GR L 4477; (August, 1908) (Digest)
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD, DECEASED. THE NON-CHRISTIAN GUINABLAY, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE NON-CHRISTIAN BRIGIDA, respondents-appellee.
August 27, 1908
—
FACTS:
Malignad died intestate in 1902, survived by two minor daughters: Immin (from his first wife, under the care of his aunt Guinablay) and Juana (from his second wife Brigida, under Brigida‘s care).
Guinablay was appointed judicial administratrix of the estate in 1905. In 1907, Brigida requested the partition of the estate. Guinablay initially opposed, stating Juana was too young, but the court ordered the partition. Commissioners were appointed and subsequently submitted a report proposing an almost equal division with a difference of only P2.25. The Court of First Instance approved this partition on April 30, 1907, and directed Guinablay to deliver Juana’s share to Brigida.
On June 17, 1907, Guinablay moved to annul the partition, alleging it was inequitable (claiming a P89 difference in shares, P1,364 for Juana vs. P1,275 for Immin) and that the commissioners failed to comply with legal formalities, specifically by not personally inspecting the lands and relying on maps. The court denied Guinablay‘s motion on October 7, 1907. Guinablay appealed this denial, raising four assignments of error related to the court’s approval of the partition and its denial of her motion to annul.
—
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in approving the partition of the intestate estate of Malignad and in denying the administratrix Guinablay‘s motion to annul said partition, considering her claims of inequity and non-compliance with legal formalities by the commissioners.
—
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s order.
The Court found no error in the lower court’s actions, addressing each of Guinablay‘s assigned errors:
1. Regarding compliance with formalities by the commissioners: The commissioners’ report explicitly stated that all legal formalities were complied with. Without any contrary evidence presented in the lower court, the presumption of regularity (Section 334(31) of the Code of Civil Procedure) stands.
2. Regarding the equity of the partition: The commissioners initially reported a minimal difference of P2.25, which was deemed slight and could be paid in cash. The appellant’s claim of a P89 difference was not substantiated by sufficient proof presented during the trial of the motion for annulment. The only evidence presented was a document from one commissioner stating he could not read/write well and that they relied on maps instead of personal inspection, which the Court found insufficient to overturn the approved partition. Furthermore, the Court noted that any potential injustice was seen to prejudice the widow Brigida, whose acknowledged right to a portion of the inheritance by Guinablay herself was not satisfied, rather than the minor children.
3. Regarding the court’s approval of the partition: Guinablay failed to raise any objection in the lower court concerning lack of notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the partition. This claim was raised for the first time on appeal.
4. Regarding the denial of the motion for annulment: The order approving the partition (April 30, 1907) was appealable within twenty days. Guinablay‘s motion for annulment, filed on June 17, 1907, was made after this appeal period. Moreover, the evidence presented by Guinablay (the commissioner’s statement) was deemed insufficient to demonstrate a substantial difference in shares or a defect in the proceedings that would warrant the annulment of the approved partition.