G.R. No. 44042; August 23, 1935
REMEDIOS BONGON VIUDA DE MANZANERO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, FORTUNATO, BARBARA, MARCELINA and FERNANDA, surnamed MANZANERO, and FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., respondents.

FACTS

Esteban M. Manzanero died. His brother, Fortunato Manzanero, filed an application for summary settlement of the estate in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, alleging the deceased’s legal residence was in Santo Tomas, Batangas, and that the estate consisted only of a life insurance policy. The court granted the application and ordered the distribution of the insurance proceeds among the deceased’s siblings after paying a claimed debt. The deceased’s widow, Remedios Bongon Viuda de Manzanero (petitioner), who resided in Tabaco, Albay, received notice by mail but did not appear to oppose the application. After learning of the distribution, she filed a motion in the same summary settlement proceedings to recover the money. While that motion was pending, she filed this original petition for certiorari to annul the summary settlement proceedings, alleging the Batangas court lacked jurisdiction (as the deceased was a resident of Albay) and that irregularities were committed.

ISSUE

Whether the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and the alleged irregularities in the summary settlement proceedings.

RULING

No, certiorari does not lie. The petition is dismissed.
1. On the jurisdictional challenge: Section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the jurisdiction of a Court of First Instance in estate settlement, based on the place of residence of the deceased, cannot be contested except on appeal or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. In this case, the want of jurisdiction (that the deceased was a resident of Albay, not Batangas) does not appear on the face of the record of the lower court. Therefore, certiorari is not the proper remedy; an appeal is specifically provided by law.
2. On the alleged irregularities: Some allegations involve questions of fact not reviewable by certiorari. Others involve questions of law, but the petitioner failed to first call the lower court’s attention to them via a motion for reconsideration, a requisite for certiorari. Furthermore, the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the pending motion she filed in the same summary settlement case, which seeks the return of the distributed funds—a remedy in accordance with the reservation made in the distribution order itself and Section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

AI Generated by Armztrong.