G.R. No. L-17114; April 29, 1961
JULIA M. NEIBERT, as Administratrix of the Estate of HENRY E. NEIBERT, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, VICENTE NEIBERT, TEOFILA ENRIQUEZ, and LUCILLE N. ENRIQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

In the intestate estate proceedings of Henry E. Neibert, respondents filed monetary claims. The administratrix, petitioner Julia M. Neibert, failed to file any opposition to these claims as required by the rules. After a hearing where the administratrix’s belated request to file an opposition was denied, then-presiding Judge Leovigildo Mijares issued three orders on June 12, 1958, approving the claims. These orders were signed by Judge Mijares in Masbate after his transfer and were received by the clerk of court in Zamboanga on August 8, 1958. Prior to receiving these orders, the administratrix filed a written opposition on July 7, 1958. The new presiding judge, respondent Gregorio Montejo, then issued an order on August 16, 1958, stating “Inasmuch as the claim is approved, let the order of approval stand.”
The administratrix filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal specifically from Judge Mijares’s June 12 orders. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the only appealable order was Judge Montejo’s August 16 order. The trial court, agreeing with respondents, dismissed the administratrix’s appeal and ordered execution, ruling that the August 16 order was the final and appealable one, from which no appeal was taken.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal, specifically in ruling that the appealable order was Judge Montejo’s August 16, 1958 order ratifying the prior approval, rather than the original June 12, 1958 orders of Judge Mijares.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the trial court’s order, and directed the approval of the appeal. The legal logic is clear: Judge Mijares’s three orders of June 12, 1958, approving the claims, were valid and final orders. His authority to decide the case and sign the judgment outside the province after his transfer was expressly permitted under Section 51 of the Judiciary Act. These orders became appealable upon notice to the parties on August 8, 1958. Judge Montejo’s subsequent order of August 16, 1958, was a mere superfluity—a ratification of something already valid, which did not alter the nature or appealability of the original June 12 orders. Since the administratrix timely appealed from those June 12 orders by filing her notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond within the reglementary period from August 8, the trial court committed a reversible error in dismissing that appeal. The appeal properly lay from the original orders of approval, not from the unnecessary confirming order.