11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jerez vs. Nietes

No. L-26876 December 27, 1969.

LUCRECIA JEREZ, JULIA JALANDONI, JULIETA

JALANDONI, EVA JALANDONI, CARMELO JALANDONI,
JOSE JALANDONI and ELISEO JALANDONI, petitioners, vs.
HON. EMIGDIO V. NIETES, Judge of the Court of First In

905

VOL. 30, DECEMBER 27, 1969 905

Jerez vs. Nietes

stance of Iloilo, LUCILO JALANDONI and VICTORIA

JALANDON- BE GORCIETA, respondents.

Remedial law; Special proceedings; Settlement of estate of deceased

persons; Liquidation of estate; Reopening of final Jiquestion by motion of
intervention within the reglementary petioner—A party interested in a
probate proceeding who has been left out by reason of circumstances
beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to his
negligence, may have a final liquidation set aside and reopened by proper
motion of intervention within the reglementary period, instead of an
independent action in another court or judge. Rather than require any party
who can allege a grievance that his interest was not recognized in a testate
or intestate proceediner to file a separate and independent action, he may
within the reglementary period secure the relief that is his due by a
reopening of the case even after a project of partition and final accounting
had been approved.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Petition for intercon-tion to reopen a
final liquidation must allege petitioner's interest in the probate proceedings;
Case at bar.—A motion for intervention to reopen a final liquidation in a
probate proceeding must allege the interest of the movant. There must also
be proof beyond allegations in such motion to show the interest of the
movant. In the absence thereof, the court canBot allow the intervention and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

reopen the proceedings and reconsider the approved of the project of

partition and final accounting.

PETITION for review of a resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Tomas Concepcion, Lorenzo F. Miravite and Corazon
Miraflor for petitioners.
No appearance for respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:

This Court has not had previously the opportunity to pass squarely
on the question raised in this petition for the review of a resolution
of the Court of Appeals sustaining an order of respondent Judge
Emigdio V. Nietes of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, reopening
the proceedings in the intestate estate of the late Nicolas Jalandoni,
after having approved a project of partition and final accounting, and
allowing a plea of intervention filed with-

906

906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jerez vs. Nietes

in the reglementary period by the other respondents, Lucilo

Jalandoni and Victoria Jalandoni de Gorriceta, allegedly children of
the deceased with an illegitimate status. The petitioners are1 the
widow and the legitimate children of the late Nicolas Jalandoni.
The Court of Appeals cannot be reversed for recognizing the
existence of such a power possessed by the respondent Judge to thus
act favorably on a motion to intervene even if submitted at such a
stage. That is the answer we give to the main issue thus posed Our
approval of the action taken, however, is not unqualified. For
respondent Judge apparently was much too generous is his appraisal
of the right of the private respondents to intervene, accepting as
established what ought to have been proved. A modification of the
appealed resolution is thus called for.
The facts are undisputed. Nicolas Jalandoni died on October 8,
1960. Before the end of that mounth, on Octo beer 27, a special
proceeding3 for the settlement of his estate was filed bef ore the sala
of respondent Judge, petisoaer Lucrecia Jeres, his widow, being
appointed as soministratrix. A project of partition me final
accounting was submitted on June 14, 1966, resulting in an order
from respondent Judge dated June 15, 1966, approved the same. On
June 29,1966, respondent Iloilo Jalandoni Beging that he is an
acknowledged natural child of the late Nicolas Jalandoni, and
respondent Victoria Jalandoni de Cricenta, alleging that she is an
immediate daughter, sought to be allowed to intervene on the ground
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

that they were preterited in the project of partition which they would
have respondent Judge reject for being contrary to law. Then came
on July 30, 1966 an order of respondent Judge allowing intervention
and reopening the proceedings to permit facie movants, now private
respondents, "to pre-

________________

1 Literecia perez, July Jalandoni, Judicata Jalandoni, Eva Jalandoni, Cannex

Jalandoni, Jose Jalandoni and Eliseo Jalan4cmL
2 Special Proceeding No. 1562 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo

907

VOL. 30, DECEMBER 27, 1969 907

Jerez vs. Nietes

sent whatever evidence they may have to show their right to

participate in the estate of the deceased." After a motion for
reconsideration, filed by petitioners, was denied, the matter was
elevated to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction filed on September 3, 1966.
As set forth at the opening of this decision, the Court of Appeals
in a resolution of September 21, 1966 denied such petition to annul
and set aside the order of respondent Judge. The basis for such
resolution, penned by Justice Martin with the concurrence of Justice
Rodriguez, Justice Esguerra concurring in the result with a separate
opinion, was explained in this wise: "x x x that the determination of
a prima, facie interest in an estate to justify reopening proceedings
for the settlement thereof is primarily addressed to the sound
discretion and judgment of the probate court; that, while no
supporting documents are appended to the motion to reopen tending
to show the personality to intervene, the said motion is nevertheless
verified upon oaths of the claimants of interest and the probate court
has authority to require the submission of at least a prima facie
showing of said interest; that the motion to reopen was filed on June
29, 1966 before the order closing the proceedings of June 15, 1966
had achieved f inality and during the reglementary period within
which the court still had jurisdiction over the case and retained full
power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make
them comfortable to law and justice; that, because the closure order
aforesaid had not yet become final, the requirements of Rule 38
respeding relief from judgment do not apply and, hence, the failure
of the motion to reopen to allege any of the grounds therein stated is
not fatal; that the better practice in case of the appearance of alleged
preterited heirs is to secure relief by reopening the proceedings by a
proper motion within the reglementary period (Ramos, et al. vs.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

Ortuzar, et al., G.R. No. L-3299, August 20, 1951), it being desirable
that all aspects of a controversy be ventilated in the same proceed-

908

908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jerez vs. Nietes
3
ing and thus avoid multiplicity of suits; x x x."
Evidently, an ordinary division of three Justices did not suffice
for a decision on such petition for certiorari and prohibition resulting
in a creation of a division of five. Two Justices dissented from the
aforesaid resolution, the dissenting opinion being penned by Justice
Lucero with whom Justice Villamor concurred. The dissent is
premised on the following considerations: "We should not let Lucilo
Jalandoni (alleged acknowledged natural son) and Victoria Jalandoni
de Gorrecita (alleged illegitimate daughter) to come in first and
identify themselves later, because the better policy according to
jurisprudence (Asinas vs. Court, 51 Phil. 665) is to require them first
to produce prima facie evidence of such a civil status before opening
the door and letting them in. Under Section 2, Rule 12, Revised, 'a
person may, before or during a trial, be permitted by the court, in its
discretion, to intervene in an action, if he has legal interest in the
matter in litigation.' The possibility of interlopers getting in for a
share in the estate cannot be totally discounted specially considering
that the present intestate proceedings had been pending for the last
six (6) years without a motion to intervene having been filed by the
present claimants in spite of the notice of publication and the in rem
character of the intestate proceedings. According to their residence
certificate, the claimants are residents of Iloilo City (Rec. 20), The
procedure adopted by the lower court is more conducive to prejudice
and unnecessary loss of time, effort and expense than the method
suggested by jurisprudence of requiring first a prima facie evidence
of status before letting them come in to intervene. Hence, the order
of July 80, 1966 sought to be nullified under the present petition
insofar as it reconsidered the approval of the project of partition and
the first accounting is unjustified, as practically putting the cart
before the horse instead of the horse before the cart. Moreover, the
claims can be asserted in a separate action against the legitimate
children to whom the

________________

3 Petition, Annex L, pp, 1-2.

909

VOL. 30, DECEMBER 27, 1969 909

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

Jerez vs. Nietes

4
share of the deceased Nicolas Jalandoni was adjudicated"
Stress is laid in this petition for review in respondent Judge
allowing private respondents to intervene after the intestate
proceedings were closed. We do not see it that way. We repeat what
we said at the outset. The challenged resolution cannot be reversed
insofar as it recognized the power of respondent Judge to reopen the
proceedings and allow intervention. While it is undeniable that the
question presented has not been def initely passed upon before, still
an indication of how such an issue should be resolved5 is to be found
in an opinion of Justice Tuason in Ramos v. Ortuzar, referred to in
the resolution of the Court of Appeals. Thus: "The only instance that
we can think of in which a party interested in a probate proceeding
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason
of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or
inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even then, the better
practice to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper
motion within the reglementary period, instead of an independent
action the effect of which, if successful, would be, as in the instant
case, for another court or judge to throw out a decision or order
already final and executed and reshuffle properties long ago
distributed and disposed of."
The above excerpt commends itself for approval. We do so now
and definitely hold that rather than require any party who can allege
a grievance that his interest was not recognized in a testate or
intestate proceeding to file a separate and independent action, he
may within the reglementary period secure the relief that is his due
by a reopening of the case even after a project of partition and final
accounting had been approved.
Such a view f inds support in the doctrine of liberality as to pleas
for intervention
6
so consistently followed and adhered to by this
Court. As was emphatically expressed

________________

4 Ibid., pp. 6-7.

5 89 Phil. 730 (1951).
6 Cf. Ahag v. Cabiling, 18 Phil. 415 (1911); Joaquin v. Herrera, 37 Phil. 705
(1918); National Bank v. Phil. Vegetable

910

910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jerez vs. Nietes

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

by Justice7
Makalintal, speaking for this Court, in Balane v. De
Guzman: "Respondent Judge would have done well to brush aside
narrow technicalities in this case, allow the intervention prayed for
and thus avoid needless delay in the resolution of the conflicting
interests of all the parties."
It is thus understandable why the resolution of the Court of
Appeals upholding the power of respondent Judge to he open the
proceedings and allow intervention is not vulnerable to attack. It was
within his competence to do so. The question remains, however,
whether he did so in the appropriate manner. It is not the existence
of the power but the mode of its exercise that is open to question. In
that sense, the appealed resolution bears further scrutizay.
It is indisputable that after the project of partition and f inal
accounting was submitted by the counsel f or petitioner Lucrecia
Jerez, as administratrix, on June 14, 1966, respondent Judge
approved the same and declared closed and terminated the intestacy
the next day, June 15, 1966. Subsequently, on a verified petition by
private respondents. filed on June 29, 1966, based on the assertion
made that they should have had a share in the estate as illegitimate
children but that they were omitted in the aforesaid projeet of
partition, they sought to be allowed to intervene

________________

Oil Co., 49 Phil. 857 (1927); De la Riva vs. Escobar, 51 Phil. 243(1927); Otto
Guan v. Revilla, 55 Phil. 627 (1931); Barretto v. Tuason, 59 Phil. 845 (1934);
Santaromana v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 456 (1936); Tavera-Luna, Inc. v. Nable, 67 Phil. 340
(1939); Pampanga Bus Co. v. Fernando, 70 Phil. 306 (1940); Seva v. Rivera, 73 Phil.
477 (1941); Gaz Sin Gee v. Pena, 79 Phil. 663 (1947); Peyer v. Martinez, 88 Phil. 72
(1951); Republic v. Ysip, 89 Phil 535 (1951); Republic v. Phil. Resources Dev, Corp.,
102 Phil. 960 (1958); Francisco v. Rodriguez, 6 SCRA 443 (1962); Toledo v. Court, 8
SCRA 499, (1963); Lacuna v. Board of Liquidators, 12 SCRA 469 (1964); Phil.
Resources Dev. Corp. v, Republic, 13 SCRA 519 (1965); Zulueta v. Muñoz, 17 SCRA
972 (1966); Balane v, De Guzman, 20 SCRA 177 (1967); Cire v. Dolla, 23 SCRA 832
(1968); Dizon v. Roroero, 26 SCRA 452 (1968); Roxas v. Dinglasan, 28 SCRA 431
(1969).
7 20 SCRA 177 (1967).

911

VOL. 30, DECEMBER 27, 1969 911

Jerez vs. Nietes

and "to have the project of partition rejected for being contrary to
law." Such a pleading, without more, resufted in the questioned
order of July 30, 1966, reopening the proceedings and reconsidering
the approval of the project of partition and final accounting, to
enable the private respondents "to present whatever evidence they
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

may have to show their right to participate in the estate of the

deceased." Although the recognition of their night to intervene
appeared to be tentative and conditional, it cannot be denied that
they were given a standing sufficient to set aside the project of
partition.
Respondent Judge acted too soon, The verified motion on the
part of private respondents did not suffice to call into play the power
of respondent Judge to allow intervention There must be proof
beyond allegations in such motion to show the interest of the private
movants. in the absence thereof, the action taken by respondent
Judge could be considered premature. As was stated by us in an
opinion penned by Justice Sanchez: "No can may quibble over the
existence of the court's discretion on whether to 8
admit or reject
intervention. But such discretion is not unlimited."
WHEREFORE, the resolution of September 21, 1966 of the
Court of Appeals is hereby modif led in the sense that respondent
Judge, Honorable Emigdio V. Nietes of the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo Judicial District, Branch I, or whoever may be acting in his
place, is directed to require private respondents Lucilo Jalandoni and
Victoria Jalandoni de Gorriceta to present evidence to justify their
right to intervene in Special Proceeding No. 1562 re Intestate Estate
of Nicolas H. Jalandoni pending before such sala, In the event that
they court so justify such a right the lower court on the basis of such
evidence is to proceed conformably to law. Without pronouncement
as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal,

________________

8 Cue v. Dollit 28 SCRA 882 (1968).

912

912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Luna vs. Palacio

Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Resolution modified.

Notes.—Claim of alleged owner of land in action for foreclosure

of mortgage.—Intervention by alleged owners of the land sought to
be f oreclosed by the plaintif f in an action for foreclosure of
mortgage is appropriate. They have an interest in the matter in
litigation of such direct and immediate character that they stand to
gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment
Roxas vs. Dinglasan, 28 SCRA 430.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 030

When a mortgage includes new or future improvements on

registered land, the lien attaches and vests not at the date said
improvements are constructed but on the date of the registration of
the mortgage. Luzon Lumber & Hardware Co., Inc. vs. Quiambao,
94 Phil. 663.
Machinery and equipment attached to the land in a f ixed manner
are real property. Machinery & Engineering Supplies, lnc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 96 Phil. 70.

_____________

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e8ddcd1062b1f56cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8