Manalo vs CA

Manalo vs CA

GR No. 129242, January 16, 2001

FACTS:

Troadic Manalo who died on February 1992, was survived by his Pilar and his 11 children.  The deceased left several real properties in Manila and a business in Tarlac.  In November 1992, herein respondents, 8 of the surviving children, filed a petition with RTC Manila for the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father and for appointment of their brother Romeo Manalo as administrator thereof.  Hearing was set on February 11, 1993 and the herein petitioners were granted 10 days within which to file their opposition to the petition. 

ISSUE: WON the case at bar is covered under Article 151 where earnest efforts toward compromise should first be made prior the filing of the petition.

HELD:

It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief were sought in the complaint or petition, shall be controlling.  The careful scrutiny of the petition for the issuance of letters of administration, settlement and distribution of the estate belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action.  The provision of Article 151 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions.  It is clear from the term “suit” that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or enforcement of a right.  It is also the intention of the Code Commission as revealed in the Report of the Code Commission to make the provision be applicable only to civil actions.  The petition for issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and distribution of estate is a special proceeding and as such a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.  Hence, it must be emphasized that herein petitioners are not being sued in such case for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was pronounced therein.