Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spec Pro Compilation of Case Digest
Spec Pro Compilation of Case Digest
submission that the respondent court should have proceeded with the
case.
FACTS: Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido
RULING: NO.
Upon learning that Golden Bay sold portions of the parcels of land in
But
the
respondent
Complaint.Petitioners
moved
for
court
dismissed
reconsideration
the
of
plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel
Amended
the
Order
the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned
Yaptinchays - that they have been declared the legal heirs of the
which
they
promptly
did.
The
private
deceased couple. Now, the determination of who are the legal heirs of
respondents
must take precedence over the action for reconveyance. The trial court
cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason
heirs, that the land being claimed is different from that of the
Undaunted, petitioners have come before this Court to seek relief from
of Adjudication.
After trial, the trial court, without resolving the issues defined during
pre-trial, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action on the ground
that petitioners status and right as putative heirs had not been
before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the affidavits of
RULING: Yes, the determination of who are the legal heirs of the
must
take
precedence
over
the
action
for
reconveyance.
The
The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed
of the death in 1985 of Portugal and still later of the 1988 transfer by
lifetime, Graciana sold her share over the land to Etta. Thus, making
the latter the sole owner of the one-half share of the subject parcel of
toDionisio and Catalina Fernandez (Spouses Fernandez), also their corespondents in the case at bar. After the sale, Spouses Fernandez took
and SPS.
DIONISIO FERNANDEZ
land, they discovered that certain documents prevent them from doing
and CATALINA
so. Alleging that the foregoing documents are fraudulent and fictitious,
FERNANDEZ, respondents.
Esperidion Reyes, Julieta C. Rivera, and EutiquioDico, Jr., they are the
since they can not demand the partition of the real property without
lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel of land
with
Anacleto
Cabrera.
Petitioners
executed
an
first being declared as legal heirs and such may not be done in an
Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes (the Extra Judicial
and Confirmation) over the same property. Thus, TCT were issued
before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the disputed
respectively.
documents?
RULING: YES.
An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
indiviso share in the subject parcel of land. They further allege that
single and without issue, and Etta, the wife of respondent Peter and
rights and took possession of the subject parcel of land. During her
instituted. As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for
interest when he is the one who has a legal right to enforce or protect,
who are not real parties in interest. While a declaration of heirship was
not prayed for in the complaint, it is clear from the allegations therein
violated the legal right of the former. The purpose of the rule is to
ensures that the court will have the benefit of having before it the real
appeared from the records of the case that the only property left by the
was registered sue to recover the said property through the institution
decedent was the subject matter of the case and that the parties have
case shows that the only property left by the deceased Anacleto
Cabrera is the subject lot, and neither had respondents Peter and
proceeding."
the
"Declaration
of
Non-Existency,
Nullity
of
Deeds,
and
May 6, 2005
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
The RTC of Ormoc City granted the petition "In the Matter of
had been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present must
The Republic appealed the RTCs order by filing a Notice of Appeal and
insists that the declaration of presumptive death under Art. 41 of the
FC is not a special proceeding involving multiple appeals where a
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. The petition
Ratio:
Article 41 of the Family Code, upon which the trial court anchored
its grant of the petition for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-
founded belief that the absent spouses was already dead. In case of
inter alia:
set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence
Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules
in this Title shall applyin all cases provided for in this Codes requiring
Appeal, provides:
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims
provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall
realties.
for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds
that:
(1) the requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a
certification against non-forum shopping; and
complaints
and
initiatory
pleadings, a written
filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way
obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person
as in the present case.
RTC assailed Order and dismissed the money claim without prejudice
based on the grounds above stated by Medina.
initiatory
non-forum shopping?
pleading.
In
the
present
case,
the
whole
probate
Ratio: No.
The filing of a money claim against the decedents estate in the probate
court is mandatory.
are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate administrator of
Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a
personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other
modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever
A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the
since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere
assailed orders are both in Iligan City. The lower court should have
City, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the
taken judicial notice of the great distance between said cities and
realized that it is indeed not practicable to serve and file the money
claim personally.
separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on
the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or
The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates
the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees within a
reasonable time.
The RTC should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural
the estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim
JOHNSON, J.:
Ruling: No.
Judge Adolph Wislizenus argues that the provision of Act No. 190
Ratio: In proceedings like the present, the judge of the Court of First
when the Legislature used the word "action" it did not mean "special
proceeding."
Action
Special Proceeding
remedy
remedies
definite
rules.
writing to the judge for assessors to sit in the trial. Upon the filing of
according
to
established
or
in
special
motion.
proceedings
Illustrations
proceedings,
in
of
is
special
contradistinction
to
the
to
appoint
assessors
to
fix
the
amount
due
name
an
of
persons;
application
for
granted, and it is ordered and decreed that the order of the Judge
Wislezenus appointing the assessors described in the petition be and
the same is annulled and set aside.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the proceeding is an ordinary civil action.
Case Digest by CLARISSE
RULING:
No.
Case No. 7 - Vda. De Manalo vs CA
Petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1,
Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222
of the Civil Code (No suit shall be filed or maintained between
members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest
FACTS:
efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have
failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035) for the dismissal of
the petition.
his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his11 children who are all of legal age.
Troadio Manalo left several real properties located in Manila and in the
The Article 222 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear
from the term suit that it refers to an action by one person or persons
RTCfor the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father, Troadio
administrator.
wrong.
It must be emphasized that the petitioners are not being sued for any
10
deceased.
ISSUE:
Case No. 8
RULING:
FACTS:
No.
into
an
extrajudicial
settlement
of
Gracianas
estate
nd
Graciano died leaving his second wife Patricia and his six children by his
of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court
11
thresh out said question. Moreover, the RTC was not properly
Fule
filed
special
appearance
to
question
Venue
and
Case No. 9
Fule vs CA
FACTS:
ISSUES:
Yes.
could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject
jurisdiction.
before the CFI Quezon City over the same intestate estate of
Amado G. Garcia.
12
that
is,
personal
residence,
not
legal
residence
or
Facts:
Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his
Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who died on November 28, 1952,
than temporary.
The Court rule that the last place of residence of the deceased Amado
Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that Andres was domiciled in
the residence of the decedent at the time of his death. As it is, the
death certificate of Amado G. Garcia, which was presented in evidence
The CFI of Rizal granted Eugenios petition and overruled his siblings
objection.
his last place of residence was at Quezon City. Aside from this, the
deceased's residence certificate for 1973 obtained three months before
Held: No. Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had
house and lot at 889-A Espana Extension, Quezon City because his
Florentino St., Quezon City. Even before he was able to transfer to the
house he bought, Andres suffered a stroke and was forced to live in his
coupled with knowledge that one will never again be able, on account
of illness, to return home. Having resided for over seventy years in
13
matter. Andres did not part with, or alienate, his house in San
MALIG, plaintiffs-appellants,
On September 19, 1962 the plaintiffs filed the complaint, alleging that
direct line of the deceased John T. Bush, having been born of the
they were the acknowledged natural children and the only heirs in the
common-law relationship of their father with Apolonia Perez from 1923
and freedom of choice, (2) physical presence at the place chosen, (3)
up to August, 1941;
that said John T. Bush and Apolonia Perez, during the conception of
the plaintiffs, were not suffering from any disability to marry each
other; that the defendant, by falsely alleging that she was the legal wife
Court of First Instance of Manila; that she submitted to the court for
jurisdiction of the court, except for the purpose only of assailing the
same.
In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death,
defendant then knew that the plaintiffs were the acknowledged natural
children of the deceased; and that they discovered the fraud and
Maria Santos Bush, Anita S. Bush and Anna Berger; that the
Case No. 11
lower court denied the motion, it appearing that the grounds upon
which said motion is based are not indubitable. In time, the defendant
14
filed her answer specifically denying all the material averments of the
as affirmative defenses.
filed. In the light of this express requirement we do not believe that the
court had power to dismiss the case without the requisite motion duly
presented. The fact that the parties filed memoranda upon the courts
the court, stating that since the action was one to annul a project of
partition duly approved by the probate court it was that court alone
which could take cognizance of the case, citing Rule 75, Section 1, of
independently of the case for libel did not supply the deficiency. Rule
30 of the Rules of Court provides for the cases in which an action may
be dismissed, and the inclusion of those therein provided excludes any
TRIAL COURT: granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, not
other, under the familiar maxims, inclusio unius est exclusivo ulterius.
on the ground relied upon by the defendant but because the action
The only instance in which, according to said Rules, the court may
had prescribed.
dismiss upon the courts own motion an action is, when the plaintiff
fails to appear at the time of the trial or to prosecute his action for an
The plaintiffs moved to reconsider but were turned down; hence, this
appeal.
of the court.
ISSUE: May the lower court dismiss an action on a ground not alleged
resolution of the court granting the same was based upon a ground
not alleged in said motion. But assuming that the lower court could
properly consider the question of prescription anew, the same still did
complaint.
The second motion reiterated none of those grounds and raised only
the question of jurisdiction.
The defendant cites Article 137 of the Civil Code, which provides that
an action for acknowledgment of natural children may be commenced
In dismissing the complaint upon a ground not relied upon, the lower
only during the lifetime of the putative parents, except in two instances
not obtaining in this case, and that the present action was commenced
chance to argue the point. In fact the court did not even state in its
after the death of the putative father of the plaintiffs. The said
order why in its opinion the action had prescribed, and why in effect,
seek acknowledgment but allege as a matter of fact that they are the
acknowledged natural children and the only heirs in the direct line of
the late John T. Bush. Whether or not this allegation is true will, of
In Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Ramos, et al., 88 Phil. 94, it
was held:
15
posed in her motion to dismiss, citing Rule 75, Section 1, of the Rules
of Court formerly in force (now Rule 73, Section 1), which says:
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are set aside and the case
remanded for further proceedings. Costs against the defendant-
FACTS:
except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the
want of jurisdiction appears on the record
It will be noted that the foregoing rule fixes jurisdiction for purposes of
Caolboy with whom he begot the 7 petitioners herein. After Lino and
jr. filed a motion for exclusion of his father's name and those of his
courts which may properly assume jurisdiction from doing so, the Rule
uncle and aunts contending that they have already received their
specifies that the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
other courts.
In the final analysis this action is not necessarily one to annul the
from the inventory contending that such parcels of land were already
reopen the estate proceeding so that a new partition may be made, but
adjudicated to his father and to his uncle and aunts. The probate
court ordered the exclusion of 5 parcels of land and denied the motion
16
of the estate of Lino and Genoveva. Private respondents moved for the
dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred
#13
vs.
Fact:
RULING:
in Barito, Mabuco, Hermosa, Bataan. The lease was for a period of five
probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally. The
the fishpond, for the remaining period of his lease, to the spouses
separate action. It has been held that in a special proceeding for the
court
cannot
resolve
with
finality.
installment falling due on June 30, 1989. Each of the four sublessees
This
The first installment was duly paid, but of the second installment, the
sublessees only satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid balance
Res judicata, does not exist because of the difference in the causes of
action. The other action was for the settlement of the intestate estate of
Lino and Genoveva while the other one was an action for recovery of
sued the Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of the said
had
ALIPIO, petitioner,
the
PURITA
W/N the petitioners' present action for the recovery of possession and
which
jurisdiction,
the
same
was
merely
limited.
Any
17
lumping his claim against the Alipios with those against the Manuels
to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband, Placidoalipio, had
passed away. Hence, the case should be filed in the probate court.
Issue:
#14
Can the creditor sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
IN
DECEASED
THE
MATTER
ISMAEL
OF
REYES,
THE
INTESTATE
THE
HEIRS
OF
ESTATE
OF
OSCAR
R.
REYES, petitioners,
conjugal partnership?
vs.
CESAR R. REYES, respondent.
Fact:
Held:
Spouses Ismael Reyes and FelisaRevita Reyes are the registered owners
Araceli, Herminia,
Aurora,
Emmanuel,
Cesar and
Rodrigo,
all
surnamed Reyes.
On April 18, 1973, Ismael Reyes died intestate. Prior to his death,
his income tax deficiency which arose out of his sale of a parcel land
them, does not apply. But even assuming the contrary to be true, the
nature of the obligation involved in this case, is not solidary but rather
payment was made by the heirs of deceased Ismael Reyes, the property
covered by TCT No. 4983 was levied sold and eventually forfeited by the
husband or, if none has been commenced, he can file a petition either
BIRs tax amnesty and he was able to redeem the property covered by
TCT No. 4983 upon payment of the reduced tax liability in the amount
of about P18,000.
18
considering that the subject properties are still titled under the torrens
included 50% of the Arayat properties covered by TCT Nos. 4983 and
under the law is endowed with incontestability until after it has been
set aside in the manner indicated in the law. The declaration of the
ground that the Arayat properties do not form part of the estate of the
or purchase.
Probate Court.
#15
favor of Cesar Reyes where the latter was ordered to submit a true and
vs.
HILARIA
BAGAYAS, Petitioner,
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of
pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not
signature of Eligia who could not have affixed her signature thereon as
resolve title.
We find that the respondent Court did not err in affirming the
pointing
19
out
that
petitioner
had
not
even
lived
with
the
family. Furthermore, Rogelio claimed that after their parents had died,
lands toeffect the transfer of titles thereof to their names. Before the
subject land. More importantly, the Court has consistently ruled that
In dismissing Civil Case No. 04-42, the RTC declared that petitioner
could not ask for the partition of the subject lands, even though she is
an adopted child, because she was not able to prove any of the
consent of his wife who was long dead before the sale took place. For
this reason, the forgery of Eligias signature on the questioned deed
was held to be inconsequential. However, on reconsideration, the RTC
Short summary: alleged natural child of the deceased filed petition for
but PNB failed to qualified. MTD filed by nephew of Don Juan, alleging
that while he was in Spain, the deceased made a will AND that
MaximinoBagayas
RTC
sustained its dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-42 on the ground that it
natural child not yet done). Pending this, the nephews instituted a
petition for probate of the will of Don Juan in Manila. Alleged natural
and
Eligia
Clemente. Nonetheless,
the
Issue:
Petitioner contested it. Court held that since the decedent was a non-
adopted child?
resident, both Manila and Negros courts may be proper venues for the
proceedings. But since probate proceedings enjoy priority over
Held:
No. While the RTC may have made a definitive ruling on petitioners
laches. Lastly, the court held that if ever recognized as the natural
20
Issue:
Facts:
Ruling: NO.
Don Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain, left properties both in Manila
W/N
NEGROS
COURT
ERRED
IN
DISMISSING
THE
and Negros
The alleged natural son of Don Juan, VICENTE URIARTE, filed petition
of his death, so the courts in the province s where he left property may
take cognizance of settlement of his estate
Even if Negros court first took cognizance of the case, still has to give
failed to qualify
OPPOSITION TO PETITION by HIGINIO URIARTE (nephew of Don Juan):
Don Juan left a will, executed in Spain, duly authenticated - submitted
Courts
Vicente had no legal personality to sue
OPPOSED by VICENTE: Negros Courts first took cognizance, it had
decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the
latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that
stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter
being required to render final account and turn over the estate in
DENIED
Manila court admitted to probate the last will
21
Facts:
He knew that there was a will when a MTD was filed in Negros court,
already
The annotation was pursuant to Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 74 of the
*appointed an administrator
Rules of Court (on settlement of estate) to the effect that the property
is still subject to any claim by creditors and other heirs of his deceased
Court would not annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even
Petitioner based her petition for cancellation on section 112 of Act no.
if the latter was not the proper venue therefor, if the net result would be
496.
Issue/Held:
NO
Ratio:
Subject:
22
Rule 74 Sec. 1 provides that when there are no outstanding debts the
Facts:
from their father a parcel of land. They partitioned the land verbally.
Cresencia tried to repurchase the land sold at P150 but Andal did not
partition.
During trial, counsel for plaintiff contended that the best evidence was
the document of partition. The trial court ruled that under Rules 74
and 123 of the Rules of Court and Art. 1248 of the CC, parol evidence
Issue:
Case Digest by ROVER
April 9, 2003
Vs.
from the operation of the statute of frauds for the reason that partition
is not a conveyance but simply a separation and designation of that
23
FACTS:
The spouses Cesar and Lilia Roces were the owners of two contiguous
Roces spouses and it was not true that Lilia Roces was dead.
Petitioners in their answer alleged that they are buyers in good faith
and that the actions of the respondents was barred by estoppel and
laches.
the decision and ordered Montinola to pay the Petitioners, the title was
reinstated back to the respondents and that all other claims made by
ISSUE:
left no heirs except the brother of Lilia Roces, who was his father; that
neither of the spouses left any will nor any debts; and that he was the
the
trial,
HELD:
any document
did not appeal the judgment thus became final and executory.
within two years from the date of the settlement and distribution of
estate. Contrary to petitioners' contention, the effects of this provision
24
children, namely: (1) petitioner Rafael, Jr.; (2) Alfredo; and (3) Belen,
No. 47572, they immediately demanded that since they are also
Vs.
4 years.
MARQUEZ, respondents.
During their lifetime, the spouses Rafael Marquez, Sr. and Felicidad
of Adjudication" and the "Donation Inter Vivos" did not produce any
home.
25
reversed stating that: In line with the decision of the Supreme Court in
filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud.Such
discovery is deemed to have taken place in the case at bar on June 16,
1982, when the affidavit of self-adjudication was filed with the Register
TCT No. 33350 was issued in the name of Rafael Marquez Sr., to May
31, 1991, when appellees' complaint was filed in court, is eight (8)
of the Torrens title over the property.For the purpose of this case, the
years, eleven (11) months and fifteen (15) days, appellants' action to
prescriptive period shall start to run when TCT No. 33350 was issued,
which was on June 16, 1982. Thus, considering that the action for
limitation.
HELD:
Moreover, nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to him.
DELETED, the judgment of the trial court in Civil Case No. 60887 is
REINSTATED. No costs.
Marquez.
G.R. No. L-23638
his wife when in fact their children were still alive, and managed to
petitioners,
26
Vs.
revocation "until such time when we shall pass upon the intrinsic
ISMAELA DIMAGIBA, respondent.
considered and resolved; on July 1959, the Court overruled the claim
MARIANO REYES, CESAR REYES, LEONOR REYES and PACIENCIA
that proponent was in estoppel to ask for the probate of the will, but
REYES, petitioners,
"reserving unto the parties the right to raise the issue of implied
revocation at the opportune time."
Vs.
FACTS:
execution of her 1930 testament, had revoked the latter under Article
957(2) of the 1950 Civil Code (Art. 869 of the Civil Code of 1889), the
22, 1930, and annexed to the petition. The will instituted the petitioner
trial Court resolved against the oppositors and held the will of the late
as the sole heir of the estate of the deceased. The petition was set for
Luisa Reyes and one month later, Mariano, Cesar, Leonor and
Appeals.
The appellate Court held that the decree of June 20, 1958, admitting
the will to probate, had become final for lack of opportune appeal; that
favor of the proponent in 1943 and 1944, but which conveyances were
had been no legal revocation by the execution of the 1943 and 1944
deeds of sale, because the latter had been made in favor of the legatee
August 3, 1954.
ISSUE:
by decision of June 1958, found that the will was genuine and properly
27
1. Whether the decree of the Court of First Instance allowing the will to
become final;
3. Whether the 1930 will of Benedicta de los Reyes had been impliedly
HELD:
the proper execution and witnessing of his last will and testament,
advance with what she had ordained in her testament, rather than an
otherwise.
Not only that, but even if it were applicable, the annulment of the
There being no controversy that the probate decree of the Court below
was not appealed on time, the same had become final and conclusive.
Hence, the appellate courts may no longer revoke said decree nor
sale were also thatit was the moral influence, originating from their
review the evidence upon which it is made to rest. Thus, the appeal
confidential relationship, which was the only cause for the execution of
Guevara, 98 Phil. 249, that the presentation and probate of a will are
28
RICARDO
B.
BONILLA,
deceased,
MARCELA
RODELAS,
will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will
FACTS:
the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104
Phil. 509, the Court ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost
witnesses who have seen and/or read such will The will itself must be
appeal.
ISSUE:
29
and
hospitalization.
Rodolfo
submitted
documentary
evidence
FACTS:
The Trial Court ruled in favor of Perico. The CA affirmed in toto the
ISSUE:
before the RTC of Quezon City, over the estate of his parents. Pending
the appointment of a regular administrator, Perico moved that he be
HELD:
improper venue.He argued that the deceased spouses did not reside in
Quezon City either during their lifetime or at the time of their deaths.
and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in
his late mother used to run and operate a bakery. As the health of his
had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
30
residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the
residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a
domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word
place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means
fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same
In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is,
31
one and the same meaning.At any rate, petitioner is obviously splitting
herein,
namely,
Manuel
Cuenco,
Lourdes
Cuenco,
Concepcion
Bejer v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that venue for ordinary civil actions
and that for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. As
Respondent
Lourdes
Cuenco
filed
Petition
for
Letters
of
other things, that the late senator died intestate in Manila; that he was
a resident of Cebu at the time of his death; and that he left real and
the lower court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that venue for
personal properties in Cebu and Quezon City. On the same date, the
Cebu court issued an order setting the petition for hearing on 10 April
1964, directing that due notice be given to all the heirs and interested
persons, and ordering the requisite publication thereof at LA PRENSA,
a newspaper of general circulation in the City and Province of Cebu.
AFFIRMED.
the CFI of Rizal (Quezon City) for the probate of the deceaseds last will
and testament and for the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor,
as the surviving widow and executrix in the said last will and
testament.
24
ROSA
CAYETANO
petitioners,
vs.
THE
LOURDES
CUENCO,
CONCEPCION
CUENCO
FACTS:
the case. The opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon
widow, the herein petitioner, and their 2minor sons, all residing in
ISSUE(s):
32
province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the
intestate proceedings
HELD:
The Court finds that the appellate court erred in law in issuing the
It should be noted that the Rule on venue does not state that the court
writ of prohibition against the Quezon City court from proceeding with
the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside all its orders
exclusive jurisdiction.
and intestate estates. On the other hand, Rule 73, section of the Rules
of Court lays down the rule of venue, as the very caption of the Rule
Conversely, such court, may upon learning that a petition for probate
of the decedents last will has been presented in another court where
which otherwise may properly assume; jurisdiction from doing so, the
the decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his
Rule specifies that the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of
surviving widow and their minor children, and that the allegation of
the intestate petition before it stating that the decedent died intestate
second court which has before it the petition for probate of the
The Court therefore holds under the facts of record that the Cebu court
did not act without jurisdiction nor with grave abuse of discretion in
33
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and the petition for
For the same reasons, neither could the Quezon City court be held to
FACTS:
of the settled doctrine that the provisions of Rule 73, section 1 lay
Manuel, Pangasinan. Heirs left were his widow, Leoncia de Leon and
22
heir of the decedent to inherit the said properties. Such affidavit was
it may properly
registered with the ROD of Pangasinan. On the same day, Leoncia also
determine, as it has done in the case at bar, that venue was properly
executed a deed of sale in favor of Benny Sampilo for 10k which was
assumed by and transferred to the Quezon City court and that it is the
pursuance of the decedents express will and all its orders and actions
17, 1950, Sampilo, in turn, sold the lands to HonoratoSalacup for 50k.
rather than to annul all such proceedings regularly had and to repeat
and duplicate the same proceedings before the Cebu court only to
revert once more to the Quezon City court should the Cebu court find
that indeed and in fact, as already determined by the Quezon City
34
The laws governing such case are Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 74 (codal
please; saving space).
CFI: in favor of Sinopera; the affidavit was declared null and void;
declared Sinopera owner of of the 4 lands; declared that the
CA: modified the judgment; the deeds of sale were void only insofar as
the properties conveyed exceed the portion that corresponds to
Leoncia; Salacup was ordered to deliver to Sinopera of the lands in
There cannot be any doubt that those who took part or had knowledge
the complaint for disposition but reserved his right to secure that part
is clear that if they claim to have been in any manner deprived of their
Sampilo and Salacup appealed to the SC alleging that the action has
or interest.
But as to those who did not take part in the settlement or had no
notice of the death of the decedent or of the settlement, there is no
direct or express provision that they also be required to assert their
ISSUE: WON Sinopera's right of action to recover her and her co-heirs'
claims within the period of two years. To extend the effects of the
35
would affect third persons who had no knowledge either of the death of
petitioners,
vs.
FACTS: Spouses Ismael Reyes and FelisaRevita Reyes are the owners
of lands in Cubao, QC. They have 7 children. On April 1973, Ismael
(1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the
Prior to his death, Ismael was notified by the BIR of an income tax
deficiency arising from his sale of a land in TandangSora, QC. For
failure to pay, the tax increased to about 172k+ and since his heirs
also did not pay such tax, one of the lands in Cubao was levied, sold
The case at bar fails to comply with both requirements because not all
In 1976, Oscar Reyes, son of Ismael, availed of the BIRs tax amnesty
and was able to redeem the property. Also in May, 1982, a notice was
sent to Felisa from the Office of the City Treasurer of QC informing her
that the Cubao properties will be auctioned for her failure to pay the
real estate tax delinquency from 1974-1981. Oscar again settled the
period of four years, does not appear to have lapsed when the action
Treasurer.
and these proceedings must have been instituted soon after the
discovery of fraud.
36
The subject properties are still titled under the Torrens system in the
names of spouses Ismael and FelisaRevita Reyes which under the law
is endowed with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the
manner indicated in the law. The declaration of the provisional
character of the inclusion of the subject properties in the inventory as
estate. Oscar appealed but while pending, he died and was substituted
by his heirs.
Settled is the rule that the RTC acting as a probate court exercises but
limited jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of and
CA: affirmed, MR denied, hence, present action.
ISSUE: WON the Cubao properties can be included in the estate. WON
The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not call for the application
SC RULING: Yes.
of the exception to the rule. It bears stress that the purpose why the
probate court allowed the introduction of evidence on ownership was
for the sole purpose of determining whether the subject properties
should be included in the inventory which is within the probate courts
competence.
persons,
and
the
appointment
and
removal
of
There was nothing on record that both parties submitted the issue of
37
suggested that either the administrator or the widow Felisa Reyes may
commence the proper action in the Regional Trial Court.
SC RULING: Yes. The case was to be returned to the probate court for
the
liquidation
of
the
conjugal
partnership
of
Teodoro
and
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
MENANDRO
A.
RESELVA,
title to, or right of possession of, personal or real property, made by the
heirs themselves, by title adverse to that of the deceased, or made by
respondents.
May 13, 1987, respectively. The parents owned a house and lot (more
of the house and lot, be ordered to vacate the property and turn over
the possession to her. This was granted.
probate court the question of title to property." Here, the probate court
CA reversed such decision for having been issued beyond the RTCs
38
with that of, the decedent since the former's theory merely advances
co-ownership with the latter. In the same way, when the controversy is
CARDONA,
heirs-appellants,
vs.
oppositors-appellees.
FACTS:
More importantly, the case at bar falls squarely under Rule 73, Section
2 of the Revised Rules of Court, thus:
RULE 73
property
shall
be
inventoried,
administered,
and
probate of his will which did not include the appellees and the petition
proceedings of either."
Case No. 28
39
Gregoria and Mercedes Ventura claimed that they are the legitimate
partnership, with them as the only forced heirs of their mother Paulina
ISSUE:
Whether or not the removal of Maria Ventura as executrix is legally
Case No. 29
justified.
HELD:
the deceased Gregorio Ventura is Juana Cardona while the next of kin
are: Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura and Maria and Miguel Ventura.
FACTS:
The "next of kin" has been defined as those persons who are entitled
under the statute of distribution to the decedent's property (Cooper vs.
40
to the certificate of death, he was 85 years old at the time of his death.
It appears that the said oppositor was married for the second time to
Domingo Valmores, this Court ordered the widow substituted for the
deceased appellant.
ISSUES:
setting a date (August 29, 1952) for the hearing of the petition and
appear. Counsel for the petitioner proved the publication of the notice
of hearing and, afterwards, presented his witness, one by the name
HELD:
that the petitioner was legally adopted; hence, he did not have any
did not leave any will, that her nearest relative is her surviving
required to be given. Thus nowhere does it appear from the record that
Domingo Valmores was ever personally notified of the filing of the
petition or of the time and place for hearing the same. His first
opposition shows that he was not aware of the hearing at all. He was
notified of the proceedings for the first time when the inventory was
Court provides:
set for hearing so that he can present his evidence. On April 4, 1953
he presented an amended opposition, alleging that RosaliaSaquitan
had died more than two years before, that he had been administering
jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for hearing the
the properties of her deceased wife, that he is now the owner and
and creditors of the decedent and to any other persons believed to have
Since the pendency of the case before this Court, the following events
41
deceased to appear and contest in due time the right of the petitioner
or the appointment of the person recommended as administrator.
The known heir in this case was Domingo Valmores and notice should
have been given him in accordance with Section 3 and 4 of Rule 77.
Section 4 of Rule 77 specially provides:
The Court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place
fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the known heirs, legatees
and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their place of
residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage prepaid at
Case No. 30
. . ..Personal service of copied of the notice at least ten days before the
DURAN
and
MIGUEL
DURAN,
petitioners-appellants,
vs.
At the hearing compliance with the provisions of the last two preceding
FACTS:
reduced to writing.
The records of the hearing do not show that the notices as above
required had been given to Domingo Valmores or MaximoSaquitan.
We, therefore, find that the error imputed to the trial court in
oppositor-appellant's brief that the court has failed to comply with the
notice to heirs becomes the more apparent in the case at bar, where
him.
42
opposition, praying for its dismissal upon the ground that the
left without that "interest" in the estate required to petite for settlement
proceedings.
interest in the estate. Said lack of interest was premised on the deed of
transfer executed by Cipriano, regarding which the court declared itself
without power to examine in said proceedings, collaterally, the alleged
ISSUE:
justified.
The Rules of Court provides that a petition for administration and
settlement of an estate must be filed by an "interested person" (See. 2,
Rule 79). Appellants contend that the deed of assignment executed by
HELD:
Cipriano did not operate to render him a person without interest in the
estate.
the decedent.
the deceased Gregorio Ventura is Juana Cardona while the next of kin
are: Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura and Maria and Miguel Ventura.
HELD:
The "next of kin" has been defined as those persons who are entitled
under the statute of distribution to the decedent's property (Cooper vs.
the assignor and assignee, the same does not need court approval to
extrajudicial partition are not followed, since said requisites are for
Gregorio Ventura and his wife, the late Paulina Simpliciano. Therefore,
43
Vicente and Maxima and the estate of Leonardo. It, likewise, prayed for
Respondents
bond.
prayed
that
they
be
appointed
as
special
joint
OCAMPO V. OCAMPO
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Petitioners are the surviving wife and the children of Leonardo Ocampo
who
died
on
January
23,
2004. Leonardo
and
his
HELD:
siblings,
and only heirs of the spouses Vicente and Maxima Ocampo, who died
intestate.
supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the
the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to
controlled,
managed,
and
administered
the
estate
of
their
While the RTC considered that respondents were the nearest of kin to
44
their
deceased
administrators,
parents
in
this
not
is
their
a
appointment
mandatory
as
joint
requirement
special
for
the
Petitioners
those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to
first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the
decedents estate. They also claim that they are more competent than
estate. Petitioners claim to have lived for a long time and continue to
contendthat
they
should
be
given
priority
in
the
ISSUE:
Court.
HELD:
The Court has consistently ruled that the order of preference in the
FACTS:
preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next
the
RTC
petition
for
the
issuance
of
letters
of
Gerardos estate.
45
The Court find it immaterial the fact that private respondents reside
suspended upon the death of Carlos Gurrea, and praying that the
Romualdo, who is, after all, the person appointed by the RTC as
ISSUE:
Whether or not the estate of the deceased should still be made liable
is to preserve the estate until it can pass into the hands of a person
FACTS:
Spain, where they lived together until 1945, when he abandoned her
and came, with their son Teodoro, to the Philippines. Here he lived
of the compulsory heirs,if his alleged will were not allowed to probate,
been informed by her son Teodoro, years later, that his father was
nullified.
and disinherited Mrs. Gurrea and their son, Teodoro. Soon thereafter,
Pijuan instituted Special Proceedings with the CFI, for the probate of
said will. Thereafter Pijuan was, upon his ex parte motion, appointed
probate. So, it cannot be said, as yet, that he has died intestate. Again,
probate of the will were filed by Mrs. Gurrea, her son and an
illegitimate daughter
On July 16, 1962, Mrs. Gurrea filed a motion alleging that the
46
administrator, and that the order appointing the latter lies within the
before her removal shall have the same validity as if there was no such
revocation or removal. It is elementary that the effect of revocation of
heirs his only son, his adoptive daughter and his grandchildren from
his only son. His only son was also named executor of the will. Upon
his death, the only son did not petition for the probate of said will, and
29, 1964 with private respondent Laguda. For failure to satisfy the
even opposed the probate of the will. The probate court ordered that
support be given to the grandchildren, and that the titles to the two
ONLY CHILDREN of the deceased (as well as the surviving spouse) are
ISSUE:
the estate has not yet been paid, and there is still an issue as to the
Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as judicial
47
were necessary for the preservation and use of the family residence. As
expenses of administration.
vs.
each one being given a 1/8 proindiviso share in the project of partition.
The
administrator
submitted
four
accounting
reports
for
his
FACTS:
Ramona is survived by her four (4) children who are her only heirs,
which has come into his possession, with all the interest, profit, and
Favis-Gomez.
sold by him, at the price at which it was sold (Sec. 3, Rule 84; Secs. 1
and 7, Rule 85, Rules of Court).
It should be noted that the family residence was partitioned proindiviso among the decedents eight children. Each one of them was
the eight co-owners consented to the use of the funds of the estate for
48
ISSUE:
RULING:
administrator.
representative not only of the court appointing him but also of the
heirs and the creditors of the estate. In the exercise of its discretion,
the probate court may appoint one, two or more co-administrators to
In the present case, the court a quo did not base the removal of the
have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have
respondent's motion for relief of the petitioner. The court based the
removal of the petitioner on the fact that in the administration of the
estate,
conflicts
petitioner
and
and
misunderstandings
respondent
Teresa
Olbes
have
which
existed
between
allegedly
have
prejudiced the estate, and the added circumstance that petitioner had
been absent from the country.
49
Case No 44
Matias S. Matute in said Civil Case No. 4623, filed an answer denying
First
Instance
of
Manila, petitioner,
SAMCO.
vs.
HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES, Presiding Judge of Branch III,
Davao, whereby the property of the estate covered by OCT No. 0-27 of
AGRICULTURAL
as
of Manila, Branch IV, in Sp. Proc. No. 25876, nor notice thereof
of
MARKETING
AmadeoMatuteOlave,
CORPORATION
Sp.
Proc.
No.
also
known
25876,
CFI,
Despite the utter lack of approval of the probate court in Manila, the
Manila, respondents.
CFI Davao approved the said Amicable Settlement and gave the same
the enforceability of a court decision.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Amicable Settlement approved by the CFI Davao, not
RULING:
(SAMCO) filed Civil Case No. 4623 with the respondent Court of First
50
invalid.
of the probate court of Manila, in Sp. Proc. No. 25876, which has the
exclusive jurisdiction over the estate of AmadeoMatuteOlave. It was a
shall
be
commenced
against
the
executor
to Civil Case No. 4623, much less issue the questioned Order, dated
or
Case No. 45
(Sp. Proc. No. 25876) for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
AmadeoMatuteOlave; and the claim must be filed within the period
FERNANDO, deceased.
ALMAZAN, administratrices-appellants,
vs.
should be allowed.
claim so that a proper and timely arrangement may be made for its
payment in full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the
administration, inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire
August 29, 1951. Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. (Pambusco) lodged its
estate is burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor
shall enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shag share pro-rata
defendants
Valentin
Fernando
and
EncarnacionElchicoVda.
de
filing Civil Case No. 4623 in the then Court of First Instance of
time, Pambusco in the foregoing civil case had already presented its
eventually ended in the conveyance to SAMCO of more than twentynine (29) hectares of land belonging to the estate of the deceased
March 23, 1955. Intestate proceedings were filed. Notice to the estate's
creditors was given for them to file their claims within six (6) months
51
December 11, 1958. After trial on the merits, the Court of First Instance
The Philosophy behind the rule which provides for the dismissal of
the civil case is that, upon the death of defendant, all money claims
should be filed in the testate or interstate proceedings "to avoid
Fernando,
Pambusco
registered
its
action for recovery of money, debt or interest may continue, upon the
terms therein prescribed. Whether the original suit for the recovery of
money as here proceeds to its conclusion, or is dismissed and the
January 25, 1961. The judgment in the civil case having reached
claim covered thereby filed with the probate court, one thing is certain:
finality, the probate court issued an order which allowed said amount
of
P46,500.00
to
be
paid
by
the
heirs
and/or
the
joint
existence of other unsettled money claims against the estate and of the
submitted
its
case.
Her
administrator
substituted.
By
this
substitution, the estate had notice of the claim. The estate was
thus represented. The administrator of the estatetook active steps
to protect the interests of the estate. He went to trial. Defeated in
ISSUE:
has become final, the estate cannot be heard to say that said
even elevated that civil case to this Court. Now that the judgment
now go for naught. The estate has thus waived its right to have
Pambusco's claim re-litigated in the estate proceedings. For, though
presentment of probate claims is imperative, it is generally understood
RULING:
determined
from
the
administrator's
"acts
and
52
The inference is that had plaintiff's claims not been mentioned in the
will he would have presented to the committee as a matter of course;
that plaintiff was held to believe by this express mention of his claims
in the will that it would be unnecessary to present them to the
vs.
presenting them to the committee until after the committee had made
*statute of non-claims
FACTS:
That court shall allow such time as the circumstances of the case
certain real and personal property which, by his last will and
require for the creditors to present their claims the committee for
testament dated July 26, 1906, he left to his three children. The fourth
examination and allowance; but not, in the first instance, more than
clause of this will reads as follows: I also declare that I have contracted
twelve months, or less than six months; and the time allowed shall be
religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time
circumstances require, but not so that the whole time shall exceed
eighteen months.
Among the debts mentioned in the list referred to are two in favor of
the plaintiff, Isidro Santos; one due on April 14, 1907, for P5,000, and
various other described as falling due at different dates (the dates are
not given) amounting to the sum of P2,454. The will was duly probated
and a committee was regularly appointed to hear and determine such
53
The object of the law in fixing a definite period within which claims
extension of this time under section 690 rested in the discretion of the
deceased person and the early delivery of the property of the estate in
extend this time and recall the committee for a consideration of the
plaintiff's claims against the estate of justice required it, at any time
within the six months after January 23, 1908, or until July 23, 1908.
Plaintiff's petition was not presented until July 14, 1909. The bar of
April 6, 1990
committee fails to give the notice required by this chapter, and such
application is made before the final settlement of the estate, the court
vs.
may, for cause shown, and on such terms as are equitable, renew the
commission and allow further time, not exceeding one month, for the
ROSALES, respondents.
notify the parties of the time and place of hearing, and as soon as may
be make the return of their doings to the court.
FACTS:
not have been presented before its final report was submitted to the
court. But, this is not the case made by the plaintiff, as the committee
did give the notice required by law. Where the proper notice has been
given the right to have the committee recalled for the consideration of a
hacienda, Dr. Jacob asked Centenera to negotiate for a loan. For this
presented within six months after the time previously limited for the
was six months from July 23, 1907. This allowed the plaintiff until
January 23, 1908, to present his claims to the committee. An
54
1972. Centenera signed and executed the real estate mortgage and
may abandon the security and prosecute claim in the manner provided
in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the
due in 1975 Centenera failed to pay the same but was able to arrange
and property as security. Again, Centenera failed to pay the loan when
with the bank on November 23, 1976. Centenera again failed to pay
the loan upon the maturity date forcing the bank to send a demand
letter. A copy of the demand letter was sent to Dr. Jacob but no reply
or he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose
or denial was received by the bank. Thus, the bank foreclosed the real
the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations,
paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the direction of
the amended real estate mortgage after the mortgagor died are null
the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the
and void. It is pointed out that Dr. Jacob died on March 9, 1979 and
prosecuted during the lifetime of Dr. Jacob for the reason that such
(1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of
and that said special power of attorney cannot extend beyond the
HELD: YES.
55
of Court.
the latter's own protection. That power survives the death of the
mortgagor.
- versus -
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.
Facts:
6.
the allowance of the will of her late mother, Luz J. Henson, with the
disbursements. They likewise asked the trial court to deny the Atty.
Briones claim for commission and that he be ordered to refund the
sum of P134,126.33 to the estate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HELD:
56
third parties may make. Section 8, Rule 86 of the Rules recognizes this
the express terms of the Rules, the ruling on the extent of the
guardian;
Under these terms and taking into account the previous discussion of
the nature of the various parts of the Order of April 3, 2002, the lower
administrator.
these matters can exist independently of one another and can proceed
xxxxxxxxx
CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE (RULES 86 &88)
57
24
JULY
ISSUE/S:
1981
GR NO. L-51151
Whether or not the action for revival was proper instead of presenting
the claim in the Special Proceeding in the settlement of Felisas estate
FACTS:
HELD:
unpaid rentals for the lease of a hacienda and its sugar quota.
The appellant argues that the present action is one for the recovery
of a sum of money so that it is barred by Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the
The CFI of Rizal rendered a decision in favor of Romualdez adjudging
Tiglao and others liable for the unpaid rentals, damages, attorneys
present their claim in Special Proc. No. Q-10731 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal.
A writ of attachment has been issued, however, the judgment was not
The SC held that the original judgment, which was rendered on May
satisfied.
31, 1960, has become stale because of its non-execution after the
lapse of five years (Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).
This is precisely why Romualdez and others have instituted the second
Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, "No action upon a claim for the
recovery
of
money
or
debt
or
interest
thereon
shall
suit whose object is not to make the Estate of FelisaTiglao pay the
be
58
Settlement of Estate.
#50 - RIOFERIO V. CA
13 JANUARY 2004
Jr.
in
view
of
the
pendency
of
the
administration
proceedings.
GR NO. 129008
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the
estate pending the appointment of an administrator.
FACTS:
AfonsoOrfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving several personal and
real properties located in Angeles City, Dagupan and Kalookan City. He
HELD:
The decedent also left his paramour and their children, they are
Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the
Rowena.
59
heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been
appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of
advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation namely
The money (rentals) allegedly due is not property in the hands of the
ISSUE/S:
#51 - DELA CRUZ V. CAMON
30 APRIL 1966
GR NO. L-21034
HELD:
FACTS:
NO. When the demand is in favor of the administrator and the party
The estate of Thomas Fallon and Anne Fallon Murphy was owner of
person.
That whole hacienda was held in lease by Emilio Camon since long
before the present intestate proceedings were commenced.
Camon is a third person, hence, the administrator may not pull him
against his will, by motion, into the administration proceedings. We are
Sometime in Oct. 1962, the administrator of the estate (Dela Cruz)
fortified in our view that even matters affecting property under judicial
moved to the court for an order to direct Emilio Camon to pay the
challenged the probate courts jurisdiction over his person. The court
prejudiced.
60
Alejandro oppose the said petition claiming that the testate proceeding
the delivery of her share 4 years after such closure of the estate, when
she could have filed a petition for relief of judgment within sixty (60)
days from December 15, 1960
In her reply Juanita contends that the actual delivery and distribution
legally herein petitioner Juanita Lopez, the testatrix Doa Jacinta did
of the hereditary shares to the heirs, and not the order of the court
of all the taxes, and after the remaining estate is delivered to the heirs
executor
from opposing her petition because he was the one who prepared, filed
and secured court approval of, the aforesaid project of partition, which
and 2 lots
when she filed on July 20, 1964, her petition for he delivery of her
share allocated to her under the project of partition, less than 3 years
had elapsed from August 28, 1961 when the amended project of
the lower court approved the said project of partition and directed that
partition was approved, which is within the 5-year period for the
the records of the case be sent to the archives, upon payment of the
Issue:
won
and distribution of the hereditary shares to the heirs, and not the
partition.
While in the
Held:
dated July 20, 1964 praying that Alejandro Lopez be directed to deliver
to her the actual possession of said 2 lots as well as the lessees of the
only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate
61
delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality of the
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
CONCORDIA
Facts :
as long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been
complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and
terminated
because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not
prevent the heir from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided
the prescriptive period therefor has not elapsed (Mari vs. Bonilla, 83
Phil., 137)
During his lifetime, Esteban, Jr. had, more than once, expressed to his
aunt Celedonia and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a
which secures for the heirs or legatees the right to "demand and
any other person having the same in his possession", re-states the
aforecited doctrines.
his mother, from whom his properties came, for the purpose of helping
indigent students in their schooling. Concordia agreed to carry out the
In the case at bar, the motion filed by petitioner for the delivery of her
plan of the deceased. This fact was admitted by her in her "Motion to
share was filed on July 20, 1964, which is just more than 3 years from
Reopen and/or Reconsider the Order dated April 3, 1978" which she
August 28, 1961 when the amended project of partition was approve
filed on July 27, 1978 in Special Proceeding No. 2540, stating that
and within 5 years from April 23, 1960 when the original project of
partition was approved. Clearly, her right to claim the two lots
allocated to her under the project of partition had not yet expired. And
deceased within the third degree, she being the younger sister of the
1964 and the jurisprudence above cited, the order dated December 15,
1960 of the probate court closing and terminating the probate case did
not legally terminate the testate proceedings, for her share under the
foundation, besides they have closely known each other due to their
filiation to the decedent and they have been visiting each other's house
which are not far away for (sic) each other.
#56
CELEDONIA
SOLIVIO, petitioner,
vs.
62
good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed on March 8, 1977
Spl. Proceeding No. 2540 for her appointment as special administratrix
of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. (Exh. 2). Later, she filed an
entertain Civil Case No. 13207 for partition and recovery of Concordia
issued to her; that she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that
Villanueva's share of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. even while the
probate proceedings (Spl. Proc. No. 2540) were still pending in Branch
The court declared her the sole heir of Esteban, Jr. Thereafter, she sold
HELD:
properties of the estate to pay the taxes and other obligations of the
deceased and proceeded to set up the "SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE
Court,
Villanueva's action for partition and recovery of her share of the estate
Branch
26,
lacked
jurisdiction
to
entertain
Concordia
of Esteban Javellana, Jr. while the probate proceedings (Spl, Proc. No.
Concordia Javellana Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration of
2540) for the settlement of said estate are still pending in Branch 23 of
the same court, there being as yet no orders for the submission and
because she too was an heir of the deceased. her motion was denied
the residue of the estate to the heir, and terminating the proceedings`
Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. did
trial court rendered it judgement in favor of Concordia Javellana-
not toll the end of the proceedings .In view of the pendency of the
RTC, Branch 23), Concordia's motion to set aside the order declaring
already been transferred to, and were in the possession of, the
deceased, was properly filed by her in Spl. Proc. No. 2540. Her remedy
when the court denied her motion, was to elevate the denial to the
the same purpose in Branch 26 of the court. We hold that the separate
court
that
63
them and introducing him to the public as his natural child; that even
the family of his father recognized him as such; that on or about the
year 1944, his father and mother separated, and subsequently, his
The orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, in Civil Case No.
of the marriage, two (2) children were born herein petitioners Lourdes
his father died, and without notice to him, petitioner Natividad del
Rosario Vda. de Alberto, on July 17, 1949, instituted before the then
No.
9092;
that
in
the
said
intestate
proceedings,
petitioners
deliberately omitted him as one of the heirs and for this reason they
succeeded in having the properties of his deceased father adjudicated
and partitioned among themselves; that the said intestate proceedings
JR.
and
LOURDES
ALBERTO, petitioners,
vs.
by
his
mother
as
his
natural
guardian,
ANDREA
JONGCO, respondents.
petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that (1) the cause
of action is barred by prior judgment; and (2) that the cause of action
is also barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court issued an
Order denying the Motion to Dismiss. But after the respondent filed an
Facts:
answer
to the complaint
in 1941 his alleged father, Antonio C. Alberto, and his mother, Andrea
he was born on September 10, 1942; that during the time that his
alleged father and mother lived together as husband and wife and up
to the time of his birth, both were single and had no legal impediment
to marry each other; that after his birth, his father and mother
64
which, if successful, would be, as in the instant case, for another court
HELD:
Petitioners alleged that the intestate proceedings for the settlement of
estate of the deceased Antonio C. Alberto (Special Proceedings No.
persons entitled thereto and that in said proceedings the court also
declared who are the heirs of the deceased. Consequently, the instant
and Bulacan). When Bibiano died (Feb. 18, 1936), he left his share in a
natural father
fishpond
was
reserved
for
Maria
(the
The usufruct of a
widow).
Asappointed
her own behalf and as guardian ofthe minor Milagros. It was approved,
and the estate was distributed and the shares delivered. Salud took
binding against the whole world. All persons having interest in the
(Mar. 5, 1948), it was discovered that she executed two wills: in the
subject matter involved, whether they were notified or not, are equally
first, she instituted Saludand Milagros as her heirs; in the second, she
revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of Milagrosalone.
through the publication of the notice prescribed ... and any order that
The later will was allowed and the first rejected. In rejecting the first
may be entered therein is binding against all of them .It was ruled
SaludBarretto), the TC held that Salud was not the daughter of the
person vests the title to the land of the estate in the distributees; and
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of
wasnot a daughter of the Sps. Bibiano and Maria. The nullity of the
65
so, hasbeen included, shall be null and void). As Milagros was the only
true heir of Bibiano, she was entitled torecover from Salud and her
Milagros was allotted in her fathers will a share smaller than her
view ofArt. 1456 (NCC) which states that property acquired by mistake
owner.Having lost the fight for a share in the estate of Maria as her
legitimate heir, Tirso now falls back upon the remnantof the estate of
presupposes
this action for the recovery ofthe one-half portion thereof. This
the testator Bibiano, while untrue, was atno time disputed during the
ownership; notonly of the fishpond under litigation, but of all the other
properties willed and delivered to Salud, for being aspurious heir, and
attacking the validity, not onlyof the project of partition, but of the
the
settlement
of
controversy
through
mutual
of the estate and determines the persons entitled thereto and the parts
Issues/Held:
(1) W/N the partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond in
issued a decree of distribution of the estate, and the same has become
question is void ab initio and Salud did notacquire valid title to it. No.
Salud admittedly
(2) Milagros contends that as Maria could not have ignored that Salud
had
was not her child, the act of Maria inagreeing to the partition and
distribution was a fraud on her rights and entitles her to belief. This
Milagros. Hence, the partition had between them could not be one
estate was judicially settled and distributed, Salud knew that shewas
being one, and was not null and void under Art. 1081. The legalprecept
not Bibianos child. Thus, if fraud was committed, it was Maria who
was solely responsible; and neitherSalud nor her minor children can
the fact that Salud did not happen to be a daughter of the testator
doesnot preclude her being one of the heirs expressly named in his
therecord shows that this period had elapsed a long time ago. At the
time of distribution, Milagros was only 16. She became of age 5 years
66
her action still became extinct in 1950. Her action was barred in
Aug.1956, when she filed her counterclaim in this case contesting the
Arturo
Granting that there was such promise, itwould not bind Tirsos wards,
cannot bind his wards, being null and voidas to them unless duly
favor of
in
favor
of
the
Philippine
Trust
City for
Company. Respondent
for the
oppositors
(Blandina
and
Padlanchildren)
submitted
certified
photocopies of the 19 July 1950 private writing and the final judgment
D.
QUITA,
respondents.
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases
Somewhere
along
the
way
their
relationship
soured.
ISSUE: Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further
who between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the
thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality but
67
applying
respondent's
which
deceased
each
person
person or
is
as
to
the
the distributive
the
ruling
in
Tenchavez
v.
Escao.Then
in
private
law, the
the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. 13 that aliens may
right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit from the decedent
because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by
him and petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo
# 60 - Emilio Pacioles v. MiguelaChuatoco-Ching
Facts:
of the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, after
from the decedent considering that she had secured a divorce in the
U.S.A. and in fact had twice remarried. She also invoked the above
she has direct and material interest in the estate because she gave half
6.
68
No
claims
were
filed.
Thereafter,
Emilio
filed
an
of the deceased
to resolve title
8. Emilio then petitioned the court for the payment of estate tax
2. Reliance to Pastor v. CA
affirmed.
Issue: May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass
b. Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the purpose
Held:
show that such was not the purpose of the intestate court.
1. General Rule:
estate and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to
be hers. But instead of doing so, she expressly adopted the inventory,
taking exception only to the low valuation placed on the real estate
proceedings.
properties.
i. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises special
petitioners inventory.
which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the
69
account of the plaintiff the sum of P5098, with legal interest and costs,
deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate,
question, the appeal will thus determine the amount, if any, which
branch in the same city. Attorney Gullas has had a current account
It appears from the record that on August 2, 1933, the Treasurer of the
United States for the United States Veterans Bureau issued a Warrant
in
If there is no dispute, well and good, but if there is, then the parties,
Insular Treasurer.
of the bank was P509. Against this balance he had issued certain
cheeks which could not be paid when the money was sequestered by
the On August 20, 1933, Attorney Gullas left his residence for Manila.
the
amount
of
$361,
payable
to
the
order
of
Francisco
61
PAULINOGULLAS,
that time because he was in Manila. In the bank's letter of August 21,
vs.
informed that the United States Treasury warrant No. 20175 in the
name of Francisco SabectoriaBacos for $361 or P722, the payment for
which had been received has been returned by our Manila office with
the notation that the payment of his check has been stopped by the
70
indorser and that the right of action against him does not accrue until
As a general rule, a bank has a right of set off of the deposits in its
denied, and it is held that a bank has no right, without an order from
indicated, checks including one for his insurance were not paid
because of the lack of funds standing to his credit in the bank. In the
Starting, therefore, from the premise that the Philippine National Bank
in this opinion. The main issues are two, namely, (1) as to the right of
had with respect to the deposit of Gullas a right of set off, we next
depositor to the bank and (2) as to the amount damages, if any, which
waiting for any action by Gullas, the bank made use of the money
standing in his account to make good for the treasury warrant. At this
point recall that Gullas was merely an indorser and had issued in good
faith.
Philippine law provide that compensation shall take place when two
persons are reciprocally creditor and debtor of each other (Civil Code,
article 1195). In his connection, it has been held that the relation
drawn by him in favor of a third party, it has been held that he has a
right of action against the bank for its refusal to pay such a check in
the absence of notice to him that the bank has applied the funds so
(Callahan vs. Bank of Anderson [1904], 2 Ann. Cas., 203.) The decision
Instruments Law, sec. 66.) In this connection, it has been held a long
notice should actually have been given him in order that he might
71
We accordingly are of the opinion that the action of the bank was
said hacienda, assailed the petition upon the grounds that the petition
proving exact damages is not so easy. For instance, for alleged libelous
does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the remedy
articles the bank would not be primarily liable. The same remark could
be made relative to the loss of business which Gullas claims but which
eventually been reimbursed lost little through the actual levy by the
bank on his funds. On the other hand, it was not agreeable for one to
draw checks in all good faith, then, leave for Manila, and on return find
that those checks had not been cashed because of the action taken by
the bank. That caused a disturbance in Gullas' finances, especially
with reference to his insurance, which was injurious to him. All facts
(now Sec 1 of Rule 91), the essential facts which should be alleged in
the main be overruled, with the result that the judgment of the trial
thereof,
3. That he has not left any heir or person by law entitled to the
property, and
72
The Municipal base its right to escheat on the fact that the
Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, temporal property of the Father of
Sec. 751 (now Sec 3 of Rule 91) provides that after the publications
and trial, if the court finds that the deceased is in fact the owner of
real and personal property situated in the country and has not left any
heir or other person entitled there to, it may order, after payment of
debts and other legal expenses, the escheat and in such case, it shall
the court finds that the deceased is in fact the owner of real and
personal property situated in the country and has not left any heir or
deceased had his last residence and the real property to the
other person entitled there to, it may order, after payment of debts and
other legal expenses, the escheat and in such case, it shall adjudicate
the personal property to the municipality where the deceased had his
last residence and the real property to the municipality/ies where they
deceased person become the property of the State upon his death
are situated.
without leaving any will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action but a
special proceeding. The proceeding should be commenced by a petition
deceased person become the property of the State upon his death
without leaving any will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action but a
sec 1 to 3 of Rule 91), the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive
necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat.
sec 1 to 3 of Rule 91), the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive
interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or Interest
When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the
necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat.
When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the
entertained
upon
this
ground
the
petition
may
be dismissed
unconditionally.
In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young had a right to
entertained
upon this
unconditionally.
respectively.
73
ground
the
petition
may
be
dismissed
In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young had a right to
respectively.
The Municipal base its right to escheat on the fact that the
requirement lacking).
74