Cayetano vs. Leonidas
Cayetano vs. Leonidas
Cayetano vs. Leonidas
*
No. L-54919. May 30, 1984.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
523
Motions; Due Process; There was no denial of due process as what the
court repeatedly set for hearing was the Petition for Relief, not the Motion
to Vacate Order of Jan. 10, 1979.—As regards the alleged absence of notice
of hearing for the petition for relief, the records will bear the fact that what
was repeatedly scheduled for hearing on separate dates until June 19, 1980
was the petitioner’s petition for relief and not his motion to vacate the order
of January 10, 1979. There is no reason why the petitioner should have been
led to believe otherwise. The court even admonished the petitioner’s failing
to adduce evidence when his petition for relief was repeatedly set for
hearing. There was no denial of due process. The fact that he requested “for
the future setting of the case for hearing x x x” did not mean that at the next
hearing, the motion to vacate would be heard and given preference in lieu of
the petition for relief. Furthermore, such request should be embodied in a
motion and not in a mere notice of hearing.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
524
525
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
526
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
527
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
“Please include this motion in your calendar for hearing on May 29, 1980 at
8:30 in the morning for submission for reconsideration and resolution of the
Honorable Court. Until this Motion is resolved, may I also request for the
future setting of the case for hearing on the Oppositor’s motion to set aside
previously filed.”
The hearing of May 29, 1980 was re-set by the court for June 19,
1980. When the case was called for hearing on this date, the counsel
for petitioner tried to argue his motion to vacate instead of adducing
evidence in support of the petition for relief. Thus, the respondent
judge issued an order dismissing the petition for relief for failure to
present evidence in support thereof. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied. In the same order,
respondent judge also denied the motion to vacate for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition.
Meanwhile, on June 6, 1982, petitioner Hermogenes Campos
died and left a will, which, incidentally has been questioned by the
respondent, his children and forced heirs as, on its face, patently null
and void, and a fabrication, appointing Polly Cayetano as the
executrix of his last will and testament. Cayetano, therefore, filed a
motion to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which
was granted by the court on September 13, 1982.
A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of
the petitioner Hermogenes Campos merged upon his death with the
rights of the respondent and her sisters, only remaining children and
forced heirs was denied on September 12, 1983.
Petitioner Cayetano persists with the allegations that the
respondent judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction when:
528
The first two issues raised by the petitioner are anchored on the
allegation that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion when he allowed the withdrawal of the petitioner’s
opposition to the reprobate of the will.
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondent judge. No proof was adduced to support petitioner’s
contention that the motion to withdraw was secured through
fraudulent means and that Atty. Franco Loyola was not his counsel
of record. The records show that after the filing of the contested
motion, the petitioner at a later date, filed a manifestation wherein he
confirmed that the Motion to Dismiss Opposition was his voluntary
act and deed. Moreover, at the time the motion was filed, the
petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Jose P. Lagrosa had long
withdrawn from the case and had been substituted by Atty. Franco
Loyola who in turn filed the motion. The present petitioner cannot,
therefore,
529
maintain that the old man’s attorney of record was Atty. Lagrosa at
the time of filing the motion. Since the withdrawal was in order, the
respondent judge acted correctly in hearing the probate of the will
ex-parte, there being no other opposition to the same.
The third issue raised deals with the validity of the provisions of
the will. As a general rule, the probate court’s authority is limited
only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
x x x x x x x x x
“However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to
the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found.”
Art. 1039.
530
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 129
was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358)
wherein we ruled:
“It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to
leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national
law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
x x x x x x x x x
“The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the
State of Texas, U.S.A., and under the law of Texas, there are no forced heirs
or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the
will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas
law, the Philippine Law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of
Amos G. Bellis.”
531
requested “for the future setting of the case for hearing x x x” did
not mean that at the next hearing, the motion to vacate would be
heard and given preference in lieu of the petition for relief.
Furthermore, such request should be embodied in a motion and not
in a mere notice of hearing.
Finally, we find the contention of the petition as to the issue of
jurisdiction utterly devoid of merit. Under Rule 73, Section 1, of the
Rules of Court, it is provided that:
532
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e4a31c3d7d902647e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11