GR L 5217; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5217; May 13, 1953
Intestate Estate of the deceased, CARLOS VILORIA. VICENTE VILORIA, petitioner-appellee, vs. ISIDRO VILORIA, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On May 10, 1948, Vicente Viloria filed a petition for summary distribution of the properties left by the deceased Carlos Viloria between himself and his brother, Isidro Viloria. Isidro opposed, claiming specific shares. After several postponements, the parties, assisted by their respective attorneys, submitted a written stipulation agreeing to divide two specified lots (No. 3436 and No. 3394), ceding one-fourth portions to Isidro and three-fourths to Vicente. Based on this stipulation and evidence on jurisdictional averments, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered a decision on March 8, 1951, approving the stipulation and ordering summary adjudication of the properties accordingly, subject to inheritance tax provisions. Notice of the decision was served on the parties through their attorneys on March 13, 1951. On August 1, 1951, Isidro, through new counsel, filed a petition to set aside the decision, alleging he was illiterate and did not know the true contents of the stipulation, and that he only personally learned of the decision on July 23, 1951. He later filed an amended petition alleging that Vicente had omitted lot No. 4972 from the petition for distribution. The trial court denied his petitions, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying Isidro Viloria’s petition to set aside its decision based on the grounds of fraud or mistake and the omission of a property from the estate.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order, denying the petition to set aside the decision. The Court held that Isidro’s claim of fraud or mistake was untenable because the stipulation bore not only his signature/thumbmark but also that of his attorney, and he confirmed his thumbmark in court in his attorney’s presence. Notice to his attorney of the decision constituted notice to him. His illiteracy did not negate the validity of the stipulation made with legal assistance. The alleged omission of lot No. 4972 from the petition for summary distribution was deemed irrelevant to the validity of the decision, as that property could be the subject of a separate proper action between the parties.