Effect of probate

Gallanosa v. Arcangel
GR L-29300, June 21, 1978

FACTS:
Florentino Hitosis executed a will on June 19, 1938. He died on May 26, 1939. On June 24, 1939, a petition
for the probate of his will was filed in CFI Sorsogon. Opposition to the probate of the will was registered
by the testator's legal heirs, namely, his surviving brother, Leon, his nephews and nieces. The CFI Judge
admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as executor.

The testamentary heirs later submitted a project of partition covering 61 parcels of land, which was
approved by the judge. In 1952, the heirs of Florentino’s deceased brothers and sisters instituted an
action for the recovery of the parcels of land. Gallanosa moved to dismiss on the ground of bar by prior
judgment in the probate proceeding. Judge dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata.

28 years after the probate of the will, plaintiffs filed another action in the same court for the annulment of
the will of Hitosis and for the recovery of the 61 parcels of land. They alleged that the Gallanosa spouses,
through fraud trial deceit, caused the execution trial simulation of the document purporting to be the last
will trial testament of Florentino Hitosis.

ISSUE: WON a will that has passed probate can be annulled NO

HELD:
No annulment of will
Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a will. In order that a will may take
effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of
the will is mandatory. The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity
of the will.

Testator of sound mind, no fraud: these cannot be questioned in subsequent proceeding

That means that the testator was of sound trial disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and
was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed by him in the
presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is genuine trial is not a forgery.
Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a
criminal action for the forgery of the will.

After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be
raised anymore.

Atty Tiu: Why is it that there is no such animal as “ANNULMENT OF PROBATED WILL”? The explanation is
very simple. When you say annulment, what is the basic ground for annulling a document? It’s basically
vitiated consent. Now, if a will has passed probate, there is now a conclusive finding as to the voluntariness of
the execution of the will. Necessarily, it being conclusive, it follows that at the time of the making of the will,
the testator was not suffering from any vitiated consent. So, there is no such remedy as annulment of a
probated will because Sec 1 of Rule 75 says that, “a will that has been probated is conclusive as to its due
execution.”

Who may file petition?

Maloles v. Philipps
GR 129505, January 31, 2000

FACTS:
Dr. Arturo de Santos filed a petition for probate of his will (Makati RTC Branch 61), where he declared
the Arturo de Santos Foundation Inc as the sole legatee and devisee. RTC Makati Judge Gorospe issued an
order allowing the will on February 16, 1996. Shortly after the probate, Dr. De Santos died on February
26, 1996.
Petitioner Octavio Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as the only child of testator’s
sister, he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest kin of the testator. He also alleged that he was a
creditor of the testator. He thus prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the
issuance of letters of administration in his name.

On the other hand, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, the designated executrix of the will,
filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61. She later moved to withdraw the
motion, which was granted.

Pacita, who earlier withdrew her motion for the issuance of letters testamentary in Branch 61, refiled a
petition for the same purpose with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, which was docketed as Sp. Proc. No.
M-4343 and assigned to Branch 65. Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 then issued an order appointing her
as special administrator of the estate.

On July 29, 1996, petitioner sought to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and to set aside the appointment
of private respondent as special administrator. He reiterated that he was the sole and full blooded
nephew and nearest of kin of the testator; that he came to know of the existence of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343
only by accident; that the probate proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. M-4223 before Branch 61 of the same court
was still pending.

On August 28, 1996, Judge Abad Santos ordered the transfer of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 to Branch 61, on the
ground that "[it] is related to the case before Judge Gorospe of RTC Branch 61 . . ."

But Judge Gorospe returned the said records to Branch 65 on the ground that there was already a pending
case involving the said estate in that court. Judge Abad Santos eventually took cognizance of the case to
expedite the proceedings (but he previously said that it would have been improper for Branch 65 to
resolve the petition considering that the probate proceedings were commenced with Branch 61).

ISSUE: WON Branch 65 could not lawfully act upon private respondent’s petition for issuance of letters
testamentary NO

HELD:
Testator may file petition for probate of his will
Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so much so that, after
approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of
the testator.

However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition for probate of the will filed by the
testator himself. Art. 838. Xxx The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having
jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. xxx

Rule 76, §1 likewise provides: Sec. 1 Who may petition for the allowance of will. – xxx The testator himself
may, during his lifetime, petition in the court for the allowance of his will.

Rationale for allowing the probate of wills during the lifetime of testator
It is far easier for the courts to determine the mental condition of a testator during his lifetime than after
his death. Fraud, intimidation and undue influence are minimized. Furthermore, if a will does not comply
with the requirements prescribed by law, the same may be corrected at once. The probate during the
testator’s life, therefore, will lessen the number of contest upon wills. Once a will is probated during the
lifetime of the testator, the only questions that may remain for the courts to decide after the testator’s
death will refer to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary dispositions.

Branch 61 could only issue certificate of allowance of will

Thus, after the allowance of the will of Dr. De Santos on February 16, 1996, there was nothing else for
Branch 61 to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will pursuant to Rule 73, §12 of the Rules
of Court. There is, therefore, no basis for the ruling of Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 of RTC-Makati that
– “Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati having begun the probate proceedings of the estate of
the deceased, it continues and shall continue to exercise said jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. It
should be noted that probate proceedings do not cease upon the allowance or disallowance of a will but
continues up to such time that the entire estate of the testator had been partitioned and distributed.”

Other branches not barred from taking cognizance of settlement of estate after testator’s death
It is noteworthy that, although Rule 73, §1 applies insofar as the venue of the petition for probate of the
will of Dr. De Santos is concerned, it does not bar other branches of the same court from taking
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the testator after his death. It is noteworthy that, although
Rule 73, §1 applies insofar as the venue of the petition for probate of the will of Dr. De Santos is
concerned, it does not bar other branches of the same court from taking cognizance of the settlement of
the estate of the testator after his death. As held in the leading case of Bacalso v. Ramolote: The various
branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu under the Fourteenth Judicial District, are a coordinate and
co-equal courts, and the totality of which is only one Court of First Instance. The jurisdiction is vested in the
court, not in the judges. And when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to
the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of the other branches.

Necessarily, therefore, Branch 65 of the RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over Sp. Proc. No. M-4343.

***paki singit nalang after Nittscher case***

CONFLICT OF RULINGS BETWEEN MALOLES AND NITTSCHER:

In Maloles, a separate petition was filed by the executor for letters testamentary. Meaning, the petition for
issuance of letters testamentary is separate and not a continuation of the probate proceedings.

In Nittscher, the petitioner questioned the petition for issuance of letters testamentary since it lacked a
CNFS. The Court, through Admin Circular 04-94 required a CNFS for all initiatory pleadings. But the Court
said that the petition for the issuance of letters testamentary is NOT an initiatory pleading but a mere
continuation of the original petition for probate of will. Hence, the lack of CNFS was not a ground for the
outright dismissal of the said petition.

Note that in Nittscher, the testator himself filed a petition for probate of his own will AND for the issuance
of letters testamentary to Atty. Nogales. In Maloles, testator filed a petition only for the probate of his will.

Contents of petition

Fran v. Salas
GR 53546. June 25, 1992

FACTS:
Remedios Vda de Tiosejo executed a last will and testament. She died on July 10, 1972. On July 15, 1972,
Jesus Fran filed a petition with CFI Cebu for the probate of testator’s will. Private respondents asked for
time to the petition but did not actually file an opposition to the probate. Hence, the petition was
uncontested.

Evidence submitted: a copy of the original of the will and its English translation.

ISSUE: WON the original will must be attached for the court to acquire jurisdiction NO

HELD:
Not necessary that original will is attached
In Santos vs. Castillo and Salazar vs. Court of First Instance of Laguna, decided six (6) months apart in
1937, this Court already ruled that it is not necessary that the original of the will be attached to the
petition. In the first, it ruled: "The original of said document [the will] must be presented or sufficient
reasons given to justify the nonpresentation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate
thereof." In the second case, this Court was more emphatic in holding that: The law is silent as to the
specific manner of bringing the jurisdictional allegations before the court, but practice and jurisprudence
have established that they should be made in the form of an application and filed with the original of the will
attached thereto. It has been the practice in some courts to permit attachment of a mere copy of the
will to the application, without prejudice to producing the original thereof at the hearing or when
the court so requires. This precaution has been adopted by some attorneys to forestall its disappearance,
which has taken place in certain cases.

Annexing of original not jurisdictional requirement

That the annexing of the original will to the petition is not a jurisdictional requirement is clearly evident
in Section 1, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court which allows the filing of a petition for probate by the person
named therein regardless of whether or not he is in possession of the will, or the same is lost or
destroyed. The section reads in full as follows:

Sec. 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. — Any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or
any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court
having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or
destroyed.

In the instant case, a copy of the original will and its English translation were attached to the petition as
Annex "A" and Annex "A-1", respectively, and made integral parts of the same. It is to be presumed that
upon the filing of the petition the Clerk of Court, or his duly authorized subordinate, examined the
petition and found that the annexes mentioned were in fact attached thereto. If they were not, the petition
cannot be said to have been properly presented and the Clerk of Court would not have accepted it for
docketing.

Ma’am Tiu: For purposes of filing the petition, you need not attach the original. But for purposes of
presenting it in evidence, you produce the original.