TESTATE ESTATE OF VDA DE BIASCAN v.

BIASCAN (2000) Digest by Lilian Dy Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes DOCTRINE #1: Rule 109 enumerates what orders or judgments by the RTC or Juvenile and Domestic Courts may be subject to appeal by an interested party in a Special Proceeding, where such order or judgment: (a) Allows and disallows a will (b) Determines who the lawful heirs are and their distributive shares in the estate (c) Allows or disallows a claim against an estate (in whole or in part), or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator trustee or guardian (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator; and (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration. DOCTRINE #2: In special proceedings, the period of appeal from any decision or final order rendered therein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required to perfect the appeal. The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal or a motion for reconsideration or new trial being perfected, the decision or order becomes final. Under Sec 3, Rule 41, the time during which a motion to set aside the judgment or order or for a new trial shall be deducted from the period from which to make an appeal.

Where the motion was filed during office hours of the last day of the appeal period, the appeal

must be perfected within the day following that in which the party appealing received notice of the denial of said motion. (Dates are somewhat important!) DOCTRINE #3: Judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The trial court need not pronounce the finality of an order, as this becomes fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. QUICK FACTS: Maria Vda de Biascan (legal wife of Florencio) is opposing the appointment of Rosalina (Florencio's acknowledged natural child) as administratrix of his intestate estate. RTC does not set aside appointment and refuses to let her appeal ruling to CA because Notice and Record on Appeal were filed late. ORIGINAL ACTION: Motion to set aside appointment of Rosalina as special administrator. FACTS: Nature: Petition for review of decision of Court of Appeals. 1. 13 Aug 1975: Rosalina was appointed regular administratrix of the intestate estate of Florencio Biascan (and Timotea Zulueta). 2. 10 Oct 1975: Maria Vda de Biascan files a motion to intervene, a motion to set aside the appointment of Rosalina as regular administratrix and a motion to have herself appointed as

administratrix of Florencio's estate. 3. 2 Apr 1981: CFI Manila under Judge Serafin Cuevas issued an Order resolving that: a. Maria is the lawful wife of Florencio b. Rosalina and her brother German are the acknowledged natural children of Florencio c. All 3 are the legal heirs of Florencio and are entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings d. Motion to set aside the Order appointing Rosalina administratrix of Florencio's estate IS DENIED e. Motion to approve inventory and appraisal of Rosalina is deferred 4. 9 Apr 1981: Maria, through counsel receives above Order. 5. 6 Jun 1981: Maria files her motion for reconsideration (MR), which Rosalina opposed. (58 days after receipt of Order) 6. 15 Nov 1981: Records of the case were completely lost in a fire that gutted the 4th Flr of Manila City Hall. Petition for Reconstitution of the records of the case was filed on 2 Jan 1985. 7. 30 Apr 1985: RTC Manila DENIES Maria's MR. 8. Maria dies sometime after. (No Date of Death). Her counsel, Atty Lopez is appointed special administrator of her estate. He engages the services of another law firm1 in behalf of Maria's estate. 9. 21 Aug 1996 or (almost 11 yrs after denial of MR): Law firm allegedly made aware of denial of MR, but was able to secure a certification from the Clerk of Court that there was no proof of service of the Order dated 30 Apr 1985 contained in the records. 10. 20 Sep 1996: Trial court received Notice of Appeal (dated 22 Aug 1996, but stamped "Received on 20 Sep 1996"). A Record of Appeal was also filed on the same date. 11. Trial Court issues Order DENYING Estate of Maria's appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. (MR filed 65 days after Order and Notice of Appeal filed 11 years after denial of MR) 12. Trial Court denies Estate of Maria's MR (to allow her to appeal) 13. CA denies Maria's Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Mandatory Injunction which questioned the RTC's refusal to allow her to appeal the Orders issued in 1981. 14. Estate of Maria: April 1981 Order did not become final and executory as no opposition on its timeliness was filed and no ruling as regards to its timeliness was made. (See Doctrine #3 CivPro topic) ISSUE:

1. Based on subject matter, WoN the Order issued in Apr 1981 is subject to appeal? (YES) 2. WoN the appeal was perfected on time? (NO)
DECISION

1. YES. The ruling of the trial court falls squarely under Sec 1(b) and 1(e)2 of Rule 109.(see Doctrine
#1) Orders, decrees or judgments issued by a court in a special proceeding which constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties are the proper subject of an appeal. In contrast, interlocutory orders are not appealable as these are merely incidental to judicial proceedings. The appointment of a special administrator for a limited time or specific purpose should not be appealed because of its temporary and special character.

2. NO. Party has 30 days to perfect appeal (file Notice of Appeal with Record on Appeal) or file MR
to interrupt the period. (See Doctrine #2)
1 2

Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices Court has previously held that the appointment of a regular administrator is a final determination of the rights of the parties, and is appealable.

9 Apr 1981: Received Order >>> Deadline 9 May 1981 (30days after Order). 6 Jun 1981: Filed MR >>> Out of Time (58 days after Order). No appeal period to interrupt as Order had become final. Trial court would have been justified in not entertaining MR at all. Even if the MR interrupted the period of appeal (ex. MR filed on 30th day) and assuming the new law firm really found out about denial of MR only on 21 Aug 1996: 21 Aug 1996: Allegedly found out about Denial of MR >>> Deadline 22 Aug 1996. 20 Sep 1996: Notice of Appeal with Record of Appeal filed. (Court disapproves of law firm's attempt to pass of filing Notice on 22 Aug 1996) Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed out of time. Petition denied.