G.R. No. 129242 . January 16, 2001.
PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Troadio Manalo died intestate, survived by his wife Pilar and eleven children. Eight of the children filed a petition for judicial settlement of his estate and for the appointment of their brother Romeo as administrator. The surviving wife, Pilar, and three children (Antonio, Isabelita, and Orlando) opposed the petition. The oppositors filed an Omnibus Motion seeking, among other things, the dismissal of the case.
The oppositors argued that the petition was essentially an ordinary civil action between family members, as it contained allegations that one heir, Antonio, was managing estate properties to the exclusion and prejudice of the others. They contended that under Article 151 of the Family Code, such a suit cannot prosper unless the petition avers that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made but failed. Since the petitioning heirs did not include such an averment, the oppositors claimed the trial court should have dismissed the case outright for lack of a cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the petition for judicial settlement of estate despite the petitioners’ failure to allege prior earnest efforts toward a compromise among family members.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the lower courts. The Court held that a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person (judicial administration) is a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. The distinction is crucial: ordinary civil actions are for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, while special proceedings are remedies where a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
The primary purpose of the petition in this case was to secure the settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased Troadio Manalo. It is a proceeding in rem, binding against the whole world. The allegations regarding Antonio Manalo’s management of properties were merely incidental to the central purpose of instituting administration proceedings. They explained the need for judicial intervention and the appointment of an administrator to ensure the proper liquidation and distribution of the estate.
Consequently, the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code for a prior effort at compromise applies only to ordinary civil actions between family members. It does not apply to special proceedings like the judicial settlement of an estate. The trial court correctly acquired jurisdiction and was not obligated to dismiss the petition. The appellate court committed no error in affirming the trial court’s orders.