Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/369516443/SpecPro-Prelim-Case-Doctrines-72-80
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:55:11+00:00

Document:
established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves entitled to the same.
civil registrar and any person in interest to file their opposition, if any; a wrong.
procedural requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the appropriate prescribed for a special civil action.
establish a status, a right or a particular fact."
was, she was not the one who entered into such contract. It must be according to definite established rules. The term "special proceeding"
then sought the cancellation of entries in the wife portion of the formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides.
PUNO, C.J.: rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
and a special proceeding, respectively, in the Rules illustrate this the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings."
seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or special proceedings.
abuse of discretion which dooms his improvident order as nullity.
204029 June 4. such as the determination of the status of each heir and by virtue of the liquidation of the conjugal assets. or a particular fact.000) or. Simply put.: PADILLA. and if he is an included in the determination of the filing fees. 134. PEDROSA BERSAMIN. in the original case. in Metro Rule 73. estate or amount of the demand does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100. J. The Court has deceased husband Pedrosa can then be distributed in accordance with consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of his last will and testament in the special proceedings involving his heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only estate. JR. No. J.R. or the This procedure involves details which properly pertain to the lower parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court court. Sec. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: 1. a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right. 2014 5) G. the inventory to be submitted by the administrator.: The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of Upon the liquidation and distribution conformably with the law properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the governing the effects of the final decree of legal separation. testate and intestate. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. or letters of administration must be specifically alleged. – If the decedent is an (P200. and the rights of third parties are not impaired. or the question is one of collation or advancement. shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding. 2013 within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of this decision to YPON vs.. — Metropolitan Trial Courts. The court first taking cognizance of the same or different parties. but its determination law on intestate succession should take over in the disposition of shall only be provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the whatever remaining properties heave been allocated to petitioner.R. J. the Court of First Instance of any that where there are several claims or causes of actions between province in which he had estate. litigation expenses and costs shall be province in which he resides at the time of his death. in the Court of First Instance in the whatever kind. It TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 3 . 2014 proceedings. damages of granted. Special Proceedings No. 102126 March 12. This is but a consequence or incident of its decision rendered in the same case annulling the Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs marriage. No. Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: Manila where such personal property. exclusive of interest. The Macadangdang decision involved legal separation but. and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and taken a toll on her resources. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent. or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status. 1993 ARANAS vs. the estate of an inhabitant of the Philippines shall be settled or letters of administration granted in the proper court located in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.1âwphi1 This must take precedence over the of her case with dispatch. the amount of which citizen or an alien. R73: SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES 1) G. matters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent. arose out of the same or different transactions. Clearly. a right. No. and his estate settled. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate 3) G. The respondent presiding judge is directed to decide the partition (liquidation) case (Civil Case No. 1446) 2) GR No. inhabitant of a foreign country. 156407 January 15. or of the location of his estate.000). the doctrine enunciated therein should be applied to a marriage annulment which is the situation at bar. the determination of which court exercises jurisdiction over or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. litigation expenses and costs. damages of whatever kind. with equal reason. decedent.: personal property. Justice and equity demand the disposition possession of property. where the value of the VELASCO.: adjudicated to the husband and the wife. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only read as follows: in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. including the grant of REBUSQUILLO vs VELASCO provisional remedies in proper cases. Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of The properties that may be allocated to the deceased petitioner the estate. The jurisdiction assumed by a the causes of action. 33. estate or amount of the demand does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos Where estate of deceased persons be settled. Any properties that may be adjudicated to the action for recovery of possession and ownership. irrespective of whether the causes of action court.R. inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death. that interest. Provided further. whether a attorney's fees. shall be whether property included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive distributed in accordance with the laws of intestate succession in property of the deceased spouse. RICAFORTE determine which of the properties of the conjugal partnership should be PERLAS-BERNABE. 198680 July 8. Provided. Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. except in an appeal from that court. the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all to the exclusion of all other courts. embodied in the same complaint. his will shall be proved. Sec. Petitioner's letters to the Court indicate that she is seventy of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in (70) years of age and the prolonged action for partition (liquidation) has court. J. 3. attorney's. MERCADO LEDESMA vs. Under Section 3. be made in a special proceeding.
actual residence left by the decedent. COURT OF APPEALS encouraged for to do otherwise would counter to the clear intention of MARTIN. rights and assets the personal. No. in the matter of estates of deceased persons. supra. the existence. Section 2.: the settlement of the estate of a decedent. not legal residence or domicile. 1972 law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties". or letters of administration granted.: A counterclaim for moral damages demanded by an administrator against the heirs for alleged utterances." 8 In other words. and his estate settled. demise. Dictionary. 7 In the application of venue statutes and rules — Section 1. of assets. creditor. 9 Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. That general rule has except in an appeal from that court. 10 No particular length of time of residence is been flesh and blood — the reason was one in the nature of a legal required though. and should determination in a separate action. Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature — residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. exigency derived from the principle that the heirs succeeded to the rights and obligations of the decedent. No. in the original case. DE BORJA vs. his will shall be proved. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual and charged with his rights and obligations which survive after his stay thereat.R. COURT OF APPEALS any province in which he had estate. the Court of First Instance of ROMERO vs. as for instance. Under the present legal system. or when the qualifications or exceptions justified by expediency and convenience. L-28040 August 18. the name and last residence of the decedent.R. should be ventilated in a separate action. that is. 1948 meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. the terms "residing" and "residence. so As a general rule. 2012 if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. The jurisdiction assumed by a court. inhabitant of the state at the time of his death. Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of testate proceeding the question of inclusion in. one of collation or advancement. yet if the interested parties are all heirs. L-770 April 27. J. such rights and obligations as survive after death have to be exercised and fulfilled only by the estate of the deceased. among the artificial persons recognized by law figures "a collection of property to which the TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 4 . J. however. while The heirs were formerly considered as the continuation of the domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to decedent's personality simply by legal fiction. the Court demands that the petition therefor should affirmatively show the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or letters of administration. personal residence. intestacy. or the parties consent to the The fact of death of the intestate and his last residence within the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third country are foundation facts upon which all subsequent proceedings in parties are not impaired. 1976 questions entirely foreign in probate proceedings should not be FULE vs. In this popular sense. Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death. L-40502 November 29.R. J. allege all the necessary facts. REYES. doctrine that it is the estate or the mass of property. FRAGRANTE make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as HILADO. shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts." With particular regard to Thus.: the law. that becomes vested or place of abode. No. the terms are synonymous. a probate court may not decide a question of title where this is relied upon. or the question is administration. And if the same legal fiction were not indulged. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as 9) G. in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death. That question location of his estate." like. and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant. 188921 April 18. and 7) G. No. shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding. Some cases LIMJOCO vs. such as death. to be appointed. or otherwise. Although generally. as next of kin.R. there would be no juridical basis for the estate. The court first taking cognizance of SERENO. meaning. or exclusion from. to exercise those rights and to fulfill those obligations of the deceased. is an extraneous matter in testate or intestate proceedings. whether a citizen or an alien. the question as to title to property should not be far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent. and situs if need be. pleadings and actuations made in the course of a proceeding. What does the term "resides" mean? Does it refer to the actual residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his death? We lay down the doctrinal rule that the term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile. Section 1. J. the residence must be more than temporary. 3 general rule that questions of title should be ventilated in a separate action. J. then the probate court is competent to decide the administration of the estate rest. represented by the executor or administrator. instead of the heirs directly.B. 954. The injection into the action of incidental 10) G." is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the 8) see #5 statute or rule in which it is employed. State. want of jurisdiction appears on the record." This term "resides.. This is why according to the Supreme Court of Indiana in Billings vs. it has been the constant "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense. and that if the intestate was not an the question of ownership. and the right of the person who seeks or ownership. DE BORJA the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. and left no assets in the state. no jurisdiction is conferred on the court to grant letters of We hold that the instant case may be treated as an exception to the administration. or of the passed upon in the testate or intestate proceeding.: generally used in statutes fixing venue.L. actual or physical habitation of a person. for they might not have make it one's domicile. the term means merely residence.6) G. The reason and purpose for indulging the fiction is identical and the same in both cases. citing 2 Rapalje & L.
No. requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it because upon the will being deposited the court could.B. this is a clear indication that proceedings for the probate of origin 2as San Fernando. 16) G. to return home." like the terms "residing" and "residence. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition hearing the two cases. Residence simply requires upon the delivery thereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. the presumption in favor of the retention of the old disapproved. 1963. actual or RODRIGUEZ vs. whether in accordance and exclusive jurisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontestable.: signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement of his estate. and convey the same meaning over it to the exclusion of all other courts.: YNARES-SANTIAGO.R. Nos. J. SAN LUIS TEEHANKEE. 133743 February 6. J. not legal residence or domicile.R." is elastic and should be interpreted The Rule precisely and deliberately provides that "the court first taking in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent. No. No particular length of time of residence is required have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will. Since the testament DIZON. of the Revised Rules of Court (Section 3. the latter being required It is well settled that "domicile is not commonly changed by presence in to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the a place merely for one's own health". or a petition for the 14) G. and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) The probate of the will is. evidently was.: the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed.R. if in the course of 12) G.R. jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. for probate has been filed by the testator himself. No. however. "resides" should be viewed or TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 5 . the terms are synonymous. Thus it has been held repeatedly that. even if coupled with "knowledge executor subsequently appointed. L-21938-39 May 29. J. It is equally true. such GRIMM ROBERTS vs. testate proceedings. personal The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan became vested residence. This. 1970 probate is made after the deposit of the will. Where the petition for 15) G. J. distinguished from "legal residence or domicile. issued the corresponding notices conformably to what is prescribed by section 3. L-24742 October 26.R. 1973 13) G. Court to appoint time for proving will. LEONIDAS Court shall fix a time and place for proving the will when all AQUINO." In other words. the Court having jurisdiction. No. 1984 allowance of a will is filed in. the personal. In this popular sense. actual residence or place of abode.." This term "resides.: concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof. COURT OF APPEALS SAN LUIS vs. previous to the time appointed. It REYES. the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. that in accordance with settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction. — When a will is delivered to. with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will. 2007 CUENCO vs. proceedings for the probate of CONCEPCION. even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later. the precedence distribution of the estate of a deceased person. Notice thereof to be published. 3.11) G. It is anomalous that the estate of a person weeks successively. however. and though. one’s domicile." without prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or is At any rate." Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. L-8409 December 28. decedent — has not been offset by the evidence of record. meaning. Rule 76.L. CFI NEGROS OCCIDENTAL relate back to the time when the will was delivered. while petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in the Court of It can not be denied that a special proceeding intended to effect the First Instance of Rizal only on March 12. the term means merely residence. L-55509 April 27. J the Rule on venue does not state that the court with whom the estate or [T]he term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as intestate petition is first filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction. motu proprio. Therefore. Rule 77. 1966 understood in its popular sense.R. that is. No. even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed. BORJA physical habitation of a person. eight days later. L-21993 June 21. In the application of venue statutes and rules – Section 1. on account of illness. the petition is deemed to URIARTE vs. in a who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. EUSEBIO it hat the decedent had left a last will. Rodriguez was submitted and delivered to the Court of Bulacan on March 4. as regards said a will enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. however. shall exercise employed. The use of the disjunctive in the words "when a will is delivered to OR a petition for the allowance of a will is filed" plainly indicates that the court may act upon the mere deposit therein of a decedent's testament. Some cases make a distinction between the court with whom the petition is first filed. of the old Rules): SEC. the residence must be more than temporary. As already domicile 1— which is particularly strong when the domicile is one of the adverted to.: of Fr. as the term "inhabitant. 1956 intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found EUSEBIO vs. Even where the statute uses A fair reading of the Rule — since it deals with venue and comity the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not between courts of equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction — indicates that domicile in the technical sense. Pampanga. J. must also first take the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction fixing venue. J. is understood to be that one will never again be able. newspaper of general circulation in the province. while domicile March 4.
However. legatees. as such. 134100 September 29. this does other court. the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be instituted by the parties. COURT OF APPEALS testate proceeding the question of inclusion in. or the parties consent to the debts and expenses have been settled and paid and have become assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of 'third liable to contribute for the payment of such debts and expenses. he can file a PEREIRA vs. and may issue execution as circumstances require. yet if the interested parties are all heirs or the question is have entered into possession of portions of the estate before the one of collation or advancement. or heirs or ownership. PANGILINAN AQUINO.. under the rule of inclusion unius est exclusion alterius. there is merit in the petitioners' contention that the probate be actually false.Conversely. J.R. such power exclusively pertains to the court having partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or jurisdiction over the settlement of the decedent's estate and not to any applying for the appointment of an administrator. COURT OF APPEALS proceeding is because she and the widow are not in good terms and AQUINO. J. The probate court.: inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action . Private respondent cannot short-circuit this The general rule is that when a person dies leaving a property. L-56340 June 24. the may agree in writing to Needless to say. 1983 Thus. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 6 . there are no debts due from the estate. administrator may satisfy without the necessity of resorting to a writ of execution. . a probate court may not decide a question of title heirs have been in possession. and instead defer to the second court to issue a writ of execution because its orders usually refer to the which has before it the petition for probate of the decedent's alleged adjudication of claims against the estate which the executor or last will. [partnership]. J.R. No. certain property should or should not be included in the inventory. or Although generally. the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or PASTOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS of the decedent's assets (Sec. and (c) to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings (Sec. settle the amount of their several liabilities. The circumstances that the Rules of Court expressly specifies that the probate court may issue execution (a) to satisfy (debts of the estate out 17) G. 1979 In the case at bar. the same procedure by lumping his claim against the Alipios with those against should be judicially administered and the competent court should the Manuels considering that. it is clear that private respondent cannot maintain the present suit against petitioner. legatees are decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his among those against whom execution is authorized to be issued. An exception to this rule is Sec. then the probate court is competent to decide the court having jurisdiction of the estate may.: 19) G. 6. J. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. 1978 COCA vs. Rule Where a complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the 142) may mean.1âwphi1 Rather. by order for that the question of ownership. 2000 of) the contributive shares of devisees.: allowance of will. A legacy is not a debt of the estate. CA petition either for the issuance of letters of administration 18 or for the GANCAYCO. It is not supposed the petition before it in abeyance. legatees and heirs in possession ALIPIO vs.19 depending on whether petitioner's husband died intestate or testate. No. Rule 88). after hearing. recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal that those are the only instances when it can issue a writ of execution. and order how much and in what manner each person shall We hold that the instant case may be treated as an exception to the contribute. (b) to enforce payment of the MENDOZA. 1 of represent their conjugal estate. surviving widow and their minor children.R. if none has been commenced. the reason why Nagas instituted the special VDA. even if the estate has no debts or obligations. parties are not impaired. Section 6 of the Rules of Court which reads: Sec. 6. purpose. not preclude them from instituting administration proceedings. if they do not desire FOR GOOD REASONS to an ordinary action for partition.: expenses of partition (Sec. [good reason – administration proceedings are long and costly] 18) G.R. any judgment obtained thereby is void. may upon learning that a petition for probate of The above provision clearly authorizes execution to enforce payment of the decedent's last will has been presented in another court where the debts of estate. the inventory of the Alipios' conjugal Rule 74 which provides that when all the heirs are of lawful age and property is necessary before any claim chargeable against it can be paid. such court. and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that the decedent died intestate may . Rule 90). 1989 petitioner's husband or. or exclusion from. Rule 88. — Where devisees. may decline to take cognizance of the petition and hold court generally cannot issue a writ of execution. No. indeed. 13.: she wants to obtain possession of the properties for her own purpose. This is not a compelling reason which will necessitate the judicial The prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a administration of the estate. general rule that questions of title should be ventilated in a separate action.. aside from petitioner's lack of authority to appoint a qualified administrator. legatees. 21) G. No. DE RODRIGUEZ vs. the PLANA. J. 3. L-39532 July 20. his remedy is to file a claim against the Alipios in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of 20) GR L-81147 June 20. L-27082 January 31. does not render any judgment enforceable by execution.
shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. J. 2. to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate and to apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due. and not through to appear to the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction of the estate by an independent action. if testate. without securing letters of administration. J. 1) G.. the court may proceed summarily. all of age or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose. or. No. No. dilatory. The court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings. or refuses the trust. for this purpose.5 The exceptions to this rule are found in Sections 1 A judicial declaration that a certain person is the only heir of the and 2 of Rule 746 which provide: decedent is exclusively within the range of the administratrix proceedings and can not properly be made an independent action.: The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same.. and should they disagree. J. 118904 April 20. COURT OF APPEALS designation or segregation of shares. failed to name an executor in inheritance. is to Sec. it may resort to the there were proceedings in the probate court. 11 The court may make this Inasmuch as the owner-seller of the property was already deceased and amendment ex parte and. or by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified.R. and all orders and judgments made or TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 7 . in the exercise of its 2) G. or necessary to that effect. in their own right. The finality of the approval of the project of The probate court. The TRINIDAD vs. As parties may. the probate court had already received evidence on the ownership R74: SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES of the twelve-hectare portion during the hearing of the motion for its exclusion from title inventory The only interested parties are the heirs who have all appeared in the intestate proceeding. MEDIALDEA. It would be absurd for the heirs to intentionally excluded or leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is precisely designed to end the community of 23) G. however. No. would be contrary to the general tendency of fails to furnish the bond required by the Rules of Court. 1990 interests in properties held by co-partners pro indiviso without SOLIVIO vs. and that fact if made administrative proceedings if it had already been closed. 1. — Whenever the demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or gross value of the estate of a deceased person. long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means complied with. and such persons. No. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are A separate action for the declaration of heirs is not proper. That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the deceased is obvious and elementary. without the appointment of an executor or administrator. The better practice. clerical errors or mistakes or omission plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may 22) G. the Partition by itself alone does not terminate the probate proceeding. ordinary action of partition. L-47027 January 27. . COURT OF APPEALS or parts to which each distributed is entitled. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. which shall be which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate or intestate held not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months from court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published distributed and disposed of. has power to determine the proportion AVELINO vs. titles which had been previously sold. then the the jurisprudence of avoiding multiplicity of suits. J. Sec. and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct. 83484 February 12. COURT OF APPEALS REGALADO. 1989 VDA. the court's findings of facts and its court to first give authorization to administrator of the estate to deliver conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision. 1998 be corrected or supplied even after the judgment has been entered. . if they are lawful age and legal capacity. Summary settlement of estates of small value. decedent's estate shall be judicially administered and the competent expensive. it was incumbent upon the pleadings filed by the parties. 2000 jurisdiction to make distribution. and without delay.R.R. for the heir who has not received his share.. or for reopening of the probate or or intestate. allowance of the will. to grant. court shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78. if any there be. which would be tried by another court or Judge the petition of an interested person and upon hearing. .Here. The power to determine QUISUMBING. amendment or correction may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had become final. whether he died testate administration proceedings.: the legality or illegality of the testamentary provision is inherent in the jurisdiction of the court making a just and legal distribution of the When a person dies intestate. once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. . To hold that a separate and independent action is his will or the executor so named is incompetent.. provided the prescriptive period therefore has not elapsed. 115181 March 31. the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of terminated because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and deeds.R. does not exceed ten thousand pesos. and impractical. if otherwise. and is further. COURT OF APPEALS correction of a clerical error is an exception to the general rule that no PANGANIBAN.: It is well settled that even if a decision has become final. DE REYES vs. if proper. they may do so in an does not prevent the heirs from bringing an action to obtain his share.
VARGAS represented by themselves or through guardians. Following Rule 74 and the partition all the property constituting the inheritance among themselves ruling in Beltran vs. the heirs may apply upon. without instituting the judicial administration and the said partition. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. and in addition (2) when the provisions of Section The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 of extrajudicial 119 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with. to publication was done in the instant case. COURT OF APPEALS Section 4. and the order of partition or award. these extrajudicial filing of the present complaint. According to the second.e.R. Gmur. and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned. 1958 SAMPILO vs. which was when the summary partition and. after the required publications. Following Rule 74.COURT OF APPEALS IMPERIAL. if the issued before the Deed of Settlement and/or Partition is agreed property left does not exceed six thousand pesos.. J. 5) G.20 affect third persons who had no knowledge either of the death of the Petitioner. the two-year prescriptive period is not mention of such effect is made. PASION PEDROSA vs. if it involves real estate. their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned 4) G. The provision of Section 4. without the participation of all persons involved in no debts due from the estate. have examined the two cases cited by appellants and there is no similarity at all between the circumstances on which the ruling therein had been predicated and those of the case at bar. L-10474 February 28. is applicable only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition. 2008 case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement BENATIRO vs. is fraudulent and vicious. No. and the partition made without settlements do not bind respondents. the extrajudicial settlement cannot be binding on said property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for persons. i. No. 2001 UTULO vs. a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said to the competent court.e. supra. J. since Maria Elena did not participate in the pursuant to law. The rule plainly states. not after. to proceed with deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition. or by affidavit. 45904 September 30.R. shall Ramirez vs. We applicable in her case.. No. after paying all the known obligations.. especially as no partition. It cannot by any or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or reason or logic be contended that such settlement or distribution would are represented by themselves or through guardians. as the records confirm. however. Following Rule 74. nephews and nieces parte proceeding. The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. provisions of Section 4 of Rule 74. the settlement is not binding on her.: The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution.R.e. did not participate in the extrajudicial decedent or of the extrajudicial settlement or affidavit. the records of the present case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents. In this connection. who had no knowledge of and consent to the same. the Court of Appeals having The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex found that the decedent left aside from his widow. and not after such an agreement has already been executed19 as what happened in the instant 7) G. i. (2) when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with. Rule 74 will also not apply when the deed of extrajudicial partition is sought to be annulled on the ground of fraud. J. Ayson.. not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby.e. Patently then. The case at bar fails to AZCUNA. J. No. 1938 8) G. A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs. barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two years from such extrajudicial partition. we are of the opinion and so hold that the be recorded in the proper register's office.: comply with both requirements because not all the heirs interested have participated in the extrajudicial settlement.R. is an ex parteproceeding. 156536 October 31. a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition). appointment of an administrator. they may agree in writing to partition the the proceedings. 2006 the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or are CUA vs. the records of the present case decedent's estate. these extrajudicial settlements do not bind respondents. that persons who do living at the time of his death. in addition. having discovered their existence only shortly before the documents. The rule contemplates a notice which must be sent out or the appointment of an administrator. that all the persons or heirs of 3) G. that all the persons settlement. The because the same was notice after the fact of execution. Rule 7418 provides for a two year prescriptive period (1) to LABRADOR. when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are Under said provision.18 It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is agreed upon 6) see #3 (i. No.R.: QUISUMBING. having discovered their existence only shortly before the filing of the present complaint.: persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition. CUYOS among heirs.rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of the Following the above-quoted decision of this Court in the case of clerk.: According to the first. and. In this connection. either directly or by implication. i. J. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 8 . 161220 July 30. 118680 March 5.
administration shall be granted: the deceased left no will. Rule 78 in case intestate.R. he slept on his rights for a number putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special of years. it seems. and of very recent vintage at that. 71 The order of prescriptive period for a reconveyance action is four years. However.9) G. PORTUGAL-BELTRAN CARO vs. that Article 1144 and Article 1456. coming into effect until August 30. DAMIAN an ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to DECISION bring about the annulment of the partition or distribution or CORONA. de specially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing Guzman. 1989 PORTUGAL vs. was applied. 2005 13) G. it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance may be granted to such other person as the court may select. Medalla. court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the hence Section 43(3) of Act No. if competent and willing to serve. No. Rule 78. In the recent case of Bagtas vs. was applied. 1988 the administrator: questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74. Where special proceedings had been been vigilant of his right as the allegedly new owner of the questioned instituted but had been finally closed and terminated. 17 which states that the administration proceedings. the new Civil Code not situation which obtains here. 190. or a person dies qualified administrator. 10) G. stressed. respectively. or next of kin. An administrator is a person appointed by the court to administer the intestate estate of the decedent. What he did was the reverse. if must perforce prescribed in ten years and not otherwise. 76148 December 20. however. among other issues. 16 The only demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or discordant note. respondent. is Balbin vs. 1948. or fail to give a bond. heirship should be raised and aware of the adverse claim of the private respondents.: adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the estate of the deceased. at this juncture. neglects for thirty (30) AMEROL vs. decisions of this Court. 155555. it should be executor is named in the will. then DE LA ROSA vs. the latter being then resorted to as legal basis parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the of the four-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance of special proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings title of real property acquired under false pretenses. 1950 as mentioned earlier. be incompetent or unwilling. we held that a TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 9 . 6. or the executor or executors are judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a incompetent. as the case may be. 1950 as mentioned earlier. 2006 proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening. and of very recent vintage at that. the principal consideration is discordant note. in the discretion of the court. or for re-opening of the probate or prescriptive period for a reconveyance action is four years. (b) If such surviving husband or wife. illustrates this does not prevent the heir from bringing an action to obtain his share. it An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors. 1948. They have no counterparts in the old Civil Code or in the old The common doctrine in Litam. They are the next of kin of the of the four-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance of deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia. the fraud was discovered on June 25. 190. It must be stressed.: request that the administration be granted to some other person. illustrates this (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve. that as early as 1948. are new It is in this light that we see fit to appoint joint administrators. are new provisions. therefore. Section 6 of the Rules of Court In the case at bar. 18 But in Gerona. requests to have appointed. de through an independent action. A long line of terminated because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and decisions of this Court. No. this administrative proceedings if it had already been closed. Undoubtedly. for the heir who has not received his share. Undoubtedly. Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. in the provisions. or next of kin. in the order established in Sec. believing rightly or wrongly that she was prescribes an order of preference in the appointment of an the sole heir to Portugal’s estate. J. No.R. the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and must perforce prescribed in ten years and not otherwise. When and to whom letters of administration granted.R. that Article 1144 and Article 1456. it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance provided the prescriptive period therefor has not elapse. rule. However. or in case he did. or both. 155733 January 27. are pending. Said rule is an exception to Sec. de de la Rosa and a nominee of the Code of Civil Procedure. he failed to name an executor therein. L-33261 September 30. the latter being then resorted to as legal basis nephews and nieces of Guillermo Rustia. J. (a) To the surviving husband or wife. parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates. or to such person as such surviving husband or wife. it rule. the fraud was discovered on June 25. J. the new Civil Code not probate o[r] intestate court already final and executed and re. 16 The only In the appointment of an administrator. title of real property acquired under false pretenses. It must be shuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of. then the It is clear. August 16. as the case may be. or if a land. 17 which states that the the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. coming into effect until August 30. 18 But in Gerona. BAGUMBARAN days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to SARMIENTO. J. 1987 or if the husband or widow or next of kin. variance can be explained by the erroneous reliance on Gerona vs. 72a hence Section 43(3) of Act No.R. which would be tried by another Guzman. – If no the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property. refuse the trust. is Balbin vs. The better based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from practice. under the circumstances of the case. They have no counterparts in the old Civil Code or in the old persons of Carlota Delgado vda. 12) G. this preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators. executed on February 15. or the person selected by them. is to the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. He should have settled in said special proceedings.: As long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust complied with. A long line of competent and willing to serve.: MEDIALDEA. No. based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. a need to file one. Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse Code of Civil Procedure. 6. or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is. Epifanio Caro was already determination of. CA GR 50732. COURT OF APPEALS CARPIO MORALES. at this juncture. it seems. and not variance can be explained by the erroneous reliance on Gerona vs. however. or next of kin. Medalla.
: children. 2004 void. COURT OF APPEALS or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in CRUZ.: another person’s name. or to the one with a better right. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. L-27421 September 12." As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs. invaded. 1998 However. Segura. The partition in the present case of the questioned land. which was on the estate. we sustain the ruling-made both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals-that the will. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property MANG-OY vs. R75: PRODUCTION OF WILL.7 After examining the musty records. he is stopped by laches from questioning the ownership The rule covers only valid partitions. Napoleon. such partition shall stand in so far as PERLAS-BERNABE.10 thus: TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 10 . Alicia and Visminda. to its rightful or legal owner.: are now governed by Articles 1139 to 1155. The said article reads as follows: 16) G. COURT OF APPEALS be submitted to the proper court for probate otherwise the same shall CORONA. or by win. it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed after two years from its execution… 14) G. 1991. as announced in a long line of decisions in accordance with There is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an the Rules of Court. while the settlement of the estate is null and void.: it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs. 2012 Art. they can very well sell their undivided share in period shall start to run when TCT No. 1950.HEIRS of UY by an act inter vivos. Thus. the right to seek reconveyance of registered property is probated as required by law. it is evident that prescription had not yet barred the action. but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. J.considerable delay in asserting one’s right before a court of justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim. 128254 January 16. the Code of Civil Procedure requires that wills must SALUDARES vs.It It is settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or cannot be denied that these heirs have acquired their respective shares constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the isuance of the Torrens in the properties of Anunciacion from the moment of her death11and title over the property.: not pass either real or personal property. J. SECTION 1.R. In an action for reconveyance. that the document may be sustained on the basis of Article 1056 of the Civil Code of 1899. the registered owner may still be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owner. land to be reconveyed We find. 1056. No.12 June 16. Thus. de Guzman. considering that the action for reconveyance was filed on May 31. The rationale for the rule is that reconveyance does not set aside or re-subject to review the findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands. J. (Underscoring added) The effect of excluding the heirs in the settlement of estate was further elucidated in Segura v. which was in force at the time the said document was executed by Old Man Tumpao in 1937. the Court of Appeal's reliance on Gerona v. If the testator should make a partition of his properties NERI vs. J. In Amerol v. Since implied or constructive trusts are obligations created by law then the prescriptive Under the Spanish Civil Code. 194366 October 10. J. since it is human It is clear that Section 1 of Rule 74 does not apply to the partition in nature for a person to enforce his right when same is threatened or question which was null and void as far as the plaintiffs were concerned. however. the decree of registration is respected as 2) G. 33350 was issued. as owners thereof. Under the rule "no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. There is also estoppels in pais was invalid because it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled because Caro filed his answer only while Villanueva filed her answer.32 Furthermore. 150739 August 18. with the effectivity of the present QUE vs. No.R. 125715 December 29. in favor of the respondents isvalid but only with respect to their proportionate shares therein. COURT OF APPEALS subsequent sale of the subject propertiesmade by Enrique and his ROMERO. principle. 1986 incontrovertible. the prescriptive that.R. is that no will shall pass either real or personal action for reconveyance. However. – x x x The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section. 2005 from the date of discovery. or approximately nine years later. to equal shares in the partitioned property.R. No. Not only that. that is.30 In such cases.33 Notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title. period to enforce the same prescribes in ten years. 14 is misplaced. 17 all wills must be executed in writing27except when the testator takes part in any military operation or when any warlike operation is imminent 28 or when the testator29 is in danger of shipwreck. when the plaintiff is in possession of the property unless it is proved or allowed in court. the provisions on prescriptive periods CARPIO. To bolster the foregoing position. 1982. not having been Nevertheless. No. the testator can execute the will orally in the presence of at least two witnesses. COURT OF APPEALS Civil Code on August 30. ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY Bagumbaran. the law governing Lorenzo’s alleged will. 15 we ruled that the doctrine laid down in the earlier Gerona case was based on the old Code of Civil Procedure 16 which provided that an action based on fraud prescribes within four years 1) G. was inoperative as such.R. No. The settled not absolute because it is subject to extinctive prescription. 13 For the purpose of this case. the MARQUEZ vs.31 Failure to comply with these formalities renders the will 15) G.
The said article Article 805. are two separate cases (Civil Case No. 2023 for partition. L-63253-54 April 27. 176943 October 17. COURT OF APPEALS ALUAD vs. No. such partition shall stand in so far as it does probated. forming part of her husband’s estate should be settled in an ordinary which are entitled to respect as a consequence of the decedent's action before the regular courts.. 1967 Petitioner should realize that the allowance of her husband’s will is FERNANDEZ vs. Civil Code). being of sound mind. it found that the Deed of Donation was witnessed by only two 1056 of the Civil Code of 1899. however. 838. J. the defense is 5) G. 114 SCRA 473 ).. comply with the formalities of a the questioned will. as correctly held by only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been executed in respondent court. 106720 September 15. the rule is that there can be no valid partition among the heirs till from questioning the ownership of the property in question. the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. L-23638 October 12. thus may be impugned as 7) G. However. petitioner’s claim of title to the properties being primarily designed to protect the testator's. J." (Mang-Oy v.. since it was not an act inter vivos. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 11 . No. JUANA is not estopped Verily. No. No. UNTALAN relating to these points remain entirely unaffected. Jose Ajero to question her the will cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding because its conveyance of the same in its entirety). 1994 as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with AJERO vs. Court of Appeals.. Thus the rule invoked is inapplicable in this instance where there property. notwithstanding its authentication. The question RALLA vs..R.R. 160530 November 20. prescribed by law.B. No. courts are not powerless to do what the situation entirely unaffected. COURT OF APPEALS those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the PUNO. J. and as such it had to. The authentication of a will decides no other question than such 10) G.42 Matilde thus validly disposed of Lot No. Sand (which led oppositor Dr. but did not. and pass upon certain provisions of the will. Normally.R. vivos. notwithstanding its upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. or by will. Evidence of it is the duty imposed on a custodian of a will to deliver the same to the Court.L. John H. not inter unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court (Art. may be sustained on the basis of Article will.: 9) see R75 #6 Normally. If the testator should make a partition of his properties by assuming arguendo that the formalities were observed. she cannot validly dispose of the whole property. This. 1982 patently unmeritorious. of course. . J. and may be raised even after the will has been constrains them to do. Thus. J. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency of the provisions of the will. Actg. and Special Proceedings No. ALUAD PARAS. 2008 CORONADO vs.: While it is true that no will shall pass either real or personal property The Deed of Donation was actually a donation mortis causa. Thus.R. freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities The presentation and probate of a will are requirements of public policy. 2007 NITTSCHER vs. no right to Lot Nos. The que0stions relating to these points remain exceptional instances. expressed wishes. 11 In authenticated . MANINANG vs. 6 the case at bench.12 Thus. and may be raised SARMIENTO. It would be a non sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the pretext of estoppel. DIMAGIBA conclusive only as to its due execution.: even after the will has been authenticated (Maninang.R. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) of the provisions. which was in force at the time said witnesses and had no attestation clause which is not in accordance with document was executed by Melecio Artiaga in 1918. 7 which she shares with her father's other heirs. courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only be impugned as being vicious or null. et al. NITTSCHER QUISUMBING. 78778 December 3. COURT OF APPEALS MELENCIO-HERRERA. C. ownership and right of disposition within legal limits. read as follows: It is void and transmitted no right to petitioners’ mother.. in authentication. presupposes that the notwithstanding her having objected to the probate of the will executed properties to be partitioned are the same properties embraced in the by Monterola under which Leonida Coronado is claiming title to the said win. each involving the estate of a different person (Paz Escarella and Rosendo Ralla. subject of course to the qualification that her (Matilde’s) will must be probated.3) G.: court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator. v. L-57848 June 19. 4) G.. 11 The authority of the probate REYES. Whether or not the order overruling the allegation of estoppel is still appealable or not.: 8) G. J. No. respectively) comprising dissimilar properties. The authentication of a will decides no other questions than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of the wills.: CARPIO MORALES. these may As a general rule. and the fine and imprisonment prescribed for its violation (Revised Rule 75).R. But even "Article 1056. Court of Maria.J. 1989 being vicious or null. 674 and 676 was transmitted to not prejudice the legitime of the forced heir. 1990 6) G. Consequently. J. decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of father. the probate of a will does not look into its intrinsic validity. 674 to respondent by Appeals.: validity of wills. Nos. 144 SCRA 33 ) her last will and testament. 564 originally for the probate of a will).R. accordance with the requirements of the law. after the will has been probated.
practical considerations dictate their joint probate. previous to the time appointed. J. Leonidas. or the same is lost or destroyed. if such places of residence be even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed. which advise that the of the will. if their places of residence be known. 1992 FRAN vs.L. 77047 May 28.B. 1988 The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan became vested DE ARANZ vs. BORJA REYES. 2) G. As this Court has held a number of times.R. 3. — Any executor. 76714 June 2.R. Sec. devisees. at any time after the death of the testator. There is no question that the residences of herein petitioners probate is made after the deposit of the will. 155 SCRA 100 . A copy of the notice must in like manner be concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof. No. — The court shag also cause copies of the notice of the old Rules): the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs. What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint wills either for In the instant case. the precedence petitioners. the Cunanan respectively. and devisees of the SEC. L-53546 June 25. examined the petition and found that the conjugal in nature. and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. It is to be presumed spouses executed separate wills. Since the testament the allowance of the wig itself indicated the names and addresses of the of Fr. the cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks petitioner. Philippines at their places of residence. and executors to be notified by mail section 3. Such view overlooks the provisions of person named therein regardless of whether or not he is in possession Section 2. Appellate Court. 4. Dela Paz.: 4) G. Heirs. and published. in a newspaper of petitioning. Where the petition for known. legatees. J. or legatee named in a will. if he be not. legatees. and shall mailed to the person named as executor. J. JR. 1. of the Revised Rules of Court (Section 3. The petition for relate back to the time when the will was delivered. if such places of Court shall fix a time and place for proving the will when all residence be known. Code of the Philippines. Rodriguez was submitted and delivered to the Court of Bulacan on legatees and devisees of the testator. speedy. SALAS There is merit in petitioner’s insistence that the separate wills of the DAVIDE.R76: ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL 3) G. Rule 76 of the Rules of Cof reads: have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will.R. It is clear from the aforecited rule that notice of the time and place of The use of the disjunctive in the words "when a will is delivered to OR a the hearing for the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the petition for the allowance of a will is filed" plainly indicates that the designated or other known heirs. L-21993 June 21. while petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in the Court of probate court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to First Instance of Rizal only on March 12. Intermediate petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed. No. destroyed. or is lost or ). Article 818).. motu proprio. — When a will is delivered to. Court to appoint time for proving will. GALING upon the delivery thereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on PADILLA. also. not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three (3) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. DE PEREZ vs.. 129 SCRA 33 whether the same be in his possession or not. In the case at bench. may. J. 7 But despite such knowledge. 187 SCRA 743 ). No. J. and made integral parts of the same. a copy of the original will and its English translation the testator’s reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person (Civil were attached to the petition as Annex "A" and Annex "A-1". or his duly the same provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are authorized subordinate. and devisees residing in the court may act upon the mere deposit therein of a decedent's testament. Respondent Judge’s view that the Rules on allowance of wills is couched in singular terms and That the annexing of the original will to the petition is not a therefore should be interpreted to mean that there should be separate jurisdictional requirement is clearly evident in Section 1. Roberts v. probate has been filed by the testator himself. Rule 76 of the probate proceedings for the wills of the Cunanan spouses is too literal Rules of Court which allows the filing of a petition for probate by the and simplistic an approach. Rule 77. 1963. of or personally. Personal service general circulation in the province. legatees. Who may petition for the allowance of will." Sec.: March 4. The requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was and exclusive jurisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontestable.: Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly. 1994 VDA. the petition is deemed to legatees and devisees were known to the probate court. to any person named as co-executor not successively. 1966 RODRIGUEZ vs. it will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation (Motoomull v. the Court having jurisdiction. eight days later. because upon the will being deposited the court could.TOLETE QUIASON. result in the delay in the administration of justice (Acain v.: 1) G. 4. The section reads in full as rules shall be "liberally construed in order to promote their object and follows: to assist the parties in obtaining just. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 12 . such least twenty (20) days before the hearing. of copies of the notice at least ten (10) days before the day of But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for hearing shall be equivalent to mailing. Since the two wills contain essentially that upon the filing of the petition the Clerk of Court. devisee. Rule 76. Notice thereof to be testator resident in the Philippines at their places of residence. annexes mentioned were in fact attached thereto. and issued the corresponding notices conformably to what is prescribed by SEC. No.R. or any other person interested A literal application of the Rules should be avoided if they would only in the estate. or a petition for the deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at allowance of a will is filed in. the March 4. even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later. Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Moreover. but rather that the 24561. No. and in declaring it void. Justice Barredo. "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. legalized testatrix and there were no legacies and devises. before ruling on its allowance or totally different from those of disinheritance. the reason for the rule excluding strangers from contesting the will.: be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. 1972. circumstances. 854 of the Civil Code.: As aptly stated by Mr. 2010 ----.: purpose of giving it effect.: Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. No. Her will was intrinsically void because it preterited her compulsory heirs in the direct line. the NEPOMUCENO vs. J. where the testatrix instituted as heir her sister and preterited her parents. we stated: a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. GALLANOSA vs.R. His only interest in therein provided. even before it is probated. The instant case is different from the Nuguid case. will may not interfere in its probate. JR. the court's area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity thereof. Narciso. June 30. This annulment is in toto. the probate court is not powerless to do what the or. The petition below being for the probate of a Will. So compelling is the principle that TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 13 . Testacy is favored. in addition. Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced The rule. testator has willed that his estate should be distributed in the manner He had no direct interest in the probate of the will. J. either because they are not mentioned therein. 561). the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. No. Thus: 27200. 33 SCRA 554. 565). J. .R. The probate of the (." Since the Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a preterition of the parents annulled the institution of the sister of the will. ARANZA prevail that sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the RELOVA. COURT OF APPEALS photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may GUTIERREZ. L-23445 June 23. but the devises and legacies. Dizon. " 17 The basic issue is whether the probate court erred in passing upon On top of this is the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are the intrinsic validity of the will. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate. de Precilla vs. NUGUID of the provisions of the will or the legality of any devise or legacy is SANCHEZ.. it has to be probated. 1975 formal validity had been established. such desire be given effect independent of the attitude of the We had occasion to rule that one who is only indirectly interested in a parties affected thereby" (Resolution. in turn.Art. Vda. 189122 March 17. 960. MARTINEZ become an Idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. unless in the will there are. AQUINO. and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization) the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its 7) G. L-29300 June 21. J. Testacy is preferable to courts and the litigants should not be molested by the intervention in intestacy. "shall annul the institution of heir". if legally the estate is an indirect interest as former counsel for a prospective heir. expressly disinherited. 1966 resolution of the court. In order that a will may take effect. In the instant case. supra.: premature. August 18.R. ARCANGEL whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the AQUINO." Evidently. LEVISTE vs. L-39247 June 27. Civil Code). No. tenable. is not inflexible and absolute. 788 and 791. is To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first and not that thereby the court may be prevented from learning facts which principal law in the matter of testaments (Dizon-Rivera vs. Given exceptional heirs or anyone of them. shall annul the institution of heir. 1985 exhibited and tested before the probate court. will.R. Any inquiry into the intrinsic validity or efficacy NUGUID vs. 1970. 1978 omission of one. though mentioned. total intestacy resulted or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding.5) G. L-62952 October 9. "is Invoking "practical considerations". J. "the very existence of a purported testament is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed Petitioner was not a party to the probate proceeding in the lower court. will is mandatory. the court should meet vs. L-58509 December 7.R. 10) G. if any. His preterition did not produce intestacy. provision of the will (Arts. 1982 intestacy should be avoided and that the wishes of the testator should RODELAS vs. however. he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his hereditary rights. Nuguid case: the issue. L. Civil Code).: death of the testator. The testators testamentary capacity and the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the only questions presented for the 6) G. some. No. would justify or necessitate a denial of probate.R. We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides that "the preterition or 9) G. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy. shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. The probate of a will might BALANAY vs. they are neither instituted as heirs nor are situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will. Preterition under Article formal validity. or by other similar means." 16 Disinheritance. we repeat. No. L. CA CORONA. J. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition the proceedings of persons with no interest in the estate which would operative takes precedence over a construction that will nullify a entitle them to be heard with relation thereto. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. and it is incumbent upon the state that. whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be 8) G. which are of dubious legality. 46 SCRA 538.
. No. 74 Phil. — Notice thereof. although she is a compulsory heir. J. J. known as the Child and Youth *Death of executor does not result to dismissal of original action Welfare Code. No. the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent ABUT vs. Ramagosa. Criminal action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the forger of a will or. No. 185 for letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction. Nuguid. 17) G.R. 17 SCRA 450 . J. of the case The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs-without any other testamentary disposition in the will. corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open estate of the deceased. and above. MAKALINTAL. ) except that proper legacies and devises must. jurisdiction. ABUT Virginia A. Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters. Carefully DE GUZMAN vs. Court to set time for hearing. he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir. 78590 June 20. 1988 amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Civil code) 16) G. JR. supra. 8- 9). the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law. shall cause notice thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent. neither a devisee or a legatee there being no 12) G. intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination stand valid and respected. Nuguid. It cannot be denied that she of the probate court to admit the amended petition without a new has totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that publication thereof to be untenable. J. Petitioner is not the appointed executor. He has no legal standing to petition for the second relates to descent and distribution. it is well-settled that one who has or can have no interest in In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate succeeding a decedent cannot oppose the probate of his alleged proceeding he must have an interest iii the estate. No. 1987 ACAIN vs. Maninang v. 2 disinherited. COURT OF APPEALS CONCEPCION. No. J. the not an heir of the testator. adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the We find the dismissal of the original petition for probate and the refusal adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. Court of Appeals. Akutin. 1968 14) G. The effect of annulling the "Institution of heirs will be. L-13938 July 31. Article 854 of the Civil Code offers no leeway GUTIERREZ. be respected. L-24742 October 26. No.: TEEHANKEE. 114 SCRA 478 ). or in the will. J.11) G. 603. and to any other persons believed to TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 14 .J. Nuguid).1 Appellant herein does not claim to have such interest in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the succession to Christian Harris. Under Article 39 of P. they are neither instituted as heirs nor are which had been duly admitted to probate by a court of competent expressly disinherited (Nuguid v. estate and an interested party is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor (Sumilang v.: Indeed. . No.: Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned therein.. shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial] does not ascend or descend from the testator. SANTOS LAUREL. 591 A-CEB must be dismissed.Memorandum for the Petitioner. 13) G.R. the opening of a total intestacy (Neri v. RAMAGOSA of personal or real property he is called upon to receive (Article 782. L-26743 May 31. petitioner is in effect of the document and the testamentary capacity of the testator. No legacies nor devises having been provided in the will the whole property of the Section 3. either by mail or personally. supra.R.R. except insofar as the legitimes are concerned. pp.: for inferential interpretation (Nuguid v. 854. Maninang v. 1973 BUTIONG vs.R. 1938 PARAS. for she is not in the direct line. Fernandez.D. or in the will. intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent testamentary provisions is another.itc-alf The first decides the execution adopted child and the universal institution of heirs. there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance.R. as already stated such court shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition. — When a petition necessarily. whose legal adoption by the testator has not MAKALINTAL.: been questioned by petitioner (. though mentioned. L-23135 December 26. 1967 mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item SUMILANG vs. Hence. The fact that the amended petition named to intestate succession the entire inheritance including "la porcion libre additional heirs not included in the original petition 3 did not require (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de legado mejora o donacion" that notice of the amended petition be published anew. Court of 4 of Rule 76 provides is that those heirs be notified of the hearing for Appeals. this is a clear case of preterition of the legally A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem. such that with the adopted child. 72706 October 27. petition for probate. All that Section Maniesa as cited in Nuguid v. Insofar as the [The Constitution of the Philippines provides that "In all criminal widow is concerned. At the outset.: MERCADO vs. C. IAC 15) G. Article 854 of the Civil Code may not apply as she prosecutions the accused . Stated otherwise. 1972 however. Probate is one thing the validity of the However. 45629 September 22. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CUENCO vs. 114 SCRA ). defined under Article 782 of the Civil Code as a person called to True or not. The only provisions which do not result in the probate of the will. probate of the will left by the deceased and Special Proceedings No. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76. 21 SCRA 1369/1967).R.: Civil Code). No. (Art. ANGELES worded and in clear terms. even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. The jurisdiction of the court both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their became vested upon the filing of the original petition and upon legitime.
the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends.L.: adjudged as the will of the testator. CODOY vs. 156021 September 23. The requirement as to notice is 22) G. But on the other hand. The the probate proceedings.R. The purpose of this notice is to bring all the interested persons within the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on all 21) see #3 the world. have an interest in the estate. 1927 substantial compliance. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the every page. No. 2005 essential to the validity of the proceeding in that no person may be ALABAN. and whether all persons testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially death. if other evidence satisfactorily show due execution and that failure to identify his signature does not bar probate. 1964 MARAVILLA vs. The will actually consists of 8 pages including its GAGO vs. that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form was in the handwriting of the deceased. being weak or strong according to the circumstances. After all. J. vs. whether the signatures appear in each and found. MARAVILLA BARRERA. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 15 .B. but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. It is very clear from this provision that the probate court must cause notice through publication of the petition after it receives the same. the presumption is. notice is required to be personally given to the estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional. No. No. Tinga. 1999 personally notify them of the same. that the same was cancelled or even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely destroyed. and it is a clear badge of truthfulness rather than the reverse. Reyes regarding The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation the application of Article 809. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LOPEZ vs. 48 A perusal of the makes court orders affecting other persons. in the notarized.R. being the only check against perjury in other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. 123486 August 12. attested it. force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate. we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being PERLAS-BERNABE.R. personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural to close the door against bad faith and fraud.: Verily. of the attestation clause. LOPEZ However. or to 18) G. to wit: of a will to be preserved. notice through publication of the petition for the settlement of According to the Rules. is never conclusive. The fact that such cancellation or x x x The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be inferred supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be consecutively numbered. whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was possession of the testator. 189984 November 12. are neither compulsory nor testate heirs49 who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. the absence of which known heirs. J. the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.: Besides. L-18799 March 31. MAMUYAC acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere JOHNSON.: examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence aliund. which is why if the holographic will is contested. and defects or absence of other competent evidence. Therefore. assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified. when last seen. 2012 and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. and devisees of the testator.R. as nephews and nieces of the decedent. No. while varying greatly. No. wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been given to persons believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person. J. subsequent to the petition will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the void and subject to annulment.11 On this score is the comment of Justice J. Petitioners. to avoid substitution of convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. Richard likewise failed in this respect. L-26317 January 29.R. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and testament that it "consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written" 10 cannot be deemed 19) EN BANC G. also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain 23) G. But the total number of pages. legatees. the purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the that "the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is notice. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any appear in the attestation clause. in the manner provided in sections 3 A will may be allowed even if some witnesses do not remember having and 4 of Rule 76. decedent. J.: The variation in the expressions used by the witness is the best evidence that he was being candid and careful. 20) G. CALUGAY PARDO. J. Where no notice as required by Section 3. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the disregarded. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. COURT OF APPEALS deprived of his right to property without due process of law.
: The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. 39 Phil. second. in relation to Rule 76. could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of some competent evidence on the point. because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy. the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which and certified by the judge.R. that for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first there is none. L-21993 June 21. and.: to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge.: the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of. indeed. No.R. because the law appear. they are presumed to be the same as of West Virginia. J. They may not disregard the provisions of the will unless those PCIB vs. which have to be proven in ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE THEREUNDER our courts like any other controverted fact. evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter. the free Their right under the will cannot be disregarded. J.. (In re Estate of Johnson in accordance with the Turkish laws. conjugal estate. nor unless its provisions are Thus. at the subsequent proceedings. create estoppel. No. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29. GUEVARA vs. (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court. or is shown QUIASON. judicial or TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 16 . and the have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws. When New York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative.R. and the will is proved to have VDA. it appearing that the difference in the stands of the parties has reference solely to the legitime of Hodges. hereafter. they must first present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the 3) G. 1927 MALCOLM. TOLETE been in existence at the time of the death of the testator. and considering the respective than the present litigants had received their respective legacies or that positions of the parties in regard to said factual issue. We hold that under section 1 of Rule 74. and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. because aspects of the foreign laws concerned. J. proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses. first. under the sale of the State of West Virginia. Except for the first and last 6) G. Rule 77. nor may those rights portion of said estate that could possibly descend to her brothers and be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of the custodian of sisters by virtue of her will may not be less than one-fourth of the the will to present it to the court for probate. Neither may they so away with the BARREDO. have any controversy or are more or less in agreement. GUEVARA The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which OZAETA. as provided in section 300 of the Code of Civil those of the Philippines.: presentation of the will to the court for probate. L-22595 November 1. to be actually the laws of Texas expressly provides that "no will shall pass either real or personal estate on the matter would no longer be of any consequence.R77: ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND party related to the effects of foreign laws.) Here the requirements of the law were not met. BRIMO ROMUALDEZ. deemed as settled for the purposes of these cases that. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from 5) G. cannot be Hodges should be less than as contended by it now. section 6. provides: 2) G. 76714 June 2. for admissions by a dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding. (2) the testator recorded. PADILLA. without the need legatees and devisees. under the seal of the court. Procedure. J. if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate. has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines. inasmuch as he did not present any . or such of them as may have no knowledge of of requiring the presentation of what otherwise would be the the will.R. whatever might ultimately securing its allowance or probate by the court. which is a proceeding in rem.: MICIANO vs. because the probate of a will. 1954 the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was SUNTAY vs.R. as is attempted to be done in the instant case. of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among themselves to the exclusion of others. No.] 1) G. (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country. PCIB being of the Even if the decedent left no debts and nobdy raises any question as to view that under the laws of Texas. Nos. on the other hand. would anyway be in estoppel already to claim that the estate of Mrs. J. No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the execution 1994 and validity of the same be established. Absent the said laws are as such virtual agreement indicates. Nos. J.: As to the lost will. the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence. it can already be they had knowledge of the existence and of the provisions of the will. 1974 will. Such laws must be proved as facts. The law It is implicit in the above ruling that when. HIX 4) G. In other words. 1930 FLUEMER vs. ESCOLIN provisions are contrary to law. the parties in a given case do not unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world. No. the Court may the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered take it for granted for the purposes of the particular case before it that nugatory. with respect to certain enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it. Hodges In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other under them is basically one of fact. it may be reiterated that the question of what are the pertinent laws of Texas and what would be the estate of Mrs. SUNTAY executed.R. L-48840 December 29. L-3087 and L-3088 July 31. as provided in section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [At this juncture.R. since PCIB unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court". Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original. L-32636 March 17. the courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take American The oppositor did not prove that said testimentary dispositions are not Union. there is such a legitime of one-fourth the authenticity and due execution of the will. a lost will is proved. and in the There was no was printed or published under the authority of the State absence of evidence on such laws. none of the heirs may sue of said conjugal estate and Magno contending. No. 1966G. 156. DE PEREZ vs. 1943 requirements.
administration shall be granted: Thereunder. (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve. shall be disposed of as is person to apply for the administration or to request that provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to administration be granted to some other person. (b) Is not a resident of the Philippines. they must be alleged and proved. shall serve. No. 1984 GRIMM ROBERTS vs. and such letters testamentary or of administration. No. 1992 GABRIEL vs. if any. vice. 9) see # 2 2) G.— If no executor is named in the will. 209651 November 26.— No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who: The probate of the will is mandatory.extrajudicial. However. person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. or the executor or executors are As a corollary rule. if competent and willing to annexed. LEONIDAS SECTION 1. it While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our may be granted to such other person as the court may select.: 7) G. as ancillary administrator of Audrey’s estate. or want of continue hearing the two cases. (3) where the estate is large or. be incompetent or unwilling. It is anomalous that the estate of a (a) Is a minor. or letters of administration with the will of kin. or by his deputy. No. (Emphasis granted to one ormore of the principal creditors. the court of the court. and Therefore. J. by them. petitioner. extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. if the record is not kept interests represented. 2014 ROTTERDAM vs. 27 and (5) when a person entitled to the in which the record is kept. 2014 MARCELO vs. or a person dies of Will Proved Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate intestate. Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in R78: LETTER TESTAMENTARYAND OF ADMINISTRATION. lists an order of 8) G. improvidence. GUERSEY-DALAYGON appointed administrator: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. No. and the residue. Such estate.37 however.13 To prove a administration of the estate of her husband. L-55509 April 27. so far as such will may or next of kin. certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation.: 10) G. from any cause.: administrators. in the discretion SEC. or next of kin. on the other hand. No. any TO WHOM ISSUED more than it could decree the registration under the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or partition. and authenticated by the seal of his office. 26 (4) to have all interested consul general. Proof of official record. without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means provided by law. an intricate and perplexing one to settle. refuse the trust. administration of an estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the office. neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the operate upon it. 139868 June 8. was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland. it may be persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or AQUINO. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 17 . or consular agent or by any officer persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country best interests of the estate. shall be disposed of according to such will. J. or both. the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and strong case to justify the exclusion of the widow from the comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of administration. J. or next of kin. may be evidenced by an official publication co-administrators has been upheld for various reasons. or the person selected after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration. GLOW LAKS It is true that Section 6(b) of Rule 78 provides that the preference given PEREZ.R. requests to have appointed.R. Section 6 of the same rule.R. There must be a very foreign law.: SEC.R. 6. or ifthe surviving spouse.consul. or to such person as such surviving spouse. viz: (1) to have thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different the record. and accompanied. courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. consul. WHEN AND evidence in such an action for partition. Court14 which read: SEC. if competent supplied) and willing to serve. 156330 November 19.—When a will is thus allowed. states: (a) To the surviving spouse. understanding or integrity. Estate. Like any other fact. 4. (b) If such surviving spouse. J. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. 101512 August 7. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. When and to whom letters of administration granted. Section 4.R. it is our considered jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of opinion that such failure is not sufficient to exclude the widow from the them. or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. MARCELO PEREZ. or next shall grant letters testamentary. which is one in personam. (2) where justice and equity demand that in the Philippines. when Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence. If opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the the office in which the record is kept is in a foreigncountry. 1) G. among which are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees.: to the surviving spouse or next of kin may be disregarded by the court where said persons neglect to apply for letters of administration for It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our thirty (30) days after the decedent's death. how administered. 2006 preference in instances when there is a contest of who should be ANCHETA vs. 24. the appointment of admissible for any purpose. Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance incompetent. J. COURT OF APPEALS REGALADO. or fail to give bond. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate (c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should trust by reason of drunkenness. the estate of the deceased.
— Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person. such as an heir. J. In Gabriel v. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ. to grant. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court does not benefited in the estate. 167979 March 15.: "JHONNY" LOCSIN” vs. In the issuance of such the estate. But. J. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. in estate proceedings. LACUATA-GABRIEL IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN CALLEJO. deceased at the moment of the latter's death. trustees legally appointed and qualified. are not required to submit the property for judicial administration.3) G. The order of preference in the appointment of a regular An "interested party".: jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearing. J. such as a creditor. without delay. LOCSIN. Sec. if it involves real administration. and spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. or Even the directive of the testator in his will designating that a certain fails to furnish the bond required by the Rules of Court.5 The exceptions to this rule are found in Sections 1 to act as executor.11 this Court held that in the the preference of private respondent Dolores Gabriel is with sufficient appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person. COURT OF APPEALS and that fact if made to appear to the Regional Trial Court having YNARES-SANTIAGO. whether he 8) G.. the there be. 4) G. The hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. in the them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and shall then find to be due. failed to name an executor in his will or the executor so named is incompetent. No. or refuses the trust. proceedings is not prohibited. sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving without the appointment of an executor or administrator. 115181 March 31. 146737 December 10.15 The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate estate. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age Thus.R. L-42088 May 7.9 Also. Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. 2006 died testate or intestate. and the order of partition or award. Summary settlement of estates of small value. and such persons. 2001 HEIRS OF CASTILLO vs. shall be recorded in the proper register's office. 10 In Sioca v. if testate. and should they disagree. We hold that distributees. to wit: three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. if proper. No.: When a person dies intestate. which is but temporary and subsists only until a regular "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is administrator is appointed. and after such other notice to interested persons It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without as the court may direct. 162934 November 11. allows heirs to divide the estate among themselves without need of delay and risks of being dissipated. the opportunity to prove his qualifications and affording oppositors a without securing letters of administration. 2. Court of Appeals.16 this Court reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the appointment of co- The heirs succeed immediately to all of the rights and properties of the administrators under certain circumstances. 2005 5) G. among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds. Sec. 2000 AVELINO vs. the court determines who is entitled to the such that they are entitled to share in the estate as administration of the estate of the decedent. No.: The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the discretion of the court. or one who has a claim against apply to the selection of a special administrator. publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for Garcia.R. the parties may. the court may proceed summarily. does not exceed ten thousand pesos. He might have been fit to act as executor when the and 2 of Rule 746 which provide: will was executed but supervening circumstances might have rendered him unfit for that position. it was held that a hearing is necessary in order to determine the or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal suitability of the person to be appointed administrator by giving him representatives duly authorized for the purpose. to a great extent. then the person should act as executor is not binding on the probate court and decedent's estate shall be judicially administered and the competent does not automatically entitle him to the issuance of letters court shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in testamentary. SR.10 In Gabriel v. if otherwise. No. they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.11 this Court set aside the order of preference. . nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. PAÑO AQUINO. 7) see # 3 .8 TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 18 .R. if any if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable. which shall be held not less than one (1) The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator month nor more than three (3) months from the date of the last depends on the attendant facts and circumstances. When a person dies without leaving pending obligations.R. in their own right. or. the phrase appointment. to determine who are the persons legally entitled to court may appoint another person. No. Court of Appeals. 1. is one who would be administrator under Section 6. court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings. The determination of a person’s participate in the estate and to apportion and divide it among suitability for the office of administrator rests. in estate proceedings. UY vs. 1976 QUISUMBING.: BALUYUT vs. JR. divide the estate chance to contest the petition. if such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears they are lawful age and legal capacity. COURT OF APPEALS 6) G. the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed administrator. A hearing has to be held in order to ascertain his fitness Section 6 of Rule 78.R. allowance of the will. J. On this point. 7 Section 1. and all orders and judgments made or A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of all the powers of a regular administrator. or by their guardians or affirmatively that the court below was in error. J. reason. his heirs. only that he is not alone in the the clerk.
The curtailment of this right may be economical administration of the estate. J. MAGLAYA administration of an estate desires to have another competent person GARCIA. as the appointment of the latter lies entirely 14) G.18 It should be noted that on the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate of the deceased.: REPUBLIC vs. (3) where the estate is large or. in the alternative. even assuming arguendo that his appointment of co-administrators: (1) to have the benefits of their conviction is later on affirmed.R. and not of a special administrator. in short.R. 8 This is the same REGALA.: In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased 10) G.14 relating to four violations of Section 45 of the NIRC. AGUINALDO PADILLA. 40 or. given that the rule speaks of an order of preference.R. The underlying assumption behind this jurisdiction. on the other hand.10 In all. improvidence or mismanagement.13 We recognized that the appointment of administrator of the turpitude as the mere omission is already a violation regardless of the estate of a decedent or the determination of a person’s suitability for fraudulent intent or willfulness of the individual. 2009 PEREZ. but an interest therein any longer. the trial court acted within bounds when it looked into CHICO-NAZARIO. in the sound Since respondent Ferdinand Marcos II has appealed his conviction judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment. 130371 &130855 August 4. 74769 September 28. therefore. No. have the granted by will take effect from the time of death (Article 777. No. suffer the considered as a curtailment of the right to dispose. an intricate and perplexing one to settle. the reference is to those who are entitled. In this administrators for the estate.15 (2) where justice and equity demand that opposing moral turpitude. or. In resolving. J. to a great extent. we have sanctioned the appointment of more the person named as executor upon his application.9) G. MARCOS DEL CASTILLO. in the sound judgment of the correctly court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error. And as the rights consequences of waste. establishing the order of preference in the appointment of Cirilo can not compatibly perform the duties of an administrator. 15) G. J. Nos. GONZALES vs. under the statute of distribution. the issue of whether an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent.: and pass upon the claimed relationship of respondent to the late Francisco Angeles.16 (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best 12) G. speedy and the disposal of the estate. 2008 separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits.R. improvidence or mismanagement. COJUANGCO-SUNTAY 11) G. TAN vs.: associated with him in the office. GEDORIO consideration. from any cause. and is not appealable. we have upheld the the will of his father. Upon this VILMA C. the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation. The rationale behind the one of his confidence.: consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in Shown to have some liabilities to Basilisa and to the estate as a whole.: The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator. than one administrator for the benefit of the estate and those interested The "failure to file an income tax return" is not a crime involving moral therein. or. the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the decedent.R. DIAZ-MILLAREZ estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. J. 183053 October 10. the management of his estate by the administrator correctly. No. L-17633 October 19. when no the person to be appointed administrator of a decedent’s estate must reasonable objection to his assumption of the trust can be interposed demonstrate not only an interest in the estate. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint appointment of administrator for the estate. of his choice should be made as soon as practicable. the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said LIM vs. parties or factions be represented in the management of the estate of the deceased. to the decedent’s property. it is the duty of the court to issue letters testamentary to In a number of cases. the same should Under certain circumstances and for various reasons well-settled in not serve as a basis to disqualify him to be appointed as an executor of Philippine and American jurisprudence.R. one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise. an heir. Rule 78 necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the manner he wishes.39 one whose relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate as distributed. the same is still insufficient to disqualify judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests him as the "failure to file an income tax return" is not a crime involving represented. probate. economical administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to administration of the estate.9 This is the same consideration which Section 6. speedy.17 and when a person entitled to the ANGELES vs. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a regular administrator. It has been held that when a will has been admitted to greater than any other candidate. A TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 19 .38 When the law speaks of "next of kin". consequences of waste. 153798 September 2. 1990 in the discretion of the court. J. This Court has consistently ruled that the order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator as provided in the afore-quoted provision does not apply to the selection of a special administrator. The 13) see #9 preference under Section 6. 2012 SUNTAY vs. to a great extent. 1966 person. J. one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise. 166520 March 14. a in the estate. suffer the those immediately interested in the estate. the office of judicial administrator rests. have the The determination of a person's suitability for the office of judicial highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate administrator rests. Civil Code highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate of the Philippines). 2005 interests of the estate. No. More importantly. No.
129505 January 31. no jurisdiction is conferred on the court to grant letters of It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that "residence. Where no notice as required by Section 3. Lindayag. as nephew of the testator. No. But. Rule 73 of the Rules of Court.: 2) G. or one who has a claim against such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears the estate. 42 However. such as an heir. Garcia. that is. it is possible that a person may have his residence in one place no material and direct interest in her estate. and not merely CONTEST FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION indirect or contingent. the fixed permanent residence to which proceedings. L-44888 February 7. 2006 UY vs. death. 24 where the or place of abode. such as a creditor (Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanwa. does not fall synonymous with "domicile. 2007 DAVIDE. No. Of course." The rulings in Nuval and Romualdez are within the enumeration of jurisdictional facts. 21 These facts are amply enumerated in Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death. Court defined an interested party as one who would be benefited by the estate. and left no assets in the state. is not a compulsory heir who may DE GUZMAN vs. 167979 March 15. "residence" and "domicile" are treated as but rather on the ground of lack of legal capacity to institute the synonymous terms. DUMLAO 4) G. ANGELES have been preterited in the testator's will. or fails to give bond may the the world.R. 5) G.R. the interest required in order that a person x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. actual or physical habitation. 10 In Sioca v.: SAN LUIS vs. to a great extent. 43 the petitioner "is not an heir of her deceased sister and. estate of the deceased person. Since the notice through publication of the petition after it receives the same. 1988 Petitioner. Rule 79 of the Rules court appoint other persons to administer the estate. it goes without saying that a motion to dismiss of election laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of may lie not on the basis of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court. this interest must be material and direct. 1992 PILIPINAS SHELL vs. J. 20 None of these of Court has been given to persons believed to have an interest in the circumstances is present in this case. GUTIERREZ. The testator instituted or named an executor in his will. and none came into it afterwards.R. 1) G. The requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding in that no person may be deprived of his right to property without due process of law. or actual residence This is precisely what happened in Saguinsin vs. 6) G. 40 affirmatively that the court below was in error. COURT OF APPEALS YNARES-SANTIAGO. we laid down the doctrinal of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all rule for determining the residence – as contradistinguished from the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest. opening sentence of the section requires that the petition must be filed Needless to say. J. And it is well settled in this jurisdiction that in civil actions as well as special proceedings. dismissed for lack of interest in the estate. PHILLIPS MENDOZA. O.: 3) G." 25 In the said case. such as an heir.. not merely indirect or contingent. there is a distinction between "residence" for purposes by an interested person. No. to wit: Where it is undisputed that the decedent left a husband and three It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without legally adopted children. LINDAYAG depends on the attendant facts and circumstances. when absent. 23 Clearly. since the inapplicable to the instant case because they involve election cases. the allegation that a petitioner fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo. which may not necessarily be his legal residence or dismissal of a petition for letters of administration was affirmed because domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. J." the petition filed by Gonzalez. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 20 .G. 133743 February 6. has Hence. if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country.R.: Nor does he have any right to intervene in the settlement proceedings It is very clear from this provision that the probate court must cause based on his allegation that he is a creditor of the deceased. SAN LUIS YNARES-SANTIAGO. the petition for letters of court is sitting or. J. actions. the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled. L-17759 December 17. Court of Appeals.R." for purposes of administration in any county. his residence at the time of his death in the province where the probate Under Section 1. in the An interested party has defined in this connection as one who would be sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and benefited by the estate. Only if the appointed court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on all executor is incompetent. therefore.: The jurisdictional facts alluded to are: the death of the testator. JR.: this Court set aside the order of preference. No.R79: OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY.. his having administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional left his estate in such province. 78590 June 20. refuses the trust. 22 The fact of death of the intestate and In the case of Garcia Fule v. PETITION AND may be a party thereto must be material and direct. No. court may appoint another person. for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court.11 DIZON.R. and domicile – of the decedent for purposes of fixing the venue of the that if the intestate was not an inhabitant of the state at the time of his settlement of his estate. she being neither an heir nor if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable. a petition for issuance of letters of sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving administration in favour of the sister of said decedent was properly spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. it is incumbent upon purpose of this notice is to bring all the interested persons within the the Court to respect the desires of the testator. one has the intention of returning. this and domicile in another. J. JR. No. is seeking letters of administration is an interested person. the "residence" of a person is his personal. the a creditor thereof. 1962 The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator SAGUINSIN vs. The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of administrator rests. 2000 MALOLES vs. or one who has a claim against the estate. 1171). J. such as a creditor. In election cases.
J.. J.R.: Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for the issuance of letters of administration must be filed by an interested person. the properties of the estate shall only be distributed after the payment of the debts. Similarly. No. This interest. or one who has a claim against the estate. Sec. except when authorized by the Court. 174680 March 24.R. funeral charges. JR. 7) G. such as a creditor. not merely indirect or contingent. furthermore. only that he is not alone in the administration. 178933 September 16. It is. 1 of the Rules of Court. such as an heir. thus. TrinaFaye SPECPRO – R72-80 Page 21 .15 The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. COURT OF APPEALS VELASCO. 2 of the Rules of Court. In Saguinsin v. Lindayag. must be material and direct. TAYAG-GALLOR TINGA.A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator. and other expenses against the estate. 2009 SILVERIO vs.: The above provision must be viewed in the context that the subject property is part of an estate and subject to intestate proceedings before the courts. relevant to note that in Rule 84. under Rule 90. 2008 TAYAG vs. 8) G.14 the Court defined an interested party as one who would be benefited by the estate. No. the administrator may only deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court. Sec.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.