ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9542 January 11, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. P. L. GALANG MACHINERY CO.

    100 Phil 679

  • G.R. Nos. L-10360 & L-10433 January 17, 1957 - JULIANO A. ALBA v. JOSE D. EVANGELISTA

    100 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-7909 January 18, 1957 - CIPRIANO E UNSON v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    100 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-9704 January 18, 1957 - LORENZO LLANOS v. CLAUDIO SIMBORIO, ET AL.

    100 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. L-8346 January 22, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO BINSOL

    100 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-8645 January 23, 1957 - PORT MOTORS v. FELIPE RAPOSAS

    100 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-8896 January 23, 1957 - EARNSHAW DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    100 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-9660 January 23, 1957 - FIDEL AMANTE v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    100 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-9442 January 28, 1957 - URBANA D. ANZURES v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    100 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-8169 January 29, 1957 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK

    100 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-9044 January 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO ARPON

    100 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-9507 January 29, 1957 - GONZALO N. RUBIC v. Auditor General

    100 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-9633 January 29, 1957 - EMILIO SORIANO v. ANTONIO ASI

    100 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-7586 January 30, 1957 - NARCISA B. DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-8613 January 30, 1957 - LA MALLORCA TAXI v. ROMAN GUANLAO

    100 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-9195 January 30, 1957 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA REMNANT CO.

    100 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-9621 January 30, 1957 - ANG BENG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    100 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-9666 January 30, 1957 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-7030 January 31, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO MENDOVA

    100 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. L-7846 January 31, 1957 - RAFAEL LITAM v. REMEDIOS ESPIRITU

    100 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-8685 January 31, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AURELIO P. REYES, ET AL.

    100 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-8960 January 31, 1957 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. MARIA B. CASTRO

    100 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-9126 January 31, 1957 - ASIA BED FACTORY v. NATIONAL BED AND KAPOK INDUSTRIES WORKERS’ UNION

    100 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-10058 January 31, 1957 - SEVERO ASUNCION v. JUAN BENALISA

    100 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. L-10998 January 31, 1957 - BERNARDINO O. ALMEDA v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    100 Phil 844

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-9633   January 29, 1957 - EMILIO SORIANO v. ANTONIO ASI<br /><br />100 Phil 785

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9633. January 29, 1957.]

    EMILIO SORIANO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ANTONIO ASI, Respondent-Appellant.

    Laude & Aguila Law Office for Appellee.

    Pagtalunan, Santos, Abril & Realon for Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; PETITION FOR RELIEF; SIX MONTHS PERIOD, HOW COMPUTED. — The period of six months within which a petition for relief may be filed should be computed not from the rendition of the judgment or order complained of but from the entry of such judgment or order. And under Rule 35, section 2, a judgment or order is entered by the clerk after expiration of the period for appeal or motion for new trial, i.e., after thirty days from notice (Rules 27 and 41).

    2. JUDGMENTS; VACATING OF; FRAUD THAT PREVENTS A PARTY FROM HAVING TRIAL. — The fraud that prevents a party from having a trial has been ruled to be extrinsic in Varela v. Villanueva, 50 Off. Gaz., 4242, 4249, and justifies vacating of the order fraudulenty obtained.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    Antonio Asi prays for the reversal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, vacating a previous final order (rendered in Special Proceedings No. 126, "Testate Estate of Crisanta Soriano") whereby alleged will of Crisanta Soriano was admitted to probate, and appointing Antonio Asi as administrator of her property.

    It is not denied that in the petition for probate of the will of Crisanta Soriano filed by appellant Antonio Asi, the latter intentionally omitted the name of appellee Emilio Soriano, although Asi knew that Emilio was a nephew of the alleged testatrix, and was one of her heirs intestate, she having died, without any surviving spouse, ascendants or descendants. As a result, Emilio Soriano was not given notice of the pendency of the petition for probate nor of the date of hearing set by the probate court, in violation of sections 2 and 4 of Rule 77:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 2. Contents of petition. — A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) The jurisdictional facts;

    (b) Whether the person named as executor consents to act, or renounces his right to letters testamentary;

    (c) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees, of the decedent;

    (d) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;

    (e) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;

    (f) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.

    SEC. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally. — The Court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addresses to the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator residents in the Philippines at their places of residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty days, before the healing, if such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at least ten days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.

    On April 22, 1952, Emilio Soriano filed a sworn petition to vacate the order admitting his aunt’s will to probate, on the ground that, because of the omission of his name as detailed above, and because of his unfamiliarity with Spanish (the notice of hearing had been published in the newspaper "Nueva Era" in that language), petitioner had been deprived of his day in court, and of opportunity to object to the probate; and that he learned of the questioned proceedings only on April 4, 1952, through a communication from the lawyer of Antonio Asi.

    Because of the facts aforesaid, Judge Edilberto Soriano, then of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, overruled the objections of Antonio Asi, and vacated the probate order complained of as obtained through extrinsic fraud to the detriment of Emilio Soriano. Antonio Asi then appealed directly to this Court on questions of law, but the appealability of the order of Judge Soriano has not been questioned, notwithstanding section 8 of Rule 38.

    Now appellant first alleges that, notwithstanding the lack of personal notice, the Court of First Instance acquired Jurisdiction over the case, by virtue of the newspaper publication, probate proceedings being proceedings in rem. The objection is improperly raised, because Emilio Soriano does not question the jurisdiction of the probate court; his petition for relief on the ground of fraud precisely assumes that the Court had jurisdiction to issue the order complained of. Without jurisdiction, said order would be a total nullity, and no petition for relief would be required (Gomez v. Concepcion, 47 Phil., 717; Lipana v. Court of First Instance of Cavite, 74 Phil., 18).

    It is next averred that the petition for relief was filed out of time, because the order admitting the will to probate was rendered on October 10, 1951, while the petition for relief was filed only six (6) months and twelve (12) days afterward, on April 22, 1952. The period of six months is incorrectly computed by the appellant from the rendition of the judgment or order complained of; it should be counted from the entry of such judgment or order. This is evident from section 3 of Rule 38:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 3. When petition filed; contents and verification. — A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified, filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the fact constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, which he may prove if his petition be granted.

    Under Rule 35, section 2, a judgment or order is entered by the clerk after expiration of the period for appeal or motion for new trial, i.e., after thirty days (Rules 37 and 41). This means that the probate order of October 10, 1951, could be entered, at the earliest, on November 9, 1951; wherefore, the petition for relief, filed on April 22, 1952, was within the six months allowed by Law.

    That the fraud practiced upon Emilio Soriano was collateral or extrinsic is unquestionable: it was not on a matter raised, controverted or decided in the probate order. It was entirely foreign to the issue raised in the probate proceedings, which was the due execution of the will of the deceased. Fraud that prevents a party from having a trial has been ruled to be extrinsic in Varela v. Villanueva, 50 Off. Gaz., 4242, 4249.

    Wherefore, it appearing that Emilio Soriano was fraudulently deprived of his day in court through no fault of his own, and that he has seasonably applied for relief the court below committed no error when it vacated the probate decree. The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-9633   January 29, 1957 - EMILIO SORIANO v. ANTONIO ASI<br /><br />100 Phil 785


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED