TRILLANA VS.

CRISOSTOMO
Note: Rule 79, Parties in interest in
special proceedings
FACTS:
The deceased, Damasa Crisostomo,
allegedly made two wills: one will was made
on August 16, 1948 and the other will was
executed on October 19, 1948. Trillana, the
administrator of the estate presented the
subsequent will executed on October 19 for
probate and was granted by the court.
Crisostomo and others, claiming to be
nephews and nieces of the deceased, filed a
petition for relief of the judgment rendered
by the probate court to disallow the
subsequent will and allow the former will
executed on August 16, alleging that the
proceedings during the probate of the
subsequent will was attended by fraud.
Contention of the Appellants (Crisostomo et
al):
Appellants argue that they are
interested parties and therefore may appeal
in the present case, because in the event the
will of October 19 is disallowed and that of
August 16 is allowed and the legacies in the
latter are declared invalid or the legatees
incapable to inherit, the legacies will go to
the appellants.
Contention of the Appellee (Trillana):
The will of August 16, 1948 was
expressly and absolutely revoked by the will
of October 19, 1948, executed by the same
executrix or deceased. The probate of the
subsequent will was not attended by fraud
and the appellants show no proof of the
alleged fraud committed in the probate of
the subsequent will.
ISSUE:
1. Whether a revoked will must be
included in the probate of the
subsequent will.
2. Are the appellants parties in interest in
the present case and therefore
entitled to appeal the decision of the
lower court?
RULING:
1. No, a revoked will may no longer be
presented in the probate of the
subsequent will. If two wills are
presented for allowance but one of
them was a revoked will, it cannot be
included in the probate of the latter
subsequent will because it would be a
waste of time to allow the revoked will
if the subsequent revoking will is

allowed. The revoked will may be

probated and allowed only if the
subsequent revoking will is disallowed.
2. No, the appellants are not considered
as interested parties in the probate
proceedings of the will of the
deceased Damasa Crisostomo and
therefore, are not entitled to appeal
the decision of the lower court.
In
civil
actions
and
special
proceedings,
unless
otherwise
provided by law, the interest in order
that a person may be a party on
appeal must be material and direct, so
that he will be materially and directly
benefited or injured by the courts
order, decree or judgment: and not
indirect or contingent.
The appellants in the present case
merely allege in their petition for relief
that they are nephews and nieces
and therefore legal heirs of the
deceased
Damasa
Crisostomo,
without specifying the degree of
relationship they had to the latter.
They contend that if the will made on
October 19, 1948, be disallowed, they
will inherit the estate left by the
testatrix. The interest claimed by the
appellants is purely contingent or
dependent upon several uncertain and
future events to (1) the disallowance
of the will of October 19, 1948 (2) the
allowance of the will of August 16,
1948 and (3) invalidation of certain
legacies left in said will on August 16,
1948.

DURAN VS. DURAN

FACTS:
Pio Duran died intestate. Among
his alleged heirs are Josefina Duran, as
surviving spouse; several brothers and
sisters;
nephews
and
nieces.
Subsequent to his death, Cipriano
Duran, one of the surviving brothers,
executed
a
public
instrument
assigning
and
renouncing
his
hereditary rights to the decedents
estate in favor of Josefina Duran, for
the consideration of P2, 500.00. A year
later, Cipriano filed in the CFI of Albay
a petition for intestate proceedings to
settle Pio Durans estate. Against said
petition, Josefina Duran filed an
opposition, praying for its dismissal
upon the ground that the petitioner is
not an interested person in the
estate, in view of the deed of transfer
and renunciation the estate, in view of
the afore-stated, attaching a copy of
the same; in the alternative, she asked
to be appointed administratix.
ISSUE:
WON Cipriano loses his right as
interested person in the estate after
said assignment is approved by the
court.

RULING:
The court ruled in the negative.
The Rules of Court provides that a
petition
for
administration
and
settlement of an estate must be filed
by an interested person (Rule 79, 2).
The situation in the Santos case
involves an assignment between coheirs pendent lite, during the course of
settlement proceedings properly and
validly commenced. At the time of said
assignment, therefore, the settlement
court had already acquired jurisdiction
over the properties of estate. As a
result, any assignment regarding the
same had to be approved by said
court. Since the approval of the court
is not deemed final until the estate is
closed, the assigning heir remains an
interested person in proceedings even
after said approval which can be
vacated is given. In the present case,
however, the assignment took place
when no settlement proceedings was
pending.
The
properties
subject
matter of the assignment were not
under the jurisdiction of a settlement
court. Allowing that the assignment
must be deemed a partition as
between the assignor and assignee,
the same does not need court
approval to be effective as between
parties.
An extrajudicial partition is valid
as between the participants even if
the requisites of Sec. 1, Rule 74 for
extrajudicial partition are not followed
since said requisites are for purposes
of
binding
creditors
and
nonparticipating heirs only. Should it be
contended that said partition was
attended
with
fraud,
lesion
or
inadequacy of price, the remedy is to
rescind or to annul the same in an
action for that purpose.