Manalo v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992, leaving a wife, Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, and eleven children. He also left real properties and a business, Manalo's Machine Shop. Eight of his children, herein respondents, filed a petition for the judicial settlement of his estate and for the appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as administrator. Procedural History: The respondents filed their petition with the Regional Trial Court of Manila on November 26, 1992. After an initial order of default was set aside, the petitioners (Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, et al.) were allowed to file their opposition. Following several pleadings and an Omnibus Motion filed by the petitioners, the trial court issued an order on July 30, 1993, denying most of their prayers, including the request for a preliminary hearing on their affirmative defenses and the inhibition of the judge, while admitting their opposition for consideration. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petition on September 30, 1996, and denied their motion for reconsideration on May 6, 1997. The Petition: The petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul the resolution of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's orders, specifically questioning the denial of their motion for outright dismissal of the petition for judicial settlement of estate. Their primary contention is that the petition for settlement of estate should have been dismissed under Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court, in conjunction with Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code), for failure to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise among family members had been made and had failed. They claim the petition had adversarial elements, making it akin to an ordinary civil action.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for judicial settlement of estate is an ordinary civil action or a special proceeding. Whether the requirement of prior earnest efforts toward compromise under Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code) applies to a petition for judicial settlement of estate. Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the questioned orders of the Regional Trial Court. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the petition for judicial settlement of estate: The Court held that the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding is controlled by the averments and the character of the relief sought in the petition. A scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 revealed that it contained sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate, such as the fact of death and residence of the decedent, an enumeration of legal heirs, and a tentative list of properties. The prayer for the issuance of letters of administration and the settlement and distribution of the estate further confirmed the intention to seek judicial settlement. The Court emphasized that the averments in the petition, not the defenses in the answer, determine the nature of the action. The inclusion of averments that may be typical of an ordinary civil action, such as allegations of mismanagement by a co-heir, does not convert a special proceeding into an ordinary civil action, especially when the primary relief sought is the settlement of the estate. On the applicability of Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code): The Court clarified that Article 222 of the Civil Code, which requires earnest efforts toward compromise in suits between members of the same family, is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is evident from the term 'suit' which refers to an action where one party sues another for the enforcement of a right or redress of a wrong. The Report of the Code Commission also indicated that this provision was intended for adversarial civil actions that breed hate and passion within families. A petition for settlement of estate is a special proceeding, not a civil action, as it seeks to establish a status, right, or fact, namely, the death of the decedent and the petitioners' right to participate in the settlement of the estate. The oppositors were not being sued for any cause of action, and no defendant was impleaded in the special proceeding. Therefore, the requirement of prior compromise efforts was not a condition precedent for filing the petition for settlement of estate. On the acquisition of jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that it had acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors. The RTC had initially declared the world in default, but subsequently set aside the order of default and allowed the oppositors to file their opposition within a specified period. By filing their Omnibus Motion and subsequently their "Opposition" which contained affirmative defenses and counterclaims, the oppositors voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint or petition, and that parties cannot defeat the purpose of a valid petition by raising irrelevant matters or by strategizing to unduly delay proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A petition for judicial settlement of estate is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, and therefore, the requirement of prior earnest efforts toward compromise under Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code) does not apply.