G.R. No. L-11353; September 30, 1958
MIGUEL FLORENDO, CELEDONIO FLORENDO, TRINIDAD FLORENDO, ESPERANZA F. VDA. DE ITCHON, and FELIX VERZOSA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR and JUAN S. FLORENTINO, respondents.

FACTS

On August 17, 1955, respondent Juan S. Florentino filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for the probate of the will of Concepcion Ontañon and for his appointment as administrator of her estate. The petition alleged the testatrix died on August 8, 1955, left properties worth not less than P37,450.00, was survived by no forced heirs, and that her nearest relatives were Miguel, Celedonio, Trinidad, and Esperanza, all surnamed Florendo. Probate of the will was opposed by several sets of alleged relatives: third-degree relatives (alleged nephews and nieces) and fourth-degree relatives (alleged first cousins, including the petitioners Florendos). At the proponent’s instance, the court ordered the opposition of the first cousins (the Florendos) discarded, ruling that in intestacy and absence of forced heirs, the nearest relatives exclude the more distant ones, citing Paras vs. Narciso. The Florendos moved for reconsideration, arguing that the alleged nephews and nieces were illegitimate relatives and thus not entitled to inherit. The court, after hearing evidence, maintained its order. Approximately five months later, the Florendos, joined by Felix Verzosa (another alleged first cousin), filed a second motion for reconsideration. The court, initially inclined to allow evidence, later desisted upon finding the original order was final as to the movants because it effectively excluded them from the proceedings (citing Angel Ortiz vs. Grant Trent) and no appeal was taken within the reglementary period. The court thus denied the second motion. Two months after this denial, the petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to set aside the order discarding their opposition and to compel the lower court to allow them to prosecute it.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus is a proper remedy to challenge the lower court’s order discarding the petitioners’ opposition to the probate of the will, which order had become final due to the petitioners’ failure to appeal.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the order discarding the petitioners’ opposition was a final order as to them and therefore appealable, in accordance with Angel Ortiz vs. Grant Trent and Section 1(e) of Rule 105. The petitioners neglected to appeal the order and allowed it to become final. Having lost their remedy by appeal due to their own neglect, they cannot now seek redress through certiorari and mandamus, especially since it does not appear the lower court acted without jurisdiction. Certiorari and mandamus will not lie as a substitute for an appeal. This is particularly true where, as here, the factual basis of the order is challenged, necessitating an inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence, which is not the function of certiorari. The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioners.