Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Deogracias Bernardo V Cadocx
Deogracias Bernardo V Cadocx
Facts:
Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. The former died on
July 27, 1958. His will was submitted for probate and the testator disposed his
estate primarily to his wife, cousins and Arturo, Deogracias and Eduardo Bernado.
A year after the husbands death or on April 24, 1959, the wife died.
Consequently, a project partition was filed by the executor in accordance with the
testators will but with the exception of Hermegena Reyes, whose share was allotted
to her collateral relatives. Thereafter, a counter-project of partition was filed by the
said relatives claiming of the properties on the theory that they belonged to the
conjugal partnership of the spouses.
One of the issues that were brought to the probate court for consideration was on
the propriety of a separate civil action of the matters currently in litigation with it.
Said probate court ordered the disapproval of the projects partition since the
properties involved were conjugal properties of the deceased spouses.
Executor then filed a motion for new trial which raised the question of jurisdiction of
the probate court to take cognizance of the claim. This motion was however denied.
Issue:
Ruling:
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is a matter properly within the
jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal
partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be
distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, of
course, the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who have
been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who have appeared
voluntarily. There are no third parties whose rights may be affected. It is true that
the heirs of the deceased widow are not heirs of the testator-husband, but the
widow is, in addition to her own right to the conjugal property. And it is this right
that is being sought to be enforced by her substitutes. Therefore, the claim that is
being asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, consequently, it
complies with the requirement of the exception that the parties interested are all
heirs claiming title under the testator.