Title
Ana Maria C. Manguerra vs. Ma. Patricia Concepcion E. Manguerra-Aberasturi et al.
Case
G.R. No. 253426
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2022
Petition for probate of a will disinheriting most grandchildren; RTC invalidated disinheritance, issued distribution orders. CA reversed, ruling proper appeal required record on appeal within 30 days, affirmed by SC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 253426)

Procedural Posture

Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court of the CA Decision dated June 17, 2019 and Resolution dated September 8, 2020 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 151780) that reversed RTC Orders of April 5, 2017 and June 16, 2017. The CA had ordered the RTC to approve respondents’ notice of appeal and record on appeal challenging the RTC’s Final Distribution Order. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether, in special proceedings that have been argued to be “completely disposed,” a record on appeal is nevertheless required and whether the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in disapproving respondents’ appeal.

Decedent’s Will and Material Testamentary Provisions

The decedent, Concepcion A. Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra, executed a will designating petitioner as executor and setting forth specific bequests. The will contained a disinheritance clause excluding most grandchildren from the late son Mariano Jesus Manguerra, Jr., excepting Gregorio Constantino E. Manguerra, who received certain real property and a cash bequest. The will specified particular real properties, cash legacies, stock interests, jewelry, and a residuary clause leaving the remainder to petitioner.

Initial RTC Rulings on Probate and Disinheritance

On April 15, 2003 the RTC allowed the will and issued letters testamentary to petitioner but declared the disinheritance provision invalid because the stated cause did not fall within Article 918 of the Civil Code. Petitioner successfully moved for partial reconsideration; the RTC on July 16, 2003 held that determining the validity of the disinheritance was premature as an intrinsic validity question and should be ventilated in further proceedings, while maintaining allowance of the will.

Partial Distribution Order and Related Appeals

Petitioner moved for distribution of estate properties; after prolonged litigation the RTC issued a Partial Distribution Order dated October 21, 2013 directing distribution of certain lots and shareholdings bequeathed to petitioner and to named grandchildren Melissa and Monika Montilla. The RTC noted that Gregorio had not accepted his bequests and directed him to manifest acceptance or rejection. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on February 13, 2014; respondents then filed a Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal dated April 2, 2014, which the RTC approved on June 2, 2014 and thus transmitted to the CA.

Final Distribution Order and Its Circumstances

While the appeal from the Partial Distribution Order was pending, petitioner filed a Motion for Final Distribution of the Remainder of the Estate. The RTC granted that motion in a Resolution dated September 17, 2014 (Final Distribution Order), distributing the remaining estate assets and directing reversion and redistribution of the property bequeathed to Gregorio due to his noncompliance with the RTC’s earlier directive. Respondents did not oppose the motion for final distribution at the hearing, but subsequently filed motions to inhibit and for reconsideration after re‑raffle of the case; the RTC denied reconsideration by Order dated September 7, 2015.

Respondents’ Notice of Appeal and RTC Disapproval

Respondents received the RTC’s denial of reconsideration on September 22, 2015. On October 21, 2015 — twenty‑nine days after receipt — respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with an attached Record on Appeal challenging the Final Distribution Order. On April 5, 2017 the RTC disapproved the record on appeal as having been filed out of time, reasoning that because the case had been finally disposed of the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal by notice of appeal within fifteen days, and therefore the 30‑day period for filing a record on appeal did not apply. The RTC denied reconsideration of that disapproval on June 16, 2017 and ordered entry of judgment.

Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals and CA Ruling

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in disapproving their appeal and entry of judgment. The CA, in a Decision dated June 17, 2019, granted the petition, annulled and set aside the RTC Orders of April 5 and June 16, 2017, and ordered the RTC to approve respondents’ Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal and to remove the Final Distribution Order and the September 7, 2015 order from the Book of Entries of Judgment. The CA based its ruling on the principle that in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals a record on appeal is required and must be filed within 30 days under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was called upon to resolve whether a record on appeal is necessary in special proceedings when the trial court has “completely disposed” of the case, and whether the CA correctly determined that the RTC committed grave abuse in disapproving respondents’ notice of appeal and record on appeal.

Governing Rules and Jurisprudential Framework

The Court reviewed Rule 41, Section 2(a) and Section 3 (Modes and Period of Appeal), and Rule 109 (special proceedings), as well as controlling jurisprudence recognizing that multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings because material issues may be finally determined at various stages. The Court reiterated Spouses Lebin v. Mirasol: the ostensible reason for requiring a record on appeal in special proceedings is the multi‑part nature of such proceedings so that the trial court may continue with unresolved parts while the appellate court reviews the appealed portion. The Court also cited Brual v. Contreras and other authorities holding that where Rule 41 requires a record on appeal the appellant must file both the notice and the record on appeal within 30 days.

Analysis of the Nishina Exception and Its Limits

The Court considered Republic v. Nishina, where no record on appeal was required because the trial court had resolved all matters and there was nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate — a context involving correction of civil registry entries and change of name. The Supreme Court explained that Nishina is not dispositive here because Nishina did not involve a Rule 109 special proceeding where multiple appeals commonly arise, and Nishina did not purport to amend Rule 41’s clear 30‑day requirement. The Court warned against creating ad hoc exceptions that would engender uncertainty about whether the appeal period is 15 or 30 days and thereby promote procedural disputes.

Application to the Present Case: Necessity of a Record on Appeal

Applying the Rules and precedents to the facts, the Court found that Rule 41’s requirement stands: in special proceedings and other cases of multiple appeals, a record on appeal must be filed together with the notice of appeal and is subject to the 30‑day reglementary period. The Court emphasized that in this probate and distribution matt

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms