Dorotheo v. CA final and executor.

The only instance where a party interested in

GR No. 108581, December 8, 1999 probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he
is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through
FACTS: mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence with
circumstances do not concur herein.
Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without her estate being settled.
Thereafter, her husband Alejandro also died. In 1977, Lourdes
Dorotheo filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandro’s
last will and testament. The children of spouses filed their
opposition. The RTC ruled that Lourdes being not the wife of
Alejandro the will is intrinsically void; the oppositors are the only
heir entitled to the estate. Lourdes filed a Motion for Consideration
arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took
care of Alejandro prior to his death although they were not legally
married to each other. This was denied by the trial court. The CA
dismissed her appeal for her failure to wile the same within the
extended period.

ISSUE:

May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared

intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executor still
be given effect?

RULING:

No. A final and executor decision or order can no longer be

disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be.

The Supreme Court ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically
valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof are void. Alejandro gave all
the property to the concubine. Such is invalid because one cannot
dispose what he does not own. In this case, the whole property is
the conjugal property of Alejandro and Aniceta. Such has become

MANINANG vs. CAGR No. L-57848; June 19, 1982Melencio-Herrera,
J.
DOCTRINE:
In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the Court's area of inquiry
is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic
validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's
testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will
normally comes only after the court has declared that the will has
been duly authenticated. Where practical considerations demand
that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the Court should meet that issue.
FACTS:
Clemencia Aseneta died and left a holographic will stating that all
her real properties and personal properties shall be inherited by
Dra. Soledad L. Maninang and family and that she does not consider
Nonoy as her adopted son for he has made her do things against her
will. Petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the
Will of the (Testate Case) while respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who,
as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent
Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings (Intestate
Case). The cases were ordered consolidated. Respondent Bernardo
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the
holographic will was null and void because he, as the only
compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, intestacy should
ensue. Petitioner Soledad averred that itis still the rule that in a case
for probate of a Will, the Court's area of inquiry is limited to an
examination of and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will;
and that respondent Bernardo was effectively disinherited by the
decedent. The lower court ordered the dismissal of the Testate Case
and denied reconsideration for lack of merit and in the same Order
appointed Bernardo as the administrator of the intestate estate of
the deceased. Petitioners Maninang resorted to a certiorari Petition
before respondent Court of Appeals and was also denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the Testate Case is proper.
HELD:
No. Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory. No will shall pass
either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court. The law enjoins the probate of
the Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is
probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a
person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory.
Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic
validity. In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the Court's area of
inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's
testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will
normally comes only after the court has declared that the will has
been duly authenticated. However, where practical considerations
demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
before it is probated, the Court should meet that issue. In the
instant case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is whether under
the terms of the decedent's Will, private respondent had been
preterited or disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid
disinheritance. By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the
determination of that controversial issue has not been thoroughly
considered. Th
e trial court’s
conclusion was that respondent Bernardo has been preterited. We
are of opinion, however, that from the face of the Will, that
conclusion is not indubitable.
 the proceedings in the RTC, Morales had the opportunity to present
evidence that Francisco received donations inter vivos and advances
on his legitime from the decedent. However, Morales did not appear
Morales vs. Olondriz during the hearing dates, effectively waiving her right to present
G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 evidence on the issue. We cannot fault the RTC for reaching the
reasonable conclusion that there was preterition. 227
Facts:
Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. died on June 9, 2003. Believing that the
decedent died intestate, the respondent heirs filed a petition with
the Las Piñas RTC for the partition of the decedent's estate and the
appointment of a special administrator on July 4, 2003. On July 11,
2003, the RTC appointed Alfonso Juan O. Olondriz, Jr. as special
administrator. However, on July 28, 2003, Iris Morales filed a
separate petition with the RTC alleging that the decedent left a will
dated July 23, 1991. Morales prayed for the probate of the will and
for hex appointment as special administratrix. Notably, the will
omitted Francisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz, an illegitimate son
of the decedent.

Issue:
Whether or not there was no preterition because Francisco received
a house and lot inter vivos as an advance on his legitime.

Ruling:
Yes. The decedent's will evidently omitted Francisco Olondriz as an
heir, legatee, or devisee. As the decedent's illegitimate son,
Francisco is a compulsory heir in the direct line. Unless Morales
could show otherwise, Francisco's omission from the will leads to
the conclusion of his preterition. Under the Civil Code, the
preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line shall annul the
institution of heirs, but the devises and legacies shall remain valid
insofar as the legitimes are not impaired. Consequently, if a will
does not institute any devisees or legatees, the preterition of a
compulsory heir in the direct line will result in total intestacy. During

Nepomuceno v. CA
139 SCRA 206
FACTS:
Martin Jugo left a duly executed and notarized Last Will and
Testament before he died. Petitioner was named as sole executor. It
is clearly stated in the Will that he was legally married to a certain
Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but he had
been estranged from his lawful wife. In fact, the testator Martin
Jugo and the petitioner were married despite the subsisting first
marriage. The testator devised the free portion of his estate to
petitioner. On August 21, 1974, the petitioner filed a petition for
probate. On May 13, 1975, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an
opposition alleging undue and improper influence on the part of the
petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator
was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living
in concubinage with the testator.
The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that
as the testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner.
Petitioner appealed to CA. On June 2, 1982, the respondent court
set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying
the probate of the will. The respondent court declared the Will to be
valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring
the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly
drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the
testamentary provision.
HELD:
No. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after
declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the
intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of the
petitioner null and void. The general rule is that in probate
proceedings, the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an examination
and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule, however,
is not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the
probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it
to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.
The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony 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 (Nuguid v.
Nuguid)
The Will is void under Article 739. The following donations shall be
void: (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery
or concubinage at the time of the donation; and Article 1028. The
prohibitions mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter
vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions.
There is no question from the records about the fact of a prior
existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his Will. The very
wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator
admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he
had been living in concubinage.
In the matter of the petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of
Enrique S. Lopez,Richard B. Lopez, petitioner
v.
Diana Jeanne Lopez,Marybeth De Leon and Victoria Li Tuazon,
respondents
G.R. No. 189984 November 12, 2012 S
ECOND DIVISION
Perlas-Bernabe J.:
FACTS:
Enrique Lopez executed a will on August 10, 1996, and thereafter
died on June 21, 1999, leaving his wife Wendy Lopez, and their four
legitimate children, Richard Lopez– petitioner herein, Diana Lopez,
Marybeth Lopez, and Victoria Lopez– respondents herein, all heirs in
the estate left by the testator. In the contested will, Richard Lopez
was designated as the executor of the estate. On September 27,
1999, Richard presented the will for probate in the RTC of Manila.
Marybeth opposed and said opposition was adopted by the other
heirs. Oppositors claim inter alia, that the will was not executed and
attested as required by law and was procured by undue influence.
After due hearing, the RTC disallowed the will for failure to comply
with Article 805 of the NCC requiring a correct statement of the
number of pages upon which the will was written in the attestation
clause. Said RTC decision observed that the acknowledgment
portion stated that the will consists of 7 pages including the page on
which the ratification and acknowledgment are written but the
actual total number of the pages is 8, including the acknowledgment
portion. Richard then filed with the CA an appeal but in vain for
which the latter court affirmed the decision of the RTC, hence the
present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the failure in stating the correct number of pages in the
attestation clause renders the disallowance of the will.
RULING:
Yes. Article 805 of the NCC clearly provides:
xxxxxx
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the
will was written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and
every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name,
under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all
the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
xxx
The SC held that the law is clear that the attestation must state the
number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose
of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission
of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in
the pages. It can also be noted that the provision is strictly observed
due to the qualifying word“shall” indicating its mandatory character.