REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN1

Third Judicial Region
BRANCH ____
Macabebe, Pampanga

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION SPECIAL PROCEEDING NO.

_____
FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS
A D M I NIS T R A T I O N
LELITA DE LUNA IDALA,
Petitioner,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR LETTERS ADMINISTRATION

WITH OMNIBUS MOTION BASED ON SECTION 6, RULE 87
1. FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION OF IMPORTANT
DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF JEREMIL I. SIMBRIA;
2. FOR THE PRODUCTION AND INSPECTIONS OF ALL BANK RECORDS
AND STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS OF WHATEVER KIND AND NATURE,
SAVINGS, CHECKING, BONDS, ETC. FROM BANCO DE ORO (BDO)
AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP) OF THE DECEASED
RODOLFO JEREMILLO SIMBRIA; AND
3. IN CASE OF DISOBIDIENCE TO THE COURT’S ORDER, TO PUT
THE CULPRIT IN PRISON UNTIL HE/SHE COMPLIES.

Section 6 of Rule 87 seeks to secure evidence from persons

suspected of having possession or knowledge of the properties
left by a deceased person, or of having concealed, embezzled
or conveyed any of the properties of the
deceased.16cräläwvirtualibräry

[Chua vs. C.A., .R. No. 144881. October 16, 2003] The court
which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased person
through the filing of the corresponding proceedings has supervision
and control over these properties.
The trial court has the inherent duty to see to it that the inventory
of the administrator lists all the properties, rights and credits which the
law requires the administrator to include in his inventory. In
compliance with this duty, the court also has the inherent power to
determine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased the
1
administrator should include or exclude in the inventory. An heir or
person interested in the properties of a deceased may call the courts
attention that certain properties, rights or credits are left out from the
inventory. In such a case, it is likewise the courts duty to hear the
observations of such party. The court has the power to determine if
such observations deserve attention and if such properties belong
prima facie to the estate. [Garcia v. Garcia, 67 Phil. 353 (1939). See
also Bolisay v. Alcid, No. L-45494, 31 August 1978, 85 SCRA 213.]

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

Petitioner, [LELITA for brevity] by counsel, unto the

Honorable Court most respectfully states that:

1. Petitioner LELITA is of legal age, Filipino and presently

residing at A. Cruz Apartment Unit #3 Sitio Pi-Arap, San Vicente,
Apalit, Pampanga, Philippines;

2. Petitioner is the common law wife of the deceased

RODOLFO JEREMILLO SIMBRIA [RODOLFO], and for more than
thirty-two (32) they had lived together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage at ADD Compound, Mc Arthur Highway, Barangay
Sampaloc, Apalit, Pampanga, Philippines. Attached herewith is
Petitioner’s Affidavit of Cohabitation as Exhibit “A”;

3. Out of the couple’s common law relationship, three

children were borne, namely: JEREMIL I. SIMBRIA, (JEREMIL)
CAMILLE VICTORIA I. SIMBRIA, (CAMILLE) and RACQUEL
ELOISA I. SIMBRIA, (RACQUEL). Copies of the Certificates of Birth
are attached herewith as Exhibits “C”, “D” and “E”, respectively;

4. JEREMIL has a common law wife with two children and

presently residing at Barangay Sampaloc, Apalit, Pampanga;

than one (1) ye residing at a rented apartment at Barangay

SampalOn June 15, 2021, RODOLFO JEREMILLO SIMBRIA died.
Copy of the Death Certificate is attached herewith as Exhibit “F”;

5. Out of their relationship, three [3] children were borne,

namely: JEREMIL I. SIMBRIA, Thirty-two (32) years old, CAMILLE
VICTORIA SIMBRIA, twenty-nine (29) years old and RACQUEL
ELOISA I. SIMBRIA, Sixteen (16) years old. Copies of the Certificates
of Birth of CAMILLE and RACQUEL are attached herewith as
Exhibits “B” and “C”, respectively;
 4. It must be stressed that LELITA, not only took care of the
family as a devoted wife but also tirelessly work hard for any available
decent job in order to earn income to meet all the needs of the family,
particularly to secure the education of the children;

5. Fortunately, La Verdad Christian College was established

by the Members Church of God International where all the Petitioners
were admitted as scholars, although JEREMIL failed to finish his
degree, but CAMILLE graduated in College with flying colors and the
youngest RACQUEL has been a scholar from the moment she studied
at LVCC and up to the present. She is now Grade 10.
6. Prior to his death, RODOLFO had been accompanying his
JEREMIL in the rented apartment at his address mentioned above
because JEREMIL has already two children to feed;
7. From time to time, RODOLFO was going to and from his
home at A. Cruz Apartment Unit #3 Sitio Pi-Arap, San Vicente, Apalit,
Pampanga where his family moved on August of 2019 because their
home at ADD Compound was demolished on even date;
8. All members of the family know that the important
documents of spouses RODOLFO and LELITA are kept at the
JEREMIL’s apartment as most of the time he stays there to look after
his two grandchildren;
9. Unfit to execute the trust by reason of want of
understanding and integrity and drunkenness, JEREMIL after the
interment of his father, he manifested sudden hostility and disrespect
toward his mother and made it clear his adverse claim of all what was
left by his father in his apartment. who has been under suspension from
the time he was expelled from LVCC, all members of the family are
devoted Members Church of God International;

PROPER ACTION:

Indeed, an action for partition does not preclude the settlement of the
issue of ownership. In fact, the determination as to the existence of the
same is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition, as held in
Municipality of Bifzan·v. Garcia: 40
The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up with the
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a
partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be
made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the
property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not
entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not
exist, or partition is_ legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand,
with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is
proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received
by the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. x x x
The second phase commences when it appears that "the parties are
unable to agree upon the partition" directed by the court. In that event
[,] partition shall be done for the parties by the [c] ourt with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This second stage
may well also deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its
approval by the [c] ourt after the. Parties have been accorded
opportunity to be heard Thereon, and an award for the recovery by the
party or parties thereto entitled of their just share in the rents and profits
of the real estate in question. xx x. 41 ·
An action for partition, therefore, is premised on the existence or non-
existence of co-ownership between the parties. 42 Unless and until the
issue of co-ownership is definitively resolved, it would be premature to
effect a partition of an estate. 43
In view of the foregoing, petitioner' s argument that the trial court acted
without jurisdiction in entertaining the action of settlement of estate
and annulment of title in a single proceeding is clearly erroneous for
the instant complaint is precisely one for judicial partition with
annulment of title and recovery of possession, filed within the confines
of applicable law and jurisprudence. Under Section 1 44 of Republic Act
No. 7691 (RA 7691),45 amending Batas Pambansa Big. 129, the RTC
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in
which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Since the action herein was not merely for partition and recovery of
ownership but also for annulment of title and documents, the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC.
Hence, considering that the trial court clearly had jurisdiction in
rendering its decision, the instant petition for annulment of judgment
must necessarily fail.
Note that even if the instant action was one for annulment of title alone,
without the prayer for judicial partition, the requirement of instituting a
separate special proceeding for the determination of the status and
rights of the respondents as putative heirs may be dispensed with, in
light of the fact that the parties had voluntarily submitted the issue to
the trial court and had already presented evidence regarding the issue of
heirship. 46 In Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, 47 the Court explained:
In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was
the sole heir to Portugal's estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the
questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule
74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to
the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it should be
judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a
qualified administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in
case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an
executor therein.
but, whose estate is under consideration, consisting of deposits of
money at the land of the the as his wife the deceased had lived together
exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage under
common law relationship, attached herewith is the Certified copy of the
Death Certificate as Exhibit” A”; and the latter died intestate on June
15, 2021 in the municipality of Apalit, Pampanga, Philippines.
Section 6. Proceedings when property concealed, embezzled, or
fraudulently conveyed. — If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee,
creditor or other individual interested in the estate of the deceased,
complains to the court having jurisdiction of the estate that a person is
suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of
the money, goods, or chattels of the deceased, or that such person has
in his possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond,
contract, or other writing which contains evidence of or tends or
discloses the right, title, interest, or claim of the deceased, the court
may cite such suspected person to appear before it any may examine
him on oath on the matter of such complaint; and if the person so cited
refuses to appear, or to answer on such examination or such
interrogatories as are put to him, the court may punish him for
contempt, and may commit him to prison until he submits to the order
of the court. The interrogatories put any such person, and his answers
thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in the clerk's office.

Section 7. Person entrusted with estate compelled to render

account. — The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator,
may cite a person entrusted by an executor or administrator with any
part of the estate of the deceased to appear before it, and may require
such person to render a full account, on oath, of the money, goods,
chattels, bonds, account, or other papers belonging to such estate as
came to his possession in trust for such executor or administrator, and
of his proceedings thereon; and if the person so cited refuses to appear
to render such account, the court may punish him for contempt as
having disobeyed a lawful order of the court.

Section 8. Embezzlement before letters issued — If a person,

before the granting of letters testamentary or of administration on the
estate of the deceased, embezzles or alienates any of the money, goods,
chattels, or effects of such deceased, such person shall be liable to an
action in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate for double
the value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered
for the benefit of such estate.
 Section 9. Property fraudulently conveyed by deceased may be
recovered. When executor or administrator must bring action. — When
there is a deficiency of assets in the hands of an executor or
administrator for the payment of debts and expenses of administration,
and the deceased in his lifetime had conveyed real or personal property,
or a right or interest therein, or an debt or credit, with intent to defraud
his creditors or to avoid any right, debt, or duty; or had so conveyed
such property, right, interest, debt or credit that by law the conveyance
would be void as against his creditors, and the subject of the attempted
conveyance would be liable to attachment by any of them in his
lifetime, the executor or administrator may commence and prosecute to
final judgment an action for the recovery of such property, right,
interest, debt, or credit for the benefit of the creditors; but he shall not
be bound to commence the action unless on application of the creditors
of the deceased, not unless the creditors making the application pay
such part of the costs and expenses, or give security therefor to the
executor or administrator, as the court deems equitable.

Section 10. When creditor may bring action. Lien for costs. —
When there is such a deficiency of assets, and the deceased in his
lifetime had made or attempted such a conveyance, as is stated in the
last preceding section, and the executor or administrator has not
commenced the action therein provided for, any creditor of the estate
may, with the permission of the court, commence and prosecute to final
judgment, in the name of the executor or administrator, a like action for
the recovery of the subject of the conveyance or attempted conveyance
for the benefit of the creditors. But the action shall not be commenced
until the creditor has filed in a court a bond executed to the executor or
administrator, in an amount approved by the judge, conditioned to
indemnify the executor or administrator against the costs and expenses
incurred by reason of such action. Such creditor shall have a lien upon
any judgment recovered by him in the action for such costs and other
expenses incurred therein as the court deems equitable. Where the
conveyance or attempted conveyance had been made by the deceased
in his lifetime in favor of the executor or administrator, the action
which a credit may bring shall be in the name of all the creditors, and
permission of the court and filing of bond as above prescribed, are not
necessary.

The Petitioner argues that the assailed Decision and Order of the
Court a quo, supra, should be annulled and set aside on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

We are not persuaded.

 xxxx

Section 2 of the Rules as stated above provides that the

annulment of a judgment may "be based only on grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction." In RP v. The Heirs of Sancho Magdato,
the High Tribunal stressed that: There is extrinsic fraud when "the
unsuccessful party had been ·prevented from exhibiting fully his case,
by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping
him away from court, ... or where the defendant never had knowledge
of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; ... "

Otherwise put, extrinsic or collateral fraud pertains to such fraud,

which prevents the aggrieved party ·from having a trial or presenting
his case to the court, or is used to procure the judgment without fair
submission of the controversy. This refers to acts intended to keep the
unsuccessful party away from the courts as when there is a false
promise of compromise or when one is kept in ignorance of the suit.
The pivotal issues before us are (1) whether. There was a time during
the proceedings below that the Petitioners ever prevented from
exhibiting fully their case, by fraud or deception, practiced on them by
Respondents, and (2) whether the Petitioners were kept away from the
court or kept in ignorance by the acts of the Respondent?

We find nothing of that sort. Instead, what we deduced as We

carefully delved. Into the evidentiary facts surrounding the instant case
as well as the proceedings below as shown in the 36-page Decision of
the Court a quo, is that the Petitioners were given ample time to rebut
the allegations of the Respondents and had in fact addressed every
detail of. Respondent's cause of action against them. Thus, Petitioners'
allegation of the Court a quo ‘s lack of jurisdiction is misplaced.

Our pronouncement on the matter finds support in the explicit

ruling of the Supreme Court in Sps. Santos, et al. v. Sps. Lumbao, thus:
It is elementary that' the active participation of a party in a case
pending against him before a court is tantamount to recognition of that
court's jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the resolution of the
case which will bar said party from later on impugning the court’s
jurisdiction. ' In fine, under the circumstances obtaining in this case the
Petitioners are stopped from assailing the Court a quo 's lack of
jurisdiction. Too, We do not find merit in the Petitioners' second issue,
supra. As mentioned earlier, entry of judgment had already been made
on the assailed Decision and Order as early as 31 October 2007.

xxxx
 It maybe that the doctrine of finality of judgments permits certain
equitable remedies such as a petition for annulment. But the I. Rules
are clear. The annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of the Regional Trial Courts is
resorted to only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner, supra.

If Petitioners lost their chance to avail themselves of the

appropriate remedies or appeal before the Supreme Court, that is their
own look out. The High Tribunal has emphatically pointed out in
Mercado, et al. v. Security Bank Corporation, thus:

A principle almost repeated to satiety is that "an action for

annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost
remedy of·appeal." A party must have first availed of appeal, a motion
for new trial or a petition for relief before an action for annulment can
prosper. Its obvious rationale is to prevent the party from benefiting
from his inaction or negligence. Also, the action for annulment of
judgment must be based either on (a) extrinsic fraud or (b) lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process. Having failed to avail of the
remedies and there being 'a Clear showing that neither of the grounds
was present, the petition must be dismissed. Only a disgruntled litigant
would find such legal disposition unacceptable. 23 When the appellate
court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution
dated April 23, 2009, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari on June 10, 2009, invoking the following ground:

I.

4. Out of the said relationship borne three (3) children,

namely:
Heirs
1. JEREMIL I. IDALA
2. CAMILLE VITORIA
SIMBRIA
3.

, daughter, of legal age and resident of daughter, a minor of 16 years of

age, and etc., etc. , during her marriage residing at 4. That the deceased
6. That the surviving husband, death of his wife, since the had not made
any settle ment, judicial or extrajudicial, of the property of his deceased
wife

7. That, on the contrary, the said surviving husband, continued to

manage and control the property left by the deceased wife, to his own
benefit and

270Petition for letters of administration, instead of letters testamentary,

is proper only in cases where the decedent left no will or that no
erecutor is named in the will (See Rule 79, Sec. 5, Revised R.C.)

advantage, to the exclusion of the legal rights of the above-named heirs,

some of whom are already of age, married, and heads of families;

8. That the petitioner herein, as one of the legal heirs of the deceased,
had on several occasions, requested of his father, to make a settlement
and liquidation of the estate left by the said deceased. and to deliver to
all the legal heirs what is due to each and every one of them, but the
said. refused to do so, without any justifiable reason;

9. That the said the estate of the deceased is managing and controlling
to his own advantage and to the advantage and benefit of his
illegitimate wife and illegitimate children, and to the damage and
prejudice of the herein petitioner and his co-heirs, that unless another
administrator is appointed by this Honorable Court, the property sought
herein to be divided and which was left by the deceased. of her death
will likely diminish, if not entirely perish; at the time

10. That your petitioner, as the eldest son of deceased. is competent and
willing to act as such administrator of the estate of the deceased;

11. That for the protection of the rights and interests of the minor
children , a guardian ad litem be appointed by this Honorable Court, for
the purposes of these proceedings;

12. That your petitioner is also competent and willing to act as such
guardian ad litem for minors

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed:

(a) That after due hearing, letters of administration be issued to the

herein petitioner estate of the deceased for the administration of the -,
upon the giving of a bond in such reasonable sum as this Honorable
Court may fix;
(b) That petitioner, litem for minors be appointed guardian ad for
purposes of these proceedings; (c) That after all the property of the
deceased

have been inventoried and expenses and just debts, if any, have been
paid and the legal heirs of the deceased fully determined, that the

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

329

said estate of
the legal heirs of

be settled and distributed among

all in accordance with law;

(d) That such other remedies based on law and equity be

granted the petitioner.

Manila

19

Attorney for the Petitioner

R-203 Madrigal Bldg.
Escolta, Manila Lamberto S. Bonifacio, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 29 th Day June

2021 at Apalit, Pampanga, Philippines, by all above-named
affiants, who are personally known to me to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing affidavit, the allegations
of which according to them are based on their personal
knowledge and belief and authentic records, who are the same
persons who personally signed before me the foregoing
AFFIDAVIT OF DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

 ________________________
Lamberto S. Bonifacio, Jr.
Notary Public
Commission Serial No. 20-062 (M) Until December 31, 2022
IBP OR No. 154584, January 22, 2021
PTR No. 0712844 1/25/2021
MCLE Compliance No. VI-00114846
La Verdad Christian College Mc Arthur Highway,
Sampaloc Apalit, Pampanga

Doc. No.130
Page No 26
Book No. 1
Series of 2021

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINT FORUM SHOPPING

I, _______________________, Filipino, of legal age,

___married/___single and presently residing at
_________________________________________
__________________________Pampanga and holds office at
_______________________________________, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1 I am the authorized representative of the Medical

______________________________________Corporation
CHANNEL INC. CORPORATION, Petitioner in the above entitled
CERTIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING

2, MICHAEL E. VELASQUEZ, Filipino, of legal age with residence

and postal address at 316 Pearl St, Fortumeville Phase 1, Baliti, City of
San Fernando, Pampanga and holds office at Lot Block, Rockwood
Homes, Barangay Saguin, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby deposes
and states:

3. am the authorized representative of THE MEDICAL CHANNEL

CORPORATION, Petitioner in the above entitled petition as proved by
the Secretary's Certificate attached as Exhibit t
4. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition, the
contents of which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and based on authentic documents made available on record;

5. That I further certify that to the best of my personal knowledge,

the petitioner-corporation (TMCC) has not commenced any other
actions or proceedings involving the respondent Security Bank
Corporation involving the same issues and to the best of my knowledge
no such action or proceeding is pending in any other tribunal except for
this Petition AND that should I learn that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before any tribunal, I undertake to report
the fact within five (5) days there from.

WITNESS WHEREOFIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have

hereunto set my hand this ________________, at
__________________________________________.

_______________
Client/Plaintiff

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me attar merry

beuatofut__Apalit_______________________this_________________
__________ by the affiant, who satisfactorily proven to me his identity
through his valid Identification Card LTO Driver's License, and he is
also the same person who personally signed before me the foregoing
Verification/Certification and acknowledged that he executed the same.

________________________
Lamberto S. Bonifacio, Jr.
Notary Public
Roll No. 46988
Commission Serial No. 20-062 (M) Until December 31, 2022
IBP OR No. 154584, January 22, 2021
PTR No. 0712844 1/25/2021
MCLE Compliance No. VI-00114846
Block 8, Lot 6, Phase 3, Camella Fiorenza, Brgy. Paligui,
Apalit, Pampanga, Philippines

Doc. No.130
Page No 26
Book No. 1
Series of 2021