G.R. No. 253426 , November 29, 2022
Ana Maria C. Manguerra, Petitioner, vs. Ma. Patricia Concepcion E. Manguerra-Aberasturi, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ana Maria C. Manguerra filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Concepcion A. Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra. The RTC, in its 2003 Order, allowed the will but invalidated a clause disinheriting most of the testatrix’s grandchildren (the respondents, except Gregorio), finding the stated cause for disinheritance not among those enumerated in the Civil Code. The court also appointed petitioner as executrix. Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration, arguing the ruling on disinheritance pertained to the will’s intrinsic validity, which was premature in a mere probate proceeding. The RTC granted this, setting aside its prior ruling on disinheritance as premature. Years of estate administration followed.
Subsequently, the RTC issued an Order dated March 10, 2017, approving the executrix’s Final Inventory and Project of Partition. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC Order dated June 16, 2017. Respondents then filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. Petitioner opposed, contending that a record on appeal was unnecessary as the March 10, 2017 Order was a final order, not a judgment, and thus only a notice of appeal was required under the Rules. The RTC denied due course to the appeal, siding with petitioner that no record on appeal was needed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering the approval of the notice of appeal and record on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the respondents’ filing of a record on appeal, in addition to a notice of appeal, was proper to appeal the RTC’s Order approving the project of partition in this special proceeding.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The core legal principle is that in special proceedings, such as the settlement of a testate estate under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from a final order resolving a specific incident requires both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. The Court clarified that the March 10, 2017 Order, which approved the project of partition, was a final order that terminated the proceedings relative to that particular incident—the distribution of the estate. While it did not conclude the entire special proceeding, as the estate was not yet fully settled and closed, it was a final disposition of a distinct matter.
The Rules explicitly state that in special proceedings, a record on appeal is required for appeals from judgments or final orders where multiple appeals are possible. Estate settlement involves multiple stages and separate issues (e.g., probate, inventory, payment of debts, distribution), each potentially giving rise to an appealable order before the entire case is concluded. Therefore, the filing of a record on appeal was mandatory. The RTC erred in treating the appeal as one from a judgment or final order in an ordinary civil action where only a notice of appeal suffices. The respondents complied with the correct procedure for appealing an interlocutory order in a special proceeding. Consequently, the CA properly directed the RTC to give due course to the appeal.