Pizarro Vs Court of Appeals

FILOMENA G. PIZARRO, MISAEL G. PIZARRO, AURELIO PIZARRO, JR., LUZMINDA G.
PIZARRO,
DELIA-THELMA G. PIZARRO, ROGELIO G. PIZARRO, VIRGILIO G. PIZARRO, ROSALINDA G.
PIZARRO, JOSE ELVIN G. PIZARRO AND MARIA EVELYN G. PIZARRO, PETITIONERS, -versus-THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES, JUDGE OF BRANCH
III OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, HONORABLE VICENTE P. BULLECER, JUDGE
OF BRANCH IV OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, ALFONSO L. ANGLIONGTO JR.,
FELICITAS YAP ANGLIONGTO, GAUDENCIO A. CORIAS, REGALADO C. SALAVADOR, ALICIA P.
LADISLA AND LYDIA P. GUDANI, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. L-31979, FIRST DIVISION, August 6,
1980, MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
Facts:
Petitioner Filomena G. Pizarro, is the surviving spouse of the late Aurelio Pizarro, Sr., while the other
petitioners are their children. The Court, upon agreement of the parties, appointed Gaudencio A.
Corias, Clerk of Court of said Court, as Administrator of the estate. Listed among the properties of
the estate were parcels of land situated in Agdao, J. Palma Gil, and Claro M. Recto Streets, Davao
City.
The Court granted the Motion for Authority to Sell the Agdao and J. Palma Gil properties filed by the
Administrator to settle some debts of the estate initially estimated at P257,361.23. The
Administrator sought the approval of the conditional sale of the Agdao property to Alfonso L.
Angliongto which the heirs countered with a Motion to set aside on the ground that they were
negotiating a more beneficial sale to Mr. Benjamin Gonzales. The Court denied the "Motion to Set
Aside" and approved the sale on February 20, 1967 stating that "the sale sought to be approved was
more beneficial. The Administrator presented another Motion for Authority to Sell the Claro M.
Recto lot which was likewise granted by the Court on March 6, 1967.
The heirs filed a "Motion for Cancellation or Rescission of Conditional Contract of Sale" of the Agdao
lot in favor of Alfonso L. Angliongto for the latter’s failure to pay the full consideration thereof The
Court denied the motion, stating that the relief prayed for is not within its power to grant, and that
the heirs "should file the necessary action before a competent Court
On July 6, 1967, the Administrator presented a "Motion to Approve Final Sale" of the Agdao lot,
which the Court approved on the same. On July 13, 1967, Gaudencio Corias ceased to be
Administrator. 15
Without waiting for the resolution of their Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying
rescission of the sale, the heirs filed a verified Complaint for "Cancellation of Authority to Sell and
Rescission and Annulment of Deed of Sale and Damages with Preliminary Injunction" in the Court of
First Instance of Davao (raffled to Branch III). On April 10, 1968, the trial Court dismissed the
Rescission Case (Civil Case No. 5762) on the ground that it could not review the actuations of a
coordinate Branch of the Court besides the fact that a Motion for Reconsideration was still pending
resolution before the Probate Court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition opining that the Court of First Instance of
Davao, Branch IV, did not abuse its discretion in approving the sale in the Intestate Case (Sp. Proc.
No. 1421). The present Petition before us seeks a reversal of the aforestated findings of the
Appellate Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lower court erred when it refused to order the rescission of the sale?
RULING
Yes. No actuation of the Probate Court had to be reviewed. There is no judicial interference to speak
of by one Court in the actuations of another co-equal Court. The Order authorizing the sale was
issued on February 20, 1967, and on July 6, 1967, the Court gave its stamp of approval to the final
sale. Title was issued in favor of the vendees on July 10, 1967. To all intents and purposes,
therefore, that sale had been consummated; the Order approving the sale, final.
But, what petitioners sought to achieve in filing the Rescission Case was to rescind the sale mainly for
failure of the vendees to pay the full consideration thereof, which is a valid ground for rescission. That
cause of action was within the judicial competence and authority of the trial Court (Branch III) as a Court
of First Instance with exclusive original jurisdiction over civil cases the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation. It was beyond the jurisdictional bounds of the Probate Court
(Branch IV) whose main province was the settlement of the estate. The cause of action in one is
different from that obtaining in the other. It behooved the trial Court, therefore, to have taken
cognizance of and to have heard the Rescission Case on the merits and it was reversible error for
the Court of Appeals to have upheld its dismissal.

Pizarro Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pizarro Vs Court of Appeals

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

Pizarro Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILOMENA G. PIZARRO, MISAEL G. PIZARRO, AURELIO PIZARRO, JR., LUZMINDA G.

You might also like