GR 37903; (March, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37903 March 30, 1977
GERTRUDES L. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. DOROTEA O. CONANAN and MARILOU DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gertrudes L. del Rosario filed a petition for the summary settlement and partition of the estate of her deceased son, Felix L. del Rosario, who died in a plane crash. The respondents are the decedent’s surviving legitimate wife, Dorotea O. Conanan, and their legally adopted child, Marilou del Rosario. The parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts admitting these familial relationships and that they are the deceased’s only surviving nearest relatives. The petition was filed under Rule 74, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, which governs summary settlement of estates.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the petition. The lower court held it lacked jurisdiction because the petition alleged the real properties of the estate were valued at P33,000, which exceeded the P10,000 gross value limit for summary settlement proceedings under the Rules. Alternatively, the court ruled that even if treated as a regular intestate proceeding, the petitioner, as a legitimate ascendant, is excluded from succession by the concurrence of the surviving spouse and the legally adopted child of the deceased.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for summary settlement for lack of jurisdiction due to the estate’s value exceeding the statutory limit.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, but on purely jurisdictional grounds, and without prejudice to the petitioner filing the appropriate action. The Court held that the requirement under Rule 74, Section 2 that the gross value of the estate must not exceed P10,000 is jurisdictional. This rule has been consistently upheld in jurisprudence. Since the parties stipulated the real properties alone were valued at P33,000, the summary settlement procedure was improper, and the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that its affirmance was based solely on this jurisdictional defect. It explicitly did not sustain the lower court’s alternative ruling on the merits regarding the exclusion of the legitimate mother from the inheritance. By dismissing the petition without prejudice, the Court allowed the petitioner to institute the proper ordinary proceedings for the settlement of the estate in a competent court, where the issue of heirship and partition could be fully adjudicated. The Court also addressed a procedural matter, applying a liberal interpretation of the rules on the contents of a record on appeal to find that the appeal was perfected on time, in the interest of substantial justice.