View full case

PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO v. CA

FACTS:

Troadio Manalo passed away and left behind several real properties and a business. His wife and eleven children survived him. Eight of the children filed a petition for the judicial settlement of their father's estate and the appointment of their brother as administrator. The trial court set the petition for hearing and ordered its publication. Later on, the trial court declared the whole world in default, but this order was subsequently set aside. The oppositors filed various pleadings, including an omnibus motion. The trial court denied the motion for additional extension of time to file opposition and scheduled a hearing for the appointment of the administrator. The oppositors then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the venue was improper and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over their persons. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and their motion for reconsideration was denied. The sole issue raised in their petition for review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of their motion for dismissal. The petitioners argue that the petition for judicial settlement of the estate is a regular civil action involving family members, based on certain allegations in the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors.

  2. Whether the petition for judicial settlement of estate should be dismissed for failure to make earnest efforts toward a compromise among members of the same family.

RULING:

  1. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors. The court issued an order directing the service of the petition upon the heirs named in the petition at their respective addresses. Since the oppositors were served with notice of the petition, the court acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

  2. The petition for judicial settlement of estate should not be dismissed for failure to make earnest efforts toward a compromise among members of the same family. The court found that the contentions of the petitioners were untenable and dismissed the petition for certiorari. Moreover, the petitioners failed to adequately support their claim that the petition was an ordinary civil action involving members of the same family. The court upheld the orders of the trial court which denied the motion for the outright dismissal of the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties can be acquired through proper service of notice.

  • The court will dismiss a petition for certiorari if the contentions raised are untenable and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

  • Failure to make earnest efforts toward a compromise among members of the same family is not a ground for the outright dismissal of a petition for judicial settlement of estate.