Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    vmm0903
    43 views1 page
    1. The trial court overstepped its jurisdiction as a probate court when it nullified deeds of absolute sale and determined the ownership of disputed properties. A probate court cannot adjudicate ownership claims between the estate and outside parties. 2. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the parties' valid compromise agreement merely because it was not judicially approved. Compromise agreements do not require court approval, only the consent of the parties. 3. The parties freely negotiated the compromise agreement over four months with legal counsel. As it was validly entered into in good faith, the court should have upheld it rather than disregarding it.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    sanchez

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The trial court overstepped its jurisdiction as a probate court when it nullified deeds of absolute sale and determined the ownership of disputed properties. A probate court cannot adjudicate ownership claims between the estate and outside parties. 2. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the parties' valid compromise agreement merely because it was not judicially approved. Compromise agreements do not require court approval, only the consent of the parties. 3. The parties freely negotiated the compromise agreement over four months with legal counsel. As it was validly entered into in good faith, the court should have upheld it rather than disregarding it.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    vmm0903
    1. The trial court overstepped its jurisdiction as a probate court when it nullified deeds of absolute sale and determined the ownership of disputed properties. A probate court cannot adjudicate ownership claims between the estate and outside parties. 2. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the parties' valid compromise agreement merely because it was not judicially approved. Compromise agreements do not require court approval, only the consent of the parties. 3. The parties freely negotiated the compromise agreement over four months with legal counsel. As it was validly entered into in good faith, the court should have upheld it rather than disregarding it.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Rule 73 (case # 4)

    Sanchez vs. C.A. [G.R. No. 108947.  September 29, 1997]

    Parties: Petitioners: *Rolando, Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna are the illegitimate children of Juan Sanchez
    Private respondents:* Rosalia Lugod -the only child of Juan Sanchez and Maria Villafranca
    * Arturo Lugod, Evelyn Ranises and Roberto Lugod - Legitimate children of Rosalia

    Facts: Private respondent Rosalia Lugod, following the death of her mother , filed a petition for letters of administration over the
    estate of her mother and father( who was at the time in the state of senility). Before the administration proceedings could formally
    be terminated and closed her father died. Petitioners filed a petition for letters of administration over the intestate estate of their
    father which petition was opposed by Rosalia. Subsequently thereafter, they executed a compromise agreement , wherein
    they agreed to divide the properties of their father Juan.
    Later, the trial court appointed Rosalia as administratix of their father’s intestate estate. Same parties then entered into a
    memorandum of agreement which modified their previous compromise agreement.
    Nine years later petitioners filed another motion requiring Rosalia to submit new inventory of properties under her
    administration and an accounting of the fruits thereof. Likewise, a motion to defer the approval of the compromise agreement on
    grounds based on fraud.
    Trial court ordered Rosalia to submit new inventory and an accounting of the fruits thereof which prompted her to file a
    rejoinder. Petioners on the otherhand, filed another motion to change administratix. This was then again opposed by Rosalia.
    Both parties were ordered to submit their position papers and on the bases of those the trial court promulgated its
    decision against herein private respondent (declaring as simulated and fictitious all the deeds of absolute sale JUAn sanchez and
    Maria Villanueva executed in favour of their daughter and grandchildren and further ordered collation of the properties subject
    thereof disregarding the compromise agreement between parties). Rosalia filed motion for reconsideration on the trial court’s order
    but such motion was further denied by the trial court and held that the decision was final and executory.
    The case was elevated to CA via petition for certiorari . Initially, the petition was denied however, on a motion for
    reconsideration filed by private respondent, CA granted decision and declared modified CA valid and binding. Hence this appeal.

    Issues:
    1. Won trial court over stepped its jurisdiction as a probate court when it nullified deed of absolute sale and determined with
    finality the ownership of the properties subject thereof.
    2. Won trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it renders a decision in disregard of the parties ‘ compromise
    agreement merely on the ground that such compromise agreement was not approved by the court.
    Held:
    1. Yes.
    It is hornbook doctrine that “in a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the question of ownership is an
    extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve
    with finality a pronouncement that applies with equal force to an intestate proceeding.
    “A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to
    properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties.   All that the said court could do
    as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be
    administered by the administrator.  If there is not dispute, well and good, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and
    the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the
    probate court cannot do so.”

    2. Yes
    The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it rendered its decision in disregard of the parties’ compromise
    agreement. Such disregard, on the ground that the compromise agreement “was not approved by the court,” is tantamount to “an
    evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation and within the bounds of
    law.”
    Article 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise agreement as “a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
    concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.”  Being a consensual contract, it is perfected upon the
    meeting of the minds of the parties.  Judicial approval is not required for its perfection.
    In the case, it is ineludible that the parties knowingly and freely entered into a valid compromise agreement. Adequately
    assisted by their respective counsels, they each negotiated its terms and provisions for four months; in fact, said agreement was
    executed only after the fourth draft. Since this compromise agreement was the result of a long drawn out process, with all the
    parties ably striving to protect their respective interests and to come out with the best they could, there can be no doubt that the
    parties entered into it freely and voluntarily.  Accordingly, they should be bound thereby. To be valid, it is merely required under the
    law to be based on real claims and actually agreed upon in good faith by the parties thereto.

    You might also like