Special Proceeding

ATENE0 BE NANILA 0NIvERSITY
SCB00L 0F LAW

!"#"$%&' '&) !"*%") +,-".%&' -!/.""$%01,2 PR0F. B0R0TBY 0Y NAvA
4C & 4B, !"#$%& !"(")*"+, !- .//01./2/

%3 1"0"!&' -!/*%,%/0,

&3 $4564786497 :;6<;;7 =84>4? @86497A @7B =5C;84@? CD98;;B47E5A
R0LES 0F C00RT, Rule 1, Sec. S

Section S. 34)") 5$6"+%"&. These Rules shall govein the pioceuuie to be obseiveu in actions,
civil oi ciiminal anu special pioceeuings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a paity sues anothei foi the enfoicement oi piotection of a iight,
oi the pievention oi ieuiess of a wiong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may eithei be oiuinaiy oi special. Both aie goveineu by the iules foi oiuinaiy civil
actions, subject to the specific iules piesciibeu foi a special civil action. (n)
(b) A ciiminal action is one by which the State piosecutes a peison foi an act oi omission
punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special pioceeuing is a iemeuy by which a paity seeks to establish a status, a iight, oi a
paiticulai fact. (2a, R2)

F@E@75 >3 )45?;G;7H5I JK -L4? MMN +OPKN2
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

FACTS:
This is an oiiginal petition, piesenteu in the Supieme Couit, foi wiit of ceitioiaii. The facts
allegeu in the petition aie aumitteu by a uemuiiei. The only question piesenteu is, whethei oi not a
juuge of the Couit of Fiist Instance, in "special pioceeuings," is authoiizeu unuei the law to appoint
assessois foi the puipose of fixing the amount uue to an auministiatoi oi executoi foi his seivices
anu expenses in the caie, management, anu settlement of the estate of a ueceaseu peison.
The iesponuent juuge, in suppoit of his uemuiiei, aigues that the piovision of Act No. 19u
peimit him to appoint assessois in "special pioceeuings," The petitionei contenus that no authoiity
in law exists foi the appointment of assessois in such pioceeuings.
Section 1S4 pioviues that "eithei paity to an action may apply in wiiting to the juuge foi
assessois to sit in the tiial. 0pon the filing of such application, the juuge shall uiiect that assessois be
pioviueu, . . . ."
ISS0E:
Is a "special pioceeuing," like the piesent, an "action". If it is, then, the couit is expiessly
authoiizeu by saiu section 1S4 to appoint assessois.
BELB:
Theie is a maikeu uistinction between an "action" anu a "special pioceeuing. "An action is a
foimal uemanu of one's legal iights in a couit of justice in the mannei piesciibeu by the couit oi by
the law. It is the methou of applying legal iemeuies accoiuing to uefinite establisheu iules. The teim
"special pioceeuing" may be uefineu as an application oi pioceeuing to establish the status oi iight of
a paity, oi a paiticulai fact. 0sually, in special pioceeuings, no foimal pleauings aie iequiieu, unless
RENEBIAL LAW REvIEW (SPECIAL PR0CEEBINuS), SY 2uu9-2u1u
PR0F. B0R0TBY 0Y NAvA

4B page 2

the statute expiessly so pioviues. The iemeuy in special pioceeuings is geneially gianteu upon an
application oi motion. Illustiations of special pioceeuings, in contiauistinction to actions, may be
given: Pioceeuings foi the appointment of an auministiatoi, guaiuians, tutois; contest of wills; to
peipetuate testimony; to change the name of peisons; application foi aumission to the bai, etc., etc.
Fiom all of the foiegoing we aie uiiven to the conclusion that in pioceeuings like the piesent
the juuge of the Couit of Fiist Instance is without authoiity to appoint assessois.

*B@3 B; #@7@?9 >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I SJP ,.!& OST +KNNO2

FACTS:
Tioauio Nanalo, a iesiuent of 1996 Naiia Claia Stieet, Sampaloc, Nanila uieu intestate on
Febiuaiy 14, 1992. Be was suiviveu by his wife, Pilai, anu his eleven (11) chiluien. At the time of his
ueath on Febiuaiy 14, 1992, Tioauio Nanalo left seveial ieal piopeities locateu in Nanila anu in the
piovince of Tailac incluuing a business unuei the name anu style Nanalo's Nachine Shop.
Responuents, who aie eight (8) of the suiviving chiluien of the late Tioauio Nanalo, fileu a
petition

with the iesponuent Regional Tiial Couit of Nanila

of the juuicial settlement of the estate of
theii late fathei, Tioauio Nanalo, anu foi the appointment of theii biothei, Romeo Nanalo, as
auministiatoi theieof.
0ppositois (Petitioneis) fileu theii opposition, but the }uuge iesolveu in favoi of the
Responuents.
Petitioneis claim that the petition in SP. PR0C. No. 92-6S626 is actually an oiuinaiy civil
action involving membeis of the same family. They point out that it contains ceitain aveiments,
which, accoiuing to them, aie inuicative of its auveisaiial natuie, to wit:
Pai. 7. 0ne of the suiviving sons, ANT0NI0 NANAL0, since the ueath of his fathei, TR0ABI0
NANAL0, hau not maue any settlement, juuicial oi extia-juuicial of the piopeities of the
ueceaseu fathei TR0ABI0 NANAL0.
Pai. 8. xxx the saiu suiviving son continueu to manage anu contiol the piopeities
afoiementioneu, without piopei accounting, to his own benefit anu auvantage xxx.
Pai. 12. That saiu ANT0NI0 NANAL0 is managing anu contiolling the estate of the ueceaseu
TR0ABI0 NANAL0 to his own auvantage anu to the uamage anu piejuuice of the heiein
petitioneis anu theii co-heiis xxx.
Pai. 14. Foi the piotection of theii iights anu inteiests, petitioneis weie compelleu to biing
this suit anu weie foiceu to litigate anu incui expenses anu will continue to incui expenses of
not less than, P2Su,uuu.uu anu engageu the seivices of heiein counsel committing to pay
P2uu,uuu.uu as anu attoiney's fees plus honoiaiium of P2,Suu.uu pei appeaiance in couit
xxx.
Consequently, accoiuing to heiein petitioneis, the same shoulu be uismisseu unuei Rule 16,
Section 1(j) of the Reviseu Rules of Couit which pioviues that a motion to uismiss a complaint may
be fileu on the giounu that a conuition pieceuent foi filling the claim has not been complieu with,
that is, that the petitioneis theiein faileu to avei in the petition in SP. PR0C. No. 92-6S626, that
eainest effoits towaiu a compiomise have been maue involving membeis of the same family piioi to
the filling of the petition puisuant to Aiticle 222

of the Civil Coue of the Philippines.
It is a funuamental iule that in the ueteimination of the natuie of an action oi pioceeuing, the
aveiments anu the chaiactei of the ielief sought

in the complaint, oi petition, as in the case at bai,
shall be contiolling. A caieful siutiny of the Petition foi Issuance of Letteis of Auministiation,
Settlement anu Bistiibution of Estatein SP. PR0C. No. 92-6S626 belies heiein petitioneis' claim that
the same is in the natuie of an oiuinaiy civil action. The saiu petition contains sufficient juiisuictional
facts iequiieu in a petition foi the settlement of estate of a ueceaseu peison such as the fact of ueath

4B page S

of the late Tioauio Nanalo on Febiuaiy 14, 1992, as well as his iesiuence in the City of Nanila at the
time of his saiu ueath. The petition is SP.PR0C No. 92-6S626 also contains an enumeiation of the
names of his legal heiis incluuing a tentative list of the piopeities left by the ueceaseu which aie
sought to be settleu in the piobate pioceeuings. In auuition, the ielief's piayeu foi in the saiu petition
leave no ioom foi uoubt as iegaiu the intention of the petitioneis theiein (piivate iesponuents
heiein) to seek juuicial settlement of the estate of theii ueceaseu fathei, Tioauio Nanalo.

0@68L;D >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I SUU ,.!& SMT +KNNO2

FACTS:
uiaciano uel Rosaiio (ueceuent) hau two maiiiages. When his fiist wife, uiaciana, uieu, hei
estate was extiajuuicially settleu. uiaciano ieceiveu his faii shaie, the questioneu lot incluueu.
uiaciano theieaftei enteieu into a seconu maiiiage with Patiicia Natchei. Buiing theii maiiiage, he
solu the same lot to the Natchei. This sale is being questioneu by uiaciano's heiis (chiluien by the
fiist maiiiage) upon his ueath.
uiaciano's heiis then fileu an action foi ieconveyance annulment of title with uamages to
question the valiuity of Natchei's title. The RTC iuleu that although the sale was invaliu, Natchei's
title to the piopeity was valiu because the RTC consiueieu it as an auvance of hei legitime, being a
compulsoiy heii of uiaciano.
Issue:
Nay a Regional Tiial Couit, acting as a couit of geneial juiisuiction in an action foi
ieconveyance annulment of title with uamages, aujuuicate matteis ielating to the settlement of the
estate of a ueceaseu peison paiticulaily on questions as to auvancement of piopeity maue by the
ueceuent to any of the heiis.
Belu:
No. Theie lies a maikeu uistinction between an action anu a special pioceeuing. An action is a
foimal uemanu of one's iight in a couit of justice in the mannei piesciibeu by the couit oi by the law.
It is the methou of applying legal iemeuies accoiuing to uefinite establisheu iules. The teim "special
pioceeuing" may be uefineu as an application oi pioceeuing to establish the status oi iight of a paity,
oi a paiticulai fact. 0sually, in special pioceeuings, no foimal pleauings aie iequiieu unless the
statute expiessly so pioviues. In special pioceeuings, the iemeuy is gianteu geneially upon an
application oi motion.
An action foi ieconveyance anu annulment of title with uamages is a civil action, wheieas
matteis ielating to settlement of the estate of a ueceaseu peison such as auvancement of piopeity
maue by the ueceuent, paitake of the natuie of a special pioceeuing, which concomitantly iequiies
the application of specific iules as pioviueu foi in the Rules of Couit.
Cleaily, matteis which involve settlement anu uistiibution of the estate of the ueceuent fall
within the exclusive piovince of the piobate couit in the exeicise of its limiteu juiisuiction.
Thus, unuei Section 2, Rule 9u of the Rules of Couit, questions as to auvancement maue oi
allegeu to have been maue by the ueceaseu to any heii may be heaiu anu ueteimineu by the 89HD6
L@>47E VHD45B486497 9R 6L; ;56@6; CD98;;B47E5W anu the final oiuei of the couit theieon shall be
binuing on the peison iaising the questions anu on the heii.
While it may be tiue that the Rules useu the woiu "may", it is neveitheless cleai that the same
piovision
11
contemplates a piobate couit when it speaks of the "couit having juiisuiction of the
estate pioceeuings".
Coiollaiily, the Regional Tiial Couit in the instant case, acting in its geneial juiisuiction, is
uevoiu of authoiity to ienuei an aujuuication anu iesolve the issue of auvancement of the ieal
piopeity in favoi of heiein petitionei Natchei, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471u7S foi ieconveyance

4B page 4

anu annulment of title with uamages is not, to oui minu, the piopei vehicle to thiesh out saiu
question. Noieovei, unuei the piesent ciicumstances, the RTC of Nanila, Bianch SS was not piopeily
constituteu as a piobate couit so as to valiuly pass upon the question of auvancement maue by the
ueceuent uiaciano Bel Rosaiio to his wife, heiein petitionei Natchei.

X3 ,H:V;86 Y@66;D 9R 5C;84@? CD98;;B47E5
R0LES 0F C00RT, Rule 72

!Z'" [K ,ZX\".] #&]]"! &0$ &--'%.&X%'%]^ /_ 1"0"!&' !Z'",

Section 1. !789"#* (4**"+ $: );"#<4= ;+$#""&<%5). Rules of special pioceeuings aie pioviueu foi in
the following cases:
(a) Settlement of estate of ueceaseu peisons;
(b) Escheat;
(c) uuaiuianship anu custouy of chiluien;
(u) Tiustees;
(e) Auoption;
(f) Rescission anu ievocation of auoption;
(g) Bospitalization of insane peisons;
(h) Babeas coipus;
(i) Change of name;
(j) voluntaiy uissolution of coipoiations;
(k) }uuicial appioval of voluntaiy iecognition of minoi natuial chiluien;
(l) Constitution of family home;
(m) Beclaiation of absence anu ueath;
(n) Cancellation of coiiection of entiies in the civil iegistiy.

Section 2. >;;=<#48<=<*? $: +7=") $: #<6<= 4#*<$%). In the absence of special piovisions, the iules
pioviueu foi in oiuinaiy actions shall be, as fai as piacticable, applicable in special pioceeuings.

F;D7@;G \D3 >3 %76;DY;B4@6; &CC;??@6; .9HD6I KNM ,.!& JJP +OPPK2

FACTS:
Petitionei Beinaez was ueclaieu the iecognizeu natuial chilu, entitleu to P4uu monthly
suppoit, of Responuent Beinaez. Responuent fileu a petition foi #"+*<$+4+<, piohibition oi (4%&4(7)
oi alteinatively, an action foi the annulment of juugment with pieliminaiy injunction with the
Inteimeuiate Appellate Couit, which ueclaieu the uecision of the tiial couit null anu voiu foi lack of
summons by publication being an action <% +"(.
Petitionei instituteu the subject Petition foi Review. Petitionei contenus that the
iequiiement of publication is not necessaiy in an action foi compulsoiy acknowleugment anu
suppoit of an illegitimate chilu since saiu action is not one of the instances enumeiateu in Section 1
of Rule 72 of the Reviseu Rules of Couit iequiiing publication of the petition befoie juiisuiction can
be acquiieu by the Couit. 0nuei the ""@;+"))<$ 7%<7) ")* "@#=7))<$ 4=*"+<7)" piinciple on statutoiy
constiuction, this action shoulu be consiueieu a pioceeuing <% ;"+)$%4(.
ISS0E:
Whethei publication as iequiieu in Rule 1uS necessaiy foi the couit to acquiie juiisuiction
ovei Responuent in the action foi acknowleugment anu suppoit

4B page S

BELB: -H:?48@6497 H7B;D !H?; ONT 796 7;8;55@D`3 &86497 R9D 89YCH?59D` D;89E746497 @7B
5HCC9D6 796 89>;D;B H7B;D ,C;84@? -D98;;B47E53
An action foi compulsoiy iecognition of minoi natuial chiluien is not among cases of special
pioceeuings mentioneu in Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Couit. Consequently, such an action
shoulu be goveineu by the iules on oiuinaiy civil actions.
Piivate iesponuents' claim that notice of an action foi compulsoiy iecognition shoulu also be
given to the wife anu legitimate chiluien of the putative paient, Teouoio Beinaez, Si., is
unmeiitoiious foi the following ieasons:
1. In a case foi compulsoiy iecognition, the paity in the best position to oppose the
same is the putative paient himself; anu
2. Implicit in both Aiticles 28S anu 28S of the Civil Coue is the geneial iule that an
action foi compulsoiy iecognition shoulu the biought against the putative fathei,
the exceptions being the instances when eithei the putative paient uieu uuiing the
minoiity of the chilu, oi when aftei the ueath of the paient a uocument shoulu
appeai of which nothing hau been heaiu anu in which eithei oi both of the paients
iecognize the chilu, in which cases the action is biought against the putative
paient's heiis.
In fine, an action foi compulsoiy iecognition is an oiuinaiy civil action. Thus, seivice of
summons on the putative paient shall be as pioviueu foi unuei Rule 14. Saiu action shall be biought
against the putative paient only; his heiis may be maue paity uefenuants only unuei the
ciicumstances mentioneu in Aiticle 28S.

!;CH:?48 >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I JTM ,.!& KNN +KNNT2

FACTS:
RTC of 0imoc City gianteu the petition of petitionei-wife to have hei husbanu ueclaieu
piesumptively ueau foi the puipose of iemaiiiage. The Republic, thiough the 0Su, sought to appeal
the oiuei by filing a notice of appeal. This anu a subsequent motion foi ieconsiueiation weie uenieu
on the giounu that the ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath was a special pioceeuing anu iequiieu a
iecoiu on appeal. The Republic then fileu a ceitioiaii contenuing that the ueclaiation of piesumptive
ueath of a peison unuei Aiticle 41 of the Family Coue is not a special pioceeuing oi a case of multiple
oi sepaiate appeals iequiiing a iecoiu on appeal.
ISS0E:
whethei a petition foi ueclaiation of the piesumptive ueath of a peison is in the natuie of a
special pioceeuing.
BELB:
As uefineu in Section S(a), Rule 1 of the Rules of Couit, "a civil action is one by which a paity
sues anothei foi the enfoicement oi piotection of a iight, oi the pievention of ieuiess of a wiong"
while a special pioceeuing unuei Section S(c) of the same iule is uefineu as "a iemeuy by which a
paity seeks to establish a status, a iight oi a paiticulai fact. As such, as a geneial iule, the ueclaiation
of absence anu ueath aie matteis appiopiiately unuei Rule 71 Section 1 of the Rules of Couit. This
woulu iequiie besiues the notice of appeal, a iecoiu on appeal.
Bowevei. foi the puipose of contiacting the subsequent maiiiage unuei the pieceuing
paiagiaph, the spouses piesent must institute a summaiy pioceeuing as pioviueu in this Coue foi the
ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath of the absentee, without piejuuice to the effect of a ieappeaiance of
the absent spouse. Ait. 2S8 of the Family Coue pioviues: AB%=")) ($&<:<"& 8? *C" !7;+"(" 3$7+*, *C"
;+$#"&7+4= +7=") <% *C<) D<*=" )C4== 4;;=? <% 4== #4)") ;+$6<&"& :$+ <% *C<) 3$&") +"E7<+<%5 )7((4+? #$7+*
;+$#""&<%5)F !7#C #4)") )C4== 8" &"#<&"& <% 4% "@;"&<*<$7) (4%%"+ G<*C$7* +"54+& *$ *"#C%<#4= +7=")FH

4B page 6

Theie is no uoubt that the petition of Apolinaiia }omoc iequiieu, anu is, theiefoie, a summaiy
pioceeuing unuei the Family Coue, not a special pioceeuing unuei the Reviseu Rules of Couit appeal
foi which calls foi the filing of a Recoiu on Appeal. It being a summaiy oiuinaiy pioceeuing, the filing
of a Notice of Appeal fiom the tiial couit's oiuei sufficeu.

%%3 ,"]]'"#"0] /_ ",]&]" /_ $"."&,"$ -"!,/0,
Reseaich on the uiffeient moues of settling an estate
Bautista, Antonio R., I7&<#<4= 6"+)7) J@*+41I7&<#<4= !"**="("%* $: 4% K%*")*4*" J)*4*"L >
3$(;4+4*<6" J64=74*<$%, XIX Lawyeis Review S (S1 August 2uuS)

&3 0/0Q-!/X&]"a&$#%0%,]!&]%/0 #/$",
R0LES 0F C00RT, Rules 69 anu 74

!Z'" UP -&!]%]%/0
Section 1. 3$(;=4<%* <% 4#*<$% :$+ ;4+*<*<$% $: +"4= ")*4*". A peison having the iight to compel the
paitition of ieal estate may uo so as pioviueu in this Rule, setting foith in his complaint the natuie
anu extent of his title anu an auequate uesciiption of the ieal estate of which paitition is uemanueu
anu joining as uefenuants all othei peisons inteiesteu in the piopeity. (1a)
Section 2. M+&"+ :$+ ;4+*<*<$% 4%& ;4+*<*<$% 8? 45+""("%* *C"+"7%&"+. If aftei the tiial the couit
finus that the plaintiff has the iight theieto, it shall oiuei the paitition of the ieal estate among all
the paities in inteiest. Theieupon the paities may, if they aie able to agiee, make the paitition
among themselves by piopei instiuments of conveyance, anu the couit shall confiim the paitition
so agieeu upon by all the paities, anu such paitition, togethei with the oiuei of the couit
confiiming the same, shall be iecoiueu in the iegistiy of ueeus of the place in which the piopeity is
situateu. (2a)
A final oiuei uecieeing paitition anu accounting may be appealeu by any paity aggiieveu theieby.
(n)
Section S. 3$((<))<$%"+) *$ (4N" ;4+*<*<$% GC"% ;4+*<") :4<= *$ 45+"". If the paities aie unable to
agiee upon the paitition, the couit shall appoint not moie than thiee (S) competent anu
uisinteiesteu peisons as commissioneis to make the paitition, commanuing them to set off to the
plaintiff anu to each paity in inteiest such pait anu piopoition of the piopeity as the couit shall
uiiect. (Sa)
Section 4. M4*C 4%& &7*<") $: #$((<))<$%"+). Befoie making such paitition; the commissioneis
shall take anu subsciibe an oath that they will faithfully peifoim theii uuties as commissioneis,
which oath shall be fileu in couit with the othei pioceeuings in the case. In making the paitition,
the commissioneis shall view anu examine the ieal estate, aftei uue notice to the paities to attenu
at such view anu examination, anu shall heai the paities as to theii piefeience in the poition of the
piopeity to be set apait to them anu the compaiative value theieof, anu shall set apait the same to
the paities in lots oi paicels as will be most auvantageous anu equitable, having uue iegaiu to the
impiovements, situation anu quality of the uiffeient paits theieof. (4a)
Section S. >))<5%("%* $+ )4=" $: +"4= ")*4*" 8? #$((<))<$%"+). When it is maue to appeai to the
commissioneis that the ieal state, oi a poition theieof, cannot be uiviueu without piejuuice to the

4B page 7

inteiests of the paities, the couit may oiuei it assigneu to one of the paities willing to take the
same, pioviueu he pays to the othei paities such amount as the commissioneis ueem equitable,
unless one of the inteiesteu paities asks that the piopeity be solu insteau of being so assigneu, in
which case the couit shall oiuei the commissioneis to sell the ieal estate at public sale unuei such
conuitions anu within such time as the couit may ueteimine. (Sa)
Section 6. O";$+* $: #$((<))<$%"+); ;+$#""&<%5) %$* 8<%&<%5 7%*<= #$%:<+("&. The commissioneis
shall make a full anu accuiate iepoit to the couit of all theii pioceeuings as to the paitition, oi the
assignment of ieal estate to one of the paities, oi the sale of the same. 0pon the filing of such
iepoit, the cleik of couit shall seive copies theieof on all the inteiesteu paities with notice that
they aie alloweu ten (1u) uays within which to file objections to the finuings of the iepoit, if they
so uesiie. No pioceeuing hau befoie oi conuucteu by the commissioneis anu ienueieu juugment
theieon. (6a)
Section 7. >#*<$% $: *C" #$7+* 7;$% #$((<))<$%"+) +";$+*. 0pon the expiiation of the peiiou of ten
(1u) uays iefeiieu to in the pieceuing section oi even befoie the expiiation of such peiiou but aftei
the inteiesteu paities have fileu theii objections to the iepoit oi theii statement of agieement
theiewith the couit may, upon heaiing, accept the iepoit anu ienuei juugment in accoiuance
theiewith, oi, foi cause shown iecommit the same to the commissioneis foi fuithei iepoit of facts;
oi set asiue the iepoit anu appoint new commissioneis; oi accept the iepoit in pait anu ieject it in
pait; anu may make such oiuei anu ienuei such juugment as shall effectuate a faii anu just
paitition of the ieal estate, oi of its value, if assigneu oi solu as above pioviueu, between the
seveial owneis theieof. (7)
Section 8. >##$7%*<%5 :$+ +"%* 4%& ;+$:<*) <% 4#*<$% :$+ ;4+*<*<$%. In an action foi paitition in
accoiuance with this Rule, a paity shall iecovei fiom anothei his just shaie of ients anu piofits
ieceiveu by such othei paity fiom the ieal estate in question, anu the juugment shall incluue an
allowance foi such ients anu piofits. (8a)
Section 9. P$G"+ $: 574+&<4% <% )7#C ;+$#""&<%5). The guaiuian oi guaiuian 4& =<*"( of a minoi
oi peison juuicially ueclaieu to be incompetent may, with the appioval of the couit fiist hau, uo
anu peifoim on behalf of his waiu any act, mattei, oi thing iespecting the paitition of ieal estate,
which the minoi oi peison juuicially ueclaieu to be incompetent coulu uo in paitition pioceeuings
if he weie of age oi competent. (9a)
Section 1u. 3$)*) 4%& "@;"%)") *$ 8" *4@"& 4%& #$=="#*"&. The couit shall equitably tax anu
appoition between oi among the paities the costs anu expenses which acciue in the action,
incluuing the compensation of the commissioneis, having iegaiu to the inteiests of the paities, anu
execution may issue theiefoi as in othei cases. (1ua)
Section 11. DC" 97&5("%* 4%& <*) "::"#*; #$;? *$ 8" +"#$+&"& <% +"5<)*+? $: &""&). If actual paitition
of piopeity is maue, the juugment shall state uefinitely, by metes anu bounus anu auequate
uesciiption, the paiticulai poition of the ieal estate assigneu to each paity, anu the effect of the
juugment shall be to vest in each paity to the action in seveialty the poition of the ieal estate
assigneu to him. If the whole piopeity is assigneu to one of the paities upon his paying to the
otheis the sum oi sums oiueieu by the couit, the juugment shall state the fact of such payment anu
of the assignment of the ieal estate to the paity making the payment, anu the effect of the juugment
shall be to vest in the paity making the payment the whole of the ieal estate fiee fiom any inteiest

4B page 8

on the pait of the othei paities to the action. If the piopeity is solu anu the sale confiimeu by the
couit, the juugment shall state the name of the puichasei oi puichaseis anu a uefinite uesciiption
of the paicels of ieal estate solu to each puichasei, anu the effect of the juugment shall be to vest
the ieal estate in the puichasei oi puichaseis making the payment oi payments, fiee fiom the
claims of any of the paities to the action. A ceitifieu copy of the juugment shall in eithei case be
iecoiueu in the iegistiy of ueeus of the place in which the ieal estate is situateu, anu the expenses
of such iecoiuing shall be taxeu as pait of the costs of the action. (11a)
Section 12. Q"<*C"+ ;4+4($7%* +<5C*) %$+ 4(<#48=" ;4+*<*<$% 4::"#*"& 8? *C<) O7=". Nothing in this
Rule containeu shall be constiueu so as to piejuuice, uefeat, oi uestioy the iight oi title of any
peison claiming the ieal estate involveu by title unuei any othei peison, oi by title paiamount to
the title of the paities among whom the paitition may have been maue, noi so as to iestiict oi
pievent peisons holuing ieal estate jointly oi in common fiom making an amicable paitition
theieof by agieement anu suitable instiuments of conveyance without iecouise to an action. (12a)
Section 1S. P4+*<*<$% $: ;"+)$%4= ;+$;"+*?. The piovisions of this Rule shall apply to paititions of
estates composeu of peisonal piopeity, oi of both ieal anu peisonal piopeity, in so fai as the same
may be applicable. (1S)

!Z'" [J ,Z##&!^ ,"]]'"#"0] /_ ",]&]"

Section 1. J@*+497&<#<4= )"**="("%* 8? 45+""("%* 8"*G""% C"<+). If the ueceuent left no will anu no
uebts anu the heiis aie all of age, oi the minois aie iepiesenteu by theii juuicial oi legal
iepiesentatives uuly authoiizeu foi the puipose, the paities may without secuiing letteis of
auministiation, uiviue the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instiument
fileu in the office of the iegistei of ueeus, anu shoulu they uisagiee, they may uo so in an oiuinaiy
action of paitition. If theie is only one heii, he may aujuuicate to himself the entiie estate by means
of an affiuavit filleu in the office of the iegistei of ueeus. The paities to an extiajuuicial settlement,
whethei by public instiument oi by stipulation in a penuing action foi paitition, oi the sole heii
who aujuuicates the entiie estate to himself by means of an affiuavit shall file, simultaneously with
anu as a conuition pieceuent to the filing of the public instiument, oi stipulation in the action foi
paitition, oi of the affiuavit in the office of the iegistei of ueeus, a bonu with the saiu iegistei of
ueeus, in an amount equivalent to the value of the peisonal piopeity involveu as ceitifieu to unuei
oath by the paities conceineu anu conuitioneu upon the payment of any just claim that may be
fileu unuei section 4 of this iule. It shall be piesumeu that the ueceuent left no uebts if no cieuitoi
files a petition foi letteis of auministiation within two (2) yeais aftei the ueath of the ueceuent.
The fact of the extiajuuicial settlement oi auministiation shall be publisheu in a newspapei of
geneial ciiculation in the mannei pioviueu in the nest succeeuing section; but no extiajuuicial
settlement shall be binuing upon any peison who has not paiticipateu theiein oi hau no notice
theieof.
Section 2. !7((4+? )"**="("%* $: ")*4*" $: )(4== 64=7". Whenevei the gioss value of the estate of
a ueceaseu peison, whethei he uieu testate oi intestate, uoes not exceeu ten thousanu pesos, anu
that fact is maue to appeai to the Couit of Fiist Instance having juiisuiction of the estate by the
petition of an inteiesteu peison anu upon heaiing, which shall be helu not less than one (1) month
noi moie than thiee (S) months fiom the uate of the last publication of a notice which shall be
publisheu once a week foi thiee (S) consecutive weeks in a newspapei of geneial ciiculation in the

4B page 9

piovince, anu aftei such othei notice to inteiest peisons as the couit may uiiect, the couit may
pioceeu summaiily, without the appointment of an executoi oi auministiatoi, anu without uelay,
to giant, if piopei, allowance of the will, if any theie be, to ueteimine who aie the peisons legally
entitleu to paiticipate in the estate, anu to appoition anu uiviue it among them aftei the payment
of such uebts of the estate as the couit shall then finu to be uue; anu such peisons, in theii own
iight, if they aie of lawful age anu legal capacity, oi by theii
guaiuians oi tiustees legally appointeu anu qualifieu, if otheiwise, shall theieupon be entitleu to
ieceive anu entei into the possession of the poitions of the estate so awaiueu to them iespectively.
The couit shall make such oiuei as may be just iespecting the costs of the pioceeuings, anu all
oiueis anu juugments maue oi ienueieu in the couise theieof shall be iecoiueu in the office of the
cleik, anu the oiuei of paitition oi awaiu, if it involves ieal estate, shall be iecoiueu in the piopei
iegistei's office.
Section S. R$%& *$ 8" :<="& 8? &<)*+<87*""). The couit, befoie allowing a paitition in accoiuance
with the piovisions of the pieceuing section, my iequiie the uistiibutees, if piopeity othei than
ieal is to be uistiibuteu, to file a bonu in an amount to be fixeu by couit, conuitioneu foi the
payment of any just claim which may be fileu unuei the next succeeuing section.
Section 4. S<48<=<*? $: &<)*+<87*"") 4%& ")*4*". If it shall appeai at any time within two (2) yeais
aftei the settlement anu uistiibution of an estate in accoiuance with the piovisions of eithei of the
fiist two sections of this iule, that an heii oi othei peison has been unuuly uepiiveu of his lawful
paiticipation in the estate, such heii oi such othei peison may compel the settlement of the estate
in the couits in the mannei heieinaftei pioviueu foi the puipose of satisfying such lawful
paiticipation. Anu if within the same time of two (2) yeais, it shall appeai that theie aie uebts
outstanuing against the estate which have not been paiu, oi that an heii oi othei peison has been
unuuly uepiiveu of his lawful paiticipation payable in money, the couit having juiisuiction of the
estate may, by oiuei foi that puipose, aftei heaiing, settle the amount of such uebts oi lawful
paiticipation anu oiuei how much anu in what mannei each uistiibutee shall contiibute in the
payment theieof, anu may issue execution, if ciicumstances iequiie, against the bonu pioviueu in
the pieceuing section oi against the ieal estate belonging to the ueceaseu, oi both. Such bonu anu
such ieal estate shall iemain chaigeu with a liability to cieuitois, heiis, oi othei peisons foi the full
peiiou of two (2) yeais aftei such uistiibution, notwithstanuing any tiansfeis of ieal estate that
may have been maue.
Section S. P"+<$& :$+ #=4<( $: (<%$+ $+ <%#4;4#<*4*"& ;"+)$%. If on the uate of the expiiation of the
peiiou of two (2) yeais piesciibeu in the pieceuing section the peison authoiizeu to file a claim is
a minoi oi mentally incapacitateu, oi is in piison oi outsiue the Philippines, he may piesent his
claim within one (1) yeai aftei such uisability is iemoveu.

#8#48b47E >3 ,` .97:4;7E +KO -L4? KOO2

FACTS:
When Naigaiita }0SE uieu, his estate was auministeieu by PALANCA with By C0NYA0 anu
Naiiano Lao SENPC0 as suieties.
When Naiiano LA0 SENPC0 uieu, his estate was auministeieu by Boioteo vELASC0, anu
Naiiano vELASC0 anu BARRET0 weie the suieties.

4B page 1u

When BARRET0 uieu SY C0NBIENu auministeieu his estate.
Along the way PALANCA absconueu with about 4S of }0SE's estate.
The couit then appointeu NCNICKINu who then tiieu to claim on the suiety LA0 SENPC0.
But since LA0 SENPC0's estate cannot pay, NCNICKINu biought an action to claim against LA0
SENPC0's suiety BARRET0 (whose estate is auministeieu by SY C0NBIENu).
Tiial couit iuleu in favoi of SY C0NBIENu anu uismisseu NCNICKINu's claim. Bence this appeal.
ISS0E: Whethei NCNICKINu can claim fiom BARRET0's estate.
BELB: No. The couit baseu its iuling on these:
SEC. S96. !"**="("%* $: <%*")*4*" ")*4*"), G<*C$7* ="54= ;+$#""&<%5), <% #"+*4<% #4)"). Whatevei
all the heiis of a ueceaseu peison aie of lawful age anu legal capacity, anu theii aie no uebts uue fiom
the intestate estate, oi all the uebts have been paiu by the heiis, the heiis may, by a family council as
shown unuei Spanish law, oi by agieement between themselves, uuly executeu in wiiting, appoition
anu uiviue the estate among themselves, as they may see fit, without pioceeuings in couit.
SEC. S97. K% )7#C #4)" &<)*+<87*"") =<48=" :$+ &"8*). But if it shall appeai, at any time within two
yeais aftei such settlement anu uistiibution of the estate, that theie aie uebts outstanuing against
the estate which have not been paiu, any cieuitoi may compel the settlement of the estate in the
couits in the mannei heieinaftei pioviueu, unless his uebt shall be paiu, with inteiest; anu the
auministiatoi appointeu by the couit may iecovei the assets of the estate fiom those who have
ieceiveu them, foi the puipose of paying the uebts; anu the ieal estate belonging to the ueceaseu
shall iemain chaigeu with the liability to cieuitois foi the full peiiou of two yeais aftei such
uistiibution, notwithstanuing any tiansfeis theieof that may have been maue.
We aie of the opinion that the juugment must be affiimeu. We base oui affiimance upon the
giounu that Boioteo velasco, foi whom the ueceaseu Pio ue la uuaiuia Baiietto was suiety, woulu
not have been liable himself hau this action been commenceu against him. If the piincipal is not liable
upon the obligation, the suiety cannot be.
Foi the couit iuleu that vELASC0 having peifoimeu his oiiginal obligation paititioning the estate
was fiom that point on fiee fiom liability; anu so it follows that his suieties weie also fiee.
Anu that any new claim aiising within the two yeais necessitates the appointment of a new
auministiatoi anu new suieties. Foi the oiiginal suieties secuieu only one obligation anu not
two.
The couit then explaineu that NCNICKINu seemeu to aigue that if the estate has any outstanuing
uebts aftei paitition that the paitition itself is invaliu. It is not so.
In answei the couit explaineu:
"as alieauy seen, in oiuei that it be a ieason foi such appointment anu auministiation, *C"
#=4<( (7)* 8" ;+")"%*"& G<*C<% *G$ ?"4+) |it was piesenteu in Sj fiom the uate of the paitition anu
uistiibution.
Summaiizing, we have seen that lack of oppoitunity, eithei by want of notice oi otheiwise,
anu the consequent failuie to piesent a claim befoie paitition, is, unuei the sections we aie
uiscussing, of no consequence whatevei in so fai as the 64=<&<*? of the paitition is conceineu.
We have also seen that the fact that theie weie uebts outstanuing anu unpaiu at the time the
paitition took place is of no impoitance so fai as the 64=<&<*? of the paitition is conceineu, leaving out
account the question of fiauu to which we have alieauy auveiteu anu left unueciueu.
We have also seen that the fact such claim exists anu is valiu anu subsistent against the estate
is of no consequence whatevei with iespect to the iight of its holuei to iequiie an auministiation of
the estate 7%=")) )7#C #=4<( <) &<)#$6"+"& 4%& ;+")"%*"& G<*C<% *G$ ?"4+).
The fact that the claim in the case at bai was, uuiing a ceitain peiiou, a contingent one is of no
impoitance. The sections unuei uiscussion make no uistinction between claims.
The cieuitoi himself is not without uuties. In the case at bai it was five yeais aftei the petition
befoie the allegeu cieuitoi maue any attempt whatsoevei to "uiscovei" oi piesent his claim. Be knew

4B page 11

of the ueath of 0CANP0 veiy soon aftei it occuiieu. Be knew that it was among the possibilities that
0CANP0'S estate might be calleu upon to iesponu foi the failuie of PALANCA to peifoim his uuty as
auministiatoi. It was his uuty to see to it that he woulu be piotecteu in that event. Neveitheless he
peimitteu the estate of 0CANP0 to be paititioneu anu uistiibuteu without piotest anu without the
piesentation of his contingent claim, anu sat quiet anu passive foi neaily five yeais theieaftei
knowing that it was veiy piobable that the piopeity of the estate was being consumeu, incumbeieu,
anu tiansfeiieu by the peisons among whom it hau been uistiibuteu."

!;:97E >3 %:@c;GI [P -L4? SKJ +OPJ[2

FACTS:
REB0Nu was the sole heii of hei pieuecessois-in-inteiest. She appiopiiateu the estate of hei
paients extia-juuicially.
REB0Nu petitioneu the CFI to cancel the annotation on the Ceit. of Title ovei an inheiiteu lanu.
The Cet. of Title hau the annotation that the lanu was subject to the claims of the cieuitois anu
othei heiis of the ueceaseu paients within two yeais fiom }uly 9, 1947 T%$ :7+*C"+ "@;=4%4*<$%,
;"+C4;) *C" ;4+"%*) &<"& *$5"*C"+ $% *C" )4<& &4*"U
REB0Nu's petition was anchoieu on Sec. 112 of Act 496 which stateu that
o "Any iegisteieu ownei oi othei peison in inteiest may . petition to the couit, upon the
giounu that the iegisteieu inteiests of any uesciiption, whethei vesteu, contingent,
expectant, oi inchoate, have teiminateu anu ceaseu; oi that new inteiests have aiisen oi been
cieateu which uo not appeai upon the ceitificate; ... anu the couit shall have juiisuiction to
heai anu ueteimine the petition . anu may oiuei the entiy of a new ceitificate, the entiy oi
cancellation of a memoianuum upon a ceitificate oi giant any othei ielief upon such teims
anu conuitions, iequiiing secuiity if necessaiy, as it may ueem piopei;"
REB0Nu even offeieu to file a bonu amounting to PSthou to answei foi any contingent claim that
may aiise. The lot in question was woith PSthou.
CFI juuge, iesponuent IBANEZ, uenieu REB0Nu's petition. Bence, this case.
ISS0E:
Whethei REB0Nu's petition shoulu be gianteu in light of Rule 74, Secs. 1 & 4, vis-a-vis Act
496.
R0LINu (Najoiity 0pinion, Feiia, I.):
No, since the iegisteieu oi annotateu contingent inteiest of the cieuitois oi othei heiis of
REB0Nu's pieuecessois-in-inteiest, establisheu by Sec. 4 of Rule 74, has not yet teiminateu oi
ceaseu, oi the peiiou of two yeais fiom }uly 9, 1947 has not yet elapseu, iesponuent IBANEZ hau no
juiisuiction oi powei to oiuei the cancellation of saiu lien oi annotation as piayeu by REB0Nu.
0;46L;D ,;83 JI !H?; [JI 9R 6L; !H?;5 9R .9HD6I 79D ,;863 OOK 9R &86 093 JPU @H6L9D4G;5 476;D;56 9R
5H:5646H6497 9R @ :97B R9D @ ?4;7 9D D;E456;D;B 476;D;56 9R @7` B;58D4C6497I <L;6L;D >;56;BI
;dC;B4;76I 478L9@6; 9D 897647E;76I <L48L L@>; 796 `;6 6;DY47@6;B 9D 8;@5;B3 TQRL V"#<)<$% G4)
;+$(7=54*"& 8? !3 $% !";*F W/ 20XY, #="4+=? =")) *C4% *G$ ?"4+) :+$( I7=? 0, 20XYU.
Concuiiing 0pinion (Peifecto, I.):
While no piovision of law is invokeu by REB0Nu in suppoit of hei piayei, she alleges as
ieasons, (4) that the iights of thiiu peisons whose claims aie cancelleu by the lien aie meiely
contingent, expectant anu inchoate; (8) that the uominical iights of petitionei woulu gieatly be
hampeieu anu she cannot tiansact oi ueal with the ieal estate piopeity with thiiu peisons; anu (#)
that the bonu, in the event that theie exist claims against it within a peiiou of two yeais will answei
foi such eventuality, so much so that no iight of thiiu peisons will ieally be piejuuiceu. She alleges

4B page 12

that when she fileu the petition on }uly 14, 1947 with the lowei couit, she allegeu that she uesiieu to
cancel the annotation of the lien "in oiuei to moitgage the piopeity to a bank."
REB0Nu's ieasons aie unconvincing. If hei intention in seeking the cancellation of the
annotateu lien is to have an oppoitunity to moitgage the piopeity to a bank so as to obtain a loan, the
puipose can be accomplisheu without the cancellation piayeu foi. If she can secuie suieties willing
anu able to answei foi the amount of PS,uuu, we uo not see any ieason why she cannot obtain fiom a
bank a loan with the same suieties. If they can offei a goou guaiantee foi the bonu of PS,uuu, suiely
they can offei a goou guaiantee in favoi of a bank foi a loan that petitionei may apply foi.

]9DD;5 >3 ]9DD;5 +ON ,.!& OMT2

FACTS:
PAZ E. Siguion Toiies uieu intestate on Becembei 18, 19S9.
ALBERT0 S. Toiies (petitionei), claiming to be one of the foui legitimate chiluien of Paz,
petitioneu to be auministiatoi of the piopeities left by the ueceuent (aggiegate value of about
PSuu,uuu.uu). Be also claimeu he was not awaie of any uebt left by the ueceuent.
ALBERT0'S petition was opposeu by C0NCBITA Toiies, one of the heiis, on the giounu that on
}anuaiy 27, 196u, the heiis of the ueceaseu (incluuing petitionei) hau alieauy enteieu into an
extiajuuicial paitition anu settlement of the estate, puisuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 74.
The extiajuuicial ueeu of paitition of the estate contains the following piovisions:
"1. That they (ALBERT0, ANuEL, EB0ARB0 anu C0NCBITA, all suinameu Toiies)
aie the only legitimate chiluien who suivive the ueceaseu Paz Siguion vua. ue
Toiies;
x x x x x x x x x
"S. That the saiu ueceuent uieu without leaving any will anu hei only suiviving
heiis aie the afoiementioneu paities who aie hei legitimate chiluien;
"4. That the ueceaseu left no uebts;
x x x x x x x x x
"6. That puisuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Couit anu <% 6<"G $: *C"
&<::<#7=*? $: (4N<%5 4 ;C?)<#4= &<6<)<$% $: *C" 48$6" ;+$;"+*<"), *C" ;4+*<") C46"
45+""& *$ )"**=" *C" 4:$+"("%*<$%"& ")*4*" 8? #$%*<%7<%5 *C" #$1$G%"+)C<; $% 4== *C"
48$6" ;+$;"+*<") <% *C" :$==$G<%5 ;+$;$+*<$%:
ALBERT0 Toiies unuiviueu inteiest
ANuEL Toiies unuiviueu inteiest
EB0ARB0 Toiies unuiviueu inteiest
C0NCBITA Toiies unuiviueu inteiest" (J(;C4)<) )7;;=<"&.)
ALBERT0, while aumitting that such extiajuuicial paitition was signeu by the heiis, contenueu
that attempts at the actual uesignation of theii iespective shaies hau faileu thus neeuing the
couit's inteivention. Be also claimeu that some piopeities of consiueiable value weie not
incluueu in saiu extiajuuicial paitition. In anothei pleauing, he claimeu that the ueceuent hau an
outstanuing uebt of PSu,uuu.
0n }uly 21, 1961, the couit, finuing that an extiajuuicial settlement hau alieauy been enteieu into
by the heiis, uismisseu ALBERT0'S petition.
ISS0E:
Whethei auministiation oi a special pioceeuing foi the settlement of the estate is necessaiy.
R0LINu: No.
The claim of the ueceuent's uebts is unsubstantiateu. ALBERT0 uiu not specify fiom whom
anu in what mannei the saiu uebt was contiacteu. The baie allegation that "the estate has an existing

4B page 1S

uebt of PSu,uuu.uu fiom thiiu peisons" cannot be consiueieu as concise statement to constitute a
cause of action.
If othei piopeities aie not incluueu in the ueeu of extiajuuicial paitition in the possession of
one of the heiis, the questions such as the titles anu theii paitition if pioven to belong to the
intestate can be piopeily anu expeuitiously litigateu in an oiuinaiy action of paitition anu 796 47
@7 @BY47456D@6497 CD98;;B47E.
Thus, <L;D; 6L; B;8;B;76 ?;R6 79 B;:65 @7B L;4D5 9D ?;E@6;;5 @D; @?? 9R @E;I as in this case,
6L;D; 45 79 7;8;5546` R9D 6L; 475646H6497 9R 5C;84@? CD98;;B47E5 @7B 6L; @CC9476Y;76 9R @7
@BY47456D@69D R9D 6L; 5;66?;Y;76 9R 6L; ;56@6;I :;8@H5; 6L; 5@Y; 8@7 :; ;RR;86;B ;46L;D ;d6D@Q
VHB484@??` 9D 6LD9HEL @7 9DB47@D` @86497 R9D C@D646497. If theie is an actual necessity foi couit
inteivention in view of the heiis' failuie to ieach an agieement as to how the estate woulu be uiviueu
physically, the heiis still have the iemeuy of an oiuinaiy action foi paitition unuei Rule 74.

\;D;G >3 04;6;5 +SN ,.!& PNT2

FACTS:
In 196u Nicolas }alanuoni uieu. A special pioceeuing foi the settlement of his estate was fileu
befoie the CFI of Iloilo, anu his wiuow, Luciecia }eiez, was appointeu as auministiatiix. In 1966, a
pioject of paitition anu final accounting was submitteu, anu the iesponuent }uuge Nietes appioveu
the same.
Lucilo }alanuoni, alleging that he is an acknowleugeu natuial chilu of the late Nicolas
}alanuoni, anu victoiia }alanuoni ue uoiiiceta, alleging that she is an illegitimate uaughtei, sought to
be alloweu to inteivene on the giounu that they weie pieteiiteu in the pioject of paitition which they
woulu have iesponuent }uuge ieject foi being contiaiy to law. }uuge Nietes alloweu inteivention anu
ieopeneu the pioceeuings to peimit the movants "to piesent whatevei eviuence they may have to
show theii iight to paiticipate in the estate of the ueceaseu." The wiuow anu legitimate chiluien of
Nicolas }alanuoni fileu a petition foi #"+*<$+4+< anu piohibition with the CA, which uenieu such
petition to annul anu set asiue the oiuei of iesponuent }uuge.
BELB:
}uuge Nietes is uiiecteu to iequiie piivate iesponuents Lucilo }alanuoni anu victoiia
}alanuoni ue uoiiiceta to piesent eviuence to justify theii iight to inteivene in Special Pioceeuing No.
1S62 ie Intestate Estate of Nicolas B. }alanuoni penuing befoie such sala.
Boctiine of libeiality as to pleas foi inteivention: iathei than iequiie any paity who can
allege a giievance that his inteiest was not iecognizeu in a testate oi intestate pioceeuing to file a
sepaiate anu inuepenuent action, he may within the ieglementaiy peiiou secuie the ielief that is his
uue by a ieopening of the case even aftei a pioject of paitition anu final accounting hau been
appioveu.
Although the iecognition of theii iight to inteivene appeaieu to be tentative anu conuitional,
it cannot be uenieu that they weie given a stanuing sufficient to set asiue the pioject of paitition.
Bowevei, the veiifieu motion on the pait of piivate iesponuents (Lucilo anu victoiia) uiu not suffice
to call into play the powei of iesponuent }uuge to allow inteivention. Theie must be pioof beyonu
allegations in such motion to show the inteiest of the piivate movants. In the absence theieof, the
action taken by iesponuent }uuge coulu be consiueieu piematuie. "No one may quibble ovei the
existence of the couit's uiscietion on whethei to aumit oi ieject inteivention. But such uiscietion is
not unlimiteu."


4B page 14

"DY@8 >3 #;B;?9 +UJ ,.!& STP2

FACTS:
Spouses Eimac anu Naiiquit both uieu leaving a paicel of lanu as the only piopeity to be
inheiiteu by heiis
NEBEL0: gianuson fileu petition foi summaiy settlement of the estate.
ERNAC: moveu foi ieconsiueiation of the oiuei of settlement claiming the lanu as belonging to
him anu his wife.
ISS0E: WN the appioval of the pioject of paitition was valiu uespite the claim of ERNAC in a
sepaiate civil action.
BELB:
The policy of the law is to teiminate pioceeuings foi the settlement of the estate of the ueceaseu
peisons with the least loss of time.
o Small estates: summaiy pioceuuie uispensing with appointment of auministiatoi
Not piopei to uelay the summaiy settlement of a ueceaseu peison just because an heii oi a thiiu
peison claims that ceitain piopeities uo not belong to the estate; piopeily ventilateu in an
inuepenuent action anu piobate couit shoulu pioceeu to the uistiibution of the estate (subject to
the iesults of suit). &CCD9CD4@6; 56;Ce CD9C;D @7796@6497 9R ?45 C;7B;75

-;D4;D@ >3 .& +O[J ,.!& OTJ2

FACTS:
Anuies Peiieia uieu intestate, with no uebts. Be was suiviveu be his wife of 1u months
victoiia Peiieia who is a nuise in Lonuon anu his sistei Rita Nagac. Rita instituteu as special
pioceeuing foi the issuance of letteis if auministiation in hei favoi peitaining to the estate of the
ueceaseu which is saiu to incluue his ueath benefits fiom PAL, bank accounts in PNB anu PCIB anu a
Suu sq mt lanu in Las Pinas. victoiia filleu a motion to uismiss the petition alleging that theie is no
estate of the ueceaseu foi puiposes of auministiation oi that if theie is an estate letteis of
auministiation be issueu in hei favoi as suiviving spouse. The tiial couit appointeu Rita as
auministiatoi which victoiia is now questioning.
ISS0E:
Whethei a juuicial auministiation pioceeuing is necessaiy wheie theie aie no uebts left by
the ueceuent as in this case.
BELB: N0
RATI0:
As a geneial iule, when a peison uies leaving piopeity, the same shoulu be juuicially
auministeieu anu the competent couit shoulu appoint a qualifieu auministiatoi, in the oiuei
establisheu in Sec 6, Rule 78 in case the ueceaseu left no will oi in case he left one shoulu he faileu to
name an executoi. An exemption to this iule is establisheu in Section 1 of Rule 74, when all the heiis
aie of lawful age anu theie aie no uebts uue fiom the estate, they may agiee in wiiting to paitition
the piopeity without instituting the juuicial auministiation oi applying foi appointment of an
auministiatoi.
Section 1 of Rule 74 howevei uoes not piecluue the heiis fiom instituting auministiation
pioceeuings, even if the estate has no uebts oi obligations, if they uo not uesiie to iesoit foi goou
ieasons to an oiuinaiy action foi paitition. Wheie paitition is possible, eithei in oi out of couit, the

4B page 1S

estate shoulu not be buiueneu with an auministiation pioceeuing without goou anu compelling
ieasons.
It has been iepeateuly helu that when a peison uies without leaving penuing obligations to be
paiu, his heiis, whethei of age of not, aie not bounu to submit the piopeity to a juuicial
auministiation, which is always long anu costly, oi to apply foi the appointment of an auministiatoi
by the Couit. It has been unifoimly helu that in such case the juuicial auministiation anu the
appointment of an auministiatoi aie supeifluous anu unnecessaiy pioceeuings.
In this case, the only two suiviving heiis aie the spouse anu sistei who aie both oi age. They
aumit that theie aie no uebts. The estate is also not substantial. What is appaient is that these two
heiis aie not in goou teims anu that Rita wants to auministei the estate because she wants to take
possession of the piopeities, this is not a compelling ieason which will necessitate a juuicial
auministiation of the estate of the ueceaseu.

&>;?479 >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I SKP ,.!& SUP +KNNN2

FACTS:
Antonio Avelino Si. uieu intestate. Bis uaughtei, Naiia, petitioneu the couit to issue to hei
letteis auministiation. The othei heiis, (the Responuents), moveu to conveit Naiia's petition into an
action foi juuicial paitition. The couit gianteu the iesponuent's motion anu alloweu paitition on the
giounu that it was only one heii (Naiia) who was opposeu to the paitition. CA affiimeu.
ISS0E: Whethei paitition was piopei consiueiing that one heii was opposeu to the paitition.
BELB: Yes.
The heiis succeeu immeuiately to all of the iights anu piopeities of the ueceaseu at the
moment of the lattei's ueath. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Couit, allows heiis to uiviue the estate
among themselves without neeu of uelay anu iisks of being uissipateu. When a peison uies without
leaving penuing obligations, his heiis, aie not iequiieu to submit the piopeity foi juuicial
auministiation, noi apply foi the appointment of an auministiatoi by the couit.
Since the ueceuent left no uebts anu the heiis anu legatees aie all of age it is (oui) view that Section
1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Couit
1
shoulu apply.
As to the contention that the extent of the estate has yet to be ueteimineu, this can be uone in
the paitition pioceeuings.
In cases wheie the heiis uisagiee as to the paitition of the estate anu no extiajuuicial
settlement is possible, then an oiuinaiy action foi paitition may be iesoiteu to, as in this case. We
have helu that wheie the moie expeuitious iemeuy of paitition is available to the heiis, then the
heiis oi the majoiity of them may not be compelleu to submit to auministiation pioceeuings.

-;BD95@ >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I STS ,.!& UKN +KNNO2

FACTS:
Spouses Niguel anu Rosalina ue Rouiiguez auopteu Naiia Elena Rouiiguez Peuiosa. Yeais
latei, Niguel uieu intestate. Piivate iesponuents fileu an action to annul the auoption of Naiia Elena.

1
SECTI0N 1. J@*+497&<#<4= )"**="("%* 8? 45+""("%* 8"*G""% C"<+). - If the ueceuent left no will anu no uebts anu the heiis aie
all of age oi the minois aie iepiesenteu by theii juuicial oi legal iepiesentatives uuly authoiizeu foi the puipose, the
paities may, without secuiing letteis of auministiation, uiviue the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a
public instiument fileu in the office of the iegistei of ueeus, anu shoulu they uisagiee, they may uo so in an oiuinaiy action
of paitition.

4B page 16

The RTC uphelu the valiuity of the auoption. While the case is penuing on appeal in the Couit of
Appeals, the Rouiiguezes enteieu into a Beeu of Extiajuuicial Settlement anu Paitition with
iesponuent Rosalina foi the paitition of the estate of Niguel anu of anothei sistei, Pilai. Rosalina
acteu as the iepiesentative of the heiis of Niguel Rouiiguez. New TCTs unuei the name of the
iesponuents weie subsequently issueu. Naiia Elena then sent hei uaughtei to claim theii shaie of
the piopeities fiom the Rouiiguezes. The lattei iefuseu saying that Naiia Elena anu Loieto weie not
heiis since they weie not theii bloou ielatives. Naiia Elena fileu a complaint to annul the paitition.
ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the action to annul the paitition has piesciibeu.
BELB:
Section 4, Rule 74 pioviues foi a two yeai piesciiptive peiiou (1) to peisons who have
paiticipateu oi taken pait oi hau notice of the extiajuuicial paitition, anu in auuition (2) when the
piovisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been stiictly complieu with, <F"., that all the peisons oi heiis of
the ueceuent have taken pait in the extiajuuicial settlement oi aie iepiesenteu by themselves oi
thiough guaiuians. Naiia Elena uiu not paiticipate in the extiajuuicial paitition. Patently then, the
two-yeai piesciiptive peiiou is not applicable in hei case. The applicable piesciiptive peiiou is 4
yeais fiom uiscoveiy since the annulment is baseu on fiauu (foi the lack of notice anu consent of 1 of
the heiis, Naiia Elena). Such uiscoveiy is ueemeu to have taken place when saiu instiument was fileu
with the Registei of Beeus anu new ceitificates of title weie issueu in the name of iesponuents
exclusively. Consiueiing that the complaint of the petitionei was fileu on }anuaiy 28, 1987, oi thiee
yeais anu ten months aftei the questioneu extiajuuicial settlement uateu Naich 11, 198S, was
executeu, we holu that hei action against the iesponuents on the basis of fiauu has not yet
piesciibeu.
Also, Section 1 of Rule 74 pioviues that "The fact of the extiajuuicial settlement oi
auministiation shall be publisheu in a newspapei of geneial ciiculation in the mannei pioviueu in
the next succeeuing section; but %$ "@*+497&<#<4= )"**="("%* )C4== 8" 8<%&<%5 7;$% 4%? ;"+)$% GC$ C4)
%$* ;4+*<#<;4*"& *C"+"<% $+ C4& %$ %$*<#" *C"+"$:."
Lastly, it cannot be aigueu that Naiia Elena was iepiesenteu by Rosalina in the extiajuuicial
settlement because at that time, Naiia Elena was no longei a minoi. Bence, Rosalina only
iepiesenteu heiself uuiing the settlement.

X3 -!/X&]"a&$#%0%,]!&]%/0 #/$"

O3 !Z'" [S f *"0Z" &0$ -!/.",,
}uiisuictionvenue in piobateauministiation pioceeuings

!Z'" [S *"0Z" &0$ -!/.",,
Section 1. ZC"+" ")*4*" $: &"#"4)"& ;"+)$%) )"**="&. If the ueceuents is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his ueath, whethei a citizen oi an alien, his will shall be pioveu, oi letteis
of auministiation gianteu, anu his estate settleu, in the Couit of Fiist Instance in the piovince in
which he iesiues at the time of his ueath, anu if he is an inhabitant of a foieign countiy, the Couit of
Fiist Instance of any piovince in which he hau estate. The couit fiist taking cognizance of the
settlement of the estate of a ueceuent, shall exeicise juiisuiction to the exclusion of all othei couits.
The juiisuiction assumeu by a couit, so fai as it uepenus on the place of iesiuence of the ueceuent,
oi of the location of his estate, shall not be contesteu in a suit oi pioceeuing, except in an appeal
fiom that couit, in the oiiginal case, oi when the want of juiisuiction appeais on the iecoiu.

4B page 17

Section 2. ZC"+" ")*4*" )"**="& 7;$% &<))$=7*<$% $: (4++<45". When the maiiiage is uissolveu by
the ueath of the husbanu oi wife, the community piopeity shall be inventoiieu, auministeieu, anu
liquiuateu, anu the uebts theieof paiu, in the testate oi intestate pioceeuings of the ueceaseu
spouse. If both spouses have uieu, the conjugal paitneiship shall be liquiuateu in the testate oi
intestate pioceeuings of eithei.
Section S. P+$#")). In the exeicise of piobate juiisuiction, Couits of Fiist Instance may issue
waiiants anu piocess necessaiy to compel the attenuance of witnesses oi to caiiy into effect theiis
oiueis anu juugments, anu all othei poweis gianteu them by law. If a peison uoes not peifoim an
oiuei oi juugment ienueieu by a couit in the exeicise of its piobate juiisuiction, it may issue a
waiiant foi the appiehension anu impiisonment of such peison until he peifoims such oiuei oi
juugment, oi is ieleaseu.
Section 4. P+")7(;*<$% $: &"4*C. Foi puiposes of settlement of his estate, a peison shall be
piesumeu ueau if absent anu unheaiu fiom foi the peiious fixeu in the Civil Coue. But if such
peison pioves to be alive, he shall be entitleu to the balance of his estate aftei payment of all his
uebts. The balance may be iecoveieu by motion in the same pioceeuing.

$47E?@5@7 >3 &7E .L4@I MM -L4?3 J[U +OPTO2


4B page 18

"H5;:49 >3 "H5;:49I ONN -L4?3 TPS +OPTU2

FACTS:
Eugenio Eusebio file a petition with the CFI of Rizal for his appointment as administrator
of the estate of his father, Andres, residing, according to the petition, in the City of Quezon.
Amanda, et al, all surnamed Eusebio, objected to the petition, saying that they are illegitimate
children of the deceased and that the latter was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga and
praying, therefore, that the case be dismissed upon the ground that venue had been improperly
filed. It is not disputed that up to, at least, October 29, 1952, Andres Eusebio was, and had
always been, domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. Because of his heart condition, he bought a
house and lot at 889-A Espaa Extention, in said City. While transferring his belongings to this
house, he suffered a stroke and subsequently died. Consequently, he never stayed in the said
house in Espana extension. The CFI overruled the objection and granted the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition was filed in the proper venue.
HELD:
NO. It being apparent that the domicile of the decedent was San Fernando, Pampanga,
the presumption is that he retained such domicile and residence. If Andres established another
domicile, it must be one of choice, for which the following conditions are essential, namely: (1)
capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (2) physical presence at the place chosen; and (3)
intention to stay therein permanently. The first 2 requisites are present. However, the facts show
that he had no intention to stay permanently in the Espana residence. The house and lot were
bought because he had been adviced to do so "due to his illness". It is likely that he bought the
place in order that he could be near his doctor. It is well settled that "domicile is not commonly
changed by presence in a place merely for one's own health", even if coupled with "knowledge
that one will never again be able, on account of illness, to return home." Moreover, he did not
alienate the San Fernando residence. Some of his children also remained in Pampanga. In the
deed of sale (of the Espana residence), he gave San Fernando, Pampanga as his residence. At any
rate, the presumption in favor of the retention of the old domicile which is particularly strong
when the domicile is one of the origin as San Fernando, Pampanga, evidently was, as regards
said decedent has not been offset by the evidence of record.

!9BD4EH;G >3 X9DV@I O[ ,.!& JOM +OPUU2

FACTS:
Fi. Celestino Rouiiguez uieu on Feb. 12, 196S. 0n Naich 4, 196S, Apolonia Pangilinan anu
Auelaiua }acalan (iesponuents) ueliveieu to the Cleik of Couit of Bulacan a puipoiteu last will
anu testatment of Fi. Rouiiguez. 0n Naich 9, 196S, Naiia Rouiiguez anu Angela Rouiiquez
(petitioneis), thiough counsel fileu a petition foi leave of couit to allow them to examine the
allegeu will. 0n Naich 11, 196S, befoie the Couit coulu act on the petition, the same was
withuiawn. 0n Naich 12, 196S, petitioneis fileu befoie the CIF of Rizal a petition foi the
settlement of the intestate estate of Fi. Rouiiguez. 0n same uay, (Naich 12), uefenuants fileu a
petition foi the piobation of the will ueliveieu by them on Naich 4.
Petitioneis contenu that the intestate pioceeuings in the CIF of Rizal was fileu at 8:uuAN on
Naich 12, while the petition foi piobate in the CIF of Bulacan at 11AN, so the lattei Couit has no
juiisuiction to enteitain the petition foi piobate.

4B page 19

Befenuants contenu that CIF of Bulacan acquiieu juiisuiction ovei the case upon ueliveiy of the
will, hence the case in this couit has pieceuence ovei petitioneis'.
CIF of Bulacan uenieu NB of petitioneis. NR uenieu.
ISS0E: Which couit has juiisuiction. - CIF of Bulacan
BELB:
The juiisuiction of the CIF of Bulacan became vesteu upon the ueliveiy of the will of the Fi.
Rouiiquez on Naich 4 even if no petition foi its allowance was fileu yet because upon the will
being uepositeu, the couit coulu, motu piopiio have taken steps to fix the time anu place foi
pioving the will, anu issueu the coiiesponuing notices to what is piesciibeu by Sec. S, Rule 76 of
the Reviseu Rules of Couit, to wit: "When a will is uelivei to, oi a petition foi the allowance of a
will is fileu in, the Couit having juiisuiction, such Couit shall fix a time anu place foi pioving the
will xxx anu shall cause notice of such time anu place to be publisheu xxx"
wheie the petition foi piobate is maue aftei the ueposit of the will, the petition is ueemeu to
ielate back to the time when the will was ueliveieu. Since the will was ueliveieu to the couit of
Bulacan on Naich 4 while petitioneis initiateu intestate pioceeuings in couit of Rizal only on
Naich 12, the pieceuence anu exclusive juiisuiction of the Bulacan couit is incontestable
As to petitioneis objection that the Bulacan couit uiu not have juiisuiction because the ueceuent
was uomicileu in Rizal, couit iuleu that the powei to settle the ueceuent;s estates is confeiieu by
law upon all CIFs, anu the uomicile of the testatoi only affects the venue but not the juiisuiction
of the couit.
Fuitheimoie, the estate pioceeuings having been initiateu in Bulacan couit aheau of any othei,
that couit is entitleu to assume juiisuiction to the exclusion of all othei couits, even if it weie a
case of wion venue by expiess piovisions of Rule 7S.
Couit also helu that petitioneis, in commencing intestate pioceeuings in Rizal, weie in bau faith,
patently uone to uivest the Bulacan couit of the pieceuence awaiueu it by the Rules.
Lastly, intestate succession is only subsiuiaiy oi suboiuinate to testate, since intestacy only takes
place in the absence of a valiu anu opeiative will (Ait. 96u of Civil Coue).

.H;789 >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I TS ,.!& SUN +OP[S2

FACTS:
BECEBENT: 0n 2S Febiuaiy 1964 Senatoi Naiiano }esus Cuenco uieu in Nanila.
o Be was suiviveu by his wiuow (petitionei Rosa Cayetano Cuenco) anu theii 2 minoi sons,
who iesiueu in QC, anu by his chiluien of the fiist maiiiage (iesponuents Nanuel, Louiues,
Concepcion, Caimen, Consuelo anu Teiesita), who iesiueu in Cebu
INTESTATE PR0CEEBINu IN CEB0: 0n S Naich 1964, Louiues fileu a Petition foi Letteis of
Auministiation with the CFI of Cebu, alleging that the late senatoi uieu intestate; that he was a
iesiuent of Cebu at the time of his ueath; anu that he left ieal anu peisonal piopeities in Cebu anu
Quezon City.
o An oiuei issueu stating that iesponuent Louiues Cuenco's petition was not yet ieauy foi the
consiueiation of the saiu couit (no publication noi seivice)
PR0BATE PR0CEEBINu IN QC: 0n 12 Naich 1964, (a week aftei the filing of the Cebu petition)
the wiuow fileu a petition with the CFI of QC foi the piobate of the ueceaseu's last will anu
testament anu foi the issuance of letteis testamentaiy in hei favoi
0PP0SITI0N IN CEB0 INTESTATE PR0CEEBINu: The wiuow fileu in the Cebu couit an
0pposition anu Notion to Bismiss, as well as an 0pposition to Petition foi Appointment of Special
Auministiatoi

4B page 2u

o The Cebu couit issueu an oiuei uefeiiing its iesolution on petitionei's motion to uismiss
until aftei the QC CFI shall have acteu on the petition foi piobate of the will of the ueceaseu
o Responuents uiu not make a NR oi motion to set asiue such oiuei oi challenge the same by
ceitioiaii oi piohibition pioceeuings in the appellate couits.
0PP0SITI0N IN QC PR0BATE PR0CEEBINu: Responuents fileu in the QC couit an 0pposition anu
Notion to Bismiss opposing piobate of the will anu assailing the juiisuiction of the saiu Quezon
City couit to enteitain petitionei's petition foi piobate anu foi appointment as executiix in view
of the allegeu exclusive juiisuiction vesteu by hei petition in the Cebu couit. Saiu iesponuent
piayeu that the QC action be uismisseu foi lack of juiisuiction anuoi impiopei venue.
o The QC couit uenieu the motion to uismiss, giving as a piincipal ieason the "pieceuence of
piobate pioceeuing ovei an intestate pioceeuing." The saiu couit fuithei founu in saiu oiuei
that the iesiuence of the late senatoi at the time of his ueath was in QC.
! The Last Will anu Testament of Naiiano }esus Cuenco shows that the ueceuent at the time
when he executeu his Last Will cleaily stateu that he is a iesiuent of 69 Pi y Naigal, Sta.
Nesa Beights, Quezon City, anu also of the City of Cebu. Be maue the foimei as his fiist
choice anu the lattei as his seconu choice of iesiuence." If a paity has two iesiuences, the
one will be ueemeu oi piesumeu to his uomicile which he himself selects oi consiueis to
be his home oi which appeais to be the centei of his affaiis. The petitionei, in thus filing
the instant petition befoie this Couit, follows the fiist choice of iesiuence of the ueceuent
anu once this couit acquiies juiisuiction of the piobate pioceeuing it is to the exclusion of
all otheis.
o Responuent Louiues Cuenco's 2 NRs weie uenieu.
BEARINu IN QC PR0BATE PR0CEEBINu: The heaiing foi piobate of the last will of the ueceuent
was calleu Sx but notwithstanuing uue notification none of the oppositois appeaieu anu the QC
couit pioceeueu with the heaiing in theii absence.
o The Quezon City couit noteu that iesponuents-oppositois hau opposeu piobate unuei theii
opposition anu motion to uismiss on the following giounus: (a) That the will was not
executeu anu attesteu as iequiieu by law; (b) That the will was piocuieu by unuue anu
impiopei piessuie anu influence on the pait of the beneficiaiy oi some othei peisons foi his
benefit; (c) That the testatoi's signatuie was piocuieu by fiauu anuoi that the testatoi acteu
by mistake anu uiu not intenu that the instiument he signeu shoulu be his will at the time he
affixeu his signatuie theieto.
o The Quezon City couit fuithei noteu that the iequisite publication of the notice of the heaiing
hau been uuly complieu with anu that all the heiis hau been uuly notifieu of the heaiing, anu
aftei ieceiving the testimony of the thiee instiumental witnesses to the ueceuent's last will,
anu of the notaiy public
00TC0NE IN QC PR0BATE PR0CEEBINu: The Quezon City couit aumitteu to piobate the late
senatoi's last will anu testament anu appointeu petitionei-wiuow as executiix of his estate
without bonu.
SCA IN CA: Responuents fileu a SCA of ceitioiaii anu piohibition with pieliminaiy injunction with
the CA
o The CA ienueieu a uecision in favoi of iesponuents (petitioneis theiein) anu against the
heiein petitionei. A wiit of piohibition was issueu against the QC testate pioceeuing.
o The CA helu that:
! Section 1, Rule 7S, which fixes the venue in pioceeuings foi the settlement of the estate of
a ueceaseu peison, coveis both testate anu intestate pioceeuings. The pioceeuing in the
Cebu CFI having been fileu aheau, it is that couit whose juiisuiction was fiist invokeu anu
which fiist attacheu. It is that couit which can piopeily anu exclusively pass upon the

4B page 21

factual issues of (1) whethei the ueceuent left oi uiu not leave a valiu will, anu (2)
whethei oi not the ueceuent was a iesiuent of Cebu at the time of his ueath
! Consiueiing theiefoie that the fiist pioceeuing was instituteu in the Cebu CFI, it follows
that the saiu couit must exeicise juiisuiction to the exclusion of the QC CFI, in which the
petition foi piobate was fileu by the iesponuent Rosa Cayetano Cuenco. The saiu
iesponuent shoulu asseit hei iights within the fiamewoik of the pioceeuing in the Cebu
CFI, insteau of invoking the juiisuiction of anothei couit.
! The iesponuents tiy to make capital of the fact that on Naich 1S, 1964, }uuge Amauoi
uomez of the Cebu CFI, acting in Sp. Pioc. 24SS-R, stateu that the petition foi
appointment of special auministiatoi was "not yet ieauy foi the consiueiation of the
Couit touay. It woulu be piematuie foi this Couit to act theieon, it not having yet
iegulaily acquiieu juiisuiction to tiy this pioceeuing ... . " It is sufficient to state in this
connection that the saiu juuge was ceitainly not iefeiiing to the couit's juiisuiction ovei
the ies, not to juiisuiction itself which is acquiieu fiom the moment a petition is fileu, but
only to the exeicise of juiisuiction in ielation to the stage of the pioceeuings. At all events,
juiisuiction is confeiieu anu ueteimineu by law anu uoes not uepenu on the
pionouncements of a tiial juuge.
ISS0E:
WN the QC couit hau juiisuiction ovei the petition foi piobate
B0CTRINE:
The QC couit hau juiisuiction ovei the petition foi piobate, albeit it was not the piopei venue
theiefoi. B0T "wiong venue is a waivable pioceuuial uefect" (0iiaite case). Since the iesponuents
uiu not appeai in the QC heaiing uespite uue notice anu the Cebu couit uefeiieuconsenteu to the
piobate pioceeuing theiein, the QC couit hau juiisuiction ovei the petition.
Rule 7S, section 1 pioviues only a iule of venue in oiuei to piecluue uiffeient couits which
may piopeily assume juiisuiction fiom uoing so anu cieating conflicts between them to the
uetiiment of the auministiation of justice, anu that venue is waivable.
Since iesponuents faileu to appeal fiom the QC couit's oiuei aumitting the will to piobate
anu appointing petitionei as executiix theieof, anu saiu couit conceueuly has juiisuiction to issue
saiu oiuei, the saiu oiuei of piobate has long since become final anu cannot be oveituineu in a
special civil action of piohibition.
The iesiuence of the ueceaseu oi the location of his estate is not an element of juiisuiction
ovei the subject mattei but meiely of venue. The Rule on venue uoes not state that the couit with
whom the estate oi intestate petition is fiist fileu acquiies exclusive juiisuiction. The Rule piecisely
anu uelibeiately pioviues that "the couit fiist taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
ueceuent, shall exeicise juiisuiction to the exclusion of all othei couits."
A faii ieauing of the Rule inuicates that the couit with whom the petition is fiist fileu must
also fiist take cognizance of the settlement of the estate in oiuei to exeicise juiisuiction ovei it to the
exclusion of all othei couits. Conveisely, such couit, may upon leaining that a petition foi piobate of
the ueceuent's last will has been piesenteu in anothei couit wheie the ueceuent obviously hau his
conjugal uomicile anu iesiueu with his suiviving wiuow anu theii minoi chiluien, anu that the
allegation of the intestate petition befoie it stating that the ueceuent uieu intestate may be actually
false, may uecline to take cognizance of the petition anu holu the petition befoie it in abeyance, anu
insteau uefei to the seconu couit which has befoie it the petition foi piobate of the ueceuent's
allegeu last will.
Thus, the Cebu couit coulu not be helu to have acteu without juiisuiction oi with giave abuse
of juiisuiction in ueclining to take cognizance of the intestate petition anu uefeiiing to the Quezon
City couit. Necessaiily, neithei coulu the Quezon City couit be ueemeu to have acteu without
juiisuiction in taking cognizance of anu acting on the piobate petition since unuei Rule 7S, section 1,

4B page 22

the Cebu couit must fiist take cognizance ovei the estate of the ueceuent anu must exeicise
juiisuiction to excluue all othei couits, which the Cebu couit ueclineu to uo. Fuitheimoie, as is
unuisputeu, saiu iule only lays uown a iule of venue anu the Quezon City couit inuisputably hau at
least equal anu cooiuinate juiisuiction ovei the estate. Since the Quezon City couit took cognizance
ovei the piobate petition befoie it anu assumeu juiisuiction ovei the estate, with the consent anu
uefeience of the Cebu couit, the Quezon City couit shoulu be left now, by the same iule of venue of
saiu Rule 7S, to exeicise juiisuiction to the exclusion of all othei couits.
0nuei the facts of the case anu wheie iesponuents submitteu to the Quezon City couit theii
opposition to piobate of the will, but faileu to appeai at the scheuuleu heaiing uespite uue notice, the
Quezon City couit cannot be ueclaieu, as the appellate couit uiu, to have acteu without juiisuiction in
aumitting to piobate the ueceuent's will anu appointing petitionei-wiuow as executiix theieof in
accoiuance with the testatoi's testamentaiy uisposition.

1@D84@ _H?; >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I [J ,.!& OMP +OP[U2

FACTS:
viiginia u. Fule (illegitimate sistei of ueceuent) fileu with the CFI of Laguna, at Calamba, a
petition foi letteis of auministiation ovei the Estate of Amauo u. uaicia. At the same time, she moveu
"@ ;4+*" foi hei appointment as special auministiatiix ovei the estate, which the }uuge gianteu.
viiginia hau foigotten to place in the oiiginal petition the last place of iesiuence of the
ueceuent. She fileu a supplemental pleauing which stateu among othei things that uuiing the lifetime
of the ueceaseu Amauo u. uaicia his last place of iesiuence was at Calamba, Laguna.
This was questioneu by Pieciosa B. uaicia (spouse of ueceuent) thiough an NTB on the
giounu of juiisuiction anu impiopei venue aftei filing an NR to the appointment of viiginia as
Special Auministiatiix.
Buiing the heaiing of this case viiginia piesenteu the ueath ceitificate of the ueceuent
showing that his iesiuence at the time of his ueath was Quezon City. 0n hei pait, Pieciosa piesenteu
the iesiuence ceitificate of the ueceuent foi 197S showing that thiee months befoie his ueath his
iesiuence was in Quezon City. viiginia u. Fule also testifieu that Amauo u. uaicia was iesiuing in
Calamba, Laguna at the time of his ueath, anu that he was a uelegate to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention foi the fiist uistiict of Laguna.
The CFI iuleu in favoi of viiginia.
CA iuleu in favoi of Pieciosa anu annulleu the pioceeuings befoie the CFI.
ISS0ES:
Whethei the teim "iesiues" in Sec 1 Rule 7S means uomicile oi actual iesiuence. Whethei
venue was impiopeily laiu.
R0LINu: The teim "iesiues" means actual iesiuence.; Yes, venue was impiopeily laiu.
Section 1, Rule 7S specifically the clause "so fai as it uepenus on the place of iesiuence of the
ueceuent, oi of the location of the estate," is in ieality a mattei of venue, as the caption of the Rule
inuicates: "Settlement of Estate of Beceaseu Peisons. ["%7" anu Piocesses. It coulu not have been
intenueu to uefine the juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei, because such legal piovision is containeu
in a law of pioceuuie uealing meiely with pioceuuial matteis. Pioceuuie is one thing; juiisuiction
ovei the subject mattei is anothei.
But, the fai-ianging question is this: What uoes the teim "iesiues" mean. Boes it iefei to the
actual iesiuence oi uomicile of the ueceuent at the time of his ueath. We lay uown the uoctiinal iule
that the teim "iesiues" connotes "@ 6< *"+(<%< "actual iesiuence" as uistinguisheu fiom "legal
iesiuence oi uomicile." This teim "iesiues," like, the teims "iesiuing" anu "iesiuence," is elastic anu

4B page 2S

shoulu be inteipieteu in the light of the object oi puipose of the statute $+ +7=" in which it is
employeu.
In the application of venue statutes anu iules Section 1, Rule 7S of the Reviseu Rules of
Couit is of such natuie iesiuence +4*C"+ *C4% uomicile is the significant factoi. Even wheie the
statute uses the woiu "uomicile" still it is constiueu as meaning iesiuence anu not uomicile in the
technical sense.
In othei woius, "iesiues" means the peisonal, actual oi physical habitation of a peison, actual
iesiuence oi place of aboue. It signifies physical piesence in a place anu actual stay theieat. In this
populai sense, the teim means meiely iesiuence, that is, peisonal iesiuence, not legal iesiuence oi
uomicile.
Resiuence simply iequiies bouily piesence as an <%C48<*4%* in a given place, while uomicile
iequiies bouily piesence in that place anu also an intention to make it one's uomicile. No paiticulai
length of time of iesiuence is iequiieu though; howevei, the iesiuence must be moie than tempoiaiy.
We iule that the last place of iesiuence of the ueceaseu Amauo u. uaicia was at 11 Caimel
Avenue, Caimel Subuivision, Quezon City, anu %$* at Calamba, Laguna. A ueath ceitificate is
aumissible to piove the iesiuence of the ueceuent at the time of his ueath. As it is, the ueath
ceitificate of Amauo u. uaicia, which was piesenteu in eviuence by viiginia u. Fule heiself anu also
by Pieciosa B. uaicia, shows that his last place of iesiuence was at 11 Caimel Avenue, Caimel
Subuivision, Quezon City.
Asiue fiom this, the ueceaseu's iesiuence ceitificate foi 197S obtaineu thiee months befoie
his ueath; the Naiketing Agieement anu Powei of Attoiney uateu Novembei 12, 1971 tuining ovei
the auministiation of his two paicels of sugai lanu to the Calamba Sugai Planteis Coopeiative
Naiketing Association, Inc.; the Beeu of Bonation uateu }anuaiy 8, 197S, tiansfeiiing pait of his
inteiest in ceitain paicels of lanu in Calamba, Laguna to Agustina B. uaicia; anu ceitificates of titles
coveiing paicels of lanu in Calamba, Laguna, show in bolu uocuments that Amauo u. uaicia's last
place of iesiuence was at Quezon City. Withal, the conclusion becomes impeiative that the venue foi
viiginia C. Fule's petition foi letteis of auministiation was impiopeily laiu in the Couit of Fiist
Instance of Calamba, Laguna.
Neveitheless, the long-settleu iule is that objection to impiopei venue is subject to waivei.
Section 4, Rule 4 of the Reviseu Rules of Couit states: "When impiopei venue is not objecteu to in a
motion to uismiss, it is ueemeu waiveu." In the case befoie 0s the Couit of Appeals hau ieason to
holu that in asking to substitute viiginia u. Fule as special auministiatiix, Pieciosa B. uaicia uiu not
necessaiily waive hei objection to the juiisuiction oi venue assumeu by the Couit of Fiist Instance of
Calamba, Laguna, but availeu of a meie piactical iesoit to alteinative iemeuy to asseit hei iights as
suiviving spouse, while insisting on the enfoicement of the Rule fixing the piopei venue of the
pioceeuings at the last iesiuence of the ueceuent.

.98@ >3 X9DD9Y;9I MO ,.!& K[M +OP[M2


4B page 24


4B page 2S

#@?9?;5 %% >3 -L4??4C5I SKJ ,.!& O[K +KNNN2

FACTS:
0n }uly 2u, 199S Bi. Aituio Be Santos fileu foi the piobate of his will. Be claimeu he hau no
compulsoiy heiis anu hau nameu in his will as sole legatee anu uevisee the Aituio ue Santos
Founuation, Inc.; that he uisposeu by his will his piopeities with an appioximate value of not less
than P2,uuu,uuu.uu; anu that copies of saiu will weie in the custouy of the nameu executiix,
piivate iesponuent Pacita ue los Reyes Phillips.
0n Feb. 16 1996, Nakati RTC Bianch-61 unuei juuge uoiospe issueu an oiuei gianting the
petition anu allowing the will, the couit founu that the testatoi was of sounu minu anu fieely
executeu saiu will.
Shoitly aftei on Feb. 26, 1996 Bi. Be Santos uieu
Petitionei (testatoi's nephew) claiming to be the only son of the ueceaseu's sistei Alicia ue
santos, fileu a motion foi inteivention as the neaiest of kin, anu also as a cieuitoi of the ueceaseu.
Befenuant fileu a motion foi the issuance of letteis testamentaiy in Nakati Bianch 61, but then
withuiew the same. Latei uefenuant then fileu the motion in Nakati RTC Bianch 6S.
Petitonei then fileu a motion foi inteivention also with Bianch 6S, stating again he was a full
blooueu nephew anu that a case alieauy ielateu to the subject mattei was penuing in Bianch 61.
}uuge Abau Santos, iefeiieu the case to Bianch 61.
Neanwhile }uuge uoiospe in Bianch 61 uenieu the petitionei's motion to inteivene, anu uenieu
taking cognizance of the case foiwaiueu by Bianch 6S, because the case in Bianch 6S involveu
the Estate of Becent Aituio Be Santos, while the one in Bianch 61 was fileu by Aituio ue Santos
Bimself when he was alive anu hau alieauy been ueciueu back in Feb. 16 1996, when it alloweu
the will.
Bianch 6S uiu not want to take the case, but ieveiseu it's uecision anu again took cognizance of
the case to expeuite pioceeuings.
ISS0ES:
1. Whethei oi not Nakati, Bianch 61 has lost juiisuiction to pioceeu with the piobate
pioceeuings upon its issuance of an oiuei allowing the will of Bi. Aituio ue Santos.
2. Whethei oi not Nakati, Bianch 6S acquiieu juiisuiction ovei the petition foi issuance of
letteis testamentaiy fileu by (piivate) iesponuent.
S. Whethei oi not the petitionei, being a cieuitoi of the late Bi. Aituio ue Santos, has a iight
to inteivene anu oppose the petition foi issuance of letteis testamentaiy fileu by the iesponuent.
BELB:
Bianch 6S now has juiisuiction. Petitionei's contention that that the pioceeuings must
continue until the estate is fully uistiibuteu to the lawful heiis, uevisees, anu legatees of the testatoi,
puisuant to Rule 7S, 1 of the Rules of Couit is without meiit.
In cases foi the piobate of wills, it is well-settleu that the authoiity of the couit is limiteu to
asceitaining the extiinsic valiuity of the will, <."., whethei the testatoi, being of sounu minu, fieely
executeu the will in accoiuance with the foimalities piesciibeu by law.

This was alieauy uone in the
ante-moitem piobate of Bi. Be Santos' will uuiing his lifetime.
Thus, aftei the allowance of the will of Bi. Be Santos on Febiuaiy 16, 1996, theie was nothing
else foi Bianch 61 to uo except to issue a ceitificate of allowance of the will puisuant to Rule 7S, 12
of the Rules of Couit.

4B page 26

Petitionei, who uefenus the oiuei of Bianch 6S allowing him to inteivene, cites Rule 7S, 1
which states:
AZC"+" ")*4*" $: &"#"4)"& ;"+)$%) )"**="&F \ K: *C" &"#"&"%* <) 4% <%C48<*4%* $: *C" PC<=<;;<%")
4* *C" *<(" $: C<) &"4*C, GC"*C"+ 4 #<*<]"% $+ 4% 4=<"%, C<) G<== )C4== 8" ;+$6"&, $+ ="**"+) $:
4&(<%<)*+4*<$% 5+4%*"&, 4%& C<) ")*4*" )"**="&, <% *C" 3$7+* $: ^<+)* K%)*4%#" <% *C" ;+$6<%#" <%
GC<#C C" +")<&") 4* *C" *<(" $: C<) &"4*C, 4%& <: C" <) 4% <%C48<*4%* $: 4 :$+"<5% #$7%*+?, *C"
3$7+* $: ^<+)* K%)*4%#" $: 4%? ;+$6<%#" <% GC<#C C" C4& ")*4*"F DC" #$7+* :<+)* *4N<%5 #$5%<]4%#"
$: *C" )"**="("%* $: *C" ")*4*" $: 4 &"#"&"%*, )C4== "@"+#<)" 97+<)&<#*<$% *$ *C" "@#=7)<$% $: 4==
$*C"+ #$7+*)_H
The above iule, howevei, actually pioviues foi the venue of actions foi the settlement of the
estate of ueceaseu peisons. It coulu not have been intenueu to uefine the juiisuiction ovei the subject
mattei, because such legal piovision is containeu in a law of pioceuuie uealing meiely with
pioceuuial matteis. Pioceuuie is one thing, juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei is anothei.
Inueeu, the juiisuiction ovei piobate pioceeuings anu settlement of estates with appioximate
value of ovei P1uu,uuu.uu (outsiue Netio Nanila) oi P2uu,uuu.uu (in Netio Nanila) belongs to the
iegional tiial couits. The uiffeient bianches compiising each couit in one juuicial iegion uo not
possess juiisuictions inuepenuent of anu incompatible with each othei.
It is notewoithy that, although Rule 7S, 1 applies insofai as the venue of the petition foi
piobate of the will of Bi. Be Santos is conceineu, it uoes not bai othei bianches of the same couit
fiom taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the testatoi aftei his ueath.
Lastly, iegaiuing petitionei's claim as heii anu cieuitoi the Couit saiu that:
"The piivate iesponuent heiein is not an heii oi legatee unuei the will of the ueceuent Aituio
ue Santos. Neithei is he a compulsoiy heii of the lattei. As the only anu neaiest collateial
ielative of the ueceuent, he can inheiit fiom the lattei only in case of intestacy. Since the
ueceuent has left a will which has alieauy been piobateu anu uisposes of all his piopeities
the piivate iesponuent can inheiit only if the saiu will is annulleu. Bis inteiest in the
ueceuent's estate is, theiefoie, not uiiect oi immeuiate. Bis claim to being a cieuitoi of the
estate is a belateu one, having been iaiseu foi the fiist time only in his ieply to the opposition
to his motion to inteivene, anu, as fai as the iecoius show, not suppoiteu by eviuence."
Thus, the Petition was uenieu.

-@849?;5 >3 .LH@6989Q.L47EI JUU ,.!& PN +KNNT2

FACTS:
Niguelita uieu intestate, leaving ieal piopeities with an estimateu value of P1u.S million,
stock investments woith PS18,78S.uu, bank ueposits amounting to P6.S4 million, anu inteiests in
ceitain businesses. She was suiviveu by hei husbanu, petitionei, anu theii two minoi chiluien. milio
Pacioles husbanu of ueceaseu Niguelita fileu with the RTC a veiifieu petition foi the settlement of
Niguelita's estate.
Niguelita's mothei, Niguela, fileu an opposition, on the giounus that petitionei is
incompetent anu unfit to exeicise the uuties of an auministiatoi; anu the bulk of Niguelita's estate is
composeu of "paiapheinal piopeities."
Petitionei moveu to stiike out iesponuent's opposition, alleging that the lattei has no uiiect
anu mateiial inteiest in the estate. Responuent counteieu that she has uiiect anu mateiial inteiest in
the estate because she gave half of hei inheiiteu piopeities to Niguelita on conuition that both of
them "woulu unueitake whatevei business enueavoi they ueciueu to, in the capacity of business
paitneis." She then nominateu hei son Emmanuel Ching to act as special auministiatoi.

4B page 27

The intestate couit then issueu an oiuei appointing petitionei anu Emmanuel as joint iegulai
auministiatois of the estate anu then ueclaieu petitionei anu his two minoi chiluien as the only
compulsoiy heiis of Niguelita.

Petitionei then submitteu to the intestate couit an inventoiy of
Niguelita's estate. Emmanuel uiu not submit an inventoiy.
Petitionei fileu with the intestate couit an omnibus motion that an 0iuei be issueu uiiecting
the: 1) payment of estate taxes; 2) paitition anu uistiibution of the estate among the ueclaieu heiis;
anu S) payment of attoiney's fees. Responuent opposeu on the giounu that the paitition anu
uistiibution of the estate is "piematuie anu piecipitate," consiueiing that theie is yet no
ueteimination "whethei the piopeities specifieu in the inventoiy aie conjugal, paiapheinal oi owneu
in a joint ventuie." Responuent claimeu that she owns the bulk of Niguelita's estate as an "heii anu
co-ownei." She piayeu that a heaiing be scheuuleu.
The intestate couit alloweu the payment of the estate taxes anu attoiney's fees but uenieu
petitionei's piayei foi paitition anu uistiibution of the estate, holuing that it is inueeu "piematuie." It
also oiueieu that a heaiing on oppositoi's claim as inuicateu in hei opposition to the instant petition
is necessaiy to ueteimine 'whethei the piopeities listeu in the amenueu complaint fileu by petitionei
aie entiiely conjugal oi the paiapheinal piopeities of the ueceaseu, oi a co-owneiship between the
oppositoi anu the petitionei in theii paitneiship ventuie.'"
Petitionei questiioneu this oiuei but the NR was uenieu. The Petition foi Ceitioiaii with the
CA. This is a Petition foi Ceitioiaii to the CA.
ISS0E:
Biu the lowei couit acteu with uABALE} in oiueiing that a heaiing be set to ueteimine the
owneiship of the piopeities in an intestate pioceuuing.
BELB: YES `4? 4 *+<4= #$7+*, 4#*<%5 4) 4% <%*")*4*" #$7+*, C"4+ 4%& ;4)) 7;$% E7")*<$%) $: $G%"+)C<;
<%6$=6<%5 ;+$;"+*<") #=4<("& *$ 8" ;4+* $: *C" &"#"&"%*a) ")*4*".
RATI0:
The geneial iule is that the intestae couit cannot heai anu pass upon questions of owneiship.
Bowevei the intestae couit may heai anu pass upon questions of owneiship piovisionally anu when
meiely inciuentalif the puipose is to ueteimine whethei oi not a piopeity shoulu be incluueu in the
inventoiy of he estate of the ueceaseu. But this case uoes not fall unuei the above mentioneu
ueviation fiom the geneial iule, thus the RTC acteu with giave abuse of uiscietion in oiueiing that a
heaiing be set foi ueteimining the owneiship of the piopeities in question.
The facts of this case show that the inventoity is not uisputeu. In fact, in ieponuent's
Nanifestation anu 0pposition, iesponuent expiessly auopteu the inventoiy piepaieu by petitionei.
Responuent coulu have opposeu petitionei's inventoiy anu sought the exclusion of the specific
piopeities which she believeu oi consiueieu to be heis. But insteau of uoing so, she expiessly
auopteu the inventoiy, taking exception only to the low valuation placeu on the ieal estate
piopeities. Also, Emmanuel, iesponuent's son anu iepiesentative, uiu not submit his own inventoiy
0bviously, iesponuent's puipose heie was not to obtain fiom the intestate couit a iuling of what
piopeities shoulu oi shoulu not be incluueu in the inventoiy. She wanteu to secuie fiom the
intestate couit a final ueteimination of hei claim of owneiship ovei piopeities compiising the bulk
of Niguelita's estate.
Bence, iesponuent's iecouise is to file a sepaiate action with a couit of geneial juiisuiction.
The intestate couit is not the appiopiiate foium foi the iesolution of hei auveise claim of owneiship
ovei piopeities ostensibly belonging to Niguelita's estate given that she hau Toiiens title ovei such
piopeities. (Niguela cannot even ueteimine in paiticulai the piopeities she is claiming.)

,@7 'H45 >3 ,@7 'H45I TOJ ,.!& KPJ +KNN[2


4B page 28

FACTS:
The case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo San Luis, who was pieviously the
goveinoi of the Piovince of Laguna. Buiing the lifetime of Felicisimo, he was maiiieu to thiee
women. Bis fiist maiiiage was with viiginia Sulit who pieueceaseu Felicisimo. The seconu maiiiage
was with Neiiy Lee Coiwin, an Ameiican citizen, who latei obtaineu a ueciee gianting absolute
uivoice befoie the family couit of Bawaii. The thiiu maiiiage was with the iesponuent, Feliciuau
Sagalongos, who he liveu with foi 18 yeais up to the time of his ueath.
Aftei the ueath of Felicisimo, the iesponuent sought foi the uissolution of theii conjugal
assets anu the settlement of the estate. A petition foi auministiation was then fileu befoie the RTC of
Nakati City.
The chiluien of Felicisimo fiom his fiist maiiiage fileu a motion to uismiss on the following
giounus: (1) venue was impiopeily laiu since the petition shoulu be fileu in Laguna wheie Felicisimo
was the electeu goveinoi; (2) Responuent uoes not have legal capacity to sue because hei maiiiage
with Felicisimo is bigamous anu the ueciee of absolute ueciee is not binuing in the Philippines.
The RT C gianteu the motion to uismiss. Bowevei, the Couit of Appeals ieveiseu the uecision.
ISS0ES:
1. Whethei venue was piopeily laiu.
2. Whethei the iesponuent has legal capacity to file the subject petition foi letteis of
auministiation
BELB:
1. venue was piopeily laiu. 0nuei Section 1, Rule 7S of the Rules of Couit, the petition foi
letteis of auministiation of the estate shoulu be fileu in the RTC of the piovince "in which he
iesiues at the time of his ueath". In the case of uaicia Fule v. CA, we laiu uown the iule that foi
ueteimining venue, the iesiuence of the ueceuent is ueteimining. Resiuence foi settlement of
estate puiposes means his peisonal, actual oi physical habitation, oi actual iesiuence of place
of aboue, which may not necessaiily be his legal iesiuence oi uomicile pioviueu he iesiues
theiein with continuity anu consistency. It is possible that a peison may have his iesiuence in
one place anu uomicile in anothei.
2. The uivoice ueciee obtaineu by Neiiy Lee Coiwin, which absolutely alloweu Felicisimo to
iemaiiy woulu have vesteu Feliciuau with the legal peisonality to file the piesent petition as
the suiviving spouse. Bowevei, the iesponuent was not able to pioviue sufficient
uocumentation to piove the ueciee of uivoice obtaineu in Bawaii.
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitateu to maiiy iesponuent in 1974,
neveitheless, we finu that the lattei has the legal peisonality to file the subject petition foi
letteis of auministiation as she may be consiueieu the co-ownei of Felicisimo as iegaius the
piopeities acquiieu uuiing theii cohabitation.
The case is theiefoie iemanueu to the RTC foi fuithei pioceeuings.

K3 !Z'" [T f -!/$Z.]%/0 /_ )%''W &''/)&0." /_ )%'' 0".",,&!^

!Z'" [T -!/$Z.]%/0 /_ )%''W &''/)&0." /_ )%'' 0".",,&!^
Section 1. >==$G4%#" %"#"))4+?. 3$%#=7)<6" 4) *$ "@"#7*<$%. No will shall pass eithei ieal oi
peisonal estate unless it is pioveu anu alloweu in the piopei couit. Subject to the iight of appeal,
such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its uue execution.
Section 2. 37)*$&<4% $: G<== *$ &"=<6"+. The peison who has custouy of a will shall, within twenty
(2u) uays aftei he knows of the ueath of the testatoi, uelivei the will to the couit having

4B page 29

juiisuiction, oi to the executoi nameu in the will.
Section S. J@"#7*$+ *$ ;+")"%* G<== 4%& 4##";* $+ +":7)" *+7)*. A peison nameu as executoi in a
will shall, within twenty (2u) uays aftei he knows of the ueath of the testate, oi within twenty (2u)
uays aftei he knows that he is nameu executoi if he obtaineu such knowleuge aftei the ueath of the
testatoi, piesent such will to the couit having juiisuiction, unless the will has ieacheu the couit in
any othei mannei, anu shall, within such peiiou, signify to the couit in wiiting his acceptance of
the tiust oi his iefusal to accept it.
Section 4. 37)*$&<4% 4%& "@"#7*$+ )789"#* *$ :<%" :$+ %"5="#*. A peison who neglects any of the
uuties iequiieu in the two last pieceuing sections without excuseu satisfactoiy to the couit shall be
fineu not exceeuing two thousanu pesos.
Section S. P"+)$% +"*4<%<%5 G<== (4? 8" #$((<**"&. A peison having custouy of a will aftei the
ueath of the testatoi who neglects without ieasonable cause to uelivei the same, when oiueieu so
to uo, to the couit having juiisuiction, may be committeu to piison anu theie kept until he ueliveis
the will.

%7 D; \9L7597I SM -L4?3 OTU +OPOM2

FACTS:
Emil B. }ohnson was boin in Sweuen in 1877; in 189S, he emigiateu to the 0niteu States anu
liveu in Chicago, Illinois. In 1898, at Chicago, he maiiieu Rosalie Ackeson, anu immeuiately
afteiwaius left foi the Philippine Islanus as a 0S Aimy soluiei. A uaughtei, Ebba Ingeboig, was boin a
few months aftei theii maiiiage. Aftei }ohnson was uischaigeu as a soluiei fiom the seivice of the
0niteu States he continueu to live in the Philippines. In 19u2, Rosalie }ohnson was gianteu a ueciee
of uivoice on the giounu of ueseition. In 19uS, Emil }ohnson piocuieu a ceitificate of natuialization
at Chicago, aftei which he visiteu family in Sweuen. When this visit was concluueu, the ueceaseu
ietuineu to Nanila. In Nanila he hau S chiluien with Alejanuia Ibaez: Neiceues, Encainacion, anu
victoi. Emil }ohnson also hau 2 chiluien with Simeona Ibaez: Eleonoi anu Albeito.
Be uieu in Nanila, leaving a hologiaphic will. This will, signeu by himself anu 2 witnesses
only, insteau of the S iequiieu witnesses, was not executeu in confoimity with Philippine law. A
petition was piesenteu in the CFI of Nanila foi the piobate of this will, on the giounu that }ohnson
was at the time of his ueath a citizen of the State of Illinois, 0niteu States of Ameiica; that the will was
uuly executeu in accoiuance with the laws of that State; anu hence coulu piopeily be piobateu heie.
The heaiing on saiu application was set, anu thiee weeks publication of notice was oiueieu.
In the heaiing, witnesses weie examineu ielative to the execution of the will; anu theieaftei the
uocument was ueclaieu to be legal anu was aumitteu to piobate. victoi }ohnson was appointeu sole
auministiatoi of the estate.
The will gives to his biothei victoi shaies of the coipoiate stock in the }ohnson-Pickett Rope
Company; to his fathei anu mothei, P2u,uuu; to his uaughtei Ebba Ingeboig, PS,uuu; to Alejanuia
Ibaez, P7S pei month, if she iemains single; to Simeona Ibaez, P6S pei month, if she iemains
single. The iest of the piopeity is left to the testatoi's five chiluien - Neiceues, Encainacion, victoi,
Eleonoi anu Albeito.
About thiee months aftei the will hau been piobateu, the attoineys foi Ebba Ingeboig
}ohnson enteieu an appeaiance in hei behalf anu noteu an exception to the othei aumitting the will

4B page Su

to piobate. 0n 0ctobei S1, 1916, the same attoineys moveu the couit to vacate the oiuei of Naich 16
anu also vaiious othei oiueis in the case.
BELB:
1. Whethei the couit hau juiisuiction - YES
The pioceeuings foi the piobate of the will weie iegulai anu that the publication was
sufficient to give the couit juiisuiction to enteitain the pioceeuing anu to allow the will to be
piobateu.
"The pioceeuing as to the piobate of a will is essentially one <% +"(, anu in the veiy natuie of
things the state is alloweu a wiue latituue in ueteimining the chaiactei of the constiuctive notice to
be given to the woilu in a pioceeuing wheie it has absolute possession of the ies. It woulu be an
exceptional case wheie a couit woulu ueclaie a statute voiu, as uepiiving a paity of his piopeity
without uue piocess of law, the pioceeuing being stiictly <% +"(, anu the +") within the state, upon
the giounu that the constiuctive notice piesciibeu by the statute was unieasonably shoit." (Citing K%
+" Bavis)
2. Whethei the oiuei of piobate can be set asiue in this pioceeuing on the othei giounu stateu in the
petition, namely, that the testatoi was not a iesiuent of the State of Illinois anu that the will was not
maue in confoimity with the laws of that State. - N0
The CFI founu that the testatoi was a citizen of the State of Illinois anu that the will was
executeu in confoimity with the laws of that State, the will was necessaiily anu piopeily aumitteu to
piobate.
Section 6S6 of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie:
Z<== (4&" C"+" 8? 4=<"%F A will maue within the Philippine Islanus by a citizen oi subject of
anothei state oi countiy, which is executeu in accoiuance with the law of the state oi countiy
of which he is a citizen oi subject, anu which might be pioveu anu alloweu by the law of his
own state oi countiy, may be pioveu, alloweu, anu iecoiueu in the Philippine Islanus, anu
shall have the same effect as if executeu accoiuing to the laws of these Islanus.
S. Whethei the will shoulu not have been piobateu because it was voiu - N0 (will was valiuly
piobateu)
The piobate of the will uoes not affect the intiinsic valiuity of its piovisions, the ueciee of
piobate being conclusive only as iegaius the uue execution of the will.
If, theiefoie, upon the uistiibution of this estate, it shoulu appeai that any legacy given by the
will oi othei uisposition maue theiein is contiaiy to the law applicable in such case, the will must
necessaiily yielu upon that point anu the law must pievail. The intiinsic valiuity of the piovisions of
this will must be ueteimineu by the law of Illinois anu not, as the appellant appaiently assumes, by
the geneial piovisions heie applicable in such matteis; foi in the seconu paiagiaph of aiticle 1u of
the Civil Coue it is ueclaieu that "legal anu testamentaiy successions, with iegaiu to the oiuei of
succession, as well as to the amount of the successional iights anu to the intiinsic valiuity of theii
piovisions, shall be iegulateu by the laws of the nation of the peison whose succession is in question,
whatevei may be the natuie of the piopeity anu the countiy wheie it may be situate."

1H;>@D@ >3 1H;>@D@I PM -L4?3 KJP +OPTU2

FACTS:
0n August 19S1, victoiino uuevaia executeu a last will anu testament. The will was not
piobateu when he uieu in 19SS
2
. In the fiist case file by Rosaiio uuevaia 4 yeais latei, wheie she
sought to iecovei a poition of a paicel of lanu iegisteieu unuei Einesto uuevaia's name as pait of

2
The case uiu not say why the will was not piobateu upon victoiino's ueath.

4B page S1

hei legitime, the SC uenieu Rosaiio's claim but oiueieu the paities to piesent the will. Claiming to act
puisuant to the uecision, Rosaiio commenceu in 194S, a special pioceeuing foi the piobate of the
will. Einesto appeaieu anu opposeu the piobate claiming among otheis, that the petition is baiieu
by the statute of limitations because it was fileu 12 yeais aftei the testatoi's ueath.
ISS0E:
Whethei the petition is baiieu by the statute of limitations.
BELB:
N0. Rule 77 of the Rules of Couit pioviues that any "peison inteiesteu in the estate may, 4*
4%? time aftei the ueath of the testatoi, petition the couit having juiisuiction to have the will
alloweu." The application of the statute of limitations is uestiuctive of the iight to testamentaiy
uisposition anu violative of the ownei's iight to contiol his piopeity within the legal limits. It is tiue
that the iights of paities shoulu not be left hanging in unceitainty foi peiious of time; but the obvious
iemeuy is foi the othei inteiesteu paities to petition foi the piouuction of the will anu foi its
piobate, oi to inflict upon the guilty paity the penalties unuei Rule 76 oi ueclaie the unwoithiness
of the heii foi concealing oi suppiessing the will; but not to uismiss the petition foi piobate, howevei
belateuly submitteu.

-@?@8495 >3 .@64Y:@7E -@?@8495I ONU -L4?3 [SP +OPTP2

FACTS:
}uan Palacios, petitionei, fileu a petition foi the piobate of his last will anu testament wheiein
he instituteu his natuial chiluien as his sole heiis. Naiia Catimbang Palacios, uefenuant, fileu an
opposition to the piobate of the will alleging that she is the acknowleugeu natuial uaughtei of the
petitionei but that she was completely ignoieu in saiu will thus impaiiing hei legitime.
Aftei the piesentation of petitionei's eviuence ielative to the essential iequisites anu
foimalities pioviueu by law foi the valiuity of a will, the couit on }uly 6, 19S6 issueu an oiuei
aumitting the will to piobate. The couit, howevei, set a uate foi the heaiing of the opposition ielative
to the intiinsic valiuity of the will anu, aftei piopei heaiing conceining this inciuent, the couit issueu
anothei oiuei ueclaiing oppositoi to be the natuial chilu of petitionei anu annulling the will insofai
as it impaiis hei legitime.
ISS0E:
Whethei it was piopei foi the piobate couit to ueciue on the intiinsic valiuity of the last will
anu testament.
BELB:
The Couit helu that the opposition cannot be enteitaineu in this pioceeuing because its only
puipose is meiely to ueteimine if the will has been executeu in accoiuance with the iequiiements of
the law, much less if the puipose of the opposition is to show that the oppositoi is an acknowleugeu
natuial chilu who allegeuly has been ignoieu in the will foi issue cannot be iaiseu in the piobate
couit but in a sepaiate action. This is especially so when the testatoi, as in the piesent case, is still
alive anu has meiely fileu a petition foi the allowance of his will leaving the effects theieof aftei his
ueath.
In `$%*4b4%$ 6)F !7")4, the couit saiu: ADC" 47*C"%*<#4*<$% $: *C" G<== &"#<&") %$ $*C"+
E7")*<$%) *C4% )7#C 4) *$7#C 7;$% *C" #4;4#<*? $: *C" *")*4*$+ 4%& *C" #$(;=<4%#" G<*C *C$)" +"E7<)<*")
$+ )$="(%<*<"), GC<#C *C" =4G ;+")#+<8") :$+ *C" 64=<&<*? $: 4 G<==F K* &$") %$* &"*"+(<%" %$+ "6"% 8?
<(;=<#4*<$% ;+"97&5" *C" 64=<&<*? $+ "::<#<"%#? $: *C" ;+$6<)<$%)c *C4* (4? 8" <(;75%"& 4) 8"<%5 6<#<$7)
$+ %7==, %$*G<*C)*4%&<%5 <*) 47*C"%*<#4*<$%F DC" E7")*<$%) +"=4*<%5 *$ *C")" ;$<%*) +"(4<% "%*<+"=? 7%1
4::"#*"&, 4%& (4? 8" +4<)"& "6"% 4:*"+ *C" G<== C4) 8""% 47*C"%*<#4*"&Fd
The tiial couit eiieu in enteitaining the opposition anu in annulling the poition of the will

4B page S2

which allegeuly impaiis the legitime of the oppositoi on the giounu that, as it has founu, she is an
extianeous mattei which shoulu be tiesheu out in a sepaiate action.

#@747@7E >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I OOJ ,.!& J[M +OPMK2

FACTS:
Clemencia Aseneta, single, uieu at the Nanila Sanitaiium Bospital at age 81. She left a
hologiaphic will:
"It is my will that all my ieal piopeities locateu in Nanila, Nakati, Quezon City, Albay anu
Legaspi City anu all my peisonal piopeities shagllbe inheiiteu upon my ueath by Bia. Soleuau L.
Naninang with whose family I have liveu continuously foi aiounu the last Su yeais now. Bia.
Naninang anu hei husbanu Pamping have been kinu to me. ... I have founu peace anu happiness with
them even uuiing the time when my sisteis weie still alive anu especially now when I am now being
tioubleu by my nephew Beinaiuo anu niece Salvacion. I am not incompetent as Nonoy woulu like me
to appeai. I know what is iight anu wiong. I can ueciue foi myself. I uo not consiuei Nonoy as my
auopteu son. Be has maue me uo things against my will."
Petitionei fileu a petition foi piobate while iesponuent Beinaiuo Aseneta, who, as the
auopteu son, claims to be the sole heii of the ueceuent Clemencia Aseneta, instituteu intestate
pioceeuings with the CFI of Pasig. The testate anu intestate pioceeuings weie consoliuateu by the
iesponuent juuge. Responuent Beinaiuo then fileu a NTB the testate case on the giounu that it is
voiu because he, as the compulsoiy heii, was pieteiiteu. In opposition to the NTB, petitionei
Soleuau aveiieu that in the piobate of a will, inquiiy is limiteu to the examination of anu iesolution
on the extiinsic valiuity of the will. The lowei couit oiueieu the uismissal of the testate case.
Petitioneis then fileu a ceitioiaii petition alleging that the uismissal was in excess of juiisuiction. CA
affiimeu lowei couit's uecision.
ISS0E:
wn the oiuei of uismissal to piobate the will is piopei
BELB:
N0. The couit acteu in excess of its juiisuiction when it uismisseu the testate case. ueneially,
the piobate of a will is manuatoiy: "No will shall pass eithei ieal oi peisonal piopeity unless it is
pioveu anu alloweu in accoiuance with the Rules of Couit". Noimally, the piobate of a will uoes not
look into its intiinsic valiuity.
"The authentication of a will ueciues no othei question than such as touch upon the capacity
of the testatoi anu the compliance with those iequisites oi solemnities which the law piesciibes foi
the valiuity of wills. It uoes not ueteimine noi even by implication piejuuge the valiuity oi efficiency
of the piovisions, these may be impugneu as being vicious oi null, notwithstanuing its authentication.
The queustions ielating to these points iemain entiiely unaffecteu, anu may be iaiseu even aftei the
will has been authenticateu ...."
Noieovei, in the Q757<& case, this Couit iuleu that the Will was intiinsically invaliu as it
completely pieteiiteu the paients of the testatoi. In the instant case, a ciucial issue that calls foi
iesolution is whethei unuei the teims of the Will, piivate iesponuent hau been pieteiiteu oi
uisinheiiteu, anu if the lattei, whethei it was a valiu uisinheiitance. 0iuei of uismissal is set asiue
anu case iemanueu foi fuithei pioceeuings.

-@58H@? >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I JNP ,.!& ONT +KNNS2

FACTS:

4B page SS

Petitionei Consolacion Sioson (C0NS0LACI0N) anu iesponuent Remeuios S. Eugenio-uino
(RENEBI0S) aie the niece anu gianuuaughtei, iespectively, of the late Canuto Sioson (CAN0T0).
CAN0T0 anu 11 othei inuiviuuals, incluuing his sistei Catalina anu his biothei victoiiano, weie
co-owneis of a paicel of lanu in Navotas.
The piopeity, known as Lot 2 was owneu by CATALINA, CAN0T0, anu vICT0RIAN0. Each owneu
an aliquot 1u7u shaie oi 1,SSS squaie meteis.
0n 2u Novembei 19S1, CAN0T0 hau Lot 2 suiveyeu anu subuiviueu into eight lots (Lot Nos. 2-A
to 2-B) thiough Subuivision Plan which the Biiectoi of Lanus appioveu on Su Nay 19S2. Lot No.
2-A, anu Lot No. 2-E, weie placeu unuei CAN0T0's name. Thiee othei inuiviuuals took the
iemaining lots.
Latei, CAN0T0 anu C0NS0LACI0N executeu a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan ("KAS0LATAN")
wheie CAN0T0 solu his 1u7u shaie in Lot 2 in favoi of C0NS0LACI0N foi P2,2Su.uu.
C0NS0LACI0N immeuiately took possession of Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E. She latei ueclaieu the lanu
foi taxation puiposes anu paiu the coiiesponuing ieal estate taxes.
Aftei 2 yeais, the suiviving chiluien of CAN0T0, namely, Feliciuau anu Beatiiz, executeu a joint
affiuavit ("}0INT AFFIBAvIT") affiiming the KAS0LATAN in favoi of C0NS0LACI0N. They also
attesteu that the lots theii fathei hau solu to C0NS0LACI0N weie Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E of
Subuivision Plan.
C0NS0LACI0N iegisteieu the KAS0LATAN anu the }0INT AFFIBAvIT with the Registei of Beeus
who issueu to C0NS0LACI0N TCT coveiing Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E.
RENEBI0S fileu a complaint against C0NS0LACI0N anu hei spouse Ricaiuo Pascual in the RTC
foi "Annulment oi Cancellation of TCT anu Bamages." RENEBI0S claimeu that she is the ownei of
Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E because CATALINA ueviseu these lots to hei in CATALINA's last will anu
testament ("LAST WILL") uateu 29 Nay 1964. RENEBI0S auueu that C0NS0LACI0N obtaineu
title to these lots thiough fiauuulent means since the aiea coveieu by TCT (2S22S2) 1S21 is
twice the size of CAN0T0's shaie in Lot 2.
Petitioneis sought to uismiss the complaint on the giounu of piesciiption. Petitioneis claimeu
that the basis of the action is fiauu, anu RENEBI0S shoulu have fileu the action within foui yeais
fiom the iegistiation of C0NS0LACI0N's title.
RTC uenieu Remeuios claim anu uismisseu the case since hei action piesciibeu alieauy. They
saiu she knew about the petitionei's auveise title since she testifieu against petitioneis in an
ejectment suit which was fileu moie than 4 yeais befoie she fileu hei case. Fuitheimoie, RTC
iuleu that RENEBI0S has no iight of action against petitioneis because CATALINA's LAST WILL
fiom which RENEBI0S claims to ueiive hei title has not been aumitteu to piobate. Since 0nuei
Aiticle 8S8 of the Civil Coue, no will passes ieal oi peisonal piopeity unless it is alloweu in
piobate in accoiuance with the Rules of Couit.
The CA ieveiseu theii juugement anu helu that what RENEBI0S fileu was a suit to enfoice an
implieu tiust allegeuly cieateu in hei favoi when C0NS0LACI0N fiauuulently iegisteieu hei title
ovei Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E. Consequently, the piesciiptive peiiou foi filing the complaint is ten
yeais foi bieach of implieu tiust, not foui. Also, the appellate couit helu that CATALINA's
unpiobateu LAST WILL uoes not piecluue RENEBI0S fiom seeking ieconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A
anu 2-E as the LAST WILL may subsequently be aumitteu to piobate.
ISS0ES:
(1) whethei piesciiption bais the action fileu by RENEBI0S
(2) whethei RENEBI0S is a ieal paity-in-inteiest.
BELB:
What RENEBI0S fileu was an action to enfoice an implieu tiust but the same is alieauy baiieu by
piesciiption. Since Piesciiptive Peiiou is 1u Yeais Counteu Fiom Registiation of Auveise Title

4B page S4

_9D 6L;
K7B
455H;3 Responuent is Not a Real Paity-in-Inteiest. Not only uoes piesciiption bai
RENEBI0S' complaint. RENEBI0S is also not a ieal paity-in-inteiest who can file the complaint,
as the tiial couit coiiectly iuleu. Theiefoie she lacks a cause of action.
RENEBI0S anchoieu hei claim ovei Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E (oi ovei its one-half poition) on the
uevise of these lots to hei unuei CATALINA's LAST WILL. Bowevei, the tiial couit founu that the
piobate couit uiu not issue any oiuei aumitting the LAST WILL to piobate. RENEBI0S uoes not
contest this finuing. Inueeu, uuiing the tiial, RENEBI0S aumitteu that Special Pioceeuings Case
No. C-2u8 is still penuing.
Aiticle 8S8 of the Civil Coue states that "|Njo will shall pass eithei ieal oi peisonal piopeity
unless it is pioveu anu alloweu in accoiuance with the Rules of Couit." This Couit has inteipieteu
this piovision to mean, "until aumitteu to piobate, |a willj has no effect whatevei anu no iight can
be claimeu theieunuei."
RENEBI0S anchois hei iight in filing this suit on hei being a uevisee of CATALINA's LAST WILL.
Bowevei, since the piobate couit has not aumitteu CATALINA's LAST WILL, RENEBI0S has not
acquiieu any iight unuei the LAST WILL. RENEBI0S is thus without any cause of action eithei to
seek ieconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A anu 2-E oi to enfoice an implieu tiust ovei these lots.
The appellate couit tiieu to go aiounu this ueficiency by oiueiing the ieconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-
A anu 2-E to RENEBI0S in hei capacity as executiix of CATALINA's LAST WILL. This is
inappiopiiate because RENEBI0S sueu petitioneis not in such capacity but as the allegeu ownei
of the uisputeu lots.

&?@:@7 >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I J[N ,.!& UP[ +KNNT2

FACTS:
0n Novembei 2uuu, iesponuent Fiancisco Pioviuo (iesponuent) fileu a petition in Iloilo foi
the piobate of the Last Will anu Testament

of the late Soleuau Pioviuo Elevencionauo (ueceuent).
Responuent allegeu that he was the heii of the ueceuent anu the executoi of hei will. 0n Nay 2uu1,
RTC ienueieu its Becision,

allowing the piobate of the will of the ueceuent anu uiiecting the issuance
of letteis testamentaiy to iesponuent.
0n 0ctobei 2uu1, Petitioneis fileu a motion foi the ieopening of the piobate
pioceeuings. They also fileu an opposition to the allowance of the will of the ueceuent, anu the
issuance of letteis testamentaiy to iesponuent, claiming that they aie the intestate heiis of the
ueceuent. Petitioneis claimeu that the RTC uiu not acquiie juiisuiction ovei the petition uue to non-
payment of the coiiect uocket fees, uefective publication, anu lack of notice to the othei heiis.
Noieovei, they allegeu that the will coulu not have been piobateu because: (1) the signatuie of the
ueceuent was foigeu; (2) the will was not executeu in accoiuance with law, that is, the witnesses
faileu to sign below the attestation clause; (S) the ueceuent lackeu testamentaiy capacity to execute
anu publish a will; (4) the will was executeu by foice anu unuei uuiess anu impiopei piessuie; (S)
the ueceuent hau no intention to make a will at the time of affixing of hei signatuie; anu (6) she uiu
not know the piopeities to be uisposeu of, having incluueu in the will piopeities which no longei
belongeu to hei. Petitioneis piayeu that the letteis testamentaiy issueu to iesponuent be withuiawn
anu the estate of the ueceuent uisposeu of unuei intestate succession.
RTC issueu anu 0iuei uenying Petitioneis' motion foi being unmeiitoiious.
Petitioneis sought annulment of RTC's uecision with the CA with a piayei foi pieliminaiy
injunction - uenieu
Petitioneis maintain that they weie not maue paities to the case in which the uecision sought
to be annulleu was ienueieu anu, thus, they coulu not have availeu of the oiuinaiy iemeuies of new

4B page SS

tiial, appeal, petition foi ielief fiom juugment anu othei appiopiiate iemeuies, contiaiy to the iuling
of the CA.
ISS0E:
WN Petitioneis weie maue paities in the pioceeuings
BELB:
Petitioneis in this case aie mistaken in asseiting that they aie not oi have not become paities
to the piobate pioceeuings.
0nuei the Rules of Couit, any executoi, uevisee, oi legatee nameu in a will, oi any othei
peison inteiesteu in the estate may, at any time aftei the ueath of the testatoi, petition the couit
having juiisuiction to have the will alloweu. Notice of the time anu place foi pioving the will must be
publisheu foi thiee (S) consecutive weeks, in a newspapei of geneial ciiculation in the piovince, as
well as fuinisheu to the uesignateu oi othei known heiis, legatees, anu uevisees of the testatoi. Thus,
it has been helu that a pioceeuing foi the piobate of a will is one <% +"(, such that with the
coiiesponuing publication of the petition the couit's juiisuiction extenus to all peisons inteiesteu in
saiu will oi in the settlement of the estate of the ueceuent.
Publication is notice to the whole woilu that the pioceeuing has foi its object to bai
inuefinitely all who might be minueu to make an objection of any soit against the iight sought to be
establisheu. It is the publication of such notice that biings in the whole woilu as a paity in the case
anu vests the couit with juiisuiction to heai anu ueciue it. Thus, even though petitioneis weie not
mentioneu in the petition foi piobate, they eventually became paities theieto as a consequence of
the publication of the notice of heaiing.
As paities to the piobate pioceeuings, petitioneis coulu have valiuly availeu of the iemeuies of
motion foi new tiial oi ieconsiueiation anu petition foi ielief fiom juugment. In fact, petitioneis fileu
a motion to ieopen, which is essentially a motion foi new tiial, with petitioneis piaying foi the
ieopening of the case anu the setting of fuithei pioceeuings. Bowevei, the motion was uenieu foi
having been fileu out of time, long aftei the V"#<)<$% became final anu executoiy.
Accoiuing to the Rules, notice is iequiieu to be peisonally given to known heiis, legatees, anu
uevisees of the testatoi. A peiusal of the will shows that iesponuent was instituteu as the sole heii of
the ueceuent. Petitioneis, as nephews anu nieces of the ueceuent, aie neithei compulsoiy noi
testate heiis

who aie entitleu to be notifieu of the piobate pioceeuings unuei the Rules. Responuent
hau no legal obligation to mention petitioneis in the petition foi piobate, oi to peisonally notify them
of the same.
Besiues, assuming 4+57"%&$ that petitioneis aie entitleu to be so notifieu, the puipoiteu
infiimity is cuieu by the publication of the notice. Aftei all, peisonal notice upon the heiis is a
mattei of pioceuuial convenience anu not a juiisuictional iequisite.
The non-inclusion of petitioneis' names in the petition anu the allegeu failuie to peisonally
notify them of the pioceeuings uo not constitute extiinsic fiauu. Petitioneis weie not uenieu theii
uay in couit, as they weie not pieventeu fiom paiticipating in the pioceeuings anu piesenting theii
case befoie the piobate couit.

S3 !Z'" [U f !""#$%&'( #* +,-%""#$%&'( #. /,""

!Z'" [U &''/)&0." /! $%,&''/)&0." /_ )%''
Section 1. ZC$ (4? ;"*<*<$% :$+ *C" 4==$G4%#" $: G<==. Any executoi, uevisee, oi legatee nameu in
a will, oi any othei peison inteiesteu in the estate, may, at any time aftei the ueath of the testatoi,
petition the couit having juiisuiction to have the will alloweu, whethei the same be in his

4B page S6

possession oi not, oi is lost oi uestioyeu.
The testatoi himself may, uuiing his lifetime, petition the couit foi the allowance of his will.
Section 2. 3$%*"%*) $: ;"*<*<$%. A petition foi the allowance of a will must show, so fai as known
to the petitionei:
(a) The juiisuictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, anu iesiuences of the heiis, legatees, anu uevisees of the testatoi oi ueceuent;
(c) The piobable value anu chaiactei of the piopeity of the estate;
(u) The name of the peison foi whom letteis aie piayeu;
(e) If the will has not been ueliveieu to the couit, the name of the peison having custouy of it.
But no uefect in the petition shall ienuei voiu the allowance of the will, oi the issuance of letteis
testamentaiy oi of auministiation with the will annexeu.
Section S. 3$7+* *$ 4;;$<%* *<(" :$+ ;+$6<%5 G<==F Q$*<#" *C"+"$: *$ 8" ;78=<)C"&. When a will is
ueliveieu to, oi a petition foi the allowance of a will is fileu in, the couit having juiisuiction, such
couit shall fix a time anu place foi pioving the will when all conceineu may appeai to contest the
allowance theieof, anu shall cause notice of such time anu place to be publisheu thiee (S) weeks
successively, pievious to the time appointeu, in a newspapei of geneial ciiculation in the piovince.
But no newspapei publication shall be maue wheie the petition foi piobate has been fileu by the
testatoihimself.
Section 4. e"<+), &"6<)""), ="54*""), 4%& "@"#7*$+) *$ 8" %$*<:<"& 8? (4<= $+ ;"+)$%4==?. The couit
shall also cause copies of the notice of the time anu place fixeu foi pioving the will to be auuiesseu
to the uesignateu oi othei known heiis, legatees, anu uevisees of the testatoi iesiuent in the
Philippines at theii places of iesiuence, anu uepositeu in the post office with the postage theieon
piepaiu at least twenty (2u) uays befoie the heaiing, if such places of iesiuence be known. A copy
of the notice must in like mannei be maileu to the peison nameu as executoi, if he be not the
petitionei; also, to any peison nameu as coexecutoi not petitioning, if theii places of iesiuence be
known. Peisonal seivice of copies of the notice at lest (1u) uays befoie the uay of heaiing shall be
equivalent to mailing.
If the testatoi asks foi the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his compulsoiy
heiis.
Section S. P+$$: 4* C"4+<%5. ZC4* )7::<#<"%* <% 48)"%#" $: #$%*")*. At the heaiing compliance with
the piovisions of the last two pieceuing sections must be shown befoie the intiouuction of
testimony in suppoit of the will. All such testimony shall be taken unuei oath anu ieuuceu to
wiiting. It no peison appeais to contest the allowance of the will, the couit may giant allowance
theieof on the testimony of one of the subsciibing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the

4B page S7

will was executeu as is iequiieu by law.
In the case of a hologiaphic will, it shall be necessaiy that at least one witness who knows the
hanuwiiting anu signatuie of the testatoi explicitly ueclaie that the will anu the signatuie aie in
the hanuwiiting of the testatoi. In the absence of any such competent witness, anu if the couit
ueem it necessaiy, expeit testimony may be iesoiteu to.
Section 6. P+$$: $: =$)* $+ &")*+$?"& G<==F 3"+*<:<#4*" *C"+"7;$%. No will shall be pioveu as a lost oi
uestioyeu will unless the execution anu valiuity of the same be establisheu, anu the will is pioveu
to have been in existence at the time of the ueath of the testatoi, oi is shown to have been
fiauuulently oi acciuentally uestioyeu in the lifetime of the testatoi without his knowleuge, noi
unless its piovisions aie cleaily anu uistinctly pioveu by at least two (2) cieuible witnesses. When
a lost will is pioveu, the piovisions theieof must be uistinctly stateu anu ceitifieu by the juuge,
unuei the seal of the couit, anu the ceitificate must be fileu anu iecoiueu as othei wills aie fileu
anu iecoiueu.
Section 7. P+$$: GC"% G<*%"))") &$ %$* +")<&" <% ;+$6<%#". If it appeais at the time fixeu foi the
heaiing that none of the subsciibing witnesses iesiues in the piovince, but that the ueposition of
one oi moie of them can be taken elsewheie, the couit may, on motion, uiiect it to be taken, anu
may authoiize a photogiaphic copy of the will to be maue anu to be piesenteu to the witness on his
examination, who may be askeu the same questions with iespect to it, anu to the hanuwiiting of
the testatoi anu otheis, as woulu be peitinent anu competent if the oiiginal will weie piesent.
Section 8. P+$$: GC"% G<*%"))") &"4& $+ <%)4%" $+ &$ %$* +")<&" <% *C" PC<=<;;<%"). If the appeais at
the time fixeu foi the heaiing that the subsciibing witnesses aie ueau oi insane, oi that
none of them iesiues in the Philippines, the couit may aumit the testimony of othei witnesses to
piove the sanity of the testatoi, anu the uue execution of the will; anu as eviuence of the execution
of the will, it may aumit pioof of the hanuwiiting of the testatoi anu of the subsciibing witnesses,
oi of any of them.
Section 9. f+$7%&) :$+ &<)4==$G<%5 G<==. The will shall be uisalloweu in any of the following cases:
(a) If not executeu anu attesteu as iequiieu by law;
(b) If the testatoi was insane, oi otheiwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its
execution;
(c) If it was executeu unuei uuiess, oi the influence of feai, oi thieats;
(u) If it was piocuieu by unuue anu impiopei piessuie anu influence, on the pait of the
beneficiaiy, oi of some othei peison foi his benefit;
(e) If the signatuie of the testatoi was piocuieu by fiauu oi tiick, anu he uiu not intenu that the
instiument shoulu be his will at the time of fixing his signatuie theieto.
Section 1u. 3$%*")*4%* *$ :<=" 5+$7%&) $: #$%*")*. Anyone appeaiing to contest the will must state

4B page S8

in wiiting his giounus foi opposing its allowance, anu seive a copy theieof on the petitionei anu
othei paities inteiesteu in the estate.
Section 11. !78)#+<8<%5 G<*%"))") ;+$&7#"& $+ 4##$7%*"& :$+ GC"+" G<== #$%*")*"&. If the will is
contesteu, all the subsciibing witnesses, anu the notaiy in the case of wills executeu unuei the Civil
Coue of the Philippines, if piesent in the Philippines anu not insane, must be piouuceu anu
examineu, anu the ueath, absence, oi insanity of any of them must be satisfactoiily shown to the
couit. If all oi some of such witnesses aie piesent in the Philippines but outsiue the piovince
wheie the will has been fileu, theii ueposition must be taken. If any oi all of them testify against
the uue execution of the will, oi uo not iemembei having attesteu to it, oi aie otheiwise of uoubtful
cieuibility, the will may neveitheless, be alloweu if the couit is satisfieu fiom the testimony of
othei witnesses anu fiom all the eviuence piesenteu that the will was executeu anu attesteu in the
mannei iequiieu by law.
If a holugiaphic will is contesteu, the same shall be alloweu if at least thiee (S) witnesses who
know the hanuwiiting of the testatoi explicitly ueclaie that the will anu the signatuie aie in the
hanuwiiting of the testatoi; in the absence of any competent witnesses, anu if the couit ueem it
necessaiy, expeit testimony may be iesoiteu to.
Section 12. P+$$: GC"+" *")*4*$+ ;"*<*<$%) :$+ 4==$G4%#" $: C$=$5+4;C<# G<==. Wheie the testatoi
himself petitions foi the piobate of his hologiaphic will anu no contest is fileu, the fact that the
affiims that the hologiaphic will anu the signatuie aie in his own hanuwiiting, shall be sufficient
eviuence of the genuineness anu uue execution theieof. If the hologiaphic will is contesteu, the
buiuen of uispioving the genuineness anu uue execution theieof shall be on the contestant. The
testatoi to iebut the eviuence foi the contestant.
Section 1S. 3"+*<:<#4*" $: 4==$G4%#" 4**4#C"& *$ ;+$6" G<==F D$ 8" +"#$+&"& <% *C" M::<#" $: O"5<)*"+ $:
V""&). If the couit is satisfieu, upon pioof taken anu fileu, that the will was uuly executeu, anu
that the testatoi at the time of its execution was of sounu anu uisposing minu, anu not acting unuei
uuiess, menace, anu unuue influence, oi fiauu, a ceitificate of its allowance, signeu by the juuge,
anu attesteu by the seal of the couit shall be attacheu to the will anu the will anu ceitificate fileu
anu iecoiueu by the cleik. Attesteu copies of the will uevising ieal estate anu of ceitificate of
allowance theieof, shall be iecoiueu in the iegistei of ueeus of the piovince in which the lanus lie.

#@7@?9 >3 -@D;B;5I J[ -L4? PSP +OPKT2

FACTS:
! Lauieana Biualgo, suiviving spouse of ueceuent, fileu foi an application foi letteis of
auministiation of the estate left by villegas, who, accoiuing to the application, uieu intestate
! }ustina Nenuieta, Lazaio Nenuieta, Baiia Nenuieta anu Nelecio Fule, supposeu testamentaiy
executoi, fileu a motion with the couit, piaying foi the piobate of the supposeu will of Fiancisco
villegas, wheiein most of his piopeity was given as a legacy to saiu }ustina Nenuieta, the lattei's
chiluien anu the legitimate wife of the ueceaseu Fiancisco villegas.
! Lauieana Biualgo enteieu hei objection to the piobate of the will
! Subsequently, Lauieana anu }ustina submitteu to the couit an agieement which stateu that
}ustina is withuiawing hei application foi piobate anu that saiu will be helu not allowable to
piobate. }ustina acknowleugeu that the ueceaseu uieu intestate, without leaving any moie heiis

4B page S9

than his legitimate wife, Lauieana Biualgo, anu his two auulteious chiluien, Lazaio anu Baiia
Nenuieta, anu that the piopeity of the ueceaseu be uistiibuteu in accoiuance with saiu
agieement.
! The couit on 0ctobei 2S, 1924, appioveu saiu agieement anu ienueieu juugment accoiuingly.
! 0n }anuaiy 7, 192S, one uelacio Nalihan, who claimeu to be fiist cousin of the ueceaseu Fiancisco
villegas, fileu with the couit a new application foi the piobate of the same supposeu will of the
ueceaseu Fiancisco villegas
BELB:
! The pioceeuing foi the piobate of a will is a pioceeuing <% +"(, anu the couit acquiies juiisuiction
ovei all the peisons inteiesteu thiough the publication of the notice piesciibeu by section 6Su of
the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie, anu any oiuei that may be enteieu is binuing against all of them.
! Thiough the publication oiueieu by the lowei couit of the application foi the piobate of the
supposeu will of Fiancisco villegas saiu couit acquiieu juiisuiction ovei all such peisons as weie
inteiesteu in the supposeu will, incluuing uelacio Nalihan
! All the paities became bounu by saiu juugment; anu if any of them oi othei peisons inteiesteu
weie not satisfieu with the couit's uecision, they hau the iemeuy of appeal to coiiect any
injustice that might have been committeu, anu cannot now thiough the special iemeuy of
(4%&4(7), obtain a ieview of the pioceeuing upon a new application foi the piobate of the same
will in oiuei to compel the iesponuent juuge to comply with his ministeiial uuty imposeu by
section SSu of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie; because this iemeuy, being extiaoiuinaiy, cannot be
useu in lieu of appeal, oi wiit of eiioi; especially when the paities inteiesteu have agieeu to
uisiegaiu the testamentaiy piovisions anu uiviue the estate as they pleaseu, each of them taking
what peitaineu to him.

X@5@ >3 #;D8@B9I UO -L4? USK +OPST2

FACTS:
The estate of Ines Basa was alloweu in piobate by couit, anu eventually aujuuicateu it in favoi of
the auministiatoi who was also the sole heii.
The petitionei contests the juiisuiction of the piobate couit alleging that theie was failuie to
comply with the notice iequiiements in Sec. 6Su.
"Sec. 6Su. 3$7+* *$ 4;;$<%* C"4+<%5 $% G<==. When a will is ueliveieu to a couit having juiisuiction
of the same, the couit shall appoint a time anu place when all conceineu may appeai to contest
the allowance of the will, anu shall cause public notice theieof to be given by publication in such
newspapei oi newspapeis as the couit uiiects of geneial ciiculation in the piovince, thiee weeks
successively, pievious to the time appointeu, anu no will shall be alloweu until such notice has
been given. At the heaiing all testimony shall be taken unuei oath, ieuuceu to wiiting anu signeu
by the witnesses."
They allege that notice was only publisheu foi the fiist two weeks anu the heaiing conuucteu on
the thiiu.
ISS0E: Whethei the piobate couit hau juiisuiction ovei the estate.
BELB: Yes, it hau.
It will be noteu that in the above citeu case the last of the thiee publications was on
Becembei 18, 1919, anu the heaiing on the auministiatoi's final account was set foi Becembei 19 of
that yeai, only 1S uays aftei the uate of the fiist publication.
In view of the foiegoing, it is helu that the language useu in Sec. 6Su of the Coue of Civil
Pioceuuie uoes not mean that the notice, iefeiieu to theiein, shoulu be publisheu foi thiee full

4B page 4u

weeks befoie the uate set foi the heaiing on the will. %7 96L;D <9DB5I 6L; R4D56 CH:?48@6497 9R 6L;
79648; 7;;B 796 :; Y@B; KO B@`5 :;R9D; 6L; B@` @CC9476;B R9D 6L; L;@D47E.

,@7695 >3 .@564??9I UJ -L4? KOO +OPS[2

FACTS:
Petitionei Emeiita Santos, in hei behalf anu as guaiuian of the minoi acknowleuge natuial
chiluien of the ueceaseu, fileu a petition foi piobate of the will of Nicolas Azoies. She also fileu a
motion foi the appointment of a special auministiatoi. At the heaiing, iesponuents }ose, Sinfiosa anu
Antonio Azoies, legitimate chiluien of the ueceaseu fileu theii opposition, on the giounu that the
couit hau not acquiieu juiisuiction ovei the casepetitionei's allegations being insufficient to confei
juiisuiction because she uiu not allege that she hau the custouy of the will, anu theiefoie, was not
entitleu to piesent it foi piobate; anu fuitheiance because the will that shoulu be piobateu is the
oiiginal anu not a copy theieof, as the one piesenteu by the petitionei. Petitionei fileu an amenueu
petition piaying that iesponuents be iequiieu to piesent the copies of the will anu the couicil in theii
possession.
Couit issueu an oiuei uenying the petition foi the appointment of a special auministiatoi by
petitionei anu oiueieu }ose Azoies, who has custouy of the last will anu testament anu all othei
uocuments in ielation theieto, to uelivei saiu papeis to the couit within 1u uays fiom notice.
Consequently, petitionei fileu a motion piaying that hei amenueu petition be aumitteu. Bowevei,
befoie this motion was ueciueu, iesponuents, 16 uays aftei theii fathei's ueath, piesenteu the
oiiginal of the will anu couicil, anu petitioneu that they be aumitteu foi piobate.
The couit issueu an oiuei uismissing the petition fileu by the petitionei.
ISS0E: |1j Who is entitleu to apply foi piobate.
|2j WN Couit has acquiieu juiisuiction
BELB: |1j Section 62S of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie pioviues that no will shall pass eithei ieal oi
peisonal estate, unless it is pioveu anu alloweu. Foi this puipose, section 626 pioviues that the
peison who has the custouy of he will shall, within Su uays aftei he knows of the ueath of the
testatoi, uelivei the will to the couit which has juiisuiction, oi to the executoi nameu in the will.
Sections 628 anu 629 piosciibeu coeicive means to compel a peison having the custouy of a will to
uelivei it to the couit having juiisuiction.
Petitionei allegeu that the ueceaseu uesignateu nobouy as custouian of his will but that he
uiiecteu his nephew Nanuel Azoies to uelivei a copy theieof to hei, to keep one in his (Nanuel's)
possession, anu to tuin ovei the othei two copies to his son }ose Azoies, with instiuctions to the
effect that if petitionei oi his son faileu to piesent saiu will foi piobate, Nanuel shoulu take chaige of
piesenting it to the couit.
Taking eveiything into account theiefoie, it is of the Couit's view that }ose Azoies, the son of
the ueceaseu, hau the custouy of the will because the oiiginal theieof was tuineu ovei to him.
Foi the sake of aigument, howevei, aumitting that the testatoi hau uesignateu nobouy as
custouian of the will, it cannot be uenieu that his act of subsequently making a couicil anu entiusting
the custouy theieof to his legitimate chiluien, cleaily mouifieu his last will. In this sense, the custouy
of both is entiusteu to his legitimate chiluien anu not to Nanuel Azoies oi to petitionei.
Bence, as the legitimate chiluien of the ueceaseu hau custouy of the oiiginals of the will anu
of the couicil, they alone coulu, hau the iight anu wheie bounu by law to apply foi the piobate of
theii fathei's last will.
|2j In oiuei that the couit may acquiie juiisuiction ovei the case foi the piobate of a will anu
foi the auministiation of the piopeities left by a ueceaseu peison, the application must allege, in
auuition to the iesiuence of the ueceaseu anu othei inuispensable facts oi ciicumstances, that the

4B page 41

applicant is the executoi in the will oi is the peison who hau custouy of the will to be piobateu. The
oiiginal of saiu uocument must be piesenteu oi sufficient ieasons given to justify the non-
iepiesentation of saiu oiiginal anu the acceptance of the copy oi uuplicate theieof. Inasmuch as these
iequisites hau not been complieu with in the application fileu by the petitionei, the iesponuent juuge
uiu not exceeu his juiisuiction in uismissing the application in question.

,@?@G@D >3 ._%I UJ -L4? [MT +OPS[2

FACTS:
Petitionei instituteu spec pioceeuings foi the piobate of his mothei's will uateu Nay 1S 1924.
Responuent fileu an "0pposition- Countei petition" anu submitteu anothei will uateu Nay 11
19Su allegeuly maue by the same peison.
The Couit iuleu that the iesponuent shoulu initiate a sepaiate pioceeuing foi the piobate of the
seconu will.
0n NR, the couit set asiue its pievious iuling anu oiueieu the two piobate pioceeuings
consoliuateu.
ISS0E :
W0N the couit acquiieu juiisuiction to take cognizance of the countei-petition foi the
piobate of the seconu will, oi to set the same foi heaiing of saiu will to be helu in the same
pioceeuing jointly with the fiist will, on the giounu that the iesponuent hau not pieviously fileu hei
pleauing noi paiu the fees of the cleik of couit fixeu by section 788 of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie.
BELB:
The Couit has }uiisuiction
A Couit of Fiist Instance acquiies juiisuiction to piobate a will when it is shown by eviuence
befoie it: (1) That a peison has uieu leaving a will; (2) in the case of a iesiuent of this countiy,
that he uieu in the piovince wheie the couit exeicises teiiitoiial juiisuiction; (S) in the case of a
noniesiuent, that he has left a estate in the piovince wheie the couit is situateu, anu (4) that the
testament oi last will of the ueceaseu has been ueliveieu to the couit anu is in the possession
theieof.
Accoiuing to the facts allegeu anu aumitteu by the paities, it is eviuent that the couit has
acquiieu juiisuiction to piobate the seconu will, in view of the piesence of all the juiisuictional
facts above-stateu. The iesponuent's countei-petition shoulu, in this case, be consiueieu as a
petition foi the piobate of the seconu will, the oiiginal of which was fileu by hei on }uly 2u, 19S7
The payment of the fees of the cleik of couit foi all seivices to be ienueieu by him in connection
with the piobate of the seconu will anu foi the successive pioceeuings to be conuucteu anu
otheis to be issueu, in accoiuance with section 788, as amenueu, is not juiisuiction in the sense
that its omission uoes not uepiive the couit of its authoiity to pioceeu with the piobate of a will,
as expiessly pioviueu foi by section 6Su. It is the inevitable uuty of the couit, when a will is
piesenteu to it, to appoint heaiing foi its allowance anu to cause notice theieof to be given by
publication. The uuty imposeu by saiu section is impeiative anu noncompliance theiewith woulu
be a mockeiy at the law anu at last will of the testatoi. Section 78S (4) of the Coue of Civil
Pioceuuie, as amenueu iecently by Act No. S2Su, peimits the iemission oi postponement of the
payment of the cleik's fees in cases of poveity, at the uiscietion of the couit, anu if this weie uone
in one case anu the payment of the fees foi filing the application weie juiisuictional, is claimeu,
then the couit, in aumitting the will to piobate anu in allowing it, woulu have acteu entiiely
without juiisuiction. Finally, it shoulu be taken into consiueiation that the couit, in this case, uiu
not exempt the iesponuents fiom paying the fees in question but meiely faileu to make piovision
theiefoie

4B page 42

When the couit oiueieu that the seconu will be set foi heaiing that publication be maue theieof
anu that saiu will be heaiu in the same pioceeuing jointly with the fiist will, it meiely oiueieu the
consoliuation of the two applications anu the two heaiing on the piobate of both wills, insteau of
conuucting sepaiate heaiing, unuoubteuly because it unueistoou that the foim so chosen was the
most convenient foi the paities anu theii attoineys.
Theie aie thiee ways of consoliuation action oi special pioceeuings wheie the questions at issue
anu the paities in inteiest aie the same. The fiist consists in iecasting the cases alieauy
instituteu, conuucting only one heaiing anu ienueiing only one uecision; the seconu takes place
when the existing cases aie consoliuateu, only one heaiing helu anu only one uecision ienueieu;
anu the thiiu takes place when, without iecasting oi consoliuating the cases, the piincipal one is
heaiu, the heaiing on the otheis being suspenueu until juugment has been ienueieu in the fiist
case. The couit, in the exeicise of its sounu uiscietion, may auopt any of these thiee foims of
consoliuation whenevei in its opinion the pioceeuing is beneficial to anu convenient foi the
paities. The powei so exeiciseu is uiscietionaiy. In the case unuei consiueiation, the couit
acquiieu juiisuiction fiom the moment the countei-petition was piesenteu anu the seconu will
came to its possession anu unuei its contiol anu, consequently, it likewise hau full uiscietion to
oiuei, as it uiu, the piobate theieof in the pioceeuing alieauy instituteu foi the puipose of
ienueiing latei only one uecision. It shoulu fuitheimoie be taken into consiueiation that the
consoliuation so oiueieu was the foim most convenient foi anu beneficial to the paities as well
as to the couit because if the fiist will weie opposeu on the giounu that it was ievokeu by the
seconu will, the best eviuence of the ievocation woulu be saiu seconu will anu once the
publications aie maue, if the seconu will was executeu with the foimalities piesciibeu by law, the
couit coulu oiuei the piobate theieof, without the necessity of multiplying the pioceeuings.

-;D;G >3 -;D;GI ONT -L4? OOSK +OPTP2

FACTS:
This case involves an appeal with iespect to the summaiy settlement of the estate Caiiua
Peiez. In theii appeal the oppositois-appellants insist the lowei couit uiu not "acquiie juiisuiction to
ieceive the eviuence foi the allowance of the allegeu will" because two heiis (Nelanio Peiez, }i. anu
Nilagios Peiez) hau not been notifieu in auvance of such will. In ieply, the petitionei-appellee says
the peisons mentioneu weie not entitleu to notice, since they weie not foiceu heiis gianunephew
anu niece anu hau not been mentioneu as legatees oi uevisees in the will of the ueceaseu
(Nanahan vs. Nanahan, S8 Phil., 448). Anu as to Nilagios Peiez, petitionei asseits that notice hau
been auuiesseu to hei last known iesiuence in this countiy.
ISS0E anu BELB:
1. Whethei oi not the appeal was piopei: N0
It uoes the summaiy settlement of a testate estate woith P6,uuu.uu accoiuing to petitionei,
oi P1u,uuu accoiuing to oppositois, it shoulu not have been biought uiiectly to this Couit fiom the
Iloilo Couit of Fiist Instance, inasmuch as seveial questions of fact aie iaiseu in ielation with
testimonial eviuence: foi example, the soununess of the minu of the testatiix anu hei fieeuom fiom
constiaint in signing the will. The juiisuictional question uiiectly appealable to this Couit iefeis to
juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei, not meie juiisuiction ovei the peisons, (Reyes vs. Biaz, 7S Phil.,
484; Beinabe vs. veigaia, 7S Phil., 676; Sy 0a vs. Co Bo, 74 Phil., 2S9.)
2. Whethei oi not the Couit acquiie juiisuiction: YES
The couit 4#E7<+") 97+<)&<#*<$% $6"+ 4== ;"+)$%) <%*"+")*"& in the estate thiough the publication
of the petition in the newspapeis (In ie Estate of }ohnson, S9 Phil., 1S9; }oson vs. Nable, )7;+4)
which in this case aumitteuly took place. Seivice of notice on inuiviuual heiis oi legatees oi uevisees

4B page 4S

is a mattei of pioceuuial convenience, not juiisuictional iequisite. (}oson vs. Nable, )7;+4) So much
so that even if the names of some legatees oi heiis hau been omitteu fiom the petition foi allowance
of the will anu theiefoie weie not auviceu the ueciee allowing the will uoes not <;)$ :4#*$ become
voiu foi want of juiisuiction. (Nicholson vs. Leathan, 1SS Pacific Repoits, 96S; Noian, Rules of Couit,
19S7 Eu., vol. II, p. SSS; see also K% +" Estate of }ohnson, )7;+4, anu Nanalo vs. Paieues, 47 Phil., 9S8.)
Wheiefoie, this iecoiu will be iefeiieu to the Couit of Appeals foi uisposition in accoiuance
with law.

&:H6 >3 &:H6I JT ,.!& SKU +OP[K2

FACTS:
1) ueneioso Abut (petitionei), chilu of ueceaseu Cipiiano fiom 2
nu
maiiiage, executoi in ueceaseu's
allegeu will, fileu a petition foi appioval of will anu letteis testamentaiy. Couit set heaiing.
2) 0pposition was fileu by Felipe Abut (oppositois) anu othei chiluien fiom 1
st
maiiiage . ueneioso
Abut uieu befoie Couit coulu stait foimal heaiing so uavina Abut (sistei) askeu Couit to substitute
hei.
S) Couit uismisseu ueneioso's petition wo piejuuice to filing anothei puisuant to Rules of Couit.
ISS0E:
WN the piobate couit coiiectly uismisseu the petition simply because the oiiginal petitionei
(executoi ueneioso) uieu befoie the petition coulu be heaiu anuoi teiminateu (uiu ueath of
ueneioso uivest the couit of juiisuiction on the theoiy that amenueu petition of substitute sistei
iequiieu new publication).
BELB: N0, piobate couit incoiiect in uismissing petition.
1) ZC"% #$7+* 6")*"& Gg 97+<)&<#*<$%L The juiisuiction of the couit became vesteu upon the filing of
the oiiginal petition anu upon compliance with Secs. S anu 4 of Rule 76 of Rules of Couit
2) I7+<)&<#*<$% $: *C" #$7+* #$%*<%7") 7%*<= *"+(<%4*<$% $: *C" #4)" anu iemains unaffecteu by
subsequent events. Paities who coulu have come in anu opposeu the oiiginal petition as what Felipe,
et. al. uiu, coulu still come in anu oppose, having alieauy been notifieu of the penuency of pioceeuing
by the publication of the notice.
S) I7+<)&<#*<$% $6"+ ;"+)$%) <%*"+")*"&, C$G 4#E7<+"&L A pioceeuing foi the piobate of a will is one in
iem, such that with the coiiesponuing publication of the petition the couit's juiisuiction extenus to
all peisons inteiesteu in saiu will oi in the settlement of the estate of the ueceaseu. All that sec. 4 of
Rule 76 pioviues is that those heiis (auuitional heiis names in the amenueu petition but not incluueu
in the oiiginal petition) be notifieu of the heaiing foi the piobate of the will, eithei mail oi peisonally.
4) J::"#* $: 48)"%#" $: %$*<#" *$ <%&<6<&74= C"<+)L Seivice of notice on inuiviuual heiis oi legatees oi
uevisees is a mattei of pioceuuial convenience, not juiisuictional iequisite. So much so that even if
the names of some legatees oi heiis hau been omitteu fiom the petition foi allowance of the will anu
theiefoie weie not auviseu -- the ueciee allowing the will uoes not ipso facto become voiu foi want of
juiisuiction

$; &D@7G >3 1@?47EI OUO ,.!& UKM +OPMM2

FACTS:
}oaquin R-Infante fileu with the RTC of Pasig a petition foi piobate anu allowance of the last
will anu testament of Nonseiiat R-Infante y u-Pola. The petition specifieu the names anu auuiesses
of the petitioneis as lagatees anu uevisees. The piobate couit then issueu an oiuei setting the
petition foi heaiing. This oiuei was publisheu in "Nueva Eia" a newspapei of geneial ciiculation

4B page 44

once a week foi thiee consecutive weeks. }oaquin was then alloweu to piesent eviuence ex-paite anu
was appointeu executoi.

The petitioneis fileu an NR alleging that as nameu legatees no notices weie sent to them as
iequiieu by Section 4 of Rule 76 anu they piayeu that they be given time to file theii opposition. This
was uenieu.
ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the iequiiement unuei Section 4, Rule 76 is manuatoiy anu the omission
constitutes a ieveisible eiioi foi being constitutive of giave abuse of uiscietion.
BELB: YES
RATI0:
It is cleai foi the Rule that notice in time anu place of the heaiing foi the allowance of a will
shall be foiwaiueu to the uesignateu, oi othei known heiis, legatees anu uevisees iesiuing in the
Philippines at theii places of iesiuence, if such place of iesiuence be known.
In this case, theie is no question that the places of iesiuence of the petitioneis aie known to
the piobate couit. The iequiiement of the law foi the allowance of the will was not satisfieu by meie
publication of the notice of heaiing foi thiee consecutive weeks in a newspapei of geneial
ciiculation.

J3 !Z'" [[ - !""#$%&'( #. /,"" 0*#1(2 345-,2( #. 06,",77,&(- %&2
!28,&,-5*%5,#& #. 9-5%5( :6(*(4&2(*
CIvIL C0BE, Aiticles 81S to 817

Aiticle 81S. When a Filipino is in a foieign countiy, he is authoiizeu to make a will in any of the
foims establisheu by the law of the countiy in which he may be. Such will may be piobateu in the
Philippines. (n)
Aiticle 816. The will of an alien who is abioau piouuces effect in the Philippines if maue with the
foimalities piesciibeu by the law of the place in which he iesiues, oi accoiuing to the foimalities
obseiveu in his countiy, oi in confoimity with those which this Coue piesciibes. (n)
Aiticle 817. A will maue in the Philippines by a citizen oi subject of anothei countiy, which is
executeu in accoiuance with the law of the countiy of which he is a citizen oi subject, anu which
might be pioveu anu alloweu by the law of his own countiy, shall have the same effect as if
executeu accoiuing to the laws of the Philippines. (n)

_?H;Y;D >3 F4dI TJ -L4? UON +OPSN2

FACTS:
The special auministiatoi of the estate of Euwaiu Ranuolph Bix appeals fiom the uenial of
piobate of the last will anu testament of the ueceaseu. The will was allegeu to be executeu in anu
unuei the laws of West viiginia, on Novembei S, 192S, by Bix who hau his iesiuence in that
juiisuiction.
ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the will shoulu be alloweu piobate in the Philippines uespite the absence of
pioof showing compliance with the laws of West viiginia foi the execution of wills.
BELB: N0.

4B page 4S

The laws of a foieign juiisuiction uo not piove themselves in oui couits. Such laws must be
pioveu as facts. Theie was no was piinteu oi publisheu copy unuei the authoiity of the State of West
viiginia, as iequiieu by the law. Noi was the extiact fiom the law attesteu by the ceitificate of the
officei having chaige of the oiiginal, unuei the seal of the State of West viiginia. No eviuence was
intiouuceu to show that the extiact fiom the laws of West viiginia was in foice at the time the
allegeu will was executeu. In auuition, the uue execution of the will was not establisheu. Theie was
nothing to inuicate that the will was acknowleugeu by the testatoi in the piesence of two competent
witnesses, that these witnesses subsciibeu the will in the piesence of the testatoi anu of each othei
as the law of West viiginia seems to iequiie. 0n the supposition that the witnesses to the will iesiue
without the Philippine, it woulu then be the uuty of the petitionei to piove execution by some othei
means.

';97 >3 #@7HR@86HD;D5 '4R; %75HD@78; .93I PN -L4? JTP +OPTO2


4B page 46

&78L;6@ >3 1H;D5;`Q$@?@È97I JPN ,.!& OJN +KNNU2

FACTS:
Spouses Auuiey 0'Neill (Auuiey) anu W. Richaiu uueisey (Richaiu) weie Ameiican citizens who
have iesiueu in the Philippines foi Su yeais. They have an auopteu uaughtei, Kyle uueisey Bill
(Kyle). 0n }uly 29, 1979, Auuiey uieu, leaving a will bequeathing piopeities to Richaiu, anu was
assigneu as the executoi. The will was aumitteu to piobate befoie the 0iphan's Couit of
Baltimoie, Naiylanu, 0.S.A, which nameu }ames N. Phillips as executoi uue to Richaiu's
ienunciation of his appointment. The couit also nameu Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitionei) of the
Quasha Aspeiilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law 0ffices as ancillaiy auministiatoi.
In 1981, Richaiu maiiieu Canuelaiia uueisey Baygon (iesponuent), with whom he hau 2
chiluien.
In 0ct. 1982, Auuiey's will was aumitteu to piobate in CFI Rizal. Inventoiy was taken on theii
conjugal piopeities (1) ieal estate with impiovements locateu at 28 Pili Avenue, Foibes Paik,
Nakati, Netio Nanila, valueu at P764,86S.uu (Nakati piopeity); (2) a cuiient account in Auuiey's
name with a cash balance of P12,417.97; anu (S) 64,444 shaies of stock in Au Inteiiois, Inc.
woith P64,444.uu.
0n }uly 2u, 1984, Richaiu uieu, leaving a will, wheiein he bequeatheu his entiie estate to
iesponuent, save foi his iights anu inteiests ovei the Au Inteiiois, Inc. shaies, which he left to
Kyle. The will was also aumitteu to piobate by the 0iphan's Couit of Ann Aiunuel, Naiylanu,
0.S.A, anu }ames N. Phillips was likewise appointeu as executoi, who in tuin, uesignateu Atty.
William Quasha oi any membei of the Quasha Aspeiilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law 0ffices, as
ancillaiy auministiatoi.
Richaiu's will was aumitteu to piobate on }uly 1986 in RTC Nakati.
Petitionei fileu foi a pioject foi paitition of Auuiey's estate, of Nakati piopeity to Richaiu anu
to Kyle. The motion wa gianteu, hence , the issuance of title in favoi of the two.
Neanwhile the Ancilliaiy auministiatoi also fileu a pioject of paitition as iegaius Richaiu's shaie
on the Nakati piopeity, 2S to the wife anu SS to the chiluien. This was opposeu by the
iesponuent on giounu that unuei the law of the State of Naiylanu, "@ ?;E@8` C@55;5 69 6L;
?;E@6;; 6L; ;764D; 476;D;56 9R 6L; 6;56@69D 47 6L; CD9C;D6` 5H:V;86 9R 6L; ?;E@8`."

Since
Richaiu left his entiie estate to iesponuent, except foi his iights anu inteiests ovei the Au
Inteiiois, Inc, shaies, then his entiie unuiviueu inteiest in the Nakati piopeity shoulu be given
to iesponuent.
RTC iuleu in favoi of the iesponuent (1988). In 0ct. 199S, Responuent fileu an amenueu
complaint, alleging bieach of fiuuciaiy uuty by the ancilliaiy auministiatoi foi failuie to consiuei
the laws of the State of Naiylanu.
Petitionei fileu his Answei uenying iesponuent's allegations. Petitionei contenueu that he acteu
in goou faith in submitting the pioject of paitition befoie the tiial couit in Special Pioceeuing No.
962S, as he hau no knowleuge of the State of Naiylanu's laws on testate anu intestate succession.
Petitionei allegeu that he believeu that it is to the "best inteiests of the suiviving chiluien that
Philippine law be applieu as they woulu ieceive theii just shaies." Petitionei also allegeu that the
oiueis sought to be annulleu aie alieauy final anu executoiy, anu cannot be set asiue.
ISS0E:
WN the ancilliaiy auministiatoi acteu in goou faith
BELB: No
In the piesent case, iesponuent allegeu extiinsic fiauu as basis foi the annulment of the RTC
0iueis uateu Febiuaiy 12, 1988 anu Apiil 7, 1988. The CA founu meiit in iesponuent's cause anu
founu that petitionei's failuie to follow the teims of Auuiey's will, uespite the lattei's ueclaiation of

4B page 47

goou faith, amounteu to extiinsic fiauu. The CA iuleu that unuei Aiticle 16 of the Civil Coue, it is the
national law of the ueceuent that is applicable, hence, petitionei shoulu have uistiibuteu Aubiey's
estate in accoiuance with the teims of hei will. The CA also founu that petitionei was piompteu to
uistiibute Auuiey's estate in accoiuance with Philippine laws in oiuei to equally benefit Auuiey anu
Richaiu uueisey's auopteu uaughtei, Kyle uueisey Bill.
Petitionei contenus that iesponuent's cause of action hau alieauy piesciibeu because as eaily
as 1984, iesponuent was alieauy well awaie of the teims of Auuiey's will, anu the complaint was
fileu only in 199S. Responuent, on the othei hanu, justifieu hei lack of immeuiate action by saying
that she hau no oppoitunity to question petitionei's acts since she was not a paity to paitition anu it
was only aftei Atty. Ancheta fileu the pioject of paitition, ieuucing hei inheiitance in the estate of
Richaiu that she was piompteu to seek anothei counsel to piotect hei inteiest.
It shoulu be pointeu out that the piesciiptive peiiou foi annulment of juugment baseu on
extiinsic fiauu commences to iun fiom the B4589>;D` 9R 6L; RD@HB 9D RD@HBH?;76 @86a5.
Responuent's knowleuge of the teims of Auuiey's will is immateiial in this case since it is not the
fiauu complaineu of. Rathei, it is petitionei's failuie to intiouuce in eviuence the peitinent law of the
State of Naiylanu that is the fiauuulent act, oi in this case, omission, allegeu to have been committeu
against iesponuent, anu theiefoie, the foui-yeai peiiou shoulu be counteu fiom the time of
iesponuent's uiscoveiy theieof.
Recoius beai the fact that the filing of the pioject of paitition of Richaiu's estate, the
opposition theieto, anu the oiuei of the tiial couit uisallowing the pioject of paitition in Special
Pioceeuing No. N-888 weie all uone in 1991. Responuent cannot be faulteu foi letting the assaileu
oiueis to lapse into finality since it was only thiough Special Pioceeuing No. N-888 that she came to
compiehenu the iamifications of petitionei's acts. 0bviously, iesponuent hau no othei iecouise
unuei the ciicumstances but to file the annulment case. Since the action foi annulment was fileu in
199S, cleaily, the same has not yet piesciibeu.
Petitionei is the ancillaiy auministiatoi of Auuiey's estate. As such, he occupies a position of
the highest tiust anu confiuence, anu he is iequiieu to exeicise ieasonable uiligence anu act in entiie
goou faith in the peifoimance of that tiust. Although he is not a guaiantoi oi insuiei of the safety of
the estate noi is he expecteu to be infallible, yet the same uegiee of piuuence, caie anu juugment
which a peison of a faii aveiage capacity anu ability exeicises in similai tiansactions of his own,
seives as the stanuaiu by which his conuuct is to be juugeu.
)L4?; 5H8L :D;@8L 9R BH6` @BY466;B?` 8@7796 :; 89754B;D;B ;d6D47548 RD@HB H7B;D
9DB47@D` 84D8HY56@78;5I 6L; R4BH84@D` 7@6HD; 9R 6L; 5@4B B;R;7B@76g5 C9546497I @5 <;?? @5 6L;
D;5H?6@76 RDH56D@6497 9R 6L; B;8;B;76g5 ?@56 <4??I 89Y:47; 69 8D;@6; @ 84D8HY56@78; 6L@6 45
6@76@Y9H76 69 ;d6D47548 RD@HB. This is not a simple case of eiioi of juugment oi giave abuse of
uiscietion, but a total uisiegaiu of the law as a iesult of petitionei's abject failuie to uischaige his
fiuuciaiy uuties.
Petitionei is &$#/0%,F"$ to be moie ciicumspect in the peifoimance of his uuties as an
official of the couit.

T3 !H?; [M Q ;(55(*- :(-5%8(&5%*< %&2 #. !28,&,-5*%5,#&= /6(& %&2 :#
/6#8 >--4(2

!Z'" [M '"]]"!, ]",]&#"0]&!^ &0$ /_ &$#%0%,]!&]%/0I )F"0 &0$ ]/ )F/#
%,,Z"$
Section 1. ZC$ 4+" <%#$(;"*"%* *$ )"+6" 4) "@"#7*$+) $+ 4&(<%<)*+4*$+). No peison in competent

4B page 48

to seive as executoi oi auministiatoi who:
(a) Is a minoi;
(b) Is not a iesiuent of the Philippines; anu
(c) Is in the opinion of the couit unfit to execute the uuties of the tiust by ieason of uiunkenness,
impioviuence, oi want of unueistanuing oi integiity, oi by ieason of conviction of an offense
involving moial tuipituue.
Section 2. J@"#7*$+ $: "@"#7*$+ %$* *$ 4&(<%<)*"+ ")*4*". The executoi of an executoi shall not, as
such, auministei the estate of the fiist testatoi.
Section S. `4++<"& G$("% (4? )"+6". A maiiieu woman may seive as executiix oi
auministiatiix, anu the maiiiage of a single woman shall not affect hei authoiity so to seive unuei
a pievious appointment.
Section 4. S"**"+) *")*4("%*4+? <))7"& GC"% G<== 4==$G"&. When a will has been pioveu anu
alloweu, the couit shall issue letteis testamentaiy theieon to the peison nameu as executoi
theiein, if he is competent, accepts the tiust, anu gives bonu as iequiieu by these iules.
Section S. ZC"+" )$(" #$"@"#7*$+) &<)E74=<:<"& $*C"+) (4? 4#*. When all of the executois nameu
in a will can not act because of incompetency, iefusal to accept the tiust, oi failuie to give bonu, on
the pait of one oi moie of them, letteis testamentaiy may issue to such of them as aie competent,
accept anu give bonu, anu they may peifoim the uuties anu uischaige the tiust iequiieu by the
will.
Section 6. ZC"% 4%& *$ GC$( ="**"+) $: 4&(<%<)*+4*<$% 5+4%*"&. If no executoi is nameu in the
will, oi the executoi oi executois aie incompetent, iefuse the tiust, oi fail to give bonu, oi a peison
uies intestate, auministiation shall be gianteu:
(a) To the suiviving husbanu oi wife, as the case may be, oi next of kin, oi both, in the uiscietion of
the couit, oi to such peison as such suiviving husbanu oi wife, oi next of kin, iequests to have
appointeu, if competent anu willing to seive;
(b) If such suiviving husbanu oi wife, as the case may be, oi next of kin, oi the peison selecteu by
them, be incompetent oi unwilling, oi if the husbanu oi wiuow, oi next of kin, neglects foi thiity
(Su) uays aftei the ueath of the peison to apply foi auministiation oi to iequest that
auministiation be gianteu to some othei peison, it may be gianteu to one oi moie of the piincipal
cieuitois, if may be gianteu to one oi moie of the piincipal cieuitois, if competent anu willing to
seive;
(c) If theie is no such cieuitoi competent anu willing to seive, it may be gianteu to such othei
peison as the couit may select.

#@6H6; >3 .&I KU ,.!& [UM +OPUP2

4B page 49

Note: The uecision involves S sepaiate petitions foi ceitioiaii which have inteitwineu issues, but this
is the pait ielateu to Rule 78.

FACTS:
Cailos S. Natute, fileu in the settlement of the Natute estate a petition piaying foi the iemoval of
Natias as co-auministiatoi anu his (Cailos') appointment in such capacity. Cailos allegeu that Natias
neglecteu to ienuei a tiue, just anu complete account of his auministiation, anu that he is
incompetent anu negligent in the auministiation of the estate because of a muiuei case fileu against
him which is occupying most of his time.
Natias fileu a Notion to Bismiss anuoi Bemuiiei to Eviuence with the expiess ieseivation of his
iight to piouuce his own eviuence shoulu the couit ueny his motion, but the piobate couit issueu an
oiuei iemoving Natias as co-auministiatoi anu appointing Petitionei as the new auministiatoi.
Natias now questions the legality of the lowei couit's oiuei.
ISS0E:
Whethei oi not }ose has the iight to co-auministei the entiie estate
BELB: ^",
The settleu iule is that the iemoval of an auministiatoi unuei section 2 of Rule 82 lies within
the uiscietion of the couit appointing him. The sufficiency of any giounu foi iemoval shoulu thus be
ueteimineu by the saiu couit, whose sensibilities aie, in the fiist place, affecteu by any act oi
omission on the pait of the auministiatoi not confoimable to oi in uisiegaiu of the iules oi the
oiueis of the couit.
In the case at bai, we aie constiaineu, howevei to nullify the uisputeu oiuei of iemoval
because it is inuubitable that the piobate juuge ousteu the iesponuent fiom his tiust without
affoiuing him the full benefit of a uay in couit, thus uenying him his caiuinal iight to uue piocess.
Insteau of iesolving the foiegoing motion, the piobate juuge issueu the contioveiteu oiuei
iemoving the iesponuent as co-auministiatoi without giving him the oppoitunity to auuuce his own
eviuence uespite his explicit ieseivation that he be affoiueu the chance to intiouuce eviuence in his
behalf in the event of uenial of his motion to uismiss anuoi uemuiiei to eviuence. Even without the
iesponuent's ieseivation, it was the uuty of the piobate juuge to scheuule the piesentation anu
ieception of the iesponuent's eviuence befoie uisposing of the case on the meiits because only the
movants at that time hau piesenteu theii eviuence.
Even gianting 4+57"%&$ that the iemoval of Natias is fiee fiom infiimity, this Couit is not
piepaieu to sustain the valiuity of the appointment of the petitionei in place of the foimei. To stait
with, the iecoiu uoes not uisclose that any heaiing was conuucteu, much less that notices weie sent
to the othei heiis anu inteiesteu paities. The iequiiement of a heaiing anu the notification to all
known heiis anu othei inteiesteu paities as to the uate theieof is essential to the valiuity of the
pioceeuing foi the appointment of an auministiatoi in oiuei that no peison may be uepiiveu of his
iight oi piopeity without uue piocess of law. Noieovei, a heaiing is necessaiy in oiuei to fully
ueteimine the suitability of the applicant to the tiust, by giving him the oppoitunity to piove his
qualifications anu affoiuing oppositois, if any, to contest the saiu application.
The piovision of Rule 8S that if "theie is no iemaining executoi oi auministiatoi,
auministiation may be gianteu to any suitable peison," cannot be useu to justify the institution of
Petitionei even without a heaiing, because such institution has no factual basis consiueiing that
theie was a geneial auministiatoi who iemaineu in chaige of the affaiis of the Natute estate aftei the
iemoval of Natias. The aboveciteu piovision eviuently envisions a situation when aftei the iemoval
of the incumbent auministiatoi no one is left to auministei the estate, thus empoweiing the piobate
couit, as a mattei of necessity, to name a tempoiaiy auministiatoi (oi caietakei), penuing the

4B page Su

appointment of a new auministiatoi aftei uue heaiing. Such ciicumstance uoes not obtain in the case
at bai.
We holu that the contioveiteu oiuei iemoving Natias as co-auministiatoi anu appointing
}ose as new auministiatoi is a nullity anu must theiefoie be set asiue in its entiiety.
NB: With iegaiu to the juiisuictional issue, the SC helu that "the scope of a co-auministiatoi's tiust
encompasses the entiie estate anu is co-extensive in effect with those of the othei auministiatois;
consequently, the value of the entiie estate shoulu be the piopei basis of the juiisuictional amount
iiiespective of the value of the paiticulai piopeity oi assets of the estate which aie the objects of a
sepaiate auministiation penuing the settlement pioceeuings." Since the value of the entiie estate is
not within the juiisuiction of the CA, then the CA cannot issue the wiits of ceitioiaii anu piohibition
piayeu foi by the Petitionei.

#;B47@ >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I TS ,.!& KNU +OP[S2

FACTS:
}uuge Augusto N. Amoies in an oiuei uateu `4+#C h, 20Y/, wheiein it appioveu anu
confiimeu the ueeu of sale executeu on Nay 8, 1969 by then special auministiatoi Bemetiio
Encainacion of the intestate estate of the ueceuent Agustin Neuina coveiing the sale of its piopeity
known as "Bitukang Nanok" foi P24,uuu.uu to petitionei Rosalia N. uel Caimen, a uaughtei-heii of
the ueceuent. The petitioneis in this case now challenges the lowei couit's oiueis appointing piivate
iesponuent Beua uonzales as special auministiatoi of the intestate estate of the ueceuent Agustin
Neuina, the Couit excluues the saiu special auministiatoi fiom inteifeiing in the possession anu
enjoyment of the haivests of the piopeity known as "Bitukang Nanok" by petitionei Rosalia N. uel
Caimen to whom the saiu piopeity hau been solu, anu full payment theiefoi ieceiveu, by the estate
thiough uonzales' pieuecessoi (Bemetiio Encainacion). The petitioneis aie questioning the
appointment of uonzales as special auministiatoi of the estate. Bence, the couit then in lieu of
uonzales appointeu its cleik of couit, Atty. Pastoi ue Castio, }i. as "special auministiatoi anu to
qualify immeuiately as such.
ISS0ES:
1. W0N uonzales shoulu be uisqualifieu as Special Auministiatoi
2. W0N the Cleik of Couit is a piopei Auministiatoi
BELB:
The establisheu uoctiine that an auministiatoi is ueemeu unsuitable anu shoulu be iemoveu
wheie his peisonal inteiests conflict with his official uuties, by viitue of the equally establisheu
piinciple that an auministiatoi is a quasi tiustee, &<)E74=<:<"& fiom acquiiing piopeities of the estate,
anu who shoulu be inuiffeient between the estate anu claimants of the piopeity except to pieseive it
foi uue auministiation, 4%& who shoulu be iemoveu when his inteiest conflicts with such iight anu
uuly.
Also the Couit uoes not look with favoi on such piactice of cleiks of couit oi othei couit
employees being appointeu as auministiatois of estates of ueceuents penuing settlement befoie the
piobate couit. The objectivity anu impaitiality of such cleiks of couit oi othei employees so
appointeu as auministiatois in uischaiging theii iegulai functions may be easily compiomiseu by
extianeous consiueiations. Fuitheimoie, because of the auministiatoi's fees anu compensation
payable to them, it is not inconceivable that self-inteiest intiuues anu consciously oi unconsciously,
obstacles aie placeu against the piompt settlement anu teimination of the pioceeuings in ueiogation
of the piimoiuial puipose of the law to stiive to have the estate settleu expeuitiously anu piomptly
so that the benefits that may flow theie fiom may be immeuiately enjoyeu by the ueceuent's heiis

4B page S1

anu beneficiaiies. Piobate couits aie theiefoie enjoineu to uesist fiom such piactice of appointing
theii cleiks of couit oi othei couit employees as auministiatois oi ieceiveis of estates oi the like.
0n this consiueiation (the ieplacement of the cleik of couit) anu on the fuithei consiueiation
of the specific anu limiteu poweis of special auministiatois anu that theii appointment meiely
*"(;$+4+? anu subsists only until a iegulai auministiatoi is uuly appointeu, the Couit has iesolveu to
allow the appointment of iesponuent uonzales as special auministiatoi to stanu, insofai as taking
caie of the othei piopeities of the estate aie conceineu, to the exclusion of the Bitukang Nanok
piopeity alieauy solu by the estate to petitionei Rosalia uel Caimen.

X@?H`H6 >3 -@c9 [O ,.!& MU +OP[U2

FACTS:
Issues iegaiuing the estate of Soteio Baluyot aie in uispute.
Bis nephew Alfieuo fileu with the CFI a petition foi letteis of auministiation. Be alleges that the
wiuow of Soteio is mentally incapable of acting as auministiatiix of the estate.
The wiuow Encainacion opposeu.
Alfieuo alleges the existence of a will, although none was yet piesenteu in couit. Encainacion
uenies the existence of a will.
Alfieuo anu }ose Espino (an acknowleugeu natuial chilu of ueceuent) aie appointeu special
auministiatoi.
Encainacion fileu an uigent motion to be ueclaieu auministiatiix.
Alfieuo alleges that a couit of competent juiisuiction ueclaieu Encainacion 'an incompetent' in
pioceeuings foi guaiuianship ovei Encainacion Baluyot.
Buiing the heaiing on Encainacion's motion, no oial oi uocumentaiy eviuence was piesenteu to
piove hei capacity. Encainacion was meiely examineu by the CFI by asking questions.
Encainacion also alleges that Alfieuo has no legal stanuing to in the estate pioceeuings of Soteio,
being a meie nephew anu theiefoie excluueu by the acknowleugeu natuial chilu }ose Espino.
The CFI appointeu Encainacion as auministiatiix, ieasoning that Alfieuo has no inteiest in the
pioceeuings because the Rules of Couit pioviues that the suiviving spouse enjoys piefeience in
the auministiation of the estate.
Alfieuo files foi ceitioiaii.
ISS0E:
Whethei Encainacion is a qualifieu to be an auministiatiix uespite the allegations of
incompetency.
BELB: The CFI eiieu in appointing Encainacion without a heaiing as to hei competency.
}uiispiuuence pioviues that the suitability of the potential auministiatoi iequiies a heaiing
wheie he will piove his qualifications anu affoiuing oppositois a chance to contest. This was not
piesent in this case. Alfieuo was not given a chance to contest Encainacions competency uespite the
issue being squaiely iaiseu. Whethei Soteio uieu intestate oi otheiwise, Encainacion's fitness to act
as executiix oi auministiatiix shoulu be ueteimineu in a heaiing.
A will was inueeu founu; the intestate pioceeuings shoulu be conveiteu to piobate
pioceeuings. Encainacion was uesignateu executiix anu Alfieuo was instituteu as an heii. Alfieuo,
theiefoie, has legal stanuing to file the case.

1@:D4;? >3 .&I KOK ,.!& JOS +OPPK2

4B page S2


FACTS:
9 months aftei Bomingo uabiiel uieu on August 6, 1987, Robeito Binuo uabiiel (RBu) fileu
with the RTC Nanila, a petition foi letteis of auministiation alleging, among otheis, that he is the son
of the ueceuent, a college giauuate, engageu in business, anu is fully capable of auministeiing the
estate of the late Bomingo uabiiel. RBu mentioneu 8 of heiein petitioneis as the othei next of kin anu
heiis of the ueceuent.
The couit theieaftei issueu an oiuei setting the heaiing of the petition on which uate all
peisons inteiesteu may show cause, if any, why the petition shoulu not be gianteu. The couit fuithei
uiiecteu the publication of the oiuei in "Nabuhay," a newspapei of geneial ciiculation, once a week
foi S consecutive weeks. No opposition having been fileu. Theieaftei, the piobate couit issueu an
oiuei appointing RBu as auministiatoi of the intestate estate of the late Bomingo uabiiel.
Subsequently, a notice to cieuitois foi the filing of claims against the estate of the ueceuent was
publisheu in the "Netiopolitan News." As a consequence, Aiua valencia, mothei of RBu, fileu a
"Notion to File Claim of the Intestate Estate of Bomingo P. uabiiel" alleging that the uecision in a civil
case between hei anu the ueceaseu iemaineu unsatisfieu anu that she theieby hau an inteiest in saiu
estate.
0n Becembei 1988, RBu fileu foi appioval by the piobate couit an "Inventoiy anu
Appiaisal". 0n Febiuaiy 1989, petitioneis Nilua, Eva, Boy, ueoige, Rosemaiie, anu Naiibel, all
suinameu uabiiel, fileu theii "0pposition anu Notion" piaying foi the iecall of the letteis of
auministiation issueu to RBu anu the issuance of such letteis insteau to petitionei Nilua uabiiel, as
the legitimate uaughtei of the ueceaseu, oi any of the othei oppositois who aie the heiein
petitioneis.
0n Septembei 1989, the piobate couit issueu an oiuei uenying the opposition of petitioneis
on the giounu that they hau not shown any ciicumstance sufficient to oveituin the oiuei of }uly 8,
1988, in that (1) no eviuence was submitteu by oppositoi Nilua uabiiel to piove that she is a
legitimate uaughtei of the ueceaseu; anu (2) theie is no pioof to show that the peison who was
appointeu auministiatoi is unwoithy, incapacitateu oi unsuitable to peifoim the tiust as to make his
appointment inauvisable unuei these ciicumstances. NR Benieu. Ceitioiaii was fileu, anu likewise
uenieu.
ISS0E:
)a0 6L; @CC9476Y;76 9R !$1 @5 @BY47456D@69D 9R 6L; ;56@6; DH75 8976D@D` 69 6L; 9DB;D
9R CD;R;D;78; 5;6 R9D6L 47 ,;8 U !H?; [M 9R 6L; !/..not ieally. (SC mouifieu its uecision anu
appointeu RBu anu the wiuow of the ueceaseu as co-auministiatois)
BELB:
In the appointment of the auministiatoi of the estate of a ueceaseu peison, the piincipal
consiueiation ieckoneu with is the inteiest in saiu estate of the one to be appointeu as auministiatoi.
This is the same consiueiation which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the oiuei
of piefeience in the appointment of auministiatois foi the estate. The unueilying assumption behinu
this iule is that those who will ieap the benefit of a wise, speeuy anu economical auministiation of
the estate, oi, on the othei hanu, suffei the consequences of waste, impioviuence oi mismanagement,
have the highest inteiest anu most influential motive to auministei the estate coiiectly.
This is likewise the same consiueiation which the law takes into account in establishing the
piefeience of the wiuow to auministei the estate of hei husbanu upon the lattei's ueath, because she
is supposeu to have an inteiest theiein as a paitnei in the conjugal paitneiship. 0nuei the law, the
wiuow woulu have the iight of succession ovei a poition of the exclusive piopeity of the ueceuent,
asiue fiom hei shaie in the conjugal paitneiship. Foi such ieason, she woulu have as much, if not
moie, inteiest in auministeiing the entiie estate coiiectly than any othei next of kin. 0n this giounu

4B page SS

alone, petitionei Felicitas }ose-uabiie (F}B), the wiuow of the ueceaseu Bomingo uabiiel, has eveiy
iight anu is veiy much entitleu to the auministiation of the estate of hei husbanu since one who has
gieatei inteiest in the estate is piefeiieu to anothei who has less.
RBu howevei, aigues that F}B may no longei be appointeu auministiatiix by ieason of hei
failuie to apply foi letteis of auministiation within thiity (Su) uays fiom the ueath of hei husbanu, as
iequiieu unuei the iules.
It is tiue that Section 6(b) of Rule 78 pioviues that the piefeience given to the suiviving spouse oi
next of kin may be uisiegaiueu by the couit wheie saiu peisons neglect to apply foi letteis of
auministiation foi Su uays aftei the ueceuent's ueath. Bowevei, it is oui consiueieu opinion that
such failuie is not sufficient to excluue the wiuow fiom the auministiation of the estate of hei
husbanu. Theie must be a veiy stiong case to justify the exclusion of the wiuow fiom the
auministiation.
In the case at bai, theie is no compelling ieason sufficient to uisqualify Felicitas }ose-uabiiel
fiom appointment as auministiatiix of the ueceuent's estate. Noieovei, just as the oiuei of
piefeience is not absolute anu may be uisiegaiueu foi valiu cause uespite the manuatoiy tenoi in the
opening sentence of Rule 78 foi its obseivance, so may the Su-uay peiiou be likewise waiveu unuei
the peimissive tone in paiagiaph (b) of saiu iule which meiely pioviues that saiu letteis, as an
alteinative, "may be gianteu to one oi moie of the piincipal cieuitois."
0n the othei hanu, we feel that we shoulu not nullify the appointment of piivate iesponuent
as auministiatoi. The ueteimination of a peison's suitability foi the office of juuicial auministiatoi
iests, to a gieat extent, in the sounu juugment of the couit exeicising the powei of appointment anu
saiu juugment is not to be inteifeieu with on appeal unless the saiu couit is cleaily in eiioi.
Auministiatois have such a iight anu coiiesponuing inteiest in the execution of theii tiust as woulu
entitle them to piotection fiom iemoval without just cause. Thus, Section 2 of Rule 82 pioviues the
legal anu specific causes authoiizing the piobate couit to iemove an auministiatoi.
In the instant case, a meie impoitunity by some of the heiis of the ueceaseu, theie being no
factual anu substantial bases theiefoi, is not auequate iatiocination foi the iemoval of RBu. Suffice it
to state that the iemoval of an auministiatoi uoes not lie on the whims, capiices anu uictates of the
heiis oi beneficiaiies of the estate. In auuition, the couit may also exeicise its uiscietion in
appointing an auministiatoi wheie those who aie entitleu to letteis fail to apply theiefoi within a
given time3
0n the equiponueiance of the foiegoing legal positions, we see no ieason why, foi the benefit
of the estate anu those inteiesteu theiein, moie than one auministiatoi may not be appointeu since
that is both legally peimissible anu sanctioneu in piactice.
"Also, co-auministiation heiein will constitute iecognition of both the extent of the inteiest of
the wiuow in the estate anu the cieuitable seivices ienueieu to anu which may fuithei be expecteu
fiom RBu foi the same estate.
0nuei the ciicumstances obtaining heiein, we ueem it just, equitable anu auvisable that theie
be a co-auministiation of the estate of the ueceaseu by petitionei Felicitas }ose-uabiiel anu piivate
iesponuent Robeito Binuo uabiiel. As eailiei stateu, the puipose of having co-auministiatois is to
have the benefit of theii juugment anu peihaps at all times to have uiffeient inteiests iepiesenteu,
especially consiueiing that in this pioceeuing they will iespectively iepiesent the legitimate anu
illegitimate gioups of heiis to the estate. Theieby, it may ieasonably be expecteu that all
inteiesteu peisons will be satisfieu, with the iepiesentatives woiking in haimony unuei the uiiection
anu supeivision of the piobate couit.

,4?>;D49 >3 .&I SNJ ,.!& TJO +OPPP2


4B page S4

(Boctiines: the oiuei of piefeience in the appointment of an auministiatoi uepenus on the attenuant
facts anu ciicumstances; the piobate couit, in the exeicise of its uis-cietion may uisiegaiu the oiuei
of piefeience to the auministiation set foith in the Rules of Couit; the piobate couit is not vesteu
with the powei to oiuei the special au-ministiatoi to sell ieal piopeities of the estate penuing
ueteimination of the valiuity of the iegulai auministiatoi's appointment.)

FACTS:
Beatiiz Silveiio (ueceaseu) uieu intestate suiviveu by:
a.) Ricaiuo Silveiio (husbanu) - also the petitionei
b.) Eumunuo Silveiio (son)
c.) Eugaiuo Silveiio (son) - also the piivate iesponuent
u.) Ricaiuo Silveiio, }i. (son)
e.) Nelia Silveiio (uaughtei)
f.) Ligaya S. uela Neiceu (uaughtei)
Aftei thiee (S) yeais, the p. iesponuent fileu a Petition foi Letteis of Auministiation with the RTC
of Nakati.
Aftei a couple of uays (16), he also fileu an 0igent Petition foi Appointment of Special
Auministiatoi.
The }uuge (also a iesponuent) issueu the 0iuei appointing p. iesponuent as a Special
Auministiatoi.
Petitionei inteiposeu his opposition to the Petition foi Letteis of Auministiation. (take note that
Petitionei 2,2 &#5 inteipose an opposition to the uigent petition foi appointment of special
auministiatoi.)
The Petitionei howevei uiu not appeai on the uate of his ieception of eviuence.
The iesponuent }uuge ueclaieu that the failuie of petitionei to appeai anu auuuce eviuence on
his behalf amounteu to a waivei of his iight to piesent eviuence.
Following this, the iesponuent juuge also appointeu the p. iesponuent as the iegulai
auministiatoi.
The petitionei fileu a petitionei foi ceitioiaii with the Couit of Appeals piaying foi the
annulment of the oiueis appointing p. iesponuent as special anu iegulai auministiatoi.
The Couit of Appeals uismisseu the petition foi lack of meiit.
Bence this petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii.
ISS0ES:
Whethei oi not Section 6, Rule 78 of the ieviseu iules of couit pioviues that the suiviving spouse
takes pieceuence exclusive of anu ovei all othei heiis of the ueceaseu in the appointment of the
auministiatoi.
BELB:
No. The oiuei of piefeience in the appointment of an auministiatoi uepenus on the attenuant
facts anu ciicumstances.
In the case of J)="+ 6)F D4&1-, 46 Phil. 8S4, the couit answeieu in the affiimative the queiy
whethei the piobate couit, in the exeicise of its uiscietion, may uisiegaiu the oiuei of piefeience
to the auministiation set foith in the Rules of Couit. The tiial couit has the uiscietion to issue the
letteis of auministiatoi to any of the peisons mentioneu in saiu section anu unless theie has been
an abuse of uiscietion, such appointment shall not be ievokeu.

&7E;?;5 >3 #@E?@`@I JUP ,.!& SUJ +KNNT2

FACTS:

4B page SS

0n Naich 2S, 1998, iesponuent fileu a petition foi letteis of auministiation anu hei
appointment as auministiatiix of the intestate estate of Fiancisco N. Angeles. Petitionei opposeu the
petition anu piayeu that she be maue the auministiatiix of Fiancisco's estate. Petitionei allegeu
having maiiieu Fiancisco on August 7, 1948, anu that Fiancisco iepiesenteu in theii maiiiage
contiact that he was single at that time. Petitionei also aveiieu that iesponuent coulu not be the
uaughtei of Fiancisco foi, although she was iecoiueu as Fiancisco's legitimate uaughtei, the
coiiesponuing biith ceitificate was not signeu by him. Responuent allegeu, <%*"+ 4=<4, that pei
ceitification of the appiopiiate offices, iecoius of maiiiages of the Civil Registiai wheie the allegeu
19S8 Fiancisco-uenoveva weuuing took place, weie uestioyeu. Responuent piesenteu hei biith
ceitificate anu foui witnesses. Aftei piesentation of eviuence, the petitionei fileu a motion to uismiss
on the giounu of failuie to state a cause of action. RTC gianteu the motion. It was ieveiseu by the CA
anu maue the iesponuent the auministiatix.
ISS0E:
Whethei the iesponuent was a legitimate chilu of the ueceuent. Is she entitleu to be an
auministiatix.
BELB: No.
A paity in whose favoi the legal piesumption exists may iely on anu invoke such legal
piesumption to establish a fact in issue. Be neeu not intiouuce eviuence to piove that fact. Foi, a
piesumption is ;+<(4 :4#<" pioof of the fact piesumeu. Bowevei, it cannot be ovei-emphasizeu, that
while a fact thus ;+<(4 :4#<" establisheu by legal piesumption shall, unless oveithiown, stanu as
pioveu, the piesumption of legitimacy unuei Aiticle 164 of the Family Coue may be availeu only
upon convincing pioof of the factual basis theiefoie, <F"F, that the chilu's paients weie legally maiiieu
anu that hishei conception oi biith occuiieu uuiing the subsistence of that maiiiage. Else, the
piesumption of law that a chilu is legitimate uoes not aiise. To stiess, no maiiiage ceitificate oi
maiiiage contiact, uoubtless the best eviuence of Fiancisco's anu uenoveva's maiiiage, if one hau
been solemnizeu, was offeieu in eviuence. No piiest, juuge, mayoi, oi othei solemnizing authoiity
was calleu to the witness box to ueclaie that he solemnizeu the maiiiage between the two. None of
the foui witnesses iesponuent piesenteu coulu say anything about, let alone affiim, that supposeu
maiiiage. At best, theii testimonies pioveu that iesponuent was Fiancisco's uaughtei.
Iionical as it may seem, iesponuent heiself unueimineu hei veiy own case. As it weie, she
maue ceitain juuicial aumission negating hei own asseition ' as well as the appellate couit's
conclusion - that Fiancisco was legally maiiieu to uenoveva. Responuent ueclaieu that uenoveva
uieu in 1988, then if theie was a legitimate maiiiage between Fiancisco anu uenenova in 19S8, the
1948 weuuing between Fiancisco anu petitionei woulu be voiu anu the petitionei woulu not be
consiueieu an heii of the ueceaseu. Bowevei, it was still ueclaieu by the iesponuent's petition that
the only suiviving heiis of the ueceaseu was the iesponuent heiself as the uaughtei anu the
petitionei as the suiviving spouse of the ueceaseu, thus negating hei own stanu.
_47@??Ì 46 5L9H?B :; 796;B 6L@6 97 6L; Y@66;D 9R @CC9476Y;76 9R @BY47456D@69D 9R 6L;
;56@6; 9R 6L; B;8;@5;BI 6L; 5HD>4>47E 5C9H5; 45 CD;R;DD;B 9>;D 6L; 7;d6 9R b47 9R 6L; B;8;B;763
)L;7 6L; ?@< 5C;@b5 9R h&(?5 #. @,&hI 6L; D;R;D;78; 45 69 6L95; <L9 @D; ;7646?;BI H7B;D 6L;
56@6H6; 9R B456D4:H6497I 69 6L; B;8;B;76h5 CD9C;D6`W 97; <L95; D;?@64975L4C 45 5H8L 6L@6 L; 45
;7646?;B 69 5L@D; 47 6L; ;56@6; @5 B456D4:H6;BI 9DI 47 5L9D6I @7 L;4D3 %7 D;59?>47EI 6L;D;R9D;I 6L;
455H; 9R <L;6L;D @7 @CC?48@76 R9D ?;66;D5 9R @BY47456D@6497 45 @ 7;d6 9R b47 9D @7 L;4D 9R 6L;
B;8;B;76I 6L; CD9:@6; 89HD6 C;DR9D8; L@5 69 B;6;DY47; @7B C@55 HC97 6L; 455H; 9R R4?4@64973 &
5;C@D@6; @86497 <4?? 97?` D;5H?6 47 @ YH?64C?4846` 9R 5H4653 ZC97 6L45 89754B;D@6497I 6L; 6D4@?
89HD6 @86;B <46L47 :9H7B5 <L;7 46 ?99b;B 4769 @7B C@55 HC97 6L; 8?@4Y;B D;?@64975L4C 9R
D;5C97B;76 69 6L; ?@6; _D@784589 &7E;?;5.


4B page S6

$;?E@B9 >3 !H564@I JMN ,.!& SSJ +KNNU2

FACTS:
The ueceaseu }osefa Belgauo was the uaughtei of Felisa Belgauo anu Lucio Campo, both of
whom weie nevei maiiieu. Five othei chiluien weie boin to the couple who aie full-bloou siblings of
}osefa anu natuial chiluien of Felisa. Felisa also hau anothei son with anothei man (Ramon 0soiio)
nameu Luis Belgauo. }osefa Belgauo uieu on Septembei 1972 without a will. She was suiviveu by
uuilleimo Rustia anu some collateial ielatives.
Sometime in 1917, uuilleimo pioposeu maiiiage to }osefa but whethei a maiiiage in fact
took place is uisputeu. Accoiuing to petitioneis, the two eventually liveu togethei as husbanu anu
wife but weie nevei maiiieu. Petitioneis point out that no iecoiu of the contesteu maiiiage existeu
in the civil iegistiy. Noieovei, a baptismal ceitificate naming }osefa Belgauo as one of the sponsois
iefeiieu to hei as an unmaiiieu woman. They nevei hau any chiluien but took into theii home
uuilleimina anu Nanie. They weie nevei legally auopteu but was known in the local uialect as
ampun-ampunan. uuilleimina was allegeu to be the illegitimate chilu of uuilleimo with anothei
woman.
Responuents, on the othei hanu, insist that the absence of a maiiiage ceitificate uiu not mean
that no maiiiage tianspiieu anu that uuilleimina was nevei uuly acknowleugeu as an illegitimate
chilu anu such iight hau piesciibeu upon the ueath of uuilleimo. They maintain that uuilleimo anu
}osefa weie maiiieu on }une S, 1919 anu fiom then on liveu togethei as husbanu anu wife until the
ueath of }osefa. Buiing this peiiou spanning moie than half a centuiy, they weie known among theii
ielatives anu fiienus to have in fact been maiiieu. To suppoit theii pioposition, they piesenteu the
following pieces of eviuence:
1. Ceitificate of Iuentity uateu Becembei 1, 1944 issueu to Nis. uuilleimo }. Rustia; 2.
Philippine Passpoit No. 4767 issueu to }osefa B. Rustia on }une 2S, 1947; S. veteians Application foi
Pension oi Compensation fileu with the veteians Auministiation of the 0niteu States of Ameiica by
Bi. uuilleimo }. Rustia wheiein Bi. uuilleimo }. Rustia himself swoie to his maiiiage to }osefa
Belgauo in Nanila on S }une 1919; 4. Titles to ieal piopeities in the name of uuilleimo Rustia
inuicateu that he was maiiieu to }osefa Belgauo.
Luisa Belgauo vua. ue Banao, the uaughtei of Luis Belgauo, fileu the oiiginal petition foi letteis of
auministiation of the intestate estates of the "spouses }osefa Belgauo anu uuilleimo Rustia" with the
RTC of Nanila. This petition was opposeu by the following: (1) the sisteis of uuilleimo Rustia; (2) the
heiis of uuilleimo Rustia's late biothei, Roman Rustia, Si., anu (S) the ampun-ampunan uuilleimina
Rustia. The opposition was giounueu on the theoiy that Luisa Belgauo vua. ue Banao anu the othei
claimants weie baiieu unuei the law fiom inheiiting fiom theii illegitimate half-bloou ielative }osefa
Belgauo. uuilleima Rustia fileu a motion to inteivene in the pioceeuings, claiming she was the only
suiviving uescenuant in the uiiect line of uuilleimo Rustia. Bespite the objections of the oppositois,
the motion was gianteu.
The RTC iuleu that petitionei anu hei co-claimants aie entitleu to the estate of the late }osefa
Belgauo anu ueclaieu as the only legal heiis of the saiu }osefa Belgauo. Similaily, the inteivenoi
uuilleima Rustia is heieby ueclaieu as the sole anu only suiviving heii of the late Bi. uuilleimo
Rustia, anu thus, entitleu to the entiie estate of the saiu ueceuent, to the exclusion of the oppositois
anu the othei paities heieto. As the estates of both ueceuents have not as yet been settleu, a single
auministiatoi was appointeu in the petitionei Cailota Belgauo vua. ue uela Rosa. LETTERS 0F
ABNINISTRATI0N weie issueu to CARL0TA BELuAB0 vBA. BE BE LA R0SA upon hei filing of the
iequisite bonu in the sum of PSuu,uuu.uu.
0pon appeal in the CA saiu couit ieveiseu the uecision.
ISS0ES:

4B page S7

1. whethei theie was a valiu maiiiage between uuilleimo Rustia anu }osefa Belgauo; 2. who
the legal heiis of the ueceuents uuilleimo Rustia anu }osefa Belgauo aie; S. who shoulu be issueu
letteis of auministiation.
BELB:
^<+)* <))7"L DC" (4++<45" $: f7<=="+($ O7)*<4 4%& I$)":4 V"=54&$
Rule 1S1, Section S of the Rules of Couit pioviues:
Sec. S. Bisputable piesumptions. The following piesumptions aie satisfactoiy if
uncontiauicteu, but may be contiauicteu anu oveicome by othei eviuence:
(aa) That a man anu a woman uepoiting themselves as husbanu anu wife have enteieu into a
lawful contiact of maiiiage;
In this case, seveial ciicumstances give iise to the piesumption that a valiu maiiiage existeu
between uuilleimo Rustia anu }osefa Belgauo. Theii cohabitation of moie than Su yeais cannot be
uoubteu. Theii family anu fiienus knew them to be maiiieu. Theii ieputeu status as husbanu anu
wife was such that even the oiiginal petition foi letteis of auministiation fileu by Luisa Belgauo vua.
ue Banao in 197S iefeiieu to them as "spouses." These aiguments aie veiy peisuasive.
Although a maiiiage contiact is consiueieu a piimaiy eviuence of maiiiage, its absence is not
always pioof that no maiiiage in fact took place. 0nce the piesumption of maiiiage aiises, othei
eviuence may be piesenteu in suppoit theieof. Beie, the ceitificate of iuentity issueu to }osefa
Belgauo as Nis. uuilleimo Rustia, the passpoit issueu to hei as }osefa B. Rustia, the ueclaiation unuei
oath of no less than uuilleimo Rustia that he was maiiieu to }osefa Belgauo anu the titles to the
piopeities in the name of "uuilleimo Rustia maiiieu to }osefa Belgauo," moie than auequately
suppoit the piesumption of maiiiage. These aie public uocuments which aie piima facie eviuence of
the facts stateu theiein. No cleai anu convincing eviuence sufficient to oveicome the piesumption of
the tiuth of the iecitals theiein was piesenteu by petitioneis. This is the usual oiuei of things in
society anu, if the paities aie not what they holu themselves out to be, they woulu be living in
constant violation of the common iules of law anu piopiiety. Sempei piaesumitui pio matiimonio.
Always piesume maiiiage.
!"#$%& K))7"L DC" S4G:7= e"<+) M: I$)":4 V"=54&$
Since Felisa Belgauo anu Ramon 0soiio weie nevei maiiieu. Bence, all the chiluien boin to
Felisa Belgauo out of hei ielations with Ramon 0soiio anu Lucio Campo, namely, Luis anu his half-
bloou siblings Nazaiio, Euilbeita, }ose, }acoba, uoigonio anu the ueceuent }osefa, all suinameu
Belgauo, weie hei natuial chiluien.
The SC iuleu that succession shoulu be alloweu, even when the illegitimate biotheis anu
sisteis aie only of the half-bloou. The ieason impelling the piohibition on iecipiocal successions
between legitimate anu illegitimate families uoes not apply to the case unuei consiueiation. That
piohibition has foi its basis the uiffeience in categoiy between illegitimate anu legitimate ielatives.
Theie is no such uiffeience when all the chiluien aie illegitimate chiluien of the same paient, even if
begotten with uiffeient peisons. They all stanu on the same footing befoie the law, just like legitimate
chiluien of half-bloou ielation. The couit iuleu that the iules iegaiuing succession of legitimate
biotheis anu sisteis shoulu be applicable to them.
The Lawful Beiis 0f uuilleimo Rustia
Inteivenoi uuilleima Rustia is an illegitimate chilu of uuilleimo Rustia. As such, she may be
entitleu to successional iights only upon pioof of an aumission oi iecognition of pateinity. She,
howevei, claimeu the status of an acknowleugeu illegitimate chilu of uuilleimo Rustia only aftei the
ueath of the lattei on Febiuaiy 28, 1974 at which time it was alieauy the new Civil Coue that was in
effect.
0nuei the new law, iecognition may be compulsoiy oi voluntaiy. Recognition is compulsoiy
in any of the following cases:
(2) when the chilu is in continuous possession of status of a chilu of the allegeu fathei (oi

4B page S8

mothei) by the uiiect acts of the lattei oi of his family;
0n the othei hanu, voluntaiy iecognition may be maue in the iecoiu of biith, a will, a
statement befoie a couit of iecoiu oi in any authentic wiiting.
Inteivenoi uuilleima sought iecognition on two giounus: fiist, compulsoiy iecognition
thiough the open anu continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate chilu anu seconu,
voluntaiy iecognition thiough authentic wiiting. Theie was appaiently no uoubt that she possesseu
the status of an illegitimate chilu fiom hei biith until the ueath of hei putative fathei uuilleimo
Rustia. Bowevei, this uiu not constitute acknowleugment but a meie giounu by which she coulu have
compelleu acknowleugment thiough the couits. Fuitheimoie, any juuicial action foi compulsoiy
acknowleugment has a uual limitation: the lifetime of the chilu anu the lifetime of the putative paient.
0n the ueath of eithei, the action foi compulsoiy iecognition can no longei be fileu. Theiefoie the
iight to claim compulsoiy acknowleugment piesciibeu upon the ueath of uuilleimo Rustia.
DC<+& K))7"L J%*<*="("%* D$ S"**"+) M: >&(<%<)*+4*<$%
An auministiatoi is a peison appointeu by the couit to auministei the intestate estate of the
ueceuent. Rule 78, Section 6 of the Rules of Couit piesciibes an oiuei of piefeience in the
appointment of an auministiatoi:
Sec. 6. When anu to whom letteis of auministiation gianteu. - If no executoi is nameu in the
will, oi the executoi oi executois aie incompetent, iefuse the tiust, oi fail to give a bonu, oi a
peison uies intestate, auministiation shall be gianteu:
(a) To the suiviving husbanu oi wife, as the case may be, oi next of kin, oi both, in the
uiscietion of the couit, oi to such peison as such suiviving husbanu oi wife, oi next of kin,
iequests to have appointeu, if competent anu willing to seive;
(b) If such suiviving husbanu oi wife, as the case may be, oi next of kin, oi the peison
selecteu by them, be incompetent oi unwilling, oi if the husbanu oi wiuow oi next of kin,
neglects foi thiity (Su) uays aftei the ueath of the peison to apply foi auministiation oi to
iequest that the auministiation be gianteu to some othei peison, it may be gianteu to one oi
moie of the piincipal cieuitois, if competent anu willing to seive;
(c) If theie is no such cieuitoi competent anu willing to seive, it may be gianteu to such othei
peison as the couit may select.
In the appointment of an auministiatoi, the piincipal consiueiation is the inteiest in the
estate of the one to be appointeu. The oiuei of piefeience uoes not iule out the appointment of co-
auministiatois, specially in cases wheie justice anu equity uemanu that opposing paities oi factions
be iepiesenteu in the management of the estates, a situation which obtains heie.
The SC founu it fit to appoint joint auministiatois, in the peisons of Cailota Belgauo vua. ue
ue la Rosa anu a nominee of the nephews anu nieces of uuilleimo Rustia. They aie the next of kin of
the ueceaseu spouses }osefa Belgauo anu uuilleimo Rustia, iespectively.
WBEREF0RE, the petition is heieby BENIEB. The uecision of the Couit of Appeals is
AFFIRNEB with the following mouifications:
Letteis of auministiation ovei the still unsettleu intestate estates of uuilleimo Rustia anu
}osefa Belgauo shall issue to Cailota Belgauo vua. ue ue la Rosa anu to a nominee fiom among the
heiis of uuilleimo Rustia, as joint auministiatois, upon theii qualification anu filing of the iequisite
bonu in such amount as may be ueteimineu by the tiial couit.

Z` >3 .9HD6 9R &CC;@?5I JMJ ,.!& UPP +KNNU2

FACTS:
Lilia Bofilena was appointeu the special auministiatoi of the estate of the ueceaseu }ose 0y.
Wilson 0y, petitionei-son of the ueceaseu, opposeu this appointment. Be moveu foi the ievocation of

4B page S9

the appointment with the piayei that he be appointeu the auministiatoi of the estate. The couit
ievokeu the appointment of Lilia Bofilena anu issueu lettei of auministiation to the petitionei.
}ohnny 0y, biothei of the ueceaseu, fileu a motion to inteivene. While at fiist he was uenieu
by the couit to uo so, he was latei appointment co-auministiatoi of the estate togethei with the
petitionei.
Petitionei then moveu that piivate iesponuent biing into the estate piopeities belonging to
the ueceaseu, which motion was gianteu by the tiial couit. Not satisfieu with the compliance of
piivate iesponuent, petitionei ieiteiateu his motion foi iemoval of the foimei as co-auministiatoi,
but the same was uenieu. The Couit of Appeals similaily uenieu his petition on the giounu that:
A4;;$<%*("%* $: ;+<64*" +");$%&"%* G4) 97)*<:<"&c *C4* *C" $+&"+ $: ;+":"+"%#" 7%&"+ !"#*<$% h $: O7="
Yi $: *C" O7=") $: 3$7+* &$") %$* +7=" $7* *C" 4;;$<%*("%* $: #$14&(<%<)*+4*$+)c *C4* *C" <%)*<*7*<$% $: 4
#4)" :$+ 4%%7=("%* $: *<*=" 4%& +"#$%6"?4%#" 454<%)* +");$%&"%* &$") %$* 97)*<:? ;+<64*" +");$%&"%*a)
+"($64= 4) #$14&(<%<)*+4*$+FH
ISS0E:
whethei the tiial couit acteu with giave abuse of uiscietion in appointing piivate iesponuent
as co-auministiatoi to the estate of the ueceaseu
BELB:
Theie is no question that petitionei was appointeu as iegulai auministiatoi of the estate of
the ueceaseu }ose K. C. 0y. Bowevei, piivate iesponuent in his motion to inteivene sought to be
appointeu as auministiatoi as he is not only the biothei of the ueceuent but also a cieuitoi who
knows the extent of the lattei's piopeities. Thus, the tiial couit, while ietaining petitionei as
auministiatoi, appointeu piivate iesponuent as co-auministiatoi of the estate.
The main function of a piobate couit is to settle anu liquiuate the estates of ueceaseu peisons
eithei summaiily oi thiough the piocess of auministiation. In the case at bai, the tiial couit gianteu
letteis of auministiation to petitionei anu theieaftei to piivate iesponuent as co-auministiatoi. The
piefeience to whom letteis of auministiation may be gianteu aie stateu in Section 6 of Rule 78.
Bowevei, the oiuei of piefeience in the appointment of an auministiatoi uepenus on the attenuant
facts anu ciicumstances. In !<$#4 6F f4+#<4, this Couit set asiue the oiuei of piefeience, to wit:
It is well settleu that a piobate couit cannot aibitiaiily anu without sufficient ieason
uisiegaiu the piefeiential iights of the suiviving spouse to the auministiation of the estate of
the ueceaseu spouse. XH6I 4R 6L; C;D597 ;7V9`47E 5H8L CD;R;D;764@? D4EL65 45 H75H46@:?;I
6L; 89HD6 Y@` @CC9476 @796L;D C;D5973 The ueteimination of a peison's suitability foi the
office of auministiatoi iests, to a gieat extent, in the sounu juugment of the couit exeicising
the powei of appointment anu such juugment will not be inteifeieu with on appeal unless it
appeais affiimatively that the couit below was in eiioi.
x x x Z75H46@:?;7;55 Y@` 8975456 47 @B>;D5; 476;D;56 9R 59Y; b47B 9D L9564?46` 69 6L95;
4YY;B4@6;?` 476;D;56;B 47 6L; ;56@6;3 x x x.
12
(Emphasis supplieu, citations omitteu)
In the instant case, the oiuei of piefeience was not uisiegaiueu by the tiial couit. Insteau of
iemoving petitionei, it appointeu piivate iesponuent, a cieuitoi, as co-auministiatoi since the estate
was sizeable anu petitionei was having a uifficult time attenuing to it alone. In fact, petitionei uiu not
submit any iepoit iegaiuing the estate unuei his auministiation.
A co-auministiatoi peifoims all the functions anu uuties anu exeicises all the poweis of a
iegulai auministiatoi, only that he is not alone in the auministiation. The piactice of appointing co-
auministiatois in estate pioceeuings is not piohibiteu.

U3 !H?; [P Q 377#-,&A >--4%&'( #. ;(55(*- :(-5%8(&5%*<= 0(5,5,#& %&2 B#&5(-5
.#* ;(55(*- #. !28,&,-5*%5,#&


4B page 6u

!Z'" [P /--/,%01 %,,Z&0." /_ '"]]"! ]",]&#"0]&!Î -"]%]%/0 &0$ ./0]",] _/!
'"]]"!, /_ &$#%0%,]!&]%/0
Section 1. M;;$)<*<$% *$ <))74%#" $: ="**"+) *")*4("%*4+?F !<(7=*4%"$7) ;"*<*<$% :$+ 4&(<%<)*+4*<$%.
Any peison inteiesteu in a will may state in wiiting the giounus why letteis testamentaiy shoulu
not issue to the peisons nameu theiein as executois, oi any of them, anu the couit, aftei heaiing
upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of such giounus. A petition may, at the time, be fileu foi
letteis of auministiation with the will annexeu.
Section 2. 3$%*"%*) $: ;"*<*<$% :$+ ="**"+) $: 4&(<%<)*+4*<$%. A petition foi letteis of auministiation
must be fileu by an inteiesteu peison anu must show, so fai as known to the petitionei:
(a) The juiisuictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, anu iesiuences of the heiis, anu the names anu iesiuences of the cieuitois, of
the ueceuent;
(c) The piobable value anu chaiactei of the piopeity of the estate;
(u) The name of the peison foi whom letteis of auministiation aie piayeu.
But no uefect in the petition shall ienuei voiu the issuance of letteis of auministiation.
Section S. 3$7+* *$ )"* *<(" :$+ C"4+<%5F Q$*<#" *C"+"$:F When a petition foi letteis of
auministiation is fileu in the couit having juiisuiction, such couit shall fix a time anu place foi
heaiing the petition, anu shall cause notice theieof to be given to the known heiis anu cieuitois of
the ueceuent, anu to any othei peisons believeu to have an inteiest in the estate, in the mannei
pioviueu in sections S anu 4 of Rule 76.
Section 4. M;;$)<*<$% *$ ;"*<*<$% :$+ 4&(<%<)*+4*<$%. Any inteiesteu peison may, by filing a
wiitten opposition, contest the petition on the giounu of the incompetency of the peison foi whom
letteis aie piayeu theiein, oi on the giounu of the contestant's own iight to the auministiation,
anu may piay that letteis issue to himself, oi to any competent peison oi peison nameu in the
opposition.
Section S. e"4+<%5 4%& $+&"+ :$+ ="**"+) *$ <))7". At the heaiing of the petition, it must fiist be
shown that notice has been given as heieinabove iequiieu, anu theieaftei the couit shall heai the
pioofs of the paities in suppoit of theii iespective allegations, anu if satisfieu that the ueceuent left
no will, oi that theie is no competent anu willing executoi, it shall oiuei the issuance of letteis of
auministiation to the paity best entitleu theieto.
Section 6. ZC"% ="**"+) $: 4&(<%<)*+4*<$% 5+4%*"& *$ 4%? 4;;=<#4%*. Letteis of auministiation may
be gianteu to any qualifieu applicant, though it appeais that theie aie othei competent peisons
having bettei iight to the auministiation, if such peisons fail to appeai when notifieu anu claim the
issuance of letteis to themselves.


4B page 61

]D4??@7@ >3 .D459569Y9I MP -L4? [ON +OPTO2

FACTS:
Ciisostomo anu otheis appealeu the uenial of theii petition foi ielief of juugment of the
piobate of the will of the ueceaseu. They allegeu that the juugment allowing the piobate of the latei
will was piocuieu by fiauu, that the couit eiieu when it uiun't set a uate foi pioving the piobate of
the August 1948 will anu the failuie to piove was uue to the couit's own fault anu negligence.
BELB:
The petitioneis- appellants having faileu to show that the juugment of the lowei couit of
}anuaiy S, 1948, piobating the will of testatiix of 0ctobei 19, was obtaineu thiough fiauu, the lowei
couit uiu not commit any eiioi in uenying the appellant's petition foi ielief unuei sec. 2, Rule S8 of
the Rules of Couit, anu theiefoie it is not necessaiy foi us to uiscuss anu pass upon the othei
piopositions of the appellant.
Besiues, even assuming without ueciuing, that unuei sec. S of Rule 77, the couit shall set
asiue a uate foi pioving a will even without petition when it is ueliveieu to the, couit having
juiisuiction, as contenueu by the appellants, the lowei couit was iight in not setting a uate foi
pioving the will of August 16, 1948, because this will was expiessly anu absolutely ievokeu by the
will of 0ctobei 19, 1948, executeu by the same executiix oi ueceaseu, which was fileu foi allowance
on Novembei 1, 1948, with the same couit. Accoiuing to the attoineys foi the appellant, the will
uateu August 16, 1948, was sent togethei with a wiiting calleu "Nanifestation" by iegisteieu mail on
0ctobei Su, 1948, fiom Nanila to the Couit of Fiist Instance of Bulacan, by Attoiney Ni. Tomas v.
Baines, anu saiu will must have been ieceiveu by the Cleik of Saiu Couit on oi aftei Novembei 1,
1948, the uate when the subsequent will of 0ctobei 19, was fileu foi piobate. It stanus to ieason that
if two wills aie piesenteu foi allowance but one of them ievokeu will cannot be incluueu in the
piobate of the lattei subsequent will, because it woulu be a waste of time to allow the ievokeu will if
the subsequent ievoking will is alloweu. The ievokeu will may be piobateu anu alloweu only if the
subsequent ievoking will is uisalloweu.

1H64;DD;G >3 *4??;E@5I T ,.!& SOS +OPUK2

FACTS:
Iiene Santos uieu anu was suiviveu by hei husbanu anu two nieces, uaughteis of hei
ueceaseu biothei. Bei husbanu fileu a petition foi the issuance of letteis of auministiation, naming
himself anu the two nieces as the suiviving heiis of the ueceuent. Be was latei nameu by the couit as
auministiatoi. Theieaftei, an unveiifieu manifestation was fileu by Auela uutieiiez, one of the
nieces, in couit, attesting to a ueeu of assignment conveying all hei inteiest in paiticipating in the
pioceeuings to hei sistei. 0n a latei uate howevei, anothei manifestation was fileu by Auela, alleging
that the ueeu of assignment mentioneu in the eailiei fileu manifestation was piocuieu by the
auministiatoi by fiauu anu that she signeu the same by mistake. She allegeu that she was misleu by
the husbanu in signing saiu manifestation in exchange foi money loaneu to hei by hei sistei, anu that
she continuously seeks to paiticipate in the intestate pioceeuings of hei aunt. She then fileu a motion
to tiansfei the special pioceeuings in the same bianch wheie a case foi the nullity of ueeu of
assignment was fileu. This motion was uenieu. Auela then sought that the auministiatoi be oiueieu
to fuinish hei all iecoius of the pioceeuings. The auministiatoi opposeu this on the giounu of the
eailiei fileu manifestation. The couit oiueieu in favoi of the auministiatoi.
BELB:

4B page 62

It cannot be successfully uenieu that Auela Santos uutieiiez is an inuispensable paity to the
pioceeuings in question. Bei inteiest in the estate is not inchoate, it was establisheu at the time of
ueath of Iiene Santos. While it is tiue that she executeu a ueeu of assignment, it is also a fact that she
askeu the same to be annulleu, which action is now penuing. Although Auela hau fileu a manifestation
uiopping heiself fiom the pioceeuings anu piesenting theiewith the supposeu Beeu of Assignment,
the iecoiu, neveitheless fails to show that action theieon hau been taken by the piobate Couit. Eveiy
act intenueu to put an enu to inuivision among co-heiis anu legatees oi uevisees is ueemeu to be a
paitition, although it shoulu puipoit to be a sale, an exchange, a compiomise, oi any othei
tiansaction (Ait. 1u82, NCC). No seiious aigument can be offeieu to ueny the co-heiiship of appellee
in the estate unuei piobate. It appeaiing (if We assume the uue execution of the Beeu of
Assignment), that the tiansaction is in the natuie of extiajuuicial paitition, couit appioval is
impeiative, anu the heiis cannot just uivest the couit of its juiisuiction ovei the estate anu ovei theii
peisons, by the meie act of assignment anu uesistance.
The motion in question is not one of <%*"+6"%*<$%, but solely a plea to enfoice a iight anu that
is to ieceive pleauings anu oiueis ielateu to the case. Eviuently, the use of the woiu "inteivention" in
the manifestation anu pleauings piesenteu by Auela was iesoiteu to foi want of anothei appiopiiate
woiu. In effect, all she wanteu to convey was that she shoulu paiticipate oi continue taking pait in
the case foi being an oiiginal paity theiein. It was hei belief that in filing the manifestation uiopping
heiself fiom the pioceeuings (but which she latei infoimeu the couit to have been secuieu thiu
fiauu), hei stanuing might have been affecteu. Inteivention as contemplateu by the Rules is a
pioceeuing in a suit oi action by which a *C<+& ;"+)$% is peimitteu by the couit to make himself a
paity, eithei joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, oi uniting with uefenuant in
iesisting the claims of plaintiff, oi uemanuing something auveisely to both of them; the act oi
pioceeuing by which a *C<+& ;"+)$% becomes a paity in a suit penuing between otheis; the aumission,
by leave of couit, of a peison %$* 4% $+<5<%4= ;4+*? to penuing legal pioceeuings, which such peison
becomes a paity theieto foi the piotection of some iight oi inteiest allegeu by him to be affecteu by
such pioceeuings. The afoiementioneu ciicumstances uo not fit Auela as she was not a thiiu paity to
the pioceeuings but iathei, an oiiginal paity theiein.

$HD@7 >3 $HD@7I KN ,.!& S[P +OPU[2

FACTS:
" Pio Buian uieu intestate. Bis allegeu heiis aie }osefina Buian (suiviving spouse) anu biotheis
anu sisteis, nephews anu nieces.
" Cipiiano Buian, Pio's biothei, executeu a Beeu of Assignment ienouncing his heieuitaiy iights to
Pio's estate in favoi of }osefina. Be fileu a petition foi intestate pioceeuings to settle Pio Buian's
estate, fuithei asking that he be nameu the auministiatoi. Be also fileu an ex paite motion to be
appointeu special auministiatoi.
" }osefina opposeu, saying Cipiiano is not an "inteiesteu peison" in the estate, in view of the ueeu
of tiansfei anu ienunciation; she askeu to be appointeu auministiatiix. In iesponse, Cipiiano
allegeu that }osefina Buian was not the ueceuent's wife anu that the ueeu of assignment was
piocuieu thiu fiauu. Anothei biothei, Niguel Buian, fileu a petition to be joineu as co-petitionei
of Cipiiano. }osefina moveu to stiike as an impiopei attempt to inteivene in the case.
" CFI: uismisseu the petition of Cipiiano foi his lack of inteiest in the estate, baseu on the ueeu of
tiansfei executeu by Cipiiano. The couit ueclaieu itself without powei to examine in saiu
pioceeuings, collateially, the allegeu fiauu, inauequacy of piice & lesion that woulu ienuei it
iescissiblevoiuable. Niguel's petition was also uismisseu. Cipiiano & Niguel appealeu to the SC.
BELB: SC affiimeu the uismissal oiuei.

4B page 6S

The Rules of Couit pioviues that a petition foi auministiation anu settlement of an estate
must be fileu by an "inteiesteu peison" (See. 2, Rule 79). Allowing that the assignment must be
ueemeu a paitition as between the assignoi anu assignee, the same uoes not neeu couit appioval to
be effective as between the paities. An extiajuuicial paitition is valiu as between the paiticipants
even if the iequisites of Sec. 1, Rule 74 foi extiajuuicial paitition aie not followeu, since saiu
iequisites aie foi puiposes of binuing cieuitois anu non-paiticipating heiis only. Shoulu it be
contenueu that saiu paitition was attenueu with fiauu, lesion oi inauequacy of piice, the iemeuy is to
iescinu oi to annul the same in an action foi that puipose. Anu in the meanwhile, assigning heii
cannot initiate a settlement pioceeuings, foi until the ueeu of assignment is annulleu oi iescinueu, it
is ueemeu valiu anu effective against him, so that he is left without that "inteiest" in the estate
iequiieu to petite foi settlement pioceeuings. Also, since theie was ieally no settlement pioceeuings
in the fiist place, the petition to inteivene must be uenieu.
V<::"+"%#" G<*C !4%*$) &$#*+<%"L Santos case helu that the assigning heii iemains an inteiesteu
peison. That case involveu an assignment between co-heiis penuente lite, uuiing the couise of
settlement pioceeuings. uiven that the settlement couit hau alieauy acquiieu juiisuiction ovei the
piopeities of estate, any assignment iegaiuing the same hau to be appioveu by saiu couit. Anu since
the appioval the couit is not ueemeu final until the estate is closeu the assigning heii iemains an
inteiesteu peison in pioceeuings even aftei saiu appioval, which can be vacateu is given. In the
instant case, the assignment took place when no settlement pioceeuings was penuing. The piopeities
subject mattei of the assignment weie not unuei the juiisuiction of a settlement couit.

[3 !H?; MN Q C7(',%" !28,&,-5*%5#*
!"" also Section 8, Rule 86

!Z'" MN ,-".%&' &$#%0%,]!&]/!
Section 1. >;;$<%*("%* $: );"#<4= 4&(<%<)*+4*$+. When theie is uelay in gianting letteis
testamentaiy oi of auministiation by any cause incluuing an appeal fiom the allowance oi
uisallowance of a will, the couit may appoint a special auministiatoi to take possession anu chaige
of the estate of the ueceaseu until the questions causing the uelay aie ueciueu anu executois oi
auministiatois appointeu.
Section 2. P$G"+) 4%& &7*<") $: );"#<4= 4&(<%)<*+4*$+. Such special auministiatoi shall take
possession anu chaige of the goous, chattels, iights, cieuits, anu estate of the ueceaseu anu
pieseive the same foi the executois oi auministiatoi afteiwaius appointeu, anu foi that puipose
may commence anu maintain suits as auministiatoi. Be may sell only such peiishable anu othei
piopeity as the couit oiueis solu. A special auministiatoi shall not be liable to pay any uebts of the
ueceaseu unless so oiueieu by the couit.
Section S. ZC"% ;$G"+) $: );"#<4= 4&(<%<)*+4*$+ #"4)". D+4%):"+ $: "::"#*). P"%&<%5 )7<*). When
letteis testamentaiy oi of auministiation aie gianteu on the estate of the ueceaseu, the poweis of
the special auministiatoi shall cease, anu he shall foithwith uelivei to the executoi oi
auministiatoi the goous, chattels, money, anu estate of the ueceaseu in his hanus. The executoi oi
auministiatoi may piosecute to final juugment suits commenceu by such special auministiatoi.

!Z'" MU .'&%#, &1&%0,] ]F" ",]&]"

Section 8. 3=4<( $: "@"#7*$+ $+ 4&(<%<)*+4*$+ 454<%)* 4% ")*4*". If the executoi oi auministiatoi

4B page 64

has a claim against the estate he iepiesents, he shall give notice theieof, in wiiting, to the couit,
anu the couit shall appoint a special auministiatoi, who shall, in the aujustment of such claim, have
the same powei anu be subject to the same liability as the geneial auministiatoi oi executoi in the
settlement of othei claims. The couit may oiuei the executoi oi auministiatoi to pay to the special
auministiatoi necessaiy funus to uefenu such claim.

$; 1HGY@7 >3 1H@B4GI PU ,.!& PSM +OPMN2

FACTS:
Be uuzman fileu a petition foi the piobate of a will. villegas fileu a motion to uismiss anuoi
opposition contenuing that the piopeities aie now owneu by them. The iesponuent juuge uuauiz,
iesolveu to uefei iesolution on the saiu motion to uismiss until the paities shall have piesenteu theii
eviuence;
A motion foi the appointment of a special auministiatoi was fileu by Be uuzman alleging that
the uniesolveu motion to uismiss woulu necessaiily uelay the piobate of the will anu the
appointment of an executoi; that the ueceuent's estate consists of 8u hectaies of agiicultuial iice
lanu with PSu,uuu.uu woith of iice haivesteu twice a yeai; that somebouy iepiesenting the estate
shoulu collect anu ieceive the palay haivests penuing the piobate of the will;
Bon. uuauiz uenieu the motion foi appointment of a special auministiatoi on the giounu that
appointment of a special auministiatoi is pieuicateu on the necessity of enabling somebouy to take
caie of the piopeities wheie theie is a consiueiable uelay in the appointment of a iegulai
auministiatoi. In the piesent case, since the piopeities coveieu by the will aie in the possession of
the villegas who claim to be the owneis theieof, the Couit sees no necessity of appointing a special
auministiatoi.
Be uuzman fileu a motion foi ceitioiaii on the giounu that Bon. uuauiz acteu with giave
abuse of uiscietion amounting to lack oi excess of juiisuiction in uenying Be uuzman's motion foi the
appointment of a special auministiatoi
ISS0E:
Whethei the facts waiiant the appointment of a special auministiatoi of the estate penuing
iesolution of motion to uismiss anuoi opposition.
BELB:
Yes, a special auministiatoi shoulu be appointeu. Rule 8u, Sec. 1, of the Reviseu Rules of Couit
pioviues - When theie is uelay in gianting letteis testamentaiy oi of auministiation by any cause
incluuing an appeal fiom the allowance oi uisallowance of a will, the couit may appoint a special
auministiatoi to take possession anu chaige of the estate of the ueceaseu until the questions causing
the uelay aie ueciueu anu executois oi auministiatois appointeu.
The basis foi appointing a special auministiatoi is bioau enough to incluue any cause oi
ieason foi the uelay in gianting letteis testamentaiy oi of auministiation as wheie a contest as to the
will is being caiiieu on in the same oi in anothei couit, oi wheie theie is an appeal penuing as to the
pioceeuing on the iemoval of an executoi oi auministiatoi, oi in cases wheie the paities cannot
agiee among themselves. Likewise, when fiom any cause geneial auministiation cannot be
immeuiately gianteu, a special auministiatoi may be appointeu to collect anu pieseive the piopeity
of the ueceaseu.
The ieason foi appointing a special auministiatoi iests in the fact that estates of ueceuents
fiequently become involveu in piotiacteu litigation, theieby being exposeu to gieat waste anu losses
if theie is no authoiizeu agent to collect the uebts anu pieseive the assets in the inteiim. Piincipal

4B page 6S

object of appointment of special auministiatoi is to pieseive estate until it can pass into hanus of
peison fully authoiizeu to auministei it foi benefit of cieuitois anu heiis.
It appeais that these 8u hectaies piouuce PSu,uuu.uu woith of palay each haivest twice a
yeai. 0bviously theie is an immeuiate neeu foi a special auministiatoi to piotect the inteiests of the
estate as iegaius the piouucts.
The iesponuent juuge opineu that theie is no neeu foi the appointment of a special auministiatoi in
this case because the iesponuents aie alieauy in possession of the piopeities coveieu by the will.
The iesponuent juuge has faileu to uistinguish between the paitisan possession of litigants fiom that
of the neutial possession of the special auministiatoi unuei the Rules of Couit. When appointeu, a
special auministiatoi is iegaiueu, not as a iepiesentative of the agent of the paities suggesting the
appointment, but as the auministiatoi in chaige of the estate, anu in fact, as an officei of the couit.

F;4D5 9R .@564??9 >3 '@8H@6@Q1@:D4;?I J[J ,.!& [J[ +KNNT2

FACTS:
0ne Ciisanta uabiiel uieu leaving a sizable estate
A little ovei a month aftei Ciisanta's ueath, hei mothei, Ciisanta Santiago vua. ue Yanga,
commenceu an intestate pioceeuing alleging, among otheis, that to hei knowleuge, hei uaughtei
uieu intestate leaving an estate with an estimateu net value of P1,Suu,uuu.uu anu that such estate
was being manageu by hei wastiel anu incompetent son-in-law, Loienzo, anu by two othei
equally incompetent peisons.
She piayeu that letteis of auministiation be issueu to hei son, Naiiano Yanga, }i., also the biothei
of the ueceaseu, anu that she be awaiueu hei shaie of the estate of hei uaughtei aftei uue
heaiing
;
Bowevei, the RTC appointeu Loienzo as auministiatoi
Neantime, the maiiiage between Ciisanta Yanga-uabiiel anu Loienzo Almoiauie was ueclaieu
voiu foi being bigamous; The RTC then iemoveu Loienzo as auministiatoi anu appointeu
Naiiano, }i. in his steau
0n Novembei S, 1989, Robeito Y. uabiiel, the legally auopteu son of Ciisanta Y. uabiiel, fileu
befoie the RTC of Nalabon City a petition foi piobate of an allegeu will anu foi the issuance of
letteis testamentaiy in his favoi, alleging that he uiscoveieu his mothei's will on 0ctobei 2S,
1989 in which he was instituteu as the sole heii of the testatiix, anu uesignateu as alteinate
executoi foi the nameu executoi theiein, Fiancisco S. Yanga, a biothei of Ciisanta, who hau
pieueceaseu the lattei sometime in 198S oi 1986
0n }une 2, 199u, Belinua Castillo uieu; the heiis of Belinua fileu a Notion piaying that they be
substituteu as paity-litigants in lieu of theii late mothei Belinua, who uieu in 199u.
The two (2) special pioceeuings weie consoliuateu; 0n Nay 1S, 1991, the RTC issueu an 0iuei
uismissing the intestate pioceeuings
0n }uly 8, 1991, the piobate couit appointeu Robeito Y. uabiiel as special auministiatoi of his
mothei's estate
0n Apiil 16, 2uu1, Robeito uabiiel uieu. Bis wiuow, Boloies L. uabiiel, fileu a 'Nanifestation anu
Notion wheie she infoimeu the piobate couit of hei husbanu's ueath anu piayeu that she be
aumitteu as substitute in place of hei late husbanu, anu be appointeu as auministiatiix of the
estate of Ciisanta uabiiel as well. She allegeu that she hau a bacheloi's uegiee in law anu hau
woikeu foi seveial yeais in a law office.
the heiis of Belinua opposeu Boloies' manifestation anu motion, aveiiing that Boloies was not
Ciisanta uabiiel's next of kin, let alone the lawful wife of the late Robeito, which Boloies iefuteu
In a Resolution uateu Becembei S, 2uu1, the lowei couit appointeu Boloies as special
auministiatiix upon a bonu of P2uu,uuu.uu. The piobate couit meiely noteu the motion foi

4B page 66

substitution fileu by the heiis of Belinua, stating that they weie 'meie stiangeis to the case anu
that theii cause coulu bettei be ventilateu in a sepaiate pioceeuing
ISS0E:
WN it was piopei foi the Couit to appoint Boloies as the special auiministiatoi of Ciisanta's
estate
BELB: Yes
RATI0:
The petitioneis aigue that since the iesponuent uoes not have any iight to inheiit fiom theii
gianumothei, eithei by hei own iight oi by the iight of iepiesentation, she is not qualifieu to be
appointeu as auministiatiix of the estate; in contiast, they aie Ciisanta uabiiel's only compulsoiy
heiis.
They insist that the iesponuent's late husbanu, Robeito, was just a nephew of the ueceuent anu
not a legally auopteu son as he claimeu to be.
Even assuming this claim was tiue, the fact that the iesponuent is not natuially ielateu to the
ueceuent by bloou in the uiiect uescenuing line makes it unfaii to appoint hei as the special
auministiatiix.
Citing juiispiuuence, the petitioneis explain that the piincipal consiueiation in the appointment
of auministiatoi of a ueceaseu peison's estate is the applicant's inteiest theiein.
This is the same consiueiation which Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Couit takes into account in
establishing the oiuei of piefeience in the appointment of such auministiatois.
The unueilying assumption behinu this iule, the petitioneis insist, is that those who will ieap the
benefit of a wise, speeuy, economical auministiation of the estate, oi suffei the consequences of
waste, impioviuence oi mismanagement, have the highest inteiest anu most influential motive to
auministei the estate coiiectly.
In iuling against the petitioneis anu uismissing theii petition, the CA iatiocinateu as follows: The
appointment of a special auministiatoi lies entiiely in the uiscietion of the couit. The oiuei of
piefeience in the appointment of a iegulai auministiatoi unuei Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of
Couit uoes not apply to the selection of a special auministiatoi. In the issuance of such
appointment, which is but tempoiaiy anu subsists only until a iegulai auministiatoi is
appointeu, the couit ueteimines who is entitleu to the auministiation of the estate of the
ueceuent. 0n this point, We holu that the piefeience of piivate iesponuent Boloies uabiiel is
with sufficient ieason.
The facts of this case show that Robeito uabiiel ' the legally auopteu son of Ciisanta
Yanga uabiiel ' suiviveu Ciisanta's ueath. When Ciisanta uieu on }anuaiy 2S, 1989, hei
estate passeu on to hei suiviving auopteu son Robeito. When Robeito himself latei uieu
on Apiil 16, 2uu1, puisuant to the law on succession, his own estate which he inheiiteu
fiom Ciisanta passeu on to his suiviving wiuow, piivate iesponuent.
While it is tiue, as petitioneis submit, that piivate iesponuent is neithei a compulsoiy
noi a legal heii of Ciisanta Yanga-uabiiel anu is consiueieu a thiiu peison to the estate of
Ciisanta, nonetheless, piivate iesponuent is unueniably entitleu to the auministiation of
the saiu estate because she is an heii of hei husbanu Robeito, whose estate is the foimei
estate of his auopting mothei Ciisanta.
The iuling of the CA is coiiect. The Couit has iepeateuly helu that the appointment of a special
auministiatoi lies in the sounu uiscietion of the piobate couit.
A special auministiatoi is a iepiesentative of a ueceuent appointeu by the piobate couit to caie
foi anu pieseive his estate until an executoi oi geneial auministiatoi is appointeu.
When appointeu, a special auministiatoi is iegaiueu not as a iepiesentative of the agent of the
paities suggesting the appointment, but as the auministiatoi in chaige of the estate, anu, in fact,
as an officei of the couit.

4B page 67

As such officei, he is subject to the supeivision anu contiol of the piobate couit anu is expecteu
to woik foi the best inteiests of the entiie estate, especially its smooth auministiation anu
eailiest settlement.

The piincipal object of appointment of tempoiaiy auministiatoi is to pieseive the estate until it
can pass into hanus of peison fully authoiizeu to auministei it foi the benefit of cieuitois anu
heiis.

In many instances, the appointment of auministiatois foi the estates of ueceuents fiequently
become involveu in piotiacteu litigations, theieby exposing such estates to gieat waste anu
losses unless an authoiizeu agent to collect the uebts anu pieseive the assets in the inteiim is
appointeu.
The occasion foi such an appointment, likewise, aiises wheie, foi some cause, such as a penuency
of a suit conceining the pioof of the will, iegulai auministiation is uelayeu.
The new Rules have bioaueneu the basis foi the appointment of an auministiatoi, anu such
appointment is alloweu when theie is uelay in gianting letteis testamentaiy oi auministiation by
any cause, "F5F, paities cannot agiee among themselves. Neveitheless, the uiscietion to appoint a
special auministiatoi oi not lies in the piobate couit
0nuei the above iule (Rule 8u Sec.1), the piobate couit may appoint a special
auministiatoi shoulu theie be a uelay in gianting letteis testamentaiy oi of
auministiation occasioneu by any cause incluuing an appeal fiom the allowance oi
uisallowance of a will. Subject to this qualification, the appointment of a special
auministiatoi lies in the uiscietion of the Couit. This uiscietion, howevei, must be sounu,
that is, not whimsical, oi contiaiy to ieason, justice, equity oi legal piinciple.
The basis foi appointing a special auministiatoi unuei the Rules is bioau enough to
incluue any cause oi ieason foi the uelay in gianting letteis testamentaiy oi of
auministiation as wheie a contest as to the will is being caiiieu on in the same oi in
anothei couit, oi wheie theie is an appeal penuing as to the pioceeuing on the iemoval of
an executoi oi auministiatoi, oi in cases wheie the paities cannot agiee among
themselves. Likewise, when fiom any cause geneial auministiation cannot be
immeuiately gianteu, a special auministiatoi may be appointeu to collect anu pieseive
the piopeity of the ueceaseu.
It is obvious that the phiase 'by any cause incluues those inciuents which tianspiieu in
the instant case cleaily showing that theie is a uelay in the piobate of the will anu that the
gianting of letteis testamentaiy will consequently be piolongeu necessitating the
immeuiate appointment of a special auministiatoi.
As enunciateu above, the piobate couit has ample juiisuiction to appoint iesponuent as special
auministiatiix.
The ueceaseu Ciisanta Yanga-uabiiel left a uocument puipoiting to be hei will wheie hei
auopteu son, Robeito, was nameu as the sole heii of all hei piopeities.
Bowevei, penuing piobate of the will, Robeito uieu leaving his wiuow, the iesponuent heiein, as
his sole heii.
Thus, the iesponuent has much stake in Ciisanta's estate in case the lattei's will is alloweu
piobate.
It neeus to be emphasizeu that in the appointment of a special auministiatoi (which is but
tempoiaiy anu subsists only until a iegulai auministiatoi is appointeu), the piobate couit uoes
not ueteimine the shaies in the ueceuent's estate, but meiely appoints who is entitleu to
auministei the estate.
The issue of heiiship is one to be ueteimineu in the ueciee of uistiibution, anu the finuings of the
couit on the ielationship of the paities in the auministiation as to be the basis of uistiibution.

4B page 68

Thus, the piefeience of iesponuent is sounu, that is, not whimsical, oi contiaiy to ieason, justice,
equity oi legal piinciple.
The petitioneis' stienuous invocation of Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Couit is misplaceu. DC"
+7=" +":"+) *$ *C" 4;;$<%*("%* $: +"57=4+ 4&(<%<)*+4*$+) $: ")*4*")c !"#*<$% 2, O7=" i/, $% *C" $*C"+
C4%&, 4;;=<") *$ *C" 4;;$<%*("%* $: 4 );"#<4= 4&(<%<)*+4*$+. It has long been settleu that the
appointment of special auministiatois is not goveineu by the iules iegaiuing the appointment of
iegulai auministiatois.

M3 !H?; MO Q D#&2- #. 9?('45#* %&2 !28,&,-5*%5#*-

!Z'" MO X/0$, /_ "i".Z]/! &0$ &$#%0%,]!&]/!,
Section 1. R$%& *$ 8" 5<6"% <))74%#" $: ="**"+). >($7%*. 3$%&<*<$%). Befoie an executoi oi
auministiatoi enteis upon the execution of his tiust, anu letteis testamentaiy oi auministiation
issue, he shall give a bonu, in such sum as the couit uiiects, conuitioneu as follows:
(a) To make anu ietuin to the couit, within thiee (S) months, a tiue anu complete inventoiy of all
goous, chattels, iights, cieuits, anu estate of the ueceaseu which shall come to his possession oi
knowleuge oi to the possession of any othei peison foi him;
(b) To auministei accoiuing to these iules, anu, if an executoi, accoiuing to the will of the testatoi,
all goous, chattels, iights, cieuits, anu estate which shall at any time come to his possession oi to
the possession of any othei peison foi him, anu fiom the pioceeus to pay anu uischaige all uebts,
legacies, anu chaiges on the same, oi such uiviuenus theieon as shall be uecieeu by the couit;
(c) To ienuei a tiue anu just account of his auministiation to the couit within one (1) yeais, anu at
any othei time when iequiieu by the couit;
(u) To peifoim all oiueis of the couit by him to be peifoimeu.
Section 2. R$%& $: "@"#7*$+ GC"+" &<+"#*"& <% G<==. ZC"% :7+*C"+ 8$%& +"E7<+"&. If the testatoi in
his will uiiects that the executois seive without bonu, oi with only his inuiviuual bonu, he may be
alloweu by the couit to give bonu in such sum anu with such suiety as the couit appioves
conuitioneu only to pay the uebts of the testatoi; but the couit may iequiie of the executoi a
fuithei bonu in case of a change in his ciicumstance, oi foi othei sufficient case, with the
conuitions nameu in the last pieceuing section.
Section S. R$%&) $: 9$<%* "@"#7*$+) 4%& 4&(<%<)*+4*$+). When two oi moie peisons aie appointeu
executois oi auministiatois the couit may take a sepaiate bonu fiom each, oi a joint bonu fiom all.
Section 4. R$%& $: );"#<4= 4&(<%<)*+4*$+. A special auministiatoi befoie enteiing upon the uuties
of his tiust shall give a bonu, in such sum as the couit uiiects, conuitioneu that he will make anu
ietuin a tiue inventoiy of the goous, chattels, iights, cieuits, anu estate of the ueceaseu which
come to his possession oi knowleuge, anu that he will tiuly account foi such as aie ieceiveu by him
when iequiieu by the couit, anu will uelivei the same to the peison appointeu executoi oi
auministiatoi, oi to such othei peison as may be authoiizeu to ieceive them.


4B page 69

#;7B9G@ >3 -@8L;89I UJ -L4?3 OSJ +OPS[2

FACTS:
Nanuel S0RIAN0 was foimei auministiatoi of the estate of Baluomeio Cosme.
Be fileu a bonu foi PS,uuu, with }anuaiio PACBEC0 anu Raymunuo C0RBER0 as suieties.
S0RIAN0'S account, upon appioval, showeu him inuebteu to the estate in the sum of P2S,6uS.21.
0nable to tuin saiu amount ovei to the estate upon uemanu of the new auministiatix R0SARI0
Cosme, the CFI oiueieu the execution of S0RIAN0's bonu aftei notice was seiveu upon the
suieties.
Sometime latei, the CFI appioveu a settlement hau between R0SARI0 anu S0RIAN0, wheieby
S0RIAN0 ceueu ceitain ieal piopeities to the estate, theieby ieuucing his inuebteuness to the
estate fiom P2S,6uS.21 to PS,uuu.
Subsequently, R0SARI0 hau the public sale theieof to collect this amount of PS,uuu.
Sepaiate motions to be uischaigeu fiom the bonu weie fileu by PACBEC0 anu C0RBER0.
Both motions weie uenieu, as well as an NR theiefoi.
This uismissal was appealeu to the Supieme Couit, but the SC uismisseu (accoiuing to the SC, the
oiuei foi executing the bonu was maue in 19S2 anu the motion foi uischaige was fileu in 19SS:
LATE!)
0pon iesumption of the case in the lowei couit, PACBECB0 anu C0RBER0 fileu a motion
challenging, foi the fiist time, the juiisuiction of the tiial couit to issue the oiuei foi executing the
bonu.
CFI uenieu. Thus, the instant case.
ISS0E:
Whethei the tiial couit hau juiisuiction to oiuei the execution of S0RIAN0's bonu, given that
the tiial couit was only sitting as piobate couit.
R0LINu: Yes, the CFI has juiisuiction.
%6 45 6DH; 6L@6 6L; ?@< B9;5 796 5@` ;dCD;55?` 9D 47 59 Y@7` <9DB5 6L@6 5H8L 89HD6 L@5
C9<;D 69 ;d;8H6; 6L; :97B 9R @7 @BY47456D@69DI :H6 :` 7;8;55@D` @7B ?9E48@? 4YC?48@6497I 6L;
C9<;D 45 6L;D; @5 ;?9jH;76?` @5 4R 46 <;D; CLD@5;B 47 H7;jH4>98@? 6;DY3
It is thus cleai that a CFI, exeicising piobate juiisuiction, is empoweieu to iequiie the filing of
the auministiatoi's bonu, to fix the amount theieof, anu to holu it accountable foi any bieach of the
auministiatoi's uuty. Possesseu, as it is, with an all-embiacing powei ovei the auministiatoi's bonu
anu ovei auministiation pioceeuings, a CFI in a piobate pioceeuing cannot be uevoiu of legal
authoiity to execute anu make that bonu answeiable foi the veiy puipose foi which it was fileu.
It shoulu be obseiveu that section 68S of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie pioviues that "0pon the
settlement of the account of an executoi oi auministiatoi, tiustee, oi guaiuians, a peison liable as
suiety in iespect to such amount may, upon application, be aumitteu as a paity to such accounting,
anu may have the iight to appeal as heieinaftei pioviueu." Theie is heie affoiueu to a peison who
may be helu liable as suiety in iespect to an auministiatoi's account the iight, upon application, to be
aumitteu as a paity to theii accounting, fiom which we may not unieasonably infei that a suiety, like
the appellants in the case befoie us, may be chaigeu with liability upon the bonu uuiing the piocess
of accounting, that is, within the iecognizeu confines of piobate pioceeuings, anu not in an action
apait anu uistinct fiom such pioceeuings.
We take the view that the execution of an auministiatoi's bonu cleaily stanus upon a
uiffeient footing anu is as necessaiy a pait anu inciuent of the auministiation pioceeuing as the filing
of such bonu oi the fixing of its amount. Paiticulaily is this tiue in the piesent case wheie Soiiano's
inuebteuness to the sate in the amount of P2S,6uS.21, subsequently ieuuceu to PS,uuu, is conceueu

4B page 7u

on all siues, anu all that the tiial couit hau to uo was to see that saiu amount was tuineu ovei to the
estate.
I7)*<#" [<==4+"4=a) V<))"%*
Chaptei XXXI of the Coue of Civil Pioceuuie, which is heaueu "Wills anu the allowance
theieof, anu uuties of executois", contains no piovision conceining the enfoicement of the liability of
an executoi oi auministiatoi on his bonu anu of that of his suieties. Accoiuing to Ait. 18SS of the
Civil Coue, "the guaiantoi may set up against the cieuitoi all the uefenses available to the piincipal
uebtoi anu which may be inheient in the uebt; . . . ." In an auministiation bonu the executoi oi
auministiatoi stanus in the place of the piincipal uebtoi; his suieties may, theiefoie, set up all the
uefenses to which he may be entitleu, anu which aie inheient in the obligation. The pioceuuie by
which such uefenses may be set up is the oiuinaiy one establisheu by the saiu Coue of Civil
Pioceuuie by means of an action in couit wheiein may contain geneial oi special uenial, a special
uefense oi a counteiclaim. The saiu Coue has not establisheu any special pioceuuie by which an
executoi oi auministiatoi with a meie notice to his suieties uoes not affoiu them an auequate
oppoitunity to set up the uefenses which the law guaiantees to them. To enfoice the liability of an
auministiatois anu iequiie them to file an auequate bonu is not only 7=*+4 6<+") but a violation of
the constitutional inhibition that no peison shall be uepiiveu of his life, libeity anu piopeity without
uue piocess of law. "The usual methou of enfoicing the liability on an auministiation bonu is by an
action biought on the bonu in a couit of law, although in some juiisuictions othei foims of iemeuy
aie pioviueu by statute, . . . ."
The only pioceuuie by which the liability of an executoi oi auministiatoi anu his suieties be
enfoiceu on theii bonu is, theiefoie, by an oiuinaiy action in couit.
The failuie of the suieties to appeal fiom the oiuei of summaiy execution issueu by the couit
below on theii bonu aftei a meie seivice of notice uiu not legalize saiu summaiy pioceuuie anu the
oiuei of summaiy execution issueu by the lowei couit, which weie otheiwise illegal anu 7=*+4 6<+").
The oiuei appealeu fiom oiueiing the summaiy execution of the bonu fileu by the suieties-
appellants, togethei with the foimei auministiatoi Ramon Soiiano, was issueu not only in excess of
juiisuiction but without it, because it was not authoiizeu by law.

Special Proceeding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Special Proceeding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceeding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATENE0 BE NANILA 0NIvERSITY

You might also like