Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 79244 December 10, 1987
IN THE MATTER O THE PETITION TO APPRO!E THE "I## O MATEO A$##ON SR.,
%Dece&'e() ER#INDA S. A$##ON petitioner- appellant,
vs.
PRIMA A. SE!I##A, PI#AR A. SA#A*AR, MERCED A. PA+E##O MARCOS A$##ON ANGE#ES
A. SA#AMEDA &,( &,( !ICENTE A$##ON A$##ON ANGE#ES A. SA#AMEDA &,( !ICENTE
A$##ON responents-appellees. .

PADI##A, J.:
! petition for probate of a holo"raphic last #ill an testa$ent of Mateo !%llon Sr. #as file on &
Nove$ber '(&& b% the petitioner #ith the Court of )irst Instance *No# Re"ional +rial Court,, -ranch
VI, of .uiuan Eastern Sa$ar. +he case #as oc/ete as Special Proceein" No. 01(. In sai #ill,
the testator $ae isposition of specific properties to the petitioner, as his survivin" spouse #ith
#ho$ he ha no chilren, an to the responents, as his sons an au"hters b% a first $arria"e.
+he responents oppose the probate, an so hearin"s #ere hel until the case #as sub$itte for
ecision at about the en of '(2'. .
3hile the case #as a#aitin" the court4s ecision, the Petitioner, #ithout the ai of a la#%er, entere
into a verbal a$icable settle$ent #ith the responents. Rel%in" on the verbal settle$ent an
believin" that she #ill be "iven one-half *'56, of the house an lot situate at Concepcion Street,
.uiuan Easter Sa$ar, in return for her abanonin" the rest of the properties #ille to her, petitioner
#rote her la#%er a letter re7uestin" the latter to file a $otion to is$iss the case. Petitioner4s la#%er
co$plie #ith her re7uest. On '0 March '(20, the case #as is$isse. 8o#ever, the responents
apparentl% i not co$pl% #ith their verbal a"ree$ent #ith the petitioner. 8ence, the petitioner file
an affiavit #ith the court on 66 March '(20, as/in" for the #ithra#al of her $otion to is$iss an
for revival of the case.
On & Septe$ber '(20, the trial court reconsiere the orer of is$issal, an revive the case. -ut,
on '9 Septe$ber '(21, the court issue an orer recallin" the orer of & Septe$ber '(20, thereb%
revivin" the orer of is$issal of '0 March '(20, on the "rouns that *', the case #as a$icabl%
settle, an *6, the petitioner faile to present three *:, #itnesses #ho coul Ientif% the han#ritin"
of the testator in the ispute holo"raphic #ill, as provie uner !rticle 2'' of the Civil Coe. .
On 6: Septe$ber '(21, petitioner file a $otion for reconsieration of the orer of the trial court
is$issin" the case, but the $otion #as enie. .
;pon petitioner4s appeal to the Court of !ppeals, the latter court re7uire the petitioner to file a
Recor on !ppeal #ithin Si<t% *=9, a%s fro$ notice. +he counsel of the petitioner receive the
notice on '' )ebruar% '(2&, so that the last a% to file the recor on appeal #as on '6 !pril '(2&.
-ut, instea of preparin" an eventuall% filin" the Recor on !ppeal, the petitioner4s counsel file an
!ppeal -rief ate 62 )ebruar% '(2&, but actuall% file throu"h the $ails on '& March '(2&. 8ence,
in a Resolution > ate 6( Ma% '(2&, the Court of !ppeals is$isse the appeal on account of
failure of counsel of the petitioner to file a recor on appeal, #hich is re7uire in appeals in special
proceein"s, uner Section :( of -.P. -l". '6(, an Section 6( *b, of the Interi$ Rules an
.uielines. .
Petitioner file a $otion for reconsieration of the Resolution of the Court of !ppeals of 6( Ma%
'(2&. It #as enie. 8ence, the present petition for certiorari, #ith the petitioner pra%in" that her
case be revive, an that she be allo#e to sub$it a recor on appeal. .
Petitioner4s counsel faile to file a recor on appeal espite ue notice an the perio of si<t% *=9,
a%s "iven to hi$ to file sai recor on appeal. Instea of filin" the recor on appeal, as re7uire,
#hat the petitioner4s counsel i #as to file an !ppeal -rief. !n even after petitioner4s counsel
receive a cop% of the responents4 Motion for the Dis$issal of the !ppeal for failure of the petitioner
to file a recor on appeal, nothin" #as one b% petitioner4s counsel to correct or a$en the
erroneous proceure he ha ta/en. +hus, it is clear that the failure of the petitioner, throu"h counsel,
to file the recor on appeal #as not inavertent. In other #ors, petitioner4s counsel i"nore
co$pliance #ith the re7uire$ent of filin" a recor on appeal, as provie for b% the Rules. 8ence,
there is no reversible error on the part of the Court of !ppeals, in is$issin" petitioner4s appeal. .
+he fore"oin" narration of facts an events illustrates once $ore an instance #here the client has to
suffer ue to the fault of counsel. -ut, as hel in several cases, ' ' ' a client is boun b% the
$ista/es an o$issions of his counsel, so that if an appeal is lost throu"h the un?ustifie ne"lect of
counsel, as happene in the instant case, that loss is binin" upon the client. .
8o#ever, even as #e sustain the action ta/en b% the responent Court of !ppeals in is$issin"
petitioner4s appeal, an, #ith sai is$issal, petitioner has, in effect, lost the ri"ht to establish the
valiit% of the alle"e holo"raphic #ill of the late Mateo !%llon %et, as his survivin" spouse, petitioner
has not lost her hereitar% ri"hts #hich are ac7uire b% la#. !n, in the interest of ?ustice, an to
avoi $ultiplicit% of suits, the trial court in Special Proceein" No. 01( $a% be re7uire, as it is
hereb% re7uire to eter$ine an a?uicate the respective hereitar% shares of petitioner an
responents in the estate of the late Mateo !%llon in accorance #ith the rules on intestate
succession. .
38ERE)ORE, the petition is DENIED, but the case is re$ane to the trial court for further
proceein"s, specificall%, to eter$ine an a?uicate to the petitioner an responents their
respective hereitar% shares in the estate left b% Mateo !%llon in accorance #ith the rules on
intestate succession. .
SO ORDERED. .
Yap C.J., Melencio-Herrera and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. .
Paras, J., took no part.