TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE GREGORIO VENTURA:  MARIA VENTURA, EXECUTRIX-APPELLANT, MIGUEL VENTURA AND JUANA CARDOVA, HEIRS, VS. MERCEDES VENTURA, AND HER HUSBAND PEDRO D. CORPUZ,…

Appeal from the orders entered by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Guimba
Branch) in Special Proceedings No. 812, Testate Estate of the Late Gregorio
Ventura, on February 26, 1964 and June 11, 1964 granting the motion of appellee Mercedes Ventura to annul the institution of heirs
made in the will of the deceased, which was probated during his lifetime, upon
the ground that said appellee and her sister Gregoria Ventura who have been found in the decision of
another court in a corresponding case, already final, to be legitimate children
and compulsory heirs of said deceased, were preterited
and deprived of their share in the inheritance. 
Appellant denies that the decision referred to has already become final
and executory.

On December 2, 1952,
herein appellee Gregoria
Ventura filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch I, against the other appellee herein Mercedes Ventura, who later joined cause
with Gregoria, and Gregorio Ventura.  Gregoria and
Mercedes claimed that they are the legitimate children of Gregorio Ventura and
his wife Paulina Simpliciano,
who died in 1943, and asked that one-half of the properties described in the
complaint be declared as the share of their mother in the conjugal partnership,
with them as the only forced heirs of their mother Paulina.  The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 1064.

Later on, the same properties invoked in the just mentioned case
became the subject of another action, Civil Case No. 1476, also of the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
Branch I, filed by Alipio, Eufracia
and Juliana, all surnamed Simpliciano, against
Gregorio Ventura and the two sisters, Mercedes and Gregoria.  They alleged that as the only children of
Modesto Simpliciano, sole brother of Paulina, they, instead of Mercedes and Gregoria,
whom they claimed are adulterous children of Paulina
with another man, Teodoro Ventura, and as such are
not entitled to inherit from her under the Old Civil Code, are the ones who
should be declared as inheritors of the share of Paulina
in the conjugal partnership with Gregorio.

In his answer to the above complaints, Gregorio Ventura took the
position that Mercedes and Gregoria are not his
children because they were born out of the adulterous relationship between Paulina who had left their conjugal home and Teodoro Ventura with whom she lived for more than ten
years.

In Civil Case No. 1064, Gregorio Ventura filed a counterclaim
against Mercedes and her husband, Pedro Corpuz,
seeking the reconveyance from them of properties
covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-1102,
T-1212, T-1213 and T-1214 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.

Meanwhile, on December
14, 1953, Gregorio Ventura filed a petition for the probate of his
will and thus gave rise to herein subject proceeding, Special Proceedings No.
812.  In due course, said will was
admitted to probate on January 14,
1954.  This admission became
final.

Gregorio died on September
26, 1955, and on October
17, 1955, pursuant to his will, Maria Ventura was appointed
executrix, in which capacity, she is appellant in this case.

On November 4, 1959,
after a joint hearing of Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476, the court rendered its
decision, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Mercedes
Ventura and Gregoria Ventura to be the legitimate
daughters of Paulina Simpliciano
and Gregorio Ventura; declaring that as such legitimate daughters of Paulina Simpliciano they are
entitled to 1/2 of the properties described in par. six of the complaint; x x x .  The parties are urged to arrive at an
amicable partition of the properties herein adjudicated within twenty days from
the receipt of this decision.  Upon their
failure to do so, the Court shall appoint commissioners to divide the
properties in accordance with the terms of this decision.  Without pronouncement as to
costs”.  (Page 36, Record on
Appeal.)

Upon motion for reconsideration, this
decision was amended by reducing the amount of the monetary judgment against
Mercedes and her husband to P97,000.

Maria Ventura, who, as executrix of the estate of Gregorio, was
substituted for him, tried on December
8, 1959 (also on December
24, 1959) to appeal from the above decision to this Court (G.R. No.
L-18283) but said appeal was dismissed for late payment of the docketing fees
and the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal.  Subsequently, or, on October 8, 1962 and October 31, 1962, Executrix Maria filed motions for the
execution, alleging that “said decision, as amended, had long been final
and executory.”

Earlier, or, on July 14,
1962, Mercedes filed, thru counsel, Atty. Arturo M. Tolentino, the “Motion to Annul Provisions of
Will” that spawned the present controversy.  The motion reads as follows:

“MOTION
TO ANNUL PROVISIONS OF WILL

“COMES now the undersigned counsel, for MERCEDES VENTURA and
to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

“1.  That on November 4, 1959, in Civil Cases Nos.
1064 and 1476, entitled ‘Gregoria Ventura and Exequiel Victorio, plaintiffs,
versus Gregorio Ventura, Mercedes Ventura and Pedro Corpuz,
as husband of Mercedes Ventura’, the Honorable Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, through the
Honorable Judge Jose N. Leuterio, rendered a decision
the dispositive portion of which was originally as
follows:

‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Mercedes Ventura
and Gregoria Ventura to be the legitimate daughters of
Paulina Simpliciano and
Gregorio Ventura; declaring that as such legitimate daughters of Paulina Simpliciano they are
entitled to 1/2 of the properties described in paragraph 6 of the complaint;
ordering the defendant Maria Ventura, as administratrix
of the estate of Gregorio Ventura to pay to Mercedes and Gregoria
Ventura the amount of P19,074.09 which shall be divided equally between
Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura; declaring that Emiliano Ventura is not the son of Paulina
Simpliciano and therefore, not entitled to share in
the estate of Paulina Simpliciano;
declaring that Mercedes Ventura and Pedro D. Corpuz
are the exclusive owners of the properties described in the certificates of
Title Nos. T-1102, T-1212, T-1213, T-1214, Exhibits 32, 33, 34 and 35, respectively;
ordering the said Mercedes Ventura and Pedro D. Corpuz
to pay to the conjugal partnership of Gregorio Ventura and Paulina
Simpliciano the sum of P100,000.00 one-half of which
shall pertain to the estate of Gregorio Ventura and the other half to the
estate of Paulina Simpliciano
to whom Mercedes and Gregoria have succeeded, to be
divided between Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura in
equal parts; and dismissing Civil Case 1476. 
The parties are urged to arrive at an amicable partition of the properties
herein adjudicated within twenty days from the receipt of this decision.  Upon their failure to do so, the Court shall
appoint commissioners to divide the properties in accordance with the terms of
this decision.  Without
pronouncement as to costs.’

“2.  Subsequently, a Motion to amend the above dispositive portion with respect to the sum of P100,000.00, which Mercedes Ventura and Pedro D. Corpuz are required to pay to the conjugal partnership of
Gregorio Ventura and Paulina Simpliciano,
was filed, and the Honorable Court amended its decision reducing the said
amount to P97,000.00, under an Order, dated December 21, 1959.

“3.  The foregoing decision of the Honorable Court
of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
has long become final.

“4.  That in the Will probated by this Honorable
Court in the above-entitled case, Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria
Ventura, legitimate children of the deceased Gregorio Ventura with Paulina Simpliciano, have been omitted or preterited.

“5.  That under Article 854 of the Civil Code, ‘The
preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the
compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the
execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the
institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as
they are not inofficious‘.

“6.  That pursuant to the above-quoted provisions
of Article 854 of the Civil Code, all of the provisions of the probated will
designating heirs are null and void, as a result intestacy follows, unless
there are devisees and legacies which are not inofficious
which would stand to such extent that they are not inofficious.

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court declares null and void all the provisions of the Will probated
in the above-entitled case designating heirs to any portion of the estate of
the deceased Gregorio Ventura, and to declare MERCEDES VENTURA and GREGORIA
VENTURA as the sole legitimate children of the deceased Gregorio Ventura
entitled to his estate by the rules of intestacy, without prejudice to the
rights of any other compulsory heir who may be entitled to any portion of the
estate.

“Manila, for Cabanatuan City,
July 14, 1962.” (Pp. 10-14, Record on Appeal.)

This motion was opposed first, by Miguel Ventura and Juana
Cardona, who were given shares in the will of Gregorio, and later by appellant
Maria.  The main ground of this latter
opposition was that the decision in Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 was not yet
final, notwithstanding the dismissal of her appeal.  She contended that since the action filed by
Mercedes and Gregoria was for partition, the decision
of the court of November 4, 1959, which merely “urged” the parties
“to arrive at an amicable settlement of the properties herein adjudicated
within twenty days from receipt of this decision,” and “upon their
failure to do so, the Court shall appoint commissioners to divide the
properties in accordance with the terms of this decision” left something
else to be done and was, therefore, interlocutory and not final, citing 1
Moran, Rules of Court, 1950 ed. 810 and the cases therein cited.

On February 26, 1964,
the trial court issued the first assailed order thus:

“O
R D E R

“This refers to the ‘Motion to Annul Provisions of Will’ filed
by Mercedes Ventura thru counsel, Atty. Arturo M. Tolentino,
dated July 14, 1962.

“After a careful perusal of said motion, conjointly with the
supporting memorandum therefor filed by Gregoria Ventura dated November 4, 1963; the opposition
thereto filed by Miguel Ventura and Juana Cardona, dated July 26, 1962, as well
as the opposition filed by executrix Maria Ventura, dated October 30, 1963, and
the rejoinder thereto of the spouses Gregoria Ventura
and Exequiel Victorio,
dated November 29, 1963 all filed thru their respective counsel, the Court
finds said motion meritorious and hereby grants the same, it appearing that the
compulsory heirs Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria
Ventura, legitimate children of the deceased Gregorio Ventura and Paulina Simpliciano, are indeed preterited.

“WHEREFORE, the institution of heirs in the will, Exhibit D-1,
is hereby annulled.  However, the devises
given in favor of Clarita Ventura and Trinidad Ventura, as set out in paragraph
6 of the will, and in favor of Agapito, Alipio, Juliana and Eufracia, all
surnamed Simpliciano, as set forth in par. 7 thereof,
shall remain valid insofar as they are not inofficious.

“SO ORDERED.” (Pp.
30-31, Rec. on Appeal.)

Maria moved for reconsideration, insisting on her theory of
non-finality of the decision and adding as authority in support of her pose the
ruling in Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso,
G.R. No. 48102, May 27, 1942, which reversed the doctrines laid down in Africa
vs. Africa, 42 Phil. 934 and Villanueva vs. Capistrano, 49 Phil. 460, relied
upon by appellees.

On June 11, 1964,
the other impugned order was entered as follows:

“O
R D E R

“To the order of this Court dated February 26, 1964 in which
the institution of heirs in the will, Exhibit D-1 was annulled upon motion of Gregoria Ventura and Mercedes Ventura who appear to have
prevailed by this Court’s judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 in which,
among other things, the said Mercedes and Gregoria
Ventura were declared as legitimate daughters of Paulina
Simpliciano and Gregorio Ventura and entitled to one-half
of the properties of the said spouses, a motion for reconsideration was filed
by the executrix on the ground that the same is premature.

“Although the properties subject matter of Civil Cases Nos.
1064 and 1476 have not been actually partitioned in accordance with the said
decision, but such partition did not, and could not, delay the finality of the
judgment in such cases, considering that the partition is purely mechanical and
all that the parties need do was to convoke the board of commissioners and to
undertake the actual partition.  The main
cause of action, vis., the declaration of legitimacy
of Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura, did not in any way
depend on such partition, hence, after the lapse of the reglementary
period within which to appeal the case, the finding of this Court respecting
such legitimacy has now become final.

“UPON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court denied the
motion for reconsideration filed by the executrix Maria Ventura on March 9, 1964.

“SO ORDERED.” (Pp.
64-66, Rec. on Appeal.)

In her brief, appellant assigns the following four errors
allegedly committed by the probate court:

“ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS

I

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE DECISION IN
CIVIL CASES NOS. 1064 and 1476 ORDERING THE PARTITION OF THE PROPERTIES
DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT AS YET FINAL AND EXECUTORY, THERE BEING
SOMETHING MORE TO BE DONE IN THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE COMPLETE DISPOSITION OF
THE CASES, AND, THEREFORE, IT IS PREMATURE TO ANNUL THE INSTITUTION OF HEIRS IN
THE WILL OF GREGORIO VENTURA, EXHIBIT D-1.

II

“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ANNULLING THE INSTITUTION OF HEIRS IN THE WILL OF GREGORIO VENTURA,
EXHIBIT D-1.

III

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT ‘ALTHOUGH THE
PROPERTIES SUBJECT MATTER OF CIVIL CASES NOS. 1064 AND 1476 HAVE NOT BEEN
ACTUALLY PARTITIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION, BUT SUCH PARTITION DID
NOT, AND COULD NOT, DELAY IN THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SUCH CASES,
CONSIDERING THAT THE PARTITION IS PURELY MECHANICAL AND ALL THAT THE PARTIES
NEED DO WAS TO CONVOKE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND TO UNDERTAKE THE ACTUAL
PARTITION.’

IV

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECLARATION OF
LEGITIMACY OF MERCEDES AND GREGORIA VENTURA, IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 1064 AND 1476,
DID NOT IN ANY WAY DEPEND ON SUCH PARTITION, HENCE, AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL THE CASE, THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT
RESPECTING SUCH LEGITIMACY BECAME FINAL.” (Pp. 1-3,
Brief for Executrix-Appellant.)

Principal additional authority relied
upon by appellant in maintaining that the decision in question has not yet
become final is Zaldariaga vs. Enriquez, et al., 1
SCRA 1188.

As may be noted, the issues discussed by the parties in their
respective briefs could require a renewed deliberation on the variance in opinions
among the members of the Court which culminated in the majority ruling in
Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 71 SCRA 295.  It appears, however, that an important
development in the instant case should make it unnecessary for Us to reexamine in this case said majority ruling.

On February 12, 1975,
a motion to dismiss the present appeal on the ground that it has become moot
and academic, was filed by Atty. Tolentino,
as counsel for appellees Mercedes Ventura and Pedro Corpuz.  The motion
states that:

“2.  That on October 10, 1968, the Commissioners
appointed by the lower court to partition the properties subject-matter of Civil
Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 submitted their Amended Commissioners’ Report for the
partition of the conjugal estate of the late spouses, Gregorio Ventura and Paulina Simpliciano, and the
partition of the estate of the late Paulina Simpliciano between Gregoria
Ventura and Mercedes Ventura.

“3.  The Commissioners, for the information of the
Court, were:  Emmanuel Mariano, husband
of and representing the executrix-appellant, Maria Ventura;
Daniel Victorio, son of and representing Gregoria Ventura; and Pedro D. Corpuz,
husband of and representing Mercedes Ventura.

“4.  That on October 22, 1968, the Court before
whom Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 were pending, issued an Order reading as
follows:

‘Finding the Commissioners’ Report, dated October 10, 1968, duly signed by the three
Commissioners in accordance with law and not against public policy and morals,
the same is hereby approved.  Let the
said Commissioners’ Report be the laws between the parties with respect to the
partition sought for the parties are hereby enjoined to abide by all the terms
and stipulations stated and provided in said Report.

‘These cases are hereby declared closed and terminated without any
pronouncement as to costs.

‘SO ORDERED.’

“5.  That no appeal was made from said order, which
is now final and executory.” (Pp.
2-3, Motion in record.)

On March 6, 1975, appellant Maria Ventura, thru new counsel,
Atty. Inocencio B. Garampil,
filed an opposition contending that “there is no basis in alleging that
the appeal (in this case) has become moot and academic” just because the
partition in Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 has already been done with approval
of the court which has not been appealed. 
But We find this posture of appellant
inconsistent with the position taken by her in the court below in her motion
for reconsideration of the order of February
26, 1964, where she stated:

“Is the decision of the Court in Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and
1476 dated November 4, 1959,
as amended, the dispositive portion of which is
quoted above, already final and executory?

“If it is already final and executory
then the findings of the Court ‘declaring Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura to be the legitimate daughters of Paulina Simpliciano and Gregorio
Ventura’ is already an established fact, and, therefore, Mercedes and Gregoria may properly ask for the annulment of the
institution of heirs in the will, Exh. D-1, and this Court would be correct in annulling the
institution of heirs in the will Exh. D-1 for ‘the
compulsory heirs Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria
Ventura, legitimate children of the deceased Gregorio Ventura and Paulina Simpliciano, are indeed preterited‘ (order under reconsideration).

“On the other hand, if said decision of November 4, 1959 is
not yet final and executory, or if it is merely
interlocutory, because there is something more to be done for the complete disposition
of the case, that is, the making of the partition by the duly appointed three
(3) commissioners, and the action of the court upon such report, and that the
order or judgment of the court approving such report is the final order or
judgment, it follows that the findings of the court ‘declaring Mercedes Ventura
and Gregoria Ventura to be the legitimate daughters
of Paulina Simpliciano and
Gregorio Ventura’, is interlocutory and not final.  The executrix shall appeal said decision of November 4, 1959 in due time.

“If said decision of November
4, 1959 is not as yet final, it is, therefore, premature for this
Court to order the annulment of the institution of heirs in the will Exh. D-1, on the ground that said Mercedes and Gregoria were preterited.  If when we shall appeal said decision of
November 4, 1959 and surely we shall appeal and that if the higher court shall
find Mercedes and Gregoria to be the adulterous
children of Paulina Simpliciano
and her paramour Teodoro Ventura, as contended by
Gregorio Ventura, then Mercedes and Gregoria are
foreigners to Gregorio Ventura, they are not his daughters, and consequently
they could not be said to be ‘preterited‘ in Gregorio
Ventura’s will, Exh. D-1, and clearly the order of
this Court dated February 26, 1964,
is manifestly premature.  Let us wait for
the finality of the decision of November
4, 1959 entered in Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476.” (Pp. 38-40, Rec. on Appeal.)

And so, acting on appellees‘ motion to
dismiss appeal, it is Our considered opinion that the decision in Civil Cases
Nos. 1064 and 1476 declaring that appellees Mercedes
and Gregoria Ventura are the legitimate children of
the deceased Gregorio Ventura and his wife, Paulina Simpliciano, and as such are entitled to the annulment of
the institution of heirs made in the probated will of said deceased became
final and executory upon the finality of the order
approving the partition directed in the decision in question.  We need not indulge in any discussion as to
whether or not, as of the time the orders here in question were issued by the
trial court said decision had the nature of an interlocutory order only.  To be sure, in the case of Miranda,
aforementioned, the opinion of the majority of the Court may well be invoked
against appellant’s pose.  In any event,
even if the Court were minded to modify again Miranda and go back to Fuentebella and Zaldariaga, – and
it is not, as of now – there can be no question that the approval by the trial
court in Civil Cases Nos. 1064 and 1476 of the partition report of the
commissioners appointed for the purpose, one of whom, Emmanuel Mariano, is the
husband of appellant, put a definite end to those cases, leaving nothing else
to be done in the trial court.  That
order of approval is an appealable one, and inasmuch
as no appeal has been taken from the same, it is beyond dispute that the
decision in controversy has already become final and executory
in all respects.  Hence, the case at bar
has become moot and academic.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal of
Executrix-Appellant Maria Ventura in this case is hereby dismissed.  No costs in this instance.

Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, and Martin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.