Camara Vda. de Zubiri v. Tandayag
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the estate of the deceased Jesus Zubiri, a resident of Iligan City, who died intestate in Spain in 1956. His estate includes two commercial lots in Iligan City, which were possessed and administered by Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri. The core of the conflict lies in the competing claims over these properties and the rentals derived from them between the petitioner, Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri (the widow), and the respondent, Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri, who claims to be the sole heir. 2. Procedural History: Initially, in Special Proceedings No. IL-2, Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri was appointed administrator and subsequently declared the sole heir, with the estate adjudicated to him. Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri later filed Civil Case No. IL-219, seeking to recover her share of the properties, alleging they were conjugal. After a judgment in her favor based on a stipulation of facts, Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri's petition to set aside the judgment was initially denied, but this denial was later revoked by the Supreme Court, remanding the case for trial on the merits. Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri then filed an answer asserting res judicata and other defenses, followed by a motion to dismiss which was granted after a preliminary hearing. Concurrently, Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri repeatedly sought and obtained orders from the probate court to withdraw accumulated rentals from the estate's properties, despite the pendency of Civil Case No. IL-219 and Aurora Camara's subsequent appeals and motions, some of which were dismissed as untimely or for lack of merit. A new complaint, Civil Case No. 1298, was filed by Aurora Camara to annul the order in Special Proceedings No. IL-2, which was also dismissed. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri, filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside several orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. These orders directed the clerk of court to deliver deposited rentals from the intestate estate of Jesus Zubiri to Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri. The petitioner argues that these orders were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, with grave abuse of discretion, and in violation of due process, as they were issued while Civil Case No. IL-219 was purportedly still pending and without notice to her. She contends that the order dismissing Civil Case No. IL-219 was a nullity, violating a previous Supreme Court mandate to try the case on its merits. The petition also seeks to compel Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri to return the withdrawn rentals pending the resolution of Civil Case No. IL-219 and any related future cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders allowing the withdrawal of rentals were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Whether Civil Case No. IL-219 was still pending when the questioned orders were issued; and whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. IL-219 was valid. Whether the petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy. Whether the new complaint (Civil Case No. 1298) constitutes an attempt to undermine the administration of justice.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The orders allowing the withdrawal of rentals are affirmed. The dismissal of Civil Case No. IL-219 is valid, and the issue of rentals is moot and academic. The petitioner cannot resort to certiorari after her appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of rentals being moot and academic: As a consequence of the valid dismissal of Civil Case No. IL-219 and the confirmation of Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri's title to the property in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2, the issue concerning the withdrawal of accumulated rentals became moot and academic. As the owner of the property, Wenceslao is entitled to its fruits, in accordance with Article 441 of the Civil Code. The questioned orders allowing the withdrawal of rentals were issued after the properties had been awarded to Wenceslao in the terminated intestate proceeding. On the validity of the dismissal of Civil Case No. IL-219: The Supreme Court held that there was substantial compliance with its mandate in G.R. No. L-16745 to try Civil Case No. IL-219 on its merits. After remand, Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri filed his answer, asserting affirmative defenses of res judicata and renunciation of claim. A motion to dismiss based on res judicata was filed and treated as a preliminary hearing under Section 5, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that this preliminary hearing was not a summary proceeding but a separate trial of a distinct issue, allowing parties to present their respective sides. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was valid, confirming Wenceslao's title to the property adjudicated in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2. On the alleged deprivation of property without due process: The Court found no merit in the claim that the petitioner was deprived of property without due process. The petitioner's assertion that she was not given notice of the hearing in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2 was contradicted by her own complaint in Civil Case No. IL-219, which showed she retained legal counsel who entered an appearance in the special proceeding. The trial court noted that the petitioner had personal knowledge of the filing and pendency of the case and failed to oppose the petition, leading to the order in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2 being issued without her presence. This failure was attributed to her negligence or lack of interest, estopping her from indirectly challenging the order. On the propriety of the certiorari petition: The Court ruled that the petitioner could not resort to certiorari after her appeal from the order dismissing Civil Case No. IL-219 had been dismissed by the trial court. While certiorari may be a substitute for appeal if the right to appeal is lost through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, the petitioner failed to show probable merits of her claim. The dismissal of her appeal was based on it being filed out of time, and her subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. On the new complaint (Civil Case No. 1298): The filing of a new complaint (Civil Case No. 1298) to annul the order in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2 was deemed a brazen attempt to make a mockery of the administration of justice, as the issues raised had already been determined. The Court reiterated that the petitioner was duly notified and had personal knowledge of the proceedings in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2, and her failure to oppose estopped her from challenging the order. The questioned orders allowing withdrawal of rentals were not issued capriciously or whimsically, and Wenceslao had posted a bond to answer for any damages.
Main Doctrine
The withdrawal of rentals from an intestate estate, even if subject to pending litigation, is permissible and not an abuse of discretion when the property from which the rentals are derived has already been adjudicated to the administrator as the sole heir in a terminated intestate proceeding, and the subsequent civil case challenging this ownership has been validly dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Resort to certiorari is improper when an appeal has been perfected and subsequently dismissed.