G.R. No. L-47476; May 21, 1941
MARCELA SUGUITAN-AGUILAR, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MARIA JOSEFA-AGUILAR, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Upon the death of Hilaria Aguilar in November 1930, the defendants-appellants initiated intestate proceedings (Civil Case No. 38776) in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The properties of the deceased were distributed among the defendants-appellants as her nearest relatives, and the estate was closed on May 22, 1931. Subsequently, one of the distributees, Maria Josefa Aguilar, filed an action (Civil Case No. 42501) to annul the distribution, but was unsuccessful. In that annulment suit, the plaintiffs-appellees (Marcela Suguitan, a niece of Hilaria, and her children) sought to intervene, but their petition was denied “without prejudice to their right to institute a separate action.” The plaintiffs-appellees then filed the present action on April 9, 1934, claiming to be the true and only heirs of Hilaria Aguilar and seeking to recover the properties. The trial court found that the plaintiffs-appellees were the legitimate and nearest relatives of the deceased and entitled to inherit her properties. It also found that they were unable to assert their claims in the original intestate proceedings due to the short time used in its processing and because the death of Hilaria was concealed from them by the defendant Felipe Aguilar, who falsely informed Marcela Suguitan that Hilaria was in Antipolo when she had actually just died. The defendants-appellants appealed, arguing that the finality of the intestate proceedings (an in rem proceeding) barred the plaintiffs’ claim and that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches.

ISSUE

1. Whether the finality of the intestate proceedings (Case No. 38776), conducted in rem, bars the plaintiffs-appellees from impugning the distribution of the estate.
2. Whether the plaintiffs-appellees are guilty of laches, thereby precluding them from claiming the properties.

RULING

1. No, the finality of the in rem intestate proceedings does not absolutely bar the plaintiffs’ separate action under the circumstances. While proceedings of this character are in rem and generally binding on all claiming an interest, this rule is not absolute. The Supreme Court held that it would be revolting to justice to deprive the plaintiffs-appellees of properties to which they are lawfully entitled as the nearest relatives of the deceased, especially when they were prevented from participating in the original proceedings due to concealment and fraudulent representations by the defendants-appellants. The trial court’s reservation of their right to file a separate action in the annulment case (No. 42501) was valid.
2. No, the plaintiffs-appellees are not guilty of laches. The defense of laches was not viewed sympathetically under the circumstances. The plaintiffs did not have knowledge or the means of knowledge of the facts creating their right of action because the death of Hilaria Aguilar and the subsequent proceedings were concealed from them. They filed the present action promptly after their right was reserved by the court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ denial of the defendants-appellants’ motion for a new trial, which challenged the judgment because it was signed by Judge Francisco Zandueta shortly before his appointment was disapproved. The Court held the judgment was valid as it was signed and promulgated by the clerk of court when Judge Zandueta was still a judge de jure.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.