Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Vda de Manalo vs. Ca (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Kayee Kat
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' petition for review regarding the judicial settlement of their deceased father's estate. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's orders, as the petition for judicial settlement of the estate was a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. As a special proceeding, it was the proper remedy for the respondents to establish their rights to the estate. The trial court had proper jurisdiction over the case based on the facts presented regarding the deceased's death and residence.

    Copyright:

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

    Vda de Manalo vs. Ca (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Kayee Kat
    60 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' petition for review regarding the judicial settlement of their deceased father's estate. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's orders, as the petition for judicial settlement of the estate was a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. As a special proceeding, it was the proper remedy for the respondents to establish their rights to the estate. The trial court had proper jurisdiction over the case based on the facts presented regarding the deceased's death and residence.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    VDA DE MANALO VS. CA (2001)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' petition for review regarding the judicial settlement of their deceased father's estate. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's orders, as the petition for judicial settlement of the estate was a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. As a special proceeding, it was the proper remedy for the respondents to establish their rights to the estate. The trial court had proper jurisdiction over the case based on the facts presented regarding the deceased's death and residence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views1 page

    Vda de Manalo vs. Ca (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Kayee Kat
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' petition for review regarding the judicial settlement of their deceased father's estate. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's orders, as the petition for judicial settlement of the estate was a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. As a special proceeding, it was the proper remedy for the respondents to establish their rights to the estate. The trial court had proper jurisdiction over the case based on the facts presented regarding the deceased's death and residence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VDA DE MANALO VS.

    CA (2001)
    Arcilla, Jay

    FACTS:
    Troadio Manalo, a resident of Sampaloc, Manila, died intestate in 1992. He was survived by his
    wife and his eleven children, who are all of legal age. He left several real properties located in Manila and
    in Tarlac including a business- Manalo’s Machine Shop with offices at Quezon City and at Valenzuela. In
    November, the respondents, who are eight of the surviving children filed a petition with the
    RTC for the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father and for the appointment of their brother,
    Romeo, ias administrator thereof. The trial court issued an order setting the said petition for hearing and
    directing the publication of the order for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
    circulation in Metro Manila, and directing service by registered mail of the order. The trial court issued an
    order declaring the whole world in default, except the government, and set the reception of
    evidence of the petitioners.

    However, this order of general default was set aside by the trial court upon motion of the petitioners who
    were granted ten(10) days within which to file their opposition to the petition.

    The trial court called resolved such issues in the following manner:
    1. admitted the opposition for the purpose of considering the merits 2. denied the hearing for such
    affirmative defenses are irrelevant and immaterial 3.declared that the court had jurisdiction 4.denied the
    motion for inhibition 5.) set the application of Romeo Manalo for appointment as regular
    administrator in the for hearing.

    The MR of the petitioners was denied; hence, they filed a petition forcertiorari, contending that:
    (1) the venue was improperly laid; (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, in accordance with Article
    222 of NCC, and (5) no certification of non-forum shopping was attached to the petition.

    CA dismissed; MR was denied. Hence, this petition for review.

    ISSUES:
    W/N CA erred in upholding the questioned orders of the RTC which denied their motion for
    the outright dismissal of the petition for judicial settlement of estate ?

    RULING:
    NO. The 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 respondents seek to establish a status, a
    right, or a particular fact..

    In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the character
    of the relief sought in the complaint shall be controlling. A careful scrutiny of the petition belies the 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 and his residence which are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings
    in the administration of the estate rest. It 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 to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father.

    DISPOSITION:Petition is denied for lack of merit

    You might also like