Gutierrez V Villegas

Gutierrez v.
Villegas (Short title) manifestation were obtained thru fraud practiced by the administrator
GR # L-17117 | 5 SCRA 313 | Date (May 31, 1962) upon her and were vitiated by mistake or undue influence.
Ponente: (Paredes J)
Petition: (Petition for Certiorari) The administrator Villegas and Rizalina filed exceptions and/or
Petitioner: (Adela Santos Gutierrez) objections to the Manifestation, denying the allegations of fraud, undue
Respondent: (Jose Villegas and Rizalina Santos Rivera) influence and the like.
(Article XXXX of the Civil Code, Contracts)
DOCTRINE: Intervention as contemplated by the Rules is a proceeding

in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to Adela presented with the Probate Court, a motion praying that the
make himself a party. administrator and/or his attorneys be required to furnish her all copies
of pleadings filed or to be filed in the intestate proceedings, it appearing
FACTS that the administrator presented pleadings in Court without serving her
copies thereof.
Irene Santos died intestate, leaving as her only heirs her surviving An opposition was interposed by the administrator, who alleged that the
spouse Jose D. Villegas and two nieces — daughters of a deceased movant, although originally a party to the probate proceeding, has
brother, Rizalina Santos Rivera and Adela Santos Gutierrez. Thereafter, voluntarily and expressly desisted from being so, and that having
the surviving spouse filed with the Rizal CFI, Pasay City Branch, a assigned by sale, all her rights, interests and participations in the estate,
petition for Letters of Administration (Sp. Proc. No. 2100), and was she has no longer any legal standing in the case.
appointed administrator of the estate. In the petition, he named as
intestate heirs, besides himself, Rizalina Santos Rivera and Adela RTC granted the motion.
Santos Gutierrez.
Hence, this petition. Appellants avers that Adela has lost her personality.
Under date of January 15, 1955, in the above-mentioned Special
Proceedings, an unverified manifestation signed by Adela Gutierrez,
accompanied by a public instrument entitled "Kasulatan ng Bilihan at ISSUE/S
Salinan", dated January 12, 1955, was presented to the Probate Court, 1. whether or not Adela Santos Gutierrez’ motion was one of
stating that the undersigned hereby solemnly manifests that all her intervention
rights, interests and participation in the estate subject of this proceeding
now belong to her sister, Rizalina Santos Rivera, and that hereafter she PROVISIONS
will not take part in the above-entitled proceedings and is not entitled to
the service of any pleadings, motion, order or decision filed or Rule 79, Section 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary.
promulgated therein. Simultaneous petition for administration. — Any person interested in a
will may state in writing the grounds why letters testamentary should
In a verified manifestation presented before the probate Court on not issue to the persons named therein as executors, or any of them, and
January 25, 1955, Adela averred that the deed of assignment of her the court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of
rights, participation and interest in the estate of Irene Santos and the first
Page 1 of 2
such grounds. A petition may, at the time, be filed for letters of
administration with the will annexed.
NOTES
RULING & RATIO
NO. We agree with appellee that the motion in question is not one whether or not Adela Santos Gutierrez has a right to intervene in this
of intervention, but solely a plea to enforce a right and that is to receive probate proceeding? Yes
pleadings and orders related to the case. Evidently, the use of the word
"intervention" in the manifestation and pleadings presented by Adela Moreover, it cannot be successfully denied that Adela Santos Gutierrez
was resorted to for want of another appropriate word. In effect, all she is an indispensable party to the proceedings in question. Her interest in
wanted to convey was that she should participate or continue taking part the estate is not inchoate, it was established at the time of death of Irene
in the case for being an original party therein. It was her belief that in Santos on November 11, 1954. While it is true that she executed a deed
filing the manifestation dropping herself from the proceedings (but of assignment, it is also a fact that she asked the same to be annulled,
which she later informed the court to have been secured thru fraud), her which action is now pending before the Rizal CFI, Pasig Branch.
standing might have been affected. Intervention as contemplated by the Although Adela had filed a manifestation dropping herself from the
Rules is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is proceedings and presenting therewith the supposed Deed of
permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff Assignment, the record, nevertheless fails to show that action thereon
in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant had been taken by the probate Court. Every act intended to put an end
in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a
both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, compromise, or any other transaction (Art. 1082, NCC). No serious
of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, which argument can be offered to deny the co-heirship of appellee in the estate
such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or under probate. It appearing (if We assume the due execution of the Deed
interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings. The of Assignment), that the transaction is in the nature of extrajudicial
circumstances stated above do not fit the status of Adela in the probate partition, court approval is imperative, and the heirs cannot just divest
proceedings; she was not a third person; she was an original party the court of its jurisdiction over the estate and over their persons, by the
therein. mere act of assignment and desistance. Thus, in the case of Sandoval v.
Santiago, G.R. No. L-1723, May 30, 1949, this Court said: ". . . and the
1. YES/NO heirs of the deceased Marquez could not divest the Court of First
- Same Instance of its already acquired jurisdiction by the mere fact of dividing
- Same and distributing extrajudicially the estate of the deceased among
o Same themselves". But even if the partition had been judicially approved on
the basis of the alleged deed of assignment, an aggrieved heir does not
DISPOSITION lose her standing in the probate court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We find the Order appealed from to

be in conformity with the law and jurisprudence. The same should be,
as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs against the appellants
Jose D. Villegas and Rizalina Santos Rivera, in both instances.
Page 2 of 2

Gutierrez V Villegas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gutierrez V Villegas

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Gutierrez V Villegas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gutierrez v.

DOCTRINE: Intervention as contemplated by the Rules is a proceeding

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We find the Order appealed from to

You might also like