IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE L. COLLANTES, DECEASED. FELIX COLLANTES AND ANITA RIUS DE COLLANTES, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. JUAN M. COLLANTES, ET. AL., OPPOSITOR…

Collantes versus Collantes

The Case

This is the matter of the testate estate of Jose L. Collantes, deceased. Felix Collantes and his wife Anita Rius de Collantes, the petitioners, sought to have the deceased's last will and testament admitted to probate, while Juan Collantes and several other relatives, the oppositors, resisted on the ground that the deceased should be declared to have died intestate. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it shows how a probate court weighs the testimony of a witness to the execution of a will. Second, and more importantly for procedure, it is a clean illustration of the rule on appellate jurisdiction, that is, which court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, has the authority to review a decision of the Court of First Instance based on the amount involved in the proceedings.

Procedural History

The petition for probate was filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The oppositors filed their respective oppositions, and after trial the lower court found that the last will and testament had been executed and attested in the manner required by law. It issued an order admitting the will to probate and issuing letters testamentary to Felix Collantes, who was named executor therein. The oppositors moved for reconsideration, and one of them also moved for reconsideration and new trial. All the motions were denied. The oppositors then filed a notice of appeal stating that they were appealing to the Court of Appeals. In their amended record on appeal, however, which the court approved, they prayed that the record be forwarded to the Supreme Court instead, alleging that the amount of the testate estate was over 50,000 pesos. The case thus reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court resolved the threshold question of which appellate court had jurisdiction.

Facts

Jose L. Collantes, a resident of Manila and a full-blood brother of the petitioner Felix Collantes, died a bachelor on August 8, 1957. He left a one-third pro indiviso share in a real property located at 829 R. Hidalgo, Quiapo, Manila, valued at 38,780 pesos more or less, as well as bank deposits whose exact amounts had not yet been verified.

On September 19, 1957, Felix Collantes and his wife Anita Rius de Collantes filed a petition for probate of the will, praying that letters testamentary be issued to them. Pacita, Maria, Juan, Antonio and Celerina, all surnamed Collantes, opposed the petition and prayed that the deceased be declared to have died intestate. Juan Collantes alleged that the deceased left real and personal properties worth 176,000 pesos more or less.

After finding that the will had been executed and attested in the manner required by law, the lower court admitted it to probate and issued letters testamentary to Felix Collantes. The oppositors sought reconsideration and new trial, but these were denied, so they appealed. On appeal they assigned several errors, among them that the trial court erred in not declaring Anita Rius de Collantes incompetent to testify, in giving full faith and credence to her testimony, in not holding that the deceased did not execute the document, and in admitting the will to probate despite allegedly weak and inconclusive evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals, rather than the Supreme Court, has appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, considering that the amount involved in the proceedings does not exceed 200,000 pesos and that most of the assigned errors raise purely factual questions.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Anita Rius de Collantes and in giving it full faith and credence.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law and in admitting it to probate.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 2613, as referred to in the decision, governs the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals based on the amount involved. The Court invoked it in this wise:

It appearing that the amount involved in the proceedings does not exceed P200,000.00 and considering that the questions raised in most of the errors assigned are purely factual, it is evident that this case comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in line with the provision of section 2 of Republic Act No. 2613.

This provision bears on the case because it fixes the ceiling of 200,000 pesos below which appeals on factual questions belong to the Court of Appeals, and the amount involved here fell within that ceiling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the case comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. It observed that the amount involved in the proceedings does not exceed 200,000 pesos and that the questions raised in most of the assigned errors are purely factual. Accordingly, instead of deciding the merits, the Court ordered that the case be certified to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law.

Because the Court disposed of the appeal on this jurisdictional ground, it did not reach the merits of the second and third issues, namely, the competence and credibility of the testimony of Anita Rius de Collantes and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the probate of the will. Those questions were left for the Court of Appeals to resolve.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the Court of First Instance is allocated by the amount involved in the proceedings, and where that amount does not exceed 200,000 pesos, the appeal belongs to the Court of Appeals under Section 2 of Republic Act Number 2613. Second, where the assigned errors raise purely factual questions, the appeal is likewise within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Third, the Supreme Court will not decide the merits of an appeal that properly belongs to the Court of Appeals; it will instead certify the case to that court for determination in accordance with law. These rules tie directly to the quoted provision, which sets the 200,000 peso ceiling that determines the proper appellate court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and ordered that the case be certified to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: where the amount involved does not exceed 200,000 pesos and the assigned errors are purely factual, the appeal belongs to the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court will certify the case to it. Examiners like to use this case in civil procedure and remedial law, testing the allocation of appellate jurisdiction by amount and the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law.