Skip to main content

Agtarap v. Agtarap G.R. Nos. 177099 and 177192| June 8, 2011

CASE DIGEST

Agtarap v. Agtarap 
G.R. Nos. 177099 and 177192| June 8, 2011 

Topic: Right of representation, effect of failure to object representation 

Facts: 

Decedent Joaquin contracted (2) marriages. First with with Lucia, bearing three children, Jesus+, Milagros+, Jose+ (survived by three children, namely, Gloria, Joseph, and Teresa) and then lastly when Lucia died, thereafter, with Caridad, with three children, Eduardo, Sebastian, Mercedes. 

Son Eduardo filed petition for settlement of Joaquin’s intestate estate and the RTC issued resolution appointing Eduardo as administrator. 

Gloria Agtarap de Santos, one of the children of compulsory heir Jose in the estate of Joaquin, died on May 4, 1995, was later substituted in the proceedings above by her husband Walter de Santos. On September 16, 1995, Abelardo Dagoro filed a motion for leave of court to intervene, alleging that he is the surviving spouse of the compulsory heir Mercedes Agtarap and the father of Cecilia Agtarap Dagoro, and in his answer in intervention. 

Sebastian, one of the compulsory heirs, filed a motion to exclude Abelardo Dagoro and Walter de Santos as heirs, but was denied by lower court. He points out that his motion was denied by the RTC without a hearing. 

Issue: 

1. WON Walter de Santos and Abelardo Dagoro had the right to participate in the estate in representation of the Joaquins compulsory heirs, Gloria and Mercedes, respectively. – YES 

Held: 

1. Sebastians insistence that Abelardo Dagoro and Walter de Santos are not heirs to the estate of Joaquin cannot be sustained. 

Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts, and there appears no compelling reason to hold that both courts erred in ruling that… Walter de Santos, and Abelardo Dagoro rightfully participated in the estate of Joaquin. It was incumbent upon Sebastian to present competent evidence to refute his and Eduardos admissions that Joseph and Teresa were heirs of Jose, and thus rightful heirs of Joaquin, and to timely object to the participation of Walter de Santos and Abelardo Dagoro. Unfortunately, Sebastian failed to do so. 

Nevertheless, Walter de Santos and Abelardo Dagoro had the right to participate in the estate in representation of the Joaquins compulsory heirs, Gloria and Mercedes, respectively.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Ocampo vs Enriquez, GR No. 225973| 11/8/2016

Full Text:  https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/62526 Doctrines: It is well-settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless the following requisites for judicial inquiry are present: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. In this case, the absence of the first two requisites, which are the most essential, renders the discussion of the last two superfluous. An “actual case or controversy” is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical...
Read more

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services, et. al. | G.R. No. 187587| 2013

G.R. No. 187587| June 5, 2013  697 SCRA 359 Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National Defense; NMSI , Petitioner, vs. MSS - PVAO, DND,  Respondent; ---and--- G.R. No. 187654| June 5, 2013 WBLOA, INC. , represented by its Board of Directors, Petitioner, vs.    MSS - PVAO, DND , Respondent. Ponente :  SERENO, CJ.:  Doctrines :  (1) Petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. (2) The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided.  (3) The Supreme Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal...
Read more