Vs. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN, Respondent.: G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda.
DE BIASCAN, petitioner,
vs. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN, respondent.
G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000
This is a petition for review of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals affirming the orders
dated of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Manila. These orders dismissed the appeal
of petitioner from the orders of the same Regional Trial Court.
FACTS:
On June 3, 1975, private respondent Rosalina J. Biascan filed a
petition[2] denominated as Special Proceeding No. 98037 at the then Court of First
Instance, Branch 4, Manila praying for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate
estate of Florencio Biascan and Timotea Zulueta. In an Order dated August 13, 1975,
private respondent was appointed as regular administratrix of the estates.
On October 10, 1975, Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, the legal wife of Florencio
Biascan entered her appearance as Oppositor-Movant in SP. Proc. No.
98037.[3] Simultaneous with her appearance, she filed a pleading containing several
motions including a motion for intervention, a motion for the setting aside of private
respondents appointment as special administratrix and administratrix, and a motion for
her appointment as administratrix of the estate of Florencio Biascan.[4]
After an exchange of pleadings between the parties, granted Marias intervention
and set for trial the motion to set aside the Orders appointing respondent as
administratrix.
On April 2, 1981, the trial court issued an Order[6] resolving that: (1) Maria is the
lawful wife of Florencio; (2) respondent and her brother are the acknowledged natural
children of Florencio; (3) all three are the legal heirs of Florencio who are entitled to
participate in the settlement proceedings; (4) the motion to set aside the order
appointing private respondent as administratrix is denied; and (5) the motion to approve
inventory and appraisal of private respondent be deferred. Maria, through her counsel,
received a copy of this April 2, 1981 Order on April 9, 1981.[7]
On June 6, 1981, or fifty-eight (58) days after he receipt of the April 2, 1981 Order,
Maria filed her motion for reconsideration[8] which private respondent opposed.[9]
On November 15, 1981, the fourth floor of the City Hall of Manila was completely
gutted by fire. The records of the settlement proceedings were among those lost in the
fire. Thus, on January 2, 1985, private respondent filed a Petition for Reconstitution[10] of
the said records.
Due to the delay caused by the fire and the reconstitution of the records, it was only
on April 30, 1985 that the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 issued an
Order[11] denying Marias June 6, 1981 Motion for Reconsideration.
Sometime thereafter, Maria died and her testate estate also became the subject of
settlement proceedings. Atty. Marcial F. Lopez was appointed as interim special
administrator and engaged the services of the Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako
Law Offices on Behalf of the estate.
On August 21, 1996, the law firm was allegedly made aware of and given notice of
the April 30, 1985 Order when its associate visited Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila to inquire about the status of the case. The associate checked the records if
there was proof of service of the April 30, 1985 Order to the former counsel of Maria,
Atty. Marcial F. Lopez, but he discovered that there was none.[12] He was able to secure
a certification[13] from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4
which stated that there was no proof of service of the Order dated April 30, 1985
contained in the records of SP. Proc. No. 98037.
A Notice of Appeal[14] dated April 22, 1996 was filed by petitioner from the Orders
dated April 2, 1981 and April 30, 1985 of the trial court. While the said notice of appeal
was dated April 22, 1996, the stamp of the trial court on the first page of the notice
clearly indicated that the same was received by the trial court on September 20, 1996. A
Record of Appeal[15] dated September 20, 1996 was likewise filed by petitioner.
On October 22, 1996, the trial court issued an Order[16] denying petitioners appeal on
the ground that the appeal was filed out of time. The trial court ruled that the April 2,
1981 Order which was the subject of the appeal already became final as the Motion for
Reconsideration thereof was filed sixty-five (65) days after petitioner received the
same. In addition, the court ruled that the notice of appeal itself was filed manifestly late
as the same was filed more than 11 years after the issuance of the June 11, 1985 Order
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration dated
November 13, 1996 of petitioner was likewise denied by the trial court in an
Order[17] dated February 12, 1997.
Not satisfied with this decision, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Mandatory Injunction[18] with the Court of Appeals questioning the October 12, 1996 and
February 12, 1997 Orders of the Regional Trial Court.
In a Decision[19] dated February 16, 1999, the First Division of the Court of Appeals
denied the petition for certiorari of petitioner. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was
likewise denied by the appellate court in a Resolution[20] dated May 18, 1999.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari where petitioner sets forth the following
ground for the reversal of the decision of the appellate court:
ISSUE:
1. Whether the order in April 1981 subject to appeal? Yes

2. Whether the appeal was perfected on time? No
HELD:
1. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates the orders and judgments
in special proceedings which may be the subject of an appeal. Thus:
Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. An
interested person may appeal in a special proceeding from an order or
judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court or a Juvenile and domestic
Relations Court, where such order or judgment:
(a) Allows or disallows a will;
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the
distributive shares of the estate to which such person is entitled;
(c) Allows, or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a
deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a
claim against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a

deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final
determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except
that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special
administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the
substantial rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order granting or
denying a motion for new trial or for reconsideration.
An appeal is allowed in these aforesaid cases as these orders, decrees or

judgments issued by a court in a special proceeding constitute a final determination of
the rights of the parties so appealing.
The ruling of the trial court that Maria, private respondent Rosalina Biascan and
German Biascan were entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings falls squarely
under paragraph (b), Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court as a proper subject of
appeal. By so ruling, the trial court has effectively determined that the three persons are
the lawful heirs of the deceased. As such, the same may be the proper subject of an
appeal.
Similarly, the ruling of the trial court denying petitioners motion to set aside the
order appointing private respondent as the regular administratrix of the estate of
Florencio Bisacan is likewise a proper subject of an appeal. We have previously held
that an order of the trial court appointing a regular administrator of a deceased persons
estate is a final determination of the rights of the parties thereunder, and is thus,
appealable.[24]
It is thus clear that the Order dated April 2, 1981 may be the proper subject of an
appeal in a special proceeding. In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding
for settlement of estate, the period of appeal from any decision or final order rendered
therein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being
required.[26] The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new
trial or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal or a motion
for reconsideration or new trial being perfected, the decision or order becomes final.
With respect to the Order dated April 2, 1981 issued by the trial court, petitioner
admits that Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, its predecessor-in-interest, received a copy
of the same of April 9, 1981. Applying these rules, Maria or her counsel had thirty (30)
days or until May 9 within which to file a notice of appeal with record on appeal. She
may also file a motion for reconsideration, in which case the appeal period is deemed
interrupted.
2. There is no merit in this argument.
It is well-settled that judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of
law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the
lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected[27] or motion for
reconsideration or new trial is filed. As such, it is of no moment that the opposing party
failed to object to the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration or that the court
denied the same on grounds other than timeliness considering that at the time the
motion was filed, the Order dated April 2, 1981 had already become final and
executory. Being final and executory, the trial court can no longer alter, modify, or
reverse the questioned order.[29] The subsequent filing of the motion for reconsideration
cannot disturb the finality of the judgment or order.[30]
The Order of the trial court denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the
April 2, 1981 Order was issued on April 30, 1985. Allegedly, petitioner was only made
aware of this April 30, 1985 Order on August 21, 1996 when it inquired from the trial
court about the status of the case. Giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt that it had
indeed received notice of the order denying its motion for reconsideration on August 21,
1996, it follows that petitioner only had until the following day or on August 22, 1996
within which to perfect the appeal.
At this point, we note with disapproval petitioners attempt to pass off its Notice of
Appeal as having been filed on August 22, 1996. In all its pleadings before this Court
and the Court of Appeals, petitioner insists that its Notice of Appeal was filed the day
after it secured the August 21, 1996 Certification from the trial court. While the Notice of
Appeal was ostensibly dated August 22, 1996, it is clear from the stamp [31] of the trial
court that the same was received only on September 20, 1996. Moreover, in the Order
dated October 22, 1996 of the trial court denying petitioners appeal, the court clearly
stated that the Notice of Appeal with accompanying Record on Appeal was filed on
September 20, 1996.
Considering that it is clear from the records that petitioners notice of appeal was
filed on September 20, 1996, the same was clearly filed out of time as it only had until
August 22, 1996 within which to file the said pleading. And while the rules on special
proceedings recognize that a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal
and record of appeal may be granted,[32]
DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

Vs. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN, Respondent.: G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vs. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN, Respondent.: G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Vs. ROSALINA C. BIASCAN, Respondent.: G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda.

1. Whether the order in April 1981 subject to appeal? Yes

(a) Allows or disallows a will;

(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;

(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a

An appeal is allowed in these aforesaid cases as these orders, decrees or

You might also like