Hernandez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The cases stemmed from petitions for review of a Court of Appeals decision that dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari and mandamus, and a subsequent resolution denying their motions for reconsideration. The core dispute involved the April 24, 1967 order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal admitting to probate the last will and testament of the late Maximo C. Hernandez Sr., and the August 10, 1968 order directing the executrix or estate to pay Atty. Rosendo J. Tansinsin P250,000.00 as attorney's fees with legal interest. Procedural History: Petitioners sought review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their certiorari and mandamus petition. The Court of First Instance had previously admitted the will to probate and ordered payment of attorney's fees. The Petition: Two separate petitions for review were filed before the Supreme Court, one by Francisco C. Hernandez (as heir and judicial administrator) and another by other heirs of Maximo C. Hernandez Sr. These petitions sought to annul the orders of the Court of First Instance regarding the probate of the will and the award of attorney's fees, and the subsequent decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals upholding these orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the consolidated petitions for review in light of a supervening amicable settlement among all parties with interests in the estate. Whether the issues raised in the petitions are rendered moot and academic by the aforementioned settlement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the joint Motion to Dismiss filed by all parties. The petitions in G.R. Nos. L-43813 and L-43952 were accordingly DISMISSED. All incidents involved and pending in these two cases were rendered moot and academic, requiring no further action. Any claim for attorney's fees of Atty. Manuel T. de Guia was reserved for action in the court below.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court granted the joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Ernesto O. Rodas (present administrator), Zenaida Leuterio Vda. de Hernandez (administratrix of the estate of Francisco C. Hernandez), all petitioners in L-43952, and all other heirs of the late Maximo C. Hernandez Sr. This motion was based on the ground that all parties with interests in the estate had amicably settled their differences and agreed on a "Partial Project of Partition and Settlement of Claims" dated March 1, 1977, which was approved by the Court of First Instance of Rizal on March 3, 1977. The Court found no objection to this motion. On Issue 2: By virtue of the amicable settlement and the approved Partial Project of Partition and Settlement of Claims, the issues raised in the petitions before the Supreme Court, which concerned the probate of the will and the award of attorney's fees, were rendered moot and academic. Since the parties had resolved their disputes outside of court, there was no longer a justiciable controversy for the Supreme Court to resolve. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, stating that all incidents involved and pending in these two cases required no further action.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a resolution, dismissed two consolidated petitions for review. This dismissal was based on a joint motion to dismiss filed by all parties who had amicably settled their differences through a Partial Project of Partition and Settlement of Claims. The Court found that the settlement rendered all pending incidents moot and academic, thus granting the motion to dismiss. The resolution also explicitly reserved any claim for attorney's fees for Atty. Manuel T. de Guia for action in the court below.