G.R. No. 121908 January 26, 1998
ESTER SANTIAGO, PRISCILLA SANTIAGO, SUSAN SANTIAGO, JOSE SANTIAGO, JR., ERLINDA SANTIAGO, MA. VICTORIA SANTIAGO, APOLINARIO SANTIAGO and CARMENCITA SANTIAGO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CAMILO O. MONTESA, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan, and AUREA G. SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

On September 13, 1993, the holographic will of Juan G. Santiago was admitted to probate by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and his surviving spouse, Aurea G. Santiago, was appointed administratrix of his estate. On May 17, 1994, Aurea filed an action for quieting of title and partition of a parcel of land against the petitioners (the Santiagos) and others before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 27, 1994, asserting the complaint stated no cause of action because Juan G. Santiago had executed a waiver relinquishing his share in the property in favor of his brother Jose, the petitioners’ predecessor. The lower court initially granted the motion to dismiss on August 2, 1994, but upon Aurea’s motion for reconsideration, it reversed itself and denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated September 20, 1994. The petitioners then filed their answer. Later, on January 19, 1995, they filed a Motion to Suspend/Defer Hearing, claiming they had a pending motion in the probate court to set aside the order admitting the will and appointing Aurea as administratrix. The trial court denied this motion on February 10, 1995, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on March 27, 1995. The petitioners then filed a petition for annulment, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals on May 3, 1995, assailing the orders denying their motion to dismiss and motion to suspend/defer proceedings. While this petition was pending, the probate court denied the petitioners’ motion to set aside the probate order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on July 25, 1995, on the grounds of laches and that the issue had been rendered moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ special civil action assailing the trial court’s orders denying their motion to dismiss and motion to suspend/defer proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and denied the petition. The Court held that the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was correctly dismissed. First, regarding the order denying the motion to dismiss dated September 20, 1994, the petitioners were guilty of laches for filing their petition only on May 3, 1995, almost eight months later, without explaining the delay. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within a reasonable period, which is three months. Furthermore, by filing their answer and participating in the proceedings after the denial of the motion to dismiss, the petitioners were estopped from questioning it. Second, regarding the order denying the motion to suspend/defer proceedings, the issue was rendered moot and academic because the probate court had already denied the petitioners’ pending motion to set aside the probate order, which was the very basis for their request for suspension. The denial of that underlying motion meant there was no longer a justiciable controversy for the Court of Appeals to resolve.