UY v. CAG.R. No. 102726

 UY v. CAG.R. No. 102726

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

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter.

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 avoid 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 evidence of credit.

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

Intervention— A person may, before or during atrial, 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 has been already promulgated. As stated in the case, motions“ are obviously and manifestly late, beyond the period prescribed under the aforesaid 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 the 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 intervenor’s 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, dated10 June 1991, of the trial court.SO ORDERED.