Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741

8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 1/29

Pee"a,A

7E

C-A

x----

May

22,2015'

REPUBLIC

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

COURT

OF

APPEALS

MANILA

JUN

&

t

20t$

CA-G,R.

SP

NO'

L3474L

ATTY

ERNESTO DELOS SANTOS'

Petifioner'

-

versus

-

HON.

DANIEL

C.

VILLANUEVA'

ETC"

eiit

riiosPePo

G'

MADRID'

Er

AL"

ResPondents'

-------x

NOTICE

OF

DECISION

Sir/Madami

Please

take

notice

that

on

$ay

21

2o 5,i

DIC]110N, copy attached, was

rendered

bv

the

ELEVENTH

tir.)

D.ly,:,-0.I-"f

;;r-c;;rt

in

the

'u"*-t'iitled

case'

the

original

of

#fri.f.r

i,

no*

on

file

with

this

Court'

YouareherebyrequiredtoinformthisCourt,withinfive(5)daysfromnotice

hereof,

of

the

date

whtn

you

receiv.;;^;;'i;e'

togett'er;;th

t

topy

oithe

DECISI0N'

/\

Very

trulf

YPurs,

\J/

'4/

ALMA

B.

OPERIO

Division

Clerk

of

Court

CopY

furnished:

HON,

PRESIDING

IUDGE

-

reg'

w/

rc

RTC-Branch

49

Manila

1000

ATTY.

ALVIN A'

CARULLO

-

reg'

w/rc

.

^

counsel

for

private

respondent

Dr'

Delos

Santos

suiie

roos

i6ln;ollibee

Plaza

-e,

O*igrt,

lr,

Road,

Ortigas

Center

Pasig

CitY

1505

ATTY.

ROBERTSON

R'

AQUIN0

-

reg'

w/rc'

'

counsel

for

private

respJndent

Affy'

Madrid

Suite

305'A

Delta

Bulding

West

Ave,

cor'

Quezon

Ave'

Quezon

Ciry

1100

ATTY

ELTZABETH

A'

ANDRES

-

reg'

w/rc

counsel

for

Petitioner

t;

&

3'd

Floors,

E'A'A'

Building

froiect

5,Quezon

CirY

1100

ATTY.

TUDITH

Z'

LUIS

-

reg'

w/rc

cQunsel

for

Petitioner

i,;;;;l'

iictor

st''

BreY'

Pio

del

Pilar

Makati

CirY

1200

/ims



wwmt,f

s,lllllsflsq'dHlsrff

"^'

1'

-

RePublic

of the

PhiliPPines

.<srD\

COURT OF

APPEALS

A.ZJ=\A

Manita

\t:\,8.d;1",

r&&ffii.

,

t.I.r t

aJiv

ELEVENTH

DIVISION

ATTY.

ERNESTO

DELOS

SANTOS,

CA.G.R.

$.P.

NO.

134741

Petitioner,

-versus-

Members:

LIBREA-LEAGOGO,

C., ChairPerson

LAZARO-JAVIER,

A.C.,

and

SADANG,

M.Q,C.,

JJ

Promulgated:

HON.

DANIEL

C.

VILLANUEVA,

}qAY

?

1

?&T$

-O

--'A)L-

Presiding

Judge,

Regional

Trial

ffio(v-

Court

of

Manila,

Branch

49, ATTY.

DIOSDADO

G.

MADRID

AND

DR.

MA.

RAMONA

DELOS

SANTOS,

Respondents.

x---

-----x

DEC SION

LAZARO.JAVIER,

A.

C.,

J.

:

This

petition

for certioraril

assails

the

following

issuances

of

the

Regional

Trial Court

(RTC),

Branch

49,

Manila,2

in Special

Proceeding

No,08-1

18719, entitled

"ln

the

Matter

of

the

Petition

to

Approve

the

Witl

of

Dr.

Virgilio

D. Delos

Santos,

Deceased.

Atty.

Diosdado G.

Madrid,

Petitioner,"

viz:

'

Under

Rule

65

of the

Revised

Rules

of

Court.

2

Penned

by

Hon,

Trese

D.

Wenceslao.



I

CA-G.R,

S,P.

No'

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva et al'

Page

2o128

x--_--_-_____--_

----------,-------x

3

Rollo,

Vol.

l, Annex "P", PP' 194-197.

a

Rollo,

Vol.

l,

Annex

"S",

pp.

205-206'

s

Bollo,

Vol.

l, Annex

"3",

PP'

282-295.

1) On

January

21,

2008,

Dr.

Virgitio

D'

D1elo9

Santos

died

at

the

Aiian

Hospital

and

Medical

Center,

Civic

Drive,

Filinvest

Corporate

Center,

Alabang'

Muntinlupa.

At

the

time

of

his

death,

Dr.

Delos

santos

resided

at

696

Gastambide

st.,

sampaloc,

Manila.

2)

Deceased

left

a

3

page

Holographic

Will'

a

handwritten

document

entiiled,

"The

U

niversity

of

Manila:

A

Vision,"

both

dated

February

3,

2006,

and

another

3

page typewritten statements.

These

documents

were

iigned

by

the

deceased

on

each

and

every

page

thereof,

On

January

30,

2008'

respondent

'oetivereo

all

original

c_qpies

of

the

documents

to

the

office

of

clerk

of

court

and

Ex-

Officio

Sheriff

of

RTC,

Branch

49,

Manila,

pursuant

to

section

2,

Rule

75

0l

the

Revised

Rules of

court,

1)

Order

dated

SePtember

finding

petitioner's

notice

of

appeal

form

ind

substance;

and3

2)

Order

dated

JanuarY

24,

2014'4

dismissing

petitioner's

Motion

for

Reconsideration,

for

lack

of

merit'

on

February

4,2008,

private

respondent

Atty.

Diosdado

G'

25,

201

3,

deficient

in

Madrid

filed

before

the

RTC

Manila

a

petition

to approve

Virgilio

D.

Delos

santos.

He

essentialty

averred:s

the

will

of

Dr.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos Santos

v.

Villanueva et al'

Page

3

of

28

X-----.---------

------------------X

3)

He accepted

his

designation

as sole

executor

of

the

will,

and

in

case

of his

incapacity

or default,

Dean

Joe-Santos

Bisquera

shall

act

as

his

substitute.

4)

The

following

are

the

heirs

of Dr.

Delos

santos:

a)

Atty.

Ernesto

L.

Delos

Santos, age 57,

residing

at

108

cenacle

Drive

sanville

subdivision,

Tandang

Sora,

Quezon

City,

b)

Dr.

Cynthia

L'

Delos

santos-chan,

age

56,

residing

at

5

Peaceful

Lane Sanville

Subdivision,

Tandang

Sora,

Quezon

City,

and

c)

Dr.

Ma.

Ramona

L.

Delos

Santos,

age

46,

residing

on

696

Gastambide

St.,

Sampaloc,

Manila.

5)

The

deceased

left real

and

personal

properties

with

an estimated value

of

P20,929,400'00,

6)

He

prayed

for

the

will to

be

allowed

and

approved,

letters of

testamentary

or

administration

to

be

issued

in

his

name,

and

in

case

of

default

or

incapacity

to

act,

Dean

Joe-santos

Bisquera

to

be

designated

as

his substitute.

The case

was

raffled

to

Branch

49,

presided

by

public

respondent

Honorable

Judge

Daniel C.

Villanueva.

By

Order

dated

February

12,2008,6

the

trial

court

found

the

petition

sufficient

in

form and substance

and

scheduled

it

for

hearing.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

4 of

28

x_------__----_

-------------------x

On

August

1,

2008,

petitioner

Atty'

Ernesto

his

sister

Dr.

Cynthia

L.

Delos

Santos-Chan

filed

Petition

for

Allowance

of

Will

and/or

Motion

to

Motion

to

Appoint

Atty'

Ernesto

L'

Delos

Administrator'

TheY averred:7

a)

The

witl

was

procured

through

undue

and

improper

pressure

and

influence

exerted

by

their

Volnd.=t

sister

Dr.

Ramona

Delos

Santos

and

Lnivelrsity

of

Manila

(UM)

President

Dr'

Emily

De

Leon.

b)AfterthedeceasedandhiswifeCordellaLlamas

Delos

Santos

got

separated,

Dr'

Ramona

took

care

of

their

father

and

lived

with

him

until

his

death.

c)

Several

incidents,

however,

created

a

wedge

between

them

and

their

father'

d)

The

deceased

became

sickly.

cynthia.wo,uld

call

u,panoinquireaboutherfather.shealth,butDr.

Ru*onu

and

Dr.

Emily

would

tell

her

that

he

was

well.

when

she would ask

them

if

she

could

talk

to

her

father,

she

was

given the

answer

that

her

father

did

not

want

to

talk

to

her.

e)

Both

of

them

earned

a

bad

reputatio.n

from

their

father

caused

by

the

destructive

effort

of

Dr.

Ramona

and

Dr.

Emily.

The

decedent

heavily

relied

on

them

in

running

the

universitY'

L.

Delos

Santos

and

an

OpPosition

to

the

Dismiss

Petition

with

Santos

as

SPecial

7

Flollo,

Vol.

l,

Annex

"6",

PP'

298-310'



CA-G.R.

S.P'

No'

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

5

of

28

x__-_____----__

-------------------x

f)

The

most

painful

incident

was

when

during

the

decedent's

last

illness

at

the

Asian

Hospital

in

January

2008.

Dr'

Ramona

and

Dr'

Emily

banned

bynir'.rid,

after

flying

from

the

U'S',

from

seeing

and

talfing

to

her

father.

Ernesto

was

prohibited,

too'

OniV

"ot.

Ramona,

Dr'

Emily,

and

..the

,latter's

grrndron,DaveBernardeLeonwereallowedatthe

iecedent;s

bedside.

Both

of

them

were

not

able

to

see

their

father

while

alive

or

even

say

goodbye

to

him.

g)Attheirfather.swake,Dr.Emilyinformedthem

ihat

a

will

had

been

executed.

ln

the

will,

bulk

of

the

decedent's

estate,

i.e.

half

of

the

decedent's

university

shares

of

stock,

was

bequeathed

to

Dr'

Ramona.

she

will

gain

not only

absolute

control

over

the

university

aifairs,

but

also

over

several

real

properties

and

business

interests

of

the

UM'

h)

Dr.

Ramona,

save

for

her

legitime,

is

barred

from

succeeding

according

to

Article

1027

of

the

civil

Code.

Durlng

the

hearing

on

June

20,

2008,

she

admitted

that

she

took

care

of

the

decedent

and

always

brought

him

to

the

hospital

until

his

last

confinement

at

the Asian Hospital.

i)Thetestatordidnotpossesstherequired

testamentary

capacity

as

he

was

not

aware

of the

true

nature

of

his

estate.

The

decedent's

UM

shares

of

stock

are

part

of

the

conjugal

property

and

do

not

exclusivelY

belong

to him.

j)

The

decedent's

signature

in

the

will

was

procured

by

f

raud and formal

iequirements were

not complied

*itt1.

The

3

page

typewritten

statements

were

not



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v'

Villanueva et

al'

Page

6

of

28

x_-_---__--____

-------------------x

attachedtothepetition.Thoughthetypewritten

Statementsweresignedoneverypagethereof,it

was

undated,

there

were

no

instrumental

witnesses,

no

attestation

clause,

and

the

will

was

unnotarized'

These

fatal

defects

render

the

will

intrinsically

void'

i)

For

practical considerations,

a

hearing

on

the

intrinsic

validity

of

the

will

should

be

ordered

by

the

court,

and

Atty.

Ernesto

Delos

santos,

appointed

as

special

administrator

of the

estate

pending

issuance

of

letters

of

administration'

ln his

Reply

dated

september

1,

2008,

Atty.

Madrid

said:8

1)

Petitioner

and Dr,

cynthia failed

to

prove

their

allegation

that

the

will

was

procured

by

undue

influence.

2)

Dr.

Ramona

was

not

the

attending

physician

every

time

the

testator

was

confined

in

the

hospital.

lt

was

natural

for a

loving

daughter,

irrespective

of

her

being

a

physician,

to

iake

care

of

her

father

in

the

latter's

time

of

need.

3)

The

affidavits

of

Dr.

Ramona,

Electa

Dacuan

Arevalo,

and

Jayna

carencia

would

reveal

how

the

testator

intently

did

not

include

Dr.

cynthia

and

Atty'

Ernesto

in his

will.

4) The

holographic

will

was

executed

on

February

3,

2006.

The

testator

contracted

his

"last

illness"

in

January

of

2008

or

almost

2

years before

he

died.

8

Rollo,

Vol. l, Annex

"7",

PP.31

1-360.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v. Villanueva et al'

Page

7 of

28

x--__-_---____-_

------------------x

Hence,

the

will

was

executed

before

his

last

illness

and

the

disqualification

does

not

apply'

The

testator

was

of

sound

mind

and

conscious

of

the

estate

he

disposed

of.

As

for

the

647

UM

shares of stocks, the

testator

inherited them

from

his

late

father,

Mariano

Delos

santos

sr.,

and

therefore,

exclusively

owned

the

same.

The

allegations

of

fraud

and

undue

influence

in

the

executioi

of

the

will

are

incoherent

grounds

for

opposing

the

Probate

of

will.

6)

All

the

required

formalities

had

been

complied

with

in the

execution

of

the

3

page

holographic

will'

The

accompanying

3

page typewritten statements

only

exPlained

the

holograPhic

will'

7)

The

holographic

will

does

not

intrinsically

appear

to

be

void

on

its

face.

A

probate

court

is

limited

to

an

examination

and

resolution

of

the

will's

extrinsic

validitY,

B)

The

testator

intended

Atty.

Madrid

to

be

sole

executor

of

his

estate.

Petitioner

should

not

be

appointed

as

special

administrator

for

he

is

not

covered

by

the

"prudent

person

rule'"

ln

their

Rejoinder

dated

October

2,2008,

petitioner

and

her

sister

Dr. Cynthia

riPosted:e

4)

5)

e

Bollo,

Vol.

l, Annex

"8",

pp.

361'491,



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v,

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

8

of

28

x-_______------

---------'---------x

a)

An

interested

party

can

oppose

the

issuance

of

letters

of

testamentary

so

long

as

the

grounds

therefore

are

stated

in

writing.

b)

The

affidavits

of

Dr.

Ramona,

Electa

Dacuan

Arevalo,

and

Jayna

Carencia

were

aimed

to

discredit

them

to

ensure

Dr.

Ramona's

acquisitiOn

Of

50%

of

the

entire

estate

of

the

deceased.

Owning

50%

of all

the

UM

shares,

together

with

her

legitime

is

equivalent

to

absolute

control

of

the

UM

affairs

and

its business

interests.

c)

Dr,

Emily

will

also

attain

her

desired

purpose

-

to

perpetuate

herself

as

the

UM

President,

while

Dr'

Ramona

will

retain

her

position

as

the

UM

Finance

Vice

President.

The

UM

by-laws

was amended

approving

the

change

of

the

UM

President's

term

f

roh

1

year

to

5

years. lt

was

also

approved

without

itreir

respective

signatures

and

the SEC

approval.

Without

considering

their

entitlement

to

the

UM

shares

of

stocks,

both

Dr'

Emily

and

Dr.

Ramona

will control

the

UM's

Board

of

Trustees'

d)

Dr. Emily

and

Dr.

Ramona

used,

diverted,

or

dissipated

the

UM funds

in

acquiring

properties

under

their

name.

Both

of

them

will

ensure

that

these

2

siblings

(petitioner and

Dr.

Cynthia)

will

not

be

able

to

gain

control

of

the

UM,

preventing

them

from

probing

and

discovering

anomalous

financial

transactions

therein.

e)

The allegations

about

Dr.

Ramona,

Arevalo,

carencia,

and

Beleno

in their

respective

affidavits

were not

only distorted,

but

exaggeratedly

biased,



,t

CA-G.H.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos Santos v. Villanueva et

al.

Page

9 of

28

X--------------

-------------------X

subjective,

fabricated,

hearsay,

and sheer

insidious

machinations.

f)

Dr.

Ramona

admitted

in

her

affidavit

that

she

took

care

of

their

father

during

his

last

illness,

thereby

absolutely

barring

her

from

succeeding

under

Article

1027

of the Civil

Code.

g)

The ownership

of

the

shares

of

stock

in

question

is

within

the

jurisdiction

qf

the

probate

court'

h)

The

3

page

typewritten

statements

contain

an

institution

of

an

heir and

testamentary

disposition

in

Dr.

Ramona's

favor,

covered

by

the

required

formalities

of a

will.

i)

Atty.

Ernesto

has

all

the

qualifications

to

be

appointed

special

administrator

of

the

estate'

Thereafter,

the

parties

presented

their

respective

witnesses and

filed their

formal

offers

of exhibits.

On

February

21,2011,

petitioner

filed

a

motion

for appointment

as special

administrator

of

the

estate.l0

Dr.

Ramona

opposed.ll

By

Order dated

July

B,

2011,12

the

trial

courtl3

appointed

petitioner

and

Dr.

Ramona

as

special

joint

administrators,

After

accepting

the

designation,

Dr.

Ramona,

along

with Atty.

Madrid

filed

a

10

Rollo,

Vol, ll, Annex

"15",

pp.

584-593.

11

Rollo,

Vol, ll,

Annex "16", pp. 594-596.12

Rollo,

Vol.

ll,

Annex

"18", pp.

598-601.

13

Presided by

Acting

Judge

Virgilio Macaraig.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et al'

Page

10

of

28

x_____-_-__-__-

-------------------x

Motion

for

Reconsideration

dated

August

s,

2011,

seeking

to

remove

petitioner'S

appointment

as

special

co-administrator'14

Meantime,

for

his

part,

petitioner

posted

a

special

administrator's

bond

and filed

an

Urgent

Motion

for

Assistance

in

performing

his

duties

as

Special

co-administrator

of

the

estatels

and

Opposition

to

Dr.

Ramona's

Motion

for

Reconsideration'16

Atty.

Madrid

and

Dr.

Ramona,

thereafter,

filed

a

Motion

to

Expunge

petitioner's

Urgent

Motion

for

Assistance.lT

They

also

filed a

Motion

to

Remove

and

Disqualify

Atty.

Ernesto

L'

Delos

Santos

as

special

or

regular

joint

administrator.

They

cited

as

ground

the

latter's

indictment

for

qualified

theft

under

criminal

case

No.

32306-R,

which

allegedly

rendered

petitioner

unfit

to

perform

his

duties

as

special

or

regular

joint

administrator.

18

Petitioner

moved

to

deny

both

motions

to

expunge

and

to

disqualify,le

He

argued

that

prior

approvat

of

his

special

co-

administrator

is

not

a

pre-requisite

to

his

seeking

court

assistance

in

the

performance

of

his

duties

as

special

co-administrator.

Also,

he

pointed

out

that

neither

private

respondents'

motion

for

1a

Hollo,

Vol.

ll, Annex

"20",

pp'

617-640

and

Annex

"21",

pp'617-644'

15

Rollo,

Vol.

ll, Annex

"22", pp.

645-717.

16

Rollo,

Vol.

ll,

Annex

"23",

pp.

718-988.

17

Rollo,

Vol. ll,

Annex "26",

pp'

997-1000'

1B

Rollo,

Vol.

ll,

Annex

"Zg",

b'p.

'1033-1036

and

Addendum

Annex

"29",

PP.

1037-1042'

1s

Rollo,

Vol.

ll,

Annex

"32",

pp'

1053-1067'



CA-G.R.

S'P'

No.

134741

DECISION

n.fot

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et

al'

Page11of28

x_____-__-_-_--

-------------------x

reconsideratlon

nor

his

indictment

and

temporary

detention

for

qualified

theft

affects

his

appointment

as

special

co-administrator'

onFebruary2,2ol2,petitionerfiledaManifestationwith

Omnibus

Motion2o

to

resolve

the

Urgent Motion

for

Assistance

dated

September

6,

2011i21

and

to

cite

private

respondents

and

their

counsel

in

direct

contempt

for:

a)

making

a

false

statement

of

fact

in

open

court

during

the

December

B,

2011

hearing'

b)

inexcusable

faiture

to

exert

utmost

diligence

in

ensuring

that

their

pleadings

reflect

thefactswithtruthandaccuracy'andc)fraudulentuseofan

intercalated Secretary's Certificate'

Atty.

Madrid

and

Dr.

Ramona

filed

their

counter-Manifestation

with

opposition

and

prayed

f

or

dismissat

of

petitioner's

omnibus

Motion

and

contemPt

charges'22

Petitioner

filed

his

Reply

dated

May

1

7,

2012,

reiterating

his

prayer

in

his

Omnibus

Motion'23

onJunel4,2ol2,petitioneralsofiledaManifestation

informing

the

trial

court

that

he

filed

a

labor

comptaint

against

UM

and

Dr.

Emily

for

illegally

dismissing

him

as

UM

Executive

Vice

President'

20

Rollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"34",

pp' 1092-1205'

21

Rollo,

Vol.

ll,

Annex

"22",pp'645'717'--

22

Rollo,

vol.

lll,

nnnex

"56",

;i;

1226-1235

and

Annex

*37"'

pp'

1236'1252'

'z3

Bollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"38",

pp' 1253-1261'



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos Santos

v.

Villanueva et al'

Page

12ot28

x---_--__------

-------------------x

Vice chairman

of

the

Board

of

Trustees,

and

Registrar.

Dr.

Ramona

then

filed a

Counter-Manifestation

with

Opposition.2a

After

the

Parties

had

offers

of

exhibits,25

the

trial

rejected

petitioner's

call

for

witness.26

completed

their

testimonies

and

formal

court, by

Order

dated October 25,

2012,

Atty.

Madrid

to

take

the

stand

as

hostile

Petitioner

filed

an

Urgent

omnibus

Motion

on

November

5,

2012,27

seeking

a

reconsideration

of

the

Order

dated

October

25,

2012,28

issuance

of Subpoena

Duces

Tecum

Ad

Testificandum

on

Atty.

Madrid,

and

inhibition

of

Judge

Villanueva.

He

also

asked

to

defer

resolution

of

his

motion

for

reconsideration,

pending

resolution

of

his

motion

for

inhibition

and

all

other

proceedings.

Atty.

Madrid

and

Dr.

Ramona

opposed.'e

By

Order

dated

November

22,2012,30

the

trial

court

ruled:

XXXX

2a

Rollo,

Vol.

lll, Annex

"44",

pp.

13BB-1450.

25

Rollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"41;',

pp,

1274-1379;

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"52",

PP'

1470'1476;

Vol'

lll,

Annex

"57",

pp.

1519'1544.

26

Rollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"49",

pp.

1460-1461.

27

Hollo,

Vol,

lll,

Annex

"50", pp.

1462-1467,

28

Bollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"49', pp, 1460-1461.

Presided by Hon.

Daniele.

Villanueva'

2s

Hollo,

Vol. lll,

Annex "54",

pp.

1488-'1503.

30

Rollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"55",

pp.

1504-1505



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Detos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

13

of

28

x-------___--___

------------------x

31

Rollo,

Vol,

lll,

AnneX':56",

pp. 1506-1518.

oa

BOllO,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"59",

PP.

1546-1564.

It

appearing

that

the

gqgo.sitors

have

already

been

given

sufficient

tirie-anO

still

fiiied

to

present,

th,?if

intended

second

and

last

witness

as

announced

by

counsel

themselves,

the oppo=iioit

are

deemed

to

have

waived

their

right

to

present

further

evidence

and

are

consider:ed

to

have

rested their case'

As

prayed

for

by

the

counsel

for

the

oppositors'

she

is

given

a

p'erioO oi-fiititn

(15)

D-ays

from

today

to

file

her

reply

to

the

comm.nii

tifrb

bV

th6

respective

counsels

for

p.-tition*t

and

for

Dr.

Ramona

delos

Santos'

The

matter

on

the

probate

of

the

will

as

well

as

other

pending

inciJenis

are

hereby

deemed

submitted

resolution.

SO ORDERED.

XXXX.

Petitioner

did

not

file

the

required

reply'

lnstead'

he

filed a

Motion

for

Reconsideration

dated

Decemb

er

7,

2012,

praying

that

he

be

allowed

to

present

other

witnesses'31

By

order

dated

Decembe

t

27

,2012,

the

trial

court

held:32

all

for

xxxx

WHEREFoRE,INVIEWoFALLTHEFoHEGoING,inthe

interest

of

justice,

the

Court

hereby

rules

on

the

following:



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DEClslol\l

5tfo.

Suntos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

14ot28

x--_-__-_-__-_-

-------------------x

&to

Court

merit;

1)

The

Urgent

Motion

for

Assistance

dated

6

Septem6e

,

iotl

[-orrutep

for

lack

of

merit;

2)

The

Motion

to

Cite

Atty'

Carullo

ln

Contempt

Cite Adverse

eart|

[

Co'nttl

in

-Contempt

of

dated

2

February'

zoli

is

DENIED

for

lack

of

3)

The

Urgent-

Omlibus

^

Motion

dated

5

November

2012

i1'

For

Reconsideration'

2'

For

lnhibition,

3'

To

peter

Resolution

of

the

lnstant

Motion

for

Reconsideratio"n

p"nOing

Resolution

of

the

lnstant

Motion

for

fnfriOiiion

unO

"nff

Other

Proceedings

in

C;;;

is

DENIED

tor

lack

of

merit;

4)

The

undated Motion

for

Reconsideration

(Re:

order

dated

22

ffi;;;oerj,

wr,igh

appears

simila-r

in

objective

to

the

;;;;

Utgent

Omnibus

Motion

of

5

N;;;;btt

2o12,is

DENIED

for

lack

of

merit;

5)

The

Opposition

dated

19

August

2008

is

DENIED

for

lack

of

merit;

FURTHERMORE,

Premises

considered'

relative

to

the

M;iN

forNrjn

of

the

proceedings

at

this stage,

ttre

proOate

of

the

will

is

GBANTED'

Accordinglv,

the

three

(3)-page

Hlggl3.plt

I"l

dated

3

Februati')oo6

[

nettoy

APPROVED

and

ALLOWED.

Let

Letters

(of)

Testamentary

&

Administration

be

issued

to

p.iitlo'{"

ntty'

oiosdaao

G'

Madrid'

without

,.qrire,rienioi'nv

tiono

as

wished

for

by

the

testator'



CA-G.H,

S,P.

No.

134741

DEC SION


al.

Page

15

of

28

x_-___-___------

------------------x

Upon

due

assumption

of

office,

petitioner

shall

actasanddischargehisdutiesasthesoleand

general

Administrator

of

the

Estate

of

the

Deceased

Dr.

Virgilio

D'

Delos Santos.

SO

ORDERED.

XXXX.

petitioner's

motion

for

reconsideration

was

also

denied

under

Order

dated

March

1

1,

2013.33

On

April

3,

2013,

petitioner

filed

an

undated notice

of

appealsa

and

record

on

appeal.35

Private

respondents

opposed

petitioner's

notice

of

appeal

for

being

allegedly

violative

of

Section

6,

Rule

41

ot

the

Revised

Rules

of

Court.36

ln

its Order

dated

September

25,2013,37

trial

court

denied

petitioner's

notice

of

appeal

for

being

defective

in

form

and

substance.

lt

ruled

that

petitioner

failed

to

comply

with Section

6,

Rule

41 of

the

Revised

Rules

of

Court

when

he_submitted

retyped

copies

of

pleadings,

petitions,

motions,

and

interlocutory

orders,

instead

of attaching

photocopies

thereof

to

his

record

on

appeal.

33

Bollo,

Vol.

lll,

Annex

"64",

pp.

1578-1579,

s

Rollo,

Vol. lll,

Annex

"65",

pp.'1580"1581.

35

Hollo,

Vol.

lV,

pp.

'1606-2004.

36

Rollo,

Vol.

lll, Annex

"72",

pp.1593-1597.

37

Rollo,

Vol. l, Annex

"P",

PP.

194-197.



w:jnt?5atq ,ffil@qrrye @|+/ry

CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DECISION

;;;;t;.tos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

16

of

28

x--_--_--_--__--

__----------------x

Also,petitionerpurportedlyomittedSeVeralpleadingsandcourt

ordersinhisrecordonappeal,therebymakingitincompleteand

defective.

Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration'containinganotice

of

hearing

on

october

18,

2013,

at

2:00

o,clock

in

the

afternoon;38

and

onoctoberl0,20lS,hisamendedrecordonappeal,togetherwith

supportingdocuments.sgAtty.MadridandDr.Ramonaarguedthat

petitioner,smotionforreconsiderationWaSamerescrapofpaperfor

lack

of

notice

and

hearing'oo

lnitsassaitedorderdatedJanuary24,2ol4,4lthetrialcourt

deniedpetitioner,smotionforreconsideration,inthiswise:

XXXX

Recorddoesbearoutthecontentionthatthehearingon

the

incident

was

set

by

the

movant

on

"18

October

2013

at

2:00pm,"

but

the

C;'i

received

the said

motion

onty

on

24

o.t,jo.i

2013,

or

Six

(6) Days

After'

Counsel

for

Dr'

Ramona

claimed

he

received

the

motion

onty

on

17

ociouei

2013'

rnus'

1ne

motion

^

'rtself

should

allegedly

o.

.onriJJitJu

p'o

rorma

pteading'

As

such'

it

did

not

stop

the

runnin -oi

ih'u

15-day

period

of

appeal'

.r

Rollo,

Vol.

l, Annex "Q",

pp.

198-204.

*

noffo,

Vol.

l,

Annex

"V",

pp.260.291:^-^

*

Hoffo,

Vol.

lV,

Annex

"2",

pp.

204_6-2058'

or

notto,

Vol.

l,

Annex

"S",

PP,

205-206'



CA-G.F.

S.P'

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et al'

Page

17

ot

28

x__-_----__-_-_

-------------------x

More

significantly,

aside

from

the

above

challenges

on

proc"Ourar

gro;nOs,

itiii'Court.does.

not

see

its

way

clear

that

a

"liberal"

or

"lenient''

interpretation

of

Section

6'

Rule

4l

allows

f or

"typewritten

reProductions'"

To

amplify

the

Courl's

original

ruling'

re-typing

is

fraught

withdangeroferrors,intentionalorothenrvise.Forinstance,

incorrectly

re-typeJ

words

and

sentences

may

be

charged

merely

to

typograpf',i.iierrors,

though

the

same

may

be

made

intentionallY.

To

stretch

the

interpretation

of

Section

6'

in

the

face

of

the

clear

imporl

of

the

provision

and

the

numerous

supreme

borrt

citations

submitted

by

the opposing

parties,

may

derogate

the

substantial

rights

of

the

latter'

WHEREFORE,

considering

further

that

many

issues

raised

in

this

in.iO.nt

were

adequately

passed.

upon

in

the

oiiginar

ruling,

in

tne

exercise

of

its

sound

discretion,

the

courl

f,r.iroy

of

tiifs

tor

lack

of

merit

the

said

Motion

for

Reconsideration

dated

10

October

2013'

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner

now

charges

the

trial

court

with

grave abuse

of

discretion,

amounting

to

lack

or

excess

of

jurisdiction

for

denying

his

notice

of

appear

and

his

subsequent

motion

for

reconsideration.4z

He

claims

to

have

substantially

complied

with

SectiOn

6,

Rule

41

of

the

Hevised

Rules

of

court,

i.e.

timely

filed

his

notice

of

appeal

and

record

on

appeal

and

paid

the

corresponding

appeal

fees'

He

insists

that

although

he

submitted,

for

convenience,

retyped

pleadings'

a2

Rollo,

Vol.

l,

pp.

1-64

and

2060-2081'



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DEClsloh,l

Delos

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

18

of

28

x-__-_______---_

------------------x

petitions,

motions,

and

orders

related

to

the

assailed

issuances'

the

trial

court

did

not

give

him

the

opportunity

to

correct,

amend'

or

redraft

his

record

on

appeal

in

accordance

with

the

rules'

The

defect

was'

nonetheless,

corrected

when

he

filed

his

amended

record

on

appeal

and attached photocopies of the pleadings and court orders'

tn

their

Comment

dated

October

27,

2014,43

Atty'

Madrid

and

Dr.

Ramona

defend

the

assailed

issuances

and

further

point

out

that

petitioner

intentionally

omitted

from

his

record

on

appeal

several

relevant

pleadings,

motions,

and

documents

in

his

original

record

on

appeal.

Also, they

aver

that

petitioner

filed

his

amended

record

on

appeal

way

beyond

the

30

day

prescriptive

perio

d

or

7

months

f rom

his

receipt

of

the

trial

court

's March

1

1

,

2013

Order,aa

declaring

the

incident

submitted

for

resolution.

More,

petitioner's

motion

for

reconsideration

was

allegedly

pro-forma

as

he

failed

to

comply

with

the

mandatory

notice

and

hearing

requirements

under

Sections

4' 5'

and

6

of

Rule

15

of

the

Revised

Rules

of

Court'

We

grant

the

Petition.

Sections

5

and

6

of

Rule

state:

41 of

the

Revised

Rules

of

Court

a3

Rollo,

Vol,

lV,

pp.2a20-2040

and

pp'

2086-2090'

aa

Bollo,

Vol.

l, Annex

"N",

pp.

190-191.



CA-G.R.

S,P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et al'

Page

19 of

28

x-_____-_-___--

-------------------x

Sec,

5.

Notice

of

aPPeal'

The

notice

of

appeal

shall

indicate

the

parties

to

the

appeal,

specify

tfie

juOgment

or

final order

or

part

thereof

ab'peateO'from,

specify

the

court

to

which

the

appeal

is

Olring

taken,

and'

state

the

material

dates

showing

the

timeliness

of

the

appeal.

Sec.

6.

Hecord

on

appeal;

form and

contents

thereof'

The

full

names

of

all

the

parties

to

the

proceedings

shall

be

stated

in the caption

of

the

record

on

appeal

and

it

shall

include

the

judgment

or

final

order

from

which

the

appeal

is

taken

and,

in

chronological

order,

copies

of only

such

pleadings,

petitions,

motions

and

all

interlocutory

orders

as

are

related

to

the

appealed

judgment

or

final

order

for the

proper

understanding

of

the

issue

involved,

together

with

such

data

as

will

show

that the

appeal

was

pJrlected

on

time.

lf

an

issue

of

fact

is

to be

raised

on

appeal,

the

record

on

appeal

shall

include by

reference

att'tt.,e

evidence,

testimonial

and

documentary,

taken

upon

the

issue

involved.

The

reference

shall

specify

the

documentary

evidence

by

the

exhibit

numbers

or

letters

by

which

it

was

identified

when

admitted

or

offered

at

the

hlaring,

and

the

testimonial

evidence

by

the

names

of

the

co-rresponding

witnesses.

lf

the

whole

testimonial

and

documentary

evidence

in

the

case

is

to

be

included,

a

statement

to

that

effect

will

be

sufficient

without

mentioning

the

names

of

the

witnesses

or

the

numbers

or

letters

of

exhibits.

Every

record

on

appeal

exceeding

twenty

(20)

pages

must contain

a

subject

index.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISIONI

betos

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

20

of28

x_-_____________

-_----------------x

Wehotdthatpetitionersubstantiallycompliedwiththe

aforequoted

provisions.

He

timely

filed

his

notice

of

appeal'

paid

the

appealfees,andlatersubmittedhisrecordonappeal.Although

petitioner

initially submitted

retyped

copies

of

pleadings' motions'

and

orders

aS

attachments

to

his

record

on

appeal,

instead

of

copies

thereof,

the

outright

dismissal

of

his

notice

of

appeal

on

this

ground

alone

was

unwarranted.

ln

truth,

section

7

0f

the

same

Rute

41

authorizes

the

trial

court

to

afford

the

appealing

pafty'

in

this

case'

petitioner,anopportunitytocure'byamendment'anotherwise

deficient record on appeal,

thus:

Sec.

7'

Approval

of

record

on

appeal'

Upon

the

filing

of

the

record

on

appeal

for

approval

and

if

no

objection

is

filed

by

the

upp.ittt

*ithin

five

(5)

days

from

receipt

of

a

copy

theieof

,

ttre

triat

court

may

approve

it as

presented

or

upon

its

own

motion

or

at

the

instanie

of

the

appellee,

may

direct

its

amendme;i;y

tt".,e

inrtusion

of

any

omitted

matters

which

are

deemedessentialtothedeterminationoftheissueoflaworfact

involved

in

tfre ippeaf .

lf

the trial court

orders

the

amendment

of

the

record,

tn.'rpprriant,

within

the

time

limited

in the

order,

or

such

extension

thereof

aS

may

be

granted,

o' I

no

time

is

fixed

by

the

order

within

ten

(10)

days

frdm

receipt

thereof,

shall

redraft

the

record

by

including

therein,

in

their

proper chronological

sequence'

such

additional

matters

as

the

court

may

have

-directed

him

to

incorporate,

and

shall

thereupon

submit.ihe

redrafted

record

for

approval,

upon

notice

to

ttre-appellee,

in

like

manner

as

the

original

draft.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No'

134741

DECISIOhI

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva et

al.

Page

21

of

28

x.-___--_____--

-------------------x

lndeed,

this

provision

recognizes

two

things:

the

difficult

and

meticulous

task

of

preparing

a

record

on

appeal

and

the

probability

that

in

the

process of

doing

this

task,

the

appealing

party may

omit

some

essential

matters

in

the

record

on

appeal.

When

this

happens,

the

provision

authorizes

the trial court

to

direct

the

appealing party

to

amend

his deficient

record

on

appeal

and

include

any

omitted

matters

in

his original

record

on

appeal

which

are

deemed

essential

in

the

determination

of

the

issue

of

law

or

fact

involved

in

his

intended

appeal.

Here,

petitioner,

as

stated,

initially

filed

a

deficient record

on

appeal

because

instead

of

attaching

copies

of

the

pertinent

portions

of

the

record

thereto,

he

opted

to

retype

these

portions, allegedly

for

convenience.

While

this

kind

of

deficiency

may

not

be

found

in

the

letter

of

Section

7

itself,

the

same

very

well

falls

within

the spirit

of

the

provision.

For

it

is

precisely intended

to

give room

for

correction

of

mistakes

or

deficiencies

in the

tedious

preparation

of

the

record

on

appeal,

for so

long

as

no

prejudice

is

caused

to

the

other

party'

To

fully

serve

the

purpose

of

SectionT,

a

liberal

interpretation

thereof

as

to include

other

forms

of

mistake

or

deficiency

in

the

preparation of

the

record

on

appeal,

should

be adopted.

After

all,

rules

of

procedure are

aimed

to serve,

not

to defeat,

the

ends

of

justice.



CA-G.R. S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v. Villanueva

et

al.

Page

22ol

28

X---------------

------------------X

As it

was,

however,

the trial

court

did

not

aTford

petitioner

the

chance

to

rectify

his mistake

or

deficiency

in

his

record

on

appeal,

sans

any

justification,

let

alone,

a

showing

that

to

do

so

would

result

in

any damage

or

prejudice

to

the

other

party.

ln spouses

Espejo

et

al.

v.

lto,as

the

supreme

court

ordained:

Technicalities,

however,

must

be

avoided.

The

law

abhors

technicalities

that impede

the

cause

of

justice.

The

court's

primary

duty is

to

render

or

dispense

justice.

"A

litigation

is

not

a

game

of

technicalities."

"Lawsuits

unlike

duels

are

not

to

be

won

by

a

rapier's

thrust.

Technicality,

when

it

deserts

its

proper

office

as

an

aid to

justice

and

becomes

its

great

hindrance

and

chief

enemy,

deserves

scant

consideration

from

cour1s,,,

Litigations

must

be

decided

on their

merits

and

not

on

technicality.

Every pafty

litigant

must

be

afforded

the

amplest

opportunity

for

the

proper

and

just

determination

of his

cause,

free

from

the

unacceptable

plea

of

technicalities.

rhus,

dismissal

of

appeals

purely

on

technical

grounds

is

frowned

upon

where

the

policy

of

the

court is

to

encourage

hearings

of

appeals

on

their

merits

and

the

rules

of

procedure

ought

not

to

be applied

in

a

very

rigid,

technical

sense;

rules

of

[rocedure

are

used

only

to

help

secure,

not

override

substantialjustice.

lt

is

a far

better

and

more

prudent

course

of

action

for

the

court

to

excuse

a

technical lapse and afford

the

parties

a

review

of

the

case

on

appeal

to

attain

the

ends

of

justice

rather

than

dispose

of

the

case

on

technicality

and

cause

a

grave

injustice

to

the

pafiies,

giving

a

false

impression

of

speedy

disposal

of

cases

while

actually

resulting

in

more

delay,

if

not

a

iniscarriage

of

justice.

So

must

it

be.

4s

G.R.

No,

176511,

August

4,

2009,

citing

Pefroso

v.

Dona,

G.B.

No.

154019,

April3,

2007.



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DECISION


al.

Page

23

ot 28

x--------------

-------------------x

It

may not

be

amiss

to

state

that

private

respondents'

charge

of

fraud

in

the

omission

of

some

relevant

portions

of the

record in

petitioner's

record

on

appeal is

uncalled

for.

The

original

record

is

intact

and remains in

the

custody of

the trial

court.

From

this

record,

one

can

easily

verify

matters

that

have

been

omitted, if

any. Besides,

the

record

on

appeal,

even

after

it

has

been filed, is still

subject to

the

approval

of

the

court,

precisely

for

the

purpose

of

ascertaining

if,

indeed,

the

record

on

appeal

is

complete,

and

if

not,

which

essential

portions

of

the

record

were

omitted

so

that the

court may

require

them

to

be included

therein.

with

these

safeguards

in

place,

the

commission

of

fraud

by the

appealing

party

is

farfetched,

if

not,

entirely

improbable.

To

repeat,

petitioner

filed

a

timery

notice

of

appeal

and had

already

amended

his

record

on

appeal

even

before

the

trial

court

disapproved

his

notice

on

appeal.

ln

other

words,

petitioner's

compliance

with

the required

record

on

appear

was

already

part

of

the

record

and

should

not

have

been ignored

by

the

trial

court

on

ground

of

a

supposed

deficiency

that

was

already

cured.



CA-G.R.

S.P,

No.

134741

DECISION

Prlot

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et

al'

Page

24

ot

28

x_-__--_---___-_

------------------x

ln

Jaro

v,

Court

of

Appeals,46

the

Supreme

Court

explained

that

there

is

substantiar

compriance

despite

petitioner's

fairure

to

attach

the

certified

true

copies

of

the

assailed

issuances'

so

long

as

there

is

subsequent

submission

of

these

missing

documents

with

the

motion

for

reconsideration.

Goingnowtopetitioner,sallegeddefectivemotionfor

reconsideration,

the

Supreme

Court

held:a7

,Thenoticerequirementisnotaritualtobefollowedblindly'

procedural

d;t

process

is

not

based

solely

on

a

mechanical

and

literat

application

that

renOLis

any

deviation

inexorably

fatal'

lnstead,

procedural

rules

are

liberaliy

construed

to

promote

their

objective

,no

to

assist

in

obtaining

alust,

speedy

and

inexpensive

determination

of

any

action

and

proceeding'

Here,

although

private

respondents

received

petitioner's

motion

for

reconsideration

only

a

day

before

the

scheduled

hearing

date'

they

were

still

able

to

file

their

opposition

to

petitioner's motion

for

reconsideration.a8

They

were

given an

opportunity

to

be

heard'

which

46

G.R.

No.

127536,

February

19,

2002,

citing

Spouses

Lane

November

ZZ,

ZOA7,

Piglas-Kamao

(Snnflsnhl

Chapter),

Ronnie

S'

Tamayo'

Jose

Del

Carmen,

Jocylene

Padua,

Vicky

Berme-o,.anJ

Elizabettl

Matutina

v'

National

Labor

Flelations

commission,MarikoNovelwares,lnc.,Nanettesamonte,NanetteAlejandro'Ferdinand

Guardiano,

Rosemarie

Abesamis,

Cleofe'Lacsamana,

Rica

Madera'

Romulo

Palloran

Jr"

and

priscilaGustilo,G.H.No.

138556,rvray9,zotii,.".oCornelia.P'Cusi-Hernandez

v'Spouses

Eduardo

Oiaz

anO

Rmelia

Mangahas,

-G'R'

No'

140436'

July

1B'

2000'

a7

Dougtas F, Anama

r.

Court ot"nppeats,

pnilippinl

S*ln;

Bank'

Spouses

Saturnina

Baria

&

TOMAS

Co.

andThe

Fleglstero{

Deeds,

rvretiS'Manlia,

DiJtrict

ll, G'R'

No'

187021'

January25'

2012.

oB

Flollo,

Vol.

l,

Annex

"V", pp'

26A-289'



s,{

x,

I

CA-G.R. S.P. No.

134741

DECISION

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et

al.

Page

25

ol

28

x---------------

------------------x

is

the

essence

of the

3-day notice

rule

and,

were,

thus,

afforded

their

right

to

due

process.

Too,

while

it

is

true

that

the

trial court

received

the

motion

for

reconsideration

by

mail

only

6

days

after

the

date

of hearing,

the

outright

denial

of

the

motion

on this

ground

was,

again,

improper.

Record

shows

that

petitioner

mailed

his

motion

for

reconsideration

on

october

10,

2012,

bearing

a

notice

of hearing

for

october

18,

2012.

The

date

of

hearing

here

corresponded

with

the

prescription

of section

5, Rule

15

of

the

Revised

Rules

of

court,

viz:

RULE

15

Motions

section

5.

Notice

of

hearing.

-

The

notice

of

hearing

shall

be

addres-sed

to

all

parties

concerned,

and

shall

specify

the

time

and

date

of

the-

hearing

which

must not

be

later

than ten

(to;

oays

arter

the filing

of

the

motion.

(Sa)

That

the

delivery

of

the

mait

got

delayed

in

th"

pro..r,

considered

a circumstance

beyond

petitioner,s

control,

hence,

not

be

a

cause

for

denial

of

his

motion

fn,,

leconsideration.

may

be

should

ln

any



{

CA-G.R.

S.P.

No.

134741

DEClSlor{

Delos Santos

v.

Villanueva et

al,

Page

26 of

28

x--___-_--____--

------------------x

event,

We

reiterate

that

technical

rules

should

not

prevail

over

substantial

j

ustice.as

Be

that

as

it

ffiay,

to

preclude

petitioner

from

appealing

his

exclusion

as

a

special

co-administrator

of

a

multi-million

estate

left

behind

by

his

late

father

based

on

mere

technicalities

is

the

highest

form

of

injustice

which

we

cannot

countenan6e,

lest,

We

perpetrate

injustice.

A

final

word.

The

problem

that

confronts

the

parties

now

would

have

been

easily

avoided

if

only

petitioner's

counsel studied

the

rules

and

strictly

adhered

thereto.

To

be

sure,

petitioner's counsel

had

no

authority

whatsoever

to

disregard

the

rules,

for any

reason,

let alone,

for

the

fact

that

he

only

wanted

to do

things

his

way

for

his

personal

convenience.

Their

deficient

knowledge

of the

rules,

if

not

disregard

of

the same,

is

irreparably

prejudicial

to

their

client

who stands

to

lose

so

much

as

a

consequence

thereof.

Petitioner's counsel,

therefore,

deserve

a strong

admonition

to,

henceforth,

be

more

conscientious,

diligent,

and

strictly

compliant

with

the

rules

ae

Martin

Pefroso and

Elizabeth

citing

Public Estates

AuthoritY

Begional

Trial Court,

Branch

August 19,1999.

Pefroso

v. Macrosman

Dona, G,R.

No'

154018,

April 3,

2007,

v.

Hon.

Jose

F. Caoibes,

Jr.,

ln

his Capacity

as

Presiding

Judge,

253,

Las

Pinas

City

and

Mafia

D,

Madriaga

G.R'

No.

132426,



CA-G.R.

S.P.

No,

134741

DECISIONI

Delos

Santos

v.

Villanueva

et

al.

Page

27

ol

28

x--_--__-__----

-------------------x

ACCORDINGLY,

the

petition is GRANTED.

The

Orders

dated

September

25,

2013

and

January

24,

2014,

are

nullified

and

petitioner's

notice

of

appeal

and

record

on

appeal

are

approved'

The

Regional

Trial

Court

of

Manila,

Branch

49

is

required

to

transmit

the

entire record to

the

Court of Appeals.

Attys.

Elizabeth

A.

Andres

and

Judith

Z.

Luis

are

strongly

admonished

to,

henceforth,

be

more

conscientious

and

diligent

in

handling

this case

and

other cases

entrusted

to

them and

to

strictly

adhere

to the

rules

of

procedure

in

order

to

avoid

the

occurrence

of

similar problems

in

the

future.

SO

OHDEHED.

ffiT[Tffm[AL

SIGI..$III

AMY C.

LAZAHO-JAVIEH

Associate

Justice

WE

CONCI,NR:

ffiffi:f

trTlv1i\

T;

['

T

fi"}t$]lili

CELIA

C.

LIBREA.LEAGOGO

Associate

Justice

t' $r+;l.r',lilL

*i'-'

lf

I

Fi

ll

r'

ri'i:'I l-i)'il'

MELCHOR QUIRINO

C.

SADANG

Associate

Justice



W

CA-G.R.

S'P.

No'

134741

DECISION

Oetos

Santos

v'

Villanueva

et al'

Page

28

of28

x--_---__--_-__

-.-----------------x

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant

to

Article

Vlll,

$ection

13

of

the

Constitution'

it

is

hereby

certified

that

the

conclusions

in

the

above

decision

were

reached in consultation

before

the

case

was

assigned

to

the

writer

of

the

opinion

of

the

Court'

NRIGI}IAil

$IGbWP

::il$#i#:#*xf:::"

Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741

Documents

Transcript of Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741