, an heir and the administrator of the estate, opposed the motions. He asserted that the parcels sold were subject to a mortgage to the Philippine National Bank approved by the court and that other claims allowed against the estate might attach to those parcels. Sixto alleged he had offered to reimburse the vendees for their purchase prices but that his offer was refused, and by countermotion sought, under Article 1067 of the Civil Code, to be subrogated to the purchasers’ rights by repurchasing the interests (i.e., to compel resale and reconveyance to him upon payment).
The petitioners resisted the countermotion on the ground that Sixto had not exercised his right to repurchase within the one-month period prescribed by Article 1067. After hearing, Judge Modesto Castillo found Sixto’s offer had been made within the statutory period, sustained the countermotion, and ordered the petitioners to resell and convey the respective interests to Sixto upon payment of the purchase price and sale expenses. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Judge Inigo S. Daza on the ground that Judge Castillo’s order had become final when the motion was filed.
The petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari and mandamus to annul Judge Castillo’s order and to compel the Court of First Instance to approve their motions for subrogation. Although the Court observed that certiorari or mandamus might not be the proper remedies and that an appeal would have been the appropriate mode of review, the respondents did not contest...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is certiorari or mandamus the proper remedy to assail the probate court’s order, or should the petition have been by appeal?
- Did the probate court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for subrogation under Article 1067 of the Civil Code while the estate was stil...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)