Garbo V CA
Garbo V CA
*
G.R. No. 107698. July 5, 1996.
______________________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
160
RESOLUTION
FRANCISCO, J.:
161
1
On March 22, 1989, the Regional Trial Court appointed
petitioner Gloria Z. Garbo2 administratrix of the intestate
estate of Manuel G. Garbo. Three months later, or on June
21, 1989, the intestate estate of Manuel G. Garbo’s wife,
Magdalena B. Garbo, filed a petition for the allowance of
Manuel G. Garbo’s Last Will and Testament which devised
and bequeathed all of Manuel’s properties and assets
exclusively to his wife Magdalena. Petitioner filed her
opposition thereto. On August 16, 1990, the court issued an
Order allowing the Last Will and Testament to be
probated, and appointed private respondent Antonio B.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fd29c2f68358649f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
1/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 258
______________________________
162
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fd29c2f68358649f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
1/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 258
______________________________
6 Rollo, p. 28.
7 Fourth Division: Mendoza, J., Chairman; Lantin, Guingona, JJ.,
members.
8 7 SCRA 213 (1963).
163
10
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fd29c2f68358649f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
1/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 258
10
orderly and speedy administration of justice. The instant
case is no exception to this rule.
Petitioner offers no cogent reason and none appears on
record to justify her failure to file her amended or redrafted
record on appeal as directed by the probate court twice
despite the vehement objection of the private respondent.
Petitioner’s failure, if not an obstinate refusal to comply
with the probate court’s orders, is fatal.
In correcting a record on appeal, Rule 41, Section 7 of
the Rules of Court requires the appellant, “within the time
limited in the order, x x x, [to] redraft the record by
including therein, in their proper chronological sequence,
such additional matters as the court may have directed him
to incorporate, and shall thereupon submit the redrafted
record for approval, upon notice to the appellee, in like
manner as the original draft.” The submission of the
redrafted record on appeal as well as its approval 11
are
essential to perfect an appeal in special proceedings, as in
this case. Petitioner simply failed to comply with the
requirements of the rule, hence the Order of August 16,
1990, consequently lapsed into finality. It is a settled rule
that once an order or decision acquires final-
______________________________
9 Sps. Ilasco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88983, December 14,
1993.
10 Dulos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87917, August 7, 1990.
11 B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 19, in relation to Rule 109, Sec. 1(a), Rules of
Court.
164
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fd29c2f68358649f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
1/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 258
Judgment affirmed.
______________________________
12 Supra, note 8.
165
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fd29c2f68358649f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6