Case Summary (G.R. No. 247345)
Applicable Law
This case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly focusing on issues of service of process, finality of judgments, and the duties of the clerk of court regarding records on appeal.
Background of the Case
Corazon M. San Juan, who had been in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao, passed away without leaving any heirs. She left behind a residential property, prompting Purita and her daughter, Filipina, to seek probate for several holographic wills purportedly authored by Corazon. The first two wills were dated December 23, 2007, and March 10, 2008, bequeathing all properties to Purita and Filipina. Respondent Josephine San Juan, as one of the heirs, opposed the petition for probate.
Initial Proceedings and Orders
On December 28, 2015, the Regional Trial Court admitted the two wills to probate. However, due to subsequent inquiries regarding the service of the order, the respondent's counsel disavowed receipt of the order, which triggered legal arguments concerning the validity of service and the timeliness of objection motions.
Reversal of the Probate Order
On November 25, 2016, the Regional Trial Court, led by Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso, reversed the earlier decision and dismissed the probate of the wills. Filipina’s subsequent appeal was dismissed due to her failure to include a record on appeal, which she contended was obstructed by the Clerk of Court's actions influenced by the respondent's opposition.
Petition for Certiorari
Filipina's petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals sought to challenge the dismissal of her appeal and the setting aside of the probate order. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decisions, leading to the current petition.
Standard for Certiorari
The decision outlines that a writ of certiorari is appropriate for addressing grave abuse of discretion by a lower court, defined as the refusal or failure to perform a judicial duty imposed by law. In this instance, the standard of neglected procedural norms and wrong rulings based on unsubstantiated claims were highlighted as grave abuse of discretion by Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso.
Assessment of Service of Process
The Court found that the December 28, 2015, Order was effectively served when it was received by Capuno, a representative of Atty. Ginete, even if not directly authorized. The court noted legal provisions indicating that service upon an attorney qualifies as service upon the client. The argument that receipt by Capuno did not constitute valid service was rejected.
Finality of the December 28 Order
The ruling affirmed that the December 28 Order attained finality since no timely motion for reconsideration was filed within the allowed 15-day window following the receipt of the order by Capuno. The neglect of the respondent and her counsel to act within this timeframe compromise
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247345)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The petitioner is Filipina D. Abutin, while the respondent is Josephine San Juan.
- The primary issues concern the alleged grave abuse of discretion by Regional Trial Court Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso in reversing her own prior ruling regarding the probate of two holographic wills.
Background of the Case
- Corazon M. San Juan, the decedent, passed away on March 23, 2008, leaving behind a property in Tondo, Manila.
- Corazon had been in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao, with whom she lived for 48 years, along with Purita’s daughter, Filipina.
- On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed a petition to probate three holographic wills purportedly executed by Corazon.
Filings and Initial Proceedings
- The three holographic wills were dated December 23, 2007; March 10, 2008; and one was undated, all bequeathing Corazon's properties to Purita and Filipina.
- Josephine San Juan and her mother Julita filed an opposition to the probate petition.
- Testimonies from witnesses, including a handwriting expert from the National Bureau of Investigation, supported the authenticity of the wills.
Initial Ruling
- On December 28, 2015, Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso admitted two of the wills to probate.
- Both parties were served copies of the ruling via registered mail.
Subsequent Developments
- In March 2016, Purita and Filipina learned the December 28, 2015 Order should have become final since no Motion for Reconsideration had been filed.
- Josephine and Julita subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 12, 2016, which was contested by Purita and Filipina.