702 GUEVARA v.
GUEVARA  Suppression of the wil is contrary to law and public policy for without
G.R. No. L-5405
Jan 31, 1956
By: MOLINA
Topic: Alowance of Wills — NCC 838a
Petititioner: Ernesto Guevara
Respondents: Rosario Guevara dn Pedro Quinto
Ponente: J. Concepcion
DOCTRINE: 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 a 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 and substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial.
FACTS:
 Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made various
bequests t his wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He has a
legitimate son Ernesto and a natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he
acknowledged Rosario as his natural daughter.
 In 1933, Victorino died but his last will was never presented for probate
nor was there any settlement proceeding initiated. It appeared that only
his son Ernest possessed the land which he adjudicated to himself. While
Rosario who had the will in her custody, did nothing to invoke the
acknowledgment, as well as the devise given to her.
 Subsequently, Rosario filed an action for the recovery of her legitime from
Ernesto, a portion of a large parcel of land invoking the acknowledgment
contained in the will and based on the assumption that the decedent died
intestate because his will was not probated. She alleged that the
disposition in favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.
 The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory.
ISSUE: Whether or not probate is necessary for Rosario to be able to claim her
legitime as an acknowledged natural daughter
RULING:
 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.
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.
 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.
