Case Digest (G.R. No. 129242)
Facts:
Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, Antonio S. Manalo, Orlando S. Manalo, and Isabelita Manalo v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 35), Purita S. Jayme, Milagros M. Terre, Belen M. Orillano, Rosalina M. Acuin, Romeo S. Manalo, Roberto S. Manalo, Amalia Manalo and Imelda Manalo, G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992, survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and eleven (11) adult children including petitioners Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, Antonio S. Manalo, Orlando S. Manalo, and Isabelita Manalo, and respondents who were eight (8) of the children (including Romeo S. Manalo). At his death he left several real properties and a business (Manalo's Machine Shop) in Metro Manila and Tarlac.
On November 26, 1992, eight of the surviving children (respondents here) filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35 a Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate (SP. PROC. No. 92-63626), praying inter alia that letters of administration be issued to Romeo Manalo and that the estate be inventoried, settled and distributed. The trial court ordered publication and service, set the matter for hearing, and initially declared the world in default on February 11, 1993; that general default was later set aside to permit oppositors (petitioners here) to file oppositions.
The oppositors filed several pleadings and on July 23, 1993 submitted an Omnibus Motion seeking, among other reliefs, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over their persons, preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, and inhibition of the presiding judge. On July 30, 1993 the trial court admitted the oppositors' opposition for consideration on the merits, denied their prayer for a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses as immaterial to the probate proceeding, declared that it had acquired jurisdiction over their persons, denied the motion to inhibit, and set the appointment application for hearing on September 9, 1993. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on September 15, 1993.
The oppositors then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP. No. 39851), contending among other grounds that the venue was improper, the RTC lacked personal jurisdiction over them, the surviving spouse's share was improperly included, there was absence of earnest efforts toward family compromise under Article 222 of the Civil Code, and lack of a certification of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari in a resolution promulgated on September 30, 1996, and denied reconsideration on May 6, 1997.
Petitioners brought the p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss the petition for judicial settlement of estate on the ground that the petitioners failed to aver that earnest efforts toward compromise among family members had been made prior to filing, as required by Articl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)