G.R. No. L-2262; August 31, 1949
FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA, plaintiff-petitioner, vs. BERNABE DE AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, and IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR, defendants-respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Florentina Zafra Vda. de Valenzuela filed an action for partition (Civil Case No. 52) against her sister, Irene Zafra de Aguilar, regarding properties inherited from their mother, Agustina del Castillo. During the pendency of the partition case, respondent Judge Bernabe de Aquino discovered that there had been prior intestate proceedings (Civil Case No. 1993) for the same estate, wherein Florentina had been appointed administratrix. The records of the intestate case were destroyed during the war and never reconstituted. Instead of deciding the partition case, the judge, motu proprio, issued an order reconstituting the intestate proceedings and directing Florentina to comply with administratrix duties. He then dismissed the partition case, ruling that the properties were under court custody in the intestate proceedings and thus not subject to an ordinary partition action.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in motu proprio reconstituting the intestate proceedings and dismissing the partition case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and annulled the respondent judge’s order. The intestate proceedings were deemed dead and non-existent due to the destruction of records and the parties’ failure to reconstitute them for years. The judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reviving the case motu proprio based only on an affidavit of recollection from the clerk of court and a copy of the appointment. The properties were not in custodia legis because the intestate case was no longer pending. Thus, the partition case was a proper remedy, and its dismissal was illegal.

AI Generated by Armztrong.