Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Alfonso v. Andres

    Uploaded by

    Eena Pauline
    49 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to file their appellants' brief within the required time period despite multiple extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the petitioners failed to show sufficient justification to suspend the rules. The Court also ruled against the petitioners' argument that the extrajudicial settlement of the estate was invalid, noting that publication is not required and the deed evidenced the heirs' intention to partition the inherited property. Thus, the petitioner's father could validly transfer the subject property to the respondents.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ALFONSO V. ANDRES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to file their appellants' brief within the required time period despite multiple extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the petitioners failed to show sufficient justification to suspend the rules. The Court also ruled against the petitioners' argument that the extrajudicial settlement of the estate was invalid, noting that publication is not required and the deed evidenced the heirs' intention to partition the inherited property. Thus, the petitioner's father could validly transfer the subject property to the respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Alfonso v. Andres

    Uploaded by

    Eena Pauline
    The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to file their appellants' brief within the required time period despite multiple extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the petitioners failed to show sufficient justification to suspend the rules. The Court also ruled against the petitioners' argument that the extrajudicial settlement of the estate was invalid, noting that publication is not required and the deed evidenced the heirs' intention to partition the inherited property. Thus, the petitioner's father could validly transfer the subject property to the respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ALFONSO V.

    ANDRES
    626 SCRA 149 [2010]

    FACTS:

    The present case stemmed from a complaint for accion publiciana with damages


    filed by respondent spouses Henry and Liwanag Andres against Noli Alfonso and
    spouses Reynaldo and Erlinda Fundialan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The
    latter ruled in favor of the Fundialan spouses hence their appeal to the CA.

    On November 5, 2003, petitioners' previous counsel was notified by the CA to


    file appellants' brief within 45 days from receipt of the notice. The original 45-day
    period expired on December 21, 2003. But before then, on December 8, 2003, petitioners'
    former counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance. Petitioners consented to the
    withdrawal

    On December 19, 2003, petitioners themselves moved for an extension of 30 days


    or until January 21, 2004 within which to file their appellants' brief. Then on March 3,
    2004, petitioners themselves again moved for a fresh period of 45 days from March 3,
    2004 or until April 18, 2004 within which to file their appellants' brief

    The CA issued a resolution giving the petitioners a period of 75 days to file their
    brief to end on March 5, 2004 but petitioners received a copy of such resolution only on
    April 6, 2004.

    On April 14, 2004 the PAO entered its appearance as new counsel but the CA
    dismissed the appeal on August 10 of the same year.

    The PAO filed a motion for reconsideration on September 6 which also requested
    a fresh period of 45 days to file the brief which was later filed on October 21. However
    the CA denied the same hence this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the dismissal was proper

    RULING:

    Rule 50 of the Rules of Court states:

    Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.-An appeal may be dismissed


    by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on
    the following grounds:
    xxxx

    (e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies
    of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;

    Petitioners plead for the suspension of the rules yet failed to show that the
    case in laced with public interest or that failure to suspend such rules
    would result in an injustice.

    Petitioners theorize that publication of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the


    estate of Marcelino Alfonso is required before their father, Jose Alfonso (Jose) could
    validly transfer the subject property. We are not convinced. In Alejandrino v. Court of
    Appeals, the Court upheld the effectivity of a deed of extrajudicial settlement that was
    neither notarized nor published.

    Significantly, the title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate
    passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is subject to the claims of administration
    and the property may be taken from the heirs for the purpose of paying debts and
    expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of
    the intestate, from himself to his heirs.

    The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by Filomena Santos Vda. de


    Alfonso and Jose evidences their intention to partition the inherited property. It
    delineated what portion of the inherited property would belong to whom.

    The sale to respondents was made after the execution of the deed of extrajudicial
    settlement of the estate. The extrajudicial settlement of estate, even though not
    published, being deemed a partition 14 of the inherited property, Jose could validly
    transfer ownership over the specific portion of the property that was assigned to him.

    The records show that Jose did in fact sell to respondents the subject property.
    The deed of sale executed by Jose in favor of the respondents being a public document,
    is entitled to full faith and credit in the absence of competent evidence that its execution
    was tainted with defects and irregularities that would warrant a declaration of nullity.

    * Case digest by Roger Angielo V. Atenta, JD-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020

    You might also like