Florendo v. Court of First Instance
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Juan S. Florentino initiated proceedings by filing a petition for the probate of the will of Concepcion Ontañon and for his appointment as administrator. The petition stated that the testatrix died on August 8, 1955, leaving an estate valued at no less than P37,450.00, with no forced heirs, and identified Miguel, Celedonio, Trinidad, and Esperanza Florendo as her nearest relatives. 2. Procedural History: The probate petition was opposed by various individuals claiming to be relatives. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur initially sustained the proponent's motion to discard the opposition of the alleged fourth-degree relatives (first cousins), including the Florendos, based on the principle that nearer relatives exclude more distant ones. The Florendos' first motion for reconsideration, arguing that the alleged third-degree relatives were illegitimate, was denied. A subsequent second motion for reconsideration, filed by the Florendos and Felix Verzosa, was also denied, with the court deeming the original order final and appealable, and noting that no appeal had been filed within the reglementary period. 3. The Petition: The Florendos, joined by Felix Verzosa, subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court. They sought to set aside the lower court's order that excluded them from participating in the probate proceedings and to compel the lower court to allow them to prosecute their opposition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the order was final and appealable, and that certiorari and mandamus could not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal due to petitioners' own neglect.
Issue(s)
Whether the order discarding the petitioners' opposition to the probate of the will was a final and appealable order. Whether certiorari and mandamus are proper remedies given the petitioners' failure to appeal the order within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and mandamus is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the order discarding the petitioners' opposition was a final order in so far as they were concerned. This is because the order effectively excluded them from participating in the probate proceedings. As such, it was an appealable order, not merely interlocutory. On the second issue: The Court held that certiorari and mandamus are not proper remedies in this case. The petitioners had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal from the final order of the lower court. Their failure to avail themselves of this remedy within the reglementary period, due to their own neglect, barred them from seeking redress through certiorari and mandamus. The Court reiterated the principle that these extraordinary remedies will not lie as a substitute for an appeal, especially when the lower court has not acted without jurisdiction. The factual basis of the order was challenged, necessitating an appeal to review the sufficiency of the evidence, which was lost by the petitioners' inaction.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari and mandamus will not lie as a substitute for an appeal when the order complained of is final and appealable, and the petitioners failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period due to their own neglect.