SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.129242.January16,2001]

PILARS.VDA.DEMANALO,ANTONIOS.MANALO,ORLANDOS.MANALO,and
ISABELITA MANALO, petitioners, vs. 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
IMELDAMANALO,respondents.

DECISION
DELEON,JR.,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbypetitionersPilarS.Vda.DeManalo,et.al.,seekingto
annultheResolution[1]of theCourtofAppeals[2]affirmingtheOrders[3] of the Regional Trial Court and the
Resolution[4]whichdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Theantecedentfacts[5]areasfollows:
Troadio Manalo, a resident of 1966 Maria Clara Street, Sampaloc, Manila died intestate on February 14,
1992.He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his eleven (11) children, namely: Purita M. Jayme,
AntonioManalo,MilagrosM.Terre,BelenM.Orillano,IsabelitaManalo,RosalinaM.Acuin,RomeoManalo,
RobertoManalo,AmaliaManalo,OrlandoManalo,andImeldaManalo,whoarealloflegalage.
AtthetimeofhisdeathonFebruary14,1992,TroadioManaloleftseveralrealpropertieslocatedinManila
andintheprovinceofTarlacincludingabusinessunderthenameandstyleManalosMachineShopwithoffices
atNo.19CalaviteStreet,LaLoma,QuezonCityandatNo.45Gen.TinioStreet,ArtySubdivision,Valenzuela,
MetroManila.
OnNovember26,1992,hereinrespondents,whoareeight(8)ofthesurvivingchildrenofthelateTroadio
Manalo,namely:Purita,Milagros,Belen,Rosalina,Romeo,Roberto,Amalia,andImeldafiledapetition[6]with
the respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila[7] for the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father,
TroadioManalo,andfortheappointmentoftheirbrother,RomeoManalo,asadministratorthereof.
OnDecember15,1992,thetrialcourtissuedanordersettingthesaidpetitionforhearingonFebruary11,
1993 and directing the publication of the order for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in Metro Manila, and further directing service by registered mail of the said order upon the heirs
namedinthepetitionattheirrespectiveaddressesmentionedtherein.
OnFebruary11,1993,thedatesetforhearingofthepetition,thetrialcourtissuedanorderdeclaringthe
wholeworldindefault,exceptthegovernment,andsetthereceptionofevidenceofthepetitionersthereinon
March16,1993.However,thisorderofgeneraldefaultwassetasidebythetrialcourtuponmotionofherein
petitioners (oppositors therein) namely: Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, Antonio, Isabelita and Orlando who were
grantedten(10)dayswithinwhichtofiletheiroppositiontothepetition.
Severalpleadingsweresubsequentlyfiledbyhereinpetitioners,throughcounsel,culminatinginthefiling
ofanOmnibusMotion[8]onJuly23,1993seeking:(1)tosetasideandreconsidertheOrderofthetrialcourt
dated July 9, 1993 which denied the motion for additional extension of time to file opposition (2) to set for
preliminaryhearingtheiraffirmativedefensesasgroundsfordismissalofthecase(3)todeclarethatthetrial
courtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonsoftheoppositorsand(4)fortheimmediateinhibitionofthe
presidingjudge.
OnJuly30,1993,thetrialcourtissuedanorder[9]whichresolved,thus:
A.ToadmitthesocalledOppositionfiledbycounselfortheoppositorsonJuly20,1993,onlyforthepurpose
ofconsideringthemeritsthereof
B.Todenytheprayeroftheoppositorsforapreliminaryhearingoftheiraffirmativedefensesasgroundforthe
dismissal of this proceeding, said affirmative defenses being irrelevant and immaterial to the purpose and
issueofthepresentproceeding
C.Todeclarethatthiscourthasacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonsoftheoppositors
D.TodenythemotionoftheoppositorsfortheinhibitionofthisPresidingJudge
E.TosettheapplicationofRomeoManaloforappointmentasregularadministratorintheintestateestateofthe
deceasedTroadioManaloforhearingonSeptember9,1993at2:00oclockintheafternoon.
Herein petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of
Appeals,docketedasCAG.R.SP.No.39851,aftertheirmotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdatedJuly30,
1993wasdeniedbythetrialcourtinitsOrder[10]datedSeptember15,1993.Intheirpetitionforcertiorariwith
theappellatecourt,theycontendthat:(1)thevenuewasimproperlylaidinSP.PROC.No.9263626(2)the
trialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionovertheirpersons(3)theshareofthesurvivingspousewasincludedin
theintestateproceedings(4)therewasabsenceofearnesteffortstowardcompromiseamongmembersofthe
samefamilyand(5)nocertificationofnonforumshoppingwasattachedtothepetition.
Finding the contentions untenable, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari in its
Resolution[11]promulgatedonSeptember30,1996.OnMay6,1997themotionforreconsiderationofthesaid
resolutionwaslikewisedismissed.[12]
Theonlyissueraisedbyhereinpetitionersintheinstantpetitionforreviewiswhetherornottherespondent
Court of Appeals erred in upholding the questioned orders of the respondent trial court which denied their
motion for the outright dismissal of the petition for judicial settlement of estate despite the failure of the
petitionersthereintoaverthatearnesteffortstowardacompromiseinvolvingmembersofthesamefamilyhave
beenmadepriortothefilingofthepetitionbutthatthesamehavefailed.
Herein petitioners claim that the petition in SP. PROC No. 9263626 is actually an ordinary civil action
involvingmembersof the same family.They point out that it contains certain averments which, according to
them,areindicativeofitsadversarialnature,towit:
xxx
Par.7.Oneofthesurvivingsons,ANTONIOMANALO,sincethedeathofhisfather,TROADIOMANALO,
hadnotmadeanysettlement,judicialorextrajudicialofthepropertiesofthedeceasedfather,TROADIO
MANALO.
Par. 8. xxx the said surviving son continued to manage and control the properties aforementioned, without
properaccounting,tohisownbenefitandadvantagexxx.
xxx
Par.12.That said ANTONIO MANALO is managing and controlling the estate of the deceased TROADIO
MANALOtohisownadvantageandtothedamageandprejudiceofthehereinpetitionersandtheircoheirs
xxx.
xxx
Par.14.For the protection of their rights and interests, petitioners were compelled to bring this suit and were
forcedtolitigateandincurexpensesandwillcontinuetoincurexpensesofnotlessthan,P250,000.00and
engaged the services of herein counsel committing to pay P200,000.00 as and for attorneys fees plus
honorariumofP2,500.00perappearanceincourtxxx.[13]
 Consequently,accordingtohereinpetitioners,thesameshouldbedismissedunderRule16,Section1(j)of
theRevisedRulesofCourtwhichprovidesthatamotiontodismissacomplaintmaybefiledonthegroundthat
aconditionprecedentforfilingtheclaimhasnotbeencompliedwith,thatis,thatthepetitionersthereinfailedto
aver in the petition in SP. PROC. No. 9263626, that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made
involvingmembersofthesamefamilypriortothefilingofthepetitionpursuanttoArticle222[14]oftheCivil
CodeofthePhilippines.
Theinstantpetitionisnotimpressedwithmerit.
Itisafundamentalrulethat,inthedeterminationofthenatureofanactionorproceeding,theaverments[15]
andthecharacterofthereliefsought[16]inthecomplaint,orpetition,asinthecaseatbar,shallbecontrolling.A
carefulscrutinyofthePetitionforIssuanceofLettersofAdministration,SettlementandDistributionofEstatein
SP.PROC.No.9263626belieshereinpetitionersclaimthatthesameisinthenatureofanordinarycivilaction.
The said petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a
deceased person such as the fact of death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as his
residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. 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
administrationoftheestaterest.[17]ThepetitioninSP.PROC.No.9263626alsocontainsanenumerationofthe
namesofhislegalheirsincludingatentativelistofthepropertiesleftbythedeceasedwhicharesoughttobe
settledintheprobateproceedings.Inaddition,thereliefsprayedforinthesaidpetitionleavenoroomfordoubt
asregardtheintentionofthepetitionerstherein(privaterespondentsherein)toseekjudicialsettlementofthe
estateoftheirdeceasedfather,TroadioManalo,towit:

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,itisrespectfullyprayedforofthisHonorableCourt:

(a) That after due hearing, letters of administration be issued to petitioner ROMEO MANALO for the
administration of the estate of the deceased TORADIO MANALO upon the giving of a bond in such
reasonablesumthatthisHonorableCourtmayfix.
(b)ThatafterallthepropertiesofthedeceasedTROADIOMANALOhavebeeninventoriedandexpensesand
justdebts,ifany,havebeenpaidandthelegalheirsofthedeceasedfullydetermined,thatthesaidestateof
TROADIOMANALObesettledanddistributedamongthelegalheirsallinaccordancewithlaw.
c) That the litigation expenses o these proceedings in the amount of P250,000.00 and attorneys fees in the
amountofP300,000.00plushonorariumofP2,500.00perappearanceincourtinthehearingandtrialofthis
caseandcostsofsuitbetaxedsolelyagainstANTONIOMANALO.[18]
Concededly,thepetitioninSP.PROC.No.9263626containscertainavermentswhichmaybetypicalofan
ordinarycivilaction.Hereinpetitioners,asoppositorstherein,tookadvantageofthesaiddefectinthepetition
and filed their socalled Opposition thereto which, as observed by the trial court, is actually an Answer
containing admissions and denials, special and affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims for actual,
moralandexemplarydamages,plusattorney'sfeesandcosts[19]inanapparentefforttomakeoutacaseofan
ordinarycivilactionanultimatelyseekitsdismissalunderRule16,Section1(j)oftheRulesofCourtvisvis,
Article222oftheCivilCode.
It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid
petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that are irrelevant and
immaterialtothesaidpetition.Itmustbeemphasizedthatthetrialcourt,sitting,asaprobatecourt,haslimited
andspecialjurisdiction[20]andcannothearanddisposeofcollateralmattersandissueswhichmaybeproperly
threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the
jurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the
complaintandnotbythedefensescontainedintheanswer.Ifitwereotherwise,itwouldnotbetoodifficultto
haveacaseeitherthrownoutofcourtoritsproceedingsundulydelayedbysimplestrategem.[21]Soitshouldbe
intheinstantpetitionforsettlementofestate.
 Herein petitioners argue that even if the petition in SP. PROC. No. 9263626 were to be considered as a
specialproceedingforthesettlementofestateofadeceasedperson,Rule16,Section1(j)oftheRulesofCourt
visavisArticle222oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippineswouldneverthelessapplyasagroundforthedismissal
ofthesamebyvirtueofRule1,Section2oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovidesthattherulesshallbeliberally
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding. Petitioners contend that the term proceeding is so broad that it
mustnecessarilyincludespecialproceedings.
Theargumentismisplaced.HereinpetitionersmaynotvalidlytakerefugeundertheprovisionsofRule1,
Section2,oftheRulesofCourttojustifytheinvocationofArticle222oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesfor
thedismissalofthepetitionforsettlementoftheestateofthedeceasedTroadioManaloinasmuchasthelatter
provisionisclearenough,towit:

Art.222.Nosuitshallbefiledormaintainedbetweenmembersofthesamefamilyunlessitshouldappearthat
earnesteffortstowardacompromisehavebeenmade,butthatthesamehavefailed,subjecttothelimitationsin
Article2035(underscoringsupplied).[22]

Theabovequotedprovisionofthelawisapplicableonlytoordinarycivilactions.This is clear from the

term suit that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in
whichtheplaintiffpursuestheremedywhichthelawaffordshimfortheredressofaninjuryortheenforcement
ofaright,whetheratlaworinequity.[23]Acivilactionisthusanactionfiledinacourtofjustice,wherebya
partysuesanotherfortheenforcementofaright,orthepreventionorredressofawrong.[24]Besides,anexcerpt
fromtheReportoftheCodeCommissionunmistakablyrevealstheintentionoftheCodeCommissiontomake
thatlegalprovisionapplicableonlytocivilactionswhichareessentiallyadversarialandinvolvemembersofthe
samefamily,thus:

Itisdifficulttoimagineasadderandmoretragicspectaclethanalitigationbetweenmembersofthesame
family.Itisnecessarythateveryeffortshouldbemadetowardacompromisebeforealitigationisallowedto
breedhateandpassioninthefamily.Itisknownthatlawsuitbetweencloserelativesgeneratesdeeperbitterness
thanstrangers.[25]

It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92
63626foranycauseofactionasinfactnodefendantwasimpleadedtherein.ThePetitionforIssuanceofLetters
ofAdministration,SettlementandDistributionofEstateinSP.PROC.No.9263626isaspecialproceedingand,
assuch,itisaremedywherebythepetitionersthereinseektoestablishastatus,aright,oraparticularfact.[26]
Thepetitionerstherein(privaterespondentsherein)merelyseektoestablishthefactofdeathoftheirfatherand
subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise
theirrighttoparticipateinthesettlementandliquidationoftheestateofthedecedentconsistentwiththelimited
andspecialjurisdictionoftheprobatecourt.
WHEREFORE, the petition in the aboveentitled case, is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against
petitioners.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,Quisumbing,andBuena,JJ.,concur.

[1]InCAG.R.SP.No.39851promulgatedonSeptember30,1996,Petition,AnnexG,Rollo,pp.5259.

[2]Galvez,J.,ponente,MartinezandAquino,JJ.,concurringRollo,pp.5259.

[3]InSP.PROC.No.9263626respectivelydatedJuly30,1993andSeptember15,1993,Petition,AnnexesDandF,Rollo,pp.35
4451.
[4]InCAG.R.S.P.No.39851promulgatedonMay6,1997,Petition,AnnexK,Rollo,pp.7077.