Case No. 2 Spouses Pascual vs. CA – GR No.

115925 (August 15, 2003)

Topic Allowance and Disallowance of Wills
Digested by Dessa L. Caballero

Doctrine: Until admitted to probate, a will has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed
thereunder

Characters & their Roles:

Petitioners: SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION SIOSON
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO-GINO

Facts:
• Consolacion Sioson (Consolacion) and respondent Reemedios Eugenio-Gino (Remedios)
are the niece and granddaughter, respectively, of the late Canuto Sioson (Canuto).
• Canuto and 11 other individuals were co-owners of a parcel of land in Tanza, Navotas,
Metro Manila.
• Canuto and Consolacion executed a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan wherein Canuto sold
his 10/70 share (Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E) in favor of Consolacion.
• Consolacion immediately took possession of the aid lots and declared the land for taxation
purposes.
• The surviving children of Canuto, Felicidad, and Beatriz executed a joint affidavit
affirming the Kasulatan in favor of Consolacion. Consolacion, later on, registered the
Kasulatan and the Joint affidavit with/ the Office of the Reguster of Deeds.
• Remedios Eugenio-Gino, the granddaughter of Canuto, filed a complaint against
Consolacion and her spouse for the annulment or cancellation of the transfer certificate of
title and damages. Remedios claimed that she is the rightful owner of the land because
Catalina Sioson devised the lots to her in her last will and testament.
• Petitioner sought to dismiss on the ground of prescription, contending that the action should
have been filed within 4 years from the registration of her title.
• Trial Court: Denied the motion to dismiss filed by Consolacion,
• CA: Reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the cancellation of the TCTs in
favor of Remedios.

Issue: WON Remedios Eugenio-Gino is a real party-in-interest.

Ruling: NO.
• Remedios anchored her claims over the subject lots on the devise of these lots to her under
Catalina’s Last will. However, the trial court found that the probate court did not issue
any order admitting the last will to probate.
• Article 838 of the Civil Code states that "No will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court." This
Court has interpreted this provision to mean, "until admitted to probate, a will has no
effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder."
• Since the probate court has not admitted Catalina’s Last will, Remedios has not acquired
any right under it. She is thus without any cause of action either to seek reconveyance of
the subject lots or to enforce an implied trust over these lots.
• It must be noted that The appellate court tried to go around this deficiency by ordering the
reconveyance of the subject lots to Remedios in her capacity as executrix of her last will.
This is inappropriate because Remedios sued in her capacity as the alleged owner of the
disputed lots.