MANALO vs.

CA
G.R. No. 129242. January 16, 2001
DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS: Troadio Manalo, died intestate on February 14, 1992. He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his 11 children, who
are all of legal age. Troadio Manalo left several real properties located in Manila and in the province of Tarlac.

Herein respondents, who are 8 of the surviving children of the late Troadio Manalo filed a petition with the respondent RTC of
Manila7 for the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father, Troadio Manalo, and for the appointment of their brother, Romeo
Manalo, as administrator thereof.

The trial court issued an order “declaring the whole world in default, except the government,” and set the reception of evidence of the
petitioners. However, this order of general default was set aside by the trial court upon motion of herein petitioners.

Several pleadings were subsequently filed by herein petitioners, through counsel, culminating in the filing of an Omnibus Motion. Trial
court denied the prayer of the oppositors for a preliminary hearing of their affirmative defenses as ground for the dismissal of this
proceeding, said affirmative defenses being irrelevant and immaterial to the purpose and issue of the present proceeding.

ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for the outright dismissal of the petition for judicial settlement of estate aver that earnest efforts
toward a compromise involving family members of the same family have been made

RULING: The petition was denied for lack of merit. It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action or
proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling.
A careful scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-
63626 belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition contains sufficient
jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fact of death of the late Troadio
Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. The fact of death of the
decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration
of the estate rest. The petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs including a
tentative list of the properties left by the deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. In addition, the reliefs
prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) to
seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father, Troadio Manalo

Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of
Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased Troadio
Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough, to wit: Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the
same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject
to the limitations in Article 2035.

Hence, herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of
the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. It must be emphasized that the trial
court, sitting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which
may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a
court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the defenses
contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings
unduly delayed by simple strategem. So it should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate.
.