G.R. No. 28296 , March 2, 1928
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GREGORIO NATIVIDAD. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ALFREDO NATIVIDAD, appellee.

FACTS

Gregorio Natividad died on May 30, 1926. Alfredo Natividad, an heir, offered for probate a will allegedly executed by Gregorio on August 27, 1923, which showed a strong preference for Alfredo. Casimiro Natividad, a son of the deceased, filed an opposition through his attorneys. At the trial on July 31, 1926, after the proponent presented his evidence, the attorneys for the oppositors (Casimiro and another) announced in open court that they were withdrawing their opposition to the probate of the will. They only requested that Casimiro be appointed as co-administrator. The trial court, based on this withdrawal, immediately issued an order admitting the will to probate and appointing Alfredo as the sole executor. Casimiro was not present in court during this declaration, and there was no showing that he authorized his lawyers to compromise the case. Upon learning of the order, Casimiro and other heirs (including minors) filed a petition under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order. The trial court denied the petition, hence this appeal.

ISSUE

Did the attorneys for the oppositor, Casimiro Natividad, have the authority, without special instruction, to withdraw the opposition to the probate of the will, thereby binding their client and precluding relief under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

RULING

NO. The order of the trial court is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial on the merits of the probate of the will.

The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the opposition by the attorneys, which effectively resulted in the probate of the will, constituted a compromise or confession of judgment regarding the client’s substantive rights. Under Section 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lawyers have general authority to bind their clients in matters of ordinary judicial procedure, but they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client’s litigation. The Court reasoned that consenting to the probate of a will goes beyond mere procedural management; it directly affects the client’s interest in the estate. Since there was no showing that Casimiro authorized his lawyers to withdraw the opposition, their action was unauthorized. Furthermore, the rights of minor heirs, who were not otherwise represented at the hearing, were also implicated. While Casimiro may have been somewhat negligent, his negligence was excusable under the circumstances, and the minors were not negligent at all. In the interest of justice, a full trial on the merits of the will’s probate is warranted.