PRODUCTION AND ALLOWANCE OF WILL (RULE 75)

 Probate of the Will or Testamentary Proceeding

- The act of proving in court a document purporting to be the last will
and testament of a certain deceased person for the purpose of its official
recognition, registration and carrying out its provision in so far as they
are in accordance with law. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
- A court proceeding to determine the authenticity of a will, that is, to
see if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirement of
law (Enrique vs. Chua Ma, 47257-R, May 23, 1980)

 Nature of Probate of the Will

- Probate of the will is mandatory. (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Pjil 479

and 98 Phil 249; Baluyot vs. Panio, G.R. No. L-42088, 71 SCRA 86)

 Rule in case two proceedings was filed, one for intestate and the
other one for testate proceeding

- The intestate proceedings shall be consolidated with proceeding.

 It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should
be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case
should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge
assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two
cases (Roberts vs Lenidas G.R No. K-55509, April 27, 1984)

 Issues that may be resolved by the Probate Court

- Extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated, the due execution

thereof, the testator’s testamentary capacity and the compliance with
the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.
- Determination of whether a property should be included in the
inventory is within the jurisdiction of a probate court. (Munsayac-De
Villa vs. CA, 414 SCRA 436)
- Determination of who are the heirs
- Validity of a waiver of hereditary rights
- Status of each heir
- All other matters incidental to the administration, settlement and
distribution of the estate.

 May a probate court pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will?

 - No, in a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and
large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will. As a rule, the
question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate
court cannot resolve with finality. (Pastor Jr vs. CA, 122 SCRA 185)
- The probate court may pass upon intrinsic validity when the will is
null and void as in the case of preterition.
 In Nuguid vs. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court the
testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completely
preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature, no
matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null and
void and separate or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic
validity of the testamentary provisions would be superfluous.
(Nepomuceno vs. CA, GR No. L-62952, October 9,1985)

 Is a Probate Court of Limited Jurisdiction?

- Yes. A probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. As such, it may

only determine and rule upon issues that relate to settlement of the
estate of the deceased person.
- A probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction an acts only in
matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights to property
arising from contract (Pia Barreto Realty Dev Inc vs, CA, L-62431, 131
SCRA 606)

 Remedy in case of grave abuse of discretion committed by the

probate court

- it can be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

 An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its jurisdiction may be
corrected by certiorari. And even assuming the existence of the
remedy of appeal, we harken the rule that in the broader interests
of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly
where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief
(Maninang vs. CA, GR No. L-57848, June 19,1982)

 Is the Doctrine of Estoppel Applicable in Probate Proceedings?

- The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings

since the probate of the will is mandated by reason of public policy.
 Doctrine of Estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings as
the presentation and probate of a will are requirements of public
policy, being primarily designed to protect the testator’s expressed
wishes, which are entitled to respect as a consequence of the
 decedent’s ownership and right of disposition within legal limits. It
would be a non sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the
pretext of estoppel.

 Judicial compromise has the force and effect of a judgment

- A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already under

litigation is a judicial compromise. Having judicial mandate and
entered as its determination of the controversy, such judicial
compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its
identity as a mere contract between the parties, as it becomes a
judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of
Court. Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly
approved by the court attains the effect and authority if res judicata,
although no execution may be issued unless the agreement receives
the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and
compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed.
 Allowance of the Will and Its Effects

- Sec. 1 of Rule 75 of the Rules of Court provides for the rule on the
reason and effect of the allowance of the will. It states that:
 Sec 1 – Allowance necessary. Conclusive as execution. – No will
shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and
allowed in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such
allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution”

 Why is Probate of the Will Necessary?

- As provided by the above cited provision, probate is necessary since:

a. No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is
proved and allowed in the proper court, and
b. Also, by reason of public policy.
 The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it,
because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the
whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will
may be rendered nugatory.

 What are the Exceptions to the Above Rule

a. Division of the Estate by the Heirs:

 - The heirs may divide among themselves out of court the estate
according to the will after payment of all debts.
 The heirs divide the estate according to the will, pay the creditors
accordingly so that none of them may be prejudiced. BY permitting
partition and division of the estate without judicial proceedings
would enable the heirs to take over their respective shares in the
inheritance without delay and thereby avoid expenses and waste.
b. Partition by Act Inter Vivos:
- No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved
or allowed in court. We find, that the document may be sustained on
the basis of Article 1056 which reads as follows: Article 1056. If the
testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter
vivos, or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not
prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs.

 What is the Effect of the Allowance of the Will?

- As stated in the above mentioned provision that “Subject to the right
of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due
execution”.
 Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic
validity of a will in probate proceedings. This is expressly provided
for in Rule 75, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court - No will shall pass
either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the
will shall be conclusive as to its due execution.

- Concept and Extent of “Due Execution”

1. The will was executed in accordance with the strict formalities of
the law;
2. The testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the
execution of the will;
3. Consent not violated by any duress fear or threats;
4. The will was not procured by any undue influence from the
beneficiary or by some other person for his benefit; and
5. The signature of the testator is genuine.

 Will Mandamus Lie to Produce a Holographic Will?

- No. Mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations
involving the production of holographic will.
  Mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations. The
writ is not appropriate to enforce a private right against an
individual. The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of
an act, when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed, and
regularly, issues only in cases relating to the public and to the
government, it is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but
only in matters relating to the public. Mandamus can be issued
only in cases where the usual modes of procedure and forms of
remedy are powerless to afford relief.
CASES:

G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012

LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C. ROMERO VS. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO AND VITTORIO C.
ROMERO

FACTS:

Upon the death of Judge Dante Romero, his wife, Aurora, was
appointed as legal guardian who held several real and personal properties
in trust for her children and continues to be the administrator of the
properties, businesses, and investments comprising the estate of the
decedent. Petitioners, sons of the decedent, discovered that several Deeds
of Sale were registered in the name of their brother, Vittorio. Petitioners
allege that through fraud, misrepresentation and duress, Vittorio succeeded
in registering the properties in his name, thus, filed a Complaint for
Annulment of Sale, Nullification of Title and Conveyance of Title with the
Regional Trial Court. Private respondents, Aurora and Vittorio, in their
Answer, alleged that the lots in question were paraphernal properties of
Aurora which she mortgaged, and it was Vittorio who redeemed them.

The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint holding that the

Special Proceedings case remains pending, thus the claims of the parties
could not be passed upon by it without first getting a definitive
pronouncement from the intestate court as to the share of each of the heirs
of the decedent in his estate. Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the trial court in rendering the said Order, petitioners filed for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court dismissed the
Petition, ruling that the properties involved in the case are part of the estate
left to the heirs of the decedent, the partition of which is already subject of
an intestate proceeding. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court
arguing that the probate court may rule on issues pertaining to title over
property only in a provisional capacity.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the probate court have jurisdiction to determine the

issues in the present case

RULING:

Yes. The probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or

testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the
inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination
in a separate action. Although generally, a probate court may not decide a
question of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or
the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to
the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third
parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the
question of ownership. The Supreme Court held that instant case may be
treated as an exception to the general rule that questions of title should be
ventilated in a separate action.

While it is true that a probate court’s determination of ownership over

properties which may form part of the estate is not final or ultimate in
nature, this rule is applicable only as between the representatives of the
estate and strangers thereto.

Petitioners are questioning the validity of the sales made by the

administrator, an issue that can only be properly threshed out by the
probate court. The validity of the sales made by Aurora, allegedly
orchestrated by Vittorio, can only be determined by the probate court which
is empowered to identify the nature of the property, and that has
jurisdiction over Aurora’s actions and disposition as administrator.

G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001

PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO, ORLANDO S.

MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA (BRANCH 35), PURITA
S. JAYME, MILAGROS M. TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA
M. ACUIN, ROMEO S. MANALO, ROBERTO S. MANALO, AMALIA
MANALO and IMELDA MANALO

FACTS:
Troadio Manalo died intestate and was survived by his wife, petitioner
Pilar Manalo and 11 children. He left several real properties located in
Manila and Tarlac including a business with offices at Quezon City and
Valenzuela. Herein respondents, who are 8 of the surviving children, filed a
petition with the RTC Manila for the judicial settlement of the estate of their
late father. On the date set for hearing of the petition, the RTC issued an
order declaring the whole world in default, except the government.
However, this order of general default was set aside by the trial court upon
motion of herein petitioners. The latter filed an omnibus motion which was
later denied by the trial court. On appeal to CA, petitioners argued that
there was absence of earnest efforts toward compromise among members of
the same family as stated under Art. 151 of the Family Code, but it was also
dismissed. Hence, the present case.
ISSUE:
Is the petition for the judicial settlement of the estate an ordinary civil
action requiring Art. 151 of the Family Code prior the filing of the petition?

RULING:
NO. In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the
averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint or petition
shall be controlling. As a rule, Art. 151 of the Family Code, which requires
members of the same family there must be a verified allegation of earnest
efforts at compromise, applies only to ordinary civil actions, but not to a
special proceeding, like a petition for judicial settlement of estate, which is
imply for the establishment of a status, right, or particular fact. It must be
emphasized that the petitioners are not being sued in said petition for any
cause of action as no defendant was impleaded therein. Respondents merely
seek to establish the fact of death of their father and be duly recognized as
heirs so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the
settlement and liquidation of the estate.