Rule 74

Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate

Requisites
(a) The decedent died intestate;
(b) There are no outstanding debts at time of settlement
(c) Heirs are all of legal age, or minors are duly represented by their guardians.

Pereira v Court of Appeals

In this case, the deceased died without a will and without debt. He was survived by his wife and
his sister. The sister filed a petition for issuance of letter administration.
 The Court held that the administration proceedings is not necessary. Generally, when a
person dies leaving a property without a will, an administration proceeding must be had.
An exception to this rule is Rule 74 Section 1 which allows for extrajudicial settlement of
estate.
o Extrajudicial settlement, however, does not preclude parties to institute
administration proceedings.
o The recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has no debts is
sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action
for partition.

Avelino v Court of Appeals

In this case, Avelino had two wives. Upon his death, the first wife filed for issuance of letters of
administration. The second wife filed an opposition seeking to convert the proceedings into an
ordinary action for partition.
 The Court held that the conversion from administration to judicial partition is correct.
 When a person dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs, are not required to
submit the property for judicial administration, nor apply for the appointment of an
administrator by the court. Under Rule 74, Section 1:
o They can agree in an extrajudicial partition; or
o Should they disagree, they may resort to an ordinary action for partition.

Fajardo v Cua-Malate
 Petitioner participated in the oral partition but did not sign the compromise agreement.
 The fact that petitioner Victoria failed to sign the written document bearing the terms of the
parties' agreement is of no moment. As explicitly held in Vda. de Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, an oral partition may be valid and binding upon the heirs; there is no law that
requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid.

Registration of Public Instrument and Filing of Bond

(a) Settlement is made in a public instrument or an affidavit in case of sole heir, filed in the
registry of deeds
(b) Publication of the settlement in newspaper of general circulation
(c) Filing of a bond equivalent to the value of personal property

Pada-Kilario v Court of Appeals

Petitioner in this case were occupants of a parcel of land owned by Jacinto Pada. It was alleged
that their occupation therein was merely tolerated. Upon the death of Jacinto, the respondents in
this case entered into an extrajudicial partition. By virtue of the partition, the petitioners were
asked to vacate. A deed of donation was later on executed by other heirs in their favor. Thus,
petitioners alleged that the extrajudicial partition cannot be used against them as it is only
 executed in a private document and is never registered in the registry of deeds.
 The court held that partition effected through a private document is nonetheless valid.
 No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be
valid. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others.
o It follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed
formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved.

Heirs of Teves v Court of Appeals

In this case, an action for annulment of extrajudicial settlement and reconveyance was filed by
petitioners. They alleged that the extrajudicial partition with quitclaim is not valid as their
predecessors in interest did not actually participate therein and that it was not registered.
 The court also ruled that the non-registration does not render the settlement invalid. It is
still valid among the heirs who agreed since there are no creditors.

Publication. The fact of extrajudicial settlement shall be published in the newspaper of general
circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. However, no extrajudicial settlement shall be
binding upon any person who has not participated or had no notice thereof.

Cua v Vargas
 Extrajudicial settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale was only executed by 5/11 heirs. The
excluded heirs filed for annulment of the EJS. The argument of the petitioners was that
thye were already deemed notified because of the publication.
 Section 1, Rule 74 is an ex-parte proceeding stating that persons who do not participate or
had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby.
o The fact of subsequent publication of the partition does not constitute constructive
notice to the heirs w/o any knowledge or participation because the same was
notice after the fact of execution.

Remedies of Aggrieved Parties

(a) There are persons unduly deprived of lawful participation; or
o The party has two years after settlement to raise the same
(b) The estate has debts; or
o The two year period is also applicable.
(c) There is undue deprivation of lawful participation payable in money
o Two year period also.

The two year period after the settlement to assail its validity is only applicable to those who was
able to participate in the settlement of estate. Persons who did not participate are not bound by such
period.

Treyes v Larlar
 The husband filed an affidavit of self-adjudication to the exclusion of the siblings of his
wife. A complaint for annulment of self-adjudication was filed. The husband argued that
the action already prescribed since the Rules only allow two years from the settlement to
compel settlement in their favor.
 The Court ruled that the prescription does not apply in:
(a) Persons who have not participated or had notice of the partition; or
(b) When the partition did not comply with section 1 (ie., all heirs participate therein).
 Here there was no participation by the siblings and they were neither notified of the same.
 Hence, the prescriptive period applicable is the prescription of implied trust which is 10
years from discovery.

Neri v Heirs of Uy
 The husband from second marriage executed an EJS of estate in favor of him and his
children to the exclusion of the petitioners (children from first marriage). They filed for an
annulment of sale. One of the arguments is that the action for annulment and already
prescribed since the Rules allow only 2 years after settlement.
 Void as to the heirs who did not participate.
 Prescription of 2 years do not apply to heirs who did not ratify. In this case, there is only
constructive trust, which prescribed 10 years from the discovery of the exclusion.

Pedrosa v Court of Appeals

 In Pedrosa, the adopted child was excluded from the extrajudicial settlement. She sought
for the annulment of the partition.
 The respondents raised the issue of prescription since more than 2 years had already
lapsed.
 The court held that prescription of 2 years does not apply here since an extrajudicial
settlement executed to the exclusion of one heir is null and void and without effect.

Summary Settlement of Estate

Extrajudicial settlement Summary settlement

No court intervention is required
The value of estate is immaterial
Allowed only in intestate succession
There must be no outstanding debts
The heirs must all agree
Amount of bond is equal to the personal
property
There is court intervention albeit summary
The value if estate must not exceed P10,000
Allowed in both testate and intestate
There may be outstanding debts, upon which
the court will make provision for payment
May be instituted by any party without consent
Amount of bond is determined by the court

 Petition of an interested person, a hearing shall be held within (1) month but not more than
(6) months from the date of last publication for three consecutive weeks.
 Rule 75
Production of Wills

Section 1. No will shall pass either real or personal property 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.

Custodian  Executor  Court

The person who has custody
to deliver the Will to the Court
or to the executor named in
the will within 30 days from
the knowledge of death of
testator
Within 20 days
(a) After he knows of the
death; or
(b) After he knows that he is
the executor, if he learns
it after death
Shall present the will to the court
(unless the custodian has
already presented it directly to
the court) and signify his
acceptance or refusal of the
trust.

Section 4. Person who neglects his duties without satisfactory excuse shall be fined with Php 2000.

Section 5. Person in custody of the will who neglects to deliver it without reasonable cause when
ordered to do so may be committed to prison until he produces the Will.

Guevarra v Guevarra
The decedent in this case died leaving a will. The will was in the custody of respondent, who is his
natural daughter. It was never presented for probate. It was only presented four years after the
death of the testator, but was invoked in order to prove that the respondent is an acknowledged
child of the testator. Furthermore, the respondent also argued that since the will is not probated, it
would be as though he died intestate. Thus, she is claiming her inheritance as if there was
intestacy, instead of complying with the dispositions set forth in the unprobated will.
 The court held that the act of respondent constitute a violation of the procedural law and
an attempt to circumvent and disregard the last will and testament of the decedent.
 The petition for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and
indispensable to its efficacy. The law enjoins probate 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, as is attempted to be done in the instant case.

Rodelas v Aranza
The only question here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic copy.
 A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because
comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

Alaban v Court of Appeals

Uy Kiao Eng v Lee

In this case, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel his mother to produce the
holographic will of his father. The issue raised is whether or not the Mandamus is the proper
remedy.
  The proper remedy is Rule 75. Mandamus cannot be had to enforce private rights.
Moreover, it may only be resorted to when there are no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
 In this case, the petitioner is in possession of a photocopy of the will and that he seeks the
production of the original for purposes of probate. The Rules of Court, however, does not
prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the
same is in his possession or not.

Cuenco v Court of Appeals

Rule 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Wills

Who may file (a) The testator, during his lifetime

(b) Executor named in the Will
(c) Legatees or devisees named in the will
(d) Any other interested persons
(e) Creditors

Contents (a) Jurisdictional facts

(b) Names, ages, and addresses of heirs, legatees, and devisees
(c) Probable value and character of the estate
(d) Named of the persons to whom the Letters are prayed for
(e) Name of person having custody of the will, if not yet presented in
court.

Court order  Fix time and place of hearing

 Publication of Notice

Publication and  Publication must be made once a week for three weeks in a
Notice newspaper of general circulation.
o But no newspaper publication is required if the testator himself
filed for probate.
 Notice shall be given to all heirs, legatees and devisees, creditors and
other interested persons at their place of residence.
o If by mail, then it shall be delivered 20 days before the set date
for hearing
o If personal service, it shall be served within 10 days from the
set date of hearing.
 If the petitioner is the testator, then only compulsory heirs are entitled
to notice.

Hearing Preliminary matters

 Prior to the introduction of the testimonies, compliance with the
publication and notice requirement has to be shown.

Uncontested
 If notarial will, testimony of one subscribing witness that the will was
executed as required by law is sufficient.
  If holographic will, testimony of at least one witness who knows the
handwriting and signature of the testator declare that it is his.
o In the absence of competent witness, then an expert testimony
may be resorted to.

Contested
 If notarial will, all the subscribing witness and the notary public shall
testify.
 If holographic, at least three witnesses who know the handwriting of
the testator must explicitly declare that it is indeed the same.
o In the absence of competent witness, and if the court deem it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

If the petitioner is the testator

 If holographic will, it is sufficient that the testator affirms the same
 If contested, then the burden is upon the contestant.

Lost or Destroyed Will

 The existence of the will at the time of death, and or shown that it was
fraudulently or accidentally destroyed during the lifetime of the testator
without his knowledge.
 Execution and validity of the will must be proven.
 The contents and provisions must be proved by at least two witnesses.
 If proved, then the judge must
o Distinctly state and certify the provisions of the will
o Certify the same under seal of court
o Certificate must be filed and recorded

Manner of Do not reside in the Province – may be taken through a deposition.

Taking
Testimony of Do not reside in the Philippines, dead or insane – the court may admit the
the Witnesses testimony of other witnesses to prove:
 The sanity of the testator;
 The genuiness and due execution of the will;
 The handwriting of the testator and subscribing witnesses.

If the witnesses [1] testify against the due execution, [2] does not
remember attesting to it or of [3] doubtful credibility, the Court may still
allow if:
 Satisfactory testimony from other witnesses; and
 From all the evidence presented.
Grounds for (a) The will is not executed as required by law; or
Denial of (b) If the testator is insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a
Probate will at the time of execution.
(c) If the will was executed under duress of influence of fear or threats;
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on
the part of the beneficiary or of other person for his benefit;
(e) If the signature was procured through fraud or trick, and he did not
intend that the instrument should be his will at time of signing.
Maninang v Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed a petition for probate of a holographic will. The private respondent, who is the
adopted son of the decedent filed a motion to dismiss stating that the holographic will was invalid
since he was preterited. He also instituted an intestate proceedings. The trial court dismissed the
testate case.
 The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the petition for probate is erroneous. In
probate proceedings, the court’s area of inquiry is limited only to the examination of
genuiness and due execution of the will.
o The intrinsic validity is only determined after the authentication except when the
intrinsic invalidity is already apparent on the face of the will, then the probate court
may pass upon the same.
 In this case, however, it is unclear whether the omission of the respondent was due to
preterition or disinheritance. Thus, an examination of intrinsic validity is necessary. This
cannot be passed upon by the probate court.

Sps. Ajero v Court of Appeals

In Sps. Ajero v Court of Appeals, the probate of a holographic will was opposed on the ground that
it contained invalid dispositions. It was alleged that certain dispositions were not dated and signed
by the testator in accordance with Section 813 and 814 of the Civil Code
 The Court held that while it is true that the dispositions did not comply with the Civil Code,
the effect is only limited to the avoidance of such dispositions and will not entirely
invalidate the will.
 The grounds for disallowance of the will under the Civil Code and Rule 76 is exclusive. In
probate of the will, the only issues to be resolved are:
o Whether the instrument submitted is indeed the last will of the testator;
o Whether it complied with the legal formalities;
o Whether the testator had the capacity at the time the will was executed; and
o Whether the execution and signing of the will is voluntary.

Maloles v Philips
In this case, the testator filed for the probate of his own will in Branch 61 of Makati RTC. After
issuing an order allowing the will, the testator died. The named executor in the will filed a petition
for issuance of letter testamentary in Branch 65. Branch 65 deferred the case to Branch 61 stating
that the probate proceedings is already pending there.
 The Supreme Court ruled that in cases where the probate was done during the lifetime of
the testator, the duty of the probate court terminates upon the issuance of the order
allowing the will. There is nothing that prevents the executor to initiate the issuance of
letters testamentary in a different branch.

Baltazar v Laxa
This case involves the probate of a notarial will. Petitioner opposed the probate claiming that it
was not executed in accordance with law, that the testator lacked the testamentary capacity at the
time of execution and it was executed under force and duress. In the hearing, only two of the
witnesses were presented. The will was disallowed.
 The Court ruled that in probate of the will, the Court is only limited to determine the
extrinsic validity of the Will.
 The absence of the other witnesses and the notary public is not necessarily fatal to the
allowance of the will.
o The inability of notary public was duly proven by the testimony of his son that he
suffered a heart attack, Likewise, the daughter of one of the witnesses also
testified that his father is not in the condition to testify anymore.
o What is decisive in allowance or disallowance is the determination of the court,
 and not the testimony of the attesting witnesses.

Rule 77
Re-Probate

Section 1. Re-probate
 Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, in accordance with the laws of such cournt,
may be allowed, filed and recorded in the Philippines.
 The copy of such will and the order of decree of allowance, both authenticated, must be filed
with a petition for allowance by the executor or persons interested in the Will, in accordance
with the procedure in Rule 76.

Requirements:
(a) Due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws;
(b) The testator is domiciled in that foreign country;
(c) The will is admitted and probated there;
(d) The foreign tribunal is a probate court; and
(e) The laws of the foreign country are proved.

Palaganas v Palaganas
In this case, the testator is a naturalized US Citizen who executed a will in accordance with the
law of California. A petition for probate of the Will was filed in the Philippines. This was opposed
by the petitioner arguing that the will should first be probated in California before it can be allowed
in the Philippines.
 The court ruled that the Rule in reprobate or reauthentication is different from actual
probate of the will.
 The Civil Code allow a will executed by an alien residing abroad to be probated in the
Philippines if it made in accordance with either the place of residence, law of the country
which he is a national, or Philippine laws.

Vda de Perez v Tolete

In this case, the testators are US Citizens residing in New York. Their will was already probated in
New York. A petition for reprobate was filed in the Philippines, which was subsequently disallowed
because the laws of New York was not alleged.
 The court held that the will should be disallowed.
 In order that a reprobate may prosper, the following has to be alleged:
o The will was executed based on foreign laws
o The testator is domiciled at the said foreign country
o The will is already admitted for probate there
o The tribunal which admitted that will is a probate court; and
o The laws of the said foreign country is proved. (this is not subject to judicial notice)

Rule 78
Letters Testamentary and Administration

Section 1. No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who:

(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
 (c) Is in the opinion of the court, unfit to execute the duties of trust by reason of [1]
drunkenness, [2] improvidence, or [3] want of understanding or integrity, or [4] by
reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.

Section 4. When a will was proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary to the
person named as executor, if he is competent, accepts the trust and gives a bond.

Section 6. Letters of Administration; To Whom granted:

(a) To the [1] surviving spouse, [2] next of kin, or both; or [3] persons selected by them, if
competent and willing.
(b) To one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing.
o If the persons mentioned in (a) are not competent or willing; or
o If they neglect, within 30 days after death to apply for administration.
(c) Other person as the court may select, in default of all.

Baluyut v Cruz-Pano
In this case, issuance of letter administration was filed by petitioners claiming that he is one of the
legatees named in the will. This was opposed by the widow, claiming that she is unaware of the
will. She prayed that she be appointed as administrator as she enjoys preference because the
petitioner is merely a collateral relative. This was granted.
 The court ruled that mere reliance of the order of preference is erroneous. A hearing is
necessary to determine the suitability of the administrator.
o In this case, the competency of the respondent was squarely challenged by the
petitioner. And the petitioner has the standing to do so because he is a named
legatee in the will.

Gabriel v Court of Appeals

The respondent in this case is the illegitimate child of the decedent. He filed for issuance of letters
of administration. It was opposed by the next of kin (wife and legitimate child) claiming that they
enjoy preference. Their opposition was denied and respondent was appointed as administrator.
 The court held that the non-observance of the order of preference per se ins not
GADALEJ.
o The appointment of administrator relies to a great extent to the sound judgment of
the court. And he cannot be bound by the order of preference.
 As to the argument that the petitioner may no longer be appointed as administrator
because they failed to file a petition within 30 days from the death, the court ruled that the
rules should be relaxed.
o Just as the order of preference need not strictly be followed. The thirty day period
is also merely permissive and not mandatory.
 Both the petitioner and respondent are appointed as administrator.

Maloles II v Philips
In this case, a motion to intervene was filed by petitioner. The Court held that opposition may only
be made by an interested person. An interested person is one who stands to be benefitted by the
will. Petitioner as a nephew is not a compulsory heir who may be preterited in the will. Thus, he is
not considered an interested person.

Rule 79
Opposition to Letters Testamentary
Section 1. Opposition to letters testamentary must be stated in writing, stating the grounds
as to why it should not be issued.
 Content of the petition
o Jurisdictional facts
 The name of the testator;
 His residence at the time of death;
 If a non-resident, the fact that the decedent has an estate in the province
where the court is sitting.
o The names, ages, residence of heirs, and creditors of the decedent;
o The probable value of the estate; and
o The name of the person to whom the letters are prayed
 Who may oppose.
o Any person interested in the will may oppose the issuance of letters in writing; and
o At the same time, file a petition for letters administration with will annexed.
 Letters of Administration with Will Annexed. Application for probate of a
person other than the executor named in will, on the ground of:
 The person named is incompetent; or
 The contestant’s own right.

Section 3. The Court shall fix the time and date of hearing and cause notice of the time and
place of hearing to be given to:
(a) The decedent’s known heirs;
(b) The known creditors; and
(c) Other persons believed to have interest in the estate.
 This requirement is jurisdictional

Tayag v Tayag-Gallor
In this case, respondent is the illegitimate child of the decedent. She filed a petition for issuance of
letters of administration. This was opposed by the petitioner claiming that the respondent failed to
state cause of action since she failed to allege that she is an acknowledged or recognized by the
decedent.
 The Rules of Court allow any person interested in the estate to filed for issuance of letters
administration.
 It is true that the interest of the respondent in this case as an illegitimate child relies on
recognition of the deceased. Nevertheless, this can be established not only through a
judicial action but also on the voluntary acts of the testator.
 Thus, in as far as the issuance of letters administration is concerned, allegation of
illegitimacy without stating the fact of recognition is sufficient.

Rule 80
Special Administrator

A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control,
appointed when there is a delay in the granting of letters testamentary or administration.
 Objective of the position is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of proper
executor or administration.

Regular Administrator Special Adminstrator

 The appointment may be appealed.
Obligation is pay and discharge all of the
debts of the estate.
May be appointed when:
(a) Decedent died intestate; or
(b) Fails to appoint an executor in the
Will; or
(c) The will was disallowed; or
(d) The executor is incompetent or
unwilling.
The order of appointment is interlocutory
and not appealable, and may only be
challenged through a special civil action.
Not empowered to discharge debts.
May be appointed when:
(a) There is delay in the issuance of
letters, in order to preserve the
estate; or
(b) When the executor is a claimant of
the estate, but only as to the
portion over which he has a claim.

 The requirement of publication and notice is jurisdictional.

Section 3. Powers and duties of special administrator:

(a) Possession and charge of the estate;
(b) Preservation of the estate;
(c) Commencement and maintenance of suits as administrator;
(d) Sale of perishable goods only, with a court order;
(e) Payment of debts if ordered by the court;
(f) Prepare return and inventory of all properties within his possession or knowledge;
(g) Render accounting of the estate he received; and
(h) Deliver the estate to the person appointed as executor or administrator.

Heirs of Castillo v Gabriel

The special administrator was appointed because there was a disagreement as to who between
the legitimate child and the brother of the deceased should be appointed. The adopted son was
initially the special administrator. However, upon his death, his wife was appointed in his stead.
The appointment was contested since the wife does not have any interest in the estate of the
decedent.
 The Court ruled that appointment of special administrator relies on the sole discretion of
the court. The discretion, however, must not be whimsical and reasonable.
 In this case, the adopted son, in a document purporting to be the will of the decedent was
named as the sole heir. His wife, as his sole heir, has a stake in the decedent’s estate
should the will be allowed probate. Thus, her appointment is reasonable.

Tan v Gedorio
Petitioner in this case was already acting as de facto administrator of the estate when respondent
was appointed as special administrator. Petitioner argued that she should be given priority in
administration since they are the legitimate heirs as opposed to respondent who are only
illegitimate children.
 The Court ruled that the preference of next of kin does not apply to special administrators.
The appointment of special administration is entirely upon the discretion of the court and is
not appealable.

Rule 81
Bonds of Executors and Administrators

Section 1. Bond to the Executors and Administrators:

  Amount: The sum which the court directs:
 Condition for the bond –
o Make and return to the court within 3 moths, a true and complete inventory of the
properties in his possession or within his knowledge
o Administer the properties of the estate, according to the Will of the testator, and from
the proceeds thereof, pay and discharge all debts, legacies and charges
o Render account within one year of his administration; and
o Perform all orders of the court

Section 2. Bond is not required when:

(a) There is a provision in the Will exempting the executor from the bond
o But the court may still require bond on the condition that the executor will pay all the
debts of the estate.
(b) Court may also order additional bonds to be given.

Section 4. Bond of special administrators.

 Amount: the sum which the court directs,
 Conditions for the bond –
o Maker return and inventory of the estate; and
o Truly account for the estate received by him; and
o Deliver the estate to the appointed executor or administrator.

Rule 82
Revocation of Administration

Section 1. Administration is revoked if:

(a) It was discovered that the decedent executed a Will, and the will is admitted for probate; or
(b) If the letters are illegally issued or was issued without jurisdiction.

Section 2. Administrator may be removed or allowed to resign if:

(a) There is neglect to render account or settle the estate according to law;
(b) There is neglect to perform and order of the court; or
(c) Abscond and
(d) Becomes insane or otherwise incapable to discharge trust,

Section 3. Effect of revocation or resignation.

 Lawful acts of the administrator shall be valid as if there have been no such revocation or
removal.

Section 4. The new administrator is given the following powers:

(a) Collect and settle the estate not administered by the former administrator
(b) Prosecute or defend actions commenced during the period of former administrator and
(c) Execute judgment by court procured during the period of previous administrator.

Rule 83
Inventory, Appraisal and Support

Section 1. Inventory
 Must be had within three (3) months after appointment. The appraisal may be assisted by
inheritance tax appraiser as ordered by the court.

Section 2. Not included in the inventory are:

 (1) The wearing apparel of the surviving spouse and minor children; and
(2) The marriage bed and bedding; and
(3) The articles necessary for the sustenance of the family.

Section 3 Support.
 The widow, minor and incapacitated children are entitled to support during the settlement of
the estate.

Rule 84
General Powers and Duties of Administrators

Rule 85
Accountability and Compensation of Executors and Administrators