You are on page 1of 97

CASE DIGESTS FOR REMEDIAL LAW II – SPECIAL a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding

PROCEEDINGS (RULE 72-80) to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an
appointment of guardianship.
RULE 72
Considering this distinction, a petition for liquidation of an
PACIFIC BANKING CORP. VS CA insolvent corporation should be classified a special
proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such petition does
FACTS: not seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the
prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does
On March 20, 1995, the SC rendered a decision holding that not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a
a petition for liquidation under Sec. 29 of the Central Bank party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action
Act, R.A. No. 265 is a special proceeding and, therefore, the that can be enforced against any person.
rules prescribing a period of 30 days for appealing and
requiring a record on appeal apply. Accordingly, the appeal What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of
in G.R. No. 109373 was held to have been duly perfected the corporation's insolvency so that its creditors may be
but the appeal in G.R. No. 112991 had not been perfected able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation's
because of petitioner's failure to file a record on appeal. debts and obligations. Put in another way, the petition only
seeks a declaration of the corporation's debts and
ISSUE: obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a
declaration of the corporation's state of insolvency and the
WON the liquidation proceeding is a special proceeding concomitant right of creditors and the order of payment of
their claims in the disposition of the corporation's assets.
RULING:
Rather, a liquidation proceeding resembles the proceeding
Special Proceeding. Action is the act by which one sues for the settlement of state of deceased persons under Rules
another in a court of justice for the enforcement or 73 to 91 of the Rules of Court. The two have a common
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a purpose: the determination of all the assets and the
wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one payment of all the debts and liabilities of the insolvent
seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a corporation or the estate. The Liquidator and the
particular fact. Hence, action is distinguished from special administrator or executor are both charged with the assets
proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right for the benefit of the claimants. In both instances, the
by one against another, while the latter is but a petition for liability of the corporation and the estate is not disputed.
a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party litigant The court's concern is with the declaration of creditors and
seeks to recover property from another, his remedy is to file their rights and the determination of their order of payment.
an action. Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of

1
Furthermore, as in the settlement of estates, multiple namely: Teofilo, Macaria and Justa. They inherited the
appeals are allowed in proceedings for liquidation of an subject land from Juan Gabatan and have been in actual,
insolvent corporation. physical, open, public, adverse, continuous and
uninterrupted possession thereof in the concept of owners
for more than fifty (50) years and enjoyed the fruits of the
HEIRS OF GABATAN VS CA improvements thereon, to the exclusion of the whole world
including respondent. It was also clarified that Jesus Jabinis
FACTS: and Catalino Acantilado have no interest in the subject land;
the former is merely the husband of Teofilo’s daughter while
The subject matter of this case is a 1.1062 hectare parcel of the latter is just a caretaker. Petitioners added that a similar
land, identified as Lot 3095 C-5 and situated at Calinugan, case was previously filed by respondent against Teofilos
Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. This lot was declared for wife, Rita Vda. de Gabatan, but the case was dismissed for
taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. Respondent alleged lack of interest. Finally, petitioners contended that the
that she is the sole owner of Lot 3095 C-5, having inherited complaint lacks or states no cause of action or, if there was
the same from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan. any, the same has long prescribed and/or has been barred
It was also claimed that Hermogena is the only child of Juan by laches.
Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito, that upon the
death of Juan Gabatan, Lot 3095 C-5 was entrusted to his RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. CA affirmed
brother, Teofilo Gabatan and his wife, Rita for decision of RTC.
administration. It was also claimed that prior to her death
Hermogena demanded for the return of the land but to no ISSUE:
avail. After Hermogena’s death, respondent also did the
same but petitioners refused to heed the numerous Whether or not the determination of the decedent’s lawful
demands to surrender the subject property. According to heirs should be made in a separate special proceeding or
respondent, when Teofilo and his wife died, petitioners one which may be included in an ordinary suit for recovery
Jesus Jabinis and Catalino Acantilado took possession of the of ownership and or possession.
disputed land despite respondents demands for them to
vacate the same. RULING:

Petitioners denied however that respondents mother Yes, it was proper. The general rule provides that the
Hermogena was the daughter of Juan Gabatan with determination of a decedent’s lawful heirs should be made
Laureana Clarito and that Hermogena or respondent is the in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the
rightful heir of Juan Gabatan. Petitioners maintained that Regional Trial Court in an ordinary action for cancellation of
Juan Gabatan died single in 1934 and without any issue and title and reconveyance, from granting the same. The
that Juan was survived by one brother and two sisters, determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must

2
be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose, MONTANER VS SHARIAH DISTRICT COURT
and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or
possession, as in this case. The trial court cannot make a FACTS:
declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that
such a declaration can only be made in a special Luisa Kho Montañer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro
proceeding. By way of exception, the need to institute a Montañer, Sr. at the Immaculate Conception Parish in
separate special proceeding for the determination of Cubao, Quezon City. Alejandro died. Petitioners herein are
heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, their three children.
as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily
submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented Private Respondents Liling Disangcopan and her daughter,
their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC Almahleen, both Muslims, filed a "Complaint" for the judicial
had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a partition of properties before the Shari’a District Court. They
special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally claim to be the first family of Alejandro.
closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
Petitioner children filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss
DOCTRINE: A civil action, in which a party sues another for arguing that the Sharia District Court has no jurisdiction
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention over the estate of Alejandro because he is a Roman
or redress of a wrong necessarily has definite adverse Catholic, insufficient docket fees and Prescription.
parties, who are either the plaintiff or defendant. On the
other hand, a special proceeding, by which a party seeks to ISSUE:
establish a status, right, or a particular fact, has one
definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a Whether of not the Complaint is to be treated as a special
status, right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse proceeding?
party. In the case at bar, it bears emphasis that the estate
of the decedent is not being sued for any cause of action. As RULING:
a special proceeding, the purpose of the settlement of the
estate of the decedent is to determine all the assets of the Although private respondents designated the pleading filed
estate, pay its liabilities, and to distribute the residual to before the Shari’a District Court as a "Complaint" for judicial
those entitled to the same. partition of properties, it is a petition for the issuance of
letters of administration, settlement, and distribution of the
estate of the decedent which is a SPECIAL PROCEEDING.
Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court (Rules) defines a special
proceeding as "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status, a right, or a particular fact." The Supreme
Court has applied the Rules, particularly the rules on special

3
proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased NATCHER VS CA
Muslim (Musa v. Moson, supra note 23, at 721-722). GR No. 133000

In a petition for the issuance of letters of administration, FACTS:


settlement, and distribution of estate, the applicants seek to
establish the fact of death of the decedent and later to be Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were
duly recognized as among the decedent’s heirs, which would registered owners of a parcel of land in Manila. Upon the
allow them to exercise their right to participate in the death of Graciana in 1951, Graciano, together with his six
settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent. children entered into an extrajudicial settlement of
Here, the respondents seek to establish the fact of Graciana's estate. They adjudicated and divided among
Alejandro Montañer, Sr.’s death and, subsequently, for themselves the real property. Under the agreement:
private respondent Almahleen Liling S. Montañer to be Graciano received 8/14 share while each of the six children
recognized as among his heirs, if such is the case in fact. x received 1/14 share of the said property. The heirs executed
x x x x Petitioners’ argument, that the prohibition against a and forged an "Agreement of Consolidation – Subdivision of
decedent or his estate from being a party defendant in a Real Property with Waiver of Rights". They subdivided
civil action (Ventura v. Hon. Militante, 374 Phil. 562 (1999) among themselves the parcel of land. Graciano then
applies to a special proceeding such as the settlement of the donated to his children, share and share alike, a portion of
estate of the deceased, is misplaced. Unlike a civil action his interest in the land amounting to 4,849.38 square
which has definite adverse parties, a special proceeding has meters leaving only 447.60 square meters registered under
no definite adverse party. x x x As a special proceeding, the Graciano's name. The land was further subdivided into two
purpose of the settlement of the estate of the decedent is to separate lots. Graciano sold the 1st lot to a third person but
determine all the assets of the estate, pay its liabilities retained ownership over the 2nd lot. Graciano married
(Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization v. petitioner Patricia Natcher. He sold the 2nd lot to Natcher, a
Court of Appeals, 312 Phil. 578, 593 (1995) and to title was issued under her name. Graciano dies leaving his 6
distribute the residual to those entitled to the same (Vda. children and Natcher as heirs. A civil case was filed a
de Manalo v. Court of Appeals, 402 Phil. 152, 161 (2001). complaint before the RTC of Manila by the 6 children;
alleging that Natcher through the employment of fraud,
misrepresentation and forgery, acquired the 2nd lot by
RULE 73 making it appear that Graciano executed a Deed of Sale in
her favour; that their legitimes have been impaired. In her
CHING VS RODRIGUEZ reply, Natcher averred that she was legally married to
(see handwritten file from Ate Devie) Graciano on 20 March 1980 and thus, under the law, she
was likewise considered a compulsory heir of the latter. RTC
ruled that the deed of sale executed by the late Graciano
del Rosario in favor of Patricia Natcher is prohibited by law

4
and thus a complete nullity, that no evidence that a actions, subject to specific rules prescribed for a special civil
separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage action. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
settlements nor there has been decreed a judicial separation seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact. There
of property between them, hence, the spouses are lies a marked distinction between an action and a special
prohibited from entering into a contract of sale. It is not proceeding. An action is a formal demand of ones right in a
also a valid donation BUT can be regarded as an extension court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by
of advance inheritance of Patricia Natcher being a the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies
compulsory heir of the deceased. On appeal, the Court of according to definite established rules. The term special
Appeals reversed and set aside the lower court’s decision proceeding may be defined as an application or proceeding
ratiocinating t is the probate court that has exclusive to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular
jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are
estate. The court a quo, trying an ordinary action for required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special
reconveyance/annulment of title, went beyond its proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an
jurisdiction when it performed the acts proper only in a application or motion
 It may accordingly be stated
special proceeding for the settlement of estate of a generally that actions include those proceedings which are
deceased person. instituted and prosecuted according to the ordinary rules
and provisions relating to actions at law or suits in equity,
ISSUE: and that special proceedings include those proceedings
which are not ordinary in this sense, but is instituted and
Whether the Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of prosecuted according to some special mode as in the case
general jurisdiction in an action for of proceedings commenced without summons and
reconveyance/annulment of title with damages, adjudicate prosecuted without regular pleadings, which are
matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a characteristics of ordinary actions. A special proceeding
deceased person particularly on questions as to must therefore be in the nature of a distinct and
advancement of property made by the decedent to any of independent proceeding for particular relief, such as may be
the heirs? instituted independently of a pending action, by petition or
motion upon notice.
RULING:

No. Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure


defines civil action and special proceedings, in this wise: a)
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong.
 A civil action may either be ordinary or
special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil

5
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE
THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS ISSUE:
G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011
Can a will executed by a foreigner abroad be probated in
FACTS: the Philippines although it has not been previously probated
and allowed in the country where it was executed?
Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a
naturalized American citizen, died single and childless. In RULING:
the last will and testament she executed in California, she
designated her brother Sergio, as the executor of her will Yes. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed
for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet
Thereafter respondent Ernesto, another brother of Ruperta, been probated and allowed in the countries of their
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for the execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
probate of Rupertas will and for his appointment as special jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will
administrator. However, petitioners, nephews of Ruperta, of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the
should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. law of the place where he resides, or according to the
where it was executed. formalities observed in his country.

The RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Rupertas In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of
last will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special Civil Procedure provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant
administrator; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special of a foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has
Administration to Ernesto. Aggrieved by the RTCs order, an estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such
petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that an unprobated estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the
will executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other
probated for the first time in the Philippines. person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the
death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction
The CA rendered a decision, affirming the assailed order of to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
the RTC, holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
of the will. The CA pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the
Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance
of the will in the country of its execution, before it can be of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a)
probated in the Philippines. The present case, said the CA, the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences
is different from reprobate, which refers to a will already of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or
probated and allowed abroad. Thus the present petition. decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the

6
property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for On February 15, 1988, respondent executed an Affidavit of
whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not been Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person
delivered to the court, the name of the person having adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. TCT No.
custody of it. The rules do not require proof that the foreign 34292/T-172 in Portugals name was subsequently cancelled
will has already been allowed and probated in the country of and in its stead TCT No. 159813 was issued by the Registry
its execution. of Deeds for Caloocan City on March 9, 1988 in the name of
respondent, Leonila Portugal-Beltran, married to Merardo M.
Beltran, Jr. Consequently, petitioners filed before the RTC of
ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL Caloocan City on July 23, 1996 a complaint against
JR., petitioners, vs. LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN, respondent for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication
respondent. executed by her and the transfer certificate of title issued in
her name.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
On November 25, 1942, Jose Q. Portugal (Portugal) married
Paz Lazo. On May 22, 1948, Portugal married petitioner In the main, the issue in the present petition is whether
Isabel de la Puerta. On September 13, 1949, petitioner petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to
Isabel gave birth to a boy whom she named Jose Douglas determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the
Portugal Jr., her herein co-petitioner. On April 11, 1950, Paz case for annulment of respondents Affidavit of Adjudication
gave birth to a girl, Aleli, later baptized as Leonila Perpetua and of the TCT issued in her name?
Aleli Portugal, herein respondent.
RULING:
On May 16, 1968, Portugal and his four (4) siblings
executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly
Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, who that she was the sole heir to Portugals estate, executed on
died intestate on November 2, 1964. In the deed, Portugals February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication
siblings waived their rights, interests, and participation over under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the
a 155 sq. m. parcel of land located in Caloocan in his favor. Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the
general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it
On January 2, 1970, the Registry of Deeds for Caloocan City should be judicially administered and the competent court
issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 34292 covering should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order
the Caloocan parcel of land in the name of Jose Q. Portugal, established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no
married to Paz C. Lazo. On February 18, 1984, Paz died. On will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor
April 21, 1985, Portugal died intestate. therein.

7
Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive heirs of WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Portugal. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has September 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased. hereby SET ASIDE.
Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the trial court,
It appearing, however, that in the present case the only Branch 124 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, for
property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan it to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties and
parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of render a decision on the above-enumerated issues defined
the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, during the pre-trial.
hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of
petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome
to the estate with the costs and expenses of an EDUARDO AGTARAP VS SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, ET. AL.
administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of G.R No. 177099
the fact that the parties to the civil case subject of the June 8, 2011
present case, could and had already in fact presented
evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction FACTS:
over the case upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
Joaquin Agtarap was married twice. He was first married to
In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there Lucia Garcia and they begot children: Jesus, Milagros and
being no compelling reason to still subject Portugals estate Jose, with Jose being survived by Gloria, Joseph and Teresa.
to administration proceedings since a determination of After Lucia’s death, he contracted a second marriage to
petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case Caridad Garcia, and they begot children: Eduardo,
filed by petitioners, the trial court should proceed to Sebastian and Mercedes, with Mercedes being survived by
evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the Cecile. Joaquin died and at the time of his death, he left two
trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it parcels of land with improvements in Pasay City, which
defined during pre-trial, which bear repeating, to wit: Joseph leasing and improving the realties. Eduardo filed a
verified petition for the judicial settlement of the estate of
1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the his father Joaquin with the RTC of Pasay City, further
deceased Jose Q. Portugal, is valid; alleging that he should be appointed as a special
2. Which of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant administrator to Joaquin’s properties. After the initial
Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of the deceased Jose Q. hearing and publication, Joseph, Gloria and Teresa filed
Portugal (Sr.); their answer/opposition, alleging that the two subject lots
3. Wfhether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due belong to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin and Lucia,
course and can still be contested by plaintiffs; hence after Lucia’s death, they became the pro indiviso
4. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claim under owners of the properties. They also opposed the
the complaint. appointment of Eduardo as administrator on the grounds

8
that he is not physically and mentally fit, his interest in the resort to an ordinary action before a court exercising
lots is minimal, and he does not possess the desire to earn. general jurisdiction for a decision.
After giving the parties opportunity to be heard, the RTC
appointed Eduardo as administrator, and an order of However, there are exceptions to the rule. First, the probate
partition was issued, distributing the properties to the heirs court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a
of Joaquin. Eduardo, Sebastian, Joseph and Teresa filed testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion
their respective motions for reconsideration. The RTC then from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
declared that the real estate properties belonged to the to the final determination of ownership in a separate action.
conjugal partnership of Joaquin and Lucia. The order was Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate,
appealed to the CA but the CA dismissed the appeal. or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the
ISSUE: parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not
Does the trial court, acting as a probate court, have impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve
jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership? issues on ownership.

RULING: We hold that the general rule does not apply to the instant
case considering that the parties are all heirs of Joaquin and
As to Sebastians and Eduardos common issue on the that no rights of third parties will be impaired by the
ownership of the subject real properties, we hold that the resolution of the ownership issue. More importantly, the
RTC, as an intestate court, had jurisdiction to resolve the determination of whether the subject properties are
same. conjugal is but collateral to the probate courts jurisdiction to
settle the estate of Joaquin.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court,
either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only to Section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court provides that when
matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or the
settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not wife, the community property shall be inventoried,
extend to the determination of questions of ownership that administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid; in
arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse,
rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited and if both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership
jurisdiction. All that the said court could do as regards said shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of
properties is to determine whether or not they should be either. Thus, the RTC had jurisdiction to determine whether
included in the inventory of properties to be administered the properties are conjugal as it had to liquidate the
by the administrator. If there is a dispute, the conjugal partnership to determine the estate of the
administrator, the parties and opposing parties have to decedent. In fact, should Joseph and Teresa institute a
settlement proceeding for the intestate estate of Lucia, the

9
same should be consolidated with the settlement venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive
proceedings of Joaquin, being Lucias spouse. jurisdiction over the case. The Quezon City court denied the
motion to dismiss, giving as a principal reason the
"precedence of probate proceeding over an intestate
CUENCO VS CA proceeding. The said court further found in said order that
the residence of the late senator at the time of his death
FACTS: was at No. 69 Pi y Margal, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City.
Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ
Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila Doctor’s of prohibition to CFI Quezon.
Hospital, Manila. He was survived by his widow, Rosa
Cayetano Cuenco, the petitioner herein, and their two (2)
minor sons, Mariano Jesus, Jr. and Jesus Salvador, all ISSUES:
residing at Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City; and by his
children of the first marriage, respondents herein, namely, Whether the CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition
Manuel Lourdes, Concepcion, Carmen, Consuelo, and against the Quezon City court ordering it to refrain
Teresita, all residing in Cebu. perpetually from proceeding with the testate proceedings
Lourdes, one of the children from the first marriage, filed a and annulling and setting aside all its orders and actions,
Petition for Letters of Administration with the Court of First particularly its admission to probate of the decedent's last
Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the senator died intestate will and testament and appointing petitioner-widow (Rosa)
in Manila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and as executrix
Quezon City.
Whether the Quezon City court acted without jurisdiction or
The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and
Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition with CFI Rizal for assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate
the probate of the last will and testament, where she was proceedings filed with it, in pursuance of the Cebu court's
named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion order expressly consenting in deference to the precedence
to dismiss in CFI Cebu. CFI Cebu issued an order holding in of probate over intestate proceedings
abeyance its resolution on petitioner's motion to dismiss
"until after the Court of First Instance of Quezon City shall RULING:
have acted on the petition for probate of the document
purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased The Supreme Court found that CA erred in issuing the writ
Don Mariano Jesus Cuenco of prohibition against the Quezon City court from proceeding
with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside
Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI all its orders and actions, particularly its admission to
Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper probate of the last will and testament of the deceased and

10
appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without This exactly what the Cebu court did. Upon petitioner-
bond pursuant to the deceased testator's wish. widow's filing with it a motion to dismiss Lourdes' intestate
petition, it issued its order holding in abeyance its action on
The Judiciary Act confers original jurisdiction upon all Courts the dismissal motion and deferred to the Quezon City court,
of First Instance over "all matter of probate, both of testate awaiting its action on the petition for probate before that
and intestate . Under Rule 73, the court first taking court. Implicit in the Cebu court's order was that if the will
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, was duly admitted to probate, by the Quezon City court,
shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. then it would definitely decline to take cognizance of
Lourdes' intestate petition which would thereby be shown to
The residence of the decedent or the location of his estate is be false and improper, and leave the exercise of jurisdiction
not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but to the Quezon City court, to the exclusion of all other
merely of venue. The Rule on venue does not state that the courts. By its act of deference, the Cebu court left it to the
court with whom the estate or intestate petition is first filed Quezon City court to resolve the question between the
acquires exclusive jurisdiction. parties whether the decedent's residence at the time of his
death was in Quezon City where he had his conjugal
The Rule provides that "the court first taking cognizance of domicile rather than in Cebu City as claimed by
the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise respondents. The Cebu court thus indicated that it would
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts." A fair decline to take cognizance of the intestate petition before it
reading of the Rule indicates that the court with whom the and instead defer to the Quezon City court, unless the latter
petition is first filed, must also first take cognizance of the would make a negative finding as to the probate petition
settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction and the residence of the decedent within its territory and
over it to the exclusion of all other courts. venue.

Conversely, such court, may upon learning that a petition Under these facts, the Cebu court could not be held to have
for probate of the decedent's last will has been presented in acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction
another court where the decedent obviously had his in declining to take cognizance of the intestate petition and
conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving widow and deferring to the Quezon City court.
their minor children, and that the allegation of the intestate
petition before it stating that the decedent died intestate Necessarily, neither could the Quezon City court be deemed
may be actually false, may decline to take cognizance of the to have acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
petition and hold the petition before it in abeyance, and and acting on the probate petition since under Rule 73,
instead defer to the second court which has before it the section 1, the Cebu court must first take cognizance over
petition for probate of the decedent's alleged last will. the estate of the decedent and must exercise jurisdiction to
exclude all other courts, which the Cebu court declined to
do. Furthermore, said rule only lays down a rule of venue

11
and the Quezon City court indisputably had at least equal Clerk of court the purported Last Will and Testament of
and coordinate jurisdiction over the estate. Rev. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez, parish priest of Hangonoy,
Bulacan for 30 years until his death after his death on
Since the Quezon City court took cognizance over the February 12, 1963 of which Petitioner Angela and Maria
probate petition before it and assumed jurisdiction over the Rodriguez filed a petition to examine said will which was
estate, with the consent and deference of the Cebu court, later withdrawn by them before the court could act on the
the Quezon City court should be left now, by the same rule petition. However, on March 12, 1963 same petitioner
of venue of said Rule 73, to exercise jurisdiction to the Angela and Maria Rodriguez filed a filed a petition before the
exclusion of all other courts. RTC of Rizal for the settlement of the Estate of the deceased
Fr. Rodriguez at 8:00 in the morning alleging that Fr.
The Court also upheld the doctrine of precedence of probate Celestino Rodriguez died without a will and that Maria be
proceedings over intestate proceedings in this wise: testate appointed Special Administratix of the said Estate while on
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased the same date while petitioner Apolonia and Adelaida filed a
person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the petition before the RTC of Bulacan for the for the probation
same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in of the will at 11:00 in the morning alleging that the court of
the course of intestate proceedings, it is found that the RTC Bulacan already acquired jurisdiction upon the delivery
decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of of the will to the Clerk of Court on March 4, 1963 hence
the latter should replace the intestate proceedings, even if take precedence over the case filed before RTC of Rizal.
at that state an administrator had already been appointed,
the latter being required to render final account and turn ISSUE:
over the estate in his possession to the executor
subsequently appointed. This however, is understood to be When was the court acquire jurisdiction over the settlement
without prejudice that should the alleged last will be of the decedent’s estate? What court has jurisdiction over
rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as the settlement of the estate of the decedent?
an intestacy. This is a clear indication that proceedings for
the probate of a will enjoy priority over intestate RULING:
proceedings.
The jurisdiction of a probate court becomes vested upon the
delivery thereto of the will even if no petition for its
RODRIGUEZ VS BORJA allowance was filed until later, because, upon the will being
deposited, the court could, motu proprio have taken steps
FACTS: to fix the time and place for proving the will, and issued the
corresponding notices conformably to what is prescribed by
On March 4, 1963, Petitioner Apolonia Pangilinan and section 3, Rule 76, of the Revised Rules of Court (Sections 3
Adelaida Jacalan, delivered to the RTC of Rizal through the Rule 77, of the old Rules). The use of the disjunctive in the

12
words “when a will is delivered to or a petition for the was survived by his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm and
allowance of a will is filed” plainly indicates that the court their two children, named Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete)
may act upon the mere deposit therein of a decedent’s and Linda Grimm and by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel
testament, even if no petition for its allowance is as yet Grimm Roberts (McFadden), his two children by a first
filed. Where the petition for probate is made after the marriage which ended in divorce.
deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to
the time when the will was delivered. He executed on January 23, 1959 two wills in San Francisco,
California. One will disposed of his Philippine estate which
The power to settle decedents’ estates is conferred by law he described as conjugal property of himself and his second
upon all Courts of First Instance, and the domicile of the wife. The second win disposed of his estate outside the
testator only affects the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Philippines.
court (In re Kaw Singco, 74 Phil. 239; Reyes vs. Diaz, 73
Phil. 484; Bernabe vs. Vergara, 73 Phil. 676). In both wills, the second wife and two children were
favored. The two children of the first marriage were given
Where the estate proceedings were initiated in the Bulacan their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in
Court of First Instance ahead of any other, that court is this country.
entitled to assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts, even if it were a case of wrong venue (Sec. 1, Rule The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by
73, Revised Rules of Court) Maxine Tate Grimm and E. LaVar Tate. Maxine admitted
that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in
Intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the Manila by Ethel in January, 1978 its order dated April 10,
testate, since intestacy takes place only in the absence of a 1978, the Third Judicial District Court admitted to
valid operative will. Only after a final decision as to the probate the two wills and the codicil It was issued upon
nullity of testate succession could an intestate succession be consideration of the stipulation dated April 4, 1978 "by and
instituted. The institution of intestacy proceedings in one between the attorneys for Maxine Tate Grimm, Linda
court may not thus proceed while the probate of the Grimm, Edward Miller Grimm II, E. LaVar Tate, Juanita
purported will of the deceased is pending in another court. Kegley Grimm (first wife), Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel
Grimm Roberts.

ROBERTS VS LEONIDAS Two weeks later, Maxine and her two children Linda and
Pete, and Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and their mother
FACTS: Juanita Kegley Grimm, with knowledge of the intestate
proceeding in Manila, entered into a compromise agreement
Edward M. Grimm an American resident of Manila, died at in Utah regarding the estate. It was stipulated there that
78 in the Makati Medical Center on November 27, 1977. He Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as personal

13
representatives (administrators) of Grimm's Philippine RULING:
estate (par. 2). It was also stipulated that Maxine's one-half
conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for her and Respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of
that would not be less than $1,500,000 plus the homes in discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in denying
Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila (par. 4). The agreement Ethel's motion to dismiss.
indicated the computation of the "net distributable estate".
It recognized that the estate was liable to pay the fees of A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm
the Angara law firm (par. 5). died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838,
Ethel, the daughter of the first marriage, filed a petition for Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).
intestate proceeding. Maxine, second wife, opposed on the
ground of the pendency of the probate proceedings in Utah. The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara vs. Guevara,
Later on, Maxine, Pete, and Linda, filed in Branch 38 of the 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot vs. Panio, L-42088,
lower court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm’s May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). It is anomalous that the estate
two wills, and that the 1979 partition approved by the of a person who died testate should be settled in an
intestate court be set aside. They alleged that they were intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should
defrauded due to the machinations of the Roberts spouses, be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge
that compromise was illegal, that the intestate proceeding is assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing
void because Grimm died testate, and that the partition was the two cases.
contrary to the decedent’s will.
Ethel may file within twenty days from notice of the finality
Ethel filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition which was denied of this judgment an opposition and answer to the petition
by Judge Leonidas. Ethel then filed a petition for certiorari unless she considers her motion to dismiss and other
and prohibition, praying that the testate proceeding be pleadings sufficient for the purpose. Juanita G. Morris, who
dismissed, or that the two proceedings be consolidated and appeared in the intestate case, should be served with copies
heard in Branch 20 and that the matter of the annulment of of orders, notices and other papers in the testate case.
the Utah compromise agreement be heard prior to the
petition for probate.
CAYETANO VS LEONIDAS
ISSUE: G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984

WON a petition for allowance of wills and to annul a FACTS:


partition approved by CFI Manila Branch 20 can be
entertained by its Branch 38. Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving Hermogenes Campos
(father) and her sisters, Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez,

14
and Marieta Medina as the surviving heirs. As the only intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
compulsory heir is Hermogenes, he executed an Affidavit of probated, the court should meet the issues.
Adjudication, adjudicating unto himself the entire estate of
Adoracion. In this case, it was sufficiently established that Adoracion
was an American citizen and the law which governs her will
Later that same year, Nenita filed a petition for reprobate of is the law of Pennsylvania, USA, which is the national law of
a will, alleging among others that Adoracion was an the decedent.
American citizen and that the will was executed in teh US.
Adoracion died in Manila while temporarily residing in It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the
Malate. provisions of the will, the national law of the decedent must
apply.
While this case was still pending, Hermogenes died and left
a will, appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix. Hence, 2. As to the issue of jurisdiction --
this case.
The settlement of estate of Adoracion Campos was correctly
ISSUE: filed with the CFI of Manila where she had an estate since it
was alleged and proven that Adoracion at the time of her
Whether or not the will was valid death was a citizen and permanent resident of
Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over probate Pennsylvania, USA and not a usual resident of Cavite.
proceedings
Moreover, petitioner is now estopped from questioning the
Whether or not the reprobation of the will is invalid for it jurisdiction of the probate court in the petition for relief. It is
divested the father of his legitime which was reserved by a settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
the law for him and the same would work injustice and court to secure affirmative relief, against his opponent and
injury to him. after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
RULING:

1. As a general rule, the probate court's authority is limited GARCIA FULE VS CA


only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution [G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976]
thereof, the testatrix's testamentary capacity and the
compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by FACTS:
law. The intrinsic validity normally comes only after the
court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. Virginia Garcia Fule (petitioner) filed before CFI of Calamba,
However, where practical considerations demand that the Laguna a Petition for letters of administration of the estate

15
of Amado G. Garcia. She moved ex parte for her of residence of the deceased. It cannot be changed by
appointment as special administratrix of the estate. This procedure and be stipulated by the parties.
was GRANTED. Preciosa Garcia filed for a motion for
reconsideration contending that the order appointing VENUE is the place of the hearing. Since there are many
Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix was issued without Court of First Instance, the venue can be fixed. The rules
jurisdiction. There was no notice of the petition for letters of provides that the venue is the place of residence of
administration has been served upon all persons interested deceased or the province.
in the estate. She contends that she should be preferred in
the appointment of a special administratrix, being the Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
surviving spouse of Amado; and, Virginia is not an heir but “If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the
a debtor of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall
be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his
While the MR is pending, Preciosa filed a motion to remove estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province
Virginia as administrator. During the hearings for the case, in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an
Virginia presented that: Amado resided in Quezon City 3 inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of
years before his death, therefore CFI Calamba has no any province in which he had estate.
jurisdiction over the case.
SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased
CFI DENIED the two petitions of Preciosa. CA REVERSED the should be the venue of the court. IN HERE, the decedent
decision. It vacated the decision made by the CFI. It held died in Quezon City as provided by the death certificate.
that CFI Calamba, Laguna does not have jurisdiction over
the case. NOTES:

ISSUE: “Resides” should be seen as the personal, actual or physical


habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It
W/N the venue is improperly laid. signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay
thereat. The term means merely residence, that is, personal
RULING: residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply
requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,
YES, SC ruled in favor of Preciosa. while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and
also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular
JURISDICTION is the power and authority of the court over length of time of residence is required though; however, the
the subject matter. Jurisdiction of all probate cases is within residence must be more than temporary.
the Court of First Instance which is different from the place

16
The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies FACTS:
in the probate court. That, however, is no authority for the
judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and A certain Herminia R. Alvos, claiming to be a niece of Paz
dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. Ramirez, surviving spouse of the late Ambrocio C. Pingco,
Exercise of that discretion must be based on reason, equity, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela a petition
justice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same for settlement of the estate of Ambrocio C. Pingco.
fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a Respondent Judge Dizon-Capulong appointed her as
regular administrator should not be taken into account in SPECIAL ADMINIATRIX. She alleged that parcels of land of
the appointment of a special administrator. Nothing is the decedent had been sold to petitioner Jose Uy in 1978. A
wrong for the judge to consider the order of preference in freeze order was then issued by the judge regarding
the appointment of a regular administrator in appointing a transactions of the properties without the signature of
special administrator. After all, the consideration that special adminiatrix.
overrides all others in this respect is the beneficial interest
of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. Under the A motion to cancel the titles of Uy was filed stating that the
law, the widow would have the right of succession over a registration thereof was made through fraud. Judge ordered
portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, besides the cancellation.
her share in the conjugal partnership. For such reason, she
would have as such, if not more, interest in administering Uy filed with the CA a petition to annul the order of the
the entire estate correctly than any other next of kin. The Judge with TRO which was granted by the CA. A resolution
good or bad administration of a property may affect rather by the Supreme Court was also issued and stated that:
the fruits than the naked ownership of a property.
Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court simply provides that
a person who is suspected of having in his possession
UY vs. JUDGE DIZON-CAPULONG property belonging to an estate, may be cited and the court
may examine him under oath on the matter. Said section
DOCTRINE: When questions arise as to ownership of nowhere gives the court the power to determine the
property alleged to be part of the estate of a deceased question of ownership of such property. Furthermore, the
person, but claimed by some other person to be his declaration of nullity of the sale of a parcel of land under
property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the administration and the consequent cancellation of the
deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and certificate of title issued in favor of the vendee, cannot be
his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the obtained through a mere motion in the probate proceedings
courts of administration proceedings. The trial court, acting over the objection of said vendee over whom the probate
as probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such court has no jurisdiction. To recover the property, an
contentions, which must be submitted to the trial court in independent action against the vendee must be instituted in
the exercise of its general jurisdiction. the proper court"

17
Despite the resolution, Judge Dizon-Capulong defied and
disregarded the same and still granted the petition of the In cancelling the titles of complainants over their properties
special adminatrix to order new titles. on mere motion of a party and without affording them due
An administrative complaint was filed against the judge process, respondent Judge violated her sworn obligation to
uphold the law and promote the administration of justice. It
ISSUE: has been held that if the law is so elementary, not to know
it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross
WON IN SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS, ignorance of the law.
PROBATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER QUESTION OF
OWNERSHIP WHERE PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY BELONGING TO Judge Dizon-Capulong was dismissed from service and
ESTATE CLAIMED BY ANOTHER PERSON? retirement benefits forfeited.

RULING: JIMENEZ VS CA
(please refer to Ate Devie’s handwritten file)
NO. The same should be settled in an appropriate
proceeding and not with the probate court. When questions
arise as to ownership of property alleged to be part of the BARRETTO REALTY VS CA
estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other GR No. L-62431-33
person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of
inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of FACTS:
the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be
determined in the courts of administration proceedings. The The proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Drepin
trial court, acting as probate court, has no jurisdiction to were initiated shortly after his death with the filing of a
adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to petition for probate of his holographic will. The estate is
the trial court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. saddled with claims of creditors named in the Drepin will
and creditors who have filed their claims within the
Elementary in our statutory law is the doctrine that when reglementary period. The only way to pay their claims is to
title to land has already been registered and the certificate sell the Drepin lots, so that from the proceeds of the sale,
of title thereto issued, such Torrens title cannot be the debts of the estate could be paid, and any remaining
collaterally attacked because the issue on the validity of the balance distributed to the Drepin heirs. Since the filing of
title can only be raised in an action instituted expressly for the petition for probate of the Drepin will, nine (9) offers
the purpose. Corollary to this is the constitutional mandate had been made for the purchase of the Drepin lands, among
that no person shall be deprived of his property without due them, that of GM Management Phils., through its President
process of law. Honor P. Moslares. Basis was that the deceased sold

18
80.3980 hectares of land absolutely and perpetually to Inc. of the estate of Nicolai Drepin pursuant to respondent
Honor P. Moslares for the sum of P2,600,000.00 with a court’s order authorizing the sale, and of the approved Deed
downpayment of P300,000.00. To secure the payment of of Undertaking with the vendee. An urgent Motion and
the remaining P2,300,000.00, the latter mortgaged the land Manifestation was filed by respondent Moslares praying that
to the former. all pending motions be resolved and praying that the Deed
of Sale and Deed of Undertaking in favor of Pio Barretto be
The parties further agreed not to register the sale yet until cancelled. The same remained unacted upon.
P1,300,000.00 shall have been paid to Drepin and
P1,000,000.00 paid to Drepin’s creditors. Subsequently, On May 18, 1981, respondent filed Civil Case No. 41287
Drepin and Moslares entered into a “Joint Venture before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Pasig, Metro
Agreement”. Said agreement listed Drepin as the registered Manila to determine title and ownership over the Drepin
“owner” of the lots and denominated Moslares as lands. Judgment was rendered by respondent court in favor
“developer” tasked with converting the lands into a of respondent Moslares. The said court refused to exclude
residential subdivision. Upon learning of the existence of the parcels of land involved from the testate proceedings of
Special Proceedings No. 7257, 7261 and 7269 herein the Drepin estate. Barretto filed a motion for
respondent Moslares, informed the Judicial Administrator reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition.
Atty. Tomas Trinidad that he is already the owner of the
properties made subject matter of the Special Proceedings ISSUE:
and proposed that he be permitted to pay the balance on
the sale with mortgage in accordance with the terms of his Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of
written proposal. jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to
exclude the parcels of land involved from the testate
The probate court, issued an order approving respondent proceedings of the Drepin estate?
Moslares’ proposal and authorizing administrator Trinidad to
enter into the appropriate agreement. Requests for revision HELD:
of payment and extension of period within which to pay the
balance were made by Moslares. However, he was not able No. For continually presuming that the three titled lots were
to pay it. Thereafter, the probate court issued an order and part of the Drepin estate and for refusing to provisionally
based on this order administrator Trinidad executed the pass upon the question of exclusion, did the respondent
Deed of Sale in favor of Pio Barretto Realty, Inc. court act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
transferring the titles to the properties in question in the abuse of discretion? We hold that even with such
name of the latter. The same was duly registered. On presumption and refusal, the respondent court still acted
October 20, 1980, the probate court approved the report of within its jurisdiction and not with grave abuse of discretion.
administrator Trinidad dated October 16, 1980, with xerox After all, the jurisprudence and rule are both to the effect
copies of the Deed of Sale in favor of Pio Barretto Realty, that the probate court ‘may’ provisionally pass upon the

19
question of exclusion, not ‘should’. The obvious reason is OSCAR D. RAMOS and LUZ AGUDO v. HON. COURT OF
the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle that APPEALS, ADELAIDA RAMOS and LAZARO E. MENESES
questions of title or ownership, which result to inclusion in G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989
or exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be
settled in a separate action. Hence, even if respondent court FACTS:
presumed all the way that the properties sold by Drepin to
petitioner were part of Drepin’s estate, that would not Private respondent Adelaida Ramos borrowed from her
prevent nor defeat petitioner’s remedy in a separate suit. brother, petitioner Oscar D. Ramos, the amounts of P
And We hold that Civil Case No. 41287 is just such a suit 5,000.00 and P 9,000.00 in connection with her business
instituted to settle the question of ownership over the lots transaction As security for said loan, private respondent
covered originally by TCTs Nos. 259060, 259061 and Adelaida Ramos executed in favor of petitioners two (2)
259062, despite the claim for damages, because of the deeds of conditional sale of her rights, shares, interests and
composite effect of the prayer in the complaint thereof. In participation respectively over a lot registered in the name
effect, We are saying that the question of whether the of their parents, and another lot then registered in the
properties sold by Drepin to Petitioner should be excluded names of Socorro, Josefina and Adelaida Ramos.
from the probate proceedings below, cannot be determined Upon the failure of said private respondent as vendor a
with finality by Us in this case, because in this petition We retro to exercise her right of repurchase within the
are merely reviewing the acts of the respondent. CFI as a redemption period, petitioner filed a petition for
probate court. Any ruling by the probate court to include consolidation and approval of the conditional sale in Special
those properties ‘is only provisional in character and is Proceedings, entitled "Intestate Estate of the late Margarita
without prejudice to a judgment in a separate action on the Denoga. The said probate court issued an order which
issue of title or ownership’ Sebial v. Sebial, L-23419, June approved the conditional sale (but not as to the petition for
27, 1975, 64 SCRA 385). Consequently, in reviewing the the consolidation of ownership).
exercise of such limited probate jurisdiction, We cannot
order an unqualified and final exclusion of the properties ISSUE:
involved, as prayed for to do so would expand the probate
court’s jurisdiction beyond the perimeters set by law and Can the probate court pass upon issues of questions of
jurisprudence. It is fitting and proper that this issue be ownership that arise during the proceeding?
ventilated and finally resolved in the already instituted Civil
Case No. 41287, even as We hold that respondent court’s RULING:
act of not excluding the lots involved did not constitute
grave abuse of discretion. No. A reading of the order of the probate court will show
that it is merely an approval of the deed of conditional sale
executed by petitioner Adelaida Ramos in favor of
petitioners. There is nothing in said order providing for the

20
consolidation of ownership over the lots allegedly sold to Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (PASTOR, SR.), a Spanish subject, died in
petitioners nor was the issue of the validity of said contract Cebu City on June 5, 1966, survived by his Spanish wife
discussed or resolved therein. The approval of the probate Sofia Bossio (who also died on October 21, 1966), their two
court of the conditional sale is not a conclusive legitimate children Alvaro Pastor, Jr. (PASTOR, JR.) and
determination of the intrinsic or extrinsic validity of the Sofia Pastor de Midgely (SOFIA), and an illegitimate child,
contract but a mere recognition of the right of private not natural, by the name of Lewellyn Barlito Quemada
respondent Adelaida Ramos as an heir, to dispose of her QUEMADA PASTOR, JR. is a Philippine citizen, having been
rights and interests over her inheritance even before naturalized in 1936. SOFIA is a Spanish subject. QUEMADA
partition. is a Filipino by his mother's citizenship.

Moreover, the probate jurisdiction of the former court of On November 13, 1970, QUEMADA filed a petition for the
first instance or the present regional trial court relates only probate and allowance of an alleged holographic will of
to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate PASTOR, SR. with the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
and probate of wills of deceased persons, and the Branch I (PROBATE COURT), docketed as SP No. 3128-R.
appointment and removal of administrators, executors, The will contained only one testamentary disposition: a
guardians and trustees. Subject to settled exceptions not legacy in favor of QUEMADA consisting of 30% of PASTOR,
present in this case, the law does not extend the jurisdiction SR.'s 42% share in the operation by Atlas Consolidated
of a probate court to the determination of questions of Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) of some
ownership that arise during the proceeding. The parties mining claims in Pina-Barot, Cebu.
concerned may choose to bring a separate action as a
matter of convenience in the preparation or presentation of On November 21, 1970, the PROBATE COURT, upon motion
evidence. Obviously, the approval by the probate court of of QUEMADA and after an ex parte hearing, appointed him
the conditional sale was without prejudice to the filing of the special administrator of the entire estate of PASTOR, SR.,
proper action for consolidation of ownership and/or whether or not covered or affected by the holographic will.
reformation of instrument in the proper court within the He assumed office as such on December 4, 1970 after filing
statutory period of prescription. a bond of P 5,000.00.

On December 7, 1970, QUEMADA as special administrator,


G.R. No. L-56340 June 24, 1983 instituted against PASTOR, JR. and his wife an action for
PASTOR VS CA reconveyance of alleged properties of the estate, which
included the properties subject of the legacy and which
FACTS: were in the names of the spouses PASTOR, JR. and his wife,
Maria Elena Achaval de Pastor, who claimed to be the
This is a case of hereditary succession. owners thereof in their own rights, and not by inheritance.

21
The action, docketed as Civil Case No. 274-R, was filed with which will include, among others, the determination of the
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IX. extent of the statutory usufructuary right of his wife until
her death. * When the disputed Probate order was issued
On February 2, 1971, PASTOR, JR. and his sister SOFIA filed on December 5, 1972, there had been no liquidation of the
their opposition to the petition for probate and the order community properties of PASTOR, SR. and his wife.
appointing QUEMADA as special administrator.
(b) So, also, as of the same date, there had been no prior
On December 5, 1972, the PROBATE COURT issued an order definitive determination of the assets of the estate of
allowing the will to probate. Appealed to the Court of PASTOR, SR. There was an inventory of his properties
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52961- R, the order was affirmed in presumably prepared by the special administrator, but it
a decision dated May 9, 1977. On petition for review, the does not appear that it was ever the subject of a hearing or
Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-46645 dismissed the petition that it was judicially approved. The reconveyance or
in a minute resolution dated November 1, 1977 and recovery of properties allegedly owned but not in the name
remanded the same to the PROBATE COURT after denying of PASTOR, SR. was still being litigated in another court.
reconsideration on January 11, 1978.
(c) There was no appropriate determination, much less
payment, of the debts of the decedent and his estate.
ISSUE: Indeed, it was only in the Probate Order of December 5,
1972 where the Probate Court ordered that-
W/N the probate court can allow the probate of the will ... a notice be issued and published pursuant to the
without considering the issue of conjugal partnership of provisions of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, requiring all
Pastor Sr. persons having money claims against the decedent to file
them in the office of the Branch Clerk of this Court."
RULING:
(d) Nor had the estate tax been determined and paid, or at
No. least provided for, as of December 5, 1972.

Issue of Intrinsic Validity of the Holographic Will (e) The net assets of the estate not having been
determined, the legitime of the forced heirs in concrete
(a) When PASTOR, SR. died in 1966, he was survived by his figures could not be ascertained.
wife, aside from his two legitimate children and one
illegitimate son. There is therefore a need to liquidate the (f) All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not
conjugal partnership and set apart the share of PASTOR, possible to determine whether the legacy of QUEMADA - a
SR.'s wife in the conjugal partnership preparatory to the fixed share in a specific property rather than an aliquot part
administration and liquidation of the estate of PASTOR, SR.

22
of the entire net estate of the deceased - would produce an TRINIDAD VS CA
impairment of the legiftime of the compulsory heirs. G.R No. 75579
September 30, 1991
(g) Finally, there actually was no determination of the
intrinsic validity of the will in other respects. It was FACTS:
obviously for this reason that as late as March 5, 1980 -
more than 7 years after the Probate Order was issued the An information has been filed against Tomas Trinidad in the
Probate Court scheduled on March 25, 1980 a hearing on CFI of Manila, charging him with violation of PD 957 for
the intrinsic validity of the will.. non-deliver of title. It was alleged that he, being the
administrator of the estate of the late Nicolai Drepin,
(a) Without a final, authoritative adjudication of the issue as president and General MANAGER OF THE Mother Earth
to what properties compose the estate of PASTOR, SR. in Realty Development Corporation, is aware and has
the face of conflicting claims made by heirs and a non-heir knowledge of the sale of a parcel of land in the Munting
(MA. ELENA ACHAVAL DE PASTOR) involving properties not Baguio Village Subdivision to Francisca Dimabuyo, failed to
in the name of the decedent, and in the absence of a deliver the title of said lot upon full payment thereof.
resolution on the intrinsic validity of the will here in Dimabuyo averred that she made the payments required
question, there was no basis for the Probate Court to hold in and that she received receipts for such payment but the title
its Probate Order of 1972, which it did not, that private was not delivered to her. Petitioner however rebuts that she
respondent is entitled to the payment of the questioned has not complied with all the requirements as she had not
legacy. Therefore, the Order of Execution of August 20, paid the taxes on the property. The CFI (now RTC)
1980 and the subsequent implementing orders for the convicted him as guilty for violation of PD 957, to which the
payment of QUEMADA's legacy, in alleged implementation of CA affirmed.
the dispositive part of the Probate Order of December 5,
1972, must fall for lack of basis. ISSUE:

(b) The ordered payment of legacy would be violative of the Can an administrator proceed with the delivery of the title
rule requiring prior liquidation of the estate of the deceased, without the probate court’s authorization?
i.e., the determination of the assets of the estate and
payment of all debts and expenses, before apportionment RULING:
and distribution of the residue among the heirs and
legatees. (Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 367.) No. Petitioner maintains that to proceed execute the deed of
absolute sale without the go-signal of the Probate Court is
to be recreant to his sworn duty as administrator, as well as
to render void his actuations done without the permission of
the Probate Court.

23
This contention is correct and is impressed with merit. fictitious sale to his daughter, Teresa Garin; having been
Inasmuch as the owner-seller of the property was already resorted to so that she might use the property to provide
deceased and there were proceedings in the Probate Court, for her children's support and education, with the
it was incumbent for the Probate Court to first give agreement that the fishpond should revert to Rafael Valera
authorization to administrator of the estate to deliver titles upon completion of the schooling of Teresa Garin's children.
of lots which had previously been sold. The decedent after
all, might be considered the alter ego of the Mother Earth Valera and his spouse Consolacio Sarosa and their child
Realty Development Corporation. The private complainant Teresa died. The heirs of Teresa, her husband Jose Garin
had been duly instructs by the accused herein to file the and their children, bought the fishpond, from the
proper petition or motion wit the Probate Court for delivery Government, acquiring title thereto.
of said title but said complainant for one reason or another,
disregarded said instructions. If at anybody should be In the proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate
blamed, it should be private complainant herself for her of the decedent spouses, Rafael Valera and Consolacion
failure to obtain the needed authorization fro the court. Sarrosa, the administrators claim that he fishpond should be
Indeed, questions of title to any property apparent still returned to the spouse’s estate
belonging to estate of the deceased may be passed upon in
the Probate Court, with consent of all the parties, without The Probate Court, presided over by Hon. Judge Adil, held
prejudice to third persons such as the herein private that there has been an implied trust created, therefore, the
complainant. In fact, third persons may even intervene in fishpond should be restored to the estate of the spouses
the testate or intestate proceedings to protect their interest. pursuant to Art 1453 and 1455 of the Civil Code. Pursuant
We uphold petitioner's contention therefore that if he had thereto, he directed the sheriff to enforce reconveyance of
proceeded to immediately cause the delivery of the title of the fishpond to the estate.
private complainant herein, he could have been held liable
for a blatant disregard of the jurisdiction and function of the The fishpond was leased by the Garin heirs to Fabiana, who
Probate Court. Truly, he was caught between the horns of a although willingly surrender it to the sheriff, later filed a
dilemma which was not of his own making. complaint-in-intervention with the Probate Court seeking
vindication of his right to the possession of the fishpond,
based on a contract of lease between himself, as lessee,
VALERA VS INSERTO and Jose Garin, as lessor. This was dismissed so he
instituted a separate action for injunction and damages
FACTS:
CA reversed (fishpond to be returned to Garin Heirs and
Rafael Valera was granted leasehold rights over an 18 their lessee Fabiana) saying that:
hectare fishpond in Iloilo by the Government to last during
his lifetime. He transferred all his leasehold rights by Probate Court has no jurisdiction

24
The title of the Garin heirs is a stronger claim that rebuts the final decision in a separate action that may be instituted
the presumption that the estate owns the fishpond and by the parties
That assuming the Probate Court had competence to
resolve ownership, a separate action has to be filed Since the determination by the Probate Court of the
question of title to the fishpond was merely provisional, not
ISSUE: binding on the property with any character of authority,
definiteness or permanence, having been made only for
WON the Probate Court had authority to order reconveyance purposes of inclusion in the inventory and upon evidence
of the fishpond adduced at the hearing of a motion, it cannot and should
not be subject of execution, as against its possessor who
HELD: has set up title in himself (or in another) adversely to the
decedent, and whose right to possess has not been
No. The Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), ventilated and adjudicated in an appropriate action. These
acting as a Probate Court, exercises but limited jurisdiction, considerations assume greater cogency where, as here, the
and thus has no power to take cognizance of and determine Torrens title to the property is not in the decedents' names
the issue of title to property claimed by a third person but in others
adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all the
Other parties having legal interest in the property consent, A separate action must be instituted by the administrator to
expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to recover the property
the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third
persons are not thereby prejudiced
LORENZO VS POSADAS
The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not call for the
application of the exception to the rule. It was at all times FACTS:
clear to the Court as well as to the parties that if cognizance
was being taken of the question of title over the fishpond, it Thomas Hanley died leaving a will and considerable
was not for the purpose of settling the issue definitely and amount of real and personal properties. A probate
permanently, and writing "finis" thereto, the question being proceeding of his will and the settlement and distribution of
explicitly left for determination "in an ordinary civil action," his estate were filed in the Court of First Instance of
but merely to determine whether it should or should not be Zamboanga. The will was admitted to probate. At the same
included in the inventory. This function of resolving time the , the government through the CIR assessed
whether or not the property should be included in the against the estate an inheritance tax in the amount of
inventory is one clearly within the probate court’s P1,434.24 which, together with the penalties for deliquency
competence, although the Court’s determination os merely in payment consisting of a 1 per cent monthly interest from
provisional in character , not conclusive, and is subject to

25
July 1, 1931 to the date of payment and a surcharge of 25 The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the
per cent on the tax, amounted to P2,052.74. death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had
executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before
ISSUE: his death."

(a) When does the inheritance tax accrue and when must it Whatever may be the time when actual transmission of the
be satisfied? inheritance takes place, succession takes place in any event
(b) Should the inheritance tax be computed on the basis of at the moment of the decedent's death. The time when the
the value of the estate at the time of the testator's death, or heirs legally succeed to the inheritance may differ from the
on its value ten years later? time when the heirs actually receive such
(c) What law governs the case at bar? Should the provisions inheritance.Thomas Hanley having died on May 27, 1922,
of Act No. 3606 favorable to the tax-payer be given the inheritance tax accrued as of the date.
retroactive effect?
(d) Has there been deliquency in the payment of the (b) The plaintiff contends that the estate of Thomas Hanley,
inheritance tax? If so, should the additional interest claimed in so far as the real properties are concerned, did not and
by the defendant in his appeal be paid by the estate? could not legally pass to the instituted heir, Matthew
Hanley, until after the expiration of ten years from the
RULING: death of the testator on May 27, 1922 and, that the
inheritance tax should be based on the value of the estate
(a) The accrual of the inheritance tax is distinct from the in 1932, or ten years after the testator's death. The plaintiff
obligation to pay the same. Section 1536 as amended, of introduced evidence tending to show that in 1932 the real
the Administrative Code, imposes the tax upon "every properties in question had a reasonable value of only
transmission by virtue of inheritance, devise, bequest, P5,787. This amount added to the value of the personal
gift mortis causa, or advance in anticipation of property left by the deceased, which the plaintiff admits is
inheritance,devise, or bequest." The tax therefore is upon P1,465, would generate an inheritance tax which, excluding
transmission or the transfer or devolution of property of a deductions, interest and surcharge, would amount only to
decedent, made effective by his death. (61 C. J., p. 1592.) about P169.52.
It is in reality an excise or privilege tax imposed on the right
to succeed to, receive, or take property by or under a will or If death is the generating source from which the power of
the intestacy law, or deed, grant, or gift to become the estate to impose inheritance taxes takes its being and if,
operative at or after death. According to article 657 of the upon the death of the decedent, succession takes place and
Civil Code, "the rights to the succession of a person are the right of the estate to tax vests instantly, the tax should
transmitted from the moment of his death." "In other be measured by the value of the estate as it stood at the
words", said Arellano, C. J., ". . . the heirs succeed time of the decedent's death, regardless of any subsequent
immediately to all of the property of the deceased ancestor. contingency value of any subsequent increase or decrease

26
in value. The right of the state to an inheritance tax accrues retroactively in conformity with the provisions of article 22
at the moment of death, and hence is ordinarily measured of the Revised Penal Code. Act No. 3606, (1) the surcharge
as to any beneficiary by the value at that time of such of 25 per cent is based on the tax only, instead of on both
property as passes to him. Subsequent appreciation or the tax and the interest, as provided for in Act No. 3031,
depriciation is immaterial." and (2) the taxpayer is allowed twenty days from notice and
demand by the CIR within which to pay the tax, instead of
Transmission by inheritance is taxable at the time of the ten days only as required by the old law.
predecessor's death, notwithstanding the postponement of
the actual possession or enjoyment of the estate by the (d) The plaintiff correctly states that the liability to pay a
beneficiary, and the tax measured by the value of the tax may arise at a certain time and the tax may be paid
property transmitted at that time regardless of its within another given time. As stated by this court, "the
appreciation or depreciation. mere failure to pay one's tax does not render one
delinquent until and unless the entire period has elapsed
(c) The defendant levied and assessed the inheritance tax within which the taxpayer is authorized by law to make such
due from the estate of Thomas Hanley under the provisions payment without being subjected to the payment of
of section 1544 of the Revised Administrative Code, as penalties for failure to pay his taxes within the prescribed
amended by section 3 of Act No. 3606. But Act No. 3606 period."
went into effect on January 1, 1930. It, therefore, was not
the law in force when the testator died on May 27, 1922. That taxes must be collected promptly is a policy deeply
The law at the time was section 1544 above-mentioned, as intrenched in our tax system. Thus, no court is allowed to
amended by Act No. 3031, which took effect on March 9, grant injunction to restrain the collection of any internal
1922. revenue tax.
The delinquency in payment occurred on March 10, 1924,
It is well-settled that inheritance taxation is governed by the the date when Moore became trustee. The interest due
statute in force at the time of the death of the decedent. should be computed from that date and it is error on the
The taxpayer can not foresee and ought not to be required part of the defendant to compute it one month later. The
to guess the outcome of pending measures. Of course, a tax provisions cases is mandatory , and neither the CITR or this
statute may be made retroactive in its operation. Liability court may remit or decrease such interest, no matter how
for taxes under retroactive legislation has been "one of the heavily it may burden the taxpayer. As the tax and interest
incidents of social life. But legislative intent that a tax due were not paid on that date, the estate became liable for
statute should operate retroactively should be perfectly the payment of the surcharge.
clear. The defendant Collector of Internal Revenue consider
the provisions of Act No. 3606 are more favorable to the
taxpayer than those of Act No. 3031, that said provisions
are penal in nature and, therefore, should operate

27
RULE 74 into a lawful contract of marriage, such testimonies shall
prevail. Since, no marriage had occurred between the two,
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF the estate must be settled in different proceedings.
DELGADO Therefore, dela Rosa cannot be appointed as the sole
administrator of the estate of the deceased.
FACTS:

On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado, the sister of Josefa, filed a VDA DA REYES VS CA
Petition on Letters of Administration of the estate July 26, 1991
of deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia
(died 1972 and 1974 respectively). Such letter was opposed FACTS:
by Marciana Rustia, a sister of Guillermo, claiming that they
should be the beneficiaries of the estate. The trial court During his lifetime, one Gavino Reyes owned a parcel of
then allowed Guillerma Rustia, a legitimate child land of approximately 70 hectares, more or less, located at
of Guillermo, to intervene in the case as she claimed that Sangayad, Ulong-Tubig, Carmona, Cavite. He sought to
she possessed the status of an acknowledged legitimate bring said land under the operation of the Torrens System
natural child, hence, she should be the sole heir of the of registration of property. Unfortunately, he died in 1921
estate. Later, Luisa Delgado said that the spouses were without the title having been issued to him. The application
living together without marriage. Luisa Delgado died and was prosecuted by his son, Marcelo Reyes, who was the
was substituted dela Rosa (herein petitioner) in this case. administrator of his property.
The RTC appointed dela Rosa as the administrator of In 1936, the property was subdivided by Gavino’s heirs.
the estates of the deceased. However, the heirs did not knew that a Original Certificate
of Title No. 255 was issued on 1941 and was kept by Juan
ISSUE: Poblete, son-in-law of Marcelo Reyes. In 1967, the heirs of
Gavino Reyes executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
Whether or not dela Rosa should be the sole administrator of Estate based on the aforestated subdivision plan. As a
of the estate noting that Josefa and Guillermo did not result of the Extrajudicial Settlement, OCT RO-255 was
contract marriage. cancelled and in lieu thereof, several transfer certificates of
title covering the subdivided lots were issued in the names
RULING: of the respective adjudicatees.

The Court held, through the testimonies of the witnesses, After obtaining the Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot No. 1-
that marriage between Josefa and Guillermo never A-14 from Hebron, petitioners, as successors-in-interest of
occurred. Although it is presumed that a man and a woman Rafael Reyes, Jr., filed on 14 March 1983 with the Regional
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered Trial Court against private respondents for recovery of

28
possession or, in the alternative, for indemnification, against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve
accounting and damages. They allege therein that after as constructive notice to others. It follows then that the
"having definitely discovered that they are the lawful intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the
owners of the property," (Lot No. 1-A-14), they, "including prescribed formalities does not come into play when there
Rafael Reyes, Jr., during his lifetime, made repeated are no creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected.
demands to defendants to surrender the possession of and
vacate the parcel of land belonging to the former, but Where no such rights are involved, it is competent for the
defendants refused to vacate and surrender the possession heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution
of the said land to herein plaintiffs;" the last of the demands in a manner and upon a plan different from those provided
was allegedly made on 8 October 1982. They further allege by law. There is nothing in said section from which it can be
that they have been deprived by said defendants of the inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential
rightful possession and enjoyment of the property since requisite to the validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral
September 1969. partition is valid. Additionally, the validity of such oral
partition in 1936 has been expressly sustained by this Court
The RTC ruled that the continued possession by private in the Resolution of 20 August 1990 in G.R. No. 92811.
respondents, which it found to have started in 1943, did not
ripen into ownership because at that time, the property was But even if We are to assume arguendo that the oral
already registered, hence it cannot be acquired by partition executed in 1936 was not valid for some reason or
prescription or adverse possession. In CA, reversed the another, We would still arrive at the same conclusion for
decision. upon the death of Gavino Reyes in 1921, his heirs
automatically became co-owners of his 70-hectare parcel of
ISSUE: land. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent. The estate of the
WON the partition is valid. decedent would then be held in co-ownership by the heirs.
The co-heir or co-owner may validly dispose of his share or
RULING: interest in the property subject to the condition that the
portion disposed of is eventually allotted to him in the
Yes, the partition made by the children of Gavino Reyes in division upon termination of the co-ownership.
1936, although oral, was valid and binding. There is no law
that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be
valid. In Hernandez vs. Andal, this Court, interpreting
Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, held that the
requirement that a partition be put in a public document
and registered has for its purpose the protection of creditors
and at the same time the protection of the heirs themselves

29
PEDROSA, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS ISSUES:

FACTS: Whether or not the complaint for annulment of the “Deed of


Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition” had already
Miguel Rodriguez died intestate survived by his wife prescribed and Whether or not said deed is valid
Rosalina and their legally adopted daughter Maria Pedrosa,
the petitioner. Rosalina and Maria entered into an extra RULING:
judicial settlement of his estate. The other Private
respondents, the Rodriguezes, however filed an action an No. The complaint for the annulment has not prescribed
action to annul Maria’s adoption which the CFI upheld. It
was also appealed to the Court of Appeals which also upheld Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides for a two
the adoption as legal. year prescriptive period: (1) to persons who have
participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial
In the meantime, Pilar, the sister of Miguel also passed partition, and in addition (2) when the provisions of Section
away with no other heirs but her brothers and sisters, the Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all the
private respondents who then entered into an extrajudicial persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the
settlement with respondent Rosalina for the partition of the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by themselves or
estate of Miguel and of his sister, Pilar. Rosalina acted as through guardians.
the representative of the heirs of Miguel Rodriguez. The
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition covered Petitioner did not participate in the extrajudicial
fourteen parcels of land covering a total area of 224,883 partition. So the two-year prescriptive period is not
square meters. These properties were divided among Jose, applicable in her case. The applicable prescriptive period
Carmen, Mercedes, Ramon and the heirs of Miguel, here is four (4) years as provided in Gerona vs. De
represented solely by Rosalina. Armed with the Deed of Guzman, 11 SCRA 153 (1964), which held that: [The action
Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition, respondents to annul] a deed of “extrajudicial settlement” upon the
Rodriguez were able to secure new Transfer Certificates of ground of fraud...may be filed within four years from the
Title (TCTs) and were able to transfer some parcels to the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have
other respondents herein. taken place when said instrument was filed with the
Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in
Petitioner Maria tried to claim their share of the properties the name of respondents exclusively.
and after being unable to do so, filed a complaint to annul
the partition. Her complaint was dismissed by the RTC and It is clear that Section 1 of Rule 74 does not apply to the
on appeal was also dismissed by the CA. partition in question which was null and void as far as the
plaintiffs were concerned. The rule covers only valid
partitions. The partition in the present case was invalid

30
because it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled CUA VS VARGAS
to equal shares in the partitioned property. Under the rule, (please refer to Ate Devie’s handwritten file)
“no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any
person who has not participated therein or had no notice TEVES vs. CA
thereof.” As the partition was a total nullity and did not
affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial FACTS:
court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had
prescribed after two years from its execution in 1941. As to Spouses Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves died
the next issue, the deed of partition is not valid. No intestate and without debts in 1943 and 1953, respectively.
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person They had nine children, namely Teotimo, Felicia, Pedro,
who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. Andres, Asuncion, Gorgonio, Cresenciano, Arcadia and
Maria.
Under Rule 74, without the participation of all persons
involved in the proceedings, the extrajudicial settlement During their lifetime, the spouses own two parcels of land
cannot be binding on said persons. The rule contemplates a designated as Lot 769-A registered in the name of Marcelina
notice which must be sent out or issued before the Deed of and Lot 6409 registered in the name of Joaquin and his two
Settlement and/or Partition is agreed upon, i.e., a notice sisters. However, Joaquins sisters died without issue,
calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of causing the entire property to pass to him.
extrajudicial settlement and partition, not after, which was
when publication was done in the instant case. Following After Marcelina and Joaquin died, their children executed
Rule 74 and the ruling in Beltran vs. Ayson, since Maria extrajudicial settlements entitled EXTRA-JUDICIAL
Elena did not participate in the said partition, the settlement SETTLEMENT AND SALE purporting to adjudicate unto
is not binding on her. themselves the ownership over the two parcels of land and
to alienate their shares thereto in favor of their sister
The provision of Section 4, Rule 74 will also not apply when Asuncion Teves for a consideration of Php425 and Php80.
the deed of extrajudicial partition is sought to be annulled
on the ground of fraud. A deed of extrajudicial partition The division of Lot 769-A was embodied in two deeds. The
executed without including some of the heirs, who had no first Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale was entered
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and into on June 13, 1956 while the second deed was executed
vicious. Maria Elena is an heir of Miguel together with her on April 21, 1959. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and
adopting mother, Rosalina. Being the lone descendant of Sale covering Lot 6409 was executed on December 14,
Miguel, she excludes the collateral relatives of Miguel from 1971.
participating in his estate, following the provisions of Article
1003 of the Civil Code

31
After the death of Asuncion Teves, her children, private such rights. Thereafter, the trial court ruled in favor of
respondents herein, extrajudicially settled her property, private respondents and upheld the validity of the
adjudicating unto themselves said lots. extrajudicial settlements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial courts decision with a slight modification.
On May 9, 1984, herein petitioners, heirs of Marcelina and
Joaquin, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of ISSUES:
Negros Occidental against private respondents for the
partition and reconveyance of the aforesaid parcels of land, WON THE EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENTS EXECUTED BY
alleging that the extrajudicial settlements in favor of their THE HEIRS OF JOAQUIN AND MARCELINA CIMAFRANCA ARE
mother, Asuncion, were spurious - VALID AND BINDING? DOES THE FACT THAT IT IS
UNREGISTERED MAKE IT BINDING STILL? DID LACHES
Maria Teves alleges forgery since she always signs using her BAR THE PARTITION?
husband's family name name;
The children of Pedro Teves, Felicia Teves and Gorgonio HELD:
Teves also alleged that the signature of their parents are all
forgeries. ALL YES.

Erasure of the word "quitclaim" is superimposed with the The extrajudicial settlements executed by the heirs of
word "sale" in handwriting. Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca are legally valid
and binding. The extrajudicial settlement of a decedents
The consideration of "One peso" stated in the document is estate is authorized by Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of
intercalated with the word "hundred" in handwriting. Court. Thus, for a partition pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 74
to be valid, the following conditions must concur: (1) the
The thumbmark imposed on the name of Gorgonio Teves decedent left no will; (2) the decedent left no debts, or if
does not actually belong to Gorgonio Teves who was an there were debts left, all had been paid; (3) the heirs are all
educated man and skilled in writing according to his of age, or if they are minors, the latter are represented by
daughter. their judicial guardian or legal representatives; (4) the
Private respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the partition was made by means of a public instrument or
assailed documents were executed with the formalities affidavit duly filed with the Register of Deeds.
required by law and are therefore binding and legally
effective as bases for acquiring ownership over the lots in In order to overthrow a certificate of a notary public to the
question. effect that the grantor executed a certain document and
acknowledged the fact of its execution before him, mere
Furthermore, it is contended that petitioners have slept on preponderance of evidence will not suffice. Rather, the
their rights and should now be deemed to have abandoned evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to

32
exclude all reasonable dispute as to the falsity of the No explanation was offered by plaintiffs-appellants as to
certificate. When the evidence is conflicting, the certificate why they instituted the present action questioning the
will be upheld. The appellate courts ruling that the evidence extrajudicial settlements only in 1984, which is more than
presented by plaintiffs-appellants does not constitute the 25 years after the assailed conveyance of Lot 769-A and
clear, strong, and convincing evidence necessary to more than 10 years after the issuance of a transfer
overcome the positive value of the extrajudicial settlements certificate of title over Lot 6409, both in favor of Asuncion
executed by the parties, all of which are public documents, Teves. Such tardiness indubitably constitutes laches, which
being essentially a finding of fact, is entitled to great is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a
respect by the appellate court and should not be disturbed reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
on appeal entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it. Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs-appellants
With regards to the requisite of registration of extrajudicial had a defensible cause of action, they are barred from
settlements, it is noted that the extrajudicial settlements pursuing the same by reason of their long and inexcusable
covering Lot 769-A were never registered. However, in the inaction.
case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the Court, interpreting
Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, upheld the PEZA v. FERNANDEZ
validity of an oral partition of the decedents estate and GR No. 138971
declared that the non-registration of an extrajudicial
settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity. It was held in FACTS:
this case that - [t]he requirement that a partition be put in
a public document and registered has for its purpose the Lot 4673 was registered in the names of Florentina Rapaya,
protection of creditors and at the same time the protection Victorino Cuizon among others covered by an OCT.
of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The object of Sometime thereafter, Jorgea Igot-Soro ño et al executed an
registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. It Extra-judicial Partition claiming to be the only surviving
follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not heirs of the registered owners, through which they were
executed with the prescribed formalities does not come into issued a TCT. Said lot was among the object of an
play when there are no creditors or the rights of creditors expropriation proceeding before the RTC. Said RTC
are not affected. Where no such rights are involved, it is approved the compromise Agreement b/w the Export
competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) and Igot-Soroño et al
agreement for distribution in a manner and upon a plan wherein EPZA would pay a certain amount in exchange for
different from those provided by law. Thus, despite its non- the subject property. PEZA acquired title to said land by
registration, the extrajudicial settlements involving Lot 769- virtue of the RTC decision and was issued a corresponding
A are legally effective and binding among the heirs of TCT. The Heirs of the Florentina Rapaya and Juan Cuizon
Marcelina Cimafranca since their mother had no creditors at filed a complaint to nullify several documents including the
the time of her death. TCT issued to EPZA for they were excluded from the

33
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. PEZA filed a motion to HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI and ROSARIO CUARIO v.
dismiss on the ground of prescription and was denied thus COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA S. REYES as Attorney-
elevated the case to the CA wherein the CA ruled that the in-Fact of JOSEFINA S. REYES, et al.
heirs of Igot-Soroño defrauded the other heirs by falsely G.R. No. 118464 December 21, 1998
representing that they were the only heirs enabling them to
appropriate the land in favor of EPZA. This method of FACTS:
acquiring property created a constructive trust in favor of
the defrauded party and grants them the right to vindicate Lourdes Sampayo and Ignacio Conti, married to Rosario
regardless of the lapse of time. Thus, the case at bar. Cuado, were the co-owners of a property. Thereafter,
Lourdes died intestate without issue. Subsequently, private
ISSUE: respondents, all claiming to be collateral relatives of the
deceased Lourdes Sampayo, filed an action for partition
Whether private respondent’s claim over the expropriated (under Art. 494 of the Civil Code) and damages. After trial,
land has prescribed? the trial court declared private respodents as the rightful
heirs of Lourdes Sampayo. It further ordered private
RULING: respondents and petitioners to submit a project of partition
of the residential house and lot for confirmation by the
Yes. As provided under the Rules of Court, persons unduly court.
deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may
assert their claim only w/in the 2-year period after the The Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed RTC decision and
settlement and distribution of the estate. However, this further held that a prior and separate judicial declaration of
prescriptive period will not apply to those who had not been heirship was not necessary and that private respondents
notified of the settlement. The Private respondents are became the co-owners of the portion of the property owned
deemed to have been notified of the extrajudicial settlement and registered in the name of Lourdes Sampayo upon her
since it was registered and annotated on the certificate of death and, consequently, entitled to the immediate
title over the lot. The only exception to this rule is when the possession thereof and all other incidents/rights of
title still remains in the hands of the heirs who have ownership as provided for by law, including the right to
fraudulently caused the partition of the said property. In the demand partition under Art. 777 of the Civil Code, holding
case at bar, the title has already passed to an innocent that the property belongs to the heirs at the moment of
purchaser for value, the gov’t through EPZA. Their remedies death of the decedent, as completely as if he had executed
of action for reconveyance resulting from fraud, and action and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death.
for reconveyance based on an implied constructive trust has
already prescribed as well the former having prescribed 4 Petitioners, however, pursued the present case arguing that
years from the discovery and the latter prescribing 10 years a complaint for partition to claim a supposed share of the
from the alleged fraudulent registration. deceased co-owner cannot prosper without prior settlement

34
of the deceased's estate and compliance with all legal LITONJUA VS MONTILLA
requirements especially publication.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
In Civil Case No. 868 of the Court of First Instance of
Is prior settlement of the estate and publication essential Negros Occidental, Pedro L. Litonjua obtained a judgment
before the heirs can commence any action of partition against Claudio Montilla for the payment of the sum of
pertaining to the property co-owned by the deceased? P4,000 with legal interest, plus costs amounting to P39.00.
In due time, a writ of execution was issued, but no property
HELD: of Claudio Montilla was found which could be levied upon.

No. In conjunction with Arts. 777 and 494 of the Civil Code, On June 12, 1950, Pedro L. Litonjua filed in Special
from the death of Lourdes Sampayo her rights as a co- Proceeding No. 532 of the Court of First Instance of Negros
owner, incidental to which is the right to ask for partition at Occidental, Intestate Estate of Agustin Montilla, Sr.,
any time or to terminate the co-ownership, were deceased, a motion praying that the interest, property and
transmitted to her rightful heirs. In so demanding partition participation of Claudio Montilla, one of the heirs of Agustin
private respondents merely exercised the right originally Montilla, Sr., in the latter's intestate estate be sold and out
pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-interest. of the proceeds the judgment debt of Ciaudio Montilla in
favor of Pedro L. Litonjua be paid. This motion was opposed
Petitioners' theory as to the requirement of publication by Claudio Montilla and by Agustin Montilla, Jr.,
would have been correct had the action been for the administrator of the intestate estate.
partition of the estate of Lourdes Sampayo, or if we were
dealing with extrajudicial settlement by agreement between On August 7, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Negros
heirs and the summary settlement of estates of small value Occidental issued an order denying the motion. From this
(under Rule 73). But what private respondents are pursuing order Pedro L. Litonjua appealed. In the case of Ortiga
is the mere segregation of Lourdes' one-half share which Brothers & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico, 18 Phil. 345,
they inherited; from her through intestate succession. This
is a simple case of ordinary partition between co-owners
under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court and not Rule 73, the ISSUE:
latter requiring publication.
W/N the creditor of the heirs of a deceased person is
entitles to collect his claim out of the property which
pertains by inheritance to said heirs?

35
RULING: inherited by such widow and heirs, but it is no less true that
only after all the debts of the said estate have been paid
Yes. can it be known what net remainder will be left for division
among the heirs, because the debts of the deceased must
It was held that the creditor of the heirs of a deceased be paid before his heirs can inherit. (Arts. 659 et seq. 1026,
person is entitled to collect his claim out of the property 1027, and 1032 of the Civil Code, and secs. 734 et seq.,
which pertains by inheritance to said heirs, only after all the Code of Civil Procedure.)
debts of the testate or intestate succession have been paid
and when the net assets that are divisible among the heirs "An execution can, not legally be levied upon the property
are known, because the debts of the deceased must first be of an intestate succession to pay the debts of the widow and
paid before his heirs can inherit. It was therein also held heirs of tha deceased, until the credits held against the
that a person who is not a creditor of a deceased, testate or latter at the time of his death shall have been paid, and only
intestate, has no right to intervene either in the proceedings after the debts of the estate have been paid can the
brought in connection with the estate or in the settlement of remaining property that pertains to the said debtor heirs be
the succession. We quote hereunder pertinent passages of attached (Art. 1034, aforecited, Civil Code.)" (pp. 350-51)
the decision: The foregoing pronouncements are perfectly applicable to
the case at bar, because the appellant is not a creditor of
"A person who, having a claim against a deceased person the deceased Agustin Montilla, Sr. and he seeks to collect
which should be considered by the committee does not, his claim out of the inheritance of Claudio Montilla, an heir,
after publication of the required notice, exhibit his claim to before the net assets of the intestate estate have been
the committee as provided by law, shall be barred from determined.
recovering such demand or from pleading the same as an
offset to any action, under the provisions of section 695 of Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed, and it is so
the Code of Civil Procedure, excepting the case referred to ordered with costs against the appellant.
in section 701 of the same; with still less reason can one
who is not a creditor of the said deceased intervene in the
proceedings relative to the latter's intestate estate and to AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY VS CA
the settlement of his succession (article 1034 of the Civil G.R.No. 128102
Code), because such creditor has no right or interest that March 7, 2000
call for the protection of the law and the courts, except in
any remainder which may be found due the heir. FACTS:

"It is true that Yap Tico, as the creditor of the widow and The subject lot with 34,325 square meter was acquired by
heirs of the deceased Ildefonso, is entitled to collect what is AZNAR from the heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on by virtue of an
due him out of the property left by the latter and which was extrajudicial partition of real estate with deed of absolute

36
sake. After its registration with the Register of deeds of latter shall be proportionately obliged to pay to the person
Lapu-Lapu City and sale, AZNAR declared this property omitted the share which belongs to him." In the present
under its name. then it was alleged that the private case, no evidence of bad faith or fraud is extant from the
respondents in this case were allowed to occupy some records. As to the two parties to the deed who were
portions of the property by mere tolerance on the condition allegedly not heirs, Article 1105 is in point; it provides: "A
that they will leave once the company uses the land for its partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but
purpose. AZNAR then entered into a joint venture with Sta. who is not, shall be void only with respect to such person."
Lucia Realty Development Corp. for the development of the In other words, the participation of non-heirs does not
land. The private respondents refused to vacate the render the partition void in its entirety but only to the
premises, prompting AZNAR to file a case for unlawful extent corresponding to them.
detainer and damages. Private respondents rebutted that
they are the successors and descendants of the eight It is worthy to note that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed
children of Crisanta Maloloy-on, and that the extrajudicial of Absolute Sale is a notarized document. As such, it has in
partition of real estate with deed of absolute sale is void ab its favor the presumption of regularity, and it carries the
initio. They filed a case with the RTC for annulment of said evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due
document. The MTCC ordered private respondents to vacate execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof
the premises. Aggrieved, they appealed to RTC, to which of authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon
the court affirmed the decision of the MTCC. The decision its face. Private respondents failed to discharge this burden
was appealed to the CA and the CA reversed the ruling, of proof; hence, the presumption in favor of the questioned
reasoning that private respondents have already been in the deed stands.
possession of the land since time immemorial. The CA also Anent the non-annotation of the Extrajudicial Partition with
reasons that not all heirs have participated in the document, Deed of Absolute Sale in the reconstituted Original
hence it is not valid. Certificate of Title No. RO-2856, the same does not render
the deed legally defective. It must be borne in mind that the
ISSUE: act of registering a document is never necessary to give the
conveyance legal effect as between the parties and the
Is the Extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale vendor's heirs. As between the parties to a sale, registration
valid? is not indispensable to make it valid and effective. The
peculiar force of a title is exhibited only when the purchaser
RULING: has sold to innocent third parties the land described in the
conveyance.
Yes. Under Article 1104 of the Civil Code, "[a] partition
made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall
not be rescinded, unless it be proved that there was bad
faith or fraud on the part of the persons interested; but the

37
RALLA VS UNTALAN Consequently, the court, through Judge Perfecto Quicho,
declared Pedro and Pablo Ralla the only heirs of Rosendo
FACTS: Ralla who should share equally upon the division of the
latter's estate, and thereupon converted the testate
Rosendo Ralla, a widower, filed a petition for the probate of proceedings into one of intestacy.
his own will in the then Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Albay (Special Proceedings No. Meanwhile, the brothers agreed to compromise in the
564). In his will he left his entire estate to his son, Pablo partition case (Civil Case No. 2023). On December 18,
(the petitioner herein who, upon his death during the 1967, they entered into a project of partition whereby sixty-
pendency of this petition, was substituted by his heirs), three parcels of land, apparently forming the estate of their
leaving nothing to his other son, Pedro. deceased mother, Paz Escarella, were amicably divided
between the two of them. This project of partition was
In the same year, Pedro Ralla filed an action for the approved on December 19,1967
partition of the estate of their mother, Paz Escarella,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2023. Eleven years later, or on February 28, 1978, Joaquin
Chancoco, brother-in- law of the petitioner (Pablo) filed a
In the course of the hearing of the probate case (Special petition, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1106, for the
Proceedings No. 564), Pablo Ralla filed a motion to dismiss probate of the same will of Rosendo Ralla on the ground
the petition for probate on the ground that he was no longer that the decedent owed him P5,000.00. Pablo Ralla then
interested in the allowance of the will of his late father, filed a manifestation stating that he had no objections to the
Rosendo Ralla, for its probate would no longer be beneficial probate; thereafter, he filed a "Motion to Intervene as
and advantageous to him. Petitioner for the Probate of the Will." This motion was
granted despite the written opposition of the heirs of Pedro
This motion was denied. The Court of Appeals agreed with Ralla. Likewise, the petition for probate was granted;
the lower court's conclusion that, indeed, the petitioner Teodorico Almine, son-in-law of the petitioner, was
stood to gain if the testate proceedings were to be appointed special administrator.
dismissed because then he would not be compelled to
submit for inclusion in the inventory of the estate of However, in taking possession of the properties belonging to
Rosendo Ralla 149 parcels of land from which he alone had the estate of Rosendo Ralla, Teodorico Almine also took
been collecting rentals and receiving income, to the possession of the sixty-three parcels of land covered by the
exclusion and prejudice of his brother, Pedro Ralla, who was project of partition mentioned earlier. Consequently, the
being deprived of his successional rights over the said heirs of Pedro Ralla (the private respondents herein) moved
properties. to exclude from the estate of Rosendo Ralla the aforesaid
parcels of land.

38
Judge Romulo P. Untalan ruled, that the sixty-three (63) upon their motion Judge Ezekiel Grageda declared the
parcels referred to therein should be excluded from the partition case closed and terminated in its Order of
probate proceedings and, likewise from the administration December 29, 1967; there was no appeal made from this
of Special Administrator Teodorico Almine, Jr. decision within the reglementary period to do so,
consequently, it attained finality.
ISSUE:
Where a partition had not only been approved and thus
WON the 63 parcels of land be excluded in the probate of become a judgment of the court, but distribution of the
the will if Rosendo Ralla estate in pursuance of such partition had fully been carried
out, and the heirs had received the property assigned to
HELD: them, they are precluded from subsequently attacking its
validity or any part of it.
The 63 parcels of land should be excluded. The
aforementioned partition was made in the civil case for The partition in Civil Case No. 2023 is valid and binding
partition of the estate of Paz Escarella, which is distinct upon the petitioner and Pedro Ralla, as well as upon their
from, and independent of, the special proceedings for the heirs, especially as this was accompanied by delivery of
probate of the will of Rosendo Ralla. possession to them of their respective shares in the
inheritance from their mother, the late Paz Escarella. They
There can be no valid partition among the heirs till after the are duty bound to respect the division agreed upon by them
will has been probated. This, of course, presupposes that and embodied in the document of partition.
the properties to be partitioned are the same properties
embraced in the will. Thus the rule invoked is inapplicable in Thus, the petitioner could no longer question the exclusion
this instance where there are two separate cases (Civil Case of the lands subject of the partition from the proceedings for
No. 2023 for partition, and Special Proceedings No. 564 the settlement of the estate of Rosendo Ralla
originally for the probate of a will), each involving the estate
of a different person (Paz Escarella and Rosendo Ralla,
respectively) comprising dissimilar properties. MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA, vs. CA, G.R.
The properties involved in the present petition were the No. 118680 March 5, 2001
subject of the project of partition signed by both the
petitioner, Pablo Ralla, and Pedro Ralla in Civil Case No. FACTS:
2023; the lower court approved the said project of partition
on December 19, 1967; subsequently, Pablo and Pedro Spouses Miguel Rodriguez and Rosalina J. de Rodriguez
Ralla jointly manifested that they had already received "the initiated proceedings before the CFI of Ozamiz City for the
ownership and possession of the respective parcels of land legal adoption of herein petitioner, Maria Elena Rodriguez
adjudicated to them in the said project of partition," and

39
Pedrosa which the CFI granted the petition and declared are not present in her case,12 since she did not participate in
petitioner Pedrosa the adopted child of Miguel and Rosalina. the "Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition." And no
knowledge and consent to the same, is therefore fraudulent.
Thereafter Miguel the adoptive father died intestate. She asserts that she is an adoptive daughter and thus an
Petitioner and Rosalina, the widow entered into an heir of Miguel. The applicable prescriptive period here is four
extrajudicial settlement of Miguel's estate, adjudicating (4) years. The action to annul] a deed of "extrajudicial
between themselves in equal proportion the estate of settlement" upon the ground of fraud...may be filed
Miguel. However, the siblings of Miguel filed an action to within four years from the discovery of the fraud. Such
annul the adoption of petitioner before the CFI of Ozamiz discovery is deemed to have taken place when said
City. CFI denied the petition and upheld the validity of the instrument was filed with the Register of Deeds and new
adoption. Respondent filed and appeal, while said appeal certificates of title were issued in the name of respondents
was pending, the Rodriguezes entered into an extrajudicial exclusively.
settlement with respondent Rosalina for the partition of the
estate of Miguel. Moreover,a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and
ISSUE: consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.23 Maria
Elena and Rosalina, the adopting mother are heirs of
(1) whether or not the complaint for annulment of the Miguel and as such, a lone descendant of Miguel, she
"Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition" had already excludes the collateral relatives of Miguel from participating
prescribed; in his estate. The private respondent Rodriguezes cannot
(2) whether or not said deed is valid; and claim that they were not aware of Maria Elena's adoption
(3) whether or not the petitioner is entitled to recover the since they even filed an action to annul the decree of
lots which had already been transferred to the respondent adoption. The decree of adoption was valid and existing.
buyers. With this factual setting, it is patent that private
respondents executed the deed of partition in bad faith with
RULING: intent to defraud Maria Elena.

Petitioner argues that the complaint for annulment of the


extrajudicial partition has not yet prescribed since the BENATIRO VS HEIRS OF CUYOS
prescriptive period which should be applied is four years.
She also avers that Sec. 4, Rule 74 which provides for a FACTS:
two-year prescriptive period needs two requirements. One,
the party assailing the partition must have been given On July 13, 1971, one of the heirs, Gloria Cuyos-Talian
notice, and two, the party assailing the partition must have (respondent Gloria) represented by Atty.Victor Elliot Lepiten
participated therein. Petitioner insists these requirements (Atty. Lepiten), filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI)

40
now Regional Trial Court(RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, a petition that only six outof the nine heirs attended the conference,
for Letters of Administration, docketed as Special thus, effectively depriving the other heirs of their chance
Proceeding (SP) No.24-BN entitled "In the Matter of the to beheard. The CFI's action was tantamount to a violation
Intestate Estate of Evaristo Cuyos, Gloria Cuyos-Talian, of the constitutional guarantee that no person shallbe
petitioner." deprived of property without due process of law. We find
that the assailed Order dated December 16,1976, which
The petition was opposed by Gloria’s brother, Francisco, approved a void Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment
who was represented by Atty. Jesus Yray. for lack of due process.

In the hearing held on January 30, 1973, both parties RODRIGUEZ VS TAN
together with their respective counsels appeared. Both G.R. No. L-6044 November 24, 1952
counsels manifested that the parties had come to an
agreement to settle their case. The trial courton even date FACTS:
issued an Order appointing Gloria as administratrix of the
estate. Subsequently, the respondents questioned the said It is averred in the petition that Flaviano Rodriguez died on
Compromise Agreement for they did not give their consent February 8, 1944, at Parañaque, Rizal, leaving an estate
and participation. The petitioners claimed that they were with a value of P10,000; that the surviving heirs are the
constructively notified through publication. widow, Fortunata Vda. de Rodriguez, and six children who
are the petitioners and respondent Abelardo Rodriguez all
ISSUE: the heirs, who were then already of age, entered into a
verbal agreement whereby they agreed not to make a
WON the said agreement is binding to the heirs who did not liquidation of the estate but to place it under the
consent to the Agreement? administration of the widow with the understanding that
each of the six children would be entitled to receive a
HELD: portion of the income in equal shares from year to year for
the needs of their families provided that they do not exceed
No. Said agreement is not binding upon those heirs who did the participation to which they are entitled;
not give their consent to saidagreement. The Supreme
Court held as follows: On March 19, 1952, or eight years after the death of
Flaviano Rodriguez, respondent Abelardo Rodriguez filed a
We also find nothing in the records that would show that the petition for administration of their intestate estate of said
heirs were called to a hearing to validate theReport. The CFI deceased in spite of his knowledge that the estate had no
adopted and approved the Report despite the absence of debts and all the heirs were of age. On June 2, 1952, the
the signatures of all the heirsshowing conformity thereto. petitioners objected to the petition invoking the rule that if
The CFI adopted the Report despite the statement therein the estate is free from obligations and the heirs are all of

41
age, no administration proceedings shall be allowed. The of the estate. It is claimed that Abelardo Rodriguez was
CFI respondent Judge appointed Abelardo Rodriguez appointed administrator without the petitioners having been
administrator of the estate upon filing the requisite bond. given an opportunity to be heard. The respondent judge
finds that Abelardo appears to be qualified to act as
ISSUE: administrator of the estate of the deceased Flaviano
Rodriguez and does not possess any of the disqualifications.
WON the respondent judge erred in maintaining the Moreover, he is one of the heirs left by the deceased.
administration proceedings and in appointing Abelardo Inasmuch as one of the oppositors appear to be more
Rodriguez as administrator of the estate notwithstanding qualified to act as administrator of the estate, the court is
the fact that the estate has no debts and all the heirs inclined to grant the petition presented by Abelardo
entitled to share in its distribution are all of age. Rodriguez.

RULING:
HERNANDEZ VS ANDAL
No. Section 1 of Rule 74 does not preclude the heirs from G.R. No. L-273, March 29, 1947
instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate
has no debts or obligations, if they do not desire to resort FACTS:
for good reasons to an ordinary action of partition. While
section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among Cresencia, Maria, Aquilina, Pedro and Basilia Hernandez are
themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary brother and sisters, who acquired in common a parcel of
action of partition, it does not compel them to do so if they land from their deceased father. Maria and
have good reasons to take a different course of action. Said Aquilina sold to the spouses Andal a portion thereof, which
section is not mandatory or compulsory as may be gleaned they purport to be their combined shares by virtue of a
from the use made therein of the word may. If the intention verbal partition made among the siblings Hernandez. After
were otherwise the framer of the rule would have employed the sale, Cresencia attempted to repurchase the land sold to
the word shall as was done in other provisions that are Andal but the latter refused to sell the same. Later, Andal
mandatory in character. Note that the word may is used not resold the same to Maria and Aquilina. Maria and
only once but in the whole section which indicates an Aquilina alleged that there had been an oral partition among
intention to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the them and their brother and sisters, and that there are
heirs. witnesses ready to prove such partition. However, Cresencia
asserted that under the Rules of Court, parol evidence of
In this particular case, however, we find that the core of partition is inadmissible.
petitioners' objection is not that the heirs have erroneously
instituted these administration proceedings but that the
court erred in appointing Abelardo Rodriguez administrator

42
ISSUE: creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected. No
rights of creditors being involved, it is competent for
Whether or not oral evidence is admissible in proving a the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for
contract of partition among heirs distribution in a manner and upon a plan different from
those provided by law. Judgment reversed.
RULING:

As a general proposition, transactions, so far as they affect YAP VS CA


the parties, are required to be reduced to writing either as a (please refer to Ate Devie’s handwritten file)
condition of jural validity or as a means of
providing evidence to prove the transactions. Written form
exacted by the statute of frauds, for example, “is for RULE 75
evidential purposes only.” The Civil Code, too, requires the
accomplishment of acts or contracts in a public instrument, PASTOR VS CA
not in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure (supra)
its efficacy so that after the existence of the acts or RULING:
contracts has been admitted, the party bound may be
compelled to execute the document. It must be noted that No.
where the law intends a writing or other formality to be the
essential requisite to the validity of the transactions it says Issue of Intrinsic Validity of the Holographic Will –
so in clear and unequivocal terms.
(a) When PASTOR, SR. died in 1966, he was survived by his
wife, aside from his two legitimate children and one
Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court contains no such
illegitimate son. There is therefore a need to liquidate the
express or clear declaration that the required public
conjugal partnership and set apart the share of PASTOR,
instruments is to be constitutive of a contract of partition or
SR.'s wife in the conjugal partnership preparatory to the
an inherent element of its effectiveness as between the
administration and liquidation of the estate of PASTOR, SR.
parties. The requirement that a partition be put in a public
which will include, among others, the determination of the
document and registered has for its
extent of the statutory usufructuary right of his wife until
purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the
her death. * When the disputed Probate order was issued
protection of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The
on December 5, 1972, there had been no liquidation of the
object of registration is to serve as constructive
community properties of PASTOR, SR. and his wife.
notice. It must follow that the intrinsic validity of partition
not executed with the prescribed formalities does not come
(b) So, also, as of the same date, there had been no prior
into play when, as in this case, there are no
definitive determination of the assets of the estate of

43
PASTOR, SR. There was an inventory of his properties
presumably prepared by the special administrator, but it (a) Without a final, authoritative adjudication of the issue as
does not appear that it was ever the subject of a hearing or to what properties compose the estate of PASTOR, SR. in
that it was judicially approved. The reconveyance or the face of conflicting claims made by heirs and a non-heir
recovery of properties allegedly owned but not in the name (MA. ELENA ACHAVAL DE PASTOR) involving properties not
of PASTOR, SR. was still being litigated in another court. in the name of the decedent, and in the absence of a
resolution on the intrinsic validity of the will here in
(c) There was no appropriate determination, much less question, there was no basis for the Probate Court to hold in
payment, of the debts of the decedent and his estate. its Probate Order of 1972, which it did not, that private
Indeed, it was only in the Probate Order of December 5, respondent is entitled to the payment of the questioned
1972 where the Probate Court ordered that- legacy. Therefore, the Order of Execution of August 20,
... a notice be issued and published pursuant to the 1980 and the subsequent implementing orders for the
provisions of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, requiring all payment of QUEMADA's legacy, in alleged implementation of
persons having money claims against the decedent to file the dispositive part of the Probate Order of December 5,
them in the office of the Branch Clerk of this Court." 1972, must fall for lack of basis.

(d) Nor had the estate tax been determined and paid, or at (b) The ordered payment of legacy would be violative of the
least provided for, as of December 5, 1972. rule requiring prior liquidation of the estate of the deceased,
i.e., the determination of the assets of the estate and
(e) The net assets of the estate not having been payment of all debts and expenses, before apportionment
determined, the legitime of the forced heirs in concrete and distribution of the residue among the heirs and
figures could not be ascertained. legatees. (Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 367.)

(f) All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not


possible to determine whether the legacy of QUEMADA - a ALVARADO VS GAVIOLA
fixed share in a specific property rather than an aliquot part GR No. 74695347
of the entire net estate of the deceased - would produce an
impairment of the legiftime of the compulsory heirs. FACTS:

(g) Finally, there actually was no determination of the On 5 November 1977, 79-year old
intrinsic validity of the will in other respects. It was Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling
obviously for this reason that as late as March 5, 1980 - Habilin” wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son,
more than 7 years after the Probate Order was issued the petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a
Probate Court scheduled on March 25, 1980 a hearing on previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
the intrinsic validity of the will.. probate before the RTC of Laguna. According to Bayani Ma.

44
Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said RULING:
notarial will was executed, together with three instrumental
witnesses and the notary public, where the testator did not Yes. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter
read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma. was not. Although there should be strict compliance with
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the substantial requirements of law in order to insure
the same aloud before the testator, the three instrumental the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should
witnesses and the notary public, the latter four following the be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and
reading with their own respective copies previously which, when taken into account, may only defeat the
furnished them. Thereafter, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng testator’s will.
Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling
Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Cesar Alvarado was correct in asserting that his father was
Brigido Alvarado” was executed changing not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the will
some dispositions in the notarial will to generathe cash for and codicil were executed, but he can be so considered for
the testator’s eye operation. Said codicil was likewise not purposes of Art. 808. That Art. 808 was not followed strictly
read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner is beyond cavil.
as with the previously executed will. When the notarial will
was submitted to the court for However, in the case at bar, there was substantial
probate, Cesar Alvarado filedhis opposition as he said that compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied:
the will was not executed and attested as required by law; that of making the provisions known to the testator who is
that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is
to senility and old age; that the will was executed under illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord
duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured with his wishes. Rino read the testator’s will and codicil
by undue pressure and influence on the part of aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental
the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent
procured by fraud or trick. thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the
contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then
ISSUE: did the signing and acknowledgment take place. There is
no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil
Whether the notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the
admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in testator. With four persons, mostly known to the testator,
the execution and attestation thereof as testator was following the reading word for word with their own copies, it
allegedly blind at the time of execution and the double- can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably
reading requirement under Art. 808 of the NCC was not assured that what was read to him were the terms actually
complied with? appearing on the typewritten documents.

45
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to inter alia that the execution of the Will was procured by
the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will to undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner;
himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator
thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted
they are not in accordance with his wishes. Although there her living in concubinage with the testator, she is wanting in
should be strict compliance with the integrity and thus, letters testamentary should not be
substantial requirements of law in order to insure issued to her.
the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should
be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the
which, when taken into account, may only defeat the ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to co-
testator’s will. habiting with the petitioner, the Will's admission to probate
will be an Idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the
invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.
NEPOMUCENO VS CA
G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985 ISSUE:

FACTS: Can the probate court pass upon the intrinsic validity of the
testamentary provision of the Will in the present case?
Martin Jugo died and left a last Will and Testament. In the
said Will, the testator named and appointed herein HELD:
petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only
executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the Yes, but only as a way of exception. As a general rule, the
testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by only purpose of the probate is to establish conclusively as
whom he had two legitimate children, but he had been against everyone that a Will was executed with the
estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living formalities required by law and that the testator has the
with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, the testator mental capacity to execute the same (extrinsic validity of
and the petitioner were married. The testator devised to his the Will). The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute.
forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not
children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and
portion thereof to herein petitioner. pass upon certain provisions of the Will.

The petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last Will In Nuguid v. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court,
and Testament and asked for the issuance to her of letters the testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and
testamentary. Thereafter, the legal wife of the testator, completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of
Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging this nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically,

46
would be null and void. Separate or latter proceedings to petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.
determine the intrinsic validity of the testamentary Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the
provisions would be superfluous. decedent's holographic will to probate.

There appears to be no more dispute at this time over the On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for
extrinsic validity of the Will. However, in the present case, probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of
the testamentary disposition in favor of the petitioner is Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the
void in accordance to Article 1028, in relation to Article 739 requirements for its validity." It held that the decedent did
of the Civil Code (void donations). not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.
Invoking "practical considerations", that in view of certain It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were
unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It
the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations
intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.
established. The probate of a will might become an idle Thus, this appeal.
ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic ISSUE:
validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the court should meet the issue. Did the appellate court err in dismissing the probate of the
will for non-compliance with Article 813 and 814 of the New
Civil Code?
AJERO VS CA
G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994 RULING:

FACTS: Yes. Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases; (1) If the formalities required by law have
In the will of Annie Sand, decedent named as devisees, the not been complied with; (2) If the testator was insane, or
following: petitioner spouses and private respondent, et al., otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of
and their children. its execution; (3) If it was executed through force or under
duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (4) If it was
Petitioners instituted a special proceesing for allowance of procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on
decedent's holographic will. Private respondent opposed the the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; (5) If
petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's body the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; (6) If
nor the signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly instrument he signed should be his will at the time of
signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by affixing his signature thereto.

47
children and he let his wife’s kin live with him. He made a
These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to will bequeathing properties to his wife’s kin but after having
disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will strained relations with them, he planned to make a new will
to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether with which the bulk of his estate will be given to Adelaida
the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will Tolentino de Concepcion. He then went to the office of Atty.
and testament; (2) whether said will was executed in Repide, informing him that he wanted to make a new will.
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) He then assigned Atty. Repide, Sunico and Monzon as his 3
whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary attesting witnesses. After reflecting over the provisions of
capacity at the time the will was executed; and, (4) whether the will, he again appeared in the office of Repide,
the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary requesting the attesting witnesses to be changed to Jose
acts of the decedent. Syyap, Agustin Vergel de Dios and Vicente Legarda. Certain
In the case of holographic wills what assures authenticity is arrangements have been made for the signing of the will by
the requirement that they be totally autographic or the attesting witnesses. The morning after such signing, he
handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under was assassinated in his home. In the probate of the will,
Article 810 of the New Civil Code. two of the attesting witnesses repudiated their participation
in the execution of the will.
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its
requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained ISSUE:
in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator
fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is Can the repudiation of the attesting witnesses affect the
that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, validity of the will?
however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, RULING:
notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of
Article 814. No.

RULE 76 We are unable to give any credence to the testimony of


these two witnesses on this point, the same being an
TOLENTINO VS FRANCISCO evident fabrication designed for the purpose of defeating the
will. In the first place, the affirmative proof showing that the
FACTS: will was properly executed is adequate, consistent, and
convincing, consisting of the testimony of the third attesting
At the time of his death, Gregorio Tolentino was 66 years witness, Vicente Legarda, corroborated by Miguel Legarda
old. He, together with his wife who predeceased him, and Urbana Rivera, two disinterested individuals, employees
accumulated a very considerable estate. The pair had no of La Previsora Filipina, who were present in Legarda's office

48
when the will was executed and who lent a discerning Pampanga, a complaint against Mercado for
attention to what was being done. each of the seven falsification/forgery of the will probated. Mercado was
signatures affixed to his will by Syyap appear to the natural arrested. The complaint was subsequently dismissed at the
eye to have been made by using the same pen and ink that instance of de Leon herself.
was used by Legarda in signing the will.
[March 2, 1933] Same intervenor charged Mercado with the
When a will is contested it is the duty of the proponent to same offense, this time in the justice of the peace court of
call all of the attesting witnesses, if available but the validity Mexico, Pampanga. Mercado was arrested again. The
of the will in no wise depends upon the united support of complaint was likewise dismissed, again at de Leon’s
the will by all of those witnesses. A will may be admitted to instance.
probate notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the
subscribing witnesses do not unite with the other, or others, [February 2, 1934] Same situation as in March 2, 1933.
in proving all the facts upon which the validity of the will Upon due investigation, the case was dismissed on the
rests. When a will is contested it is the duty of the ground that the will alleged to have been falsified has
proponent to call all of the attesting witnesses, if available already been probated and that there was no evidence that
but the validity of the will in no wise depends upon the Mercado had forged the signature of the testatrix but that,
united support of the will by all of those witnesses. A will on the contrary, satisfactory evidence was presented that
may be admitted to probate notwithstanding the fact that established the authenticity of said signature.
one or more of the subscribing witnesses do not unite with
the other, or others, in proving all the facts upon which the [April 11, 1934] Rosario Basa de Leon and other intervenors
validity of the will rests. moved ex parte to reopen the probate proceedings, alleging
lack of jurisdiction to probate the will and to close the
MERCADO VS SANTOS proceedings. This motion was denied, having been filed ex
GR 45629 Sep 22, 1938 parte.

FACTS: [May 9, 1934] The provincial fiscal moved for


reinvestigation of the criminal case for forgery before the
[May 28, 1931] Petitioner Antilano Mercado filed a petition Pampanga CFI. The motion was granted, and for the fourth
for the probate of the will of his deceased wife, Ines Basa, time, Mercado was arrested. The reinvestigation dragged on
with the Pampanga CFI. for almost a year

[June 31, 1931] The will was admitted to probate. [May 24, 1934] A second motion to reopen and close
probate proceedings was filed, this time with notice to the
[October 27, 1932] Intervenor Rosario Basa de Leon filed adverse party. Same was denied.
with the justice of the peace court of San Fernando,

49
[February 18, 1935] the CFI ordered the forgery case to be Basis for PH law on wills (particularly Sec. 625 of the Code
tried on the merits. of Civil Procedure) — Statutes of [the US state of] Vermont.
[July 26, 1935] Intervenors’ motion was appealed to the
Supreme Court, which affirmed the probate court’s order of Decisions of the Supreme Court of Vermont re: effect of
denial. probate of a will are of persuasive authority in PH.

[c. 1936~37] Mercado moved to dismiss the case, claiming Says the Vermont SC in Missionary Society vs. Eells: “The
again that the will alleged to have been forged had already probate of a will by the probate court having jurisdiction
been probated and, further, that the order probating the will thereof, upon the due notice, is conclusive as to its due
is conclusive as to the authenticity and due execution execution against the whole world.”
thereof. The CFI overruled the motion. Mercado thus filed a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the In view of the provisions of Secs. 306, 333 and 625 of the
Court of Appeals, which promptly denied same. Code of Civil Procedure, a criminal action will not lie against
the forger of a will which had been duly admitted to probate
ISSUE: by a court of competent jurisdiction.

WON the probate of Ines Basa’s will is a bar to Mercado’s DISPOSITION:


criminal prosecution for the alleged forgery of said will.
Mercado is entitled to have the criminal proceedings against
RULING: him quashed; CA judgment is reversed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Applicable law: Code of Civil Procedure (then governing the
law on wills)
SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ vs. TOLETE, G.R. No.
Sec. 306 provides, as re: the effect of judgments: in case of 76714 June 2, 1994
a judgment/order in respect to the probate of a will, such
judgment/order is conclusive upon the will. FACTS:
Sec. 333 establishes an incontrovertible presumption in
favor of judgments declared by the Code to be conclusive. Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife Dr. Evelyn Perez-
Cuananan both executed a separate last will and
Sec. 625 provides, as re: conclusiveness of the due testament, bequeathing to each other "all the remainder"
execution of a probate will: “… the allowance by the court of of his real and personal property at the time of his death
a will of real and personal estate shall be conclusive as to its "wheresoever situated" whoever will survived ahead of the
due execution.” other. When a fire broke out and the entire family of Dr.
Cunanan perished. Petitioner Salud Teodoro Perez, the

50
mother of Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, filed with the RTC of. compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of
Malolos Bulacan, a petition for the reprobate of the two bills the Philippines:
ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She also
asked that she be appointed the special administratrix of Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
the estate of the deceased couple in which a letters of in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by
special administration was issued in her favor upon posting the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
a bond. formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with
those which this Code prescribes.
However, the siblings of Dr. Cunanan filed a motion to The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of
nullify the proceedings and to set aside the appointment of, wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines
or to disqualify, petitioner as special administratrix of the are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in
estates of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez- accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his
Cunanan because as "brothers and sisters and the legal and domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
surviving heirs" of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, they had been (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country;
"deliberately excluded" in the petition for the probate of the (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and
separate wills of the Cunanan spouses thereby misleading (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and
the Bulacan court to believe that petitioner was the sole heir allowance of wills.
of the spouses and also that Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr.,
and prayed that that the proceedings in the case be The separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be
declared null and void; (2) that the appointment of probated jointly and the rules shall be "liberally construed in
petitioner as the letters of special administratrix be set order to promote their object and to assist the parties in
aside instead Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be appointed the obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
regular administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. every action and proceeding." A literal application of the
Rules should be avoided if they would only result in the
ISSUE: delay in the administration of justice.

Whether or not all the heirs of the deceased spouses were What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint wills
notified of the probate proceedings. Whether or not the two either for the testator’s reciprocal benefit or for the benefit
wills executed in New York be allowed in the Philippine of a third person (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 818).
Probate Court and be probated jointly not separately. In the case at bench, the Cunanan spouses executed
separate wills. Since the two wills contain essentially the
RULING: same provisions and pertain to property which in all
probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations
The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were dictate their joint probate. As this Court has held a number
American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon of times, it will always strive to settle the entire controversy

51
in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the Contention of the Appellants( Crisostomo et al):
seeds of future litigation. Appellants argue that they are interested parties and
therefore may appeal in the present case, because in the
Petitioner considered herself only the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn event the will of October 19 is disallowed and that of August
Perez Cunanan and does not consider herself an heir of Dr. 16 is allowed, and the legacies in the latter are declared
Jose F. Cunanan, she failed to notify his siblings, herein invalid or the legatees incapable to inherit, the legacies will
respondents, in the filing of the probate proceedings. The go to the appellants.
court ruled that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F.
Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are entitled to Contentiton of the Appellee (Trillana)
notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under The will of August 16, 1948 was expressly and absolutely
Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court, the revoked by the will of October 19, 1948, executed by the
"court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and same executrix or deceased. The probate of the subsequent
place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the will was not attended by fraud and the appellants show no
designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of proof of the alleged fraud committed in the probate of the
the testator. subsequent will.

TRILLANA VS CRISOSTOMO ISSUE:

FACTS: Whether a revoked will must be included in the probate of


the subsequent will.
The deceased, Damasa Crisostomo, allegedly made two Are the appellants parties in interest in the present case and
wills: one will was made on August 16, 1948 and the other therefore entitled to appeal the decision of the lower court?
will was executed on October 19, 1948. Trillana, the
administrator of the estate, presented the subsequent will RULING:
executed on October 19 for probate, and was granted by
the court. 1. No, a revoked will may no longer be presented in the
probate of the subsequent will.
Crisostomo and others, claiming to be nephews and nieces
of the deceased, filed a petition for relief of the judgment If two wills are presented for allowance but one of them
rendered by the probate court to disallow the subsequent was a revoked will, it cannot be included in the probate of
will and allow the former will executed on August 16, the latter subsequent will, because it would be a waste of
alleging that the proceedings during the probate of the time to allow the revoked will if the subsequent revoking will
subsequent will was attended by fraud. is allowed. The revoked will may be probated and allowed
only if the subsequent revoking will is disallowed.

52
2. No, the appellants are not considered as interested designated her brother Sergio, as the executor of her will
parties in the probate proceedings of the will of the for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.
deceased Damasa Crisostomo, and therefore, are not
entitled to appeal the decision of the lower court. Thereafter respondent Ernesto, another brother of Ruperta,
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for the
In civil actions and special proceedings, unless otherwise probate of Rupertas will and for his appointment as special
provided by law, the interest in order that a person may be administrator. However, petitioners, nephews of Ruperta,
a party on appeal must be material and direct, so that he opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will
will be materially and directly benefited or injured by the should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S.
court's order, decree or judgment: and not indirect or where it was executed.
contingent.
The RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Rupertas
The appellants in the present case merely allege in their last will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special
petition for relief that they are "nephews and nieces and administrator; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special
therefore legal heirs of the deceased Damasa Crisostomo," Administration to Ernesto. Aggrieved by the RTCs order,
without specifying the degree of relationship they had to the petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that an unprobated
latter. They contend that if the will made on October 19, will executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be
1949, be disallowed, they will inherit the estate left by the probated for the first time in the Philippines.
testatrix. The interest claimed by the appellants is purely
contingent or dependent upon several uncertain and future The CA rendered a decision, affirming the assailed order of
events to (1) The disallowance of the will of October 19, the RTC, holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate
1948 (2) The allowance of the will of August 16, 1948, and of the will. The CA pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the
(3) invalidation of certain legacies left in said will of August Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance
16, 1948. of the will in the country of its execution, before it can be
probated in the Philippines. The present case, said the CA,
is different from reprobate, which refers to a will already
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE probated and allowed abroad. Thus the present petition.
THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS
G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011 ISSUE:

FACTS: Can a will executed by a foreigner abroad be probated in


the Philippines although it has not been previously probated
Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a and allowed in the country where it was executed?
naturalized American citizen, died single and childless. In
the last will and testament she executed in California, she

53
RULING: BALTAZAR VS ALAXA
GR No. 174489, April, 11,2012
Yes. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed
by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet FACTS:
been probated and allowed in the countries of their
execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our Pacencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made the last
jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento
of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if Miss Pacencia Regala" (September 30,1981). The will was
made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the executed in the house of retired Judge Limpin, witnessed by
law of the place where he resides, or according to the Dra. Maria Limpin, Francisco Garcia and Faustino Mercado.
formalities observed in his country. The will was read twice to the testatrix. Her signature was
affixed at the end of the said document on page 3 and on
In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of the left margin of 1,2 and 4 thereof. The witnesses affixed
Civil Procedure provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant their signatures below its attestation clause and on the left
of a foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has margins of page 1,2 and 4 thereof in the presence of
an estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such Pacencia and of Judge Limpin who acted as notary public.
estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the All properties were bequeathed to respondent Lorenzo Laxa,
executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other and his wife Corazon Laxa and their children Luna and
person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the Katherine Lorenzo is Pacencia's nephew whom she treated
death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction as her own son.
to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed. Six days after the execution of the will, Pacencia left for the
United States , there, she resided with Lorenzo and his
Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance family until her death on January 4, 1996. On April 27,2000,
of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua , Pampanga
the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences for the probate of will of Pacencia and the issuance of the
of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or letters of administration in his favor. RTC issued an Order
decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the allowing Lorenzo to present evidence on June 22,2000. Dra.
property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for Limpin testified as to the execution of the last will of
whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not been Pacencia and attested to the present condition of his father
delivered to the court, the name of the person having retired Judge Limpin who acted as the notary public.
custody of it. The rules do not require proof that the foreign
will has already been allowed and probated in the country of On June 23,2000, petitioner Antonio filed an opposition
its execution. which was joined by the other petitioners contending that
Pacencia's will was null and void and because ownership of

54
the properties had not been transferred to Pacencia before whether the testator, being of sound mind freely executed
her death and that Lorenzo is disqualified to be appointed, the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
he being a citizen and resident of USA. On January 29, Upon examination of the will, it shows that the
2001, the RTC issued an order denying both of their formalities laid down by the law is faithfully
requests. Proceedings on the petition for the probate of will complied with. Furthermore, the burden to prove that
continued, and Dra Limpin was called again for cross- Pacencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution
examination. Also, Monico Mercado testified as to his of the will lies on the shoulder of the petitioners. There
father's(Faustino) condition that his father can no longer was no substantial evidence presented that will show that
talk and express himself due to brain damage. Pacencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution
of the will.
On the part of Antonio, he presented Rosie. Rosie testified
that Pacencia is in the state of being forgetful based on her 2. Yes. Section 11, Rule 76 states that " If the will is
personal assessment. Antonio testified that the execution of contested, all the subscribing witnesses and the notary
will was attended with force. RTC denied the petition giving public in the case of the wills executed under the Civil Code
weight to the testimony of Rosie that Pacencia is forgetful, of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not
hence she is unfit to execute a will. On appeal to the CA, it insane, must be produced and examined, and the death,
was reversed. The CA ruled that" the state of being forgetful absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily
does not make a person mentally unsound so as to render shown to the court. " Applying it to the foregoing, the
Pacencia unfit for executing a will. inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and testify
before the court was satisfactorily explained during the
ISSUE: probate proceedings. Thus, the SC hold that, for all intents
and purposes, Lorenzo was able to satisfactorily account for
1. Whether or not the will complied with the requirements of the incapacity and failure of the said subscribing witness
law and of the notary public to testify in court. It is an
2. Whether or not the will complied with tequirements set established rule, that a testament may not be disallowed
forth in Section 11, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court just because the attesting witnesses declare against its due
execution; neither does it have to be necessarily allowed
RULING: just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor of
its legalization
1. YES. Under Section 1, Rule 75:" Allowance necessary.
Conclusive as to the execution. No will shall be passed
either real or personal estate unless it is provedand allowed
in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such
allowance of the will shall be valid as to its execution. " Due
executiom of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to

55
CODOY VS CALUGAY
The first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court
FACTS: who produced and identified the records of the case bearing
the signature of the deceased.
The deceased Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal executed a
holographic will on August 30, 1978. Herein respondents The second witness was election registrar who was made to
Eugenia Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas produce and identify the voter’s affidavit, but failed to as
are devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
deceased. The third, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she had
acquired familiarity with the deceased’s signature and
They filed with the RTC of Misamis a petition for probate of handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting
the holographic will of Matilde who died on 16 January 1990 rentals from her various tenants of commercial
which was written in Visayan. buildings and the deceased always issued receipts. The
niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic will
Petitioners Eugenia Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an entirely written, dated and signed by said deceased.
opposition to the probate stating that the holographic will
was a forgery and the same was illegible. They also argued The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in
that the will is out of the ordinary since it was signed and the intestate proceedings of her late husband, who said that
dated after every disposition and not just one signature at the signature on the will was similar to that of
the bottom. They also alleged that it was made under the deceased but that he can not be sure.
undue pressure.
Respondents however contend that the deceased was of The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that
sound and disposing mind when she executed the will and she was familiar with the signature of the deceased which
that no fraud or undue influence and duress happened and appeared in the latter’s application for pasture permit. The
that the will was written voluntarily. They presented six fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she had
witnesses with various documentary evidence. lived with the deceasedsince birth where she had become
familiar with her signature and that the one appearing on
Petitioners on their part filed a demurrer to evidence the will was genuine.
claiming that respondents failed to establish to establish
sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the The lower court denied the probate. On appeal, respondents
holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de again reiterated the testimony of the witnesses Augusto,
Ramonal. All the 6 witnesses that respondents presented Generosa, Matilde Binanay, Teresita, Fiscal Waga, and
expressed familiarity with the deceased’s signature. But Evangeline. The CA sustained the authenticity of the
there was no mention of the fact that there were witnesses holographic will and allowed the probate and ruled that the
at the time Matilde executed the will. 3 witness rule is merely permissive since compliance with

56
Art.811 is impossible as no witness may have been present The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of
during the making of the holographic will. Hence this wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to
petition. avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty
their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this
ISSUE: subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain
these primordial ends. But on the other hand, also one must
1. WON the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil Code are not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law
permissive or mandatory? to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a
2. WON the signature was proven to be authentic? will. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false
document being adjudged as the will of the testator, which
RULING: is why if the holographic will is contested, that law requires
three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
The Court ruled that it is mandatory. The article provides, handwriting of the deceased.

Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be Fiscal Waga one of the witnesses expressed doubts as to the
necessary that at least one witness who knows the signature of the deceased. Evangeline, on her part, testified
handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that as to why she was familiar with the handwriting of the
that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the deceased was because she lived with her since birth. She
testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such never declared that she saw the deceased write a note or
witnesses shall be required. sign a document. In Matilde’s testimony, she saw pre-
prepared receipts and letters of the deceased, which she
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the either mailed or gave to her tenants. She did not declare
preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.
expert testimony may be resorted to. Furthermore, in her testimony it was also evident that Ms.
Binanay kept the fact about the will from petitioners, the
As a requirement for the probate of a contested holographic legally adopted children of the deceased. The will was also
will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the not found in the possession of the deceased when she
signature in the will is the genuine signature of the testator. died. Such actions put in issue her motive of keeping the
The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order. We have will a secret to petitioners and revealing it only after the
ruled that “shall” in a statute commonly denotes an death of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal.
imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall,” 2. Not Authentic. Comparing the signature in the
when used in a statute is mandatory.” holographic will dated August 30, 1978,[33] and the
signatures in several documents such as the application
letter for pasture permit dated December 30, 1980, [34] and

57
a letter dated June 16, 1978,[35] the strokes are requirements for its validity." It held that the decedent did
different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.
strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were
unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It
certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting by also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations
the deceased. made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.
Thus, this appeal.

ENRIQUEZ VS ABADIA ISSUE:


(please refer to Ate Devie’s handwritten file)
Did the appellate court err in dismissing the probate of the
will for non-compliance with Article 813 and 814 of the New
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO v. THE Civil Code?
COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND
G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994 RULING:

FACTS: Yes. Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases; (1) If the formalities required by law have
In the will of Annie Sand, decedent named as devisees, the not been complied with; (2) If the testator was insane, or
following: petitioner spouses and private respondent, et al., otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of
and their children. its execution; (3) If it was executed through force or under
duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (4) If it was
Petitioners instituted a special proceesing for allowance of procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on
decedent's holographic will. Private respondent opposed the the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; (5) If
petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's body the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; (6) If
nor the signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly instrument he signed should be his will at the time of
signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by affixing his signature thereto.
petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.
Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to
decedent's holographic will to probate. disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will
to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether
On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will
probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of and testament; (2) whether said will was executed in
Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3)

58
whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary pertinently alleged that plaintiff Caniza was the absolute
capacity at the time the will was executed; and, (4) whether owner of the property in question; that out of kindness, she
the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary had allowed the Estrada Spouses, their children,
acts of the decedent.
grandchildren, and sons-in-law to temporarily reside in her
In the case of holographic wills what assures authenticity is
the requirement that they be totally autographic or house, rent-free; that Caniza already had urgent need of
handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under the house on account of her advanced age and failing
Article 810 of the New Civil Code. health, “so funds could be raised to meet her expenses for
support, maintenance and medical treatment;” among
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its others.
requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained
in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator The defendants declared that they had been living in
fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is
Caniza’s house since the 1960’s; that in consideration of
that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
their faithful service they had been considered by Caniza as
however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, her own family, and the latter had in fact executed a
notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of holographic will by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas
Article 814. the house and lot in question. The Estradas insist that the
devise of the house to them by Caiza clearly denotes her
intention that they remain in possession thereof, and legally
CANIZA VS CA
incapacitated her judicial guardian, Amparo Evangelista,
FACTS: from evicting them therefrom, since their ouster would be
inconsistent with the ward’s will. Such will has not been
Being then ninety-four (94) years of age, Carmen Caniza submitted for probate.
was declared incompetent by judgment in a guardianship
proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. ISSUE:
Caniza was the owner of a house and lot. Her guardian
Whether or not the alleged will may be given effect
Amparo Evangelista commenced a suit to eject the spouses
Pedro and Leonora Estrada from said premises. RULING:

The complaint was later amended to identify the No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the
incompetent Caniza as plaintiff, suing through her legal testator’s death, it may be changed or revoked; and until
guardian, Amparo Evangelista. The amended Complaint admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right

59
can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: “No testatrix, as the same was handed to him and his wife;
will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is he also testified that he recognized all the signatures
proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court” appearing in the holographic will as the handwriting of
the testatrix.
An owner’s intention to confer title in the future to persons
 Additional evidence: residence certificates to show the
possessing property by his tolerance, is not inconsistent signatures of the testatrix for comparison purposes.
with the former’s taking back possession in the meantime Azaola testified that the penmanship appearing in the
for any reason deemed sufficient. And that, in this case, said documentary evidence is in the handwriting of the
there was sufficient cause for the owner’s resumption of testatrix as well as the signatures appearing therein are
possession is apparent: she needed to generate income the signatures of the testatrix (as contained in the
from the house on account of the physical infirmities stenographic notes).
afflicting her, arising from her extreme age.
 The probate was denied on the ground that under Article
AZAOLA VS SINGSON 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must present three
witnesses who could declare that the will and the
FACTS: signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate
being contested. The lone witness presented by the
 An appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of
of Rizal. the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”

 This case involves the determination of the quantity of ISSUE:


evidence required for the probate of a holographic will.
WON three witnesses are necessary to establish the
handwriting/ signature contained in a will.
 September 9, 1957: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died;
Francisco Azaola, petitioner herein for probate, RULING:
submitted the said holographic will whereby Maria
Alilagros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the NO. The decision appealed from is set aside, and the
nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson (respondent). records ordered remanded to the Court of origin, with
instructions to hold a new trial in conformity with this
opinion.
 Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic
will a month, more or less, before the death of the

60
RATIO: proponent. For it is not merely a question of finding and
producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses
 Where the will is holographic, no witnesses need to be "who know the handwriting and signature of the
present (Art. 10), and the rule requiring production of testator" and who can declare truthfully "that the will
three witnesses must be deemed merely permissive if and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator."
absurd results are to be avoided. The rule of the first
paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely
directory and is not mandatory.  Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811
may even be impossible. This is evidently the reason for
the second paragraph of Art. 811. The law foresees the
 Art. 811, Civil Code: “In the probate of a holographic possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or
will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who may refuse to testify), and provides for resort to expert
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator evidence to supply the deficiency.
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in
the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested,
at least three of such witnesses shall be required.  The requirement can be considered mandatory only in
 In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the case of ordinary testaments, precisely because the
the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it presence of at least three witnesses at the execution of
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.” ordinary wills is made by law essential to their validity.

 Since the authenticity of the will was not contested, the  The resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the
proponent was not required to produce more than one words "if the Court deem it necessary", which reveal
witness. Even if the genuineness of the holographic will that what the law deems essential is that the Court
were contested, the Court is of the opinion that Article should be convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the
811 of our present Civil Code cannot be interpreted as to prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the
require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses court is convinced by their testimony that the will is
to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for expert
of having the probate denied. evidence. And because the law leaves it to the trial court
to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable
inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer
 Since no witness may have been present at the expert evidence, until and unless the court expresses
execution of a holographic will (none being required by dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.
law) the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the

61
RODELAS VS ARANZA Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is
G.R. No. L-58509 available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, at least
December 7, 1982 three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the
holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other
FACTS: copy is available, the will can not be probated because the
best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in
Appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison
will of Ricardo Bonilla, but was opposed by the appellees on between sample handwritten statements of the testator and
the following grounds: appellant was estopped from the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy
claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison
the will within 20 days of the death of the testator; the can be made with the standard writings of the testator. In
alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled
disposition of property after death and was not intended to that "the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
take effect after death; and the deceased did not leave any holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
will, holographic or otherwise, executed and attested as witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. But, in
required by law. After consolidation of another special Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be
proceeding, which was granted by the court, appellees filed proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a
for a motion to dismiss. The motion was denied, but it was mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if
later reversed by the court upon filing of a motion for any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the
reconsideration, ruling that once the original copy of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate
holographic will is lost, a copy cannot stand in lieu of the court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost
original. Appellants appealed to the CA, which was denied. or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then
the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be
determined by the probate court.
ISSUE:
GAN VS YAP (XPN: TO RODELAS VS ARANZA)
Can a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found, be GR L-12190 Aug 30, 1988
proved by means of a photostatic copy?
FACTS:
RULING:
Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in
Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of Pulilan, Bulacan, and in Manila. Fausto E. Gan, her nephew,
holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court initiated the proceedings in the Manila CFI with a petition for
after its due execution has been proved. The probate may the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the
be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one deceased.

62
The will was not presented because Felicidad’s husband, The New Civil Code effective in 1950 revived holographic
Ildefonso, supposedly took it. What was presented were wills in its arts. 810-814. “A person may execute a
witness accounts of relatives who knew of her intention to holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and
make a will and allegedly saw it as well. According to the signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to
witnesses, Felicidad did not want her husband to know no other form and may be made in or out of the Philippines,
about it, but she had made known to her other relatives and need not be witnessed.”
that she made a will.
This is a radical departure from the form and solemnities
Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap provided for wills under Act 190, which for fifty years (from
asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor 1901 to 1950) required wills to be subscribed by the
executed any testament during her lifetime. testator and three credible witnesses in each and every
After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the page; such witnesses to attest to the number of sheets used
Judge refused to probate the alleged will on account of the and to the fact that the testator signed in their presence
discrepancies arising from the facts. For one thing, it is and that they signed in the presence of the testator and of
strange that Felicidad made her will know to so many of her each other. Authenticity and due execution is the dominant
relatives when she wanted to keep it a secret and she would requirements to be fulfilled when such will is submitted to
not have carried it in her purse in the hospital, knowing that the courts for allowance. For that purpose the testimony of
her husband may have access to it. There was also no one of the subscribing witnesses would be sufficient if there
evidence presented that her niece was her confidant. is no opposition (Sec. 5, Rule 77). If there is, the three
must testify, if available. From the testimony of such
In the face of these improbabilities, the trial judge had to witnesses (and of other additional witnesses) the court may
accept the oppositor’s evidence that Felicidad did not and form its opinion as to the genuineness and authenticity of
could not have executed such holographic will. the testament, and the circumstances its due execution.

ISSUE: With regard to holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth


and veracity are demanded, since as stated, they need no
1. May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses; provided however, that they are “entirely
witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
was in the handwriting of the testator? himself.”
2. W/N Felicidad could have executed the holographic will. “In the probate of a holographic will” says the New Civil
Code, “it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
RULING: knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the
1. No. The will must be presented. handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least
three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of

63
any such witnesses, (familiar with decedent’s handwriting) second, the testimony of the subscribing or instrumental
and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be witnesses (and of the notary, now). The loss of the
resorted to.” holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof;
if the ordinary will is lost, the subscribing witnesses are
The witnesses need not have seen the execution of the available to authenticate.
holographic will, but they must be familiar with the
decedent’s handwriting. Obviously, when the will itself is not In the case of ordinary wills, it is quite hard to convince
submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessing the three witnesses (four with the notary) deliberately to lie.
evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty of And then their lies could be checked and exposed, their
authenticity — the testator’s handwriting — has whereabouts and acts on the particular day, the likelihood
disappeared. that they would be called by the testator, their intimacy
with the testator, etc. And if they were intimates or trusted
The Rules of Court, (Rule 77) approved in 1940 allow proof friends of the testator they are not likely to end themselves
(and probate) of a lost or destroyed will by secondary — to any fraudulent scheme to distort his wishes. Last but not
evidence the testimony of witnesses, in lieu of the original least, they cannot receive anything on account of the will.
document. Yet such Rules could not have contemplated
holographic wills. Rule 77 cannot be extended, by analogy, Whereas in the case of holographic wills, if oral testimony
to holographic wills. were admissible only one man could engineer the fraud this
way: after making a clever or passable imitation of the
Holographic will is usually done by the testator and by handwriting and signature of the deceased, he may contrive
himself alone, to prevent others from knowing either its to let three honest and credible witnesses see and read the
execution or its contents, the above article 692 could not forgery; and the latter, having no interest, could easily fall
have the idea of simply permitting such relatives to state for it, and in court they would in all good faith affirm its
whether they know of the will, but whether in the face of genuineness and authenticity. The will having been lost —
the document itself they think the testator wrote it. the forger may have purposely destroyed it in an “accident”
Obviously, this they can’t do unless the will itself is — the oppositors have no way to expose the trick and the
presented to the Court and to them. error, because the document itself is not at hand. And
considering that the holographic will may consist of two or
The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed three pages, and only one of them need be signed, the
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of substitution of the unsigned pages, which may be the most
witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. important ones, may go undetected.
Unlike holographic wills, ordinary wills may be proved by
testimonial evidence when lost or destroyed. The difference In the case of a lost will, the three subscribing witnesses
lies in the nature of the wills. In the first, the only would be testifying to a fact which they saw, namely the act
guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself; in the of the testator of subscribing the will; whereas in the case

64
of a lost holographic will, the witnesses would testify as to by the three brothers and a nephew of the deceased
their opinion of the handwriting which they allegedly saw, alleging the the will is not valid due to some irregularity in
an opinion which can not be tested in court, nor directly the execution of the will on the part of the attesting
contradicted by the oppositors, because the handwriting witnesses.
itself is not at hand.
ISSUE:
In fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish
and probate a lost holographic will, we think the evidence Whether or not all three of said witnesses were present
submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted with together at the time and place when the testatrix and the
improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure witnesses affixed their signatures to the document?
up to that “clear and distinct” proof required by Rule 77, Whether or not the trial court erred in refusing probate of
sec. 6. the will?

2. No. Even if oral testimony were admissible to establish RULING:


and probate a lost holographic will, we think the evidence
submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted with The court upheld the testimony of Aurea Gaspar, sister-in-
improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure law of the deceased who had been in attendance upon her
up to that “clear and distinct” proof required by Rule 77, at the hospital that during the execution of the will, all the
sec. 6. three three attesting witnesses to the instrument, namely,
Vicente Platon, Fidel Macapugay, and Placido Suarez were
present together at the time and place when the testatrix
FERNANDEZ vs. TANTOCO, G.R. No. 25489, and the witnesses affixed their signatures to the document.
September 8, 1926 The court give weight to the the testimony of the attorney,
Sr. Platon, was in every effect respect worthy of credit,
FACTS: considering that he gives a detailed account of the incidents
connected with the execution, which only by a person who
Basilica Tantoco, a known philanthropist, single and no had his attention fixed upon the occurrences connected
force heirs executed a will in favor of the catholic church, therewith. He also shows that the testatrix understood the
few days thereafter she died. The said Will was delivered to contents of the instrument and that its provisions were
the chatholic church of Malolos throough Fr. Vicente found to be in conformity with her wishes. At the time of the
Fernandez, the parish priest of Malolos to be used for the execution of the instrument she was sitting up in her bed
assistance of the catholic school in Malolos, under the and was able to affix her signature in a clear and legible
administration of the said priest in accordance with the hand at the close of the will and upon each of its pages, as
Tantoco’s wish. Thereafter, an application for probate was the law requires. Contrary to what the attesting witnesses
filed by father Vicente Fernandez, which was later opposed would like to imply but only to buttress the witnesses

65
manifest and deliberate intention to depart from the truth. 5,000.00 and P 9,000.00 in connection with her business
More so, it was admitted by all of the witnesses that Aurea transaction As security for said loan, private respondent
Gaspar was present in the room at the time the will was Adelaida Ramos executed in favor of petitioners two (2)
executed, and she corroborates Sr. Platon upon the point deeds of conditional sale of her rights, shares, interests and
that all of the witnesses were present throughout the participation respectively over a lot registered in the name
ceremonies attending the execution of the will. This witness of their parents, and another lot then registered in the
speaks with apparent frankness, and we believe her names of Socorro, Josefina and Adelaida Ramos.
testimony to be true, notwithstanding the fact that she
possibly has a minor interest in the establishment of the Upon the failure of said private respondent as vendor a
will. retro to exercise her right of repurchase within the
redemption period, petitioner filed a petition for
In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a consolidation and approval of the conditional sale in Special
will and the testimony of a the attorney, who has been Proceedings, entitled "Intestate Estate of the late Margarita
charged with the responsibility of seeing to the proper Denoga. The said probate court issued an order which
execution of the instrument, is entitled to greater weight approved the conditional sale (but not as to the petition for
than the testimony those persons casually called to the consolidation of ownership).
participate in the act.
ISSUE:
The trial court ERRED IN REFUSING THE PROBATE OF THE
WILL , here exist there is a prima facie case that the Will Can the probate court pass upon issues of questions of
was made and prepared to be properly drawn and attested ownership that arise during the proceeding?
and that all of the signatures thereto are authentic. I bears HELD:
therefor a presumption of regularity and which merits to
be admitted to probate in the absence of proof showing that No. A reading of the order of the probate court will show
some fatal irregularity occurred. that it is merely an approval of the deed of conditional sale
executed by petitioner Adelaida Ramos in favor of
petitioners. There is nothing in said order providing for the
OSCAR D. RAMOS and LUZ AGUDO v. HON. COURT OF consolidation of ownership over the lots allegedly sold to
APPEALS, ADELAIDA RAMOS and LAZARO E. MENESES petitioners nor was the issue of the validity of said contract
G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989 discussed or resolved therein. The approval of the probate
court of the conditional sale is not a conclusive
FACTS: determination of the intrinsic or extrinsic validity of the
contract but a mere recognition of the right of private
Private respondent Adelaida Ramos borrowed from her respondent Adelaida Ramos as an heir, to dispose of her
brother, petitioner Oscar D. Ramos, the amounts of P

66
rights and interests over her inheritance even before Rafael, who was named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for
partition. separate probate proceedings of the wills.

Moreover, the probate jurisdiction of the former court of Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for
first instance or the present regional trial court relates only reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael opposed, arguing that Salud
to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate was not an heir according to New York law. He contended
and probate of wills of deceased persons, and the that since the wills were executed in New York, New York
appointment and removal of administrators, executors, law should govern. He further argued that, by New York
guardians and trustees. Subject to settled exceptions not law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as
present in this case, the law does not extend the jurisdiction such entitled to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which
of a probate court to the determination of questions of Salud failed to give.
ownership that arise during the proceeding. The parties
concerned may choose to bring a separate action as a For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her
matter of convenience in the preparation or presentation of daughter, Evelyn, and that the two wills were in accordance
evidence. Obviously, the approval by the probate court of with New York law. But before she could present evidence
the conditional sale was without prejudice to the filing of the to prove the law of New York, the reprobate court already
proper action for consolidation of ownership and/or issued an order, disallowing the wills.
reformation of instrument in the proper court within the
statutory period of prescription. ISSUE:

Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed


RULE 77
RULING:
VDA. DE PEREZ VS TOLETE
G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994 No. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were
American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon
FACTS: compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of
the Philippines:
Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan,
who became American citizens and residents of New York, Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
each executed a will also in New York, containing provisions in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by
on presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
known which one of the spouses died first, the husband formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with
shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the those which this Code prescribes.
entire family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus,

67
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate
prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws is for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3
imperative. and 4 of Rule 76, which require publication and notice by
mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to
wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are required.
are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in
accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to
domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; petitioner's claim, are entitled to notices of the time and
(3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the
(4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall also cause copies of
(5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to
allowance of will Except for the first and last requirements, be addressed to the designated or other known heirs,
the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence. legatees, and devisees of the testator, . . . "

The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws Respondent Judge shall allow petitioner reasonable time
upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is within which to submit evidence needed for the joint
impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it
notice of them. that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are
given all notices and copies of all pleadings pertinent to the
This petition cannot be completely resolved without probate proceedings.
touching on a very glaring fact - petitioner has always
considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan
and because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. PALAGANAS VS PALAGANAS
Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his heirs of
the filing of the proceedings. Thus, even in the instant FACTS:
petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting
that a judge whose order is being assailed is merely a This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a
nominal or formal party. will executed abroad by a foreigner although it has not been
probated in its place of execution. 

The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the
reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as On November 8, 2001 Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a
in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.)
Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and
to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it testament she executed in California, she designated her

68
brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor of allowed abroad. Reprobate is governed by different rules or
her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in procedures. 

the U.S. Respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto),
another brother of Ruperta, filed with the RTC a petition for ISSUE:
the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as
special administrator of her estate. Petitioners Manuel Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may
Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio be probated in the Philippines although it has not been
Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the previously probated and allowed in the country where it was
petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be executed.

probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she
executed it. Manuel and Benjamin added that, assuming RULING:
Ruperta’s will could be probated in the Philippines, it is
invalid nonetheless for having been executed under duress YES, CA decision affirmed. But our laws do not prohibit the
and without the testator’s full understanding of the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the
consequences of such act. Ernesto, they claimed, is also not same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the
qualified to act as administrator of the estate. Since countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal
Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code
were on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
visit, respondent Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities
leave to take their deposition, which it granted. RTC prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
directed the parties to submit their memorandum on the according to the formalities observed in his country.
issue of whether or not Ruperta’s U.S. will may be probated
in and allowed by a court in the Philippines. 
 - Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a
RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has an
will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such
administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.- based estate. 

executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters
of Special Administration to Ernesto. CA AFFIRMED: The CA - Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state
pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or
does not require prior probate and allowance of the will in any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time
the country of its execution, before it can be probated in the after the death of the testator, petition the court having
Philippines. 
 The present case, said the CA, is different jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in
from reprobate, which refers to a will already probated and his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed 


69
- Our rules require merely that the petition - Contrary to petitioners’ stance, since this
for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will, it cannot be
the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, made to apply to the present case. In reprobate, the local
ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign
the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can
character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the be established. 

person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has
not been delivered to the court, the name of the person
having custody of it. 
 RULE 78

- Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death VENTURA vs. VENTURA


of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the
province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an FACTS:
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such
province 
  Appellant Maria Ventura is the illegitimate daughter
of the deceased Gregorio Ventura. Juana Cardona is
- The rules do not require proof that the her mother and the surviving spouse of Gregorio.
foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the  Appellees Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the
country of its execution. 
 deceased's legitimate children with his former wife,
the late Paulina Simpliciano.
- In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have  On December 14, 1953, Gregorio Ventura filed a
been first probated and allowed by the court of California, petition for the probate of his will which did not
petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the include the appellees. (HENCE THERE WAS
procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here. PRETERITION!) In the said will, the appellant Maria

 Ventura, although an illegitimate child, was named
and appointed by the testator to be the executrix of
- But, reprobate or re-authentication of a will his will and the administratrix of his estate. Said will
already probated and allowed in a foreign country is was admitted to probate on January 14,195.
different from that probate where the will is presented for  Gregorio Ventura died. Maria Ventura was appointed
the first time before a competent court. 
 executrix and the corresponding letters testamentary
was issued in her favour.
- Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule  Oppositions were filed by Mercedes Ventura and
77 of the Rules of Court. 
 Gregoria Ventura to remove as executrix and
administrator Maria Ventura on the grounds that (1)
that she is grossly incompetent; (2) that she has

70
maliciously and purposely concealed certain When and to whom letters of administration
properties of the estate in the inventory; (3) that she granted.-If no executor is named in the will,
is merely an illegitimate daughter who can have no or the executor or executors are incompetent,
harmonious relations with the appellees; (4) that the refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a
executrix has neglected to render her accounts and person dies intestate, a petition shall be
failed to comply with the Order of the Court. granted:
 The court a quo, finding that the executrix Maria (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the
Ventura has squandered the funds of the estate, was case may be or next of kin, or both, in the
inefficient and incompetent, has failed to comply with discretion of the court, or to such person as
the orders of the Court in the matter of presenting such surviving husband or wife, or both, in
up-to-date statements of accounts and neglected to the discretion of the court, or to such person
pay the real estate taxes of the estate, rendered the as such surviving husband or wife, or next of
questioned decision. kin, requests to have appointed, if competent
 While the case was pending, the SC ruled in a case and willing to serve;"
that the will of Gregorio resulted to intestacy due to
the preterition of compulsory heirs. Hence the In the case at bar, the surviving spouse of the deceased
institution of heirs including that of Maria were Gregorio Ventura is Juana Cardona while the next of kin
annulled. Hence, a new administrator needs to be are: Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura and Maria and Miguel
appointed.
Ventura. The "next of kin" has been defined as those
persons who are entitled under the statute of distribution to
ISSUE: the decedent's property

Who should be the new administrator? It is generally said that "the nearest of kin, whose interest
in the estate is more preponderant, is preferred in the
RULING: choice of administrator.” Among members of a class the
strongest ground for preference is the amount or
First, Juana Cardona – the surviving spouse and mother of preponderance of interest. As between next of kin, the
Maria Ventura.
nearest of kin is to be preferred." As decided by the lower
Second, Legitimate children being nearest of kin court and sustained by the Supreme Court, Mercedes and
Gregoria Ventura are the legitimate children of Gregorio
Third, illegitimate children Ventura and his wife, the late Paulina Simpliciano.
Therefore, as the nearest of kin of Gregorio Ventura they
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court: are entitled to preference over the illegitimate children of

71
Gregorio Ventura, namely: Maria and Miguel Ventura. special administratix. The RTC issued another order dated
Hence, under the aforestated preference provided in Section June 8, 1987, granting the Urgent ex-parte Motion for
6 of Rule 78, the person or persons to be appointed assistance filed by PR for appointment of two deputy sheriffs
with some military/policemen to assist her in preserving the
administrator are Juana Cardona, as the surviving spouse,
estate of her late husband. Petitioner resisted on taking the
or Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura as nearest of kin, or subject vehicles on the ground that they were his personal
Juana Cardona and Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura in the properties. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition to annul the
discretion of the Court, in order to represent both interests. RTC’s orders dated June 5 and June 8, 1987. He alleges that
the appointment of a special administrator constitutes an
abuse of discretion for having been made without giving
RULE 79 petitioner an opportunity to oppose said appointment.

DE GUZMAN VS ANGELES ISSUE:


GR No. L-78590
Whether the probate court may appoint a special
FACTS: administratix and issue a writ of possession of alleged
properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate
On May 5, 1987 Private Respondent Elaine de Guzman filed of the said deceased person even before the probate court
a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of causes notice be served upon all interested parties?
Manolito de Guzman before RTC of Makati City. The petition RULING:
alleges among others that petitioner as the surviving spouse
of the decedent is most qualified and entitled to the grant of No. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the
letters of administration. On May 22, 1987, PR filed a respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings
motion for writ of possession over 5 vehicles registered upon the filing of a petition for the settlement of an
under the name of the said deceased person, alleges to be intestate estate by the private respondent. Verily, notice
conjugal properties of the de Guzmans and in order to through publication of the petition for the settlement of the
preserve the assets of her late husband, but which are at estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional, the absence of
present in the possession of PR’s father-in-law, herein which makes court orders affecting other persons,
Petitioner Pedro de Guzman. subsequent to the petition void and subject to annulment.
In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3,
On May 28, 1987, PR filed her “ex-parte motion to appoint Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court was caused to be
petitioner as Special Administratix of the estate of Manolito given by the probate court before it acted on the motions of
de Guzman”. Hearing was set on June 5, 1987, however, no the private respondent to be appointed as special
notice was given to petitioner. In the order dated June 5, administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged
1987, the RTC granted the PR’s motion to be appointed as properties of the deceased person in the widow's favor, and

72
to grant her motion for assistance to preserve the estate of Respondent judge resolved to defer resolution on the said
Manolito de Guzman. motion to dismiss until the parties shall have presented
their evidence. However, a motion for the appointment of a
A special administrator has been defined as the special administrator was filed by the petitioner alleging that
"representative of decedent appointed by the probate court the unresolved motion to dismiss would necessarily delay
to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or the probate of the will and the appointment of an executor.
general administrator is appointed." The petitioner as The appointment of a special administrator is predicated on
creditor of the estate has a similar interest in the the necessity of enabling somebody to take care of the
preservation of the estate as the private respondent who properties where there is a considerable delay in the
happens to be the widow of deceased Manolito de Guzman. appointment of a regular administrator. In the present case,
Hence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of since the properties covered by the will are undoubtedly in
Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what the possession of the oppositors who claim to be the owners
emergency would have ensued if the appointment of an thereof, the Court sees no necessity of appointing a special
administrator was deferred at least until the most interested administrator.
parties were given notice of the proposed action. No
unavoidable delay in the appointment of a regular ISSUE:
administrator is apparent from the records.
Did the respondent judge act with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
RULE 80 order denying petitioner's motion for the appointment of a
special administrator?
DE GUZMAN VS GUADIZ
G.R. No. L-48585 March 3, 1980 RULING:

FACTS: Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the


probate court may appoint a special administrator should
Petitioner filed a petition Special Proceeding No. 865 for the there be a delay in granting letters testamentary or of
probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one administration occasioned by any cause including an appeal
Catalina Bajacan instituting the herein petitioner as sole and from the allowance or disallowance of a will. Subject to this
universal heir and naming him as executor. The private qualification, the appointment of a special administrator lies
respondents, thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss and/or in the discretion of the Court which must be sound, that is,
opposition contending, among others, that all the real not whimsical, or Contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal
properties of Catalina Bajacan are now owned by them by principle.
virtue of a Deed of Donation Inter vivos execute.

73
The reason for the practice of appointing a special officer of the court. The accountability which the court,
administrator rests in the fact that estates of decedents which attaches to the office of a special administrator to be
frequently become involved in protracted litigation, thereby appointed by the court is absent from the personal
being exposed to great waste and losses if there is no possession of private respondents.
authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the
assets in the interim. No temporary administration can be DE GUZMAN VS ANGELES
granted where there is an executor in being capable of (supra)
acting, however.
RULING:
Principal object of appointment of temporary administrator
is to preserve estate until it can pass into hands of person No. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the
fully authorized to administer it for benefit of creditors and respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings
heirs. upon the filing of a petition for the settlement of an
It appears that the estate of the deceased Catalina Bajacan intestate estate by the private respondent. Verily, notice
consists of eighty (80) hectares of first class agricultural through publication of the petition for the settlement of the
land. It is claimed that these 80 hectares produce P estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional, the absence of
50,000.00 worth of palay each harvest twice a year. which makes court orders affecting other persons,
Obviously there is an immediate need for a special subsequent to the petition void and subject to annulment.
administrator to protect the interests of the estate as In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3,
regards the products. Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court was caused to be
given by the probate court before it acted on the motions of
All the facts which warrant the appointment of a special the private respondent to be appointed as special
administrator in accordance with Rule 80, Sec. 1 of the administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged
Revised Rules of Court are present in the case at bar. properties of the deceased person in the widow's favor, and
to grant her motion for assistance to preserve the estate of
The respondent judge opined that there is no need for the Manolito de Guzman.
appointment of a special administrator in this case because
the respondents are already in possession of the properties A special administrator has been defined as the
covered by the will. The respondent judge has failed to "representative of decedent appointed by the probate court
distinguish between the partisan possession of litigants and to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or
the neutral possession of the special administrator under general administrator is appointed." The petitioner as
the Rules of Court. When appointed, a special administrator creditor of the estate has a similar interest in the
is regarded, not as a representative of the agent of the preservation of the estate as the private respondent who
parties suggesting the appointment, but as the happens to be the widow of deceased Manolito de Guzman.
administrator in charge of the estate, and in fact, as an Hence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of

74
Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what 4. Engracia filed a Motion for Partition of Estate in the
emergency would have ensued if the appointment of an intestate estate proceedings of Florentino. There she
administrator was deferred at least until the most interested stated that there were no other legal and compulsory
parties were given notice of the proposed action. No
heirs of Florentino except herself, Avila and Ramon
unavoidable delay in the appointment of a regular
administrator is apparent from the records. Manugas whom she acknowledged as the natural son
of Florentino. Avila’s widow executed a waiver of
rights and participation renouncing her rights over
MANUNGAS VS LORETO the property of her husband in favor of Engracia.
5. Consequently, a Decree of Final Distribution was
DOCTRINE: issued in the intestate estate of Florentino
distributing the properties to Engracia and Ramon.
As the law does not say who shall be appointed as special (TAKE NOTE: At this point, the intestate estate
administrator and the qualifications the appointee must proceedings as regards Florentino’s properties were
have, the judge or court has discretion in the selection of already terminated)
the person to be appointed, discretion which must be sound, 6. Thereafter, the RTC of Panabo City appointed
that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or Parreño, the niece of Engracia as the Judicial
equity. There is no logical reason to appoint a person who is Guardian of the properties and person of her
a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to the incompetent aunt.
deceased. 7. Through Parreño, Engracia instituted a civil case
against the Spouses Diosdado Salinas
FACTS: Manugas(Diosdado) and Milagros Pacifico for illegal
detainer and damages. MTC issued a summary
1. This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under judgment in favor of Engracia due to the failure of
Rule 45. Diosdado to file an answer.
2. Engracia Manugas was the wife of Florentino 8. After sometime, Diosdado instituted a petition for the
Manugas. They had no children. Instead, they issuance of letters of administration over Engracia’s
adopted Samuel David Avila(Avila). Estate in his favor before the RTC of Tagum. He
3. Florentino died intestate while Avila predeceased his alleged that he, being an illegitimate son of
adoptive mother. Avila was survived by his wife Florentino, is an heir of Engracia.
Sarah Abarte Vda. De Manugas.

75
9. The petition was opposed by Margarita Avila ● Jurisprudence teaches us that the appointment of a
Loreto(Loreto) and Parreño alleging that Diosdado special administrator lies within the discretion of the
was incompetent as an administrator:
court.
a. He was not a Manugas
b. He was a debtor of the estate
10. RTC-Appointed Parreño as administrator ● Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel
11. Upon MR, the RTC reversed it’s ruling while “It is well settled that the statutory provisions
appointing Diosdado as Special Administrator. as to the prior or preferred right of certain persons to
12. CA- RTC acted with Grave abuse of discretion and the appointment of administrator under Section 1,
reinstated Parreño as the administrator of the estate.
Rule 81, as well as the statutory provisions as to
Thus this petition.
causes for removal of an executor or administrator
ISSUE: under section 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2,
Rule 83, do not apply to the selection or removal of
W/N the CA erred when it ruled to annul the appointment of special administrator. x x x As the law does not say
Diosdado herein petitioner as judicial administrator and
who shall be appointed as special administrator and
reinstating the appointment of Parreño. NO. (Relevant to
the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge
our topic)
or court has discretion in the selection of the person
to be appointed, discretion which must be sound,
RULING: that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or
equity.”
The RTC acted with Grave abuse of discretion(CA did not err
in reversing RTC’s order)
● Reiterated in Ocampo
● The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of “While the RTC considered that respondents
were the nearest of kin to their deceased parents in
Florentino Manungas does not mean that he is
their appointment as joint special administrators, this
entitled or even qualified to become the special is not a mandatory requirement for the appointment.
administrator of the Estate of Engracia. It has long been settled that the selection or removal
of special administrators is not governed by the rules

76
regarding the selection or removal of regular ○ evidence on record shows that Diosdado is
administrators. The probate court may appoint or not related to the late Engracia and so he is
remove special administrators based on grounds not interested in preserving the latter’s estate
other than those enumerated in the Rules at its ○ Parreño is a former Judicial guardian of
discretion, such that the need to first pass upon and Engracia when she was still alive and who is
resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the also the niece of the latter, is interested in
application of the order of preference under Section 6 protecting and preserving the estate of her
of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case of a late aunt Engracia, as by doing so she would
regular administrator, do not obtain. As long as the reap the benefit of a wise administration of
discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is the decedent’s estate
based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles,
interference by higher courts is unwarranted.” ● It must be remembered that the estate of Florentino
Manungas was already the subject of intestate
● While the trial court has the discretion to appoint proceedings that have long been terminated with the
anyone as a special administrator of the estate, such proceeds distributed to the heirs with the issuance of
a Decree of Final Distribution. With the termination
discretion must be exercised with reason, guided by
of the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino
the directives of equity, justice and legal principles.
Manungas, Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of
It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia
role of a special administrator is to preserve the Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part of
estate until a regular administrator is appointed as the Estate of Manungas.
stated in Section 2 Rule 80 of the Rules of court.
○ There is no logical reason to appoint a person OCAMPO VS OCAMPO
who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a G.R. No. 187879
July 5, 2010
stranger to the deceased.
FACTS:
● Diosdado is a stranger to Engracia while Parreño is
the latter’s relative. Vicente and Maxima Ocampo died intestate. Petitioners
Dalisay, Vince, Melinda and Leonardo, Jr. are the surviving
wife and children of Leonardo Ocampo, respectively.

77
Respondents Renato and Erlinda are the legitimate children HELD:
and only heirs of the spouses Vicente and Maxima. 5
months after the death of Leonardo, petitioners initiated a Yes. Inasmuch as there was a disagreement as to who
petition for intestate proceedings of the estate of Sps. should be appointed as administrator of the estate of
Vicente and Maxima, and Leonardo in the RTC of Laguna. Vicente and Maxima, the RTC, acting as a probate court,
They alleged that Leonardo, respondents’ brother, managed deemed it wise to appoint joint special administrators
the estate of their parents, but after his death, respondents pending the determination of the person or persons to
took possession of the properties, thus they ask for the whom letters of administration may be issued. The RTC was
settlement of estate and the award of the estate to the justified in doing so considering that such disagreement
rightful heirs. Respondents contended that the petition was caused undue delay in the issuance of letters of
defective because of settling two estates in a single administration, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 80 of the
proceeding. They also prayed that they be appointed as Rules of Court. Initially, the RTC, on June 15, 2006,
special joint administrators of the estate of Vicente and appointed Renato and Dalisay as joint special
Maxima. The RTC denied the opposition but admitted their administrators, imposing upon each of them the obligation
counter-petition for appointment of special joint to post an administrators bond of P200,000.00. However,
administrator. The RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as taking into account the arguments of respondents that
special joint administrators, but was opposed by Dalisay was incompetent and unfit to assume the office of a
respondents in their motion for reconsideration, stating that special administratrix and that Dalisay, in effect, waived her
Dalisay was incompetent and unfit to be appointed as appointment when petitioners nominated Bian Rural Bank as
administrator. The RTC then revoked the appointment of special administrator, the RTC, on February 16, 2007,
Dalisay, as respondents are the nearest kin of Vicente and revoked Dalisays appointment and substituted her with
Maxima. After a few months, petitioners filed a motion to Erlinda.
terminate or revoke the special administration, contending
that the special administration was not necessary as the A special administrator is an officer of the court who is
estate is neither vast nor complex, the properties are subject to its supervision and control, expected to work for
properly identified and not involved in any litigation the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its
necessitating special administrators. The RTC granted the smooth administration and speedy settlement. When
motion. Respondents the filed a petition for certiorari before appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or
CA to which CA ruled in favor of repondents representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.
The principal object of the appointment of a temporary
ISSUE: administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to
the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for
Was there a need to appoint a special administrator? the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of
Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

78
While the RTC considered that respondents were the appointed Rowena F. Corona, herein petitioner, as her
nearest of kin to their deceased parents in their Executrix.
appointment as joint special administrators, this is not a
mandatory requirement for the appointment. It has long On November 21, 1980, Rowena filed a petition for the
been settled that the selection or removal of special probate of the Wills before the Court of First Instance of
administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the Rizal, Branch VI (Spec.Procs. No. 9398), and for the
selection or removal of regular administrators. appointment of Nenita P. Alonte as Administrator because
she (Rowena) is presently employed in the United Nations in
The probate court may appoint or remove special New York City.
administrators based on grounds other than those
enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the On December 12, 1980, the surviving husband, Romarico
need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or Vitug, filed an "Opposition and Motion" and prayed that the
unfitness and the application of the order of preference Petition for Probate be denied and that the two Wills be
under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case disallowed on the ground that they were procured through
of a regular administrator, do not obtain. undue and improper pressure and influence, having been
executed at a time when the decedent was seriously ill and
under the medical care of Dr. Antonio P. Corona,,
ROWENA F. CORONA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, petitioner's husband, and that the holographic Will impaired
ROMARICO G. VITUG et al his legitime. Romarico further prayed for his appointment as
Special Administrator because the Special Administratrix
FACTS: appointed is not related to the heirs and has no interest to
be protected, besides, the surviving spouse is qualified to
On November 10, 1980, Dolores Luchangco Vitug died in administer.
New York, U.S.A., leaving two Wills: one, a holographic Will
dated October 3, 1980, which excluded her husband, On February 6, 1981, the Probate Court set aside its Order
respondent Romarico G. Vitug, as one of her heirs, and the of December 2, 1980 appointing Nenita as Special
other, a formal Will sworn to on October 24, 1980, or about Administratrix, and appointed instead the surviving
three weeks thereafter, which expressly disinherited her husband, Romarico as Special Administrator with a bond of
husband Romarico "for reason of his improper and immoral P200,000.00, essentially for the reasons that under Section
conduct amounting to concubinage, which is a ground for 6, Rule 78, of the Rules of Court, the surviving spouse is
legal separation under Philippine Law"; bequeathed her first in the order of preference for appointment as
properties in equal shares to her sisters Exaltacion L. Administrator as he has an interest in the estate; that the
Allarde, Vicenta L. Faustino and Gloria L. Teoxon, and her disinheritance of the surviving spouse is not among the
nieces Rowena F. Corona and Jennifer F. Way; and grounds of disqualification for appointment as
Administrator; that the next of kin is appointed only where

79
the surviving spouse is not competent or is unwilling to Objections to Nenita's appointment on grounds of
serve besides the fact that the Executrix appointed, is not impracticality and lack of kinship are over-shadowed by the
the next of kin but merely a niece, and that the decedent's fact that justice and equity demand that the side of the
estate is nothing more than half of the unliquidated conjugal deceased wife and the faction of the surviving husband be
partnership property. represented in the management of the decedent's estate.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration with an alternate It is apropos to remind the Special Administrators that
Motion for the appointment of co-Special Administrators. while they may have respective interests to protect, they
are officers of the Court subject to the supervision and
The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on control of the Probate Court and are expected to work for
the part of the Probate Court stating that the Probate Court the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth
strictly observed the order of preference established by the administration, and its earliest settlement.
Rules; that petitioner though named Executrix in the alleged
Will, declined the trust and instead nominated a stranger as DISPOSITIVE: The Court of First Instance of Rizal, hereby
Special Administrator; that the surviving husband has ordered Nenita F. Alonte as co-Special Administrator,
legitimate interests to protect which are not adverse to the properly bonded, who shall act as such jointly with the other
decedent's estate which is merely part of the conjugal Special Administrator on all matters affecting the estate.
property; and that disinheritance is not a disqualification to
appointment as Special Administrator besides the fact that
the legality of the disinheritance would involve a LIWANAG vs. REYES
determination of the intrinsic validity of the Will which is G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964
decidedly premature at this stage.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Pio D. Liwanag executed a real estate mortgage with
WON Nenita Alonte be appointed as co-Special acceleration clause in case of non payment within at a rate
Administrator of 12% per annum over a parcel of residential land with
building and improvements in favor of Rotegan Financing,
RULING: Inc., to secure the payment of a loan. Liwanag died
intestate leaving the loan unpaid. Thereafter, a complaint
Yes. Nenita F. Alonte, should be appointed as co-Special for foreclosure against the Estate of Pio D. Liwanag and
Administrator. The executrix's choice of Special Gliceria Liwanag as administratrix of the estate and an
Administrator, considering her own inability to serve and the action for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant
wide latitude of discretion given her by the testatrix in her Gliceria Liwanag filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
Will (Annex "A-1"), is entitled to the highest consideration. foreclosure, on the theory that she may not be sued as

80
special administratrix. Also expressed opposition to the property. Under the Rules of Court it does not expressly
prayer for the issuance of a writ of receivership, on the prohibit making the special administratrix a defendant in a
ground that the property subject of the foreclosure suit against the estate otherwise to deny the present action
proceeding's is in custodia legis, since administration on technical ground alone, and the appointment of a
proceedings had already been instituted for the settlement regular administrator will be delayed, the very purpose for
of the estate of the deceased. which the mortgage was constituted will be defeated.

ISSUE: It is also emphasized that the will of the deceased himself


in case of foreclosure, the property be put into the hands of
Whether or not an action for foreclosure be brought against a receiver, and this provision should be respected by the
the special administratrix or the appointment of a received administratrix of the estate. The allegation of the petitioner
is proper in a foreclosure proceedings. on the theory that property in custodia legis can not be
given to a receiver is not tenable because this is an action
RULING: to enforce a superior lien on certain property of the estate
and the appointment of a receiver is the very convenient
The case raises the following fundamental issues: first, the and feasible means of preserving and administering the
correctness of the Section 7 of Rule 86 of the New Rules of property.
Court provides that a creditor holding a claim against the
deceased, secured by a mortgage or other collateral ZAYCO VS HINLO JR.
security, may pursue any of these remedies: (1) abandon
his security and prosecute his claim in the testate or FACTS:
intestate proceeding and share in the general distribution of
the assets of the estate; (2) foreclose his mortgage or After Enrique Hinlo died intestate on January 31, 1986, his
realize upon his security by an action in court, making the heirs filed a petition for letters of administration of his
executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is estate in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros
a deficiency after the sale of the mortgaged property, he Occidental, Silay City, Branch 40. Ceferina Hinlo, widow of
may prove the same in the testate or intestate proceedings; Enrique, was initially appointed as special administratrix of
and (3) rely exclusively upon his mortgage and foreclose it Enriques estate. On December 23, 1991, petitioners Nancy
any time within the ordinary period of limitations, and if he H. Zayco and Remo Hinlo were appointed as co-
relies exclusively upon the mortgage, he shall not be administrators in lieu of their mother Ceferina who was
admitted as creditor of the estate, and shall not share in the already sickly and could no longer effectively perform her
distribution of the assets. duties as special administratrix.

Here respondent has chosen the second remedy by filing his On March 4, 2003, respondent Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr., a
action for foreclosure against the administratrix of the grandson of Enrique and heir to his estate by virtue of

81
representation, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of RULING:
administration in his favor and an urgent motion for the
removal of petitioners as co-administrators of Enriques An order appointing an administrator of a deceased persons
estate. Petitioners opposed both the petition and the estate is a final determination of the rights of the parties in
motion. connection with the administration, management and
settlement of the decedents estate.[10] It is a final order
RTC revoked the appointment of petitioners as co- and, hence, appealable.[11]
administrators of the estate of Enrique and directed the
issuance of letters of administration in favor of respondent In appeals in special proceedings, a record on appeal is
on a P50,000 bond. Respondent posted the required bond, required. The notice of appeal and the record on appeal
took his oath as administrator and was issued letters of should both be filed within 30 days from receipt of the
administration. notice of judgment or final order.[12] Pursuant to Neypes v.
CA,[13] the 30-day period to file the notice of appeal and
Petitioners received a copy of the July 23, 2002 order on record on appeal should be reckoned from the receipt of the
August 2, 2002 and moved for its reconsideration on August order denying the motion for new trial or motion for
9, 2002. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. reconsideration.

RTC denied the notice of appeal and record on appeal. It From the time petitioners received the July 23, 2003 order
ruled that petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy as the (denying their motion for reconsideration of the July 23,
July 23, 2002 and July 23, 2003 orders were interlocutory 2002 order) on July 31, 2003, they had 30 days or until
and not subject to appeal. Even assuming that appeal was August 30, 2003 to file their notice of appeal and record on
the proper remedy, it was filed late. appeal. They did so on August 29, 2003. Thus, the appeal
was made on time.
Petitioners challenged the RTC order in CA by way of a
petition for certiorari and mandamus. CA dismissed the .
petition. MR was denied by CA as well. TAN VS GEDERIO, JR.

G.R. No. 166520 March 14, 2008


ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not the RTC errend when it ruled that the July
23, 2002 and 2003 orders were not appealable. Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000, private
respondents Rogelo Lim Suga and Helen Tan Racoma, who
were claiming to be the children of the decedent moved for
the appointment of their attorney-in-fact, Romualdo Lim as

82
special administrator. This was opposed by the petitioner regular administrator and put to an end the delay which
Vilma Tan, Jake Tan and Geraldine Tan, claiming that none necessitated the appointment of a special administrator.
of the respondents can be appointed since they are not
residing in the country, that Romualdo does not have the
same competence as Vilma Tan who was already acting as
Mendiola v. CA et al., 190 SCRA 421
the de facto administratrix of the estate, and that the
nearest of kin, being the legitmate children, is preferred in
the choice of administrator (claiming that the respondent
were illegitmate children). FACTS: Carlos Mendiola died on December 28, 1984 and
was survived by his spouse, Florentina and his children
However, upon failure of Vilma to follow a court directive to
account for the income of the estate, the court granted namely, Reynaldo (herein petitioner), Redentor,
Romualdo's appointment as special administrator. Ernestina, Edgardo, Manuel, Enrico, Ricardo, and Marilou
all surnamed Mendiola (herein private respondents). A
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals and was petition for probate of the decedent's will was filed on
denied, hence the petition for review on certiorari.
March 30, 1987 with the RTC-Pasig. Said court allowed
ISSUE: the will and issued letters of testamentary in favor of the
petitioner who was declared executor in the will. Later
Whether or not the court violated Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the on, private respondents moved for the removal of the
Rules of Court in their selection of a special administrator.
executor and subsequently moved for the appointment
RULING: of Redentor. The motion was granted and petitioner was
removed. Redentor was declared as excecutor. A
The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but
Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a
it was denied by the court. On appeal, the Court of
regular administrator, and not of a special administrator, as
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court; hence,
the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the discretion of
the court, and is not appealable.
petitioner filed this petition for review. The latter averred
that his removal was not supported by evidence and he
If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order was not given his day in court.
of preference , they should pursue the appointment of a

83
ISSUE: Was the removal of the petitioner as executor Nilda Gabriel vs CA
proper?

F: 9 months after the death of Domingo, his illegitimate


RULING: Yes. There was sufficient evidence to support his son Roberto was appointed by the probate court as
removal namely, his failure to pay the estate tax and to administrator of his estate. Domingo’s widow, Felicitas,
render an accounting of the estate and settle the same together with their legitimate daughter wanted to recall
according to law, and has involved the other heirs in a the appointment arguing that they should be preferred
suit because of his own deeds. Thus, his removal was in since they are next of kin compared to Roberto who is
accordance with Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court only an illegitimate child. Roberto argued that the court
which states that "[i]f an executor or administrator has the discretion in choosing the administrator and that
neglects to render his account and settle the estate the oppositors neglected their duty to file for
according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of appointment within 30 days from death of Domingo as
the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or provided by the Rules.
absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or
unsuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove
him, or in its discretion, may permit him to resign." Under I: WON Roberto should be removed as administrator due
this provision, the court which appointed the executor to the preference under the rules?
has the discretion to remove the same. Also the
determination of a person's suitability for the office of
judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound
R: NO. Roberto and Felicitas were appointed co-
judgment of the court exercising the power of
administrators.
appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered
with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error.

We feel that we should not nullify the appointment of


private respondent Roberto as administrator. The

84
determination of a person's suitability for the office of that the removal of an administrator does not lie on the
judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound whims, caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries
judgment of the court exercising the power of of the estate. In addition, the court may also exercise its
appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered discretion in appointing an administrator where those
with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in who are entitled to letters fail to apply therefor within a
error. 19 Administrators have such a right and given time. 21
corresponding interest in the execution of their trust as
would entitle them to protection from removal without
just cause. Thus, Section 2 of Rule 82 provides the legal Under the circumstances obtaining herein, we deem it
and specific causes authorizing the probate court to just, equitable and advisable that there be a co-
remove an administrator. administration of the estate of the deceased by
petitioner Felicitas Jose-Gabriel and private respondent
Roberto Dindo Gabriel.
While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample
discretion in the removal of an administrator, it must,
however, have some fact legally before it in order to
justify such removal. There must be evidence of an act or
omission on the part of the administrator not Vda de Bacaling vs Laguda (please refer to handwritten
conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders digest from Ate Devie)
of the court which it deems sufficient or substantial to
warrant the removal of the administrator.

Munsayac v. Court of Appeals


In the instant case, a mere importunity by some of the
heirs of the deceased, there being no factual and G.R. No. 148597
substantial bases therefor, is not adequate ratiocination
for the removal of private respondent. Suffice it to state

85
Facts: to comply with the order, the petitioners Grace de Villa,
Lily Sunga and Peter Munsayac were ordered arrested.
The present controversy stems from a Special Proceeding Thereafter, appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. In
Case entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the its resolution of the case, it set aside the Order of Arrest
Late Gelacio Munsayac, Sr. and the Late Vicenta issued by respondent judge but as to the issue of
Munsayac. The said case was filed by Grace De Villa, Lily inhibition, it held that there was no convincing proof that
Sunga and Roy Munsayac, 3 of the 5 children of the late the demeanor of the trial judge had put him under
Spouses Gelacio and Vicenta Munsayac for letters of suspicion, especially in the light of their clear display of
administration nominating Grace de Villa as contumacious behavior toward the court and that said
administratrix of the intestate estate of their parents. request was unacceptable, because they had come to
Grace de Villa’s nomination was opposed by the 2 other court with unclean hands. Furthermore, the CA found
children of the late Munsayac Spouse, namely, Gelacio that Judge Reyes had gravely abused his discretion
Munsayac, Jr. and the late Nora Visperas, who when he disallowed the Extrajudicial Partition executed
nominated Gelacio Jr. as administrator. Gelacio, Jr. was by the heirs of the Munsayac spouses which lead to the
eventually appointed administrator. Subsequently, De approval the said extrajudicial partition.
Villa and Sunga filed for a Request to Inhibit respondent
judge. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, Issue:
prohibition and mandamus questioning, among others,
respondent Judge’s Order directing/ordering Grace de Whether the properties in custodia legis must be
Villa to produce certain bank time deposit released?
certificates/documents and the order of arrest of Grace
de Villa for failure to produce the said bank Held:
certificates/documents. Acting on the Omnibus Motion
filed by the administrator of the estate, respondent Yes. The main case from which this Petition arose has
Judge issued an order for de Villa, Sunga and Munsayac already been decided by the Court of Appeals. The
to surrender in custodia legis, under pain of contempt, Decision is now final and executory. Already terminated
(a) the amount of the bank investment discovered in the in that main case was Special Proceedings No. 704-R,
names of the late Vicenta, de Villa and Sunga made which had given rise to a number of incidents and
with the United Coconut Planter’s Bank, (b) as well as the petitions including the herein matter. As such, any and all
surrender of all the pieces of jewelry given by the late incidents relating to the special proceedings should also
Vicenta to De Villa and Sunga, subject of the freeze be deemed to have been terminated. When Judge
order with the China Banking Corporation. For their failure Reyes issued his Orders commanding the bank manager

86
of the China Bank branch in Baguio City to freeze the assumption of jurisdiction and the rights of third parties
safety deposit box of petitioners and to deposit certain are not impaired. These principles, however, have no
amounts in custodia legis, he did so as the presiding more application in this case, since the main
judge in the probate court. Now that the case has finally proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of
been terminated, it follows that neither he nor his court the deceased couple have already been decided and
has any more right to hold the properties that were the terminated. To be sure, this Court is not tasked to look
subject of his Orders in the special proceedings. Needless into the ownership of the properties deposited with or
to say, the lifting of any freeze order and the return of ordered frozen by the lower court during the progress of
any property previously deposited with the court should the special proceedings. Neither can Judge Reyes do so
be effected. The judge had no more discretion to decide now. Whether those properties should have been
whether the amounts and the property deposited should adjudicated by the legal heirs of the Munsayac spouses
be released. Likewise, any standing order on any is beside the point at this time. The former have already
property in relation to the special proceedings should be entered into an Extrajudicial Partition representing the
lifted. This ruling reiterates the long-standing principle that final, complete and absolute settlement of their shares as
a tribunal acting as a probate court exercises limited heirs of the latter. What is left to be done is simply the
jurisdiction. However, the determination of whether a lifting of any freeze order and the release of any property
property should be included in the inventory is within its originally deposited by petitioners in custodia legis.
probate jurisdiction. Such determination is only
provisional, not conclusive, in character and subject to
Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of
the final decision in a separate action that may be
Faustina Cabading
instituted by the parties. Neither are we unmindful of the
rule that questions on an advance made or allegedly G.R. No. 123924 December 11, 2003
made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and FACTS
determined by the court that has jurisdiction over the
estate proceedings and that the final order of the court Quintin died intestate. His brother, Miguel Franco
thereon shall be binding on the person raising the (Miguel,), filed a Petition for Issuance of Letters of
questions and on the heirs. In a train of decisions, this Administration, before the Court of First Instance of
Court has consistently enunciated this settled, corollary Zamboanga del Norte, praying that he be appointed as
principle – generally, a probate court may not decide a administrator of Quintins estate. This Petition was
question of title or ownership, but it may do so if the opposed by Faustina Franco Vda. De Cabading
interested parties are all heirs or the question is one of (Faustina), the sister of the decedent, on the ground that
collation or advancement or the parties consent to its Miguel was unfit to be the administrator.

87
On 27 August 1973, the intestate court issued did not file a motion for the reconsideration of the 27
an Order declaring inter alia that, based on the August 1973 Order of the intestate court which denied
evidence, Quintin was the absolute owner of the subject Miguel’s claim of ownership. It was the 1 September
property. This finding was subsequently used by the 1973 Order of the intestate court, by virtue of which
intestate court as one of the grounds for granting the Miguel was removed as special administrator that he
motion to remove Miguel as special administrator, stating contested. While the 27 August 1973 Order is a provisional
the intestate court said that since Miguel was claiming determination of ownership over the subject property,
ownership over half of the subject property, his yet conformably to ordinary experience any prudent
conflicting interest rendered him incapable of rendering claimant is expected to dispute such an order which
a true and faithful account of the estate. rejects his claim of ownership. Miguel’s inaction
unmistakably bolsters the unshakeable weight that
ISSUE
should be accorded the statement as a declaration
Is the finding of the court with regard to the ownership of against interest and a judicial admission.
the subject property in the present case is conclusive?
HELD
De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96107 (June 19,
No. The intestate court in its Order dated 27 August
1973 declared that Quintin was the absolute owner of 1995) Case Digest
the property and accordingly denied Miguel’s claim of
ownership over half the subject property. The Order was Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of
apparently issued for the purpose of determining which Possession and/or Ownership > Actions Available to
properties should be included for the inventory of the Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Accion Publiciana
estate of Miguel. While the intestate court does not have and Accion Reinvindicatoria
the authority to rule with finality on questions of
ownership over the property of the decedent, it is not
precluded from making a provisional determination over
such questions for purposes relevant to the settlement of Facts:
the estate, such as ruling whether or not to include
properties in the inventory of the estate.
However, Miguel can no longer question the Balbuena, owner of a parcel of land, entered into a
determination of ownership by the intestate court. Miguel lease agreement with Inayan in 1970, who bound himself

88
to deliver 252 cavans of palay each year as rental. The Whether or not the complaint filed by De Leon involves
ownership of the land was then transferred to Balbuena's on issue of ownership?
daughter, De Leon.

Held:
In 1983, Inayan stopped paying the agreed rental. In
1984, Balbuena filed a complaint for "Termination of Civil
Law Lease; Recovery of Posession; Recovery of Unpaid No.
Rentals and Damages" with the RTC against Inayan.

A detainer suit exclusively involves the issue of physical


The RTC ruled in favor of De Leon. On appeal to the CA, possession. The case filed by De Leon was not an
Inayan questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC. The CA, in unlawful detainer since it involved more than the issue of
Inayan's motion for reconsideration, dismissed the civil possession. De Leon prayed that Inayan be ordered to
case filed by De Leon for want of jurisdiction. It ruled that vacate the premises, pay back rentals, unpaid irrigation
De Leon's complaint was based on accion interdictal, a fees, moral and exemplary damages and litigation fees.
summary action for recovery of possession that should
have been brought before the MTC. It found that the 1-
year period had not yet elapsed from the time when the
Where the issues of the case extend beyond those
civil case for the recovery of possession was filed.
commonly involved in unlawful detainer suits, such as for
instance, the respective rights of parties under various
contractual arrangements and the validity thereof, the
Issue: case is converted from a mere detainer suit to one
"incapable of pecuniary estimation," thereby placing it
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.

89
Issue:

Santera v. CFI of Cavite Are the private respondents entitled to support,


granting that some of them are not minors and gainfully
G.R. No. L-61700-03 employed?
September 14, 1987 Held:

Yes. The controlling provision of law is not rule 83,


Facts: sec. 3 of the New Rules of Court but Arts. 290 and 188 of
the Civil Code. The fact that private respondents are of
Private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment and
and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, thru their guardian should not be regarded as the determining factor of their
Anselma Diaz filed a petition for support with the CFI of right to allowance under 188. While the Rules of Court
Cavite, including educational expenses, clothing and limit allowances to the widow and minor or
medical necessitites. This was opposed later on by the incapacitated children of the deceased, the new civil
petitioners, stating that the private respondents are no code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children
longer schooling and have attained the majority age, without distinction. Hence the private respondents are
thus are no longer under guardianship. The guardian, entitled to allowances as advances form their shares in
Anselma, admitted that some of them are already of the inheritance from their father Pablo. Since the
age and not enrolled in the first semester due to lack of provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the
funds but they will enter school again as soon as the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive
funds were given. The court granted the petition. support during the liquidation of the estate of the
deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83,
*the petitioners, Princesita, Federico, Willy are children of
sec. 3 of the ROC which is a procedural rule.
Pablo (deceased) and Felixberta; Victor, Rodrigo,
Anselmina and Miguel are 4 of the 7 children of Pablo
and Anselma Diaz. All of them are natural children
because neither of the mothers were married to Pablo. Estate of Hilario Ruiz v. CA 252 SCRA 541

90
ESTATE OF HILARIO RUIZ v. CA probate and approval of the will and for the issuance of
letters testamentary to Edmond but the latter opposed
Doctrine: the petition on the ground that the will was executed
under undue influence.

Facts:

Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will naming as his One of the properties of the estate - the house and lot
heirs his only son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted daughter, which the testator bequeathed to his granddaughters
private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and his three was leased out by Edmond Ruiz to third persons.
granddaughters, private respondents Maria Cathryn,
Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline, all children of
Edmond Ruiz. The probate court ordered Edmond to deposit with the
Branch Clerk of Court the rental deposit and payments
The testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, totalling P540,000.00 representing the one-year lease of
personal and real properties and named Edmond Ruiz the Valle Verde property.
executor of his estate.

In compliance, Edmond turned over the amount of


When Hilario died, the cash component of his estate was P348,583.56, representing the balance of the rent after
distributed among Edmond and private respondents in deducting P191,416.14 for repair and maintenance
accordance with the decedent’s will. However, Edmond expenses on the estate.
did not take any action for the probate of his father’s
holographic will.

Edmond moved for the release of P50,000.00 to pay the


real estate taxes on the real properties of the estate. The
Four years after the testator’s death, it was private
probate court approved the release of P7,722.00.
respondent Maria Pilar who filed a petition for the

91
The probate court denied petitioner’s motion for release
of funds but granted respondent Montes’ motion in view
Edmond withdrew his opposition to the probate of the of petitioner’s lack of opposition. It thus ordered the
will. Consequently, the probate court, on May 18, 1993, release of the rent payments to the decedent’s three
admitted the will to probate and ordered the issuance of
granddaughters. It further ordered the delivery of the
letters testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon the titles to and possession of the properties bequeathed to
filing of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00. The letters the three granddaughters and respondent Montes upon
testamentary were issued on June 23, 1993. the filing of a bond of P50,000.00.

Petitioner Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz as executor, filed Petitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that he
an "Ex-Parte Motion for Release of Funds." It prayed for actually filed his opposition to respondent Montes’
the release of the rent payments deposited with the
motion for release of rent payments which opposition the
Branch Clerk of Court.
court failed to consider.

Respondent Montes opposed the motion and Petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he was
concurrently filed a "Motion for Release of Funds to withdrawing his motion for release of funds in view of the
Certain Heirs" and Motion for Issuance of Certificate of fact that the lease contract over Valle Verde property
Allowance of Probate Will." Montes prayed for the had been renewed for another
release of the said rent payments to the grandchildren
and for the distribution of the testator’s properties, year.
specifically the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge
apartments, in accordance with the provisions of the
holographic will. Despite petitioner’s manifestation, the probate court, on
December 22, 1993, ordered the release of the funds to
Edmond but only "such amount as may be necessary to

92
cover the expenses of administration and allowances for Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Revised Rules of Court
support" of the testator’s three granddaughters subject to provides:
collation and deductible from their share in the
inheritance. The court, however, held in abeyance the "Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and family. - The widow and
minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person,
release of the titles to respondent Montes and the three
granddaughters until the lapse of six months from the during the settlement of the estate, shall receive
date of First publication of the notice to creditors therefrom under the direction of the court, such
allowance as are provided by law."

Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from


Issue: the funds of the decedent’s estate. The law clearly limits
the allowance to "widow and children" and does not
Whether the probate court, after admitting the will to extend it to the
probate but before payment of the estate’s debts and
obligations, has the authority: deceased’s grandchildren, regardless of their minority or
incapacity. It was error, therefore, for the appellate court
(1) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for to sustain the probate court’s order granting an
the support of the testator’s grandchildren; allowance to the grandchildren of the testator pending
(2) to order the release of the titles to certain heirs; and settlement of his estate.

(3) to grant possession of all properties of the estate to


the executor of the will. (2) No

Respondent courts also erred when they ordered the


Ruling: release of the titles of the bequeathed properties to
private respondents six months after the date of first
(1)No publication of notice to creditors. An order releasing titles
to properties of the estate amounts to an advance

93
distribution of the estate which is allowed only under the shares from the executor or administrator, or any other
following conditions: person having the same in his possession. If there is a
controversy before the court as to who are the lawful
"Sec. 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. - heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive
Nothwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in
shares to which each person is entitled under the law,
proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
may, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may ordinary cases.
deem proper and just, permit that such part of the estate
as may not be affected by the controversy or appeal be
distributed among the heirs or
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the
legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth obligations above-mentioned has been made or
in Rule 90 of these Rules." provided for, unless the distributees, 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
And Rule 90 provides that: court directs.

"Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. -


When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of
administration, the allowance to the widow, and the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the
inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration,
accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the
allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been
application of the executor or administrator, or of a paid; or (2) before payment of said obligations only if the
person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon
distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by
notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the the court conditioned upon the payment of said
persons entitled to the same, naming them and the obligations within such time as the court directs, or when
proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such
provision is made to meet those obligations.
persons may demand and recover their respective

94
legality of any devise or legacy may be raised even after
the will has been authenticated.
In the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release
of the titles to the Valle Verde property and the Blue
Ridge apartments to the private respondents after the
(3) No
lapse of six months from the date of first publication of
the notice to creditors. The questioned order speaks of Petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order
"notice" to creditors, not payment of debts and deprived him of his right to take possession of all the real
obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly left no debts when he and personal properties of the estate. The right of an
died but the taxes on his estate had not hitherto been executor or administrator to the possession and
paid, much less ascertained. The estate tax is one of management of the real and personal properties of the
those obligations that must be paid before distribution of deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so
the estate. If not yet paid, the rule requires that the long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and
distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to expenses of administration,"
meet the said tax obligation in proportion to their
respective shares in the inheritance. Notably, at the time
the order was issued the properties of the estate had not
Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court
yet been inventoried and appraised.
explicitly provides:

"Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate


It was also too early in the day for the probate court to to pay debts, and to administer estate not willed. - An
order the release of the titles six months after admitting executor or administrator shall have the right to the
the will to probate. The probate of a will is conclusive as possession and management of the real as well as the
to its due execution and extrinsic validity and settles only personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary
the question of whether the testator, being of sound for the payment of the debts and expenses for
mind, freely executed it in accordance with the administration."
formalities prescribed by law. Questions as to the intrinsic
validity and efficacy of the provisions of the will, the

95
When petitioner moved for further release of the funds
deposited with the clerk of court, he had been previously
granted by the probate court certain amounts for repair He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his
and maintenance expenses on the properties of the parents’ properties and the fruits thereof without first
submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and
estate, and payment of the real estate taxes thereon. But
petitioner moved again for the release of additional personal properties of the deceased, rendering a true
funds for the same reasons he previously cited. It was account of his administration, the expenses of
correct for the probate court to require him to submit an administration, the amount of the obligations and estate
accounting of the necessary expenses for administration tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the
court as to their veracity, propriety and justness.
before releasing any further money in his favor.

Dispositive:
It was relevantly noted by the probate court that
petitioner had deposited with it only a portion of the one-
year rental income from the Valle Verde property.
Petitioner did not deposit its succeeding rents after Those portions of the order granting an allowance to the
renewal of the lease. Neither did he render an testator’s grandchildren and ordering the release of the
accounting of such funds. titles to the private respondents upon notice to creditors
are annulled and set aside.

Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership


over the properties of his father is merely inchoate as
long as the estate has not been fully settled and
partitioned. As executor, he is a mere trustee of his
father’s estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are
trust funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities
of a trustee of the highest order.

96
97

You might also like