TESTAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE DECEASED EPIFANIO PABUSTAN, ATANACIA MALLARI, ADMINATRIX AND, MOISES CARREON, LEGATEE AND APPELLANT, VS. JUAN DE LA CRUZ, ET ALS., PETITIONERS AN…

This is an appeal from an order of the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac dated December 27, 1948, denying the
petition of appellants seeking relief from the effects of a final order
under rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

One Epifanio Pabustan died leaving a will but without forced
heirs. In the will, he instituted his widow, Atanacia Mallari, and two
relatives, Rosendo Manaloto and Moises Carreon, as legatees. The value
of the estate is P8,000. The will was duly admitted to probate.

On May 9, 1941, the legatees and other supposed heirs of the
deceased filed a petition with the court stating that they have reached
an understanding with regard to the partition of the estate and to that
effect they have executed three documents, one an agreement of the
parties (Exhibit “X”), another a ratification of an agreement (Exhibit
“A”), and a third, a project of partition (Exhibit “B”), and prayed
that they be approved and given effect. After due hearing, the court
approved the documents and ordered the administratrix Atanacia Mallari
to pay the inheritance tax within the period provided for by law,
adding that, after its payment, the case will be declared closed. The
order was issued on July 15, 1941.

On September 1, 1941, after the aforesaid order had become final,
Atanacia Mallari, in her capacity as administratrix, filed a petition
for relief under rule 38 of the Rules of Court praying that said
order of July 15, 1941, be set aside on the ground that the herein
oppositors and appellees succeeded in having it approved through fraud
and intimidation, practiced upon Atanacia Mallari who was an old and
ignorant woman. The affidavits of Atanacia Mallari, Moises Carreon and
Leopoldo Mallari setting forth the circumstances constituting the fraud
and intimidation were attached to the petition. This petition was
reiterated on July 1, 1948. To this petition, the appellees filed a
strong opposition attaching thereto several exhibits in disavowal of
the imputations of the administratrix. After hearing the arguments of
both parties, through counsel, the court found the petition without
merit and denied the same. The case is now before this Court on appeal
taken by the administratrix and her co-legatee Moises Carreon upon the
plea that the appeal only involves questions of law.

We find, however, that the questions that need to be considered in
the determination of the issue involved in this appeal are more of
facts than of law. This can be gleaned from a mere perusal of the brief
of the appellants. Thus, counsel for appellants claim that the lower
court denied their petition for relief because it failed to consider
the following facts: (a) that after the death of Epifanio
Pabustan, one Juan P. de la Cruz went to see her widow Atanacia Mallari
to tell her that she, Rosendo Manaloto and Moises Carreon, the persons
instituted in the will, are not the only heirs of the deceased who are
entitled to inherit, and that if she would not agree to enter into a
new partition, the other heirs would object to ktk early distribution
and would stir up a long litigation to her prejudice, for which reason
she agreed to the new partition; (b) that sometime in April
1941, Rosendo Manaloto, nephew of Atanacia Mallari, went to see her to
persuade her to come to an amicable settlement with the other heirs
because if she would not agree and he is prevented from obtaining his
share in the inheritance, he would not be able to pay what he owes to
one Benigno Pantig, and would be prosecuted for estafa and confined in Jail, and that out of pity for him, Atanacia Mallari agreed to make a new partition of the estate; and (c)
when on one occasion Atanacia Mallari met the relatives of her deceased
husband who were not instituted in the will, said relatives approached
her to persuade her to agree to the proposed amicable settlement
because otherwise something serious and prejudicial to her would
happen, and that because of this threat she agreed to settle the case
amicably. All these facts appear in the affidavits marked Exhibits 7
and 8 of the petition for relief which were not given credit by the
probate court.

On the other hand, we note that the lower court, in acting on said
petition, made the following findings: “the court finds from the
statement given in open court by Atty. Regidor Y. Aglipay, who was the
attorney for the administratrix at the time said convenio, ratificacion de convenio and proyecto de particion were
submitted for the approval of the Court, that the administratrix gave
in open Court her consent to the approval of the said convenio, ratificacion de convenlo and proyecto de particion voluntarily
and Insistently even against the advice-of her said Attorney Mr.
Regidor Y. Aglipay who had to withdraw his appearance for said
administratrix after the latter had acted even against the counsel and
advice of said attorney. The Court has examined the records, and the
Court finds the statements of Atty. Regidor Y. Aglipay, now acting
provincial fiscal, fully sustained.”

The important issue, therefore, to be determined in this appeal is:
are the facts stated in the affidavits of Atanacia Hallarl and Moises
Carreon attached to the petition for relief true or not? This of course
depends upon the credibility of the affiants. Apparently the lower
court did not consider them worthy of credit as shown by the fact that
he gave more credence to the statement made by attorney Regidor Y.
Aglipay who was formerly the attorney of appellants. As to whether the
probate court erred in its appreciation of these facts is a matter not
within the province of this Court, it appearing that the value of the
estate is only P8,000. It appearing, therefore, that this case has been
improperly brought on appeal to this Court, the same should be
certified to the Court of Appeals, following the provisions of section
31 of Republic Act No. 296.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this case be certified and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, JJ., concur.