Case Summary (G.R. No. 129329)
Procedural History
Following the initiation of the intestate proceedings, on November 21, 1950, Atty. Dominador Alafriz, representing the petitioners, inquired about the status of the case, specifically regarding the administrator and the bond amount. By July 1952, Atty. Alafriz further requested that no motions or pleadings be considered without his service as counsel for the petitioners. The clerk of court indicated that Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo had consistently represented all heirs, including the petitioners, and that notices had been communicated to him.
Key Developments
A pivotal development occurred on December 16, 1951, when a motion to dismiss was filed by Atty. Florendo based on an extra-judicial settlement agreed upon by the heirs. This settlement was subsequently approved by the court on January 15, 1952. Upon discovering this, Atty. Dominador Alafriz requested copies of the settlement and related orders, which were provided in September 1952. Subsequently, on August 20, 1952, Atty. Constante Ayson, representing the petitioners, filed a motion to set aside the settlement and the court’s decision, arguing that the settlement was null and void.
Legal Findings
The motion to set aside was denied on January 13, 1954, on the grounds that the petitioners should have pursued either an appeal or a separate action for annulment, as the remedies were not timely followed. The petitioners contended that the lack of timely notice to their counsel constituted sufficient grounds for challenging the validity of the settlement, asserting that Atty. Florendo lacked authority to sign on behalf of all heirs and that there was a lesion, whereby the petitioners received less than their legal shares in the inheritance.
Respondents' Defense
In defense, the respondents emphasized that Atty. Florendo was duly representing all heirs and that notifications of judicial orders and decisions were appropriately directed to him. They argued that the notice and execution of the inheritance distribution were sufficient evidence that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings, asserting that the failure
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 129329)
Case Background
- The case revolves around intestate proceedings initiated on February 2, 1948, for the estate of Isabel V. Florendo, under special proceedings No. 124 in the Court of First Instance of La Union.
- The petition was filed by Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo, representing all heirs, including petitioners Angel F. Alafriz and Pedro F. Alafriz.
- Atty. Dominador Alafriz, acting on behalf of the petitioners, inquired about the status of the proceedings through letters to the clerk of court in November 1950 and July 1952.
Key Correspondences and Actions
- In November 1950, Atty. Dominador Alafriz requested information about the administrator and bond amount, indicating it was for his clients, the petitioners.
- By July 1952, Atty. Alafriz sought assurance that no motions or pleadings would be acted upon without proof of service to him, also requesting copies of orders from his appearance date.
- The clerk of court responded on July 23, 1952, noting that Atty. Alfredo C. Florendo had represented all heirs since the beginning of the proceedings.
Proceedings and Decisions
- Atty. Florendo filed a motion to dismiss on December 16, 1951, citing an extra-judicial settlement executed by the heirs, which the court approved on January 15, 1952.
- Atty. Dominador Alafriz, upon learning of the court's decision, requested copies of the extra-ju