Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > July 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12359 July 15, 1959 - BERNANDINO PEREZ v. CONRADA PEREZ, ET AL.

105 Phil 1132:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12359. July 15, 1959.]

In the Matter of the Petition for the Summary Settlement of the Estate left by the deceased Caridad Perez. BERNANDINO PEREZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CONRADA PEREZ, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.

Efrain B. Treñas for Appellee.

Gaudioso Geduspan for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF TESTATE ESTATE; JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS INTERESTED, HOW ACQUIRED. — The court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the settlement of the estate of deceased persons through the publication of the petition in the newspaper.

2. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL HEIRS; EFFECT OF. — Service of notice on individual heirs or legatees or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdiction requisite. so much so that even if the names of some legatees or heirs has been omitted from the petition for allowance of the will-and therefore were not advised-the decree allowing the will does not ipso facto become void for want of jurisdiction.

3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; APPEALS; JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION DIRECTLY APPEALABLE TO SUPREME COURT. — The jurisdictional question directly appealable to the Supreme Court refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter, not mere jurisdiction over the persons.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This appeal does not belong here. Involving, as it does the summary settlement of a testate estate worth P6,000.00 according to petitioner, or P10,000.00 according to oppositors, it should not have been brought directly to this Court from the Iloilo Court of First Instance, inasmuch as several questions of fact are raised in relation with testimonial evidence: for example, the soundness of the mind of the testatrix and her freedom from constraint in signing the will.

The printed brief makes no assignment expressly challenging the court’s jurisdiction; but in discussing their second error, oppositors-appellants insist the lower court did not "acquire jurisdiction to receive the evidence for the allowance of the alleged will" because two heirs (Melanio Perez, Jr. and Milagros Perez) had not been notifies in advance of the hearing for the allowance of such will.

In reply to this, the petitioner-appellee says the persons mentioned were not entitled to notice, since they were not forced heirs — grandnephew and niece — and had not been mentioned as legatees or devisees in the will of the deceased (Manahan v. Manahan, 58 Phil., 448). And as to Milagros Perez, petitioner asserts that notice had been addressed to her last known residence in this country.

Thus it appears that such "no notice" argument has no legal foundation. At any rate the omission, if any, did not affect the jurisdiction of the court: it constituted a mere procedural error that may or may not be the basis of reversal (Joson v. Nable, 48 Off. Gaz., 90). Indeed, this Tribunal has ruled that the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the publication of the petition in the newspapers (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 159; Joson v. Nable, supra) — which in this case admittedly took place.

Service of notice on individual heirs or legatees or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience, not jurisdiction requisite. (Joson v. Nable, supra) So much so that even if the names of some legatees or heirs had been omitted from the petition for allowance of the will and therefore were not adviced — the decree allowing the will does not ipso facto become void for want of jurisdiction. (Nicholson v. Leathan, 153 Pacific Reports, 965; Moran, Rules of Johnson, supra, and Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil., 938.)

The result is that the matter of "jurisdiction" discussed by oppositors appears to be so unsubstantial as to furnish no reason to bypass the Court of Appeals authority to appraise the factual issues in the litigation. (Cf. People v. Imas, 64 Phil., 419; Uy v. Villafranca, 64 Phil., 561,)

Needless, to add, in fine, the jurisdictional question directly appealable to this Court refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter, not mere jurisdiction over the person (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil., 484; Bernabe v. Vergara, 73 Phil., 676; Sy Oa v. Co Ho, 74 Phil., 239.)

Wherefore, this record will be referred to the Court of Appeals for disposition in accordance with law.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9262 July 10, 1959 - MARINO S. UMALI v. EFRAIN Y. MICLAT

    105 Phil 1109

  • G.R. No. L-8883 July 14, 1959 - ALFREDO M. VELAYO, ETC. v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHIL., LTD.

    105 Phil 1114

  • G.R. No. L-11451 July 14, 1959 - MACONDRAY & COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 1118

  • G.R. No. L-12657 July 14, 1959 - TOMAS TAGLE, ET AL. v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1123

  • G.R. No. L-12749 July 14, 1959 - VERGEL ROSALES v. JOSE ROSALES

    105 Phil 1131

  • G.R. No. L-12359 July 15, 1959 - BERNANDINO PEREZ v. CONRADA PEREZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-14781 July 15, 1959 - JOSE CABUANG v. ELOY BELLO, ETC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 1135

  • G.R. No. L-11588 July 20, 1959 - BALBINO SEQUITO, ET AL. v. ANATALIO LETRONDO

    105 Phil 1139

  • G.R. No. L-9449 July 24, 1959 - CENTRAL AZUCARRERA DON PEDRO v. CESAREO DE LEON, ETC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 1141

  • G.R. No. L-12366 July 24, 1959 - CARMELO L. PORRAS v. MONEBRIO F. ABELLANA

    105 Phil 1147

  • G.R. No. L-12871 July 25, 1959 - TIMOTEO V. CRUZ v. FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA

    105 Phil 1151

  • G.R. No. L-13170 July 25, 1959 - CARLOS CURILAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    105 Phil 1160

  • G.R. No. L-11919 July 27, 1959 - ILDEFONSO BIANDO, ET AL. v. CIRIACO EMBESTRO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1164

  • G.R. No. L-12915 July 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE FULE

    105 Phil 1171

  • G.R. No. L-12902 July 29, 1959 - CEFERINO MARCELO v. NAZARIO DE LEON

    105 Phil 1175

  • G.R. No. L-8798 July 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO CAISIP, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1180

  • G.R. No. L-9131 July 31, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO TONDO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1187

  • G.R. No. L-9950 July 31, 1959 - ALLIANCE INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1192

  • G.R. No. L-11818 July 31, 1959 - LA ESTRELLA DISTILLERY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1213

  • G.R. No. L-12313 July 31, 1959 - PEDRO JACINTO v. NARCISO JACINTO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1218

  • G.R. No. L-12485 July 31, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO CARLE

    105 Phil 1227

  • G.R. No. L-12830 July 31, 1959 - PONCIANO S. REYES v. SIMPLICIA REYES BERENGUER

    105 Phil 1232

  • G.R. No. L-12937 July 31, 1959 - RCA-COMMUNICATIONS v. RAFAEL M. CONTRERAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1233

  • G.R. No. L-13692 July 31, 1959 - CAYETANO JORDAS, ET AL. v. SALOMON VEDAD, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1239

  • G.R. No. L-14257 July 31, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1242