Gonzales v. Fernan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the intestate estate of the late Matias Yusay. A reamended project of partition was approved by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. This partition awarded one-third of the estate to petitioner Lilia Yusay Gonzales, a natural child, and two-thirds to the legitimate son, Jose S. Yusay. A specific parcel of land, identified as Lot No. 5904 with an area of 10.8405 hectares in the partition, was part of petitioner's share. However, verification revealed this parcel was actually Lot No. 5927. 2. Procedural History: Following the Supreme Court's affirmation of the project of partition, petitioner Lilia Yusay Gonzales filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to correct the lot number from 5904 to 5927, attaching certification from the Register of Deeds. Respondent Florencia P. Vda. de Yusay, an heir of Jose S. Yusay, opposed this motion, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to amend a final and executory judgment. The respondent Judge denied the motion, sustaining this view. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondent Judge to assume jurisdiction and hear her motion to correct the project of partition. The core of the petition argued that the Supreme Court's affirmance of the partition did not preclude the trial court from correcting a mistake, especially since the specific lot number error was not passed upon by the appellate court. However, petitioner later filed a motion to withdraw the petition, stating she was seeking another remedy in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, sitting as a cadastral court, under Section 112 of Act 496.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition for mandamus to allow her to pursue a remedy under Section 112 of Act 496 in the cadastral court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the motion to withdraw the petition, considering the petition withdrawn without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition was based on her pursuit of an alternative legal remedy. By filing the motion to withdraw on November 12, 1968, the petitioner manifested her intent to abandon the mandamus proceeding in favor of a case under Section 112 of Act 496 (Land Registration Act) before the cadastral court. The Court noted that although the petition had been given due course as early as 1962 and respondents had failed to file an answer, the petitioner's change in strategy was acceptable. The Court's role in this Resolution was limited to acknowledging the petitioner's preference for a different forum to correct the technical lot description. Granting the withdrawal is consistent with the principle that a party may generally abandon a suit if it does not prejudice the rights of the opposing party or the public. Consequently, the Court did not need to resolve the jurisdictional question originally raised regarding the probate court's power to amend a final partition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel a lower court to assume jurisdiction over a motion to correct a project of partition, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, may be withdrawn by the petitioner if she seeks another remedy in the lower court.