GR 45463; (March, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45463 ; March 18, 1937
EMERITA SANTOS, in her behalf and as guardian of the persons and property of the minors Bienvenido, Apolonio Manuel, Juana and Norberta, surnamed Azores y Santos, petitioners, vs. MODESTO CASTILLO, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and, JOSE, SINFOROSA, and ANTONIO AZORES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emerita Santos, on behalf of herself and as guardian of the acknowledged natural children of the deceased Nicolas Azores, filed a petition (Case No. 3101) for the probate of a copy of Azores’ will. The legitimate children (respondents) opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not allege custody of the will and presented only a copy. Petitioner amended her petition, explaining that the will was executed in quadruplicate, with copies distributed to different persons, including herself. The respondents then filed their own petition (Case No. 3140) for probate of the original will and a codicil. The respondent judge dismissed petitioner’s Case No. 3101. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for probate (Case No. 3101).
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulled the order dismissing Case No. 3101, and ordered its reinstatement. The Court held that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion. The petitioner, as a person interested in the will, had the right to petition for its probate under Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The filing of a subsequent petition by the legitimate children (Case No. 3140) did not constitute a legal ground for dismissing the first-filed petition (Case No. 3101). The court had already acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in Case No. 3101. The dismissal deprived the petitioner of her right to be the principal actor in the probate proceedings, causing substantial injustice. The proper procedure was to consolidate the two cases.
AI Generated by Armztrong.