Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chipongian v. Benitez-Lirio
Chipongian v. Benitez-Lirio
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J : p
This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated
on October 30, 2002, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the
petition for certiorari that the petitioner had instituted to annul the dismissal
by the trial court of his complaint-in-intervention in Special Proceedings No.
SP-797 entitled In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Vicente O. Benitez,
Petition for Letters of Administration. Victoria Benitez Lirio and Feodor
Benitez Aguilar, Petitioners.
Antecedents
The late Vicente Benitez was married to Isabel Chipongian, the
petitioner's sister. Isabel had predeceased Vicente, who died on November 13,
1989. The couple had no offspring. 2 On July 20, 1982, after the death of
Isabel, Vicente and the petitioner had executed a deed of extrajudicial
settlement respecting the estate of Isabel, whereby the latter waived all his
rights to the estate of Isabel in favor of Vicente. 3 According to the petitioner,
however, Vicente executed an affidavit on the same date whereby he affirmed
that the waiver did not extend to the paraphernal properties of Isabel. 4
Upon the death of Vicente, Victoria Benitez Lirio (Victoria), a sister of
Vicente, and Feodor Benitez Aguilar (Feodor), a nephew of Vicente, initiated
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Vicente in the Regional Trial
Court on September 24, 1990 (RTC). 5 In its order dated May 13, 1994, 6 the
RTC appointed Feodor the administrator of Vicente's estate. On May 20, 1994,
7 it issued the letters of administration to Feodor.
The RTC granted the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit
Complaint-in-Intervention, and admitted the complaint-in-intervention of the
petitioner. 13
Judgment of the RTC
On August 21, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the
complaint-in-intervention, and ordering the costs of suit to be paid by the
petitioner, 14 pertinently holding:
There is no dispute that the estate of the late Isabel Chipongian
was extra-judicially settled on July 20, 1982 by and between Vicente O.
Benitez and Nilo V. Chipongian and was published in the BAYANIHAN
Weekly News on August 16, 23, and 30, 1982. The herein intervenor
actively participated in the execution of the extra-judicial settlement of
his sister's estate. As a matter of fact the intervenor therein "agreed . . .
to quitclaim and waive all my rights to the estate left by my declared
sister Isabel Chipongian and I hereby adjudicated them in favor of my
brother-in-law Vicente O. Benitez" (Exh. 23-B)
Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules, provides for a limitation of 2 years
after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with
either Section 1 or Section 2 of the same Rule, within which an heir or
other person deprived of his lawful participation in the estate may
compel the settlement of the said estate in the Courts for the purpose
of satisfying such lawful participation (Tinatan v. Serilla, 54 O.G. p. 6080
9/15/58). The intervenor took part and had knowledge of the extra-
judicial settlement of the estate and is therefore bound thereby. If he
was indeed deprived of his lawful share or right in his sister's estate, it
comes as a surprise why it took him more than 12 years assert the
purported affidavit allegedly executed in his favor by Vicente O. Benitez.
Careful note was taken of the fact that the purported affidavit of
Vicente O. Benitez in favor of the herein intervenor was executed
simultaneously with the deed of extra-judicial settlement of Isabel
Chipongian's estate which was published but the affidavit was not. No
reason was advanced by the intervenor why Vicente O. Benitez's
affidavit was not published and why it was only after 12 long years that
intervenor brought it out.
It is well-settled that the negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time warrants not only a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either had abandoned it or declined to assert it but
also casts doubt on the validity of the claim of ownership. Such neglect
to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time more or less
great and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party
operates as a bar in a Court of equity (Guerrero v. CA, 126 SCRA 109).
WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the complaint in
intervention is hereby dismissed with costs. The petitioner's
counterclaim is also dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 15
The petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the judgment, 16 but the
RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration on March 8, 1999. 17
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Thus, on March 19, 1999, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 18
On March 30, 1999, the RTC denied due course to the notice of appeal
for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. 19
On April 19, 1999, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration vis-à-
vis the order denying due course to his notice of appeal. 20
On July 5, 1999, the RTC issued its order whereby it conceded that the
petitioner had timely filed the notice of appeal, but still denied the Motion for
Reconsideration on the ground that he had not perfected his appeal because
of his failure to pay the appellate court docket fees. 21
On July 26, 1999, the petitioner brought his Motion to Set Aside the July
5, 1999 order denying his Motion for Reconsideration. 22
On August 13, 1999, the RTC denied the Motion to Set Aside. 23
Decision of the CA
On October 26, 1999, the petitioner instituted his petition for certiorari
in the CA, 24 alleging that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his appeal, and
denying his Motion for Reconsideration. He averred that on March 19, 1999,
he filed the notice of appeal; 25 that he paid the appellate court docket fees on
March 31, 1999; 26 that the RTC denied due course to the notice of appeal on
the ground that it had been filed beyond the reglementary period; that he
thus filed his Motion for Reconsideration against the order denying due
course; 27 that on July 5, 1999, the RTC issued its order whereby it conceded
that the petitioner had timely filed the notice of appeal, but still denied the
Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that he had not perfected his appeal
because of his failure to pay the appellate court docket fees; 28 that he filed his
Motion to Set Aside Order, appending thereto the copies of the official receipts
of the payment of the appellate court docket fees; 29 that through the order of
August 13, 1999, the RTC still denied the Motion to Set Aside Order, a copy of
which order was received by his counsel on August 27, 1999; 30 that his last
day to bring the special civil action for certiorari was on October 26 1999, the
60th day from such date; and that there was no appeal, or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 31
On October 30, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, 32
opining thusly:
The Supreme Court has time and again stressed that the
perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by
law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an
appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory. [Bank
of America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr., 230 SCRA 9 (1994) citing Alto Sales
Corp. v. IAC, 197 SCRA 618 (1991), Falcon Mfg. v. NLRC, 199 SCRA 814
(1991), Kabushin Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, 203 SCRA 583 (1991)]
This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is
not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
the law. [Bello v. Fernando, 4 SCRA 135 (1962); Borre v. Court of
Appeals, 158 SCRA 660 (1998); Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373 (1996);
People v. Esparas, 260 SCRA 539 (1996)]
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Petitioner paid the appeal fees only on March 31, 1999, but as
admitted by him in his Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo, p. 61), the last
day to perfect his appeal was on August 21, 1998. (Rollo, p. 68) In a
long line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that failure to comply
with the requirement for payment on time of the appeal fees renders
the decision final. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals , 322
SCRA at 90; Pedrosa vs. Hill, 257 SCRA 373; Luna vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA
227) We see no compelling reason to depart from this rule.
We find no further need to rule on the other assigned error.
Suffice it to state that the respondent court acted pursuant to law and
established jurisprudence; hence, did not commit any abuse of
discretion.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 33
4. Id. at 28-29.
5. Id. at 30-33.
6. Rollo, p. 23.
7. Id.
8. CA rollo, pp. 34-45.
9. Rollo, p. 23.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id. at 10-11.