G.R. 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 Instance of Iloilo, LUCILO JALANDONI and VICTORIA JALANDONI DE GORRICETA, respondents.

FACTS

Nicolas Jalandoni died on October 3, 1960. On October 27, 1960, a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate was filed before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, with petitioner Lucrecia Jerez, his widow, appointed as administratrix. A project of partition and final accounting was submitted on June 14, 1966, and was approved by respondent Judge Emigdio V. Nietes on June 15, 1966, which closed the intestate proceedings. On June 29, 1966, respondents Lucilo Jalandoni and Victoria Jalandoni de Gorriceta filed a verified motion to intervene, alleging they were an acknowledged natural child and an illegitimate daughter, respectively, of the deceased and were preterited in the project of partition. On July 30, 1966, respondent Judge issued an order allowing the intervention and reopening the proceedings to permit them to present evidence of their right to participate in the estate. Petitioners, the widow and legitimate children, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated September 21, 1966, denied the petition, sustaining the respondent Judge’s power to reopen the proceedings and allow intervention. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted correctly in reopening the intestate proceedings and allowing intervention based solely on the verified motion of the alleged illegitimate children, without requiring them to first present prima facie evidence of their status and interest in the estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the existence of the probate court’s power to reopen proceedings and allow intervention even after the approval of a project of partition and final accounting, provided it is within the reglementary period. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that such power exists to avoid multiplicity of suits, following the doctrine in Ramos v. Ortuzar. However, the Court modified the resolution, ruling that while the power to allow intervention exists, the respondent Judge acted prematurely. The verified motion alone, containing mere allegations, was insufficient to justify intervention. The Court directed the respondent Judge to first require the private respondents (Lucilo Jalandoni and Victoria Jalandoni de Gorriceta) to present evidence to justify their right to intervene. Only if they could successfully establish such a right should the proceedings be reopened and proceed conformably to law. The appealed resolution was thus modified accordingly.