This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| 2. The CA ignored and violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario[28] which held that a declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding and not in a civil action. | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In his Comment, respondent judge contends that: the Decision of this Court, dated September 4, 1992, in G.R. No. 94918 directs the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 51203 for the purpose of determining the portions of the subject parcels of land which belong to the complainants therein and to annul the sale with regard to said portion; in consonance with the above-mentioned Decision, then presiding judge Apolinario B. Santos issued an Order dated January 22, 1996 directing that the complainants in Civil Case No. 51203 submit evidence showing settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo Suarez in order for the trial court to determine that portion in the estate which belongs to Teofista Suarez; no trial on the merits was ever conducted, that no evidence was presented to show that complainants are indeed the legitimate, compulsory and only heirs of the late Marcelo Suarez and, that the estate of the latter was already adjudicated to them; and on this basis, the Order of the trial court dated January 22, 1996 cannot be implemented. Respondent judge further contends that in the case of "Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario, et al.,[7] this Court ruled that declaration of heirship should be properly made in a special proceeding and not through an ordinary civil action, like Civil Case No. 51203. Respondent judge claims that the instant complaint is a creation of a disgruntled party-litigant who cannot accept a decision adverse to his own interests; and that the present complaint was filed for the sole purpose of harassing him who is only doing his best to help unclog the docket of a pairing court.[8] | |||||