Case Digest (G.R. No. 63253-54)
Facts:
Pablo Ralla v. Hon. Romulo P. Untalan, Hon. Domingo Coronel Reyes, and Leonie Ralla, Peter Ralla and Marinella Ralla, G.R. Nos. 63253-54, April 27, 1989, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.In January 27, 1959, Rosendo Ralla filed for the probate of his will in the Court of First Instance of Albay (Special Proceedings No. 564), leaving his entire estate to his son Pablo Ralla and disinheriting his other son Pedro Ralla. In the same year Pedro Ralla filed Civil Case No. 2023 for partition of the estate of their mother, Paz Escarella. During the probate, Pablo sought dismissal of the probate petition as he claimed no beneficial interest; that motion was denied by the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and later by this Court (G.R. No. L-26253). On November 3, 1966, the probate proceedings were converted to intestacy by Judge Perfecto Quicho, who declared Pablo and Pedro the only heirs to share equally.
On December 18–19, 1967, Pablo and Pedro executed and the trial court (Judge Ezekiel Grageda) approved a project of partition in Civil Case No. 2023 whereby sixty-three parcels of land (apparently part of Paz Escarella's estate) were divided between them; by motion of the parties the partition case was declared closed on December 29, 1967, with no appeal taken and the partition thereby attaining finality and possession delivered to the parties.
Years later, on February 28, 1978, Joaquin Chancoco filed Special Proceedings No. 1106 for the probate of Rosendo’s will. Pablo manifested no objection, then moved to intervene as petitioner; the motion and the probate petition were granted ex parte over the opposition of Pedro’s heirs. Teodorico Alimine was appointed special administrator and in taking possession of the assets of Rosendo’s estate also took possession of the sixty-three parcels previously allocated by the partition in Civil Case No. 2023. The heirs of Pedro moved to exclude those parcels from Rosendo’s estate.
In an Omnibus Order dated August 3, 1979, Judge Romulo P. Untalan ordered, inter alia, that the sixty-three parcels (and other parcels) be provisionally submitted to the probate proceedings (Special Proceedings Nos. 564 and 1106) and declared the project of partition "stripped of its judicial recognition" for the purposes of the probate. On June 11, 1981 the heirs of Pedro sought reconsideration of the inclusion of the sixty-three parcels; in an Order dated July 16, 1981 Judge Untalan reconsidered and reversed the earlier inclusion, held the project of partition should be respected, and ordered the sixty-three parcels excluded from the probate and from administration by the special administrator.
Pablo filed two motions for reconsideration of the July 16, 1981 Order; both were denied by Judge Domingo Coronel Reyes. Thereafter Pablo filed this special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the July 16, 1981 Order and the denials of reconsideration. He argued (1) the partit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Untalan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing his August 3, 1979 Omnibus Order and excluding the sixty-three parcels from the probate proceedings?
- Were the sixty-three parcels properly excluded from the probate because the project of partition in Civil Case No. 2023 was valid, final, and binding so as to preclude their in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)