[ G.R. No. L-1131. May 31, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 497
[ G.R. No. L-1131. May 31, 1947 ]
JUAN JAMORA, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL BLANCO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is an original action for certiorari instituted by the petitioner, Juan Jamora, seeking the annulment of the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Honorable Manuel Blanco, dated October 18, 1946, which dismissed special proceeding No. 36 (Intestate Estate of the Deceased Gorgonia Jamora Vda. de Mapa: Juan Jamora, petitioner), and set aside all the proceedings theretofore accomplished therein.
The order complained of recites that the respondent Judge personally knew that the estate of the deceased Gorgonia Jamora Vda. de Mapa had been settled and distributed according to her will probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila some fifteen years ago, and that the petitioner, then already appointed administrator, when required to explain, stated that he instituted special proceeding No. 36 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, because the records of the testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila were destroyed as a result of the war.
Petitioner’s main contention is that the respondent judge acted illegally in basing the order of dismissal on his personal knowledge of alleged facts not borne out by any evidence. While said respondent was perhaps somewhat hasty in the matter, due undoubtedly to his reaction to the anomaly that confronted him, we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner was thereby deprived of his day in court. Indeed, lack of a formal hearing for the reception of necessary evidence, is more than supplied by petitioner’s own admission in his petition for certiorari (paragraphs 10, 11, 13) of the existence of the testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila, of the destruction of the records thereof, and of the absence of any petition for reconstitution. Such admission also points to the belief that the petitioner; as alleged in the order in question, really confirmed at the hearing held on October 15, 1946, what the respondent judge personally knew. And this is the reason why the order in question relies on the fact that—
“Dicho Sr. Jamora admitio ser ciertos los hechos expuestos en el parrafo anterior, y explicando su proceder al instituir la presente actuacion especial dijo que lo hizo porque con motivo de la guerra se ha destruido el expediente de la testamentaria de su finada hermana, la referida Gorgonia Jamora viuda de Mapa, obrante en el juzgado de primera instancia de Manila.”
Petitioner’s remedy is to file in the Court of First Instance of Manila the proper petition for reconstitution of the records in the testate proceedings. The circumstance that he is not in possession of documents sufficient for the purpose, is not a valid excuse for his reluctance or omission to institute reconstitution proceedings. He had no right to suppose that the records could not be reconstituted, because other interested parties may be successful in the task; and even if reconstitution should be impossible after proper proceedings, it would be incumbent upon the court to order a new trial or permit the filing of a new action.
The herein petition will therefore be, as the same is hereby, dismissed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.
Pablo, Bengzon, and Padilla, JJ., concur.