RULE 75 PRODUCTION OF WILL, ALLOWANCE OF WILL

NECESSARY

I: WON probate court can pass upon question of ownership, side

issue: no actual determination of intrinsic validity.

RULE 76 ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS

H: As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which

the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of
determining whether a certain property should or should not be
included in the inventory of estate properties.

1)

Fernandez v. Dimagiba, 21 SCRA 428 (1967)

Trial Court allowed probate of will and overruled questions of estoppel

and implied revocation.
CA affirmed- lack of timely appeal.

6)

US v. Chiu Guimco, 36 Phil 917 (1917)

Oppositors allege issues of estoppel and implied revocation be

considered and resolved trial court before appeal should be filed.

Accused is ordered by trial court judge to deliver to the court the will of
decedent. Accused failed to do so. Thus accused was committed to the
prison by a warrant issued by the court and there kept in close
confinement until he delivers the will.

I: WON probate order final (yes) and estoppel can be raised (no).

I: WON judge can make such order.

Held: Probate order is final and appealable, and it is so recognized by

express provisions of Section 1 of Rule 109, finally and definitively
settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator and the proper
execution and witnessing of his last will and testament, irrespective of
whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise.

H: No. The act penalized in this Rule 75 section 4 is a special statutory

offense which must be prosecuted upon complaint or information as
other criminal offenses created by law. Provision can only be applied
when a court is acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the
administration of the estates of deceased persons.

Estoppel cannot be raised in probate proceedings-to protect testators

wishers.

7)

2)

Mercado v. Santos, 66 SCRA PHIL 215 (1938)

3 years after probate, oppositors moved to reopen proceedings

alleging that the will had been forged by the petitioner.
I: WON probate of will is bar to criminal prosecution for alleged forgery
of will.
H: Yes. Probate conclusive as to its due execution and validity. It
cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except
that of fraud. Criminal action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the
forger of a will which had been duly admitted to probate by a court of
competent jurisdiction since it is clear that a duly probated will cannot
be declared a forgery.
3)

Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369 (1967)

Rodriguez v. Borja, 17 SCRA 418 (1966)

Will was deposited in trial court prior to filing of petition for allowance.
Petitioner alleged probate court has taken cognizance of testate
proceedings without jurisdiction.
I: WON does probate court acquire jurisdiction.
Court acquires jurisdiction when will is deposited in court.-The
jurisdiction of a probate court becomes vested upon the delivery
thereto of the will even if no petition for its allowance was filed until
later, because, upon the will being deposited, the court could, motu
proprio have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will
8)

Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406 (1965)

Oppositor sought to intervene in probate proceeding alleging she had

interest in the estate of the decedent.

Petition for probate being opposed on the ground that petitioner is not
entitled to inherit and oppositors are the only heirs of the decedent.

I: WON oppositor can intervene.

I: WON probate court has jurisdiction on area of inquiry.

H: No. She had already disposed of the property in the estate long
before the execution of the will.

H: None. Probate of a will, the court's area of inquiry is limited to the

extrinsic validity thereof. The testator's testamentary capacity and the
compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law
are the only questions presented for the resolution of the court. Any
inquiry into the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will or
the legality of any devise or legacy is premature.

For a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he

must have an interest in the estateinterested party has been defined
as one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one
who has a claim against the estate like a creditor.

Probate is one thing the validity of the testamentary provisions is

another.The first decides the execution of the document and the
testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to descent
and distribution.

Respondent judge appointed the brother and sister or nearest of kin of

the decedent, as administrators of the latter's estate.

4)

I: What are jurisdictional facts?

Balanay v. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452 (1975)

Probate court ruled upon the intrinsic validity of the will before ruling on
allowance or formal validity of the will.
I: WON probate court may pass upon intrinsic validity of the will.
H: Yes if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
5)

Pastor Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 885 (1983)

9)

Fernando v. Crisostomo, 90 SCRA 585 (1951)

Petitioner allege that trial court acted without jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional facts referred to are the death of the decedent, his
having left his estate in such province were probate court is sitting, or
life he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, his having left his estate in
such province.
The name or competency of the person or persons for whim letters of
administration are prayed is not a jurisdictional fact, it is another
additional fact to be alleged in the petition (d); but "no defect in the
petition shall render void the issue of letters of administration" that is,
shall divest the court of its jurisdiction to appoint the administrator.

The probate court resolved with finality the questions of ownership and
intrinsic validity of the will. Thus judge in this case is alleged to have
acted in grave abuse of discretion.

10) Araujo v. Celis, 6 Phil 459 (1906)

I: WON notice requirement was satisfied.

No will was presented in evidence and only secondary parol evidence

as to its contents were presented because it was claimed that original
will was lost.

H: No. The requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not
satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three (3)
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

Plaintiffs object to admission of such evidence.

Notice of the time and place of the hearing for the allowance of a will
shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees,
and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence, if
such places of residence be known- is required!

I: No. Loss of alleged will must be sufficiently established before

secondary evidence as to contents of will may be admitted. Case at
bar, testimony was insufficient to establish loss of alleged wil.
11) Lim Billian v. Suntay, 63 Phil 793 (1936)
Will was lost. According to the petitioner, before the deceased died in
China he left with her a sealed envelope (Exhibit A) containing his will
and, also another document (Exhibit B of the petitioner) said to be a
true copy of the original contained in the envelope.
However, children by first marriage of the deceased, they snatched
and opened it and, after getting its contents and throwing away the
envelope, they fled.
Petitioner put two witnesses upon the stand, Go Toh and Tan Boon
Chong, who corroborated the allegation. Also presented in court was
an open and empty envelope
I: WON secondary evidence as to contents of will may be admitted.
H: Yes. Evidence sufficiently pointing to loss of the will of decedent is
necessary for justifying presentation of secondary evidence as to
contents of the will and of whether it was executed with all the
essential and necessary legal formalities.
Case: Evidence is sufficient to establish the loss of the document
contained in the envelope.
12) Basa v. Mercado, 61 Phil 632 (1935)
Petitioners filed a motion in which they prayed that said proceedings
be reopened for failure to comply with requirements as to the
publication of the notice of hearing.
May 29, 1931, ordered the publication of notice
June 6 1931- first publication,
June 20, 1931- third publication
June 27- date of hearing (only 21 days after the date of the first
publication instead of three full weeks before the day set for the
hearing.)
Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the
weekly newspaper, Ing Katipunan, was a newspaper of gen circulation
in Pampanga.
I: WON requirement of publication was properly complied with.
H: (1) Yes. Notice should be published for three full weeks before the
date set for the hearing on the will. First publication of the notice need
not be made twenty-one days before the day appointed for the hearing.
(2). Yes. Newspaper of general circulation. Complied with requisites:
a.
b.
c.

it is published for the dissemination of local news and

general information;
it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; and
it is published at regular intervals

13) De Aranz v. Galing, 161 SCRA 628 (1988)

The petition for the allowance of the will itself indicated the names and
addresses of the legatees and devisees of the testator,

14) In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 156 (1918)

Petitioner, daughter of decedent, alleges the order admitting the will to
probate was void because it was made without notice to her as she
was living in Hawaii, USA. She claims that was denied due process.
I: WON publication requirement was sufficient.
H: Yes. The fact that an heir or other interested party lives so far away
as to make it impossible for such party to be present at the date
appointed for the probate of the will does not render the order of
probate void for lack of due process. The publication in the manner
prescribed by statute constituted due process of law.
Court of First Instance has the power, to set aside an order admitting a
will to probate and to grant a rehearing of the application to admit the
will, upon a showing from a person interested in the estate to the effect
that the order of probate was erroneous and that the applicant had
been prevented by conditions over which he had no control from
appearing at the original hearing and opposing the probate of the will
15) Abut v. Abut, 45 SCRA 326 (1972)
Probate court dismissed original petition for probate because the
executor who filed the petition died before such petition could be
heard. Another person with interest in the estate filed an amended
petition and sought for new publication.
I: WON dismissal was proper.
H: No. Jurisdiction of the court became vested upon the filing of the
original petition. Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until
the termination of the case, and remains unaffected by subsequent
events.
A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the
corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends
to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of
the deceased. The fact that the amended petition named additional
heirs not included in the original petition did not require that notice of
the amended petition be published anew.
16) Rodelas v. Aranza, 119 SCRA 16 (1982)
Holographic will of the decedent was lost. Oppositors alleged that such
will cannot be proved by means of photocopy or secondary evidence.
I: WON a lost holographic will can be proved by photocopy/ secondary
evidence.
H: Yes. Photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic
will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting
of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is
available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only
evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary
that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of
the testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox
copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can
be made with the standard writings of the testator.

But despite such knowledge, the probate court did not cause copies of
the notice to be sent to petitioners.

I: WON will should be probated.

17) Gan v. Yap, 104 Phil509 (1958)
Petition for probate for a holographic will was filed. Will itself was not
probated and petitioner tries to establish its contents and due
execution by statements of witnesses.
I: WON a holographic will be probated upon testimony of witnesses
who have allegedly seen it and declares that it was in the handwriting
of the testator?
Held: No. The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen and/or read such will. susceptibility for fraud.
Witnesses testifying as to their opinion of the handwriting which they
allegedly saw, an opinion which cannot be tested in court, nor directly
contradicted by the oppositors, because the handwriting itself is not at
hand.
18) Gago v. Mamuyac, 49 Phil 902 (1927)
Judge dismissed petition for probate on the ground that the same had
been cancelled and revoked because the will was last found in
possession of the decedent.
I: WON judge erred. NO.
H: In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the
proponent clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence.
Thereafter, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been
revoked.
In a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the
purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation
or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes with the
testator.
Copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution.
When it is proven, however, by proper testimony that a will was
executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with all the
formalities and requirements of the law, then the duplicate may be
admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has
been lost and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator.
Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the
possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the
absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or
destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the
testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his
death
19) Aldanese v. Salutillo, 47 Phil 548 (1925)
Petition for probate was filed in Cebu. Petitioner presented a motion
asking the court to authorize taking depositions of witnesses on the
ground that said witnesses are residents of City of Manila and cannot
personally appear before the court.
I: WON depositions are admissible in evidence.
H: Yes. It is true that the rule prevailing in this jurisdiction is that when a
will is contested the attesting witnesses must be called to prove the will
or a showing must be made that they cannot be had, but that does not
necessarily mean that they must be brought bodily before the court. It
is their testimony which is needed and not their actual personal
presence in the court room.
20) Cabang v. Delfinado, 34 Phil 291 (1916)
This is an appeal from judgement probating will of the decedent
despite the fact that the will was contested and only one of the three
subscribing witnesses were called. The two other subscribing
witnesses were not called although they were living within the
jurisdiction of the court.

H: No. The petitioner produced only one of the attesting witnesses.

Had there not been a contest, this would have probably been sufficient.
The attesting witnesses required by statute must be called to prove a
contested will or a showing must be made that they cannot be had.
21) Avera v. Garcia, 42 Phil 145 (1921)
Petition for probate was contested. The proponent introduced one of
the three attesting witnesses. Two of the attesting witnesses were not
introduced, nor was their absence accounted for by the proponent of
the will because the will was not contested until first day of hearing.
I: WON all three witnesses must be produced.
H: Yes.
Petition for probate of a will is contested (at any time), the proponent
should introduce all three of the attesting witnesses, if alive and within
reach of the process of the court; and the execution of the will cannot
be considered sufficiently proved by the testimony of only one, without
satisfactory explanation of the failure to produce the other two.
An objection to the probate of the will on the ground that only one
attesting witness was examined by the proponent of the will, without
accounting for the absence of the others, cannot be made for the first
time on appeal to SC.
22) Solivio v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 119 (1990)
Celedonia, maternal aunt of deceased, and Concordia, paternal aunt
are opposing parties. Concordia allege that she was prevented from
intervening in the probate proceedings.
I: WON Concordia was prevented from said proceedings.
H: No. The probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Notice of the
time and place of hearing of the petition is required to be published.
Notice of the hearing of Celedonias original petition was published in
the Visayan Tribune on April 25, May 2 and 9, 1977. Similarly, notice
of the hearing of her amended petition of May 26, 1977 for the
settlement of the estate was, by order of the court, published in
Bagong Kasanag (New Light) issues of May 27, June 3 and 10, 1977
Concordia was not prevented from intervening in the proceedings. She
stayed away by choice. Besides, she knew that the estate came
exclusively from Esteban's mother, Salustia Solivio, and she had
agreed with Celedonia to place it in a foundation as the deceased had
planned to do.
23) Manalo v. Paredes, supra
Will was filed for probate in 3 separate dates and by different set of
petitioners. January 7, 1925, May 5, 1924, and of September 5, 1924.
I: When does the court acquire jurisdiction.
H: The proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem and the court
acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested, through the
publication of the notice prescribed by section 630of the Code of Civil
Procedure, and any order that may be entered therein is binding
against all of them.
24) Riera v. Palmaroli, 40 Phil 105 (1919)
The will was admitted to probate. Petitioner allege that dispositions as
stated in the will are prejudicial to her interests in the estate.
WON: Probate of a will may be contested.
H: No.
While the probate of a will is conclusive as to compliance with all
formal requisites necessary to the lawful execution of the will, such
probate does not affect the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will.

25) Manahan v. Manahan, 58 Phil 448 (1933)

Will admitted to probate. Appallent allege that as she was sister of
decedent, she is entitled to notice. She was also appealing that the
probated will be declared null and void.
I: (1) WON appellant is entitled to notice. No.
(2) WON probated will can be subject of appeal. No.
The appellant was not entitled to notification of the order admitting the
will to probate, inasmuch as she was not an interested party, not
having filed an opposition to the petition for the probate thereof. Her

allegation that she had the status of an heir, being the decedent's
sister, did not confer upon her the right to be notified in view of the fact
that the testatrix died leaving a will in which the appellant has not been
instituted heir. Furthermore, not being a forced heir, she did not acquire
any successional right.
Once a will has been authenticated and admitted to probate, questions
relative to the validity thereof can no more be raised on appeal. The
decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution
thereof and it cannot impugned on any of the grounds authorized by
law, except that of fraud, in any separate or independent action or
proceedings