Title
Brual vs. Contreras
Case
G.R. No. 205451
Decision Date
Mar 7, 2022
Fausta Brual's will, leaving her estate to her nephew's wife, was contested by relatives alleging impropriety. The RTC denied their intervention, and their appeal was dismissed for procedural lapses. The Supreme Court upheld the RTC, emphasizing strict compliance with appeal rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133547)

Facts of the Estate and Petition for Probate

Fausta Brual, unmarried and without compulsory heirs, named Elizabeth Brual and her husband as sole beneficiaries and co-executors in her will. On July 22, 2009, Elizabeth filed a petition for probate before the RTC of Manila. Respondents, as Fausta’s blood relatives, moved to intervene, contesting the will’s validity and alleging formal defects in the petition for probate.

RTC’s Denial of Intervention and Appeal Dismissal

On November 4, 2010, the RTC denied respondents’ motion to intervene, reasoning that Fausta could dispose of her entire estate under Civil Code Article 842 and that any formal defect was cured by publication. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 2011. Respondents filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2011 but failed to file the required record on appeal within the 30-day period under Rule 41, Sections 2–3. On April 27, 2011, the RTC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection. An omnibus motion to admit the record on appeal, filed June 27, 2011, was denied on July 27, 2011.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

Respondents petitioned for certiorari before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. On July 2, 2012, the CA granted the petition, finding respondents’ inadvertence excusable and directing that their subsequently filed record on appeal be accepted. The CA held that procedural technicalities should not bar a diligent party’s right to appeal.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC for dismissing an imperfect appeal.
  2. Whether the CA improperly entertained an unperfected appeal.
  3. Whether the mode of appeal employed was incorrect.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Appeal as Statutory Privilege
    The right to appeal is purely statutory, requiring strict compliance with rules. Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and renders the lower court’s decision final and executory.
  2. Requirement of Notice and Record on Appeal
    Under Rules 41 and 109, a special proceeding appeal requires both a notice and a record on appeal filed within 30 days from notice of the final order. Interruption by a timely motion for reconsideration affords a fresh 30-day period under the “fresh period” rule.
  3. Respondents’ Non-Compliance
    Respondents did not file the record on appeal within the prescribed period. Their omnibus motion

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms