3Republic of tbe tlbilippines

i,upreme QCourt
Jlllanila

FIRST DIVISION

FELICITAS AGUILAR G.R. No. 194310

BOLLOZOS,
Petitioner,
Present:

- versus - GESMUNDO, CJ.,

Chairperson,
CAGUIOA,
HEIRS OF LUISA ABRIO VDA. INTING,
DE AGUILAR represented by GAERLAN, and
FLORENTINO DIPUTADO, DIMAAMPAO, JJ.
Respondents.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" ---x
J
DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by

petitioner Felicitas Aguilar Bollozos (petitioner) under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Resolution2 dated June 30, 2009
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02919-MIN denying the
due course to the petition for certiorari therein filed; and its Resolution3
dated September 23, 2010 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

The Antecedent Facts

On December 28, 2007, respondent Florentino Diputado (respondent

Diputado ), in his capacity as the named executor in the will, filed a Verified

Rollo, pp. 4-42.

Id. at 143-145. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Edgardo
T. Lloren and Ruben C. Ayson concurring.
Id. at 157. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Edgardo A.
Camello and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.

.A
Decision 2 G.R. No. 194310

Petition4 for the probate of the wil1 5 of Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar (Vda. de
Aguilar) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofMisamis Oriental, Branch
17.

In an Order6 dated January 7, 2008, the RTC set the pet1t10n for
hearing on February 13, 2008, required all interested parties to appear and
show cause on even date why the petition should not be granted, and ordered
the publication of the same Order once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cagayan de Oro
and the Province of Misamis Oriental. 7

On January 28, 2008, the petitioner, claiming to be the daughter and

the sole surviving heir of V da. de Aguilar filed an Opposition with Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 8 grounded on non-payment of the proper
docket fees. 9 On October 23, 2008, the RTC issued a Resolution 10 denying
the petitioner's Opposition.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed two motions' first, seeking

reconsideration of the October 23, 2008 Resolution, and second, a Motion to
Make Definite Appraisal of Estate Value which was filed on February 27,
2009. 11 Both motions were denied by the RTC in its Orders dated March 10,
2009 12 and April 21, 2009, 13 respectively.

The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari 14 before the CA

assailing the Orders dated March 10, 2009 and April 21, 2009. Petitioner
alleged that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it assumed
jurisdiction despite the respondent's deficient payment of docket fees and
defective publication, and when it denied the motion to make a definite
appraisal value of the estate. 15

The petitioner argued that while the Verified Petition alleged the total
approximate assessed value of the estate as Pl ,000,000.00, the same is
belied by tax declarations of the declared properties of the decedent which
indicated a total market value of P6,595,616.00. In this regard, the payment

Id. at 46-48.
Id. at 49-52.
6
Id. at 54. Penned by Presiding Judge Florencia D. Sealana-Abbu.
7
Id. at 5.
Id. at 55-69.
9
Id. at 6, 55.
10
Id. at 93-96.
11
Id.at7.
12
Id. at 115-1 I 6.
13
Id. at 11 7.
14
Id. at 118-139.
15
[Link]-139.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 194310

of docket fees based on the lower amount is insufficient and does not vest
jurisdiction upon the RTC. 16

The petitioner also assailed the denial by the RTC of her motion for
definite appraisal, claiming that the issue of whether the docket fees paid
were deficient is best resolved at the earliest stages of the case because
docket fees are the lifeblood of the judicial system. 17

Lastly, the petitioner argued that there should be a republication of the

notice for hearing after the initial date set was postponed and scheduled
anew. 18

The CA, through its Resolution 19 dated June 30, 2009 denied due
course to the petition on account of petitioner's failure to file a motion for
reconsideration before resorting to a special civil action for certiorari. 20 The
fallo of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition 1s

hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 21

On September 23, 2010, the CA in its Resolution22 denied the

petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, this petition for review on
certiorari whereby the petitioner assigns the following errors committed by
the CA:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

REVERSIBLE ERROR AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF ITS
JUDGMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN FINDING
THAT THERE WAS NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
FILED OR THAT ONE WAS NEEDED.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AS

WELL QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE
DETERMINED BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT;
NAMELY:

[A]. IN ALLOWING A DEPARTURE FROM THE RULES ON

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING FULL PAYMENT OF

16
Id. at 128-131.
17
Id. at 133.
18
Id. at 134-138.
19
Supra note 2.
20
Rollo, p. 114.
21
Id. at 145.
22
Supra note 3.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 194310

DOCKET FEES WHEN RECORDS SHOW THE OBVIOUS

DEFICIENT DOCKET FEES.

[BJ. THE REFUSAL OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN

ANNULING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH
ALLOWED THE PROCEEDINGS IN PROBATE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT OBTAINING JURISDICTION IN REM OR OVER
THE WHOLE WORLD BY REFUSING A RE-PUBLICATION
OF THE NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING THAT WAS
POSTPONED AT THE RESPONDENT'S INSTANCE, IS AN
ERROR INVOLVING QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE THAT
INVOLVES JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF THE
PROCEEDINGS. 23

The instant petition sought to reconsider the CA Decision on two (2)

points. First, that the assailed Decision erroneously dismissed the petition for
certiorari on the ground that no motion for reconsideration has been filed.
Second, that the CA erred in not determining the proper docket fees and
ordering its payment, and in refusing to direct the republication of notice of
hearing. 24

The petitioner claims that the assailed RTC Order dated March 10,
2009 is a resolution of its motion for reconsideration of the RTC Resolution
dated October 23, 2008; therefore, the filing of another motion for
reconsideration would be useless. At any rate, the petitioner argues that there
are established exceptions to the rule which requires the filing of a motion
for reconsideration; which obtain in the case at bar- when there is an issue of
jurisdiction, when the filing of such motion would be useless, when only
legal issues are involved, and when so demanded by the interest of
substantial justice. 25

On the remaining ground, the petitioner submits that the R TC failed to

acquire jurisdiction when it failed to order the payment of the proper amount
of docket fees based on the tax declarations; and direct the republication of
the May 28, 2008 hearing for the benefit of other interested parties. 26

The respondents filed their Comment27 on March 29, 2011. Therein,

the respondents argued, among others, that there are no reversible errors and
that the petitioner's submissions are mere rehash of the points she raised in
before the CA. Aside from affirming the CA resolution, the respondents
submitted that they paid the correct amount of docket fees based on the
probable value of the properties included in the estate. On the matter of
23
Rollo,p.17.
24 Id.
25
Id. at 18-23.
26
Id. at 24-40.
27
Id. at 161-170.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 194310

notice, respondents contended that there is no longer any need for

publication anew of the RTC order inasmuch as all interested parties have
already been previously notified. 28

On February 13, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution29 requiring the

parties to move in the premises. On December 2 7, 2019, the petitioner filed
its Manifestation30 stating that the case has not been rendered moot and
academic as the RTC refused to proceed with the case and order the
respondents to account and consign rental income on the subject
properties. 31

The Court's Ruling

The petition is not meritorious.

It bears to note that "[a] dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a

Petition via Rule 65 for failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration may be
assailed via Rule 45." 32 With that, the Court proceeds with the determination
of the issues at hand.

The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine

qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. This is to grant the court an
opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it. 33
However, the rule is not absolute and admits of exceptions established by
jurisprudence:

(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower
court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of
due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in
the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the
proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity

28
Id. at 162-169.
29
Id. at 198.
30
Id. at 203-204.
31
Id. at 203.
32
Rep. ofthe Phils. v. Bayao, et al., 710 Phil. 279,286 (2013).
33
Id.

)
Decision 6 G.R. No. 194310

to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where
public interest is involved. 34 (Emphasis supplied)

The second and fourth exceptions are present, which renders the non-
filing of a motion. for reconsideration not fatal in this case.

The petitioner's petition for certiorari before the CA rested upon the
same points in this petition for review on certiorari, that is, that the R TC,
acting as a probate court failed to acquire jurisdiction as the "correct"
amount of docket fees have not been paid, and its Order resetting the case
for hearing was not published. 35

On the matter of payment of the proper amount of docket fees, the

Court agrees with the respondents that the issue had already been passed
upon by the R TC.

The determination of the amount of docket fees is intricately related

with the matter of valuation of the properties which comprise the estate. This
is precisely why the Petitioner filed an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction 36 in which, the petitioner also raised the need for
republication of notice and a Motion to Make Definite Appraisal of Estate
Value as it claimed that the value declared by the respondents is deficient,
and cannot therefore serve as basis for the computation of docket fees. The
Opposition was denied by the R TC in its Resolution dated October 23,
2008; 37 prompting the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration albeit
similarly denied by the RTC in its Order dated March 10, 2009, 38 the first
assailed Order before the CA. Consequently, in the second assailed Order
dated April 21, 2009, 39 the RTC ratiocinated that the matter raised in the
motion for appraisal has already been passed upon by it in its Resolution
°
dated March 10, 2009. 4 Clearly, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in
this case is not necessary since the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings before the CA have already been duly raised and passed upon
by the RTC. 41

In any case, the issue of whether in case of postponement of the

initial date of hearing of a verified petition for the allowance of a will there

34
Id. citing Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124, 136-137 (2010).
35
Rollo, pp. 127-138.
36
Id. at 55-69.
37
Id. at 93-96.
38
Id.atll5-116.
39
Id. at 117.
40 Id.
41
Supra note 34.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 194310

is a need to again publish the Order which stated the new date of hearing, is
a question of law, similarly justifying the lack of motion for reconsideration.

The procedural obstacle notwithstanding, the Court sees no reason to

reverse the Orders of the RTC.

It is elementary that in both original and appellate cases, the court

acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fees. 42 In the matter of allowance of wills, the amount of docket fees
to be paid is governed by Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court as
amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC 43 and Supreme Court Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, 44 to wit:

Section 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. -

a) For filing an action or a permissive or compulsory counter-claim,

cross-claim, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment,
or for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-
in-intervention, if the total sum claimed, inclusive of interests,
penalties, surcharges, damages of whatever kind, and attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs and/or in cases involving property, the
fair market value of the real property in litigation stated in the
current tax declaration or current zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated
value of the property in litigation or the value of the personal property
in litigation as alleged by the claimant is:

[Table of fees omitted]

(d) For initiating proceedings for the allowance of wills, granting

letters of administration, appointment of guardians, trustees, and other
special proceedings, the fees payable shall be collected in accordance
with the value of the property involved in the proceedings, which
must be stated in the application or petition as follows:

[Table of fees omitted]

If the value of the estate as definitely appraised by the court is more

than the value declared in the application, the difference of fee shall be
paid: provided that a certificate from the clerk of court that the proper
fees have been paid shall be required prior to the closure of the
proceedings. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

42
Gonzales, et al. v. Pe, 670 Phil. 597, 610-611 (2011), citingFar Corporation v. Magdaluyo, 485 Phil.
599,610 (2004).
43
Entitled, "RE-PROPOSED REVISION OF RULE 141, REVISED RULES OF COURT, LEGAL
FEES" (August 16, 2004).
44
Entitled, "GUIDELINES IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE LEGAL FEES COLLECTED UNDER
RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN THE SPECIAL
ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND AND THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND."
Approved on August 12, 2004.

J
Decision 8 G.R. No. 194310

From the foregoing, it is clear that in money claims against the estate not
based on judgment and in the allowance of wills, it is the clerk of court
which has the authority to assess the amount of docket fees on the basis of
either; a) the fair market value of the real property in litigation as stated in
the current tax declaration or the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) zonal
valuation, whichever is higher, or b) the stated value of the property as
alleged by the claimant.

In Ramones v. Sps. Guimoc, 45 the Court held that "where the plaintiff
has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the
amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction
over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the deficiency
assessment" 46 provided that the party has acted in good faith or that there
was no intention to defraud the govemment. 47 In fine, for purposes of
determining whether the court has acquired jurisdiction over the case, it is
sufficient that the plaintiff has paid in full the amount of docket fees
assessed by the clerk of court although such assessment may later be found
insufficient. In the latter instance, the deficiency as assessed by the clerk of
court or his duly authorized deputy shall be paid by the party filing the
action which shall constitute a lien on the judgment48 pursuant to Section
2, 49 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

Applied in this case, it is undisputed that the respondents paid in full,

the amount of docket fees assessed by the clerk of court on the basis of the
value stated in the verified petition. In the same vein, fraudulent intent
cannot simply be presumed from the fact that the respondents' allegation of
value of the estate in their verified petition is insufficient, inasmuch as under
Section 2, 50 Rule 7 6 of the Rules of Court, a petition for allowance of a will
requires only a declaration of the probable value and character of the

45
83 8 Phil. 542 (2018).
46
Id. at 551.
47
Id. at 551-552.
48
Id., citing Rivera v. de! Rosario, 464 Phil. 783 (2004); Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v.
Navarro, 553 Phil. 48 (2007); United Overseas Bank v. Ros (United Overseas Bank), 556 Phil. 178
(2007); The Heirs of Reinoso, Sr. v. CA, 669 Phil. 272 (2011).
49
Section 2. Fees in lien. - Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief
different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional
fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall
assess and collect the corresponding fees.
50
Section 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known
to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;
( e) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will, or the issuance of letters
testamentary or of administration with the will annexed.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 194310

property of the estate. Consequently, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over this
case.

However, should the RTC eventually appraise the value of the estate
to be greater than the declared amount, the difference in docket fees must be
paid prior to closure of proceedings. 51 Therefore, contrary to the allegation
of the petitioner, the definitive assessment of value for the purpose of
computing the correct amount of docket fees need not be done during the
commencement of the proceedings for as long as payment of the full and
appropriate amount is done prior to its cessation.

With respect to the issue of publication, the petitioner's arguments

similarly fail to persuade the Court.

The Sections 3 and 4, Rule 7 6 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which read:

Rule 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be
published. - When a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance or
a will is filed in, the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time
and place for proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest
the allowance thereof, and shall cause notice of such time and place to be
published three (3) weeks successively, previous to the time appointed, in
a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for

probate has been filed by the testator himself.

Section 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail

or personally. - The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time
and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or
other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the
Philippines at their places or residence, and deposited in the post office
with the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the
hearing, if such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice must
in like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he be not the
petitioner; also, to any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if
their places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the
notice at [least] (10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to
mailing.

If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will notice shall be
sent only to his compulsory heirs.

51
RULE 141, Section 7a.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 194310

In an allowance or disallowance of a will, there are two (2)

notification requirements both of which are mandatory and jurisdictional: (a)
publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and
(b) personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees. 52
In this controversy, compliance with these requirements is admitted.
Question arose as the date of the hearing set in the notice which has been
published was postponed. The petitioner then argues that there is again a
need to publish the notice setting a new date for hearing.

The requirement for the publication of the notice of hearing can be

attributed to the in rem nature of probate proceedings. 53 Actions in rem are
actions against the thing itself and are binding upon the whole world.
Simply, in the resolution of actions in rem, an active vinculum is created
over all those with interests to the thing that is the subject matter of
litigation. Thus, due process dictates that all persons with interest to the
thing be notified and given an opportunity to defend their interests through
publication. 54

Due process does not however demand the unreasonable. Under this
premise, the Court regards that it is sufficient that publication of the notice
of hearing has been done prior to the commencement of the proceedings
notifying all persons of the verified petition for the allowance of will and
giving them an opportunity to defend their interests on a scheduled date of
hearing. After which, it then becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned
to appear and actively protect their interests. That the hearing date indicated
in the notice did not push through is beside the point as for all intents and
purposes, all interested parties have already been notified of the existence of
the probate proceedings by virtue of publication and any subsequent
development is easily verifiable.

The purpose of procedure is to facilitate and not to thwart justice. It

was created not to hinder and delay, but to promote the administration of
justice. Hence, every interpretation in its application must towards the
attainment of these objectives. 55

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review

on certiorari is DENIED. The Resolution dated October 23, 2008 and
Orders dated March 10, 2009 and April 21, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court
ofMisamis Oriental, Branch 17, are hereby AFFIRMED.

52
Racca v. Echague, G.R. No. 237133, January 20, 2021.
53 Id.
54
De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 725-726(2014).
55
People v. Flores, 336 Phil. 58, 61 (1997), citing Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil.
523(1911).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 194310

SO ORDERED.

·-
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.