System of Absolute Community

UY v. CA
G.R. No. 102726

This is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision, dated Sept.
23, 1991, which reversed the order of RTC, Makati.

FACTS:

Private respondent Natividad Calaunan-Uy was the common-law
wife of the late Menilo B. Uy. The union bore four children, Melito,
Nilda, Melvin and Merlito.

On October 31, 1990, after the death of Menilo Uy, petitioners
Tshiate Uy and Ramon Uy petitioned before the RTC of Makati the
administration of the estate of Menilo Uy.

On February 28, 1991, private respondent filed a motion to hold
the special proceedings; this is after she had filed a civil case for
the Partition of Properties Under Co-ownership, against the
estate of Menilo Uy. On the day of the trial, the parties submitted
a Compromise Agreement. On May 15, 1991, a writ of execution
was issued.

On May 24, 1991, petitioner Tshiate Uy filed an omnibus motion,
alleging that she was the surviving spouse of Menilo Uy, by virtue
of their Hong Kong marriage. On June 10, 1991, the trial court
allowed the intervention of Tshiate and set aside the
compromise judgment.

The trial court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the
private respondent. So, she filed a petition for certiorari with the
respondent court (CA). A decision was made by the appellate
court on September 23, 1991:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the
orders of respondent court dated June 10, 1991 and July
8, 1991 are hereby SET ASIDE. No costs.

A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied
by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.


ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the private respondent has the right over the
estate of Menilo B. Uy.

2. Whether or not the intervention was submitted in due time, as
provided in Section 2, Rule 12, of the Revised Rules of the Court.

RULING:

1. The governing provisions found in Article 147 and 148 of the
Family Code are applicable to the case at bar.

Article 147. without the benefit of marriage or under a
void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property acquired by both
of them through their work or industry shall be governed
by the rules on co- ownership.

Article 148. In the absence of proof to the contrary,
their contributions and corresponding shares are
presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption
shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of
credit.

2. Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the Court provides:

Sec. 2. Intervention. A person may, before or during a
trial, be permitted by the court, in its discretion, to
intervene in an action, if he has legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
parties, or an interest against both, or when he is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or
other disposition of property in the custody of the court
or of an officer thereof.

In Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General, this Court held:

In this case, the motion for intervention was filed after
the trial has already been concluded and a judgment
had been already promulgated. As stated in the case,
motions are obviously and manifestly late, beyond the
period prescribed under the aforecoded Section 2, Rule 12
of the Rules of Court.

However, it is further provided in the case that Rule 12
of Rules of the Court is simply a rule of procedure. The
purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice.

The denial of the motion for intervention from the
strict implementation of the Rule due to lack of
notice, or alleged failure, will lead the court to
commit an injustice and open its doors to fraud,
falsehood, and misinterpretation, should the
intervenors claims be proven to be true.

The trial court itself, in setting aside its previous judgment upon
compromise, has expressed "that the intervenors have legal
interest in the matter in litigation," a statement which we find
hard to brush aside.

Private respondents argue that their failure to implead
petitioners in the complaint for partition has been cured by the
filing of petitioners' omnibus motion asking leave to intervene
and attaching thereto an answer in intervention. Private
respondents overlook the fact that the motion has been filed
subsequent to the judgment based upon the compromise
agreement (among private respondents themselves) that did not
include, and thereby cannot be held to bind, petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals is SET
ASIDE and a new one is entered REINSTATING the order, dated
10 June 1991, of the trial court.
SO ORDERED.

















System of Absolute Community
PNB v. CA
G.R. No. L-26001

FACTS:

Petitioner