Case Summary (G.R. No. 129242)
Opposition and Jurisdictional Challenges
Four oppositors (petitioners here) were initially declared in default but successfully moved to file their opposition. They raised objections to venue, personal jurisdiction, inclusion of the surviving spouse’s share, absence of prior compromise efforts among heirs, and failure to attach a certification of non–forum shopping. They also sought preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses and the inhibition of the presiding judge. The trial court admitted their opposition on the merits, denied their affirmative defenses as immaterial, and affirmed its jurisdiction.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals, asserting among other points that the proceeding was an ordinary civil action requiring prior compromise under Civil Code Article 222. The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding the R.T.C. properly exercised special probate jurisdiction and that the dispute was not an adversarial suit among family members. A motion for reconsideration likewise failed.
Issue on Precondition of Compromise under Article 222
Petitioners’ sole issue in the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s denial of their motion to outright dismiss the probate petition for failure to aver prior earnest compromise efforts under Article 222 of the Civil Code. They argued that the proceeding was effectively an ordinary civil action in disguise.
Nature and Character of the Petition as a Special Proceeding
The Supreme Court held that the nature of an action is determined by the averments and relief sought. The petition clearly sought to establish status (death of decedent, identity of heirs) and to administer an estate. Although certain factual averments resembled allegations in an ordinary suit, the petition’s relief—letters of administration, inventory, payment of debts, and distribution—unequivocally invoked probate jurisdiction. Defenses and counterclaims raised by oppositors did not convert the special proceeding into an adversarial civil action.
Inapplicability of Article 222 and Rule 16 §1(j)
Article 222’s requirement of prior compro
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 129242)
Procedural Context
- Second Division of the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 129242, decided January 16, 2001.
- Ponente: Justice De Leon, Jr.; concurring: Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ.
Antecedent Facts
- Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992, residing at 1966 Maria Clara Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
- He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and eleven (11) legal‐age children: Purita, Antonio, Milagros, Belen, Isabelita, Rosalina, Romeo, Roberto, Amalia, Orlando, and Imelda Manalo.
- The decedent left various real properties in Manila and Tarlac, and operated “Manalo’s Machine Shop” in Quezon City and Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Petition for Judicial Settlement (SP. PROC. No. 92-63626)
- On November 26, 1992, eight (8) children—Purita, Milagros, Belen, Rosalina, Romeo, Roberto, Amalia, and Imelda—filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate and for appointment of Romeo Manalo as administrator.
- December 15, 1992 Order: hearing set for February 11, 1993; publication for three weeks; service by registered mail on all heirs.
Trial Court Proceedings
- February 11, 1993: trial court declared general default except government; evidence set for March 16, 1993.
- Oppositors—Pilar, Antonio, Isabelita, and Orlando—moved to set aside default; granted ten (10) days to file opposition.
- July 23, 1993: oppositors filed Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of denial to extend opposition time, preliminary hearing on defenses, declaration of lack of personal jurisdiction, and inhibition of pres