ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137245. April 7, 1999]

MERCEDES BAUTISTA, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the dated APR 7, 1999.

G.R. No. 137245 (Mercedes Bautista, et al. vs. CA, et al.)

Petitioners assail the resolution of the Court of Appeals setting aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, thus declaring that petitioners are barred from questioning the judgment rendered in special Proceedings No. 117-V in the settlement of the Estate of Feliza Duran.

The partition of subject estate between private respondent surviving spouse of the decedent and a certain Anastacia Duran was approved by the court in a special proceedings which was terminated on February 2, 1972.

In 1981, petitioners filed an action for conveyance of property inheritance against private respondent, seeking the recovery of their alleged share in the subject estate for being the nearest collateral relative of the decedent.

Upon trial, the regional trial court rendered a decision recognizing petitioners' right to a share of the inheritance.

Dissatisfied, both parties appealed which resulted in the Court of Appeals' setting aside the appealed decision.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

As correctly ratiocinated by the Court of Appeals, petitioners had full knowledge of the estate proceedings and had every opportunity to participate and claim their right therein when a certain Engracio German, spouse of petitioner Mercedes Bautista, intervened in their behalf during the settlement proceedings. Hence, they are bound by the decision in Special Proceedings No. 117-V. It is to be remembered that this Court has ruled that the settlement of the estate of a decedent is a proceeding in rem which is binding against the whole world. All persons having interest in the subject matter involved whether they are notified or not are equally bound.(Philippine Savings Bank vs. Lantin, 124 SCRA 483 [1983]). Hence, petitioners are barred from questioning the judicial settlement of the decedent's estate.

Furthermore, a final order of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests title to the land of the estate in the distributees, and the only instance where a party interested in a probate proceedings may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out due to circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence, not imputable negligence, which is not so in the case at bar (Ramon vs. Ortuzar, 89 Phil. 741).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE