Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Pilar Manalo Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Trina Rivera
    This case involved a dispute over the estate of Troadic Manaloa, who died intestate, between his surviving spouse Pilar and eight of his children (respondents), and the remaining children (petitioners). The respondents filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate and appointment of an administrator. The petitioners argued the petition should be dismissed for failure to allege earnest efforts to compromise as required between family members by Article 151. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 151 does not apply because a petition for settlement of an estate is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, to which Article 151's requirements are limited. The petition merely seeks to establish the facts of death and heirship to allow settlement of the estate under the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pilar Manalo Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Trina Rivera
    82 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over the estate of Troadic Manaloa, who died intestate, between his surviving spouse Pilar and eight of his children (respondents), and the remaining children (petitioners). The respondents filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate and appointment of an administrator. The petitioners argued the petition should be dismissed for failure to allege earnest efforts to compromise as required between family members by Article 151. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 151 does not apply because a petition for settlement of an estate is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, to which Article 151's requirements are limited. The petition merely seeks to establish the facts of death and heirship to allow settlement of the estate under the

    Original Description:

    Pilar Manalo vs CA

    Original Title

    Pilar Manalo vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the estate of Troadic Manaloa, who died intestate, between his surviving spouse Pilar and eight of his children (respondents), and the remaining children (petitioners). The respondents filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate and appointment of an administrator. The petitioners argued the petition should be dismissed for failure to allege earnest efforts to compromise as required between family members by Article 151. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 151 does not apply because a petition for settlement of an estate is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, to which Article 151's requirements are limited. The petition merely seeks to establish the facts of death and heirship to allow settlement of the estate under the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    Pilar Manalo Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Trina Rivera
    This case involved a dispute over the estate of Troadic Manaloa, who died intestate, between his surviving spouse Pilar and eight of his children (respondents), and the remaining children (petitioners). The respondents filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate and appointment of an administrator. The petitioners argued the petition should be dismissed for failure to allege earnest efforts to compromise as required between family members by Article 151. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 151 does not apply because a petition for settlement of an estate is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action, to which Article 151's requirements are limited. The petition merely seeks to establish the facts of death and heirship to allow settlement of the estate under the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO, ORLANDO S.

    MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO


    (Oppositors) VS HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA (BRANCH 35),
    PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M. TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. ACUIN, ROMEO S.
    MANALO, ROBERTO S. MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA MANALO G.R. No. 129242 (2001)

    FACTS: The decedent Troadic Manaloa died intestate and was survived by his wife Pilar and eleven (11)
    children. He left several heirs and several real properties in Manila and a business (Machine shop) in
    Tarlac. After his death, eight (8) of his children (respondents) filed a petition for the judicial settlement
    of his estate and for appointment of their brother Romeo Manalo as administrator

    On the date set for hearing of the petition the trial court issued an order “declaring the whole world in
    default, except the government”. However, the trial court set aside the order of general default of the
    petitioners (the remaining children of Troadic who did not join the 8) and they were granted 10 days
    within which to file their opposition to the position

    The petitioners then filed an Omnibus Motion.

    Some of the heirs including his surviving spouse moved to dismiss the petition contending that there was
    failure to comply with a condition precedent due to the absence of an allegation of earnest efforts
    toward a compromise among members of the same family.

    The motion was denied, hence, they raised before the Supreme Court in a Petition for Certiorari the
    denial of the said motion. They claimed that the petition for judicial settlement was actually an ordinary
    civil action involving members of the same family, which requires an allegation of earnest efforts to
    compromise.

    ISSUE: WON the case at bar is covered under Article 151 where earnest efforts toward compromise
    should first be made prior the filing of the petition.

    RULING: No. Art 151 of FC which prohibits suit between members of the family absent a compromise, is
    not applicable in the case at bar for such is only a special proceeding and not an ordinary civil action.

    It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments
    and the character of the relief were sought in the complaint or petition, shall be controlling. The
    careful scrutiny of the petition for the issuance of letters of administration, settlement and distribution
    of the estate belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The
    provision of Article 151 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. It is clear from the term “suit” that it
    refers to an action by one person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the
    plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or enforcement of a
    right. It is also the intention of the Code Commission as revealed in the Report of the Code Commission
    to make the provision be applicable only to civil actions. The petition for issuance of letters of
    administration, settlement, and distribution of estate is a special proceeding and as such a remedy
    whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Hence, it must
    be emphasized that herein petitioners are not being sued in such case for any cause of action as in fact
    no defendant was pronounced therein. Private respondents herein merely seek to establish the fact of
    death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased
    so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate
    of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.

    You might also like