Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Biascan, Pet Respondent. Estate of MARIA MANUEL Petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. VDA. DE BIASCAN, Respondent Facts

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL BIASCAN, pet respondent.
ESTATE OF
MARIA MANUEL petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. VDA. DE BIASCAN, respondent
FACTS:
Private respondent Rosalina J. Biascan appointed as regular administratrix of the estates of
Florencio Biascan. Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, the legal wife of Florencio Biascan entered
her appearance as Oppositor-Movant in SP. Proc. No. 98037. Simultaneous with her appearance,
she filed a pleading containing several motions including a motion for intervention, a motion for
the setting aside of private respondent’s appointment as special administratrix and administratrix,
and a motion for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of Florencio Biascan. Judge
Serafin Cuevas, then presiding judge of CFI Manila, 5 Branch 4, granted Maria’s intervention and
set for trial the motion to set aside the Orders appointingrespondent as administratrix. On April 2,
1981, the trial court issued an Order 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. On June 6, 1981, or
Fifty-eight (58) days after the receipt of the April 2, 1981 Order, Maria filed her motion for
reconsideration which private respondent opposed. 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. 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 denying Maria’s June 6, 1981 Motion for Reconsideration. Atty. Martial 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. A Notice of Appeal 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. On October 22, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying petitioner’s 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. 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 petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner filed a
Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Mandatory Injunction with the Court of Appeals questioning
the October 12, 1996 and February 12, 1997 Orders of theRegional TrialCourt. Court of Appeals
denied the petition for certiorari and MR.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not private respondent Maria, Rosalina Biascan and German Biascan were
entitled to participate in the settlement proceeding?
2. Whether or not the order dated April 2, 2018 became final and executory despite the fact
that no opposition on its timeliness was filed?
RULING:
1.Yes. 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,
wheresuch 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 claimagainst 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 fornew 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. In contrast, interlocutory orders are not appealable as these are merely incidental to
judicial proceedings. In these cases, the court issuing such orders retains control over the same and
may thus modify, rescind, or revoke the same on sufficient grounds at any time before final
judgment. 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 propersubject of an appeal. Similarly, the ruling of the trial court
denying petitioner’s 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.
2.Yes. 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. 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, thedecision or order becomes final. As
such, when the said motion for reconsideration was filed, there was no more appeal period.
Considering that it was only on June 6, 1981, or a full fifty-eight (58) days after receipt of the
order, that a motion for reconsideration was filed, it is clear that the same was filed out of time. As
such, when the said motion for reconsideration was filed, there was no more appeal period As
such, when the said motion for reconsideration was filed, there was no more appeal period.
It is well-settled that judgments 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 or motion for reconsideration or new trial
is filed. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final
by operation of law. In fact, the trial court could not even validly entertain a motion for
reconsideration filed after the lapse of the period for taking an appeal.

Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Biascan, Pet Respondent. Estate of MARIA MANUEL Petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. VDA. DE BIASCAN, Respondent Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Biascan, Pet Respondent. Estate of MARIA MANUEL Petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. VDA. DE BIASCAN, Respondent Facts

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

Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Biascan, Pet Respondent. Estate of MARIA MANUEL Petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. VDA. DE BIASCAN, Respondent Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL BIASCAN, pet respondent.

You might also like