| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
107 OG No. 1, 18 (January 3, 2011)
[ CV No. 83371, October 15, 2007 ]
ERWIN F. MACATANGAY, AND MAILA M. OBCIANA, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.[*]
This appeal is taken in the name of the Government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), from the decision rendered on February 24, 2004 in Special Proceedings No. R99-015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Rosario, Batangas entitled In the Matter of Petition to Approve the Will of Candelaria M. Yap, Deceased; Erwin F. Macatangay and Maila M. Obciana, Petitioners,[1] disposing as follows:
On February 2, 1999, Candelaria Macatangay Yap (testatrix), a retired government employee, 68 years old and residing at Barangay 8, Rosario, Batangas at the time of her death, executed a holographic will bequeathing her share of all her conjugal properties consisting of a house and lot located at Road 20, Depora Subdivision, Project 8, Quezon City to her niece Maila M. Obciana and nephew Erwin F. Macatangay. She also thereby expressly disinherited her estranged husband Renato Yap from any share in her properties. On the same date, she delivered the holographic will to Erwin F. Macatangay.
On March 11, 1999, the testatrix died due to cardio-respiratory failure,[2] arising from complications of cancer.
On July 26, 1999, Erwin F. Macatangay and Maila M. Obciana commenced this case by petition in the RTC, seeking the allowance and approval of the holographic will of the testatrix and praying for the issuance of the letters of administration in favor of Macatangay.
On July 30, 1999, the RTC set the petition for initial hearing on September 7, 1999 at 8:30 am.[3]
On August 19, 1999, the RTC granted the motion for leave of court to allow the petitioners thereat (appellees herein) to publish the notice of hearing in a newspaper of their own choice.[4]
On September 20, 1999, the hearing was reset on October 21 and 28, 1999 at 8:30 am.[5]
At the initial hearing on October 21, 1999, the appellees offered documentary exhibits to establish their compliance with jurisdictional requirements.[6]
Thereafter, Renato Yap and Eulalia Macatangay opposed the petition for probate.
The RTC than tentatively set the heari on December 15, 1999 at 8:30 am.[7]
Thereafter, the oppositors filed a motion for judicial declaration of nullity of the supposed will and the institution of heirs made therein and for the dismissal of the petition.[8]
On March 1, 2000, the appellees filed their comment on the motion to dismiss and petition for declaration of nullity.[9]
On March 27, 2000, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the appellees to present documentary evidence and the witnesses in support of the petition.[10]
On November 27, 2001, the appellees submitted their formal offer of their documentary exhibits.[11]
The oppositors did not file any comment or opposition to the written formal offer of exhibits.
On February 8, 2002, the RTC admitted the offer of evidence.[12]
On May 13, 2002, the oppositors prayed that they be allowed to file a motion on demurrer to evidence. The RTC granted the motion.[13]
Meanwhile, the continuation of the hearing of the intended demurrer to evidence was set on July 24, 2002 at 8:30 am.
On September 18, 2002, the parties were given time to file their memoranda in support of their respective positions.[14]
On December 4, 2003, the RTC issued an order declaring the oppositors to have waived their right to present evidence and considering the case submitted for resolution.[15]
On February 24, 2004, the RTC rendered its assailed decision, supra.
Instead of the original oppositors themselves appealing, the OSG, as of then a total stranger to the case, filed a notice of appeal dated March 23, 2004.[16]
In this appeal, the OSG posits the lone error that:
On the other hand, the appellees submit that the OSG could not legally and procedurally appeal the decision of the RTC for lack of showing of any interest; that the OSG was primarily the lawyer for the Government which was not even a real party in interest in the proceedings for lack of any actual and substantial interest in the subject matter of the case due to the holographic will concerning only the private property of the testatrix; that no public interest was involved to justify the direct or collateral intervention of the OSG; and that the OSG did not even show in its brief that the Government had any direct, material and substantial interest in the subject matter of the probate of the will.
The appeal has no merit.
To be entitled to appeal from a judgment or order of a court, the person appealing must have a present interest in the subject matter of the litigation and must be aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment or order.[17] A party is aggrieved or prejudiced when his interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the lawsuit is injuriously affected by the judgment or order.[18] A party not aggrieved by the judgment or order may not appeal because he would have no arguable error to assign on appeal. Thus, the prevailing party in a lawsuit is not normally entitled to appeal from a judgment or order in his favor.[19]
Does the OSG, representing the Government, have the right to appeal the decision a quo?
We answer the query in the negative.
Under Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), the OSG is described as an "independent and autonomous office attached to the Department of Justice," headed by the Solicitor General "who is the principal law officer and legal defender of the Government."
The powers of the OSG are set forth in Sec. 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, of EO 292, thus:
It is fundamental that the courts are established in order to afford reliefs to persons whose rights or property interests have been invaded or violated, or are threatened with invasion by others' conduct or acts, and to give relief only at the instance of such persons. The jurisdiction of a court of law or equity may not, therefore, be invoked by or for an individual whose rights have not been breached.[20]
Wherefore, the APPEAL is DISMISSED and the DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Alino-Hormachuelos and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed and the judgment affirmed.
[*] Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 43.
[1] Records, pp. 197-203.
[2] Records, p, 5, cords.
[3] Records, p, 11.
[4] Records, ppt 12-15.
[5] Records, p. 28.
[6] Records, p. 66.
[7] Records, p. 67.
[8] Records, pp. 75-78.
[9] Records, pp. 81-91.
[10] Records, pp. 93-94,
[11] Records, pp. 143-161.
[12] Records, p. 153.
[13] Records, p. 163.
[14] Records, p. 168.
[15] Records, p. 196.
[16] Records, p. 204.
[17] Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines, Second Edition (2000), p. 88; citing Pacific Engineering Co., Inc. v. F. J. Edwards, Ltd., C.A.-G.R. No. 15583-R, January 17, 1957; 53 O.G. 3481.
[18] 2 Am Jur 941-945.
[19] Bersamin, ibid.
[20] 59 Am Jur 2d, Parties, § 30.
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finding the petition impressed with merit, it being possessed with sufficient legal bases, hereby GRANTS the same. Accordingly, the Last Will and Testament executed by Candelia M. Yap dated February 2, 1999, is hereby APPROVED and ALLOWED, with respect to her share in the house and lot located in Quezon City, with the recognition of the disinheritance of the husband by reason of infidelity. With the approval and allowance of the Will, let a letter of administration over the properties of the decedent be issued to appellee Erwin F. Macatangay.The antecedents follow.
SO ORDERED.
On February 2, 1999, Candelaria Macatangay Yap (testatrix), a retired government employee, 68 years old and residing at Barangay 8, Rosario, Batangas at the time of her death, executed a holographic will bequeathing her share of all her conjugal properties consisting of a house and lot located at Road 20, Depora Subdivision, Project 8, Quezon City to her niece Maila M. Obciana and nephew Erwin F. Macatangay. She also thereby expressly disinherited her estranged husband Renato Yap from any share in her properties. On the same date, she delivered the holographic will to Erwin F. Macatangay.
On March 11, 1999, the testatrix died due to cardio-respiratory failure,[2] arising from complications of cancer.
On July 26, 1999, Erwin F. Macatangay and Maila M. Obciana commenced this case by petition in the RTC, seeking the allowance and approval of the holographic will of the testatrix and praying for the issuance of the letters of administration in favor of Macatangay.
On July 30, 1999, the RTC set the petition for initial hearing on September 7, 1999 at 8:30 am.[3]
On August 19, 1999, the RTC granted the motion for leave of court to allow the petitioners thereat (appellees herein) to publish the notice of hearing in a newspaper of their own choice.[4]
On September 20, 1999, the hearing was reset on October 21 and 28, 1999 at 8:30 am.[5]
At the initial hearing on October 21, 1999, the appellees offered documentary exhibits to establish their compliance with jurisdictional requirements.[6]
Thereafter, Renato Yap and Eulalia Macatangay opposed the petition for probate.
The RTC than tentatively set the heari on December 15, 1999 at 8:30 am.[7]
Thereafter, the oppositors filed a motion for judicial declaration of nullity of the supposed will and the institution of heirs made therein and for the dismissal of the petition.[8]
On March 1, 2000, the appellees filed their comment on the motion to dismiss and petition for declaration of nullity.[9]
On March 27, 2000, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the appellees to present documentary evidence and the witnesses in support of the petition.[10]
On November 27, 2001, the appellees submitted their formal offer of their documentary exhibits.[11]
The oppositors did not file any comment or opposition to the written formal offer of exhibits.
On February 8, 2002, the RTC admitted the offer of evidence.[12]
On May 13, 2002, the oppositors prayed that they be allowed to file a motion on demurrer to evidence. The RTC granted the motion.[13]
Meanwhile, the continuation of the hearing of the intended demurrer to evidence was set on July 24, 2002 at 8:30 am.
On September 18, 2002, the parties were given time to file their memoranda in support of their respective positions.[14]
On December 4, 2003, the RTC issued an order declaring the oppositors to have waived their right to present evidence and considering the case submitted for resolution.[15]
On February 24, 2004, the RTC rendered its assailed decision, supra.
Instead of the original oppositors themselves appealing, the OSG, as of then a total stranger to the case, filed a notice of appeal dated March 23, 2004.[16]
In this appeal, the OSG posits the lone error that:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL.In support of its appeal, the OSG contends that a visual examination of the holographic will of the testatrix shows that the strokes of her handwritten signature are clearly different from the strokes of the provisions; that the real signature of the testatrix in the disposition is not readable; that two different signatures appear in the will; that where the holographic will is contested, the law requires that three witnesses must declare that the will is in fact in the handwriting of the deceased; that although the appellees presented such number of witnesses as required by law, there was no showing that the will executed by the testatrix was entirely written, dated and signed by her; that her signature indicated that she did not execute the entire will; and that thereby the due execution and validity of the holographic will were not competently established.
On the other hand, the appellees submit that the OSG could not legally and procedurally appeal the decision of the RTC for lack of showing of any interest; that the OSG was primarily the lawyer for the Government which was not even a real party in interest in the proceedings for lack of any actual and substantial interest in the subject matter of the case due to the holographic will concerning only the private property of the testatrix; that no public interest was involved to justify the direct or collateral intervention of the OSG; and that the OSG did not even show in its brief that the Government had any direct, material and substantial interest in the subject matter of the probate of the will.
The appeal has no merit.
To be entitled to appeal from a judgment or order of a court, the person appealing must have a present interest in the subject matter of the litigation and must be aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment or order.[17] A party is aggrieved or prejudiced when his interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the lawsuit is injuriously affected by the judgment or order.[18] A party not aggrieved by the judgment or order may not appeal because he would have no arguable error to assign on appeal. Thus, the prevailing party in a lawsuit is not normally entitled to appeal from a judgment or order in his favor.[19]
Does the OSG, representing the Government, have the right to appeal the decision a quo?
We answer the query in the negative.
Under Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), the OSG is described as an "independent and autonomous office attached to the Department of Justice," headed by the Solicitor General "who is the principal law officer and legal defender of the Government."
The powers of the OSG are set forth in Sec. 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, of EO 292, thus:
Sec. 35. Powers and Functions.—The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:Nowhere in the enumeration of the powers of the OSG is its participation in a suit or other judicial proceedings involving purely private interest wherein the Government has no specific material interest involved ever authorized or allowed. As such, the OSG's appeal must be rejected because the Government had no actual and material interest in the subject matter of the itigation.
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
(2) Investigate, initiate court action, or in any manner proceed against any person, corporation or firm for the enforcement of any contract, bond, guarantee, mortgage, pledge or other collateral executed in favor of the Government. Where proceedings are to be conducted outside of the Philippines the Solicitor General may employ counsel to assist in the discharge of the aforementioned responsibilities.
(3) Appear in any court in any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, executive order or proclamation, rule or regulation when in his judgment his intervention is necessary or when requested by the Court.
(4) Appear in all proceedings involving the acquisition or loss of Philippine citizenship.
(5) Represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings. Institute actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain and improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution.
(6) Prepare, upon request of the President or other proper officer of the National Government, rules and guidelines for government entities governing the preparation of contracts, making of investments, undertaking of transactions, and drafting of forms or other writings needed for official use, with the end in view of facilitating their enforcement and insuring that they are entered into or prepared conformably with law and for the best interests of the public.
(7) Deputize, whenever in the opinion of the Solicitor General the public interest requires, any provincial or city fiscal to assist him in the performance of any function or discharge of any duty incumbent upon him, within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid provincial or city fiscal. When so deputized, the fiscal shall be under the control and supervision of the Solicitor General with regard to the conduct of the proceedings assigned to the fiscal, and he may be required to render reports or furnish information regarding the assignment.
(8) Deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts, and exercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect to such cases.
(9) Call on any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the Government for such service, assistance and cooperation as may be necessary in fulfilling its functions and responsibilities and for this purpose enlist the services of any government official or employee in the pursuit of his tasks.
Departments, bureaus, agencies, offices, instrumentalities and corporations to whom the Office of the Solicitor General renders legal services are authorized to disburse funds from their sundry operating and other funds for the latter Office. For this purpose, the Solicitor General and his staff are specifically authorized to receive allowances as may be provided by the Government offices, instrumentalities and corporations concerned, in addition to their regular compensation.
(10) Represent, upon the instructions of the President, the Republic of the Philippines in international litigations, negotiations or conferences where the legal position of the Republic must be defended or presented.
(11) Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require; and
(12) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
It is fundamental that the courts are established in order to afford reliefs to persons whose rights or property interests have been invaded or violated, or are threatened with invasion by others' conduct or acts, and to give relief only at the instance of such persons. The jurisdiction of a court of law or equity may not, therefore, be invoked by or for an individual whose rights have not been breached.[20]
Wherefore, the APPEAL is DISMISSED and the DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Alino-Hormachuelos and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed and the judgment affirmed.
[*] Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, Vol. 43.
[1] Records, pp. 197-203.
[2] Records, p, 5, cords.
[3] Records, p, 11.
[4] Records, ppt 12-15.
[5] Records, p. 28.
[6] Records, p. 66.
[7] Records, p. 67.
[8] Records, pp. 75-78.
[9] Records, pp. 81-91.
[10] Records, pp. 93-94,
[11] Records, pp. 143-161.
[12] Records, p. 153.
[13] Records, p. 163.
[14] Records, p. 168.
[15] Records, p. 196.
[16] Records, p. 204.
[17] Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines, Second Edition (2000), p. 88; citing Pacific Engineering Co., Inc. v. F. J. Edwards, Ltd., C.A.-G.R. No. 15583-R, January 17, 1957; 53 O.G. 3481.
[18] 2 Am Jur 941-945.
[19] Bersamin, ibid.
[20] 59 Am Jur 2d, Parties, § 30.