Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017

Rule 72
Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules

Special Proceedings
-an application to establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact or any remedy other than ordinary suit in a court of
justice
-any petition which has for its main purpose the
establishment of a status, right or a particular fact may be included as
special proceeding
-example: declaration of nullity of marriage, petition for
liquidation of an insolvent corporation, proceeding before the Shari’a
District Court for the settlement of the estate is deemed a special
proceeding

Special Proceeding Civil Action

A remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact
Generally commenced by
application, petition or special
form of pleading as may be
provided for by the particular rule
or law
Does not pray for affirmative
relief for injury arising from a
party’s wrongful act or omission
nor state a cause of action that
can be enforced against any
person
No definite adverse party
One by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong
NOT commenced by action like
that of spec pro. I submit that it
usually commences with a
complaint
Cause of action is stated
Has definite adverse party

GR: The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an
ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property and
this must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession
and ownership.

Exception:
1.) when the parties in the civil case had VOLUNTARILY
submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented
evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
consequently rendered judgment thereon, or
2.) when a special proceeding had been instituted but had
been finally closed and terminated, and hence cannot be
reopened.

Applicability of Civil Actions Provisions to Special Proceedings

-In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for
in ordinary civil actions shall be, as far as practicable*, applicable in
special proceedings. Hence, the provisions on mode of discovery shall
apply to special proceedings.

*this means that in the absence of special provisions, rules

in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as
much as possible and where doing so would not pose an
obstacle to said proceedings

-Provision of the ROC requiring a certification of non-forum

shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation
for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for
money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate
proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as
the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present
case.(Sheker vs Estate of Alice Sheker, GR No. 157912)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 1

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 73 In a situation where there remains an issue as to the
Subject of Estate of Deceased Persons expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.

The heirs, petitioner and respondents in this case, have to

Testate
-The deceased left a will
-takes precedence over intestate
proceedings
-institution of intestate proceeding
in another place may not proceed
while the probate of a purported
will of the deceased is pending in
another place
Intestate submit their father’s estate to settlement because the
The deceased left NO will determination of these expenses cannot be done in an action
for partition.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court states that
residence rather than domicile is the significant factor in
determining venue

Jurisdiction over Probate Proceedings depends on the GROSS

VALUE of the estate

Metro Manila Outside Metro Manila

MTC MTC,MeTC, MCTC
-if GV of the estate does not -if GV of the estate does not
exceed P400,000.00 exceed P300,000.00
RTC RTC
-if GV of the estate exceeds P -if GV of the estate exceeds
400,000.00 P300,000.00

Venue of the Settlement of Estate Proceeding

-Venue lies in the place where the decedent resided* at the
time of his death
-it is only where the decedent was a non-resident of the
Phils. at the time of his death that venue lies in any province in which
he had estate

*resides should be viewed or understood in its popular

sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation
of a person, actual residence of place of abode.

-The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the

estate of the decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts

Consequences in the Intestate Proceedings if a Will is later

discovered
-In has been held that the probate of the will is mandatory.
It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be
settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should
be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned
to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
(Roberts vs Leonidas, 129 SCRA 3)
-If in the course of the intestate proceedings, it is found that
the decedent left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter
should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage, an
administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to
render a final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the
executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood to be
without prejudice that the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy.
(Uriate vs CFI of Negros, 33 SCRA 252)

Nature of the Settlement of Estate Proceedings

-Proceeding in rem which is binding against the whole world.
All persons having interest in the subject matter involved, whether
they were notified or not, are equally bound (PSB vs Lantin, 124 SCRA
483)

Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death

-is not included in the enumeration falling as a subject
matter of a special proceeding under Sec 1 Rule 72. Such petition
under Art41 of the FC is a summary proceeding for the purpose of
remarriage of the present spouse. HOWEVER, it is in a nature of a
special proceeding because it is an application that seeks to establish a
status or a particular fact.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 2

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 74
Summary Settlement of Estates
GR: when a person dies leaving property, the same 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 had left one, should he fail
to name an executor therein. (Utolo vs Pasion Vda. de Garcia, 66 Phil
303)
Exceptions:
1.) Extrajudicial Settlement; and
2.) Summary Settlement of estates of small value
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
-If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are
all of legal age, the parties may, without securing letters of
administration, divide the estate among themselves by means of public
instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition and shall
file a bond with the register of deeds in an amount equivalent to the
value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by
the parties concerned. The fact of extrajudicial settlement shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for
three consecutive weeks in the province
Requisites of a valid Extrajudicial Settlement
1.) The decedent died intestate;
2.) The estate has no outstanding debts at the time of the
settlement;
3.) The heirs are all of legal age, or the minors are represented
by their judicial guardians or legal representatives;
4.) The settlement is made in a public instrument, stipulation or
affidavit duly filed with the register of deed; and
5.) The fact of such judicial settlement must be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province once a
week for three consecutive weeks.
6.) In case of personal property, a bond equivalent to the value
of personal property posted with the Register of Deeds is
required
Summary Settlement of Estate of Small Value
-Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased
person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten
thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the RTC having
jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and
upon hearing, which shall be held not less than (1) month nor
more than three (3) months from the date of the last
publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for
three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the province, and after such notice to interested persons as the court
may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the
appointment of an executor or administrator, to settle the estate
-summary proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person whether he died testate or
intestate if the gross value of the estate is P10,000.00 without
need of an appointment of an administrator or executor.
Extrajudicial Settlement Summary Settlement
1.) does not require court Requires summary court
intervention adjudication
2.) The value of the estate is Applicable where the GV of the
immaterial estate is P10,000.00. The
amount is jurisdictional
3.) Allowed only in intestate Allowed in both testate and
succession intestate estates
4.) Proper when there are no Available even if there are debts
outstanding debts of the estate at
the time of the settlement
5.) Instituted by agreement of all Instituted by any interested party
heirs and even by a creditor of the
estate, without the consent of all
the heirs
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
-affidavit required by Sec 1 Rule 74 that is to be executed by
the sole heir of a deceased person in adjudicating to himself the
entire estate left by the decedent. It is filed with the Registry of Deeds.
-sole heir is required to file a bond with the Register of
Deeds in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property
involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed
under Sec 4 of this rule
Presumption that decedent left no debts
-it shall be presumed if no creditor files a petition for Letters
of Administration (LOA) within 2 years after the death of the
decedent
Distributees or Heirs are barred from objecting to EJP after
two years
-The provisions of Sec 4 Rule 74 barring distributee or heirs
from objecting to an extrajudicial partition (EJP) after the expiration of
two years from such extrajudicial partition, is applicable only to:
1) Persons who have participated or taken part or had notice
of the extrajudicial partition; and, in addition,
2) When the provisions of Sec 1 Rule 74, have been strictly
complied with
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate not binding on those who
had no notice or those who did not participate
-Extrajudicial Settlement of Estates under Sec 1 Rule 74 is
an ex parte proceeding, and the rule plainly states that persons who
do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will
NOT be bound thereby
What is the use of the publication then if it can’t be
constructive notice to them?
-The publication of the settlement DOES not constitute
constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take
part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution.
The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors
and was never intended to deprive the heirs of their lawful
participation in the decedent’s estate. (Benatiro vs Heirs of Cuyos, 560
SCRA 478)
Period to file the claim if claimant is minor/ incapacitated
Sec 5 provides that if one the date of the expiration of the
period of two years prescribed in Sec 4 the person authorized to file a
claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the
Philippines, he may present his claim within one year after such
disability is removed.
Q. May a petition for issuance of letters of administration be
converted into an action for judicial partition?
A. Yes, when the more expeditious remedy of partition is available to
the heirs, then the heirs or the majority of them may not be compelled
to submit to the administration proceedings.
Sec 1 Rule 74 provides that in cases where the heirs disagree
as to the partition of the estate and no extrajudicial
settlement is possible, then an ordinary action for partition
may be resorted to.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 3
Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 75
Production of Will Allowance of Will Necessary
Probate or Allowance of Wills
-act of proving in court a document purporting to be the last
will and testament of a certain deceased person for the purpose of its
official recognition, registration and carrying out its provision in so far
as they are in accordance with law
Allowance Necessary
-Sec 1 Rule 75 “No Will shall pass either real or personal
estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.”
Probate of Will MANDATORY
-until admitted to probate, a will has no effect and no right
can be claimed thereunder (Pascual vs CA, 409 SCRA 105)
-the will must first be probated before parties may enter into
any extrajudicial agreement
-pending the probate of the last will, the widow and her
children cannot initiate a separate petition for partition of the estate
Decree of Probate is CONCLUSIVE as to its due execution
-such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due
execution as stated in Sec 1 Rule 75
-it cannot be impugned on any grounds EXCEPT that of
fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding (Manahan
vs Manahan, 58 Phil 448)
Due Execution of the will/ Extrinsic Validity
-pertains to whether the testator, being of sound mind,
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed
by law
Due execution covers the ff:
1.) The will was executed in accordance with the strict
formalities of the law;
2.) The testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of
the execution of the will;
3.) Consent is not vitiated by any duress, fear or threats;
4.) The will was not procured by any undue influence from the
beneficiary or by some other person for his benefit; and
5.) The signature of the testator is genuine
Probate Court cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will
-In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue
by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e.
whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. As a rule, the
question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court
cannot resolve with finality. (Pastor, Jr. vs CA, 122 SCRA 185)
The allowance of the will precludes any interested person
from questioning the due execution of the will but not the
intrinsic validity of its testamentary provisions. Matters
relating to intrinsic validity of a will are governed by
substantive law on inheritance.
Estoppel not applicable in Probate Proceedings
-Not applicable since the presentation and the probate of a
will are required by public policy (Fernandez vs Dimagiba, GR No. L-
23638)
Issues that may be brought before the Probate Court
-determination of whether a property should be included in
the inventory
-it may also include the determination of who are the heirs
of the decedent; the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights; the status
of each heir and all other matters incidental to the administration,
settlement and distribution of the estate
-questions of collation should be resolved in the estate
proceedings, not in a separate civil case
Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction
-it may only determine and rule upon issues that relate to
settlement of the estate of deceased person such as the
administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate
-it acts on matters pertaining to the estate but never on the
rights to property arising from contract (Pio Barreto Realty vs CA, GR
No. L-62431)
-When questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to
be part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other
person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance
from the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be
determined in the courts of administration proceedings. The trial court,
acting as probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such
contentions, which must be submitted to the trial court in the exercise
of its general jurisdiction. (Ongsingco vs Tan, 97 Phil 330)
Instances when Probate Court can decide on questions of title
to property
1) The interested parties who are all heirs of the deceased
consent thereto and the third parties are not prejudiced;
2) In a provisional manner, to determine whether said property
should be included in or excluded from the inventory,
without prejudice to the final determination of title in a
separate action
3) If the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one
of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the
rights of third persons are not impaired, the probate court is
competent to decide the question of ownership
Exclusionary Rule in Probate Proceedings
-probate court the first takes cognizance and jurisdiction
over a case shall continue to do so the exclusion of all other courts
-Hence, upon assumption, it cannot thereafter be divested of
such jurisdiction by the subsequent acts of the parties as when they
enter into extrajudicial partition or by filing another petition for
settlement in a proper court of concurrent jurisdiction
Defective Notarial Will denied Probate
-a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number
of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain
an acknowledgment but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Anyone of
these defects is sufficient to deny probate.
Duty of a custodian of a will
-Sec 2 Rule 75- the person who has custody of a will shall,
within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the
testator, deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the
executor named in the will.
Duty of an executor upon knowledge of death of the testator
-Sec 3 Rule 75- within 20 days after he knows of the death
of the testator, or within 20 days after he knows that he is named
executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator,
present such will to the court having jurisdiction, unless the will has
reached the court in any other manner, and shall, within such period,
signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal
to accept it
Custodian and executor subject to fine foe neglect
-A person who neglects any of the duties required in the two
last preceding sections without excuse satisfactory to the court shall be
fined not exceeding two thousand pesos.
Persons retaining Will may be committed
-A person having custody of a will after the death of the
testator who neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the same,
when ordered so to do, to the court having jurisdiction, may be
committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 4
Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Who may petition?
-any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any
other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death
of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will
allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or
destroyed
-testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court
for the allowance of his will

Interested Party
-is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir
or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor

The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already
been probated in the country of its execution. (Palaganas
Case, GR No. 169144)

Jurisdictional Facts
-death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his
death in the province of where the probate court is sitting, or if he is
an inhabitant of a foreign country, his leaving his estate in such
province (Cuenco vs CA, 53 SCRA 360)

Probate Proceeding is In Rem

-notice of publication as a prerequisite to the allowance of a
will, is a constructive notice to the whole world, and when probate is
granted the judgment is binding upon everybody, even against the
State. The probate of a will of the court having jurisdiction thereof is
conclusive as to its due execution and validity. (Cuenco vs CA, 53
SCRA 360)

Requisites for a lost/destroyed will to be allowed

1.) Execution and validity of the Will must be established;
2.) The will must have been in existence at the time of the
death of the testator, or shown to have been fraudulent or
accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without
his knowledge;
3.) The provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least
two credible witnesses.

Order denying the probate can still be overturned after the

period to appeal has lapsed
-Petition for Relief may be filed on the grounds of fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence within a period of 60 days
after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order and not more
than six months after such judgment or final order was entered

-Action for annulment may also be filed on the ground of

extrinsic fraud within four years from its discovery, and if based on
lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppels.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 5

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 77
Allowance of Will proved outside of the Philippines and
Administration of Estate thereunder

A will proved and allowed in a foreign country must be

REPROBATED in the Phils.

Proponent should prove:

a.) That the testator was domiciled in the foreign country,
b.) That the will has been admitted to probate in such country,
c.) That the foreign court was, under the laws of said foreign
country, a probate court with jurisdiction over the
proceedings,
d.) The law on probate procedure in said foreign country and
proof of compliance therewith, and
e.) The legal requirements in said foreign country for the valid
execution of the will

If reprobated the will shall be treated as if originally proved and

allowed in Philippines courts.

Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners

abroad although the same have not yet been probated and allowed in
the countries of their execution.

While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them; however,
petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey’s estate, was duty-
bound to introduce the pertinent law of the State of Maryland.
(Ancheta vs Guersay-Dalaygon, GR No 139868)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 6

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 78 (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be,
Letters Testamentary and of Administration, When and to or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be
whom issued? incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow,
or next of kin, neglects for 30 days after the death of
Who can administer the estate of a deceased? the person to apply for administration or to request
that administration be granted to some other person, it
1.) Executor may be granted to one or more of the principal
2.) Administrator creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to
Who are INCOMPETENT to serve as Executors or serve, it may be granted to such other person as the
Administrators? court may select.

a.) Minor “The paramount consideration in the appointment of an

b.) Not a resident of the Philippines; and
c.) In the opinion of the court UNFIT to execute the duties
of the trust by reason of:
-drunkenness;
-improvidence;
-want of understanding or integrity;
-conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude
NOTE: There is no law that prohibits and alien from
becoming an executor or administrator for as long as the
person is a resident of the Philippines. (Bar 2014)
administrator over the estate of a decedent is the
prospective administrator’s interest in the estate. The
rationale behind the rule (order of preference) is that those
who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical
administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the
consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement,
have the highest interest and most influential motive to
administer the estate correctly.”
General Rule: Court CANNOT set aside the order of preference

Executor Administrator HOWEVER, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on
-a person named expressly by -a person appointed by the the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. In the
the deceased person in his will intestate court to administer the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the
to administer, settle and estate of a deceased person who: interest in the estate of the one to be appointed.
liquidate his estate a.) dies without leaving a will;
b.) or did not name any The order of preference DOES NOT RULE OUT the appointment if
executor even if there was a will; co-administrators, specially in cases where justice and equity demand
c.) or if there be one named, that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of
he is incompetent, refuses the the estates, a situation which obtains here. (In the Matter of the
trust or fails to give bond, or that Intestate Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay vs Isabel Cojuangco-
the will subsequently, is declared Suntay, GR No.183053)
null and void
Scope or Limit of Administration
-administration extends only to the assets of a decedent
found within the state or country where it was granted, so that an
Q. May the Executor of an Executor be allowed to administer administrator appointed in one state or country has no power over the
the estate? property in another state or country
A. NO. Under Sec 2, the executor of an executor shall not, as such,
administer the estate of the first testator. -After the admission of a will to probate, the courts will not
name a better executor for the testator nor disqualify, by a judicial
“The marriage of a single woman shall not affect her authority so to veto, the widow or friend or other person selected in the will, except
serve under a previous appointment.” upon strict proof of the statutory grounds of incompetency. (Republic
vs Marcos, GR No. 130371 & 130855)
Letters Testamentary Letters of Administration
-authority issued to an executor -authority issued by the court to a
named in the will to administer competent person to administer Illegitimate Child as administrator
the estate the estate of the deceased who -The illegitimate child may be appointed as administrator
died intestate instead of the wife in the absence of grave abuse of discretion by the
court. Though the spouse may have enjoyed preference as to the
Other Co-Executors are Disqualified appointment of administrator of the estate, it appears in the case that
-Sec 5 Rule 78 provides that when all of the executors the spouse has neglected to apply for letters of administration within
named in a will cannot act because of incompetency, refusal to accept 30 days from the death of the decedent as required by the Rule
the trust, or failure to give bond, on the part of one or more of them,
letters testamentary may issue to such of them as are competent,
accept and give bond, and they may perform the duties and discharge
the trust required by the will.
-others who are qualified may thereby act.

If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or

executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be
granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may
be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the
court, or to such person as such surviving husband
or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve;

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 7

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 79
Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary Petition and
Contest for Letters of Administration
Letters of administration must be filed by an INTERESTED person
Interested Party
-one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir,
or one who has claim against the estate, such as creditor
Next of Kin
-those whose relationship with the decedent is such that
they are entitled to share in the estate as distributes
Any Interested Person or Any Person Interested in the Estate
-Sec 1 Rule 79, right of ANY person interested to OPPOSE
the issuance of letters testamentary and to file a petition for
administration;
-Sec 3 Rule 76, mandates the giving of notice of hearing on
the petition for letters of administration to the known heirs, creditors,
and to ANY other persons believed to have interest in the estate;
-Sec 1 Rule 76, allows a person interested in the estate to
petition for the allowance of a will;
-Sec 6 Rule 87, allows an individual interested in the estate
of the deceased “to complain to the court of the concealment,
embezzlement, or conveyance of any assets of the decedent, or of
evidence of the decedent’s title or interest therein;
-Sec 10 Rule 85, which requires notice of the time and place
of the examination and allowance of the Administration’s account “to
the persons interested”
-Sec 7 Rule 89, requires the court to give notice “to the
persons interested” before it may hear and grant a petition seeking the
disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the estate;
-Sec 1 Rule 90, which allows “ANY person interested in the
estate” to petition for an order for the distribution of the residue of the
estate of the decedent, after all obligations are either satisfied or
provided for
Right of the Testator to appoint an Executor
-choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a
testator, a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of
his property in the manner he wished
-the curtailment of this right may be considered a
curtailment of the right to dispose
Petition for Letters of Administration- Contents
a) Jurisdictional facts;
b) Names, ages, and residences (NAR) of the heirs, and
the names and residences (NR) of the creditors, of the
decedent;
c) Probable value and character of the property of the
estate;
d) Name of the person for whom letters of administration
are prayed
Oppositor to the issuance of Letters Testamentary
-ANY person interested in a will may state in writing the
grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons
named therein as executors, or any of them
Grounds for Opposition of Petition for the Issuance of Letters
of Administration
-The opposition should be overruled. A petition for
administration may be opposed based only in two grounds:
(1) INCOMPETENCY of the person for whom letter
are prayed therein, or
(2) on the grounds of the contestant’s own right
to the administration.
The grounds raised by Charlene in opposing the petition is
not one of those mentioned under the Rules.

“The court is mindful that the Rules of Special Proceedings allow not
just the creditors, but also “ANY PERSON INTERESTED” or “PERSONS
INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE” various specified capacities to protect
their respective interests in the estate. Anybody with a contingent
claim based on a pending action for quasi-delict against a decedent
may be reasonably concerned that by the time judgment is rendered in
their favour, the estate of the decedent would have already been
distributed, or diminished to the extent that the judgment could no
longer be enforced against it.”

“The opposition filed by Domenico’s siblings should be denied.

Contrary to their claim, Gen has legal personality to file a petition for
administration. Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court expressly
provides that said petition may be filed by any interested party. The
fact that Gen and Domenico was not married is of no moment. She is
considered as interested party because their live-in relationship is
governed by the property regime of a union without marriage under
Chapter 7, Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code as the case may be.”
(Bar 2008)

“With the overwhelming evidence on record produced by Elise to prove

her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioner’s pounding on her lack of interest
in the administration of the decedent’s estate, is just a desperate
attempt to sway this Court to reverse the findings of the Court of
Appeals. Certainly, the right of Elise to be appointed administratrix of
the estate of Eliseo is on good grounds. It is founded on her right as a
compulsory heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her legitime after
the debts of the estate are satisfied. Having a vested right in the
distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one natural child, Elise can be
rightfully considered as an interested party within the purview of the
law.” (Garcia-Quiazon vs Belen, GR No. 189121)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 8

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 80 When may the court appoint Special Co-Administrators?
Special Administrator
1.) To have the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at
Special Administrator all times to have different interests represented;
-a representative of the decedent appointed by the probate 2.) Where justice and equity demand that opposing parties
court to care for and preserve his estate UNTIL an executor or general or factions be represented in the management of the
administrator is appointed estate of the deceased;
-officer of the court 3.) Where the estate is large or, from any cause, an
-When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or intricate and perplexing one to settle;
representative of the parties suggesting the appointment. The principal 4.) To have all interested persons satisfied and the
object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve representatives to work in harmony for the best
the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to interests of the estate; and
administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Sec 2 5.) When a person entitled to the administration of an
Rule 80 ROC (Ocampo vs Ocampo et al, GR No. 187879) estate desires to have another competent person
associated with him in the office
When can the court appoint a special administrator?
-when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of Matias vs Gonzales
administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or
disallowance of a will or some other cause, the court may appoint the -Pending the probate therefore, the Court recognized Matias’
same special interest in the decedent’s estate as universal and executrix
designated in the instrument who should not be excluded in the
Regular Administrator Special Administrator administration thereof. Thus, it held that justice and equity demands
-appointed when a decedent dies -appointed when there is DELAY that two factions among the non-compulsory heirs of the decedent,
intestate or did not appoint any in granting letters testamentary consisting of an instituted heir (Matias) and the intestate heirs
executor in his will or the will is or of administration (respondents thereat), should be represented in the management of
subsequently disallowed the decedent’s estate.
-obliged to pay the debts of the -NOT obliged to pay the debts
estate Remedy against the appointment of a special administrator
-appointment of the administrator -order of appointment of special -not being appealable, the only remedy against the
may be the subject of appeal administrator is regarded as an appointment of a special administrator is CERTIORARI under Rule 65
interlocutory order and may NOT of the ROC
be the subject of appeal

Order of Preference NOT applicable to Special Administrator

-Appointment of special administrator lies entirely in the
sound discretion of the court. The preference laid down under Sec 6
Rule 78 to the surviving spouse refers to the appointment of a
REGULAR administrator or administratrix, not to that of a special
administrator. (Pijuan vs De Gurrea, 124 Phil 1527)

-Courts may appoint or remove special administrators based

on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules, at their
discretion. As long as the said discretion is exercised without grave
abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. This, however, is no
authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes
and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. The
exercise of such discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice
and legal principles.

-Thus, even if a special administrator had already been

appointed, once the court finds the appointee no longer entitled to its
confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the appointment and giving no
valid effect thereto. The special administrator is an officer of the court
who is subject to its supervision and control and who is expected to
work for the best interest of the entire estate, especially with respect
to its smooth administration and earliest settlement.

Duty of Special Administrator

-to preserve the estate until a regular administrator is
appointed
-Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it
would therefore, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone
interested in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the
heirs in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs.
Such choice would ensure that such person would not expose the
estate to the losses that would effectively diminish his or her share.
While the courts may use its discretion and depart from such
reasoning, still, there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a
debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. To do
so would be tantamount to grave abuse of discretion. (Manungas vs
Loreto, GR No. 193161)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 9

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 81
Bonds of Executors and Administrators

Before an Executor or Administrator enters upon the execution of his

trust, and letters testamentary or of administration issue, he shall give
a bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned as follows:

(a) To make and return to the court, within three (3)

months, a true and complete inventory of all goods,
chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased
which shall come to his possession or knowledge or to
the possession of any other person for him;
(b) To administer according to these rules, and, if an
executor, according to the will of the testator, all
goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate which shall
at any time come to his possession or to the possession
of any other person for him, and from the proceeds to
pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges on
the same, or such dividends thereon as shall be
decreed by the court;
(c) To render a true and just account of his administration
to the court within one year, and at any other time
when required by the court;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be
performed.

Why is the bond needed?

-the bond posted by administrators and executors is
intended as an indemnity to the creditors, the heirs and the estate.
The court shall fix the amount thereof and hold it accountable for any
breach of duty that may be done by the administrator or executor. The
liability may be enforced by motion or in a separate civil action.
-As it compels the administrator, whether regular or special,
to perform the trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations
incumbent upon him. Its object and purpose is to safeguard the
properties of the decedent, and, therefore, the bond should NOT be
considered as part of the necessary expenses chargeable against the
estate. Moreover, the ability to post the bond is in the nature of a
qualification for the office of administration.

Special Administrator REQUIRED to post bond (Festin 2015,

p.88)
-YES. Under Sec 4, a special administrator before entering
upon the duties of his trust shall give a bond, in such sums as the
court directs, conditioned that he will make and return a true inventory
of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased
which come to his possession or knowledge, and that he will truly
account for such as are received by him when required by the court,
and will deliver the same to the person appointed executor or
administrator, or to such other person as may be authorized to receive
them.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 10

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 82
Revocation of Administration, Death, Resignation and
Removal of Executors and Administrators
Effect to the Letters of Administration when a will is later
discovered
-if after LOA have been granted on the estate of a decedent
as if he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the court,
the LOA shall be revoked and all powers thereunder cease, and
the administrator shall forthwith surrender the letters to the court, and
render his account within such time as the court directs. Proceedings
for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the
will shall be as hereinbefore provided.
Consequence if a will is later discovered during the Intestate
Proceeding
-If in the course of the intestate proceedings, it is found that
the decedent left a will, proceedings for the probate of the latter
should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage, an
administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to
render a final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the
executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood to be
without prejudice that the proceeding shall continue as intestacy.
(Uriate vs CFI of Negros Occidental, 33 SCRA 252)
-Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced
should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate
number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and
lies within the sound discretion of the court. (Reynoso vs Santiago,
85 Phil 268)
Discovery of the Will does NOT ipso fact nullify the LOA
already issued
-mere discovery of a document purporting to be the last will
and testament of the decedent after the appointment of an
administrator does not ipso facto nullify the LOA already issued or
even authorize their revocation UNTIL the Will has been proved and
allowed. (Advincula vs Teodoro, 99 Phil 413)
Q. What should the court do if, in the course of intestate
proceedings, a will is found and it is submitted for probate?
A. The intestate proceedings shall be discontinued or suspended. After
the will is probated, the intestate proceedings will be terminated.
Purpose of Administration
-its purpose is the liquidation of the estate and distribution
of the residue among the heirs and legatees
-approval of the project partition does not necessarily
terminate administration
Liquidation
-the determination of all the assets of the estate and
payment of all debts and expenses
Grounds for Removal or Acceptance of Resignation of
Executor or Administrator
IF an Executor or Administrator neglects:
-to render his account and settle the estate according to
law; OR
-to perform an order or judgment of the court, or duty
expressly provided by these rules; OR
-absconds; OR
-becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to
discharge the trust
NOTE: grounds are NOT exclusive (Festin 2015, p. 91)
When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the
remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone,
unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is
no remaining executor or administrator, administration may be granted
to ANY suitable person.
The court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an
administrator for as long as there is evidence of an act or omission on
the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the
rules or the orders of the court which it deems sufficient or substantial
to warrant the removal of the administrator.
Grounds for removal of Special Administrator different from
that of Regular Administrator
-Special Administrator may be removed on other grounds
upon the court’s discretion.
Examples of valid grounds for Removal of an Administrator
1.) An administrator who disbursed funds of the estate
without judicial approval. (Cotia vs Jiminez, 104 Phil
966)
NOTE: Judge said that as long as the expenses are
incurred for the ordinary wear and tear of the property
that is part of the estate no need for judicial approval.
2.) False representation by an administrator in securing his
appointment. (Cabarrubias vs Dizon, 76 Phil 209)
3.) An administrator who holds an interest adverse to that
of the estate or by his conduct shows unfitness to
discharge the trust. (Garcia vs Vasquez, 32 SCRA 490)
4.) An administrator who has physical inability and
consequent unsuitablility to manage the estate. (De
Borja vs Tan, 93 Phil 167)
Order of Removal is Appealable. (Borromeo vs Borromeo, 97
Phil 549)
Rule 83
Inventory and Appraisal Provision for Support of Family
Duty to make a return of the inventory and appraisal
-three (3) months after his appointment every executor or
administrator shall return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of
all the real and personal estate of the deceased which has come into
his possession or knowledge
Three Month Period NOT mandatory
-The fact that an inventory was filed after the three-month
period would NOT deprive the probate court of jurisdiction to approve
it. The delay in filing the inventory by the administrator, HOWEVER, if
not satisfactorily explained, MAY be a ground for removal. (Sebial vs
Sebial, et. al., 64 SCRA 385)
Articles which need not be inventoried
-wearing apparel of the surviving husband or wife and minor
children
-marriage bed and bedding
-such other provisions and other articles as will necessarily
be consumed in the subsistence of the family of the
deceased
Property claimed by a third person may be included in the
Inventory
-property claimed by third persons may be included in the
inventory as part of the assets of the estate and the probate court may
order such inclusion, but such order of the probate court is only a
PRIMA FACIE determination and does not preclude the claimants from
maintaining an ordinary civil action for the determination of title. (Vda.
de Paz vs Vda. de Madrigal, 100 Phil 1085)
Widow and family of deceased may receive allowance pending
settlement
-Under Sec. 3, the widow and minor or incapacitated
children of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate,
shall receive therefrom, under the direction of the court, such
allowance as are provided by law.
-Grandchildren are not entitled to allowance under Rule 83.
The law clearly limits the allowance to “widow and children” (Estate of
Hilario Ruiz vs CA, GR No. 118671)
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 11
Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase true inventory implies
that no properties which appear to be owned by the decedent can be
excluded from the inventory, regardless of whether or not they are in
the possession of another person or entity.

Objective in requiring inventory and appraisal

- to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining
the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in making a final
and equitable distribution(partition) of the estate and then to facilitate
the administration of the estate.

Can the CA replace the action taken by the RTC in relation to

properties included and excluded in the inventory?
-in the administration of the estates of deceased persons,
judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the appellate courts
should not interfere with or attempt to replace the action taken by
them, unless it be shown that there has been a positive abuse of
discretion. As long as the RTC commits no patently grave abuse of
discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular
performance of its judicial duty. (Aranas vs Mercado, et. al., GR No.
156407)

Provisional Determination of Ownership

-First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
to final determination of ownership in a separate action. Second, if the
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is one of
collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of
jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not
impaired, then the probate court and the rights of third parties are not
impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve issues on
ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or
collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in
the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
(Aranas vs Mercado, et. al., GR No. 156407)

Court that should effect the payment of Widow’s allowance

-it is the court hearing the settlement of the estate that
should effect the payment of widow’s allowance considering that the
properties of the estate are within its jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all
other courts. The guardianship court exercising special and limited
jurisdiction cannot actually order the delivery of the property of the
ward found to be embezzled, concealed, or conveyed. (Heirs of Jose
Sy-Bang vs Sy, GR No. 114217)

Widow’s allowance chargeable to the estate

-The widow’s allowance is chargeable to Sy Bang’s estate.
That the full extent of Sy Bang’s estate has not yet been determined is
no excuse from complying with this Court’s order. Properties of the
estate have been identified-i.e., those in the names of petitioners—
thus, these properties should be made to answer for the widow’s
allowance. In any case, the amount Rosita receives for support, which
exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to her, will be deducted from her
share of the estate. (Heirs of Jose Sy-Bang vs Sy, GR No. 114217)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 12

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 84
General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators

General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators

are the ff:
a) Shall at all times have access to, and may examine and
take copies of, books and papers relating to the
partnership business;
b) May examine and make invoices of the property
belonging to such partnership;
c) Shall maintain in tenantable repair the houses and
other structures and fences belonging to the estate,
and deliver the same in such repair to the heirs or
devisees when directed so to do by the court;
d) Shall have the right to the possession and management
of the real as well as the personal estate of the
deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of
the debts and the expenses of administration.

Right of an Executor or Administrator to possess and manage

the properties of the deceased NOT absolute
-such right can be exercised so long as it is necessary for the
payment of the debts and expenses of the administration
-it has long been settled that an administrator has the power
to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the estate even
without prior judicial authority and approval (Mananquil vs Atty.
Villegas, AM No. 2430)

No need for leave of court

-an administrator or executor has all the powers necessary
for the administration of the estate and which powers he can exercise
without leave of court. It has long been held that the constitution of a
lease over property of the estate is an act of administration and leave
of court is not required. (San Diego vs Nombre, GR No. L- 19265)

EXCEPTIONS (leave of court is necessary in this case)

-An administration of an intestate cannot exercise the right
of legal redemption over a portion of the property owned in
common sold by one of the co-owners since this is not
within the powers of administration. (Caro vs CA, 113 SCRA
10)
-Where estate of a deceased person is already the subject of
a testate or intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot
enter into any transaction involving it without any prior
approval of the Court. (Estate of Olave vs Reyes, 123 SCRA
767)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 13

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 85 estate is still contingent is NOT the party entitled to do so.
Accountability and Compensation of Executors and (Hilado vs CA, GR No. 164108)
Administrators
Notice should be given
Administration Expenses Necessary Expenses -Sec. 10 Rule 85 “Account to be settled on notice—Before
-are those which are necessary for -are such expenses as are the account of an executor or administrator is allowed, notice shall be
the management of the estate, for entailed for the preservation and given to persons interested of time and place of examining and
protecting it against destruction or productivity of the estate and for allowing the same; and such notice may be given personally to such
deterioration, and possibly, for the its management for purposes of person interested or by advertisement in a newspaper or newspapers,
production of fruits liquidation, payment of debts, or both, as the court directs.”
and distribution of the residue
-They are expenses and its among persons entitled thereto
management for purposes of
liquidation, payment of debts, and
distribution of the residue among
the persons entitled thereto

-Expenses for the renovation and

improvement of the family
residence, incurred to preserve the
family home and to maintain the
family’s social standing in the
community are allowable as
legitimate ADMINISTRATION
expenses of the estate of the
deceased. (Guzman vs De Guzman
Carillo, 83 SCRA 256)

Attorneys fees in Estate Proceedings

-where the attorney renders services to the administrator or
executor personally to aid in the execution of his trust, the
administrator or executor is liable for the fees, but he can move for
reimbursement and charge such fees as expenses of administration
where the same is reasonable and proved beneficial to the estate. (Uy
Tioco vs Imperial et al, 53 Phil 802)
-to recover attorneys fees, the attorney may either bring an
INDEPENDENT ACTION personally against the executor or
administrator, or file a petition in the administration proceedings for
the probate court to allow the same and to direct the payment of his
fee as an expense of administration. (Aldamiz vs Judge of the CFI of
Mindoro, 85 Phil 228)

Time to render account

-Every executor or administrator shall render an account of
his administration within one (1) year from the time of receiving
letters testamentary or of administration, UNLESS the court otherwise
directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims against, or
paying the debts of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he
shall render such further accounts as the court may require until the
estate is wholly settled.

Duty to render an accounting

-Hearing is held before an administrator’s account is
approved, especially if an interested party raises objections to certain
items in the accounting report. At that hearing, the practice is for the
administrator to take the witness stand, testify under oath on his
accounts and identify the receipts vouchers and documents evidencing
his disbursements which are offered as exhibits. He may be
interrogated by the court and cross-examine by the oppositor’s
counsel. The oppositors may present proofs to rebut the
administrator’s evidence in support of his accounts. (De Guzman vs De
Guzman-Carillo, 83 SCRA 256)

One (1) Year Period to Account Mandatory! Only Exception is

when the court otherwise directs because of extensions of
time for presenting claims against the estate or for paying the
debts or disposing the assets of the estate.

There are reliefs available to compel an administrator to

perform either duty, but a person whose claim against the

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 14

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 86
Claims Against the Estate
Burden on the Estate of the deceased
-upon the death of a person, all his property is burdened
with all his debts, his death creating an equitable lien thereon for the
benefit of the creditors. And such lien continues until the debts are
extinguished either by the payment, prescription, or satisfaction in one
of the modes recognized by law. (Suiliong and Co. vs Chio Taysan, 12
Phil 13)
Statute of Non-Claims
-period fixed by Sec 2 Rule 86 for the filing of the claims
against the estate
-the rule mandates certain creditors of a deceased person to
present their claims for examination and allowance within a specified
period, the purpose thereof being to settle the estate with dispatch, so
that the residue may be delivered to the persons entitled thereto
without their being afterwards called upon to respond in actions for
claims, which, under the ordinary statute of limitations, have not yet
prescribed. (Santos vs Manarang, 27Phil 213)
-it requires that money claims be filed with the clerk of court
within the time prescribed by the rules
Period within which to file the claim
-it should not be less than six(6) months nor more than
twelve(12) months from the day of the first publication of the notice
thereof. Such period when fixed by the probate court becomes
mandatory
Rationale of fixing the period for the claims
-to insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased
person and the early delivery of the property to the person entitled to
the same (Santos vs Manarang, 27 Phil 209)
Extension of the period allowed
-it is clear from Sec 2 Rule 86 that the period prescribed in
the notice to creditors is NOT exclusive; that money claims against the
estate may be allowed any time before an order of distribution is
entered, at the discretion of the court for cause and upon such terms
as are equitable. (Quisumbing vs Guison, 76 Phil 730)
Significance of Publication of Notice to Creditors
-The publication of the notice to creditors is constructive
notice to all, hence a creditor cannot be permitted to file his claim
beyond the period fixed in said notice on the bare ground that he had
no knowledge of the administration proceedings. (Villanueva vs PNB,
GR No. L-18403)
Type of Claim that must be filed with the Probate Court under
the notice
1.) All money claims against the decedent arising from
contract, express or implied, whether the same be due,
not due, or contingent;
2.) All claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the
last sickness of the decedent; (Judge: expenses for the
1st death anniversary not included) AND
3.) Judgement for money against the decedent. The
judgment must be presented as a claim against the
estate, where the judgment debtor dies before the levy
on execution of his properties.
Sec 5 Rule 86
Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed,
barred; exceptions.—All claims for money against the decedent, arising
from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due,
or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last
sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise
they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as
counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may
bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator
commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by
the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the
claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them
independently to the court a herein provided, and mutual claims may
be set off against each other in such action and if final judgment is
rendered in favour of the defendant, the amount so determine shall be
considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim
had been presented directly before the court in the administration
proceedings. Claims not yet due or contingent, may be approved at
their present value.
Claims other than for money, debt or interest thereon, arising
from contract cannot be presented in the testate or intestate
proceedings.
Money claims that must be filed in the testate or intestate
proceedings
-are claims for money, debt or interest thereon upon a
liability contracted by the decedent before his death. Claims
contracted AFTER his death CANNOT, therefore, be presented with the
EXCEPTION of funeral expenses and expenses incurred on the last
sickness of the decedent.
Consequences if claims not filed within the time limit in the
notice
GR: forever barred
Exception: these claims may be set forth as
COUNTERCLAIMS in any action that the executor or
administrator may bring against the claimants
Claims not yet due or contingent should also be filed within
the time limit otherwise it is barred forever.
Contingent Claim
-it is one by which, by its nature is necessarily dependent
upon an uncertain event for its existence and claim, and its validity
and enforceability depending upon an uncertain event. (Gasket and
Co. vs Tan Sit, 43 Phil 810)
-a DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT is a contingent claim and,
therefore, must be filed with the probate court where the settlement of
the estate of the deceased is pending, within the period fixed for the
filing of claims. (First National City Bank of New York vs Cheng Tan,
4SCRA 501)
Under Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, a judgment for money should be
filed as a MONEY CLAIM with the probate court. The Supreme Court
has held that a money claim cannot be enforced by a writ of execution
but should be filed as a money claim.
Three Distinct and Alternative Remedies available to a
mortgage creditor upon the death of the mortgagor
1.) To waive the security mortgage and claim the entire debt
from the estate as an ORDINARY CLAIM. By filing money
claim against the estate he is deemed to have abandoned
the mortgage and thereafter he cannot file a foreclosure suit
if he fails to recover his money claim against the estate;
2.) To FORECLOSE the mortgage JUDICIALLY and prove any
deficiency as an ordinary claim. The foreclosure suit should
be against the executor or administrator as party defendant.
In the event that a creditor fails to fully recover his claim, he
may obtain the deficiency judgment and file it as a CLAIM
against the estate in the manner provided by this Rule;
3.) To RELY SOLELY upon the mortgage and foreclose the same
at aby time before it is barred by prescription WITHOUT a
right to claim for any deficiency. This mode includes
EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE of sale and its exercise
PRECLUDES one from recovery of any balance of
indebtedness against the estate and frees the estate from
further liability.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 15
Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Thus, a creditor who elects to foreclose by extrajudicial sale waives all
his rights to recover against the estate of the deceased debtor for any
deficiency remaining unpaid after the sale.

Alternative Remedy
-an election of one operates as a waiver of the other

When is a Remedy deemed chosen?

-For this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the
filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an
action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provision of Rule
68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial foreclosure,
such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of
the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the
Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made, in accordance
with the provisions of Act. 3135, as amended by Act. 4118. (Heirs of
the late Sps. Flaviano Maglasang vs Manila Bangking Corp., GR No.
1711206)

Sec 10 Rule 86
“Within fifteen (15) days after service of a copy of the claim
on the executor or administrator, he shall file his answer admitting or
denying the claim specifically, and setting forth the admission or
denial. If he has no knowledge sufficient to enable him to admit or
deny specifically, he shall state such want of knowledge. The
executor or administrator in his answer shall allege in offset
any claim which the decedent before death had against the
claimant, and his failure to do so shall bar the claim forever. A
copy of the answer shall be served by the executor or administrator on
the claimant. The court in its discretion may extend the time for filing
such answer.”

Judgement of the court approving or disapproving a claim is

appealable. (Sec 13 Rule 86)

Q. Suppose D’s administrator did not allege any claim against

X by way of offset. Can D’s administrator prosecute the claim
in an independent proceeding?
A. D’s administrator can proceed with the claim in an independent
action since the claim of X was disallowed. Where X had a valid claim
and D’s administrator did not allege any claim against X by way of
offset, failure to do so would bar his claim forever.

Union Bank vs Santibanez and Ariola, GR No. 149926

-The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in
the probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose of
protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or
administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine
each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which should
be allowed.
-The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and
disposition of the claims against the decedent’s estate in order to settle
the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and
distribute the residue.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 16

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 87
Actions by and Against Executors and Administrators

Actions that may be commenced against Executors or

Administrators
1.) Recovery of real or personal property or any interest
therein from the estate;
2.) Enforcement of a lien thereon;
3.) Action to recover damages for any injury to person or
property, real or personal
(The above instances are deemed actions that survive the
death of the decedent.)

Examples of the actions that survive

-Pursuant to Sec 1 Rule 87, quieting of title is an action that
survives as the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party.
(Saligumba vs Palanog, GR No. 143365)
-action for the recovery of a motor vehicle, a personal
property

Actions that may not be brought against the executor or

administrator
-Under this rule, an action upon claim for recovery of money
or debt or interest therein may not be commenced against the
executor or administrator. Under Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Rule 86, this
should be brought against the estate itself.

GR: The heirs have no standing in court for the recovery of property
of the estate represented by an executor or administrator.
Exception: the heirs may sue in the following instances:
a.) If the executor or administrator is unwilling to bring
suit;
b.) When the executor or administrator is made a party
defendant where he is alleged to have participated in
the act complained of.
c.) There is no appointed administrator or executor*

*this third exception is enunciated in the case of Rioferio vs CA, GR

No. 129008, to support the enunciation of such exception the SC
cited Gochan vs Young: “In such instances, the heirs cannot be
expected to wait for the appointment of an administrator; then wait
further to see if the administrator appointed would care enough to file
a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in
the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the
decedent are violated or dissipated.”

Right to succession are transmitted at the moment of death

-A judicial declaration of heirship is NOT necessary in order
for an heir to assert his right to the property of a deceased.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 17

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 88
Payment of the Debts of the Estate

GR: Probate court CANNOT issue a writ of execution for the payment
of debts and expenses of administration. The proper procedure is for
the court to ORDER the sale of personal estate or the sale or mortgage
of real property of the deceased and all debts and expenses of the
administration should be paid out of the proceeds of such sale or
mortgage.
Exceptions:
1.) To satisfy the distributive shares of devisees, legatees and
heirs in possession of the decedent’s assets;
2.) To enforce payment of the expenses of partition; and
3.) To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in
probate proceedings.

Authorized person to dispose of the properties of the estate

-it is ONLY the executor or administrator of the estate whom
the court may authorize to dispose of the properties of the estate so
that the proceeds of the sale or mortgage may be applied to its
obligations.

Heir’s separate property not liable for the debts of the

deceased
-Heirs are NOT required to respond with their own property
for the debts of their deceased ancestors. But even after the partition
of the estate, the heirs and distributes are liable individually for the
payment of all lawful outstanding claims against the estate in
PROPORTION to the amount or value of the property they have
respectively received from the estate.
-the heirs cannot, by any act of their own or by agreement
among themselves, reduce the creditors’ security for the payment of
their claims. (Pavis vs de la Raja, 8 Phil 70)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 18

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 89
Sales, Mortgages, and other Encumbrances of property of
decedent

Notice is mandatory to effect the authority of the sale or

encumbrance of real property
-failure to give notice to the heirs, devises or legatees would
invalidate the authority granted by the court

Pahamotang vs PNB and the Heirs of Arguna, GR No. 156403

-Settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that when an order
authorizing the sale or encumbrance of real property was issued by the
testate or intestate court without previous notice to the heirs, devisees
and legatees as required by the Rules, it is not only the contract itself
which is null and void but also the order of the court authorizing the
same.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 19

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 90 -judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not
Distribution and Partition of the Estate prevent the heirs from bringing an action to obtain his share,
provided the prescriptive period, therefore, has not elapsed

Distribution of Residue Pacioles, Jr. vs Chuatoco-Ching, GR No. 127920

-When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of
administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any,
chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the
court shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to
the same, naming them and the proportion, or parts, to which each is
entitled.
Distribution prior to payment of the obligations
-not allowed UNLESS the distributes, or any of them, give a
bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment
of said obligations within such time as the court directs
-A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that
an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of
ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or not a property
should be included in the inventory.
-In such situations the adjudication is merely PROVISIONAL,
not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action
to resolve title.

Q. As a rule, the estate shall not be distributed prior to the

payment of all charges to the estate. What will justify advance
distribution as an exception?
A. The estate has SUFFICIENT RESIDUAL ASSETS and the distributes
file SUFFICIENT BOND

Questions as to advancement made by the decedent

-it may be heard and determined by the court having
jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the court
thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on
the heir.

Expenses of Partition paid by

1.) Executor or Administrator if at the time of the
distribution he has retained sufficient effects in his
hands for as long as it appears equitable to the court
and not inconsistent with the intention of the testator;
otherwise,
2.) The parties in PROPORTION to their respective shares
or interest in the premises

Effect of a Final Decree of Distribution

-A final decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased
person vests the title to the land of the estate to the distributes. If the
decree is erroneous, it should be corrected by opportune appeal, for
once it becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in
rem, unless properly set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Where
the court has validly issued a decree of distribution and the same has
become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of partition
becomes irrelevant. (Vda de. Kolayco vs Tengco, 207 SCRA 600)

Probate Court loses jurisdiction of an estate under

administration
-only after the payment of all debts and the remaining
estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality
of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone does not
terminate the proceeding. As long as the order of the distribution of
the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings
cannot be deemed closed and terminated. (Gulias vs Judge of CFI
Pampanga, 43 SCRA 111)

Remedy of an heir who has not received his share

-file a MOTION with the probate court for delivery to him of
his share;or
-if the estate proceedings had been closed, he should file a
motion for reopening of the proceeding, within the
prescriptive period, and not to file an independent action for
annulment of the project of partition

-HOWEVER, where the order closing the intestate

proceeding was already final and executory, the same
cannot be reopened on a motion filed after the lapse of the
reglementary period. (Divinagracia vs Roviro, 72 SCRA 307)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 20

Special Proceedings | Midterm | 2nd Semester 2016-2017
Rule 91
Escheat
Escheat
-A proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a
deceased person become the property of the State upon his death
without leaving a will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action, but a
special proceeding, and commenced by petition and not by
complaint
-proceeding whereby the State, by virtue of sovereignty,
steps in and claims the real or personal property of person who dies
intestate leaving no heir. In the absence of a lawful owner, a property
is claimed by the State to forestall an open “invitation to self-service by
the first timers.” (Republic vs CA, GR No. 143483)
-the proceeding does not apply where a land
unconstitutionally acquired by an alien was subsequently transferred to
a Filipino Citizen as in the case of succession (Republic vs RD of Roxas
City, GR No. 158230)
Real Party-In-Interest for the reversion of lands of public
domain
-The Republic of the Philippines. The action shall be
instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in
behalf of the RP. (Manese vs Sps. Velasco, GR No. 164024)
-Escheat proceedings is not a proceeding to penalize
depositors for failing to deposit to or withdraw from their accounts. It
is a proceeding whereby the State compels the surrender to it of
unclaimed deposit balances when there is substantial ground for a
belief that they have been abandoned, forgotten, or without an owner.
(RCBC vs Hi-Tri Development Corp. GR No. 192413)
Funds of undelivered manager’s check
-When there is non-delivery of a manager’s check, its
assured fund is deemed to remain part of the accounts which procured
it. When there is activity in the account that procured the manager’s
check, the same cannot be escheated in favour of the government.
(RCBC vs Hi-Tri Development Corp. GR No. 192413)
Republic vs Registry of Deeds of Roxas City, GR No. 158230
-Subsequent circumstances militate against escheat
proceedings because the land is now in the hands of Filipinos. The
original vendee, Lee Liong, has died and the land has been inherited
by his heirs and subsequently their heirs, petitioners Elizabeth and
Pacita. They are Filipino citizens, a fact that the Sol Gen does not
dispute.
X---------------------------------------------X

Escheat proceedings proper even if there is a will-instance

-even if the decedent died testate but his will was not
allowed to probate, it is as if he died intestate. In such a case, if he
has no known heirs and there are no persons entitled to his property,
the same can still be escheated

Venue for Escheat Proceedings

-it should be filed at the place where the deceased person
last resided

5 Year Time Limit

-a person entitled to the estate that was escheated in favour
of the State has 5 years from date of judgment to file a claim.
-within 5 years from the date of such judgment, such person
shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the
municipality or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after
deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred forever.
-it is not a device capriciously conjured by the State to
defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to
encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their
claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment.
(Republic vs CA, GR No. 143483)
-In the instant petition, the escheat judgment was handed
down by the lower court as early as June 27, 1989 but it was only on
January 28, 1997, more or less seven years after, when private
respondent decided to contest the escheat judgment in the guise of a
petition for annulment of judgment before the CA. Obviously, private
respondent’s belated assertion of her right over the escheated
properties militates against recovery. (Republic vs CA, GR No. 143483)

Converting Escheat Proceedings into an Ordinary Special

Proceeding not allowed
-entirely different
-requirements to vest jurisdiction different
-OSP- publication once a week for 3 consecutive weeks
-EP- publication once a week for 6 consecutive weeks

Deposit subject to Escheat Proceedings?

-In the case of dormant accounts, the State inquires into the
status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed balance to determine
whether the inactivity was brought about by the fact of death or
absence of or abandonment by the depositor. If after the proceedings
the property remains without a lawful owner interested to claim it, the
property shall be reverted to the State “to forestall an open invitation
to self-service by the first comers.”

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | 21