20 Solivio Vs CA and Villanueva

SOLIVIO vs.
CA and VILLANUEVA
FACTS:
This case involves the estate of the late novelist, Esteban Javellana, Jr., author of the
first post-war Filipino novel "Without Seeing the Dawn," who died a bachelor,
without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. His only
surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt, petitioner Celedonia Solivio, the
spinster half-sister of his mother, Salustia Solivio; and (2) the private respondent,
Concordia Javellana-Villanueva, sister of his deceased father, Esteban Javellana, Sr.
During his lifetime, Esteban, Jr. had, more than once, expressed to his aunt
Celedonia and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to
honor his mother and to help poor but deserving students obtain a college
education. Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack on February 26,1977 without
having set up the foundation.
Two weeks after his funeral, Concordia and Celedonia talked about what to do with
Esteban's properties. Celedonia told Concordia about Esteban's desire to place his
estate in a foundation to be named after his mother, from whom his properties
came, for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling. Concordia
agreed to carry out the plan of the deceased. This fact was admitted by her in her
"Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider the Order dated April 3, 1978" which she filed
on July 27, 1978 in Special Proceeding No. 2540,
Pursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings
leading to the formation of the foundation and after due publication and hearing of
her petition, as well as her amended petition, she was declared sole heir of the
estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr.
On April 3, 1978, the court declared her the sole heir of Esteban, Jr. Thereafter, she
sold properties of the estate to pay the taxes and other obligations of the deceased
and proceeded to set up the "SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE JAVELLANA FOUNDATION"
which she caused to be registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Four months later, or on August 7, 1978, Concordia Javellana Villanueva filed a
motion for reconsideration of the court's order declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of
Esteban, Jr., because she too was an heir of the deceased. Her motion was denied
by the court for tardiness (pp. 80-81, Record). Instead of appealing the denial,
Concordia filed on January 7, 1980 (or one year and two months later), Civil Case
No. 13207 in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 26, entitled "Concordia
Javellana- Villanueva v. Celedonia Solivio" for partition, recovery of possession,
ownership and damages.
the said trial court rendered judgment in favor of Concordia, In the meantime,
Celedonia perfected an appeal to the CA. the CA rendered judgment affirming the
decision of the trial court hence, this petition for review.
ISSUES:
1. whether Branch 26 of the RTC of Iloilo had jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No.
13207 for partition and recovery of Concordia Villanueva's share of the estate of
Esteban Javellana, Jr. even while the probate proceedings were still pending in
Branch 23 of the same court;
2. whether Concordia Villanueva was prevented from intervening in Spl. Proc. No.
2540 through extrinsic fraud;
HELD:
1. NO. Branch 26, lacked jurisdiction to entertain Concordia Villanueva's action
for partition and recovery of her share of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr.
while the probate proceedings (Spl, Proc. No. 2540) for the settlement of said
estate are still pending in Branch 23 of the same court, there being as yet no
orders for the submission and approval of the administratix's inventory and
accounting, distributing the residue of the estate to the heir, and terminating
the proceedings.
In view of the pendency of the probate proceedings in Branch 11 of the Court of
First Instance (now RTC, Branch 23), Concordia's motion to set aside the order
declaring Celedonia as sole heir of Esteban, and to have herself (Concordia)
declared as co-heir and recover her share of the properties of the deceased, was
properly filed by her in Spl. Proc. No. 2540. Her remedy when the court denied her
motion, was to elevate the denial to the Court of Appeals for review on certiorari.
However, instead of availing of that remedy, she filed more than one year later, a
separate action for the same purpose in Branch 26 of the court. We hold that the
separate action was improperly filed for it is the probate court that has exclusive
jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the estate.
A court should not interfere with probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court.
The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the
payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to
receive the same.
The better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to
demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration
proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it had
already been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be tried
by another court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate
or intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago
distributed and disposed of.
2. NO. The charge of extrinsic fraud is unwarranted. Concordia was not unaware
of the special proceeding intended to be filed by Celedonia. She admitted in
her complaint that she and Celedonia had agreed that the latter would
"initiate the necessary proceeding" and pay the taxes and obligations of the
estate.
The probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Notice of the time and place of
hearing of the petition is required to be published. Notice of the hearing of
Celedonia's original petition was published in the "Visayan Tribune."
The publication of the notice of the proceedings was constructive notice to the
whole world. Concordia was not deprived of her right to intervene in the
proceedings for she had actual, as well as constructive notice of the same.
Evidently, Concordia was not prevented from intervening in the proceedings. She
stayed away by choice. Besides, she knew that the estate came exclusively from
Esteban's mother, Salustia Solivio, and she had agreed with Celedonia to place it in
a foundation as the deceased had planned to do.

20 Solivio Vs CA and Villanueva

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 Solivio Vs CA and Villanueva

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 Solivio Vs CA and Villanueva

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOLIVIO vs.

You might also like