Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33484)
Facts:
Intestate Estate of the Late Emilio Aguinaldo, Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay, Petitioner and Appellant, vs. Emilio Aguinaldo, Jr., and Hon. Alfredo Catolico, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch III, Respondents and Appellees, G.R. No. L-33484, May 12, 1972, Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay challenged various orders issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cavite in Special Proceedings No. N-705, the intestate estate of the late spouses Emilio Aguinaldo and Maria Agoncillo. In an order of July 24, 1969, the trial court authorized administrator Emilio Aguinaldo, Jr. to sell certain parcels of land belonging to the estate; an amendatory order of September 26, 1969 limited the sale to one-half of the lands "belonging to the intestacy of the late Emilio Aguinaldo." On January 19, 1970 the trial court approved a sale executed by the administrator — of one-half of the property to Alice Aguinaldo Dizon for P192,000 — and on February 18, 1970 the trial court denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration, finding the sale consummated and registered.
Petitioner initially filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-31659), arguing the CFI had no jurisdiction to order sale of property claimed by her and that the sale was ordered without compliance with Rule 89, Sec. 7 formalities. The Supreme Court, observing that the controversy implicated factual questions (notably ownership), referred the matter to the Court of Appeals under Section 31 of the Judiciary Act. The Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) gave due course to the petition, required answers, set the case for decision and permitted memoranda; after procedural exchanges the Court of Appeals issued a resolution on February 19, 1971 dismissing the petition for review “for not being sufficient in form and substance” (CA-G.R. No. 45944/45994-R). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (denied April 14, 1971), and sought relief in the Supreme Court.
The present proceeding reached the Supreme Court as a petition originally framed as a petition for review but treated by the Court as a special civil action for certiorari to set aside the Court of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of petitioner’s appeal proper solely because the appeal had not been perfected by filing the record on appeal, appeal bond and notice of appeal as required by Sections 3 to 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court?
- If the dismissal was improper, what procedure should the Court of Appeals have followed after the Supreme Court referred the case to it under Section 31 of the Judiciary Act?
- Is the present petition properly entertained as an original remedy in certiorari under Rule 65 despite the procedural posture involving a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)