Frianela vs. Banayad Case Digest G.R. No. 169700 July 30, 2009

Frianela vs. Banayad Case Digest 

G.R. No. 169700 ; July 30, 2009

PRINCIPLE/S:

Remedial Law

a) When issue of lack of jurisdiction may be raised; exception

General Rule: Issue of jurisdiction may be raised by any of the parties or may be reckoned by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

            Reason: The principle of estoppel by laches cannot lie against the government.

Exception: Delayed invocation of lack of jurisdiction has been made during the execution stage of a final and executory ruling of a court (Tijam Ruling).

b) How jurisdiction is determined

- Jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereo

- Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations or averments in the complaint or petition.

Special Proceedings

a) Jurisdiction in Probate Procceedings (Sections 19 and 3314 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129)

RTC - gross value of the estate exceeds ₱20,000.00

MTC - demand does not exceed ₱20,000.00

n) Amount of the estate of the decedent must be stated in petition

- Jurisdiction over probate proceedings depends on the gross value of the estate. Hence the gross value of the estate of the decedent must be stated in the petition in order to determine which court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

FACTS: Petitioner Frianela was named as devisee in the will after the death of her uncle testator Banayad. Frianela filed before the RTC for the allowance of the November 18, 1985 holographic will of the decedent. Respondent, a cousin of the petitioner, filed his opposition and counter-petitioned for the allowance of two other holographic wills of the decedent dated September 27, 1989 and another dated September 28, 1989. RTC rendered its Decision6 declaring the September 27, 1989 holographic will as having revoked the November 18, 1985 will. CA ruled that the September 27, 1989 holographic will had only revoked the November 18, 1985 will insofar as the testamentary disposition of Moises’s real property was concerned. Frianela’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence she filed this instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing Decision1 of the CA.  But SC noted that RTC and CA focused all of its attention on the merits of the case without first determining whether it could have validly exercised jurisdiction to hear and decide such probate proceeding.

ISSUE/S: WON RTC could have validly exercised jurisdiction to hear and decide the probate proceeding.

HELD: NO. Sections 19 and 33 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 provides that jurisdiction over a probate proceeding is conferred to the appropriate court depending on the gross value of the estate and such value must be alleged in the complaint or petition to be filed. In this case, the petition does not state the gross value of Moises’s estate. Hence, the case should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Why Tijam Ruling cannot be applied in this case:

In Tijam, the issue of lack of jurisdiction has only been raised during the execution stage. In this case, the trial court’s assumption of unauthorized jurisdiction over the probate proceedings has been discovered by the Court during the appeal stage of the main case, not during the execution stage of a final and executory decision. Thus, the exceptional rule laid down in Tijam cannot apply.