Vda. de Manalo vs.

Court of Appeals
ACTION
Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners
HELD
Denied. In favor of respondents
FACTS
Troadio Manalo, is a resident of Sampaloc Manila. Died intestate, leaving a widow
and 11 children. Left several real properties in Tarlac and Manila. Also left a business
with offices in QC and Valenzuela.
PETITION
Filed by 8 of the children, before RTC Manila.
For judicial settlement and distribution of the estate, and appointment of
administrator.
OMNIBUS MOTION (FOR OPPOSITION AND DISMISSAL)
Filed by the widow and 3 other children
To set for preliminary hearing their affirmative defenses
To declare that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the Oppositors;
RTC
Denied prayers.
Declared that it acquired jurisdiction over persons of Oppositors
Set the application for appointment of the administrator
ACTION
Filed by 8 children before the CA
For certiorari under Rule 65
(1) venue was improperly laid
(2) RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons;
(3) share of the widow was included in the intestate proceedings;
(4) there was absence of earnest efforts toward compromise among members of the
same family; and
The PETITION (classified under nature of a spec. pro.) is actually an ordinary civil
action involving members of the same family (as evidenced by certain averments in
the PETITION such as )
Thus, PETITION should be dismissed under Rule 16 Sec 1j, which requires as

condition precedent for filingg the claim that earnest efforts toward a compromise
have been made involving members of the same family prior to the filing of the
petition pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family
unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made,
but that the same have failed,
(5) no certification of nonforum shopping was attached to the petition.
CA
Dismissed
SC
Affirmed CA.
Denied ACTION.
1) Allegations / averments and the character of relief sought determines the nature of
the complaint / petition
a) First, the jurisdictional facts (fact of death, residence at the time of his said death,
enumeration of the names of his legal heirs, and tentative list of properties), were
present in the averments. Secondly, the relief sought (to seek judicial settlement)
leaves no room for doubt as to the intention of the 8children in the Petition.
b) Defects in the Petition, raised in the Opposition by the Oppositors, may not be
allowed to defeat the purpose of a valid petition for the settlement of the estate
The jurisdiction of a court, and the nature of an action, is determined by the
averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the Answer.
The RTC, sitting as a Probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot
hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues
c) Art 222 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions.
The term suit in Art 222 that it refers to an action by one person or persons against
another or others, to pursue the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of
an injury
On other hand, in cAB, the Petition, being a Spec Pro, which has in fact no
defendant impleaded. It is a special proceeding, remedy of which to seek to establish
a status, a right, or a particular fact.