Vda de Manalo vs. CA

1/21/2016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001
135
Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 129242. January 16, 2001.
PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO,

ORLANDO S. MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO,
petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA (BRANCH 35),
PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M. TERRE, BELEN M.
ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. ACUIN, ROMEO S.
MANALO, ROBERTO S. MANALO, AMALIA MANALO
and IMELDA MANALO, respondents.
Pleadings and Practice; Estate Proceedings; Probate Courts; It
is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an
action or proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief
sought in the complaint, or petition, shall be controlling; The fact of
death of the decedent
_______________
*
SECOND DIV ISION.
136
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon
which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the
estate rest.It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of
the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the
character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000152621dbd16abf66f7d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/14
1/21/2016
case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful scrutiny of the Petition for

Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution
of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 belies herein petitioners claim
that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said
petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition
for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fact of
death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as
his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. The
fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within the country
are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in
the administration of the estate rest. The petition in SP. PROC. No.
92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal
heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the deceased
which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. In
addition, the reliefs prayed for in the said petition leave no room for
doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners therein (private
respondents herein) to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their
deceased father, Troadio Manalo.
Same; Same; Same; A party may not be allowed to defeat the
purpose of an essentially valid petition for the settlement of the
estate of a decedent by raising matters that are irrelevant and
immaterial to the said petition; A trial court, sitting as a probate
court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and
dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly
threshed out only in an ordinary civil action.It is our view that
herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the
essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of the late
Troadio Manalo by raising matters that are irrelevant and
immaterial to the said petition. It must be emphasized that the trial
court, sitting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction
and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which
may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In
addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction
of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is
determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the
defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not
be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its
proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem. So it should be in
the instant petition for settlement of estate.
137
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

137
2/14
1/21/2016
Same; Same; Same; Motion to Dismiss; A party may not take

refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of
Court to justify an invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code for the
dismissal of a petition for settlement of estate.The argument is
misplaced. Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the
provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify the
invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the
dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased
Troadio Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough, to
wit: Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members
of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have
failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.
Same; Same; Article 222 of the Civil Code applies only to civil
actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of
the same family.The above-quoted provision of the law is
applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term
suit that it refers to an action by one person or persons against
another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues
the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or
the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil
action is thus an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party
sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. Besides, an excerpt from the Report of the Code
Commission unmistakably reveals the intention of the Code
Commission to make that legal provision applicable only to civil
actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of
the same family, thus: It is difficult to imagine a sadder and more
tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same
family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a
compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion
in the family. It is known that lawsuit between close relatives
generates deeper bitterness than strangers.
Same; Same; Special Proceedings; A petition for issuance of
letters of administration, settlement and distribution of estate is a
special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the
petitioner therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact.It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners)
are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of
action as in fact no defendant was impleaded therein. The Petition
for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and
3/14
1/21/2016
Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special

proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners
therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The
petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to
establish the fact of death of
138
138

their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the

heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their
right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of
the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of
the probate court.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court

of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Caneba, Flores, Ranee, Acuesta and Masigla Law
Firm for petitioners.
Ricardo E. Aragones for respondents.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners1
Pilar S. Vda. Manalo, et al.,2 seeking to annul the Resolution
3
of the Court of Appeals affirming the Orders
of Hie
4
Regional Trial Court and the Resolution which denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
5
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Troadio Manalo, a resident of 1966 Maria Clara Street,
Sampaloc, Manila died intestate on February 14, 1992. He
was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his eleven
(11) children, namely: Purita M. Jayme, Antonio Manalo,
Milagros M. Terre, Belen M. Orillano, Isabelita Manalo,
Rosalina M. Acuin, Romeo Manalo, Roberto Manalo, Amalia
Manalo, Orlando Manalo and Imelda Manalo, who are all of
legal age.
_______________
4/14
1/21/2016

1
In CA-G.R. SP No. 39851 promulgated on September 30, 1996,
Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 52-59.

2
Galvez, J., ponente, Martinez and Aquino, JJ., concurring; Rollo, pp.
52-59.
3
In SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 respectively dated July 30, 1993 and
September 15, 1993, Petition, Annexes D and F, Rollo, pp. 35-44; 51.
4
In CA-G.R. S.P. No. 39851 promulgated on May 6, 1997, Petition,
Annex K, Rollo, pp. 70-77.

5
Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 52-59.

139
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001
139
At the time of his death on February 14, 1992, Troadio

Manalo left several real properties located in Manila and in
the province of Tarlac including a business under the name
and style Manalos Machine Shop with offices at No. 19
Calavite Street, La Loma, Quezon City and at No. 45 Gen.
Tinio Street, Arty Subdivision, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
On November 26, 1992, herein respondents, who are
eight (8) of the surviving children of the late Troadio
Manalo, namely: Purita, Milagros, Belen, Rosalina,
Romeo,
6
Roberto, Amalia, and Imelda filed a petition
with the
7
respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila for the judicial
settlement of the estate of their late father, Troadio Manalo,
and for the appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as
administrator thereof.
On December 15, 1992, the trial court issued an order
setting the said petition for hearing on February 11, 1993
and directing the publication of the order for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
Metro Manila, and further directing service by registered
mail of the said order upon the heirs named in the petition
at their respective addresses mentioned therein.
On February 11, 1993, the date set for hearing of the
petition, the trial court issued an order declaring the whole
world in default, except the government, and set the
reception of evidence of the petitioners therein on March 16,
1993. However, this order of general default was set aside by
the trial court upon motion of herein petitioners (oppositors
therein) namely: Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, Antonio,
Isabelita and Orlando who were granted ten (10) days
within which to file their opposition to the petition.
5/14
1/21/2016
Several pleadings were subsequently filed by herein

petitioners, through
counsel, culminating in the filing of an
8
Omnibus Motion on July 23, 1993 seeking: (1) to set aside
and reconsider the Order of the trial court dated July 9,
1993 which denied the motion for additional extension of
time to file opposition; (2) to set for prelimi_______________
6
Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 18-25.
Branch 35, Presided by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.
Petition, Annex C, Rollo, pp. 27-34.

140
140

nary hearing their affirmative defenses as grounds for

dismissal of the case; (3) to declare that the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors;
and (4) for the immediate inhibition of the presiding judge.
9
On July 30, 1993, the trial court issued an order which
resolved, thus:
A. To admit the so-called Opposition filed by counsel for
the oppositors on July 20, 1993, only for the purpose
of considering the merits thereof;
B. To deny the prayer of the oppositors for a
preliminary hearing of their affirmative defenses as
ground for the dismissal of this proceeding, said
affirmative
defenses
being
irrelevant
and
immaterial to the purpose and issue of the present
proceeding;
C. To declare that this court has acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of the oppositors;
D. To deny the motion of the oppositors for the
inhibition of this Presiding Judge;
E. To set the application of Romeo Manalo for
appointment as regular administrator in the
intestate estate of the deceased Troadio Manalo for
hearing on September 9, 1993 at 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon.
6/14
1/21/2016
Herein petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP. No. 39851, after their motion for
reconsideration of the Order dated
July 30, 1993 was denied
10
by the trial court in its Order dated September 15, 1993. In
their petition for certiorari with the appellate court, they
contend that: (1) the venue was improperly laid in SP.
PROC. No. 92-63626; (2) the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over their persons; (3) the share of the surviving
spouse was included in the intestate proceedings; (4) there
was absence of earnest efforts toward compromise among
members of the same family; and (5) no certification of
nonforum shopping was attached to the petition.
_______________
9
Petition, Annex D, supra.
10
Petition, Annex F, supra.

141
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001
141
Finding the contentions untenable, the Court of Appeals

11
dismissed the petition for certiorari in its Resolution
promulgated on September 30, 1996. On May 6, 1997 the
motion for reconsideration
of the said resolution was
12
likewise dismissed.
The only issue raised by herein petitioners in the instant
petition for review is whether or not the respondent Court of
Appeals erred in upholding the questioned orders of the
respondent trial court which denied their motion for the
outright dismissal of the petition for judicial settlement of
estate despite the failure of the petitioners therein to aver
that earnest efforts toward a compromise involving
members of the same family have been made prior to the
filing of the petition but that the same have failed.
Herein petitioners claim that the petition in SP. PROC.
No. 92-63626 is actually an ordinary civil action involving
members of the same family. They point out that it contains
certain averments which, according to them, are indicative
of its adversarial nature, to wit:
xxx
7/14
1/21/2016
Par. 7. One of the surviving sons, ANTONIO MANALO, since the

death of his father, TROADIO MANALO, had not made any
settlement, judicial or extra-judicial of the properties of the deceased
father, TROADIO MANALO.
Par. 8. x x x the said surviving son continued to manage and
control the properties aforementioned, without proper accounting, to
his own benefit and advantage x x x.
xxx
Par. 12. That said ANTONIO MANALO is managing and
controlling the estate of the deceased TROADIO MANALO to his
own advantage and to the damage and prejudice of the herein
petitioners and their coheirs x x x.
xxx
Par. 14. For the protection of their rights and interests,
petitioners were compelled to bring this suit and were forced to
litigate and incur expenses and will continue to incur expenses of
not less than, P250,000.00
_______________
11
Petition, Annex G, supra.
12
Petition, Annex K, supra.
142
142

and engaged the services of herein counsel committing to pay

P200,000.00 as and for attorneys 13fees plus honorarium of
P2,500.00 per appearance in court x x x.
Consequently, according to herein petitioners, the same

should be dismissed under Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the
Revised Rules of Court which provides that a motion to
dismiss a complaint may be filed on the ground that a
condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
complied with, that is, that the petitioners therein failed to
aver in the petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626, that
earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made
involving members of the same family
prior to the filing of
14
the petition pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
The instant petition is not impressed with merit.
It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the
15
nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the
8/14
1/21/2016

15
nature of an action or proceeding,

the averments and the
16
character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition,
as in the case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful scrutiny
of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration,
Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 9263626 belies herein petitioners claim that the same is in the
nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition contains
sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the
settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fact of
death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as
well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his
said death. The fact of death of the decedent and of his
residence within the country are foundation facts upon
which all the subsequent
proceedings in the administration
17
of the estate rest. The petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626
also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs
including a tentative list of the properties left by the
_______________
13
14
Now Article 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
15
De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., 112 SCRA 243,
248 (1982).
16
Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg Leasing
Corporation, 317 SCRA 327, 335 (1999).

17
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Dumlao, 206 SCRA 40, 46
(1992).
143
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001
143
deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate

proceedings. In addition, the reliefs prayed for in the said
petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of
the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) to seek
judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father,
Troadio Manalo, to wit:
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for of
this Honorable Court:
9/14
1/21/2016
(a) That after due hearing, letters of administration be issued to

petitioner ROMEO MANALO for the administration of the
estate of the deceased TROADIO MANALO upon the giving
of a bond in such reasonable sum that this Honorable Court
may fix.
(b) That after all the properties of the deceased TROADIO
MANALO have been inventoried and expenses and just
debts, if any, have been paid and the legal heirs of the
deceased fully determined, that the said estate of TROADIO
MANALO be settled and distributed among the legal heirs
all in accordance with law.
c) That the litigation expenses of these proceedings in the
amount of P250,000.00 and attorneys fees in the amount of
P300,000.00 plus honorarium of P2,500.00 per appearance
in court in the hearing and trial of this case and
costs of suit
18
be taxed solely against ANTONIO MANALO.
Concededly, the petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626

contains certain averments which may be typical of an
ordinary civil action. Herein petitioners, as oppositors
therein, took advantage of the said defect in the petition and
filed their so-called Opposition thereto which, as observed by
the trial court, is actually an Answer containing admissions
and denials, special and affirmative defenses and
compulsory counterclaims for actual, moral
and exemplary
19
damages, plus attorneys fees and costs in an apparent
effort to make out a case of an ordinary civil action and
ultimately seek its dismissal under Rule 16, Section l(j) of
the Rules of Court vis--vis, Article 222 of the Civil Code.
_______________
18
19
Petition, Annex D, Rollo, pp. 39-43.

144
144

It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to

defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the
settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by
raising matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the
10/14
1/21/2016
said petition. It must be emphasized that the trial court,

sitting as 20a probate court, has limited and special
jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral
matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only
in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always
been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a court, as well as
the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the
averments in the complaint and not by the defenses
contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be
too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court
or its
21
proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem. So it
should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate.
Herein petitioners argue that even if the petition in SP.
PROC. No. 92-63626 were to be considered as a special
proceeding for the settlement of estate of a deceased person,
Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court vis--vis Article
222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines would nevertheless
apply as a ground for the dismissal of the same by virtue of
Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which provides that
the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just,
speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding. Petitioners contend that the term proceeding
is so broad that it must necessarily include special
proceedings.
The argument is misplaced. Herein petitioners may not
validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2,
of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222
of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the
petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased Troadio
Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough, to
wit:
_______________
20
Guzman vs. Anog, 37 Phil. 61, 62 (1917); Borja vs. Borja, et al., 101
Phil. 911, 925 (1957) cited in the Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines, Volume V-A Part I, 1970 Ed. By Vicente J. Francisco.
21
Chico vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 33, 36 (1998).

145
VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001
145

11/14
1/21/2016
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of

the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward
a compromise have been made, but that the same have
failed,
22
subject to the limitations in Article 2035 (italics supplied).
The above-quoted provision of the law is applicable only to

ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term suit that
it refers to an action by one person or persons against
another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff
pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the
redress of an injury
or the enforcement of a right, whether
23
at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an action filed in a
court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the
enforcement
of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
24
wrong. Besides, an excerpt from the Report of the Code
Commission unmistakably reveals the intention of the Code
Commission to make that legal provision applicable only to
civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve
members of the same family, thus:
It is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a
litigation between members of the same family. It is necessary that
every effort should be made toward a compromise before a litigation
is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family. It is known that
lawsuit between
close relatives generates deeper bitterness than
25
strangers.
_______________
22
Article 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines now reads:
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it
should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is
shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code.
23
Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., 1990, citing Kohl v. U.S., 91
U.S. 367, 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v. Charleston, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 449,
464, 7 L.Ed. 481; Syracuse Plaster Co. v. Agostini Bros. Bldg.
Corporation, 169 Misc. 564, 7 N.Y. S.2d 897.
24
Rule 1, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court.
25
Report of the Code Commission, p. 18 cited in the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1995 Ed. By

Arturo M. Tolentino, p. 505.
12/14
1/21/2016
146
146

It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein

petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626
for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was
impleaded therein. The Petition for Issuance of Letters of
Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in
SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as
such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek
to
26
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The
petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek
to establish the fact of death of their father and
subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of
the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their
right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the
estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special
jurisdiction of the probate court.
WHEREFORE, the petition in the above-entitled case, is
DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing and
Buena, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.A final decree of distribution of the estate of a
deceased person vests title to the land of the estate in the
distributees, and if the decree is erroneous, it should be
corrected by opportune appeal, for once it becomes final, its
binding effect is like any other judgment in rem.
(Salandanan vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 671 [1998])
An heir becomes owner of his hereditary share the
moment the decedent dies, thus, the lack of judicial approval
does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the heir
has the substantive right to sell the whole or a part of his
share in the estate of the decedent. (Opulencia vs. Court of
Appeals, 293 SCRA 385 [1998])
o0o
_______________
13/14
1/21/2016

26
Rule 1, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court.

147
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
14/14

Vda de Manalo vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda de Manalo vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda de Manalo vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/21/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 129242. January 16, 2001.

PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO,

SECOND DIV ISION.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful scrutiny of the Petition for

VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Motion to Dismiss; A party may not take

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

In CA-G.R. SP No. 39851 promulgated on September 30, 1996,

Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 52-59.

In CA-G.R. S.P. No. 39851 promulgated on May 6, 1997, Petition,

Annex K, Rollo, pp. 70-77.

Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 52-59.

VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

At the time of his death on February 14, 1992, Troadio

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

Several pleadings were subsequently filed by herein

Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 18-25.

Branch 35, Presided by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.

Petition, Annex C, Rollo, pp. 27-34.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

nary hearing their affirmative defenses as grounds for

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

Herein petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule

Petition, Annex D, supra.

Petition, Annex F, supra.

VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

Finding the contentions untenable, the Court of Appeals

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

Par. 7. One of the surviving sons, ANTONIO MANALO, since the

Petition, Annex G, supra.

Petition, Annex K, supra.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and engaged the services of herein counsel committing to pay

Consequently, according to herein petitioners, the same

nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 349

nature of an action or proceeding,

Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 21-23.

Now Article 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., 112 SCRA 243,

Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg Leasing

Corporation, 317 SCRA 327, 335 (1999).

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Dumlao, 206 SCRA 40, 46

VOL. 349, JANUARY 16, 2001

Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals