Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Sometime in 1972 Melitona Pahamotang died. She was survived by her husband Agustin Pahamotang, and their eight (8) children, namely: Ana, Genoveva, Isabelita, Corazon, Susana, Concepcion and herein petitioners Josephine and Eleonor, all surnamed Pahamotang. Thereafter, Agustin (Husband) filed with the then CFI of Davao City a petition for issuance of letters administration over the estate of his deceased wife. The petition, docketed as Special Case and referred to as the intestate court. In his petition, Agustin identified petitioners Josephine and Eleonor as among the heirs of his deceased spouse. In an earlier case Agustine was appointed as Judicial Guardian also in the CFI of Davao City.

 

The late Agustin then executed several mortgages and later sale of the properties with the PNB and Arguna respectively. The heirs later questioned the validity of the transactions prejudicial to them.

 

The trial court declared the real estate mortgage and the sale void but both were valid with respect to the other parties.

 

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court : petitioners committed a fatal error of mounting a collateral attack on the foregoing orders instead of initiating a direct action to annul them. 

 

ISSUE: 

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the trial court. 

 

RULING: 

In the present case, the appellate court erred in appreciating laches against petitioners. The element of delay in questioning the subject orders of the intestate court is sorely lacking. Petitioners were totally unaware of the plan of Agustin to mortgage and sell the estate properties.

 

There is no indication that mortgagor PNB and vendee Arguna had notified petitioners of the contracts they had executed with Agustin. Although petitioners finally obtained knowledge of the subject petitions filed by their father, and eventually challenged the orders of the intestate court, it is not clear from the challenged decision of the appellate court when they (petitioners) actually learned of the existence of said orders of the intestate court. Absent any indication of the point in time when petitioners acquired knowledge of those orders, their alleged delay in impugning the validity thereof certainly cannot be established. And the Court of Appeals cannot simply impute laches against them.