spec pro full text full text case 5

8/9/2019 Spec Pro Full Text Full Text Case 5

1/14

SPEC PRO FULL TEXT

GUARDIAN

CASE NO. 5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 151243 April 3! 2"

LOLITA R. ALAMA#RI! petitioner,

vs.

ROMMEL! ELMER! ER$IN! ROILER %&' AMANDA! %ll ()r&%*+' PA,ALE!respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAARIO! J./

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by

petitioner Lolita R. la!ayri "la!ayri# see$in% the reversal and settin% aside of the &ecision,'dated

1( pril '((1, of the Court of ppeals in C)*.R. C+ o. 5-1/ as well as the Resolution,dated

10 &ece!ber '((1 of the sa!e court denyin% reconsideration of its afore!entioned &ecision. he

Court of ppeals, in its assailed &ecision, upheld the validity of the &eed of bsolute 2ale, dated '(

3ebruary 10-4, eecuted by elly 2. ave "ave# in favor of siblin%s Ro!!el, l!er, rwin, Roilerand !anda, all surna!ed Pabale "the Pabale siblin%s# over a piece of land "sub6ect property# in

Cala!ba, La%una, covered by ransfer Certificate of itle "C# o. )17 "'78(4#/ and, thus,

reversed and set aside the &ecision,4dated ' &ece!ber 1007, of the Re%ional rial Court "RC# of

Pasay City, Branch 110 in Civil Case o. 875)-4)C.5he ' &ece!ber 1007 &ecision of the RC

declared null and void the two sales a%ree!ents involvin% the sub6ect property entered into by ave

with different parties, na!ely, 2esinando M. 3ernando "3ernando# and the Pabale siblin%s/ and

ordered the reconveyance of the sub6ect property to la!ayri, as ave9s successor)in)interest.

here is no controversy as to the facts that %ave rise to the present Petition, deter!ined by the Court

of ppeals to be as follows:

his is a Co!plaint for 2pecific Perfor!ance with &a!a%es filed by 2esinando M. 3ernando,

representin% 2.M. 3ernando Realty Corporation ;3ernando< on 3ebruary 8, 10-4 before the

Re%ional rial Court of Cala!ba, La%una presided over by =ud%e 2alvador P. de *u>!an,

=r., doc$eted as Civil Case o. 875)-4)C a%ainst elly 2. ave ;ave


2/14

rene%ed on their a%ree!ent when the latter refused to accept the partial down pay!ent he

tendered to her as previously a%reed because she did not want to sell her property to hi!

any!ore. ;3ernando< prayed that after trial on the !erits, ;ave< be ordered to eecute the

correspondin% &eed of 2ale in his favor, and to pay attorney9s fees, liti%ation epenses and

da!a%es.

;ave< filed a Motion to &is!iss averrin% that she could not be ordered to eecute the

correspondin% &eed of 2ale in favor of ;3ernando< based on the followin% %rounds: "1# she

was not fully apprised of the nature of the piece of paper ;3ernando< handed to her for her

si%nature on =anuary , 10-4. Ahen she was infor!ed that it was for the sale of her property

in Cala!ba, La%una covered by C o. )17 "'78(4#, she i!!ediately returned to

;3ernando< the said piece of paper and at the sa!e ti!e repudiatin% the sa!e. @er

repudiation was further bolstered by the fact that when ;3ernando< tendered the partial down

pay!ent to her, she refused to receive the sa!e/ and "'# she already sold the property in

%ood faith to Ro!!el, l!er, rwin, Roller and !anda, all surna!ed Pabale ;the Pabale

siblin%s< on 3ebruary '(, 10-4 after the co!plaint was filed a%ainst her but before she

received a copy thereof. Moreover, she alle%ed that ;3ernando< has no cause of actiona%ainst her as he is suin% for and in behalf of 2.M. 3ernando Realty Corporation who is not a

party to the alle%ed Contract to 2ell. ven assu!in% that said entity is the real party in

interest, still, ;3ernando< cannot sue in representation of the corporation there bein% no

evidence to show that he was duly authori>ed to do so.

2ubseuently, ;the Pabale siblin%s< filed a Motion to ntervene alle%in% that they are now the

land owners of the sub6ect property. hus, the co!plaint was a!ended to include ;the

Pabale siblin%s< as party defendants. n an Drder dated pril '4, 10-4, the trial court denied

;ave9s< Motion to &is!iss pro!ptin% her to file a Manifestation and Motion statin% that she

was adoptin% the alle%ations in her Motion to &is!iss in answer to ;3ernando9s< a!ended

co!plaint.

hereafter, ;ave< filed a Motion to d!it her !ended nswer with Counterclai! and

Cross)clai! prayin% that her husband, tty. +edasto *es!undo be i!pleaded as her co)

defendant, and includin% as her defense undue influence and fraud by reason of the fact that

she was !ade to appear as widow when in fact she was very !uch !arried at the ti!e of

the transaction in issue. &espite the opposition of ;3ernando< and ;the Pabale siblin%s


3/14

entered into by ;ave< with respect to the sub6ect property is null and void, the 2econd

!ended nswer and !ended Reply and Cross)clai! a%ainst ;the Pabale siblin%s< should

be ad!itted.

Before the !otion for reconsideration could be acted upon, the proceedin%s in this case was

suspended so!eti!e in 10-7 in view of the filin% of a Petition for *uardianship of ;ave< withthe Re%ional rial Court, Branch 8 of Cala!ba, La%una, doc$eted as 2P o. 148)-8)C with

tty. +edasto *es!undo as the petitioner. Dn =une '', 10--, a &ecision was rendered in the

said %uardianship proceedin%s, the dispositive portion of which reads:

?Ender the circu!stances, specially since elly 2. ave who now resides with the

Brosas spouses has cate%orically refused to be ea!ined a%ain at the ational

Mental @ospital, the Court is constrained to accept the euro)Psychiatric valuation

report dated pril 14, 10-8 sub!itted by &ra. ona =ean lviso)Ra!os and the

supportin% report dated pril '(, 10-7 sub!itted by &r. duardo . Maaba, both of

the ational Mental @ospital and hereby finds elly 2. ave an inco!petent within

the purview of Rule 0' of the Revised Rules of Court, a person who, by reason ofa%e, disease, wea$ !ind and deterioratin% !ental processes cannot without outside

aid ta$e care of herself and !ana%e her properties, beco!in% thereby an easy prey

for deceit and eploitation, said condition havin% beco!e severe since the year 10-(.

2he and her estate are hereby placed under %uardianship. tty. Leonardo C. Paner

is hereby appointed as her re%ular %uardian without need of bond, until further orders

fro! this Court. Epon his ta$in% his oath of office as re%ular %uardian, tty. Paner is

ordered to participate actively in the pendin% cases of elly 2. ave with the end in

view of protectin% her interests fro! the pre6udicial sales of her real properties, fro!

the overpay!ent in the foreclosure !ade by Ms. *ilda Mendo>a)Dn%, and in

recoverin% her lost 6ewelries and !onies and other personal effects.

2D DR&R&.?

Both ;3ernando< and ;the Pabale siblin%s< did not appeal therefro!, while the appeal

interposed by spouses =uliano and van%elina Brosas was dis!issed by this Court for

failure to pay the reuired doc$etin% fees within the re%le!entary period.

n the !eanti!e, ;ave< died on &ece!ber 0, 100'. Dn 2epte!ber '(, 100, tty. +edasto

*es!undo, ;ave9s< sole heir, she bein% an orphan and childless, eecuted an ffidavit of

2elf)d6udication pertainin% to his inherited properties fro! ;ave


4/14

he case was then set for an annual conference. Dn =anuary 0, 1007, tty. +edasto

*es!undo filed a !otion see$in% the court9s per!ission for his substitution for the late

defendant elly in the instant case. ot lon% after the parties sub!itted their respective pre)

trial briefs, a !otion for substitution was filed by Lolita R. la!ayre "sic# ;la!ayri< alle%in%

that since the sub6ect property was sold to her by tty. +edasto *es!undo as evidenced by

a &eed of bsolute 2ale, she should be substituted in his stead. n refutation, tty. +edasto*es!undo filed a Manifestation statin% that what he eecuted is a &eed of &onation and not

a &eed of bsolute 2ale in favor of ;la!ayri< and that the sa!e was already revo$ed by hi!

on March 5, 1007. hus, the !otion for substitution should be denied.

Dn =uly '0, 1007, the court a quoissued an Drder declarin% that it cannot !a$e a rulin% as

to the conflictin% clai!s of ;la!ayri< and tty. +edasto *es!undo. fter the case was heard

on the !erits, the trial court rendered its &ecision on &ece!ber ', 1007, the dispositive

portion of which reads:

?A@R3DR, 6ud%!ent is hereby rendered as follows:

1. &eclarin% the handwritten Contract to 2ell dated =anuary , 10-4 eecuted by

elly 2. ave and 2esinando 3ernando null and void and of no force and effect/

'. &eclarin% the &eed of bsolute 2ale dated 3ebruary '(, 10-4 eecuted by elly

2. ave in favor of the ;Pabale siblin%s< si!ilarly null and void and of no force and

effect/

. Reco%ni>in% Ms. Lolita P. ;la!ayri< as the owner of the property covered by C

o. 111'40 of the land records of Cala!ba, La%una/

4. Drderin% the ;Pabale siblin%s< to eecute a transfer of title over the property infavor of Ms. Lolita P. ;la!ayri< in the concept of reconveyance because the sale in

their favor has been declared null and void/

5. Drderin% the ;Pabale siblin%s< to surrender possession over the property to Ms.

;la!ayri< and to account for its inco!e fro! the ti!e they too$ over possession to

the ti!e the sa!e is turned over to Ms. Lolita ;la!ayri


5/14

&ecision of the RC orderin% hi! and the Pabale siblin%s to 6ointly and severally pay la!ayri the

a!ount of P(,(((.(( as attorney9s fees.

he Pabale siblin%s intervened as appellants in C)*.R. C+ o. 5-1 averrin% that the RC erred

in declarin% in its ' &ece!ber 1007 &ecision that the &eed of bsolute 2ale dated '( 3ebruary 10-4

eecuted by ave in their favor was null and void on the %round that ave was found inco!petentsince the year 10-(.

he Court of ppeals, in its &ecision, dated 1( pril '((1, %ranted the appeals of 2.M. 3ernando

Realty Corporation and the Pabale siblin%s. t ruled thus:

A@R3DR, pre!ises considered, the appeal filed by 2. M. 3ernando Realty Corporation,

represented by its President, 2esinando M. 3ernando as well as the appeal interposed by

Ro!!el, l!er, rwin, Roller and !anda, all surna!ed Pabale, are hereby *R&.

he &ecision of the Re%ional rial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110 in Civil Case o. 875)-4)

C is hereby R+R2& and 2 2& and a new one rendered upholdin% the +L&F

of the &eed of bsolute 2ale dated 3ebruary '(, 10-4.

o pronounce!ents as to costs.7

la!ayri sou%ht reconsideration of the afore)uoted &ecision of the appellate court, invo$in% the

&ecision,-dated '' =une 10--, of the RC in the %uardianship proceedin%s, doc$eted as 2P. PRDC.

o. 148)-8)C, which found ave inco!petent, her condition beco!in% severe since 10-(/ and thus

appointed tty. Leonardo C. Paner as her %uardian. 2aid &ecision already beca!e final and

eecutory when no one appealed therefro!. la!ayri ar%ued that since ave was already 6udicially

deter!ined to be an inco!petent since 10-(, then all contracts she subseuently entered into

should be declared null and void, includin% the &eed of 2ale, dated '( 3ebruary 10-4, which she

eecuted over the sub6ect property in favor of the Pabale siblin%s.

ccordin% to la!ayri, the Pabale siblin%s should be bound by the findin%s of the RC in its '' =une

10-- &ecision in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C, havin% participated in the said %uardianship proceedin%s

throu%h their father =ose Pabale. 2he pointed out that the RC eplicitly na!ed in its orders =ose

Pabale as a!on% those present durin% the hearin%s held on ( Dctober 10-7 and 10 ove!ber

10-7 in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C. la!ayri thus filed on '1 ove!ber '((1 a Motion to 2chedule

@earin% to Mar$ hibits in vidence so she could !ar$ and sub!it as evidence certain docu!ents

to establish that the Pabale siblin%s are indeed the children of =ose Pabale.

tty. *es!undo, ave9s survivin% spouse, li$ewise filed his own Motion for Reconsideration of the

1( pril '((1 &ecision of the Court of ppeals in C)*.R. C+ o. 5-1, assertin% ave9sinco!petence since 10-( as found by the RC in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C, and his ri%ht to the

sub6ect property as owner upon ave9s death in accordance with the laws of succession. t !ust be

re!e!bered that tty. *es!undo disputed before the RC the supposed transfer of his ri%hts to the

sub6ect property to la!ayri, but the court a quorefrained fro! rulin% thereon.

n a Resolution, dated 10 &ece!ber '((1, the Court of ppeals denied for lac$ of !erit the Motions

for Reconsideration of la!ayri and tty. *es!undo.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt8


6/14

@ence, la!ayri co!es before this Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorariunder

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with the followin% assi%n!ent of errors:

@ CDER D3 PPL2 RR& @DL&* @ @ 3&* @ LLF 2.+ A2 CDMP 2PCL PRDC&* D. 148)-8)C D =E '', 10--

CD RRDC D 33C @ +L&F D3 @ && D3 2L 2@

GCE& D 3BRERF '(, 10-4 3+DR D3 R2PD&2 PBL2.

@ CDER D3 PPL2 RR& @DL&* @ @ &C2D 2PCL

PRDC&* D. 148)-8)C && =E '', 10-- 2 D B&* D

R2PD&2 PBL2.

@ CDER D3 PPL2 RR& &F* PDR92 MDD D 2C@&EL

@R* D MRH &DCEMRF G@B2 +&C D 2BL2@ @

&F D3 =D2 PBL 2 @ 3@R D3 R2PD&2 PBL2. 0

t is la!ayri9s position that %iven the final and eecutory &ecision, dated '' =une 10--, of the RC

in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C findin% ave inco!petent since 10-(, then the sa!e fact !ay no lon%er

be re)liti%ated in Civil Case o. 875)-4)C, based on the doctrine of res judicata, !ore particularly,

the rule on conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent.

his Court is not persuaded.

Res judicataliterally !eans ?a !atter ad6ud%ed/ a thin% 6udicially acted upon or decided/ a thin% or

!atter settled by 6ud%!ent.? Res judicatalays the rule that an eistin% final 6ud%!ent or decree

rendered on the !erits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of co!petent 6urisdiction, upon any

!atter within its 6urisdiction, is conclusive of the ri%hts of the parties or their privies, in all other

actions or suits in the sa!e or any other 6udicial tribunal of concurrent 6urisdiction on the points and

!atters in issue in the first suit.1(

t is espoused in the Rules of Court, under para%raphs "b# and "c# of 2ection 47, Rule 0, which

read:

2C. 47. ffect of 6ud%!ents or final orders. I he effect of a 6ud%!ent or final order

rendered by a court of the Philippines, havin% 6urisdiction to pronounce the 6ud%!ent or final

order, !ay be as follows:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt10


7/14

"b# n other cases, the 6ud%!ent or final order is, with respect to the !atter directly ad6ud%ed

or as to any other !atter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between

the parties and their successors in interest by title subseuent to the co!!ence!ent of the

action or special proceedin%, liti%atin% the sa!e thin% and under the sa!e title and in the

sa!e capacity/ and

"c# n any other liti%ation between the sa!e parties or their successors in interest, that only is

dee!ed to have been ad6ud%ed in a for!er 6ud%!ent or final order which appears upon its

face to have been so ad6ud%ed, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or

necessary thereto.

he doctrine of res judicatathus lays down two !ain rules which !ay be stated as follows: "1# he

6ud%!ent or decree of a court of co!petent 6urisdiction on the !erits concludes the parties and their

privies to the liti%ation and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involvin% the sa!e cause of

action either before the sa!e or any other tribunal/ and "'# ny ri%ht, fact, or !atter in issue directly

ad6udicated or necessarily involved in the deter!ination of an action before a co!petent court in

which a 6ud%!ent or decree is rendered on the !erits is conclusively settled by the 6ud%!ent thereinand cannot a%ain be liti%ated between the parties and their privies whether or not the clai!s or

de!ands, purposes, or sub6ect !atters of the two suits are the sa!e. hese two !ain rules !ar$ the

distinction between the principles %overnin% the two typical cases in which a 6ud%!ent !ay operate

as evidence.11n spea$in% of these cases, the first %eneral rule above stated, and which

corresponds to the afore)uoted para%raph "b# of 2ection 47, Rule 0 of the Rules of Court, is

referred to as ?bar by for!er 6ud%!ent?/ while the second %eneral rule, which is e!bodied in

para%raph "c# of the sa!e section and rule, is $nown as ?conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent.?

he Resolution of this Court in Calalang v. Register of Deedsprovides the followin% enli%htenin%

discourse on conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent:

he doctrine res judicataactually e!braces two different concepts: "1# bar by for!er

6ud%!ent and "b# conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent.

he second concept J conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent J states that a fact or uestion which

was in issue in a for!er suit and was there 6udicially passed upon and deter!ined by a court

of co!petent 6urisdiction, is conclusively settled by the 6ud%!ent therein as far as the parties

to that action and persons in privity with the! are concerned and cannot be a%ain liti%ated in

any future action between such parties or their privies, in the sa!e court or any other court

of concurrent 6urisdiction on either the sa!e or different cause of action, while the 6ud%!ent

re!ains unreversed by proper authority. t has been held that in order that a 6ud%!ent in one

action can be conclusive as to a particular !atter in another action between the sa!e partiesor their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. f a particular point or uestion is in

issue in the second action, and the 6ud%!ent will depend on the deter!ination of that

particular point or uestion, a for!er 6ud%!ent between the sa!e parties or their privies will

be final and conclusive in the second if that sa!e point or uestion was in issue and

ad6udicated in the first suit "Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, 10 2CR 7' ;1001


8/14

=ustice 3eliciano, in Smith ell ! Compan" #Phils.$% &nc. vs. Court of Appeals"107 2CR

'(1, '1( ;1001


9/14

Contrary to la!ayri9s assertion, conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent has no application to the instant

Petition since there is no identity of parties and issues between 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C and Civil

Case o. 875)-4)C.

No identity of parties

2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C was a petition filed with the RC by tty. *es!undo for the appoint!ent of

a %uardian over the person and estate of his late wife ave alle%in% her inco!petence.

%uardian !ay be appointed by the RC over the person and estate of a !inor or an inco!petent,

the latter bein% described as a person ?sufferin% the penalty of civil interdiction or who are

hospitali>ed lepers, prodi%als, deaf and du!b who are unable to read and write, those who are of

unsound !ind, even thou%h they have lucid intervals, and persons not bein% of unsound !ind, but

by reason of a%e, disease, wea$ !ind, and other si!ilar causes, cannot, without outside aid, ta$e

care of the!selves and !ana%e their property, beco!in% thereby an easy prey for deceit and

eploitation.?14

Rule 0 of the Rules of Court %overns the proceedin%s for the appoint!ent of a %uardian, to wit:

R)l+ :3

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS

SECTION 1.,ho ma" petition for appointment of guardian for resident.I ny relative,

friend, or other person on behalf of a resident !inor or inco!petent who has no parent or

lawful %uardian, or the !inor hi!self if fourteen years of a%e or over, !ay petition the court

havin% 6urisdiction for the appoint!ent of a %eneral %uardian for the person or estate, or

both, of such !inor or inco!petent. n officer of the 3ederal d!inistration of the Enited2tates in the Philippines !ay also file a petition in favor of a ward thereof, and the &irector of

@ealth, in favor of an insane person who should be hospitali>ed, or in favor of an isolated

leper.

SEC. 2.Contents of petition.I petition for the appoint!ent of a %eneral %uardian !ust

show, so far as $nown to the petitioner:

"a# he 6urisdictional facts/

"b# he !inority or inco!petency renderin% the appoint!ent necessary or

convenient/

"c# he na!es, a%es, and residences of the relatives of the !inor or inco!petent,

and of the persons havin% hi! in their care/

"d# he probable value and character of his estate/

"e# he na!e of the person for who! letters of %uardianship are prayed.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt14


10/14

he petition shall be verified/ but no defect in the petition or verification shall render void the

issuance of letters of %uardianship.

SEC. 3.Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof.I Ahen a petition for the appoint!ent

of a %eneral %uardian is filed, the court shall fi a ti!e and place for hearin% the sa!e, and

shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be %iven to the persons !entioned in the petitionresidin% in the province, includin% the !inor if above 14 years of a%e or the inco!petent

hi!self, and !ay direct other %eneral or special notice thereof to be %iven.

SEC. 4.)pposition to petition. I ny interested person !ay, by filin% a written opposition,

contest the petition on the %round of !a6ority of the alle%ed !inor, co!petency of the alle%ed

inco!petent, or the unsuitability of the person for who! letters are prayed, and !ay pray

that the petition be dis!issed, or that letters of %uardianship issue to hi!self, or to any

suitable person na!ed in the opposition.

SEC. 5.-earing and order for letters to issue.I t the hearin% of the petition the alle%ed

inco!petent !ust be present if able to attend, and it !ust be shown that the reuired noticehas been %iven. hereupon the court shall hear the evidence of the parties in support of their

respective alle%ations, and, if the person in uestion is a !inor or inco!petent it shall

appoint a suitable %uardian of his person or estate, or both, with the powers and duties

hereinafter specified.

SEC. ".Service of judgment. I 3inal orders or 6ud%!ents under this rule shall be served

upon the civil re%istrar of the !unicipality or city where the !inor or inco!petent person

resides or where his property or part thereof is situated.

petition for appoint!ent of a %uardian is a special proceedin%, without the usual parties, i.e.,

petitioner versus respondent, in an ordinary civil case. ccordin%ly, 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C bears

the title: &n re /uardianship of Nell" S. Nave for &ncompetenc"% 0erdasto /esmundo " ana"o%

petitioner, with no na!ed respondentKs.

2ections ' and of Rule 0 of the Rules of Court, thou%h, reuire that the petition contain the

na!es, a%es, and residences of relatives of the supposed !inor or inco!petent and those havin%

hi! in their care, so that those residin% within the sa!e province as the !inor or inco!petent can be

notified of the ti!e and place of the hearin% on the petition.

he ob6ectives of an RC hearin% a petition for appoint!ent of a %uardian under Rule 0 of theRules of Court is to deter!ine, first, whether a person is indeed a !inor or an inco!petent who has

no capacity to care for hi!self andKor his properties/ and, second, who is !ost ualified to be

appointed as his %uardian. he rules reasonably assu!e that the people who best could help the

trial court settle such issues would be those who are closest to and !ost fa!iliar with the supposed

!inor or inco!petent, na!ely, his relatives livin% within the sa!e province andKor the persons carin%

for hi!.


11/14

t is si%nificant to note that the rules do not necessitate that creditors of the !inor or inco!petent be

li$ewise identified and notified. he reason is si!ple: because their presence is not essential to the

proceedin%s for appoint!ent of a %uardian. t is al!ost a %iven, and understandably so, that they will

only insist that the supposed !inor or inco!petent is actually capacitated to enter into contracts, so

as to preserve the validity of said contracts and $eep the supposed !inor or inco!petent obli%ated

to co!ply therewith.

@ence, it cannot be presu!ed that the Pabale siblin%s were %iven notice and actually too$ part in

2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C. hey are not ave9s relatives, nor are they the ones carin% for her.

lthou%h the rules allow the RC to direct the %ivin% of other %eneral or special notices of the

hearin%s on the petition for appoint!ent of a %uardian, it was not established that the RC actually

did so in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C.

la!ayri9s alle%ation that the Pabale siblin%s participated in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C rests on two

Drders, dated ( Dctober 10-715and 10 ove!ber 10-7,18issued by the RC in 2P. PRDC. o.

148)-8)C, epressly !entionin% the presence of a =ose Pabale, who was supposedly the father of

the Pabale siblin%s, durin% the hearin%s held on the sa!e dates. @owever, the said Drders bythe!selves cannot confir! that =ose Pabale was indeed the father of the Pabale siblin%s and that he

was authori>ed by his children to appear in the said hearin%s on their behalf.

la!ayri decries that she was not allowed by the Court of ppeals to sub!it and !ar$ additional

evidence to prove that =ose Pabale was the father of the Pabale siblin%s.

t is true that the Court of ppeals has the power to try cases and conduct hearin%s, receive

evidence and perfor! any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases fallin%

within its ori%inal and appellate 6urisdiction, includin% the power to %rant and conduct new trials or

further proceedin%s. n %eneral, however, the Court of ppeals conducts hearin%s and receives

evidence priorto the sub!ission of the case for 6ud%!ent.

17

t !ust be pointed out that, in this case,la!ayri filed her Motion to 2chedule @earin% to Mar$ hibits in vidence on 21 No9+*+r 21.

2he thus sou%ht to sub!it additional evidence as to the identity of =ose Pabale, not only after C)

*.R. C+ o. 5-1 had been sub!itted for 6ud%!ent, but %7+rthe Court of ppeals had already

pro!ul%ated its &ecision in said case on 1 April 21.

he parties !ust dili%ently and conscientiously present all ar%u!ents and available evidences in

support of their respective positions to the court before the case is dee!ed sub!itted for 6ud%!ent.

Dnly under eceptional circu!stances !ay the court receive new evidence after havin% rendered

6ud%!ent/1-otherwise, its 6ud%!ent !ay never attain finality since the parties !ay continually refute

the findin%s therein with further evidence. la!ayri failed to provide any eplanation why she did not

present her evidence earlier. Merely invo$in% that the ends of 6ustice would have been best served ifshe was allowed to present additional evidence is not sufficient to 6ustify deviation fro! the %eneral

rules of procedure. Dbedience to the reuire!ents of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to

epect fair results therefro!, and utter disre%ard of the rules cannot 6ustly be rationali>ed by har$in%

on the policy of liberal construction.10Procedural rules are tools desi%ned to facilitate the

ad6udication of cases. Courts and liti%ants ali$e are thus en6oined to abide strictly by the rules. nd

while the Court, in so!e instances, allows a relaation in the application of the rules, this, we stress,

was never intended to for%e a bastion for errin% liti%ants to violate the rules with i!punity. he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt19


12/14

liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only to proper cases and under

6ustifiable causes and circu!stances. Ahile it is true that liti%ation is not a %a!e of technicalities, it is

eually true that every case !ust be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to

insure an orderly and speedy ad!inistration of 6ustice.'(

Moreover, contrary to la!ayri9s assertion, the Court of ppeals did not deny her Motion to 2chedule@earin% to Mar$ hibits in vidence !erely for bein% late. n its Resolution, dated 10 &ece!ber

'((1, the Court of ppeals also denied the said !otion on the followin% %rounds:

Ahile it is now alle%ed, for the first ti!e, that the ;herein respondents Pabale siblin%ses on the declaration of the RC in its &ecision dated '' =une 10-- in 2P. PRDC.

o. 148)-8)C on ave9s condition ?havin% beco!e severe since the year 10-(.?'5,) 6+r+ i( &o

%(i( 7or ()86 % '+8l%r%io&.he !edical reports etensively uoted in said &ecision, prepared

by: "1# &r. ona =ean lviso)Ra!os, dated 14 pril 10-8,'8and "'# by &r. duardo . Maaba, dated

'( pril 10-7,'7both stated that upon their ea!ination, ave was sufferin% fro! ?or%anic brain

syndro!e secondary to cerebral arteriosclerosis with psychotic episodes,? which i!paired her

6ud%!ent. here was nothin% in the said !edical reports, however, which !ay shed li%ht on when

ave be%an to suffer fro! said !ental condition. ll they said was that it eisted at the ti!e avewas ea!ined in 10-8, and a%ain in 10-7. ven the RC 6ud%e was only able to observe ave,

which !ade hi! reali>e that her !ind was very i!pressionable and capable of bein% !anipulated,

on the occasions when ave visited the court fro! 10-7 to 10--. @ence, for this Court, the RC

&ecision dated '' =une 10-- in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C !ay be conclusive as to ave9s

inco!petency fro! 10-8 onwards, but not as to her inco!petency in 10-4. nd other than invo$in%

the '' =une 10-- &ecision of the RC in 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C, la!ayri did not bother to

establish with her own evidence that ave was !entally incapacitated when she eecuted the '(

3ebruary 10-4 &eed of 2ale over the sub6ect property in favor of the Pabale siblin%s, so as to render

the said deed void.

ll told, there bein% no identity of parties and issues between 2P. PRDC. o. 148)-8)C and CivilCase o. 875)-4)C, the '' =une 10-- &ecision in the for!er on ave9s inco!petency by the year

10-8 should not bar, by conclusiveness of 6ud%!ent, a findin% in the latter case that ave still had

capacity and was co!petent when she eecuted on '( 3ebruary 10-4 the &eed of 2ale over the

sub6ect property in favor of the Pabale siblin%s. herefore, the Court of ppeals did not co!!it any

error when it upheld the validity of the '( 3ebruary 10-4 &eed of 2ale.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_151243_2008.html#fnt27


14/14

$HEREFORE, pre!ises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. he

&ecision, dated 1( pril '((1, of the Court of ppeals in C)*.R. C+ o. 5-1, is hereby

AFFIRMED in toto. Costs a%ainst the petitioner Lolita R. la!ayri.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAARIO

ssociate =ustice

spec pro full text full text case 5

Documents