E. Guevara vs. R.

Guevara
GR. No. L - 48840, December 29, 1943

Doctrine: The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance is essential and
indispensable to its efficacy. The law requires the probate of the will and public policy also 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.
Recit-Ready Summary:
Victorino Guevara executed a will, which the pertinent parts thereof dispose of some of his properties in favor of his
natural (illegitimate child) Rosario Guevara, his legitimate sone Ernesto Guevara, and 5 other stepchildren. He also
set aside a 100-hectare portion of land for himself in order to answer for any of his needs/expenses and debts during
his lifetime. Subsequently, he sold the southern half of the subject land to Ernesto and recognized him (basically
donated) as the owner of the other northern half of the land. When Victorino died, his will was in the possession of
Rosario but she did not file for its probate. Instead, after a full four years after her father’s death, she went before the
court alleging that as a natural daughter of the deceased, and that her father had died intestate, she was entitled to a
specific portion of the subject land which was now under Ernesto’s name. She presented the will not for its probate
but rather to prove her interest in the subject parcel of land. The CFI and CA ruled in favor of Rosario and the
procedure with which she claimed her legitime. The issue is whether or not the procedure undertaken by Rosario
was proper or even legal.
The Court ruled in the negative, stating that it was in violation of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and
disregard the last will and testament of the decedent. The Code of Civil Procedure, which was in force up to the time
this case was decided by the trial court, contained proceedings which required a will to be approved by the CFI and
for the custodian of a will to surrender it to the court. Basically the heirs may not do away with the will and claim
their respective inheritances in a manner outside that prescribed by law.
Facts:

 Victorino L. Guevara, resident of Bayambang, Pangasinan executed a will. The will contains the distribution of
different personal properties and residential lot among his children, Rosario (natural daughter) and Ernesto
Guevara (legitimate son) and to his 5 other stepchildren. He also gave, by way of donation propter nuptias, 25
hectares of land from the 259-odd land he owns to his second wife. Victorino also set aside 100 hectares of the
same parcel of land to be disposed of either by him during his lifetime or by his attorney-in-fact Ernesto M.
Guevara in order to pay all his pending debts and to defray his expenses and those of his family us to the time of
his death.
 On July 1933 Victorino executed a deed of sale in favor of Ernesto Guevara, conveying to the latter the
southern half of the subject lot and expressly recognized Ernesto Guevara as owner of the northern half. In
November of the same year, Victorino and Ernesto jointly applied for registration of the big parcel in view of
the sale from the former to the latter. The decree was issued in the name of Ernesto Guevara exclusively and for
the whole tract, a certificate of title being issued in his sole name on October 12, 1933.
 On September 27, 1933, Victorino Guevara died but his will was not filed for probate. in 1937, Rosario
Guevara, claiming to be a recognized natural child of the deceased Victorino and on the assumption that he had
died intestate, brought suit against Ernesto Guevara to recover her share in the subject parcel of land.
 Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father's last will and testament in her custody, did nothing
judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions made therein in her favor, whereby the testator acknowledged
her as his natural daughter and, and that she owns 21.6171 hectares portion of the large parcel of land described
in the will. But a little over four years after the testator’s demise, she commenced the present action against
Ernesto M. Guevara alone for the purpose previously indicated; and it was only during the trial of this case that
she presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of having it probated but only to prove that the
deceased Victorino L. Guevara had acknowledged her as his natural daughter.
 Upon that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her share of the inheritance from him, but on the theory or
assumption that he died intestate, because the will had not been probated, for which reason, she asserted, the
endowment made by the testator in favor of his legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara should be disregarded. Both
the trial court and the Court of appeals sustained Roasario’s theory.
Issue: Whether or not the probate of a will can be dispensed with by Rosario in claiming her legitime as the
natural daughter.
Held:

 NO. Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an attempt to circumvent the last will and
testament of the decedent. The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its
allowance is essential and indispensable to its efficacy. Suppression of the will is contrary to law and public
policy for without probate, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.
 In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other than the present litigants had received their
respective legacies or that they had knowledge of the existence and of the provisions of the will. Their right
under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of
the custodian of the will to present it to the court for probate.
 Under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, if the decedent left a will and no debts
and the heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will
to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will. They may not disregard the provisions
of the will unless those provisions are contrary to law. Neither may they so away with the presentation of the
will to the court for probate, because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and 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.
 Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and due execution of the
will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing
its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that “no will shall pass either
real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court”; and, second, because the
probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any other
proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator’s
right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees
under the will thru the means provided by law, among which are the publication and the personal notices to
each and all of said heirs and legatees.
 Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an action for partition, which is one
in personam, any more than it could decree the registration under the Torrens system of the land involved in an
ordinary action for reinvindicacion or partition.