Page 1
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
Page 2
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 2/29
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.
Page 3
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 3/29
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.
Page 4
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 4/29
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.
Page 5
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 5/29
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'
Page 6
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 6/29
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
Page 7
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 7/29
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.
Page 8
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 8/29
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,
Page 9
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 9/29
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,
Page 10
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 10/29
,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.
Page 11
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 11/29
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'
Page 12
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 12/29
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'
Page 13
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 13/29
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
Page 14
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 14/29
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:
Page 15
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 15/29
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'
Page 16
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 16/29
CA-G.H,
S,P.
No.
134741
DEC SION
Delos Santos v. Villanueva et
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.
Page 17
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 17/29
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'
Page 18
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 18/29
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'
Page 19
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 19/29
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.
Page 20
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 20/29
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.
Page 21
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 21/29
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.
Page 22
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 22/29
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.
Page 23
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 23/29
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.
Page 24
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 24/29
CA-G.R.
S.P.
No.
134741
DECISION
Delos Santos v. Villanueva et
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.
Page 25
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 25/29
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'
Page 26
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 26/29
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
Page 27
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 27/29
{
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,
Page 28
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 28/29
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
Page 29
8/18/2019 Probate c.a Sp Gr No.134741
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/probate-ca-sp-gr-no134741 29/29
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:::"