PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO, ORLANDO S.

MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO,

petitioners v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA (BRANCH 35),
PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M. TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. ACUIN, ROMEO S.
MANALO, ROBERTO S. MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA MANALO, respondents.
GR. No. 129242 2001, Jan 16 DE LEON, JR. J.
Sobere

SUBJECT MATTER: In General – Distinction from civil actions

DOCTRINE:
It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the
character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling. The fact of death
of the decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent
proceedings in the administration of the estate rest.

LEGAL PROVISION/S: Art 222, NCC. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family
unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed,
subject to the limitations in Article 2035.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Pilar S. Vda. De
Manalo, et. al., seeking to annul the Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the Orders of the Regional Trial
Court and the Resolution which denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
 Troadio Manalo died intestate on Feb 14, 1992—survived by his wife Pilar and 11 children: Purita M. Jayme,
Antonio Manalo, Milagros M. Terre, Belen M. Orillano, Isabelita Manalo, Rosalina M. Acuin, Romeo Manalo,
Roberto Manalo, Amalia Manalo, Orlando Manalo, and Imelda Manalo.
o Troadio left several real properties in Manila and Tarlac, including Manalo’s Machine Shop.
 Respondents (8 surviving children: Purita, Milagros, Belen, Rosalina, Romeo, Roberto, Amalia, and Imelda)
filed with RTC Manila a petition for the judicial settlement of the estate of Troadio and for the appointment of
their brother Romeo as administrator.
 RTC Manila: Initially issued an order “declaring the whole world in default, except the government,” and set
the reception of evidence of the petitioners, but was set aside upon motion of petitioners who were granted
10 days within which to file their opposition to the petition.
 CA: Dismissed petition for certiorari; MR, likewise dismissed.
 Before SC:
o Petitioners’ Argument: Special proceeding case is actually an ordinary civil action involving
members of the same family; that it contains averments which are indicative of its adversarial
nature, and that the same should be dismissed under R16 Sec1 ROC—a motion to dismiss a
complaint may be filed on the ground that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
complied with, i.e., respondents failed to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been
made involving members of the same family prior to the :ling of the petition (Art 222, NCC).

Whether the settlement of the estate of late Troadio is an ordinary civil action, which is adversarial in
nature? – NO, IT IS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING  NON-ADVERSARIAL.
The settlement of estate is a special proceeding.
 In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief
sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling.
 Look at: Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate
 Contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a
deceased person; foundation facts where all subsequent proceedings in the administration of the
estate rest: fact of death and residence within the country, enumeration of names of his legal
heirs, inc. tentative list of properties left by deceased sought to be settled in the probate
proceedings, reliefs prayed for in the petition.

Although petition contains averments typical of an ordinary action, petitioners cannot defeat the purpose of
a valid petition for settlement by raising irrelevant and immaterial matters (probate court’s limited and special

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA

jurisdiction).
 Petitioners filed their “Opposition” which is actually an Answer containing admissions and denials, special
and affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims for actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus
attorney’s fees and costs to make out a case of ordinary civil action and ultimately seek its dismissal.
 SC: Not allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of
the late Troadio by raising matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition.
 Trial court as probate court has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of
collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action.
 Jurisdiction of a court, and the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in
the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer.
 It should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate.

“Suit” in Art 222, CC  pertains to ordinary civil actions.

 Suit: an action by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff
pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right,
whether at law or in equity.
 Civil action is an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the
enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
 Report of the Code Commission reveals the intention to make Art 222 applicable only to civil
actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the same family.

Case as Special Proceeding  establishment of the fact of death, status as heirs of deceased, and right to
participate in the settlement of estate.
 Petitioners are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of action as in fact no defendant
was impleaded  SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 seeks a remedy to establish a status, right, or a particular
fact.
 Respondents merely seek to establish the fact of death of their father and subsequently to be duly
recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to
participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the
limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition in the above entitled case, is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against
petitioners. SO ORDERED.

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA