MONZON, JESSA MARIE M.

LAW 3E
Special Proceedings

3RD STUDY GUIDE: JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF

DECEASED PERSONS

ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE FINAL EXAM

1. CHOOSE 2 JURISPRUDENCE CITED IN THE SYLLABUS FOR THE

TOPIC ON PRODUCTION AND PROBATE OF WILL AND ALLOWANCE
OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL.
2. TRACE USING A FLOWCHART THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY /
STEPS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS FROM THE
COURT OF ORIGIN UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT
 G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001
PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO,
ORLANDO S. MANALO, and ISABELITA
MANALO
VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
(BRANCH 35), PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M.
TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M.
ACUIN, ROMEO S. MANALO, ROBERTO S.
RTC Manila MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA
RTC Manila MANALO
On December 15, 1992, the trial court issued an order setting the said
petition for hearing on February 11, 1993 and directing the
publication of the order for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
On November 26, 1992, herein
newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, and further
respondents, who are eight (8) of the
directing service by registered mail of the said order upon the heirs
surviving children of the late Troadio
named in the petition at their respective addresses mentioned
Manalo, namely; Purita, Milagros, Belen
therein.
Rocalina, Romeo, Roberto, Amalia, and
Imelda filed a petition with the
respondent Regional Trial Court of
Manila of the judicial settlement of
01 02
the estate of their late father, Troadio
Manalo, and for the appointment of
their brother, Romeo Manalo, as
administrator thereof.
RTC Manila
03
Several pleadings were subsequently filed On February 11, 1993, the date set for hearing of the
by herein petitioners, through counsel, petition, the trial court issued an order 'declaring the
culminating in the filling of an Omnibus
Motion8 on July 23, 1993 seeking; (1) to set
04 whole world in default, except the government," and
set the reception of evidence of the petitioners therein
aside and reconsider the Order of the trial on March 16, 1993. However, the trial court upon
court dated July 9, 1993 which denied the motion of set this order of general default aside herein
motion for additional extension of time file petitioners (oppositors therein) namely: Pilar S. Vda.
opposition; (2) to set for preliminary hearing De Manalo, Antonio, Isabelita and Orlando who were
their affirmative defenses as grounds for granted then (10) days within which to file their
dismissal of the case; (3) to declare that the opposition to the petition.
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over .
the persons of the oppositors; and (4) for the RTC Manila
immediate inhibition of the presiding judge.

05
On July 30, 1993, the trial court issued an order which resolved, thus:
A. To admit the so-called Opposition filed by counsel for the oppositors on July 20, 1993, only for the purpose of
considering the merits thereof;B. To deny the prayer of the oppositors for a preliminary hearing of their affirmative
defenses as ground for the dismissal of this proceeding, said affirmative defenses being irrelevant and immaterial to
the purpose and issue of the present proceeding;
C. To declare that this court has acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors;
D. To deny the motion of the oppositors for the inhibition of this Presiding Judge;
E. To set the application of Romeo Manalo for appointment as regular administrator in the intestate estate of the
deceased Troadio Manalo for hearing on September 9, 1993 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

RTC Manila
 G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001
PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO,
ORLANDO S. MANALO, and ISABELITA
MANALO
VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
(BRANCH 35), PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M.
TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M.
ACUIN, ROMEO S. MANALO, ROBERTO S.
Court of Appeals MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA
Court of Appeals MANALO
Finding the contentions untenable, the Court of Appeals
Herein petitioners filed a petition for dismissed the petition for certiorari in its Resolution
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of promulgated on September 30, 1996.
Court with the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 39851, after
the trial court in its Order 10 dated

07
September 15, 1993. In their petition for
improperly laid in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626;
(2) the trial court did not acquire
06
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

08
family; and (5) no certification of non-
forum shopping was attached to the
petition.

Supreme Court
On May 6, 1997 the motion for reconsideration
Petition was filed in the Supreme of the said resolution was likewise dismissed.
Court. The only issue raised by herein
petitioners in the instant petition for 09 Court of Appeals
review is whether or not the respondent
Court of Appeals erred in upholding the
questioned orders of the respondent trial
court which denied their motion for the
outright dismissal of the petition for
judicial settlement of estate despite the
failure of the petitioners therein to aver
that earnest efforts toward a
compromise involving members of the
same family have been made prior to the
filling of the petition but that the same 10
have failed.

The instant petition is not impressed with merit.

It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of
action as in fact no defendant was imploded therein. The Petition for issuance of letters of Administration, Settlement and
Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners
therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek
to establish the fat of death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so
that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent
with the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.

WHEREFORE, the petition in the above-entitled case, is DENIED for lack of merit, Costs against petitioners.

Supreme Court
 G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012
G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012
LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C.
LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C.
ROMERO
ROMERO
VS.
VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO
AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO
AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO

RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan

RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan Respondents filed their Answer, arguing that the properties in
question were acquired long after the death of their father, Judge
On 18 December 2006, Dante Romero; hence, the properties cannot be considered conjugal. They
petitioners filed a Complaint allege that the lots covered by TCT Nos. 290010, 290011, 113514, and Tax
for Annulment of Sale, Declaration Nos. 16136 and 11639 were paraphernal properties of Aurora
Nullification of Title, and which she had mortgaged.
Conveyance of Title
(Amended) against private
respondents Aurora C. Romero
and Vittorio C. Romero. 01 02

RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan 03

The RTC denied their Motion for

04
Reconsideration, citing Section
3, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court On 14 December 2007, the RTC rendered its
which bars an heir or a devisee Resolution dismissing petitioners’ complaint
from maintaining an action to
recover the title or possession of
lands until such lands have
actually been assigned. The court RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan
ruled that "plaintiffs must first
cause the termination of Special
Proceedings No. 5185 to its logical
conclusion before this case could

05
be entertained by the Court."

Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in

rendering the said Resolutions, petitioners filed for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the CA.

Court of Appeals
 G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012

LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C.

ROMERO

VS.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO

AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO

Court of Appeals
On 14 April 2009, the CA rendered the
assailed judgment dismissing the
Petition, ruling that the properties
involved in this case are part of the estate
left to the heirs of Judge Romero, the
partition of which is already subject of an

06
intestate proceeding filed on 6 January
1976 in the then Court of First Instance
(CFI). The CA based its judgment on the
findings of the RTC that the inventory of
the estate of Judge Romero submitted to
the CFI included the same parties,
properties, rights and interests as in the
case before it.

Supreme Court

Petitioners now come to Supreme

Court on a Rule 45 Petition, arguing
that the probate court may rule on issues
pertaining to title over property only in a
provisional capacity. They assert that the
CA erred in dismissing their appeal, just
07
because the intestate proceeding has not
yet terminated. Petitioners, as heirs, are
purportedly allowed to exercise their 08
option of filing a separate civil action in
order to protect their interests.
The Supreme Court ruled that the probate court has jurisdiction
to determine the issues in the present case
Petitioners assert that the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a
probate or intestate court relates only to matters having to do
with the settlement of the estate of deceased persons or the
appointment of executors, but does not extend to the
determination of questions of ownership that arise during the
proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. As the
properties herein are already subject of an intestate proceeding
filed on 6 January 1976, the 14 April 2009 judgment of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104025 finding no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC is AFFIRMED.

Supreme Court