Rufina Lim vs Court of Appeals

323 SCRA 102 Business Organization Corporation Law Piercing the Veil o Corporate !iction

In 1994, Pastor Lim died. His wife, Rufina Lim petitioned with the lower court, actin as a pro!ate court, for the inclusion of " corporations into the inventor# of the estate of Pastor Lim. $he " corporations were% Auto $ruc& Corporation, Alliance 'ar&etin Corporation, (peed )istri!utin , Inc., Active )istri!utin , Inc. and Action Compan#. Rufina alle ed that the assets of these corporations were owned wholl# !# Pastor* that these corporations themselves are owned !# Pastor and the# are mere dummies of Pastor. $he corporations filed a motion for e+clusion from the estate. $he# presented proof ,$orrens $itles- showin that the assets of the corporations are in their respective names and titles. $he pro!ate court denied their motion. $he Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the pro!ate court. ISSUE: .hether or not the corporations and/or their assets should !e included in the inventor# of the estate. HELD: 0o. As re ards the assets, the corporations were a!le to present their respective $orrens $itles over the disputed assets. It is true that a pro!ate court ma# pass upon the 1uestion ownership al!eit in a provisional manner !ut still, a $orrens $itle cannot !e attac&ed collaterall# in a pro!ate proceedin , it must !e attac&ed directl# in a separate proceedin . As re ards the corporations, to include them in the inventor# is tantamount to the piercin of the veil of corporate fiction !ecause the pro!ate court effectivel# adopted the theor# of Rufina. $his cannot !e done. 2irstl#, the pro!ate court is sittin in a limited capacit#. (econdl#, Rufina was not a!le to present sufficient evidence that indeed the corporations are mere conduits of Pastor. 'ere ownership !# a sin le stoc&holder or !# another corporation of all or nearl# all of the capital stoc& of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disre ardin the fiction of separate corporate personalities. $he veil can3t !e pierced without an# showin that indeed the corporation is !ein used merel# as a dumm#. $o disre ard the separate 4uridical personalit# of a corporation, the wron 5doin must !e clearl# and convincin l# esta!lished. It cannot !e presumed.

G.R. No. 124715

January 24, 2000 RUFINA LUY LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

May a corporation, in its universality, be the proper subject of and be included in the inventory of the estate of a deceased person? Petitioner disputes before us through the instant petition for review on certiorari, the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals pro#ulgated on $ "pril %%&, in !"'() *P +o. ,$& -, which nullified and set aside the orders dated 04 July %%. 2, 2 *epte#ber %%., and . *epte#ber %%.4 of the )egional /rial !ourt of 0ue1on !ity, 2ranch %,, sitting as a probate court. Petitioner )ufina 3uy 3i# is the surviving spouse of late Pastor 4. 3i# whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings in *pecial Proceedings 0'%.'2,,,4, entitled, 56n )e7 6ntestate 8state of Pastor 4. 3i# )ufina 3uy 3i#, represented by (eorge 3uy, Petitioner9. Private respondents "uto /ruc: !orporation, "lliance Mar:eting !orporation, *peed ;istributing, 6nc., "ctive ;istributing, 6nc. and "ction !o#pany are corporations for#ed, organi1ed and e<isting under Philippine laws and which owned real properties covered under the /orrens syste#. =n June %%4, Pastor 4. 3i# died intestate. >erein petitioner, as surviving spouse and duly represented by her

nephew (eorge 3uy, filed on - March %%., a joint petition . for the ad#inistration of the estate of Pastor 4. 3i# before the )egional /rial !ourt of 0ue1on !ity. Private respondent corporations, whose properties were included in the inventory of the estate of Pastor 4. 3i#, then filed a #otion& for the lifting of lis pendens and #otion- for e<clusion of certain properties fro# the estate of the decedent. 6n an order$ dated 0$ June %%., the )egional /rial !ourt of 0ue1on !ity, 2ranch %,, sitting as a probate court, granted the private respondents? twin #otions, in this wise7 @herefore, the )egister of ;eeds of 0ue1on !ity is hereby ordered to lift, e<punge or delete the annotation of lis pendens on /ransfer !ertificates of /itle +os. &- &, &- -, &- $, &- % and . $2 and it is hereby further ordered that the properties covered by the sa#e titles as well as those properties by A sicB /ransfer !ertificate of /itle +os. & ,4%4, ,&, 2,, 2,&2,& and 2&,2,& are e<cluded fro# these proceedings. *= =);8)8;.

*ubseCuently, )ufina 3uy 3i# filed a verified a#ended petition % which contained the following aver#ents7 ,. /he late Pastor 4. 3i# personally owned during his lifeti#e the following business entities, to wit7 ,. "lthough the above business entities dealt and engaged in business with the public as corporations, all their capital, assets and eCuity were however, personally owned by the late Pastor 4 3i#. >ence the alleged stoc:holders and officers appearing in the respective articles of incorporation of the above business entities were #ere du##ies of Pastor 4. 3i#, and they were listed therein only for purposes of registration with the *ecurities and 8<change !o##ission. 4. Pastor 3i#, li:ewise, had /i#e, *avings and !urrent ;eposits with the following ban:s7 AaB Metroban:, (race Par:, !aloocan !ity and 0ue1on "venue, 0ue1on !ity 2ranches and AbB Dirst 6ntestate 2an: Afor#erly Producers 2an:B, )i1al !o##ercial 2an:ing !orporation and in other ban:s whose identities are yet to be deter#ined. .. /hat the following real properties, although registered in the na#e of the above entities, were actually acCuired by Pastor 4. 3i# during his #arriage with petitioner, to wit7 Corporation Title Location *to. :. "uto /ruc: /!/ +o. & --2& ;o#ingo /2"

!orporation !ainta, )i1al

C. "lliance Mar:eting

/!/ +o. 2-$%&

Prance, Metro Manila

!opies of the above'#entioned /ransfer !ertificate of /itle andEor /a< ;eclarations are hereto attached as "nne<es 5!9 to 5@9. -. /he afore#entioned properties andEor real interests left by the late Pastor 4. 3i#, are all conjugal in nature, having been acCuired by hi# during the e<istence of his #arriage with petitioner. $. /here are other real and personal properties owned by Pastor 4. 3i# which petitioner could not as yet identify. Petitioner, however will sub#it to this >onorable !ourt the identities thereof and the necessary docu#ents covering the sa#e as soon as possible. =n 04 July %%., the )egional /rial !ourt acting on petitioner?s #otion issued an order 0, thus7 @herefore, the order dated 0$ June %%. is hereby set aside and the )egistry of ;eeds of 0ue1on !ity is hereby directed to reinstate the annotation of lis pendens in case said annotation had already been deleted andEor cancelled said /!/ +os. &- &, &- -, &- $, &- % and . 2$2.

Durther#ore AsicB, said properties covered by /!/ +os. & ,4%4, ,&. 2,, 2,&2.& and 2,&2,- by virtue of the petitioner are included in the instant petition. *= =);8)8;. =n 04 *epte#ber %%., the probate court appointed )ufina 3i# as special ad#inistrator and Miguel 3i# and 3awyer ;onald 3ee, as co'special ad#inistrators of the estate of Pastor 4. 3i#, after which letters of ad#inistration were accordingly issued.

6n an order 2 dated 2 *epte#ber %%., the probate court denied anew private respondents? #otion for e<clusion, in this wise7 /he issue precisely raised by the petitioner in her petition is whether the corporations are the #ere alter egos or instru#entalities of Pastor 3i#, =therwise A sicB stated, the issue involves the piercing of the corporate veil, a #atter that is clearly within the jurisdiction of this >onorable !ourt and not the *ecurities and 8<change !o##ission. /hus, in the case of Cease vs. Court of Appeals , %, *!)" 4$,, the crucial issue decided by the regular court was whether the corporation involved therein was the #ere e<tension of the decedent. "fter finding in the affir#ative, the !ourt ruled that the assets of the corporation are also assets of the estate. " reading of P.;. %02, the law relied upon by oppositors, shows that the *8!?s e<clusive A sicB applies only to intra' corporate controversy. 6t is si#ply a suit to settle the intestate estate of a deceased person who, during his lifeti#e, acCuired several properties and put up corporations as his instru#entalities. *= =);8)8;. =n . *epte#ber %%., the probate court acting on an ex parte #otion filed by petitioner, issued an order , the dispositive portion of which reads7 @herefore, the parties and the following ban:s concerned herein under enu#erated are hereby ordered to co#ply strictly with this order and to produce and sub#it to the special ad#inistrators, through this >onorable !ourt within A.B five days fro# receipt of this order their respective records of the savingsEcurrent accountsEti#e deposits and other deposits in the na#es of Pastor 3i# andEor corporations above'#entioned, showing all the transactions #ade or done concerning savingsEcurrent accounts fro# January %%4 up to their receipt of this court order. *= =);8)8;. Private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari 4, with an urgent prayer for a restraining order or writ of preli#inary injunction, before the !ourt of "ppeals Cuestioning the orders of the )egional /rial !ourt, sitting as a probate court. =n $ "pril %%&, the !ourt of "ppeals, finding in favor of herein private respondents, rendered the assailed decision ., the decretal portion of which declares7 @herefore, pre#ises considered, the instant special civil action for certiorari is hereby granted, the i#pugned orders issued by respondent court on July 4, %%. and *epte#ber 2, %%. are hereby nullified and set aside. /he i#pugned order issued by respondent on *epte#ber ., %%. is nullified insofar as petitioner corporations9 ban: accounts and records are concerned. *= =);8)8;. /hrough the e<pediency of )ule 4. of the )ules of !ourt, herein petitioner )ufina 3uy 3i# now co#es before us with a lone assign#ent of error &7 /he respondent !ourt of "ppeals erred in reversing the orders of the lower court which #erely allowed the preli#inary or provisional inclusion of the private respondents as part of the estate of the late deceased A sicB Pastor 4. 3i# with the respondent !ourt of "ppeals arrogating unto itself the power to repeal, to disobey or to ignore the clear and e<plicit provisions of )ules $ ,$,,$4 and $- of the )ules of !ourt and thereby preventing the petitioner, fro# perfor#ing her duty as special ad#inistrator of the estate as e<pressly provided in the said )ules. Petitioner?s contentions tread on perilous grounds. 6n the instant petition for review, petitioner prays that we affir# the orders issued by the probate court which were subseCuently set aside by the !ourt of "ppeals.

4et, before we delve into the #erits of the case, a review of the rules on jurisdiction over probate proceedings is indeed in order. /he provisions of )epublic "ct -&% a#ended to read as follows7 *ec. %. Jurisdiction in civil cases. )egional /rial !ourts shall e<ercise e<clusive jurisdiction7 A4B 6n all #atters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate e<ceeds =ne >undred /housand Pesos AP 00,000B or, in probate #atters in Metro Manila, where such gross value e<ceeds /wo >undred /housand Pesos AP200,000BG *ec. ,. *ection ,, of the sa#e law is hereby a#ended to read as follows7 *ec. ,,. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan /rial !ourts, Municipal /rial !ourts and Municipal !ircuit /rial !ourts in !ivil !ases. H Metropolitan /rial !ourts, Municipal /rial !ourts and Municipal !ircuit /rial !ourts shall e<ercise7 . 8<clusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional re#edies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate or a#ount of the de#and does not e<ceed =ne >undred /housand Pesos AP 00,000B or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate or a#ount of the de#and does not e<ceed /wo >undred /housand Pesos AP200,000B, e<clusive of interest, da#ages of whatever :ind, attorney?s fees, litigation e<penses and costs, the a#ount of which #ust be specifically alleged, Provided, that interest, da#ages of whatever :ind, attorney?s, litigation e<penses and costs shall be included in the deter#ination of the filing fees, Provided further, that where there are several clai#s or causes of actions between the sa#e or different parties, e#bodied in the sa#e co#plaint, the a#ount of the de#and shall be the totality of the clai#s in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the sa#e or different transactionsG *i#ply put, the deter#ination of which court e<ercises jurisdiction over #atters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent. "s to the power and authority of the probate court, petitioner relies heavily on the principle that a probate court #ay pass upon title to certain properties, albeit provisionally, for the purpose of deter#ining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory. 6n a litany of cases, @e defined the para#eters by which the court #ay e<tend its probing ar#s in the deter#ination of the Cuestion of title in probate proceedings. /his !ourt, in PASTOR, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, $ held7 . . . "s a rule, the Cuestion of ownership is an e<traneous #atter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. /hus, for the purpose of deter#ining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate !ourt #ay pass upon the title thereto, but such deter#ination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. @e reiterated the rule in PERE RA vs. COURT OF APPEALS %7 . . . /he function of resolving whether or not a certain property should be included in the inventory or list of properties to be ad#inistered by the ad#inistrator is one clearly within the co#petence of the probate court. >owever, the court?s
-

, which introduced a#end#ents to 2atas Pa#bansa 2lg. 2%, are pertinent7

*ec. . *ection % of 2atas Pa#bansa 2lg. 2%, otherwise :nown as the 5Judiciary )eorgani1ation "ct of %$0F, is hereby

deter#ination is only provisional in character, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action which #ay be instituted by the parties. Durther, in !ORALES vs. CF OF CA" TE20 citing CU #O$ vs. RA!OLETE2 , @e #ade an e<position on the probate court?s li#ited jurisdiction7 6t is a well'settled rule that a probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or deter#ine title to properties clai#ed to be a part of the estate and which are eCually clai#ed to belong to outside parties. "ll that the said court could do as regards said properties is to deter#ine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be ad#inistered by the ad#inistrator. 6f there is no dispute, well and goodG but if there is, then the parties, the ad#inistrator and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final deter#ination of the conflicting clai#s of title because the probate court cannot do so. "gain, in "ALERA vs. $SERTO22, @e had occasion to elucidate, through Mr. Justice "ndres +arvasa 2,7 *ettled is the rule that a !ourt of Dirst 6nstance Anow )egional /rial !ourtB, acting as a probate court, e<ercises but li#ited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to ta:e cogni1ance of and deter#ine the issue of title to property clai#ed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the clai#ant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, e<pressly or i#pliedly, to the sub#ission of the Cuestion to the probate court for adjudg#ent, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced, the reason for the e<ception being that the Cuestion of whether or not a particular #atter should be resolved by the court in the e<ercise of its general jurisdiction or of its li#ited jurisdiction as a special court Ae.%. probate, land registration, etc.B, is in reality not a jurisdictional but in essence of procedural one, involving a #ode of practice which #ay be waived. . . . . . . . /hese considerations assu#e greater cogency where, as here, the /orrens title is not in the decedent?s na#e but in others, a situation on which this !ourt has already had occasion to rule . . . . Ae#phasis =ursB Petitioner, in the present case, argues that the parcels of land covered under the /orrens syste# and registered in the na#e of private respondent corporations should be included in the inventory of the estate of the decedent Pastor 4. 3i#, alleging that after all the deter#ination by the probate court of whether these properties should be included or not is #erely provisional in nature, thus, not conclusive and subject to a final deter#ination in a separate action brought for the purpose of adjudging once and for all the issue of title. 4et, under the peculiar circu#stances, where the parcels of land are registered in the na#e of private respondent corporations, the jurisprudence pronounced in &OL SA' vs., ALC ( 24 is of great essence and finds applicability, thus7 6t does not #atter that respondent'ad#inistratri< has evidence purporting to support her clai# of ownership, for, on the other hand, petitioners have a /orrens title in their favor, which under the law is endowed with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the #anner indicated in the law itself, which of course, does not include, bringing up the #atter as a #ere incident in special proceedings for the settle#ent of the estate of deceased persons. . . . . . . . 6n regard to such incident of inclusion or e<clusion, @e hold that if a property covered by /orrens title is involved, the presu#ptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong co#pelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or #odified in an appropriate ordinary action, particularly, when as in the case at bar, possession of the property itself is in the persons na#ed in the title. . . .

" perusal of the records would reveal that no strong co#pelling evidence was ever presented by petitioner to bolster her bare assertions as to the title of the deceased Pastor 4. 3i# over the properties. 8ven so, P.;. .2%, otherwise :nown as, 5/he Property )egistration ;ecree9, proscribes collateral attac: on /orrens /itle, hence7 *ec. 4$. Certificate not su)*ect to collateral attac+ . H " certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attac:. 6t cannot be altered, #odified or cancelled e<cept in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. 6n CU #O$ vs. RA!OLETE, where si#ilarly as in the case at bar, the property subject of the controversy was duly registered under the /orrens syste#, @e categorically stated7 . . . >aving been apprised of the fact that the property in Cuestion was in the possession of third parties and #ore i#portant, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in the na#e of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the #otion of the respondent ad#inistrator and e<cluded the property in Cuestion fro# the inventory of the property of the estate. 6t had no authority to deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property. . . . 6nas#uch as the real properties included in the inventory of the estate of the 3ate Pastor 4. 3i# are in the possession of and are registered in the na#e of private respondent corporations, which under the law possess a personality separate and distinct fro# their stoc:holders, and in the absence of any cogency to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presu#ption of conclusiveness of said titles in favor of private respondents should stand undisturbed. "ccordingly, the probate court was re#iss in denying private respondents? #otion for e<clusion. @hile it #ay be true that the )egional /rial !ourt, acting in a restricted capacity and e<ercising li#ited jurisdiction as a probate court, is co#petent to issue orders involving inclusion or e<clusion of certain properties in the inventory of the estate of the decedent, and to adjudge, albeit, provisionally the Cuestion of title over properties, it is no less true that such authority conferred upon by law and reinforced by jurisprudence, should be e<ercised judiciously, with due regard and caution to the peculiar circu#stances of each individual case. +otwithstanding that the real properties were duly registered under the /orrens syste# in the na#e of private respondents, and as such were to be afforded the presu#ptive conclusiveness of title, the probate court obviously opted to shut its eyes to this glea#y fact and still proceeded to issue the i#pugned orders. 2y its denial of the #otion for e<clusion, the probate court in effect acted in utter disregard of the presu#ption of conclusiveness of title in favor of private respondents. !ertainly, the probate court through such bra1en act transgressed the clear provisions of law and infringed settled jurisprudence on this #atter. Moreover, petitioner urges that not only the properties of private respondent corporations are properly part of the decedent?s estate but also the private respondent corporations the#selves. /o rivet such fli#sy contention, petitioner cited that the late Pastor 4. 3i# during his lifeti#e, organi1ed and wholly'owned the five corporations, which are the private respondents in the instant case. 2. Petitioner thus attached as "nne<es 5D9 2& and 5(92- of the petition for review affidavits e<ecuted by /eresa 3i# and 3ani @enceslao which a#ong others, contained aver#ents that the incorporators of Iniwide ;istributing, 6nc. included on the list had no actual and participation in the organi1ation and incorporation of the said corporation. /he affiants added that the persons whose na#es appeared on the articles of incorporation of Iniwide ;istributing, 6nc., as incorporators thereof, are #ere du##ies since they have not actually contributed any a#ount to the capital stoc: of the corporation and have been #erely as:ed by the late Pastor 4. 3i# to affi< their respective signatures thereon.

6t is settled that a corporation is clothed with personality separate and distinct fro# that of the persons co#posing it. 6t #ay not generally be held liable for that of the persons co#posing it. 6t #ay not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of its stoc:holders or those of the entities connected with it. 2$ )udi#entary is the rule that a corporation is invested by law with a personality distinct and separate fro# its stoc:holders or #e#bers. 6n the sa#e vein, a corporation by legal fiction and convenience is an entity shielded by a protective #antle and i#bued by law with a character alien to the persons co#prising it. +onetheless, the shield is not at all ti#es invincible. /hus, in F RST P, L PP $E $TER$AT O$AL &A$- vs. COURT OF APPEALS2%, @e enunciated7 . . . @hen the fiction is urged as a #eans of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an e<isting obligation, the circu#vention of statutes, the achieve#ent or perfection of a #onopoly or generally the perpetration of :navery or cri#e, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation fro# the #e#bers or stoc:holders who co#pose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration #erely as an aggregation of individuals. . . . Piercing the veil of corporate entity reCuires the court to see through the protective shroud which e<e#pts its stoc:holders fro# liabilities that ordinarily, they could be subject to, or distinguishes one corporation fro# a see#ingly separate one, were it not for the e<isting corporate fiction.,0 /he corporate #as: #ay be lifted and the corporate veil #ay be pierced when a corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation. @here badges of fraud e<ist, where public convenience is defeatedG where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, the corporate fiction or the notion of legal entity should co#e to naught. , Durther, the test in deter#ining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows7 B !ontrol, not #ere #ajority or co#plete stoc: control, but co#plete do#ination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attac:ed so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the ti#e no separate #ind, will or e<istence of its ownG A2B *uch control #ust have been used by the defendant to co##it fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal rightG and A,B /he aforesaid control and breach of duty #ust pro<i#ately cause the injury or unjust loss co#plained of. /he absence of any of these ele#ents prevent 5piercing the corporate veil9. ,2 Mere ownership by a single stoc:holder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stoc: of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities. ,, Moreover, to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrong'doing #ust be clearly and convincingly established. 6t cannot be presu#ed.,4 (ranting ar%uendo that the )egional /rial !ourt in this case was not #erely acting in a li#ited capacity as a probate court, petitioner nonetheless failed to adduce co#petent evidence that would have justified the court to i#pale the veil of corporate fiction. /ruly, the reliance reposed by petitioner on the affidavits e<ecuted by /eresa 3i# and 3ani @enceslao is unavailing considering that the afore#entioned docu#ents possess no weighty probative value pursuant to the hearsay rule. 2esides it is i#perative for us to stress that such affidavits are inad#issible in evidence inas#uch as the affiants were not at all presented during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. /o put it differently, for this !ourt to uphold the ad#issibility of said docu#ents would be to relegate fro# =ur duty to apply such basic rule of evidence in a #anner consistent with the law and jurisprudence. =ur pronounce#ent in PEOPLE &A$- A$( TRUST CO!PA$' vs. LEO$ (AS,. finds pertinence7 "ffidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant?s state#ents, which #ay thus be either o#itted or #isunderstood by the one writing the#. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross'e<a#ine the affiants. Dor this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant the#selves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.

"s to the order,& of the lower court, dated . *epte#ber %%., the !ourt of "ppeals correctly observed that the )egional /rial !ourt, 2ranch %, acted without jurisdiction in issuing said orderG /he probate court had no authority to de#and the production of ban: accounts in the na#e of the private respondent corporations. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disCuisitions, the instant petition is hereby ;6*M6**8; for lac: of #erit and the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals which nullified and set aside the orders issued by the )egional /rial !ourt, 2ranch %,, acting as a probate court, dated 04 July %%. and 2 *epte#ber %%. is AFFIRMED.

[G.R. NO. 167321 : July 31, 2006] EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ, REGIONA !RIA COUR!, "RANC# 22$, %UEZON CI!& '() A!!&. !EODORICO A. A%UINO, Respondents. Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 8 !"8 #is$issin% the Petition for Certiorari with Pra&er for 'ssuan(e of a )e$porar& Restrainin% *r#er an#+or ,rit of Preli$inar& 'n-un(tion of petitioner .pifanio San /uan, /r., as well as its Resolution 0 #en&in% the $otion for re(onsi#eration thereof. !*+ A(,+-+)+(,. 1oreto Sa$ia San /uan e2e(ute# a 1ast ,ill an# )esta$ent na$in% *s(ar Casa as one of the #evisees therein. 3pon 1oreto4s #eath on *(to5er 0", 1688, Att&. )eo#ori(o A. A7uino file# a petition for the pro5ate of the will in the Re%ional )rial Court (R)C) of 8ue9on Cit&. )he (ase was raffle# to Bran(h 00! of the (ourt an# was #o(:ete# as Spe(ial Pro(ee#in%s No. 68-;<118. ,hile the petition was pen#in%, *s(ar Casa #ie# intestate on =a& 0!, 1666. )he fir$ of A7uino, Galan%, 1u(as, .spino9a, =iran#a > Asso(iates entere# their appearan(e as (ounsel of ?e#eri(o Casa, /r., who (lai$e# to 5e one of the heirs of *s(ar Casa an# their representative. *n Au%ust 1!, 0@@0, the pro5ate (ourt issue# an *r#er #en&in% the entr& of appearan(e of sai# law fir$, (onsi#erin% that ?e#eri(o Casa, /r. was not the e2e(utor or a#$inistrator of the estate of the #evisee, hen(e, (annot 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease# as his representative as re7uire# 5& Se(tion 1<, Rule ; of the Rules of Court. *n

Nove$5er 00, 0@@0, the (ourt issue# an or#er #ire(tin% A7uino to se(ure the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor of the estate of *s(ar Casa in or#er that the appointee 5e su5stitute# in lieu of the sai# #e(ease#. *n ?e5ruar& 0<, 0@@;, A7uino file# a plea#in% entitle# AAppoint$ent of A#$inistratorA si%ne# 5& Can#elaria, /esus, Arl&n, Nestor, .#na, Benhur, ?e#eri(o, Rafael an# =a. .#en, all surna$e# Casa, on ?e5ruar& 0!, 0@@;, pra&in% that one of the$, ?e#eri(o Casa, /r., 5e #esi%nate# as a#$inistrator of the estate of the #e(ease# an# that he 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#. N*, )B.R.?*R., in (o$plian(e with the *RC.R of the Pro5ate Court, (ite# a5ove, we, the le%al heirs of the #e(ease# *SCAR CASA, unani$ousl& #esi%nate an# appoint ?.C.R'C* CASA, /R., as the AC='N'S)RA)*R of the propert& to 5e inherite# 5& the #e(ease# *SCAR CASA, in the ,'11 of the late 1*R.)* SA='A SAN /3AN, (onsi#erin% that ?.C.R'C* CASA, /R., is the nearest a((essi5le heir to atten# the hearin% of the pro5ate of the will an# is $ost (o$petent to assu$e the responsi5ilities an# the #uties of the AC='N'S)RA)*R. ,e authori9e hi$ to represent us the heirs of the #e(ease# *SCAR CASA, on the hearin% of the pro5ate of the will of the testatri2 an# to perfor$ su(h #uties as $i%ht 5e re7uire# 5& the Pro5ate CourtD to ta:e possession of the properties #esi%nate# in the ,'11 upon #istri5ution 5& the appointe# AC='N'S)RA)*R of the .state of 1*R.)* SA='A SAN /3AN. ( emphasis supplied); 'n (o$plian(e with the or#er of the (ourt, .pifanio San /uan file# a A=otion to Ce(lare Appoint$ent of A#$inistrator As 'na#e7uate or 'nsuffi(ient.A! Be $aintaine# that the heirs shoul# present an a#$inistrator of the estate of *s(ar Casa as the representative of the estate in the (ase. 'n his repl&, A7uino state# that, un#er Se(tion 1<, Rule ; of the Rules of Court, the heirs of *s(ar Casa $a& 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease# without nee# for appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor of the estate. Be also (lai$e# that the (ourt is en-oine# to re7uire the representative to appear 5efore the (ourt an# 5e su5stitute# within the pres(ri5e# perio#. *n Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@;, the R)C issue# an *r#er #en&in% the $otion of San /uan. Contrar& to its *r#er #ate# Nove$5er 00, 0@@0, the (ourt hel# that there was, after all, no nee# for the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor as su5stitute for the #e(ease# #evisee. 't is enou%h, the (ourt #e(lare#, that a representative 5e appointe# as provi#e# in Se(tion 1<, Rule ; of the Rules of Court. " San /uan re(eive# a (op& of the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er on Ce(e$5er 1", 0@@; an# file#, on Ce(e$5er ;@, 0@@;, a $otion for re(onsi#eration thereof. Citin% the rulin% of this Court in Lawas v. Court of Appeals,< he averre# that, un#er Se(tion 1<, Rule ; of the Rules of Court, while the (ourt $a& allow the heirs of the #e(ease# to 5e su5stitute# in (ases of unreasona5le #ela& in the appoint$ent of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator, or where the heirs resort to an e2tra-u#i(ial settle$ent of the estate, priorit& is still %iven to the le%al representative of the #e(ease#, that is, the e2e(utor or a#$inistrator of the estate. =oreover, in (ase the heirs of the #e(ease# will 5e su5stitute#, there $ust 5e a prior #eter$ination 5& the pro5ate (ourt of who the ri%htful heirs are. Be opine# that this #o(trine is in line with Arti(le 1@"8 of the New Civil Co#e, an# the provisions of Se(tion <, Rule 8 an# Se(tion 0, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. 'n this (ase, however, the alle%e# heirs of *s(ar Casa #i# not file an& petition for the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator of his estateD hen(e, ?e#eri(o Casa, /r. is not 7ualifie# to 5e appointe# as su5stitute for the #e(ease# #evisee. San /uan pointe# out that the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er of the pro5ate (ourt (ontravene# its Au%ust 1!, 0@@0 an# Nove$5er 00, 0@@0 *r#ers.

)he $otion for re(onsi#eration was #enie# on ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@! where the pro5ate (ourt #e(lare# that it ha# (arefull& evaluate# the ar%u$ents raise# 5& the parties an# foun# no (o$pellin% %roun# or (o%ent reason to set asi#e its Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er.8 Petitioner re(eive# a (op& of the *r#er on =ar(h 18, 0@@!. *n =a& , 0@@!, San /uan file# a =otion to A#$it his se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration #ate# =a& <, 0@@!, appen#in% thereto the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er of the R)C. 6 Be (ite#Torres, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,1@ where it was hel# that the purpose 5ehin# the rule on su5stitution of parties is the prote(tion of the ri%ht of ever& part& to #ue pro(ess, to ensure that the #e(ease# part& woul# (ontinue to 5e properl& represente# in the suit throu%h the #ul& appointe# le%al representative of his estate. )he nee# for su5stitution of heirs is 5ase# on the ri%ht to #ue pro(ess a((ruin% to ever& part& in an& pro(ee#in%, an# the e2er(ise of -u#i(ial power to hear an# #eter$ine a (ause presupposes that the trial (ourt a(7uires -uris#i(tion over the persons of the parties. San /uan e$phasi9e# that it is onl& in the a5sen(e of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator that the heirs $a& 5e allowe# 5& the (ourt to su5stitute the #e(ease# part&. Be averre# that the purporte# heirs si$pl& a%ree# a$on% the$selves to appoint a representative to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#, whi(h is (ontrar& to the re7uire$ent of a prior hearin% for the (ourt to as(ertain who the ri%htful heirs are. )he *r#ers of the Court #ate# Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; an# ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@! $a& 5e use# 5& purporte# heirs in or#er to AinheritA properties fro$ estates of #e(ease# parties, whi(h will then allow the rules of pro(e#ure to 5e use# as an instru$ent for frau# an# un#er$inin% #ue pro(ess. 11 San /uan reiterate# the rulin%s of this Court in Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals10 an# Lawas v. Court of Appeals,1; that (ourt pro(ee#in%s (on#u(te# or (ontinue# without a vali# su5stitution of a #e(ease# part& (annot 5e a((or#e# vali#it& an# 5in#in% effe(t. Be pra&e# that the ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@! *r#er 5e re(onsi#ere# an# a new or#er 5e issue# as followsE (a) #e(larin% the AAppoint$ent of A#$inistratorA #ate# ?e5ruar& 1!, 0@@; insuffi(ient or ina#e7uate (o$plian(e with the rules of pro(e#ure on su5stitution of a #e(ease# part&D (5) #ire(tin% petitioner to se(ure fro$ the appropriate (ourt the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator of the estate of the #e(ease# *s(ar CasaD an#
(ralawli5rar&

(() #ire(tin% that further pro(ee#in%s in the (ase 5e #eferre# until after the su5stitution of the #e(ease# *s(ar Casa 5& the (ourt-appointe# a#$inistrator or e2e(utor of his estate. *ppositor pra&s for other an# further reliefs whi(h $a& 5e -ust an# e7uita5le. 1! *n /une 11, 0@@!, the pro5ate (ourt issue# an or#er #en&in% the se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration of San /uan. 't note# that the $otion $erel& reiterate# the sa$e ar%u$ents in his first $otion for re(onsi#eration whi(h ha# alrea#& 5een passe# upon. Citin% the rulin%s in Monta ano v. !uesa1" an# Riera v. Palmanori,1< it (on(lu#e# that there was no nee# for the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator of the estate of the #e(ease# *s(ar Casa at that sta%e of the pro(ee#in%s sin(e a le%atee is not (onsi#ere# either as an in#ispensa5le or ne(essar& part& in the pro5ate of a will. 1 ,hen San /uan re(eive# a (op& of the /une 11, 0@@! *r#er of the trial (ourt, he file#, on /ul& 0;, 0@@!, a $otion for re(onsi#eration thereof. Be too: e2(eption to the pro5ate (ourt4s relian(e in the Monta ano an# Riera (ases, as (lai$in% that sai# rulin%s were not relevant to the issue of the vali#it& of the appoint$ent of ?e#eri(o Casa /r., 5& the alle%e# heirs of *s(ar Casa, as a#$inistrator an# su5stitute for the #e(ease# #evisee. Be insiste# that the (ases #ealt onl& with the 7uestion of whether or not the pro5ate (ourt (an rule on the vali#it& of the provisions of the willD the& #o not involve the sa$e issue presente# 5& the oppositor, na$el&, whether or not a su5stitution of a le%atee un#er the will who #ie# #urin% the pro5ate pro(ee#in%s $a& 5e #one 5& si$pl& su5$ittin% an AAppoint$ent of A#$inistrator,A or

whether or not there is a nee# for a #e(ease# le%atee to 5e su5stitute# 5& his+her #ul& appointe# le%al representative or a#$inistrator of his estate. San /uan further posite# that the estate (ourt, sittin% as a pro5ate (ourt, #oes not onl& #e(i#e on the 7uestions of i#entit& an# testa$entar& (apa(it& of the testator an# the #ue e2e(ution of the willD it is li:ewise (har%e# with the settle$ent of the estate of the testator after the will has 5een approve#. )hus, the pro5ate (ourt $ust not onl& #eter$ine the vali#it& of the will, 5ut also the ri%htful heirs, le%atees an# #evisees for the purpose of settlin% the estate of the testator.18 A7uino oppose# the $otion, (onten#in% that it was, in fa(t, a thir# $otion for re(onsi#eration, a prohi5ite# plea#in% un#er Se(tion ;, Rule ; of the 166 Rules of Civil Pro(e#ure. 16 *n Septe$5er 8, 0@@!, the pro5ate (ourt issue# an *r#er sustainin% A7uino4s ar%u$ent an# #enie# the $otion for re(onsi#eration of San /uan.0@ San /uan, now petitioner, file# a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on Nove$5er 00, 0@@! for the nullifi(ation of the or#ers issue# 5& the pro5ate (ourt on the followin% %roun#sE A. )B. R.SP*NC.N) R.G'*NA1 )R'A1 C*3R) *? 83.F*N C')G GRAH.1G AB3S.C ')S C'SCR.)'*N ,B'CB A=*3N)S )* 1ACI, *R 'N .JC.SS, *? /3R'SC'C)'*N 'N R31'NG )BA) )B. AAPP*'N)=.N) *? AC='N'S)RA)*RA CA).C ?.BR3ARG 1!, 0@@; =AC. BG PR'HA). R.SP*NC.N) 'S 'N ACC*RCANC. ,')B )B. R31.S *N C'H'1 PR*C.C3R. *N PR*P.R S3BS)')3)'*N *? PAR)'.S. B. )B. R.SP*NC.N) R.G'*NA1 )R'A1 C*3R) *? 83.F*N C')G GRAH.1G AB3S.C ')S C'SCR.)'*N ,B'CB A=*3N)S )* 1ACI, *R 'N .JC.SS, *? /3R'SC'C)'*N 'N C.NG'NG C3. C*3RS. )* P.)')'*N.R4S =*)'*N ?*R R.C*NS'C.RA)'*N *N )B. GR*3NC )BA) SA'C =*)'*N 'S A )B'RC =*)'*N ?*R R.C*NS'C.RA)'*N ,B'CB 'S A PR*B'B').C P1.AC'NG 3NC.R S.C. ", R31. ; *? )B. R31.S *? C*3R). 01 *n Ce(e$5er 1, 0@@!, the CA #is$isse# the petition on the %roun# that it was file# 5e&on# the <@-#a& perio# (ounte# fro$ noti(e to petitioner of the trial (ourt4s ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@! *r#er. )he appellate (ourt #e(lare# that the =a& <, 0@@! $otion for re(onsi#eration of petitioner was a pro forma $otion 5e(ause it was a se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration whi(h sou%ht the sa$e relief as the first $otion, hen(e, #i# not toll the runnin% of the <@-#a& perio#.00 )he appellate (ourt (ite# the rulin% of this Court in "niversit# of $mma%ulate Con%ep%ion v. !e%retar# of La&or and 'mplo#ment.0; Petitioner file# a $otion for re(onsi#eration of the resolution of the CA, (onten#in% that the or#ers sou%ht to 5e re(onsi#ere# 5& hi$ were interlo(utor&, hen(e, (annot 5e (onsi#ere# pro for$a or for5i##en 5& the Rules of Court. Be (ite# the rulin%s of this Court in Dizon v. Court of Appeals,0! Phil(reen Tradin( Constru%tion Corporation v. Court of Appeals,0" an# the (ases (ite# in the latter #e(ision.0< Bowever, on ?e5ruar& 0!, 0@@", the CA resolve# to #en& the $otion of petitioner.0 Petitioner now see:s relief fro$ this Court, via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, for the reversal of the resolutions of the appellate (ourt. Be raises the followin% issuesE (A)

,B.)B.R *R N*) )B. S'J)G-CAG P.R'*C ?*R ?'1'NG A P.)')'*N ?*R C.R)'*RAR' 3NC.R R31. <" *? )B. R31.S *? C*3R) 'S R.CI*N.C ?R*= N*)'C. *? C.N'A1 *? )B. ?'RS) =*)'*N ?*R R.C*NS'C.RA)'*N *? AN 'N).R1*C3)*RG *RC.R .H.N )B*3GB A S.C*NC ANC )B'RC =*)'*N ?*R R.C*NS'C.RA)'*N (,B'CB AR. N*) PR*B'B').C =*)'*NS) *? )B. SA=. 'N).R1*C3)*RG *RC.R BAC B..N ?'1.C ANC ,.R. 1A).R C.N'.C. (B) ,B.)B.R *R N*) A P.RS*N N*='NA).C AS AAC='N'S)RA)*RA BG P3RP*R).C B.'RS *? A C.H'S.. *R 1.GA).. 'N A ,'11 3NC.R PR*BA). =AG HA1'C1G S3BS)')3). ?*R )BA) C.H'S.. *R 1.GA).. 'N )B. PR*BA). PR*C..C'NGS C.SP'). )B. ?AC) )BA) S3CB AAC='N'S)RA)*RA 'S N*) )B. C*3R)-APP*'N).C AC='N'S)RA)*R *? )B. .S)A). *? )B. C.C.AS.C C.H'S.. *R 1.GA)... 08 *n the first issue, petitioner avers that the re(:onin% of the <@-#a& perio# for filin% a Petition for Certiorari un#er Rule <" of the Rules of Court fro$ the noti(e of #enial of the first $otion for re(onsi#eration is appli(a5le onl& if the su5-e(t of the petition is a -u#%$ent, final resolution, or or#er. 't #oes not appl& if the su5-e(t of the petition is $erel& an interlo(utor& or#er. Be points out that the reason for this is that onl& one $otion for re(onsi#eration of a -u#%$ent or final or#er is allowe# un#er Se(tion ", Rule ; of the Rules of Court. A se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration of a -u#%$ent or final or#er is a prohi5ite# plea#in%D hen(e, the perio# for filin% a Petition for Certiorari $a& not 5e re(:one# fro$ noti(e of #enial of su(h se(on# an# prohi5ite# $otion for re(onsi#eration. Petitioner asserts that a se(on# (or even a thir#) $otion for re(onsi#eration of an interlo(utor& or#er is not prohi5ite#D hen(e, the <@-#a& perio# for filin% a Petition for Certiorari $a& 5e re(:one# fro$ noti(e of #enial of su5se7uent $otions for re(onsi#eration. Petitioner further (lai$s that the *r#ers #ate# Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@;, ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@!, /une 11, 0@@! an# Septe$5er 8, 0@@! issue# 5& the R)C are onl& interlo(utor& or#ers. )he& #eal solel& with the issue (on(ernin% the proper su5stitution of the #e(ease# *s(ar Casa who is one of the #evisees an# le%atees na$e# in the purporte# will of the testatri2, 1oreto San /uan, whi(h is the su5-e(t $atter of the pro5ate pro(ee#in%s pen#in% with the respon#ent (ourt. Sai# or#ers #i# not ter$inate or finall& #ispose of the (ase 5ut left so$ethin% to 5e #one 5& the respon#ent (ourt 5efore the (ase is finall& #e(i#e# on the $erits. )he assaile# or#ers #o not %o into the $erits of the pro5ate (ase, parti(ularl& on the #ue e2e(ution an# vali#it& of the will. 't pertains onl& to the proper su5stitution of the parties. )hus, the or#ers are not final or#ers fro$ whi(h no se(on# or thir# $otion for re(onsi#eration $a& 5e file#. 06 't (annot also 5e sai# that the se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration #i# not toll the runnin% of the re%le$entar& perio# for filin% a Petition for Certiorari, (onsi#erin% that there is no prohi5ition in the filin% of a se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration of an interlo(utor& or#er. ?urther$ore, there is no intention on the part of petitioner to #ela& pro(ee#in%s 5efore the lower (ourt when he file# the thir# $otion for re(onsi#eration, as he onl& sou%ht to (orre(t the pro5ate (ourt4s patentl& erroneous appli(ation of the law. Petitioner e$phasi9es that he file# the Petition for Certiorari with the CA in view of the %rave a5use of #is(retion whi(h a$ounte# to la(: of or e2(ess of -uris#i(tion (o$$itte# 5& respon#ent trial (ourt when it wron%full& assu$e# in its *r#er #en&in% the thir# $otion for re(onsi#eration that the or#er sou%ht to 5e re(onsi#ere# is a final or#er on the $erits of the (ase an# that the $otion for re(onsi#eration is a thir# $otion for re(onsi#eration of a final or#er. ;@ )he petition is #enie# for la(: of $erit. ,e a%ree with the rulin% of the CA that the Petition for Certiorari file# 5& petitioner in the appellate (ourt was ti$e5arre#. Bowever, the raison d)etre for its rulin% is in(orre(t.

Contrar& to the rulin% of the CA, the pros(ription a%ainst a pro forma $otion applies onl& to a final resolution or or#er an# not to an interlo(utor& one. )he rulin% of this Court in "niversit# of $mma%ulate Con%ep%ion v. !e%retar# of La&or and 'mplo#ment;1 involve# a final or#er of the N1RC an# not an interlo(utor& or#er. 'n this (ase, the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er of the trial (ourt #en&in% the $otion of petitioner to (onsi#er insuffi(ient or ina#e7uate respon#ent4s (o$plian(e with its Nove$5er 00, 0@@0 *r#er is interlo(utor&. )he or#er #oes not finall& #ispose of the (ase, an# #oes not en# the tas: of the (ourt of a#-u#i(atin% the parties4 (ontentions an# #eter$inin% their ri%hts an# lia5ilities as re%ar#s ea(h other 5ut o5viousl& in#i(ates that other thin%s re$ain to 5e #one. Su(h or#er $a& not 5e 7uestione# e2(ept onl& as part of an appeal that $a& eventuall& 5e ta:en fro$ the final -u#%$ent ren#ere# in the (ase.;0 't 5ears stressin% however that while the $otion for re(onsi#eration file# 5& petitioner assailin% the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er of the trial (ourt 5ase# on the sa$e %roun#s as those alle%e# in his first $otion is not pro forma, su(h se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration (an nevertheless 5e #enie# on the %roun# that it is $erel& a rehash or a $ere reiteration of %roun#s an# ar%u$ents alrea#& passe# upon an# resolve# 5& the (ourt. Su(h a $otion (annot 5e re-e(te# on the %roun# that a se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration of an interlo(utor& or#er is for5i##en 5& law or 5& the Rules of Court.;; Se(tion !, Rule <" of the Rules of Civil Pro(e#ure as a$en#e# 5& the resolution of the Court in Bar =atter No. @@-0@;-SC whi(h too: effe(t on Septe$5er 1, 0@@@, rea#sE Se(. !. *here and when petition filed. - )he petition shall 5e file# not later than si2t& (<@) #a&s fro$ noti(e of the -u#%$ent, or#er or resolution. 'n (ase a $otion for re(onsi#eration or new trial is ti$el& file#, whether su(h $otion is re7uire# or not, the si2t& (<@) #a& perio# shall 5e (ounte# fro$ noti(e of the #enial of the sai# $otion. )he petition shall 5e file# in the Supre$e Court or, if it relates to the a(ts or o$issions of a lower (ourt or of a (orporation, 5oar#, offi(er or person, in the Re%ional )rial Court e2er(isin% -uris#i(tion over the territorial area as #efine# 5& the Supre$e Court. 't $a& also 5e file# in the Court of Appeals whether or not the sa$e is in the ai# of its appellate -uris#i(tion, or in the San#i%an5a&an if it is in ai# of its appellate -uris#i(tion. 'f it involves the a(ts or o$issions of a 7uasi--u#i(ial a%en(&, unless otherwise provi#e# 5& law or these rules, the petition shall 5e file# in an# (o%ni9a5le onl& 5& the Court of Appeals. No e2tension of ti$e to file the petition shall 5e %rante# e2(ept for (o$pellin% reason an# in no (ase e2(ee#in% fifteen (1") #a&s. )hus, there are three essential #ates that $ust 5e state# in a Petition for Certiorari 5rou%ht un#er Rule <" of the Rules of Court for the nullifi(ation of a -u#%$ent, resolution or or#erE (1) the #ate when noti(e of the -u#%$ent, resolution or or#er was re(eive#D (0) when a $otion for a new trial or re(onsi#eration of the -u#%$ent, or#er or resolution was su5$itte#D an# (;) when noti(e of the #enial thereof was re(eive# 5& petitioner. )he re7uire$ent of settin% forth the three (;) #ates in a Petition for Certiorari un#er Rule <" of the Rules of Court is for the purpose of #eter$inin% its ti$eliness, (onsi#erin% that a petition is re7uire# to 5e file# not later than <@ #a&s fro$ noti(e of the -u#%$ent, or#er or resolution sou%ht to 5e nullifie#. ;! ,e a%ree with the rulin% of the CA that the Petition for Certiorari file# 5& petitioner with the CA on Nove$5er 00, 0@@! was file# 5e&on# the <@-#a& perio# therefor. Petitioner re(eive#, on =ar(h 18, 0@@!, the ?e5ruar& 0 , 0@@! *r#er of the (ourt #en&in% his $otion for re(onsi#eration of the Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er. Petitioner ha# <@ #a&s fro$

=ar(h 18, 0@@! or until =a& 1 , 0@@! within whi(h to file his Petition for Certiorari. Bowever, petitioner file# his Petition for Certiorari with the CA onl& on Nove$5er 00, 0@@!. )he <@-#a& perio# shoul# not 5e re(:one# fro$ petitioner4s re(eipt on /une 11, 0@@! of the #enial of his =a& , 0@@! se(on# $otion for re(onsi#eration. )he <@-#a& perio# shall 5e re(:one# fro$ the trial (ourt4s #enial of his first $otion for re(onsi#eration, otherwise in#efinite #ela&s will ensue. ;" ,e note that the parties arti(ulate# their stan(e in their respe(tive plea#in%s not onl& on the ti$eliness of the Petition for Certiorari in the CA 5ut also on the vali#it& of the assaile# Ce(e$5er 0, 0@@; *r#er of the trial (ourt. *r#inaril&, in view of the #is$issal of the petition 5e(ause it was ti$e-5arre#, the Court will no lon%er #elve into an# resolve the other issues raise# in the petition. Bowever, in this (ase, we fin# it appropriate an# ne(essar& to resolve on(e an# for all the issue of whether there is a nee# for the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator of the estate of *s(ar Casa, or whether it is enou%h that he 5e su5stitute# 5& his heirs. Se(tion 1<, Rule ; of the 166 Rules of Civil Pro(e#ure rea#sE Se(. 1<. Death of part#+ dut# of %ounsel. - ,henever a part& to a pen#in% a(tion #ies, an# the (lai$ is not there5& e2tin%uishe#, it shall 5e the #ut& of his (ounsel to infor$ the (ourt within thirt& (;@) #a&s after su(h #eath of the fa(t thereof, an# to %ive the na$e an# a##ress of his le%al representative or representatives. ?ailure of (ounsel to (o$pl& with this #ut& shall 5e a %roun# for #is(iplinar& a(tion. )he heirs of the #e(ease# $a& 5e allowe# to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#, without re7uirin% the appoint$ent of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator an# the (ourt $a& appoint a %uar#ian a# lite$ for the $inor heirs. )he (ourt shall forthwith or#er sai# le%al representative or representatives to appear an# 5e su5stitute# within a perio# of thirt& (;@) #a&s fro$ noti(e. 'f no le%al representative is na$e# 5& the (ounsel for the #e(ease# part&, or if the one so na$e# shall fail to appear within the spe(ifie# perio#, the (ourt $a& or#er the opposin% part&, within a spe(ifie# ti$e, to pro(ure the appoint$ent of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator for the estate of the #e(ease# an# the latter shall i$$e#iatel& appear for an# on 5ehalf of the #e(ease#. )he (ourt (har%es in pro(urin% su(h appoint$ent, if #efra&e# 5& the opposin% part&, $a& 5e re(overe# as (osts. )he rule is a revision of Se(tion 1 , Rule ; of the Rules of Court whi(h rea#sE Ceath of part&. - After a part& #ies an# the (lai$ is not there5& e2tin%uishe#, the (ourt shall or#er, upon proper noti(e, the le%al representative of the #e(ease# to appear an# to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#, within a perio# of thirt& (;@) #a&s, or within su(h ti$e as $a& 5e %rante#. 'f the le%al representative fails to appear within sai# ti$e, the (ourt $a& or#er the opposin% part& to pro(ure the appoint$ent of a le%al representative of the #e(ease# within a ti$e to 5e spe(ifie# 5& the (ourt, an# the representative shall i$$e#iatel& appear for an# on 5ehalf of the interest of the #e(ease#. )he (ourt (har%es involve# in pro(urin% su(h appoint$ent, if #efra&e# 5& the opposin% part&, $a& 5e re(overe# as (osts. )he heirs of the #e(ease# $a& 5e allowe# to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#, without re7uirin% the appoint$ent of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator an# the (ourt $a& appoint %uar#ian a# lite$ for the $inor heirs. ;<

)he se(on# para%raph of the rule is plain an# e2pli(itE the heirs $a& 5e allowe# to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease# without re7uirin% the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor. Bowever, if within the spe(ifie# perio# a le%al representative fails to appear, the (ourt $a& or#er the opposin% (ounsel, within a spe(ifie# perio#, to pro(ess the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor who shall i$$e#iatel& appear for the estate of the #e(ease#. ; )he pronoun(e$ent of this Court in Lawas v. Court of Appeals;8(relie# upon 5& petitioner), that priorit& is %iven to the le%al representative of the #e(ease# (the e2e(utor or a#$inistrator) an# that it is onl& in (ase of unreasona5le #ela& in the appoint$ent of an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator, or in (ases where the heirs resort to an e2tra-u#i(ial settle$ent of the estate that the (ourt $a& a#opt the alternative of allowin% the heirs of the #e(ease# to 5e su5stitute# for the #e(ease#, is no lon%er true.;6 'n ,o%han v. -oun(,!@ a (ase of fairl& re(ent vinta%e, the Court rule# as followsE )he a5ove-7uote# rules, while permittin( an e2e(utor or a#$inistrator to represent or to 5rin% suits on 5ehalf of the #e(ease#, #o not prohi&it the heirs fro$ representin% the #e(ease#. )hese rules are easil& appli(a5le to (ases in whi(h an a#$inistrator has alrea#& 5een appointe#. But no rule (ate%ori(all& a##resses the situation in whi(h spe(ial pro(ee#in%s for the settle$ent of an estate have alrea#& 5een institute#, &et no a#$inistrator has 5een appointe#. 'n su(h instan(es, the heirs (annot 5e e2pe(te# to wait for the appoint$ent of an a#$inistratorD then wait further to see if the a#$inistrator appointe# woul# (are enou%h to file a suit to prote(t the ri%hts an# the interests of the #e(ease#D an# in the $eanti$e #o nothin% while the ri%hts an# the properties of the #e(e#ent are violate# or #issipate#. )he Rules are to 5e interprete# li5erall& in or#er to pro$ote their o5-e(tive of se(urin% a -ust, spee#& an# ine2pensive #isposition of ever& a(tion an# pro(ee#in%. )he& (annot 5e interprete# in su(h a wa& as to unne(essaril& put un#ue har#ships on liti%ants. ?or the prote(tion of the interests of the #e(e#ent, this Court has in previous instan(es re(o%ni9e# the heirs as proper representatives of the #e(e#ent, even when there is alrea#& an a#$inistrator appointe# 5& the (ourt. *hen no administrator has &een appointed, as in this %ase, there is all the more reason to re%o(nize the heirs as the proper representatives of the de%eased. !in%e the Rules do not spe%ifi%all# prohi&it them from representin( the de%eased, and sin%e no administrator had as #et &een appointed at the time of the institution of the Complaint with the !'C, we see nothin( wron( with the fa%t that it was the heirs of John D. -oun(, !r. who represented his estate in the %ase filed &efore the !'C . ('mphasis supplied)!1 )he heirs of the estate of *s(ar Casa #o not nee# to first se(ure the appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator of his estate, 5e(ause fro$ the ver& $o$ent of his #eath, the& steppe# into his shoes an# a(7uire# his ri%hts as #evisee+le%atee of the #e(ease# 1oreto San /uan. )hus, a prior appoint$ent of an a#$inistrator or e2e(utor of the estate of *s(ar Casa is not ne(essar& for his heirs to a(7uire le%al (apa(it& to 5e su5stitute# as representatives of the estate. !0 Sai# heirs $a& #esi%nate one or so$e of the$ as their representative 5efore the trial (ourt. Ben(e, even on the threshol# issue raise# in the R)C an# in the Petition for Certiorari in the CA, the assaile# or#er of the R)C is (orre(t. IN IG#! OF A !#E FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. Costs a%ainst petitioner.

[G.R. N/. $7027. J'(u'0y 27, 1121.] "EA!RIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI 3DA. DE RE&ES, Petitioner, 4. #ONORA" E COUR! OF APPEA S, PI AR I"A5EZ 3DA. DE ZUZUARREGUI, A)67(7.,0',78, AN!ONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRI%UE DE ZUZUARRE%UI '() PACI!A JA3IER, Respondents. S& A"US

1. R.=.C'A1 1A,D /3CG=.N)D C*RR.C)'*N *? C1.R'CA1 .RR*RS, A11*,.C 'N ?'NA1 C.C'S'*NS. K 't is well settle# that even if a #e(ision has 5e(o$e final, (leri(al errors or $ista:es or o$ission plainl& #ue to ina#verten(e or ne%li%en(e $a& 5e (orre(te# or supplie# even after the -u#%$ent has 5een entere#. )he (orre(tion of a (leri(al error is an e2(eption to the %eneral rule that no a$en#$ent or (orre(tion $a& 5e $a#e 5& the (ourt in its -u#%$ent on(e the latter ha# 5e(o$e final. )he (ourt $a& $a:e this a$en#$ent e2 parte an#, for this purpose, it $a& resort to the plea#in%s file# 5& the parties, the (ourtLs fin#in%s of fa(ts an# its (on(lusions of law as e2presse# in the 5o#& of the #e(ision. 0. 'C.D SP.C'A1 PR*C..C'NGSD S.))1.=.N) *? .S)A).D 'N).NC.C )* S.))1. .N)'R. .S)A). *? C.C.AS.C. K )hat a spe(ial pro(ee#in% for the settle$ent of an estate is file# an# inten#e# to settle the entire estate of the #e(ease# is o5vious an# ele$entar&. 't woul# 5e a5sur# for the heirs to intentionall& e2(lu#e# or leave a par(el of lan# or a portion thereof un#istri5ute# or un#ivi#e# 5e(ause the pro(ee#in% is pre(isel& #esi%ne# to en# the (o$$unit& of interests in properties hel# 5& (o-partners pro in#iviso without #esi%nation or se%re%ation of shares. 'n this petition for review on %ertiorari, ,e are as:e# to set asi#e the #e(ision of the Court of Appeals, pro$ul%ate# on Septe$5er 16, 16 in CA-G.R. No. ";16 -R 1 whi(h affir$e# the or#er of the Court of ?irst 'nstan(e of Ri9al, Bran(h 'H, 8ue9on Cit& #ate# =ar(h 0<, 16 ;, issue# in Spe(ial Pro(ee#in%s 8-;0", entitle# A'ntestate .state of Con

Antonio #e Fu9uarre%ui, Sr.A 0 Respon#ent a#$inistratri2, Pilar '5aMe9 H#a. #e Fu9uarre%ui, is the survivin% spouse of Antonio #e Fu9uarre%ui, Sr., while petitioner Beatri9 #e Fu9uarre%ui H#a. #e Re&es an# the other heirs of sai# estate, na$el&, Antonio #e Fu9uarre%ui, /r., .nri7ue #e Fu9uarre%ui an# /ose #e Fu9uarre%ui, are the ille%iti$ate (hil#ren of the #e(e#ent. )he parties herein are the onl& heirs of the #e(ease# whose estate was the su5-e(t of sai# settle$ent pro(ee#in%s. Petitioner was the #au%hter of the #e(ease# 5& a $other #ifferent fro$ that of his aforesai# three (;) sons, their $other 5ein% Pa(ita /avier who was the nie(e of the herein respon#ent a#$inistratri2. ; A((or#in% to the pro-e(t of partition #ate# /une 1 , 16"8 an# approve# 5& the pro5ate (ourt, the respe(tive shares of sai# heirs in the real estate left 5& the #e(ease# are as followsE Pilar '5aMe9 H#a. #e Fu9uarre7ui, 10+1< thereof, in(lusive of 1+0 of sai# assets whi(h pertains to her share in the (on-u%al partnershipD Beatri9, 1+1<D Antonio, /r., 1+1<D .nri7ue, 1+1<D an# /ose, 1+1<. ! A$on% the real properties in the pro-e(t of partition is a par(el of lan# (overe# 5& an# #es(ri5e# in )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!; lo(ate# in Antipolo, Ri9al. 'n sai# pro-e(t of partition, its area is state# as 8;, 81 s7uare $eters, with an assesse# value of P<,!;@.@@. )his state$ent of sai# area was repeate# in sai# #o(u$ent four ti$es, " that is, in a#-u#i(atin% the (orrespon#in% portions of sai# lan# to Pilar (10+1"), Antonio, /r. (1+1"). .nri7ue (1+1") an# /ose (1+1"). < )he petitioner #i# not have a share in the aforesai# par(el of lan# 5e(ause she relin7uishe# her ri%ht thereto Ain lieu of her 5i%%er share in Antipolo, Ri9al, real estate propert&.A *n /anuar& 06, 16 ;, the respon#ent a#$inistratri2 an# the other three #istri5utees file# a $otion to reopen Spe(ial Pro(ee#in%s No. 8-;0" for the purpose of (orre(tin% an alle%e# t&po%raphi(al error in the #es(ription of the par(el of lan# (overe# 5& )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!; sin(e, a((or#in% to the$, the (orre(t lan# area is 8@;, 81."1 s7uare $eters an# not 8;, 81 s7uare $eters. 8 )he heirs of Beatri9 #e Fu9uarre%ui H#a. #e Re&es file# their opposition to sai# $otion. 6 )he (ourt a 7uo issue# the (onteste# or#er, with the followin% #ispositive portionE A,B.R.?*R., (1) Sp. Pro(ee#in% No. 8-;0" entitle#, )he 'ntestate .state of Con Antonio #e Fu9uarre%ui, Sr. is or#ere# opene# for the purpose of (orre(tin% a (leri(al error in the #es(ription of the par(el of lan# (overe# 5& ).C.). No. !0<!;D (0) )he area of lan# (overe# 5& ).C.). No. !0<!; 5e (orre(te# 5& (an(elin% 8;, 81 s7. $eters an# (han%in% it to 8@;, 81."1 s7. $eters to (onfor$ with the #es(ription of lan# area in ).C.). No. !0<!;D (;) )hat sai# (orre(tions 5e $a#e as pa%es ;, <, 6, 1@, an# 10 of the pro-e(t of Partition.A 1@ As alrea#& state#, the affir$an(e of sai# or#er 5& the Court of Appeals eventuate# in the elevation of the (ontrovers& to 3s un#er the present re(ourse. 't is well settle# that even if a #e(ision has 5e(o$e final, (leri(al errors or $ista:es or o$ission plainl& #ue to ina#verten(e or ne%li%en(e $a& 5e (orre(te# or supplie# even after the -u#%$ent has 5een entere#. )he (orre(tion of a (leri(al error is an e2(eption to the %eneral rule that no a$en#$ent or (orre(tion $a& 5e $a#e 5& the (ourt in its -u#%$ent on(e the latter ha# 5e(o$e final. 11 )he (ourt $a& $a:e this a$en#$ent e2 parte an#, for this purpose, it $a& resort to the plea#in%s file# 5& the parties, the (ourtLs fin#in%s of fa(ts an# its (on(lusions of law as e2presse# in

-%(E(hanro5le s.(o$.ph

the 5o#& of the #e(ision. 10 Bowever, a((or#in% to the petitioner, there was no su(h (leri(al error. ,hile it is not #ispute# that the area (overe# 5& )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!; is 8@;, 81.1" s7uare $eters, the petitioner insists that Athe area inten#e# 5& the heirs of Con Antonio #e Fu9uarre%ui, Sr., in the Pro-e(t of Partition as approve# 5& the trial (ourt is the area of 8;, 81 s7. $. an# not 8@;, 81,"1 s7. $.A 1; She (lai$s that she woul# not have relin7uishe# her share in sai# par(el of lan# if the true area was not frau#ulentl& (on(eale# fro$ her at the ti$e the pro-e(t of partition was e2e(ute#. 1! She further (onten#s that the fa(t that the #es(ription of the area as 8;, 81 s7uare $eters was repeate# several ti$es is suffi(ient evi#en(e to show that su(h was the area inten#e# in the pro-e(t of partition. 1" Su(h (ontentions are without $erit. )here is, therefore, no reason to #istur5, $u(h less to reverse, the fa(tual fin#in% of the lower (ourt that a t&po%raphi(al or (leri(al error was (learl& (o$$itte# 5& ina#verten(e in the pro-e(t of partition.
(hanro5le s.(o$E(ralawEre#

)hat a spe(ial pro(ee#in% for the settle$ent of an estate is file# an# inten#e# to settle the entire estate of the #e(ease# is o5vious an# ele$entar&. 't woul# 5e a5sur# for the heirs to intentionall& e2(lu#e# or leave a par(el of lan# or a portion thereof un#istri5ute# or un#ivi#e# 5e(ause the pro(ee#in% is pre(isel& #esi%ne# to en# the (o$$unit& of interests in properties hel# 5& (o-partners pro in#iviso without #esi%nation or se%re%ation of shares. 't is rea#il& apparent fro$ the pro-e(t of partition that it was $eant to 5e, as in fa(t it is, a full an# (o$plete a#-u#i(ation an# partition of all properties of the estate, ne(essaril& in(lu#in% the entire area of the lan# (overe# 5& )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!;. )hus as per(eptivel& pose# 5& the 7ueries of the respon#ents, if the intention of the heirs was to $a:e onl& a partial a#-u#i(ation an# #istri5ution of the su5-e(t par(el of lan#, wh& is it that the& #i# not $a:e an& further #isposition of the re$ainin% 5alan(e of 0@,@@@ s7uare $etersN ,hat soun# reason woul# the heirs have in hol#in% in suspense the #istri5ution of the #ifferen(e of 0@,@@@ s7uare $etersN 1< Besi#es, petitioner su%%ests that she an# the $ale heirs (oul# not see e&e to e&e 5e(ause the& #i# not have a (o$$on $other. 1 'f so, this suppose# anta%onis$ woul# even 5e a (o$pellin% reason for the parties to insist on the total partition of all the properties in the first instan(e, rather than for the$ to re$ain as (o-owners for a lon% ti$e. As herein5efore in#i(ate#, the pro-e(t of partition is #ate# /une 1 , 16"8, 18 while the $otion to re-open the pro(ee#in%s was file# onl& on /anuar& 06, 16 ;. 'f ,e were to in#ul%e petitioner in her stan# that the area of 8@;, 81 s7uare $eters was t&pewritten in the #o(u$ent as 8;, 81 s7uare $eters, not 5e(ause of the t&pistLs error in o$ittin% the nu$5er A@A 5etween the nu$5ers A8A an# A;A in the first three #i%its 5ut 5e(ause the latter area of onl& 8;, 81 s7uare $eters was the one inten#e# for #istri5ution, then the irresisti5le 7uestion woul# 5e how an# wh& the parties arrive# at that parti(ular latter fi%ure. 't will 5e o5serve# that su(h a portion woul# (onstitute onl& 1@.!0;;<O of the total lan# area (overe# 5& )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!;. *n top of this, the assu$e# area of 8;, 81 s7uare $eters has still to 5e #ivi#e# into fifteen (1") parts to arrive at the ali7uot portions of 10+1" an# 1+1" of the other heirs in this parti(ular propert&. ,h& woul# the parties #eli5eratel& (reate su(h an unli:el& $athe$ati(al situation whi(h woul# (o$pli(ate the a(tual ph&si(al se%re%ation of the area suppose# to 5e #istri5ute#N
(hanro5les virtualawli5rar& (hanro5les.(o$ E(hanro5les.(o$.ph

't is, therefore, a lo%i(al an# (re#i5le e2planation that the o$ission of the 9ero 5etween the fi%ures A8A an# A;A (onverte# A8@;, 81A to A8;, 81A, a pro#u(t purel& of (leri(al oversi%ht. Petitioner has not offere# an& plausi5le (ontrar& e2planation. Parentheti(all&, she ha# the assistan(e of le%al (ounsel in the intestate pro(ee#in%s an# in the

preparation of the pro-e(t of partition. 16 PetitionerLs la$entations of in-usti(e in the partition are #e$onstra5l& unfoun#e#. 't will 5e o5serve# that a((or#in% to her own (o$putation, 0@ she re(eive# her 1+1< share in the estate (onsistin% of 0 6,8@; s7uare $eters of lan#, while her half 5rothers re(eive# on the avera%e 1"!,6 ".11 s7uare $eters ea(h. .ven if the suppose# shares of the respon#ents in the re$ainin% 0@.@@@ s7uare $eters in the lot (overe# 5& )ransfer Certifi(ate of )itle No. !0<!; were to 5e a##e#, the share of ea(h 5rother woul# 5e onl& 0@0,6 ".11 s7uare $eters. )here woul# not 5e a su5stantial #ifferen(e in value sin(e the petitioner re(eive# 16@,@@@ s7uare $eters of lan# lo(ate# also in Antipolo, Ri9alD while in Balara, 8ue9on Cit&, she re(eive# $ore than her half 5rothers, that is, ",8@; s7uare $eters as a%ainst their in#ivi#ual $eters. )he inelu(ta5le (onse7uen(e of the fore%oin% (onsi#erations is that, 5oth in law an# e7uit&, the (ourt a 7uo an# the respon#ent (ourt (o$$itte# no error pre-u#i(ial to petitioner. ,B.R.?*R., %ertiorari is C.N'.C an# the #e(ision of the respon#ent (ourt is A??'R=.C. !,;@6. @ s7uare $eters. 't was onl& in Pason% )a$o where she re(eive# sli%htl& less, 1!,@@@ s7uare $eters (o$pare# to .nri7ueLs an# /oseLs 1!,11" s7uare $eters ea(h, 5ut $ore than Antonio, /r.Ls 1;,<01 s7uare