G.R. No. 129242 - Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992, survived by his wife Pilar S. Manalo and eleven (11) children.
At death, he owned various real properties in Manila and Tarlac and operated Manalo’s Machine Shop in Quezon City and Valenzuela.

On November 26, 1992, eight (8) of the children filed SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for judicial settlement of estate and appointment of Romeo Manalo as administrator.
The RTC set hearing dates, ordered publication and service, declared “general default,” then upon oppositors’ motion granted them ten days to file opposition.
Petitioners (Pilar and three children) filed multiple pleadings, including an Omnibus Motion on July 23, 1993, seeking among others to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to inhibit the judge.
On July 30 and September 15, 1993 the RTC denied dismissal, affirmed its jurisdiction, and set the administrator’s appointment for hearing.
Oppositors filed Rule 65 certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 39851); the CA dismissed it on September 30, 1996 and denied reconsideration on May 6, 1997.
The sole issue in the SC petition is whether the CA erred in upholding denial of dismissal for failure to plead “earnest efforts toward compromise” under Article 222 of the Civil Code and Rule 16, Sec. 1(j), Rules of Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s refusal to dismiss the petition for judicial settlement of estate on the ground that the petitioners failed to aver prior “earnest efforts toward a compromise” among family members as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code and Rule 16, Sec. 1(j) of the Rules of Court.