Transcript
TESTATE ESTATE OF VDA DE BIASCAN v. BIASCAN (2000) Digest by Lilian DyPonente: Gonzaga-Reyes DOCTRINE #1: Rule 109 enumerates what orders or judgments by the RTC or Juvenile and DomesticCourts may be subject to appeal by an interested party in a Special Proceeding, where such order or judgment: (a) Allows and disallows a will (b) Determines who the lawful heirs are and their distributive shares in the estate (c) Allows or disallows a claim against an estate (in whole or in part), or any claim presentedon behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator trustee or guardian (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person,or the administration of a trustee or guardian , a final determination in the lower court of therights of the party appealing , except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of aspecial administrator; and (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration. DOCTRINE #2: In special proceedings, the period of appeal from any decision or final order renderedtherein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required to perfect theappeal. The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal or a motion for reconsideration or newtrial being perfected, the decision or order becomes final. ã Under Sec 3, Rule 41, the time during which a motion to set aside the judgment or order or for anew trial shall be deducted from the period from which to make an appeal . ã Where the motion was filed during office hours of the last day of the appeal period, the appealmust be perfected within the day following that in which the party appealing received noticeof the denial of said motion. (Dates are somewhat important!) DOCTRINE #3: Judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The trial court need not pronounce the finality of an order, as this becomes factupon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsiderationor new trial is filed. QUICK FACTS: Maria Vda de Biascan (legal wife of Florencio) is opposing the appointment of Rosalina(Florencio's acknowledged natural child) as administratrix of his intestate estate. RTC does not set asideappointment and refuses to let her appeal ruling to CA because Notice and Record on Appeal were filedlate. ORIGINAL ACTION: Motion to set aside appointment of Rosalina as special administrator. FACTS: Nature: Petition for review of decision of Court of Appeals. 1. 13 Aug 1975: Rosalina was appointed regular administratrix of the intestate estate of FlorencioBiascan (and Timotea Zulueta). 2. 10 Oct 1975: Maria Vda de Biascan files a motion to intervene, a motion to set aside theappointment of Rosalina as regular administratrix and a motion to have herself appointed as administratrix of Florencio's estate. 3. 2 Apr 1981: CFI Manila under Judge Serafin Cuevas issued an Order resolving that:a.Maria is the lawful wife of Florencio b. Rosalina and her brother German are the acknowledged natural children of Florencioc.All 3 are the legal heirs of Florencio and are entitled to participate in the settlementproceedingsd.Motion to set aside the Order appointing Rosalina administratrix of Florencio's estate ISDENIEDe.Motion to approve inventory and appraisal of Rosalina is deferred 4. 9 Apr 1981: Maria, through counsel receives above Order. 5. 6 Jun 1981: Maria files her motion for reconsideration (MR), which Rosalina opposed. (58 daysafter receipt of Order) 6. 15 Nov 1981 : Records of the case were completely lost in a fire that gutted the 4 th Flr of ManilaCity Hall. Petition for Reconstitution of the records of the case was filed on 2 Jan 1985. 7. 30 Apr 1985: RTC Manila DENIES Maria's MR. 8. Maria dies sometime after. (No Date of Death). Her counsel, Atty Lopez is appointed specialadministrator of her estate. He engages the services of another law firm 1 in behalf of Maria's estate. 9. 21 Aug 1996 or (almost 11 yrs after denial of MR) : Law firm allegedly made aware of denial of MR, but was able to secure a certification from the Clerk of Court that there was no proof of service of the Order dated 30 Apr 1985 contained in the records. 10. 20 Sep 1996: Trial court received Notice of Appeal (dated 22 Aug 1996, but stamped Received on 20 Sep 1996 ) . A Record of Appeal was also filed on the same date. 11. Trial Court issues Order DENYING Estate of Maria's appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. (MR filed 65 days after Order and Notice of Appeal filed 11 years after denial of MR) 12. Trial Court denies Estate of Maria's MR (to allow her to appeal) 13. CA denies Maria's Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Mandatory Injunction which questionedthe RTC's refusal to allow her to appeal the Orders issued in 1981. 14. Estate of Maria: April 1981 Order did not become final and executory as no opposition on itstimeliness was filed and no ruling as regards to its timeliness was made. (See Doctrine #3 – CivProtopic) ISSUE: 1. Based on subject matter, WoN the Order issued in Apr 1981 is subject to appeal? (YES) 2. WoN the appeal was perfected on time? (NO) DECISION 1. YES. The ruling of the trial court falls squarely under Sec 1(b) and 1(e) 2 of Rule 109.(see Doctrine#1) Orders, decrees or judgments issued by a court in a special proceeding which constitute a finaldetermination of the rights of the parties are the proper subject of an appeal. In contrast, interlocutoryorders are not appealable as these are merely incidental to judicial proceedings.The appointment of a special administrator for a limited time or specific purpose should not beappealed because of its temporary and special character. 2. NO. Party has 30 days to perfect appeal (file Notice of Appeal with Record on Appeal) or file MRto interrupt the period. (See Doctrine #2) 1 Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices 2 Court has previously held that the appointment of a regular administrator is a final determination of the rights of the parties, and isappealable. 9 Apr 1981: Received Order >>> Deadline 9 May 1981 (30days after Order).6 Jun 1981: Filed MR >>> Out of Time (58 days after Order). No appeal period to interrupt asOrder had become final. Trial court would have been justified in not entertaining MR at all.Even if the MR interrupted the period of appeal (ex. MR filed on 30 th day) and assuming the new lawfirm really found out about denial of MR only on 21 Aug 1996:21 Aug 1996: Allegedly found out about Denial of MR >>> Deadline 22 Aug 1996.20 Sep 1996: Notice of Appeal with Record of Appeal filed. (Court disapproves of law firm'sattempt to pass of filing Notice on 22 Aug 1996) Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed out of time. Petition denied.
