Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 687 views

    Fernandez vs. Maravilla, 10 Scra 589 (1964)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    Herminio Maravilla filed a petition to probate his wife's will, which was opposed by her siblings on the basis that the will was not properly signed. The court denied probating the will. The siblings then sought to appoint Eliezar as co-administrator to protect their interests. Maravilla appealed the denial of probating the will. The court appointed Eliezar as co-administrator. Maravilla then petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul Eliezar's appointment. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings petitioned to certify the case to the Supreme Court since the estate was over ₱200,000. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fernandez vs. Maravilla, 10 Scra 589 (1964)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    687 views2 pages
    Herminio Maravilla filed a petition to probate his wife's will, which was opposed by her siblings on the basis that the will was not properly signed. The court denied probating the will. The siblings then sought to appoint Eliezar as co-administrator to protect their interests. Maravilla appealed the denial of probating the will. The court appointed Eliezar as co-administrator. Maravilla then petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul Eliezar's appointment. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings petitioned to certify the case to the Supreme Court since the estate was over ₱200,000. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of

    Original Description:

    Fernandez vs. Maravilla, 10 Scra 589 (1964)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Herminio Maravilla filed a petition to probate his wife's will, which was opposed by her siblings on the basis that the will was not properly signed. The court denied probating the will. The siblings then sought to appoint Eliezar as co-administrator to protect their interests. Maravilla appealed the denial of probating the will. The court appointed Eliezar as co-administrator. Maravilla then petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul Eliezar's appointment. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings petitioned to certify the case to the Supreme Court since the estate was over ₱200,000. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    687 views2 pages

    Fernandez vs. Maravilla, 10 Scra 589 (1964)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    Herminio Maravilla filed a petition to probate his wife's will, which was opposed by her siblings on the basis that the will was not properly signed. The court denied probating the will. The siblings then sought to appoint Eliezar as co-administrator to protect their interests. Maravilla appealed the denial of probating the will. The court appointed Eliezar as co-administrator. Maravilla then petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul Eliezar's appointment. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings petitioned to certify the case to the Supreme Court since the estate was over ₱200,000. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FERNANDEZ vs.

    MARAVILLA, 10 SCRA 589 (1964)

    FACTS:
    Herminio Maravilla filed a petition for the probate of his wifes will with the CFI. The
    wifes siblings filed an opposition on the ground that the will was not signed on each
    page by the testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses and of one another.
    On his motion, Maravilla was appointed as administrator.
    The court denied probate. The siblings then sought the appointment of Eliezar as
    co- administrator to protect their interest especially since the will was denied
    probate. Maravilla filed an appeal of the decision denying probate. The siblings and
    several of the devisees named in the will then sought the annulment of Maravillas
    appointment as administrator. The court then appointed Eliezar as co- administrator.
    From the above order of appointment of a co- administrator, Maravilla filed with the
    CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul said order. The CA then issued a
    writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings, et al. filed a petition to certify the case to
    the SC as the amount involved exceeds 200,000 and alleged that the preliminary
    injuction issued was not in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the CA as there was
    never an appeal on the denial of probate by the CFI. Maravilla contends that the
    decision of the probate court is under appeal and as such writ prayed for was in aid
    of the appellate jurisdiction and that the amount is less than 200,000 as the
    amount to be protected by Eliezars appointment was only 90,000 more or less.
    The CA granted the writ of certiorari and prohibition. Hence this appeal.

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether the CA has appellate jurisdiction over special proceedings.

    HELD:
    NO. The CA has no appellate jurisdiction as the appointment of Eliezar was only
    incidental to the probate proceedings and the value of the estate in question is
    more than 200,000 (362,000). Under Section 2, Rule 75, the property to be
    administered and liquidated in in/testate proceeding is the entire estate and not
    merely the part of the conjugal property pertaining to the deceased spouse.
    Not having appellate jurisdiction, as the amount is over 200,000, the CA cannot
    have original jurisdiction to issue the 2 above mentioned writs as such was merely
    incidental.

    Note that what is at issue between the parties is the annulment of the appointment
    of Eliezar and is such a controversy involving a contest for administration where
    amount or value of the entire estate is in controversy. Maravillas contention is that
    appeals in special proceedings are within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
    CA as they are not enumerated in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act. On the other hand,
    it has been held that the term civil cases includes special proceedings. Such is
    untenable as a special proceeding has never been held to be a civil case. Further,
    Section 2, Rule 23 provides that the rules of ordinary civil action are applicable in
    special proceedings if they are not inconsistent with or serve to complement special
    proceedings.

    You might also like