specproc digested

8/19/2019 Specproc Digested

1/43

Ching and Po Wing vs. Rodriguez DigestG.R. No. 192828

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v. HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGE!, in "is #$%$#it& $s Presi'in( J)'(e o* t"e Re(ion$+

Tri$+ Co)rt o* M$ni+$, r$n#" -, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDESIGNE AND CINA SANTOS, s)/stit)te' /& "er son, EDARDO S.AAJADIA, Res%on'ents.

RE0ES, J.ACTS

The respondents fled a Complaint against the petitioners and Stroghold InsuranceCompany, lo!al "usiness "an#, Inc. $%ormerly Phil"an#&, 'lena Tiu Del Pilar, (sia(tlantic Resources )entures, Inc., Registers o% Deeds o% *anila and *ala!on, and allpersons claiming rights or titles %rom Ramon Ching $Ramon&.

The Complaint +as captioned as one %or Disinheritance, Declaration o% -ullity o%(greement and Waiver, (davit o% '/tra01udicial Settlement, Deed o% (!solute Sale,

Trans%er Certifcates o% Title +ith Prayer %or 2the3 Issuance o% 2a3 TemporaryRestraining 4rder and 2a3 Writ o% Preliminary In5unction. In the complaint, therespondents alleged that $6& they are the heirs o% (ntonio Ching and that Ramonmisrepresented himsel% as (ntonios son +hen he +as, in %act, adopted and his !irthcertifcated merely simulated7 $8& (ntonio +as #illed +ith Ramon as the primesuspect and prior to the conclusion o% the investigations, Ramon made an inventoryo% the %ormers estate and illegally trans%erred to his name the titles to (ntoniosproperties7 $9& Ramon s+eet0tal#ed respondent *ercedes into surrendering to him aCertifcate o% Time Deposit o% P:,;;;,;;;.;; in the name o% (ntonio and the TCTs o%t+o condo units registered under Ramons name7 $:& Ramon illegally trans%erred to

his o+n name through a %orged document :;,;;; shares in Po Wing Corporation7 $&Ramon sold (ntonio=s t+o parcels o% land in -avotas to co0de%endant (sia (tlantic"usiness )entures, Inc. (nother parcel o% land, +hich +as part o% (ntonio=s estate,+as sold !y Ramon to co0de%endant 'lena Tiu Del Pilar at an unreasona!ly lo+ price.

The respondents thus prayed %or the $6& issuance o% a TR4 to restrain Ramon or hisrepresentatives %rom disposing or selling any property that !elongs to the estate o%(ntonio7 $8& that Ramon !e declared as dis?ualifed %rom inheriting %rom (ntonioChing7 and $9& declaring null the unauthorized trans%ers made !y Ramon.

The RTC denied the petitioners *otion to Dismiss and su!se?uent *otion %orReconsideration.

ISSE

I. Whether or not the RTC should have granted the *otion to Dismiss +ith regard tothe issues +hich could only !e resolved in a special proceeding and not in anordinary civil action


2/43

HED

-o reversi!le errors +ere committed !y the RTC and the C( +hen they !oth ruledthat the denial o% the petitioners= second motion to dismiss +as proper.

(n action %or reconveyance and annulment o% title +ith damages is a civil action,+hereas matters relating to settlement o% the estate o% a deceased person such asadvancement o% property made !y the decedent, parta#e o% the nature o% a specialproceeding, +hich concomitantly re?uires the application o% specifc rules asprovided %or in the Rules o% Court.

@nder (rticle A6> o% the -CC, disinheritance can !e eBected only through a +ill+herein the legal cause there%or shall !e specifed. This Court agrees +ith the RTCand the C( that +hile the respondents in their Complaint and (mended Complaintsought the disinheritance o% Ramon, no +ill or any instrument supposedly eBectingthe disposition o% (ntonio=s estate +as ever mentioned. ence, despite the prayer%or Ramon=s disinheritance, the case fled does not parta#e o% the nature o% a special

proceeding and does not call %or the pro!ate court=s e/ercise o% its limited 5urisdiction.

'ven +ithout the necessity o% !eing declared as heirs o% (ntonio, the respondentshave the standing to see# %or the nullifcation o% the instruments in the light o% theirclaims that there +as no consideration %or their e/ecution, and that Ramone/ercised undue inuence and committed %raud against them. Conse?uently, therespondents then claimed that the (davit o% '/tra01udicial Settlement o% (ntoniosestate e/ecuted !y Ramon, and the TCTs issued upon the authority o% the saidadavit, are null and void as +ell. Ramon=s averment that a resolution o% the issuesraised shall frst re?uire a declaration o% the respondents= status as heirs is a merede%ense +hich is not determinative o% +hich court shall properly e/ercise

5urisdiction.

In sum, this Court agrees +ith the C( that the nullifcation o% the documents su!5ecto% the civil case could !e achieved in an ordinary civil action, +hich in this specifccase +as instituted to protect the respondents %rom the supposedly %raudulent actso% Ramon. In the event that the RTC +ill fnd grounds to grant the relie%s prayed %or!y the respondents, the only conse?uence +ill !e the reversion o% the propertiessu!5ect o% the dispute to the estate o% (ntonio. The civil case +as not instituted toconclusively resolve the issues relating to the administration, li?uidation anddistri!ution o% (ntonio=s estate, hence, not the proper su!5ect o% a specialproceeding %or the settlement o% the estate o% a deceased person under Rules E90A6o% the Rules o% Court.

The respondents= resort to an ordinary civil action !e%ore the RTC may not !estrategically sound, !ecause a settlement proceeding should therea%ter still %ollo+, i% their intent is to recover %rom Ramon the properties alleged to have !een illegallytrans%erred in his name. "e that as it may, the RTC, in the e/ercise o% its general

5urisdiction, cannot !e restrained %rom ta#ing cognizance o% respondents= Complaintand (mended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers indicated therein arematters +hich need not !e threshed out in a special proceeding.


3/43

ERNANDE! 3. MARA3IA 14 SCRA 589

ACTS *aravillasoughtthepro!ateo%hislate+i%eFs+ill.Thesi!lingssoughtdenialo%

pro!ate on the ground that it +asn=t signed on each and every page !y thedecedent.Theyli#e+iseprayed%ortheappointmento%their!rotherasspecialadministratorinlieuo%thehus!andtoprotecttheirinterestandalsoduetothe %ailuretofleaninventory.Thepro!ateo%the+illinthemeantime+asdenied andtothis,thehus!andappealed.Conse?uently,the!rother+asappointedas administrator. The hus!and fleda petition %or certiorari and %or preliminary in5unction,prayingthereintheannulmento% the!rotherascoGadministratorand the prohi!ition o% the pro!ate court %romproceeding in his removal as administrator.Thepetitionersmoved%orthecertifcationo% thesametotheSCas theamountinvolvede/ceedsthe5urisdictiono%theC(.-evertheless,theC( decidedin%avoro%thehus!and.

HED @nderSection8,RuleE


4/43

organized and e/isting under Philippine a+s and +hich o+n real properties. Pastorim died 1une 6AA:, Rufna im fled %or the administration o% the estate. Theproperties +hich +ere o+ned !y the corporations +ere included in the inventory o%the estate. They fled %or the e/clusion o% the properties %rom said estate and thecancellation o% the annotation o% lis pendens in the TCTs o% said properties.

The RTC granted the motions. o+ever Rufna im fled an amended petition +hich

averred that such corporations +ere o+ned !y Pastor im, that such +ere dummieso% Pastor im, that those listed as incorporators are there only %or the purpose o%registration +ith the S'C, and that the real properties, although registered in thename o% the corporations, +ere actually ac?uired !y Pastor im during his marriage+ith Rufna im. The RTC acting on such motion set aside its order and ordered theRegister o% Deeds to reinstate the lis pendens. The respondent fled %or certiorari+ith the C( +hich granted its prayer. Rufna im disputes such decision and urgesthat not only are the properties o% the corporations part o% the estate !ut also thecorporations themselves. She cites that Pastor im during his li%etime organizedand +holly o+ned the < corporations.

Iss)e Whether or not a corporation in its universality !e the proper su!5ect o% and!e included in the inventory o% the estate o% a deceased personJ

He+' The real properties included in the inventory o% the estate o% the late Pastorim are in the possession o% and are registered in the name o% private respondentcorporations, +hich under the la+ possess a personality separate and distinct %romtheir stoc#holders and in the a!sence o% any cogency to shred the veil o% corporatefction, the presumption o% conclusiveness o% said titles in %avor o% privaterespondents should stand. It is settled that a corporation is clothed +ith personalityseparate and distinct %rom that o% persons composing it. It may not generally !eheld lia!le %or that o% the persons composing it. It may not !e held lia!le %or thepersonal inde!tedness o% its stoc#holders or those o% the entities connected +ith it.( corporation !y legal fction and convenience is an entity shielded !y a protectivemantle and im!ued !y la+ +ith a character alien to the persons comprising it. "utK+hen the fction is urged as a means o% perpetrating a %raud or an illegal act or as avehicle %or the evasion o% an e/isting o!ligation, the circumvention o% statutes, theachievement or per%ection o% a monopoly or generally the perpetration o% #naveryor crime, the veil +ith +hich the la+ covers and isolates the corporation %romL+ill!e li%ted to allo+ %or its consideration merely as an aggregation o% individuals.M NirstPhilippine International "an# vs C( $8


5/43

S$n )is vs. S$n )is

S"ort S)77$r& Normer aguna governor had 6st spouse +ho predeceased him,then married again to an (merican citizen +ho divorced him, then remarried again.e died +ith his 9rd +i%e !ut his 8nd +i%e and the children in the 6st marriagecontested the standing o% the 9rd +i%e, claiming that the said marriage +as!igamous since the 8nd marriage +as still su!sisting under RP la+ $can=t apply NCretroactively&. Court held that even +ith NC not applied retroactively, )an Dorn andother 5urisprudence suciently provides the validity to the 9rd marriage, thusrecognizing divorce o!tained !y an alien spouse against the Nilipino spouse.o+ever, as the 9rd marriage +as not suciently proved, the case +as remandedin order %or the 9rd spouse to present %urther evidence on this.

$#ts

N'ICISI*4 S(- @IS contracted 9 marriagesO

)IRI-I( S@ITO had > children, died !e%ore he did in 6A>9

*'RR '' C4RWI-O @S citizen, had son To!ias, divorced him !e%ore a+aiiancourts +hich +as granted in 6AE9

N'ICID(D S((4-4S S(- @ISO married !e%ore a Pres!yterian Church inCali%ornia n 6AE:, lived +ith him until he died %or 6H years in their (la!ang

residence

0+hen Nelicisimo died, Nelicidad fled %or DISS4@TI4- 4N C4-1@( P(RT-'RSIP(SS'TS (-D S'TT'*'-T 4N N'ICISI*4=S 'ST(T', fling %or a letter o%administration !e%ore RTC *a#ati

0petition +as contested $*TD& !y Nelicisimo=s children %or 8 groundsO

)enue improperly laidO should have fled petition in aguna $domicile& and not in*a#ati $covers (la!ang, decedent=s residence at the time o% his death&

-o legal personality to sueO Nelicidad is only a mistress 0 marriage to *erry ee +asstill valid $Namily Code provision cannot !e applied retroactively as it +ould impairtheir vested rights in accordance +ith (rticle 8, NC&

000these +ere denied !ut Nelicidad still fled 4pposition to *TD, sho+ing evidence o%the BO

Nelicisimo e/ercised oce in aguna, !ut +ent home in (la!ang 0 to prove propervenue


6/43

Decree o% a!solute divorce !y a+aii dissolving the marriage o% Nelicisimo to *erryee 0 to prove capacity to sue

RTC *a#atiO Dismissed petition

C(O reversed and set aside

Place o% residence should !e understood in as the personal, actual or physicalha!itation so petition +as properly fled

(rt8>.8, NC should !e given eBect, allo+ing a Nilipino to remarry under Philippinela+

WON 3en)e %ro%er+& +$i'< 0ES

0The cases relied upon !y the petitioners +ere election cases.

0there is a distinction !et+een residence %or purposes o% election la+s andresidence %or purposes o% f/ing the venue o% actions. In election cases,

residence and domicile are treated as synonymous terms, that is, the f/edpermanent residence to +hich +hen a!sent, one has the intention o%returning. o+ever, %or purposes o% f/ing venue under the Rules o% Court, theresidence o% a person is his personal, actual or physical ha!itation, or actualresidence or place o% a!ode, +hich may not necessarily !e his legal residence ordomicile provided he resides therein +ith continuity and consistency.

WON e+i#i'$' "$' #$%$#it& to s)e< 0ES

(s the legal +i%eO even i% NC not applied retroactively, )an Dorn v. Romillo $6AH


7/43

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for respondents.PROEM ( +ill already pro!ated in @tah +as fled !e%ore *anila CNI "ranch 9H+hile intestate proceedings %or the same estate +ere ongoing in *anila CNI "ranch8;.HED The t+o proceedings must !e consolidated and the testate proceedingshould !e continued. It +ould !e anomalous to undergo intestate proceedings +hen

the deceased died +ith two +ills.ACTS

• 'DW(RD rimm, an (merican citizen residing in the Philippines, +as7$rrie' t?i#e.

o NIRST *(RRI(' $divorced& Q 1uanita egley rimm $*RS. RI**&.ChildrenO 1@(-IT( rimm *orris and 'T' rimm *orris.

o S'C4-D *(RRI(' Q *(I-' Tate rimm. ChildrenO 'd+ard *illerrimm II $P'T'& and I-D( rimm.

• 1an. 89, 6A


8/43

Recognized that the estate +as lia!le to pay the %ees o% the(CCR( la+ frm

Pete, inda, 'thel and 1uanita shall share e?ually in the -etDistri!uta!le 'state

'thel and 1uanita should each receive at least 6806V8 o% thetotal o% the net distri!uta!le estate and marital share.

Included a supplemental memorandum also dated (pril 8


9/43

Consolidation o% the t+o proceedings in "ranch 8; That the matter o% the annulment o% the @tah compromise

agreement !e heard prior to the petition %or pro!ateISSE HED; Can a petition %or allo+ance o% +ills and annulment o% partition 0approved in an intestate proceeding !y one !ranch o% the CNI 0 !e entertained !yanother !ranch $a%ter a pro!ate in the @tah district court&J 0ES;RATIO

( testate proceeding is proper in this case !ecause 'd+ard died +ith t+o+ills and no will shall pass either real or personal propert% unless it is pro/edand allowed $-CC H9H7 R4C E


10/43

clearindicationthatproceedings%orthepro!ateo%a+illen5oypriority overintestateproceedings.

Xamaconashouldhavesu!mitted%orpro!atethe+illhehasonhand+iththe -egroscourt.

In the frst place, it is not in accord +ith pu!lic policy and the orderly and

ine/pensiveadministrationo%5usticetounnecessarilymultiplylitigation,especially i% severalcourts+ould!einvolved.This,ineBect,+astheresulto%thesu!mission o%the+illa%oresaidtothe*anilaCourt.Inthesecondplace,+henrespondent iginio@riartefledanoppositionto)icente@riarte=spetition%ortheissuanceo% letters o% administration, hehad already in%ormed the -egros Court that the deceased1uan@riarteyoitehadle%ta+illinSpain,o%+hichacopyhad!een re?uested%orsu!missiontosaidcourt7and+hentheotherrespondent,1uan @riarteXamacona,fledhismotiontodismissSpecialProceeding-o.>9::,hehad su!mittedtothe-egrosCourtacopyo%thealleged+illo%thedecedent,%rom +hich%actitmay!ein%erredthat,li#eiginio@riarte,he#ne+!e%oreflingthe petition%or pro!ate +ith the *anila Court that there +as already a special proceedingpendinginthe-egrosCourt%orthesettlemento%theestateo%the samedeceasedperson.(s

%arasiginio@riarteisconcerned,itseems?uiteclear thatinhisoppositiontopetitioner=spetitioninSpecialProceeding-o.>9::,he hade/presslypromisedtosu!mitsaid+ill%orpro!atetothe-egrosCourt.

"utthe%actisthatinsteado%thea%oresaid+ill!eingpresented%orpro!atetothe -egrosCourt,1uan@riarteXamaconafledthepetition%orthepurpose+iththe *anilaCourt.Wecannotacceptpetitioner=scontentioninthisregardthatthe lattercourthadno5urisdictiontoconsidersaidpetition,al!eit+esaythatit+as notthepropervenuethere%or.

It is +ell settled in this 5urisdiction that +rong venue is merely a +aivea!leproceduralde%ect,and,inthelighto%thecircumstanceso!tainingintheinstant case,+eareo%theopinion,andsohold,thatpetitionerhas+aivedtherightto raise such o!5ection or is

precluded %rom doing so !y laches. It is enough to considerinthisconnectionthatpetitioner#ne+o%thee/istenceo%a+ille/ecuted !y1uan@riarteyoitesinceDecem!er6A,6A>6+heniginio@riartefledhis opposition to the initial petition fled in SpecialProceeding -o. >9::7 that petitioner li#e+ise +as served +ith notice o% thee/istence $presence& o% the allegedlast+illinthePhilippinesando%theflingo%thepetition%oritspro!ate +iththe*anilaCourtsince(ugust8H,6A>8+hen1uan@riarteXamaconafleda motion%orthedismissalo%SpecialProceeding-o.>9::.(llthesenot+ithstanding, it+as only on (pril 69 that he fled +ith the *anila Court in Special Proceeding-o.an4mni!usmotionas#ing%orleavetointerveneand%orthe dismissalandannulmento%alltheproceedingshadthereinuptothatdate7thus ena!ling the *anilaCourt not only to appoint an administrator +ith the +ill anne/ed!utalsotoadmitsaid

+illtopro!atemorethanfvemonthsearlier,or morespecifcally,on4cto!er96,6A>8.Toallo+himno+toassailthee/erciseo% 5urisdictionoverthepro!ateo%the+ill!ythe*anilaCourtandthevalidityo%all theproceedingshadinSpecialProceeding-o.+ouldputapremiumonhis negligence.


11/43

CENCO 3. CORT O APPEAS 5 SCRA -4

ACTS @ponthedeatho%SenatorCuenco,leavinghis+ido+and8minorchildren,letters%oradministrationo%theestate+asfled!yrespondentinCe!uCity,alleging thereinthatthedeceaseddiedintestateandthathislast#no+nresidence+asin Ce!uCity.Inthemeantime,the+ido+fledinYuezonCity,+hereinthedeceased has died, petition to

admit into pro!ate the last +ill and testament o% the decedent. @pon learning o% thepending petition in Ce!u City, she fled her oppositionandmotiontodismissthepetition!yrespondent.

HED The1udiciary(ctconcededlycon%ersoriginal5urisdictionuponallCourtso%NirstInstanceoverallmattero%pro!ate,!otho%testateandintestateestates.4nthe otherhand,RuleE9,sectiono%theRuleso%Courtlaysdo+ntheruleo%venue,as theverycaptiono% theRuleindicates,andinordertopreventconictamongthe diBerentcourts+hichother+isemayproperlyassume5urisdiction%romdoingso, theRulespecifesthatthecourtfrstta#ingcognizanceo%thesettlemento%the estateo%adecedent,shalle/ercise

5urisdictiontothee/clusiono%allothercourts.

Itshould!enotedthattheRuleonvenuedoesnotstatethatthecourt+ith+hom theestateorintestatepetitionisfrstfledac?uirese/clusive5urisdiction.

TheRulepreciselyanddeli!eratelyprovidesthatthecourtfrstta#ingcognizance o%thesettlemento%theestateo%adecedent,shalle/ercise5urisdictiontothe e/clusiono%allothercourts.

(%airreadingo%theRulesinceitdeals+ithvenueandcomity!et+eencourtso% e?ual andcoGordinate 5urisdiction indicates that the court +ith +hom the petitionisfrstfled,mustalsofrstta#ecognizanceo%thesettlemento%theestate inordertoe/ercise

5urisdictionoverittothee/clusiono%allothercourts.

Conversely, such court, may upon learning that a petition %or pro!ate o% thedecedent=s last +ill has !een presented in another court +here the decedento!viouslyhadhiscon5ugaldomicileandresided+ithhissurviving+ido+andtheir minorchildren,andthattheallegationo%theintestatepetition!e%oreitstating that the decedentdied intestate may !e actually %alse, may decline to ta#e cognizanceo%thepetitionandholdthepetition!e%oreitina!eyance,andinstead de%ertothesecondcourt+hichhas!e%oreitthepetition%orpro!ateo%the decedent=sallegedlast+ill.

This e/actly +hat the Ce!u court did. @pon petitionerG+ido+=s fling +ith it a motionto dismiss ourdes= intestate petition, it issued its order holding in a!eyanceitsactiononthedismissalmotionandde%erredtotheYuezonCitycourt, a+aitingitsactiononthepetition%orpro!ate!e%orethatcourt.Implicitinthe Ce!ucourt=sorder+asthati%the+ill+asdulyadmittedtopro!ate,!ytheYuezon Citycourt,thenit+oulddefnitelydeclinetota#ecognizanceo%ourdes=intestate petition+hich+ouldthere!y!esho+nto!e%alseandimproper,andleavethe e/erciseo%5urisdictiontotheYuezonCitycourt,tothee/clusiono% allothercourts. i#e+ise!yitsacto%de%erence,theCe!ucourtle%tittotheYuezonCitycourtto resolvethe?uestion!et+eentheparties+hetherthedecedent=sresidenceatthe timeo%hisdeath+asinYuezonCity+herehehadhiscon5ugaldomicilerather thaninCe!uCityasclaimed!yrespondents.TheCe!ucourtthusindicatedthatit +oulddeclinetota#e


12/43

cognizanceo%theintestatepetition!e%oreitandinstead de%ertotheYuezonCitycourt,unlessthelatter+ouldma#eanegativefndingas tothepro!atepetitionandtheresidenceo%thedecedent+ithinitsterritoryand venue.

Itcannot!edeniedthataspecialproceedingintendedtoeBectthedistri!utiono% theestateo%adeceasedperson,+hetherinaccordance+iththela+onintestate successionorin

accordance+ithhis+ill,isapro!atematteroraproceeding%or thesettlemento%hisestate.Itise?uallytrue,ho+ever,thatinaccordance+ith settled5urisprudenceinthis

5urisdiction,testateproceedings%orthesettlemento% theestateo%adeceasedpersonta#eprecedenceoverintestateproceedings%or the same purpose. Thus it has !een heldrepeatedly that, i% in the course o% intestateproceedingspending!e%oreacourto%frstinstanceitis%oundthatthe decedenthadle%talast+ill,proceedings%orthepro!ateo%thelattershould replacetheintestateproceedingseveni%atthatstateanadministratorhadalready !eenappointed,thelatter!eingre?uiredtorenderfnalaccountandturnovertheestateinhispossessiontothee/ecutorsu!se?uentlyappointed.Thisho+ever,isunderstoodto!e+ithoutpre5udicethatshouldtheallegedlast+ill!ere5ectedor isdisapproved,theproceedingshallcontinueasanintestacy.(salreadyadverted to,thisisa

clearindicationthatproceedings%orthepro!ateo%a+illen5oypriority overintestateproceedings.

SOI3IO 3. CA 182 SCRA 119

ACTS Thiscaseisregardstheestateo%thelateauthor'ste!an1avellana1r.Whenhe died,he+assurvived!yonlyhismaternalaunt,petitionerSolivioandpaternal aunt,respondent)illanueva.Wishingto%ulfllthedecedentFs+ishtoplacehis propertiesintoa%oundation,Soliviofledapetition%ortheletterso%administration o% the estate !e issued to her andconse?uently !e appointed as a special administrator.Thepetition+aslateramendedtodeclareherassoleheiro%the decedent.ThecourtruledinSolivioFs%avorandshee/plainedthatshedidthisto %acilitatethe%ormationo%the%oundationamongotherreasons.Su!se?uently, )illanueva!elatedlysoughtthereconsiderationo%theordero%thecourt,averring thatSolivio+asnFttheonlyheiro%thedecedent!uttothis,she+asoverruled. Shethenfledacase%orreconveyanceandpossessiono%property,+hichthetrialcourtdecidedinher%avor.

HED

(%teracare%ulrevie+o%therecords,+efndmeritinthepetitioner=scontention that the RTClac#ed 5urisdiction to entertain Concordia )illanueva=s action %or partitionandrecoveryo%hershareo%theestateo%'ste!an1avellana,1r.+hilethe pro!ateproceedings%orthesettlemento%saidestatearestillpendingin"ranch89 o%thesamecourt,there!eingasyetnoorders%orthesu!missionandapprovalo% theadministrati/=sinventoryandaccounting,distri!utingtheresidueo%theestate totheheir,andterminatingtheproceedings.

Itistheordero%distri!utiondirectingthedeliveryo%theresidueo%theestateto thepersonsentitledtheretothat!ringstoaclosetheintestateproceedings,puts anendtothe


13/43

administrationandthus%arrelievestheadministrator%romhis duties.TheassailedorderdeclaringCeledoniaasthesoleheiro%theestateo% 'ste!an1avellana,1r.didnottolltheendo% theproceedings.(samattero%%act, the last paragraph o% the order directed theadministratri/ to hurry up the settlemento%theestate.

TO 3. 3DA. DE GARCIA -- P"i+ 42 198;

ACTS 1uanarciadiedintestateleavinghischildren,oneo%+homisuzarcia,andhis+i%easheirs.Duringthependencyo%theintestateproceedings,uzdiedandshe le%tnolegitimatedescendants.eronlyheirs+erehermotherandhus!and.er hus!andthenapplied%or5udicialadministrationo%theproperty,a!sentany+ill %romhislate+i%e.This+as

opposedto!ythemotherho+evershe+asoverruled andthecourtdecidedinthehus!andFs%avor.

HED (s to the frst ?uestion, +e have section >:8 o% the Code o% Civil Procedureprovidinginpartthati%noe/ecutorisnamedinthe+ill,ori%apersondies intestate,administration shall !e granted etc. This provision enunciates the generalrulethat+henapersondieslivingpropertyinthePhilippineIslands,his propertyshould!e5udiciallyadministeredandthecompetentcourtshouldappoint a ?ualifed administrator, in theorder esta!lished in the section, in case the deceasedle%tno+ill,orincasehehadle%toneshouldhe%ailtonameane/ecutor therein.Thisrule,ho+ever,issu!5ecttothee/ceptionsesta!lished!ysections and


14/43

+as no typographical error and the parties intended to share only that area o% land.DecedentO (ntonio de Xuzuarregui, Sr.Pilar I!anez de SusuarreguiO surviving spouse o% decedent0administrati/ o% the estateIllegit childrenO

(ntonio de Xuzuarregui, 1r.'nri?ue de Xuzuarregui 1ose de XuzuarreguiZ"eatriz de Xuzuarregui vda. Re reyesO daughter o% (ntonio Sr. !y another motherPacita 1avierO niece o% administrati/0mother o% the three illegit children Pro5ect o% partitionOPilarO 68V6>, inclusive o% 6V8 o% the assets $share o% con5ugal partnership&"eatrizO 6V6>(ntonio, 1r.O 6V6>'nri?ueO 6V6>

1oseO 6V6> (ntipolo, Rizal propertyO mentioned :/ in document0ad5udicated to Pilar $68V6


15/43

court in its 5udgment once the latter had !ecome fnal. The court may ma#e thisamendment e/ parte and, %or this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings fled !ythe parties, the court=s fndings o% %acts and its conclusions o% la+ as e/pressed inthe !ody o% the decision.

0TC already %ound that a typographical or clerical error +as clearly committed !yinadvertence in the pro5ect o% partition 0pro!ate proceeding, natureO

That a special proceeding %or the settlement o% an estate is fled and intended tosettle the '-TIR' estate o% the deceased is o!vious and elementary. It +ould !ea!surd %or the heirs to intentionally e/cluded or leave a parcel o% land or a portionthereo% undistri!uted or undivided !ecause the proceeding is precisely designed toend the community o% interests in properties held !y co0partners pro indiviso+ithout designation or segregation o% shares.0It is readily apparent %rom the pro5ect o% partition that it +as meant to !e, as in %actit is, a %ull and complete ad5udication and partition o% all properties o% the estate,necessarily including the entire area o% the land covered !y Trans%er Certifcate o%

Title -o. :8>:9. Thus as perceptively posed !y the ?ueries o% the respondents, i% theintention o% the heirs +as to ma#e only a partial ad5udication and distri!ution o% thesu!5ect parcel o% land, +hy is it that they did not ma#e any %urther disposition o% theremaining !alance o% E8;,;;; s?uare metersJ What sound reason +ould the heirshave in holding in suspense the distri!ution o% the diBerence o% E8;,;;; s?uaremetersJ0i% they cannot see eye to eye, +hy share properties as co0o+nersJ0+eird that the parties came up +ith H9,EH6, 5ust omitting the zeroes. So only logicalreason is that they 5ust %orgot to put zero.0according to her o+n computation, she already received her 6V6> share in theestate. There +ould not !e a su!stantial diBerence in value in their shares...

3'$. De Re&es v. CA Gr. 92:-;

ACTSO The ascendant o% the petitioner o+ned a parcel o% land, +hich +astrans%erred to the petitioners7 the petitioners partitioned the said property amongstthemselves al!eit not deduced into +riting.

4ne o% the heirs sold his share o% the property to the private respondent, the

petitioners no+ claim that since the same +as never validly partitioned and +ase/tra5udicial settled the said sale +as allegedly void.

ISSE W4- the sale +as valid.


16/43

HED es, since although not reduced into +riting the said partition +as valid7

The re?uirement that a partition should !e deduced into +riting and !e made into apu!lic document +as merely %or the constructive notice to others, thus does notaBect it[s validity.

(nd %or argument that said property +as never partitioned the same may still !esold as an undivided claimVinterestVshare to the property.

(lso discussed !y the court is that an e@tr$B)'i#i$+ sett+e7ent 'oes not #re$te$ ri("t in %avor o% an heir. Since it is !ut a confrmation or ratifcation o% title orright to property.

(nd since at the present case the said property +as sold the petitioner never had aright to spea# o% in the frst place.

ENN0 SAMPIO vs. THE CORT O APPEASG.R. No. 14:=:. e/r)$r& 28, 1958

ACTS

Teodoro Tolete, died leaving his +i%e and nephe+s and nieces +ho are children o% hisdeceased !rothers and sisters. is +i%e e/ecuted an adavit o% sel% ad5udicatingsaying that Teodoro had no children or or dependents, neither ascendants orac#no+ledged natural children, neither !rothers, sisters, nephe+s, and nieces.Then,his +i%e sold the properties to Sampilo, then the latter sold it to Salacup.

Sinopera instituted estate proceedings as#ing %or letters o% administration. Shealleged that TeodorFs +i%e, has no right to e/ecute the adavit o% sel%0ad5udication%or there others heirs aside %rom her.

The trial court ruled in %avor o% Sinopera. In their appeal, the petitioners argue thatSinoperaFs cause o% action has already prescri!ed !ecause according to the rules o% court, personFs deprived o% their rights due to the partition or sel% ad5udication %orthere are other heirs aside %rom her. The C( modifed the ruling stating that theadavit o% TeodoroFs +i%e is null and void, !ut the su!se?uent sales are valid inso%aras it is not a!ove her share %rom TeodoroFs estate.

ISS@'OWhether or not the casue o% action has already prescri!ed.

R@I-O

-o. The rule applies only to persons +ho participated in the said specialproceedings and does not pre5udice those +ho did not have the chance toparticipate.


17/43

There are t+o signifcant provisions in section 6, and : o% Rule E: o% the Rules o% Court. In Section 6, it is re?uired that i% there are t+o or more heirs, !oth or all o% them should ta#e part in the e/tra5udicial settlement. This re?uirement is mademore imperative in the old la+ $Section , (ct -o. 6A;& !y the addition o% theclause and not other+ise. "y the title o% Section :, the distri!utees and estate

are indicated as the persons to ans+er %or rights violated !y e/tra5udicialsettlement. 4n the other hand, it is also signifcant that no mention is madee/pressly o% the eBect o% the e/tra5udicial settlement on persons +ho did not ta#epart therein or had no notice or #no+ledge thereo%. There cannot !e any dou!t thatthose +ho too# part or had #no+ledge o% the e/tra5udicial settlement are !oundthere!y. (s to them the la+ is clear that i% they claim to have !een in any mannerdeprived o% their la+%ul right or share in the estate !y the e/tra5udicial settlement,they may demand their rights or interest +ithin the period o% t+o years, and !oththe distri!utees and estate +ould !e lia!le to them %or such rights or interest.'vidently, they are the persons +ho, in accordance +ith the provision, may see# toremedy the pre5udice to their rights +ithin the t+o0year period. "ut as to those +hodid not ta#e part in the settlement or had no notice o% the death o% the decedent oro% the settlement, there is no direct or e/press provision, and it is unreasona!le andun5ust that they also !e re?uired to assert their claims +ithin the period o% t+oyears. To e/tend the eBect o% the settlement o% them, to those +ho did not ta#e partor had no #no+ledge thereo%, +ithout any e/press legal provision to that eBect,+ould !e violative o% the %undamental right to due process o% la+.

C)$ v. 3$r($s, 54- SCRA =:

SHort S)77$r& Cua !ought property %rom some o% the co0heirs +ho +ere also

signatories to the 8 documents they e/ecuted, e/cluding some o% the other heirs+ho +ere not notifed !e%ore the alleged partition, though there +as a pu!lication o% the partition a%ter the partition +as done.*omVDecedentO Paulina )argaseirsO'ster)isitacion

1uanXenaidaRosario\]

(ndresloria(ntoninaNlorentino

Those +ho signed the notarized '1 SettlementO'ster)isitacion


18/43

1uanXenaidaRosario0the said '1 Settlement +as pu!lished in Catanduanes Tri!une %or 9 consecutive+ee#s

0they +ere also the ones +ho e/ecuted an '1 Settlement (mong eirs +ith Sale +ithCuaZthe latter : never signed any documentZall documents e/ecuted and pu!lished in 6AA: 0one o% the heirs $loria )argas, +ido+ o% Santiago )argas& claimed that she only#ne+ o% the '1 Settlement ^ Sale +hen the original house +as demolishedsometime in 6AA


19/43

heirs +ho had no #no+ledge or did not ta#e part in it !ecause the same +as noticea%ter the %act o% e/ecution. The re?uirement o% pu!lication is geared %or theprotection o% creditors and +as never intended to deprive heirs o% their la+%ulparticipation in the decedent=s estate. In this connection, the records o% the presentcase confrm that respondents never signed either o% the settlement documents,

having discovered their e/istence only shortly !e%ore the fling o% the presentcomplaint. Nollo+ing Rule E:, these e/tra5udicial settlements do not !indrespondents, and the partition made +ithout their #no+ledge and consent is invalidinso%ar as they are concerned.

WON THE RESPONDENTS NONSIGNATOR0 COHEIRS HAD RIGHT TO

REDEEM<

'S.0sale o% pro indiviso shares allo+ed, su!5ect to right o% redemption o% other co0heirs.

This right +as never lost !ecause the non0signatory co0heirs +ere never notifed in+riting o% the actual sale. -4TINIC(TI4- I- WRITI- 4N T' S(' " T' )'-D4Ris re?uired to start the period o% redemption $+Vn 6 month %rom the time they +erenotifed in +riting o% the sale&7 even i% the co0heirs have actual #no+ledge o% sale,the notifcation in +riting is still re?uired. (s there +as no such notice here, the rightto redeem the shares is still +ith the non0signatory co0heirs.0method o% notifcation remains e/clusive, no alternative provided !y la+0purpose o% (6;HHO #eep strangers to the %amily out o% a 5oint o+nership WON C)$ ?$s $ /)i+'er in G

0not in N !ecause he +as very much a+are that -4T ( T' 'IRS P(RTICIP(T'DI- T' '1 S'TT'*'-T ^ S(', as evident %rom the %ace o% the document itsel% 0since no valid partition yet, no sale could occur. Despite this glaring %act, and overthe protests o% the respondents, he still constructed improvements on the property WON *TC does not have 5urisdiction, this !eing incapa!le o% pecuniary estimationCua estopped thru active participation in the *TC WON it should still !e dismissed %or non05oinder o% indispensa!le parties-4.0indispensa!le partyO party0in0interest, +ithout +hom there can !e no fnaldetermination o% an action and +ho is re?uired to !e 5oined as either plaintiB orde%endant.0hereO prayer o% complaint +as that they !e allo+ed to redeem shares in propertysold. The other co0heirs already relin?uished their right over their shares to Cua +iththe alleged sale. (s a result, the other co0heirs +ho sold him the property are notanymore needed.

4n improper verifcation and C-NSRule may !e rela/ed. (nd since the respondent share a common interest +ith theother respondent, her sole signature complies +ith the rules.


20/43

G.R. No. 156536 October 31, 2006

JOSE! "U#, petitioner, /s.

G$OR%# #. RG#S, #UROR# RG#S, R#'ON RG#S, '#R%(ES RG#S,E)E$%N# RG#S #N) GE''# RG#S, respondents .

ACTS( parcel o% residential land +ith an area o% AA s?uare meters located in San 1uan, )irac, Catanduanes +as le%t !ehind !y the late Paulina )argas. 4n Ne!ruary :,6AA:, a notarized '/tra 1udicial Settlement (mong eirs +as e/ecuted !y andamong Paulina )argas= heirs, namely 'ster )argas, )isitacion )argas, 1uan )argas,Xenaida ). *atienzo, Rosario ). Norteza, (ndres )argas, loria )argas, (ntonina)argas and Nlorentino )argas, partitioning and ad5udicating unto themselves the lotin ?uestion, each one o% them getting a share o% 66 s?uare meters. Nlorentino,(ndres, (ntonina and loria, ho+ever, did not sign the document. On+& Ester,3isit$#ion, J)$n, !en$i'$ $n' Ros$rio si(ne' it. The '/tra 1udicial Settlement

(mong eirs +as pu!lished in the Catanduanes Tri!une %or three consecutive+ee#s.9

4n -ovem!er 6


21/43

SOUSES GORGON%O EN#(%RO and "O$U'# "U-OSEN#(%RO

/*b/tit*ted by their heir/, naely %/abelita, Renato, Ro/adelia and

Goronio, Jr., /*rnaed enatiro, and SOUSES REN#(O ". EN#(%RO and

ROS%E '. EN#(%RO, Re/pondent/,/.

!E%RS O4 ER%S(O "U-OS, naely Gloria "*yo/(alian, atrocenia "*yo/

'iare/, N*eriano "*yo/, and Enri*e "*yo/, repre/ented by their

attorneyin7act, Sal*d "*yo/, Re/pondent/.

ACTS4n 1uly 69, 6AE6, one o% the heirs, loria Cuyos0Talian $respondent loria&represented !y (tty. )ictor 'lliot epiten $(tty. epiten&, fled !e%ore the Court o%Nirst Instance $CNI& no+ Regional Trial Court $RTC&, Ce!u, "ranch I, a petition: %oretters o% (dministration, doc#eted as Special Proceeding $SP& -o. 8:0"- entitled In

the *atter o% the Intestate 'state o% 'varisto Cuyos, loria Cuyos0Talian, petitioner. The petition +as opposed !y loriaFs !rother, Nrancisco, +ho +as represented !y(tty. 1esus ray $(tty. ray&.

In the hearing held on 1anuary 9;, 6AE9, !oth parties together +ith their respectivecounsels appeared. "oth counsels mani%ested that the parties had come to anagreement to settle their case. The trial court on even date issued an4rder


22/43

the a!sence o% the signatures o% all the heirs sho+ing con%ormity thereto. The CNIadopted the Report despite the statement therein that only si/ out o% the nine heirsattended the con%erence, thus, eBectively depriving the other heirs o% their chanceto !e heard. The CNI=s action +as tantamount to a violation o% the constitutionalguarantee that no person shall !e deprived o% property +ithout due process o% la+.

We fnd that the assailed 4rder dated Decem!er 6>, 6AE>, +hich approved a voidCommissioner=s Report, is a void 5udgment %or lac# o% due process.

PEDROSA, vs. THE HON. CORT O APPEAS

.R. -o. 66H>H;. *arch


23/43


24/43

e/tra5udicial partition e/ecuted +ithout including some o% the heirs, +ho had no#no+ledge o% and consent to the same, is %raudulent and vicious. *aria 'lena is anheir o% *iguel together +ith her adopting mother, Rosalina. "eing the lonedescendant o% *iguel, she e/cludes the collateral relatives o% *iguel %romparticipating in his estate, %ollo+ing the provisions o% (rticle 6;;9 o% the Civil Code

9. The court ruled that this is not the proper %orum to decide this issue. The properties sought to !e recovered !y the petitioner are no+ all registered

under the name o% third parties. Well settled is the doctrine that a $orrens$itle cannot !e collaterally attac#ed. The validity o% the title can only !e raised inan action e/pressly instituted %or such purpose.

IN THE MATTER O THE INTESTATE ESTATES O THE DECEASED JOSEA

DEGADO AND GIERMO RSTIA CAROTA DEGADO 3DA. DE A ROSAvs. HEIRS O MARCIANA RSTIA 3DA. DE DAMIAN

4#"(S

The deceased 1ose%a Delgado +as the daughter o% Nelisa Delgado and ucio Campo,!oth o% +hom +ere never married. Nive other children +ere !orn to the couple +hoare %ull0!lood si!lings o% 1ose%a and natural children o% Nelisa. Nelisa also had anotherson +ith another man $Ramon 4sorio& named uis Delgado. 1ose%a Delgado died onSeptem!er 6AE8 +ithout a +ill. She +as survived !y uillermo Rustia and somecollateral relatives.

Sometime in 6A6E, uillermo proposed marriage to 1ose%a !ut +hether a marriagein %act too# place is disputed. (ccording to petitioners, the t+o eventually livedtogether as hus!and and +i%e !ut +ere never married. Petitioners point out that norecord o% the contested marriage e/isted in the civil registry. *oreover, a !aptismalcertifcate naming 1ose%a Delgado as one o% the sponsors re%erred to her as anunmarried +oman. They never had any children !ut too# into their homeuillermina and -anie. They +ere never legally adopted !ut +as #no+n in the localdialect as ampun2ampunan. uillermina +as alleged to !e the illegitimate child o% uillermo +ith another +oman.

Respondents, on the other hand, insist that the a!sence o% a marriage certifcate didnot mean that no marriage transpired and that uillermina +as never dulyac#no+ledged as an illegitimate child and such right had prescri!ed upon the deatho% uillermo. They maintain that uillermo and 1ose%a +ere married on 1une 9, 6A6Aand %rom then on lived together as hus!and and +i%e until the death o% 1ose%a.During this period spanning more than hal% a century, they +ere #no+n among theirrelatives and %riends to have in %act !een married. To support their proposition, theypresented the %ollo+ing pieces o% evidenceO


25/43

6. Certifcate o% Identity dated Decem!er 6, 6A:: issued to *rs. uillermo 1. Rustia78. Philippine Passport -o. :E>E issued to 1ose%a D. Rustia on 1une 8


26/43

In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a validmarriage e/isted !et+een uillermo Rustia and 1ose%a Delgado. Their coha!itationo% more than


27/43

@nder the ne+ la+, recognition may !e compulsory or voluntary. Recognition iscompulsory in any o% the %ollo+ing casesO

$8& +hen the child is in continuous possession o% status o% a child o% the alleged%ather $or mother& !y the direct acts o% the latter or o% his %amily7

4n the other hand, voluntary recognition may !e made in the record o% !irth, a +ill,a statement !e%ore a court o% record or in any authentic +riting.

Intervenor uillerma sought recognition on t+o groundsO frst, compulsoryrecognition through the open and continuous possession o% the status o% anillegitimate child and second, voluntary recognition through authentic +riting. There+as apparently no dou!t that she possessed the status o% an illegitimate child %romher !irth until the death o% her putative %ather uillermo Rustia. o+ever, this didnot constitute ac#no+ledgment !ut a mere ground b% which she could ha/ecompelled ac(nowledgment through the courts. Nurthermore, any 5udicial action %or

compulsory ac#no+ledgment has a dual limitationO the li%etime o% the child and theli%etime o% the putative parent. 4n the death o% either, the action %or compulsoryrecognition can no longer !e fled. There%ore the right to claim compulsoryac#no+ledgment prescri!ed upon the death o% uillermo Rustia.

T"ir' Iss)e 'ntitlement To etters 4% (dministration

(n administrator is a person appointed !y the court to administer the intestateestate o% the decedent. Rule EH, Section > o% the Rules o% Court prescri!es an ordero% pre%erence in the appointment o% an administratorO

Sec. >. 3hen and to whom letters of administration granted. I% no e/ecutor isnamed in the +ill, or the e/ecutor or e/ecutors are incompetent, re%use the trust, or%ail to give a !ond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall !e grantedO

$a& To the surviving hus!and or +i%e, as the case may !e, or ne/t o% #in, or !oth, inthe discretion o% the court, or to such person as such surviving hus!and or +i%e, orne/t o% #in, re?uests to have appointed, i% competent and +illing to serve7

$!& I% such surviving hus!and or +i%e, as the case may !e, or ne/t o% #in, or theperson selected !y them, !e incompetent or un+illing, or i% the hus!and or +ido+ orne/t o% #in, neglects %or thirty $9;& days a%ter the death o% the person to apply %oradministration or to re?uest that the administration !e granted to some otherperson, it may !e granted to one or more o% the principal creditors, i% competentand +illing to serve7

$c& I% there is no such creditor competent and +illing to serve, it may !e granted tosuch other person as the court may select.

In the appointment o% an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in


28/43

the estate o% the one to !e appointed. The order o% pre%erence does not rule out theappointment o% co0administrators, specially in cases +here 5ustice and e?uitydemand that opposing parties or %actions !e represented in the management o% theestates, a situation +hich o!tains here.

The SC %ound it ft to appoint 5oint administrators, in the persons o% Carlota Delgado/da. de de la Rosa and a nominee o% the nephe+s and nieces o% uillermo Rustia. They are the ne/t o% #in o% the deceased spouses 1ose%a Delgado and uillermoRustia, respectively.

WHEREORE, the petition is here!y DENIED. The decision o% the Court o% (ppealsis AIRMED +ith the %ollo+ing modifcationsO

etters o% administration over the still unsettled intestate estates o% uillermoRustia and 1ose%a Delgado shall issue to Carlota Delgado /da. de de la Rosa and to anominee %rom among the heirs o% uillermo Rustia, as 5oint administrators, upon

their ?ualifcation and fling o% the re?uisite !ond in such amount as may !edetermined !y the trial court.

G.R. No. 125=15 De#e7/er 29, 1998

RICARDO . MARE!, AREA M. CAE!AS, EFEIE . MARE!,

SA3ADOR . MARE!, ANTONIO . MARE!, $n' RAAE . MARE!,

JR., petitioners, vs.CORT O APPEAS, AREDO . MARE! $n' EEN .

MARE!, respondents.

During their li%etime, the spouses Ra%ael *ar?uez, Sr. and Nelicidad *ar?uez !egott+elve children, namelyO $6& -atividad7 $8& (urea7 $9& erminigildo7 $:& Nilomena7 $


29/43


30/43

In this regard, it is settled that an action *or re#onve&$n#e /$se' on $n i7%+ie'or #onstr)#tive tr)st pre/cribe/ in ten year/ 7ro the i/*ance o% the Torrenstitle over the property. 1 Nor the purpose o% this case, the prescriptive period shallstart to run +hen TCT -o. 999, 6AH8. Thus,considering that the action %or reconveyance +as fled on *ay 96, 6AA6, or

appro/imately nine years later, it is e/ident that prescription had not %et barred theaction.

Prescinding there%rom, can Ra%ael *ar?uez Sr., as trustee o% his +i%e=s share, validlydonate this portion to the respondentsJ 4!viously, he cannot, as e/pressly providedin (rt. E9> o% the Civil Code, thusO(rt. E9>. uardians and trustees cannot donatethe property entrusted to them.*oreover, no!ody can dispose o% that +hich doesnot !elong tohim.

Whether this donation +as inocious or not is another matter +hich is not +ithin

the province o% this Court to determine inasmuch as it necessitates the productiono% evidence not !e%ore it.

Ninally, +hile +e rule in %avor o% petitioners, +e cannot grant their plea %or moraldamages and attorney=s %ees 24since they have not satis%actorily sho+n that theyhave suBered mental anguish as provided in (rticle 886A and (rticle 88A; o% theCivil Code.

IGNACIO GERONA, MARIA CONCEPCION GERONA, RANCISCO GERONA $n'DEIN GERONA, petitioners,vs.CARMEN DE G!MAN, JOSE DE G!MAN, CEMENTE DE G!MAN,

RANCISCO DE G!MAN, RSTICA DE G!MAN, PACITA DE G!MAN $n'

3ICTORIA DE G!MANrespondents

ACTS , Petitioners herein, all surnamed erona, alleged that they are thelegitimate children o% Domingo erona and Placida de uzman7 that the latter, +hodied on (ugust A, 6A:6 +as a legitimate daughter o% *arcelo de uzman and hisfrst +i%e, Teodora de la Cruz7 that a%ter the death o% his frst +i%e, *arcelo deuzman married Camila Ramos, +ho !egot him several children, +hich are no+ the

respondents, all surnamed De uzman7 that *arcelo de uzman died on Septem!er66, 6A:, 6A:H, respondents e/ecuted a deed o% e/tra05udicial settlement o% theestate o% the deceased *arcelo de uzman, %raudulently misrepresenting thereinthat they +ere the only surviving heirs o% the deceased *arcelo de uzman,although they +ell #ne+ that petitioners +ere, also, his %orced heirs7 that such %raud+as discovered !y the petitioners only the year !e%ore the institution o% the case.


31/43

Petitioners %orth+ith demanded %rom respondents their $petitioners& share in saidproperties, to the e/tent o% 6VHth interest thereon7 and that the respondents re%usedto heed said demand, there!y causing damages to the petitioners.

Respondents maintained that petitioners= mother, the deceased Placida de

uzman, +as not entitled to share in the estate o% *arcelo de uzman, she !eingmerely a spurious child o% the latter, and that petitioners= action is !arred !y thestatute o% limitations.

Petitioners maintain that since they and respondents are co0heirs o% the deceased*arcelo de uzman, the present action %or partition o% the latter=s estate is notsu!5ect to the statute o% limitations o% action7 that, i% aBected !y said statute, theperiod o% %our $:& years therein prescri!ed did not !egin to run until actual discoveryo% the %raud perpetrated !y respondents, +hich, it is claimed, too# place in 6A or6A


32/43

ACTS Dr. Werner arl 1ohann -ittscher fled +ith the RTC o% *a#ati City a petition

%or the pro!ate o% his holographic +ill and %or the issuance o% letters testamentary to

herein respondent (tty. Rogelio P. -ogales. (%ter hearing and +ith due notice to the

compulsory heirs, the pro!ate court issued an order allo+ing the said holographic

+ill. ater, Dr. -ittscher died. ence, (tty. -ogales fled a petition %or letters

testamentary %or the administration o% the estate o% the deceased. Dr. -ittscherFssurviving spouse, herein petitioner Cynthia ). -ittscher, moved %or the dismissal o%

the said petition. o+ever, the court denied petitionerFs motion to dismiss, and

granted respondentFs petition %or the issuance o% letters testamentary. Petitioner

moved %or reconsideration, !ut her motion +as denied %or lac# o% merit. (tty.

-ogales +as issued letters testamentary and +as s+orn in as e/ecutor. Petitioner

appealed to the Court o% (ppeals alleging that respondentFs petition %or the issuance

o% letters testamentary should have !een dismissed outright as the RTC had no

5urisdiction over the su!5ect matter and that she +as denied due process.Petitioner

contends that respondentFs petition %or the issuance o% letters testamentary lac#ed

a certifcation against %orum0shopping.

ISSES $6& Whether or not certifcate o% non0%orum shopping is re?uiredJ $8&

Whether or not the RTC has 5urisdiction over the caseJ $8& Whether or not petitioner

+as denied due processJ

HED $6& Revised Circular -o. 8H0A6H and (dministrative Circular -o. ;:0A:A o% the

Court re?uire a certifcation against %orum0shopping %or all initiatory pleadings fled

in court. o+ever, in this case, the petition %or the issuance o% letters testamentary

is not an initiatory pleading, !ut a mere continuation o% the original petition %or the

pro!ate o% Dr. -ittscherFs +ill. ence, respondentFs %ailure to include a certifcation

against %orum0shopping in his petition %or the issuance o% letters testamentary is nota ground %or outright dismissal o% the said petition.

$8& Section 6, Rule E9 o% the Rules o% Court providesO

S'CTI4- 6. Where estate o% deceased persons settled. I% the decedent is an

inha!itant o% the Philippines at the time o% his death, +hether a citizen or an alien,

his +ill shall !e proved, or letters o% administration granted, and his estate settled,

in the Court o% Nirst Instance $no+ Regional Trial Court& in the province in +hich he

resides at the time o% his death, and i% he is an inha!itant o% a %oreign country, the

Court o% Nirst Instance $no+ Regional Trial Court& o% any province in +hich he had

estate. L $'mphasis supplied.&In this case, the RTC and the Court o% (ppeals are one in their fnding that Dr.

-ittscher +as a resident o% as Pi`as, *etro *anila at the time o% his death. Such

%actual fnding, +hich +e fnd supported !y evidence on record, should no longer !e

distur!ed. Time and again +e have said that revie+s on certiorari are limited to

errors o% la+. @nless there is a sho+ing that the fndings o% the lo+er court are

totally devoid o% support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court +ill not analyze or

+eigh evidence all over again. ence, applying the a%ore?uoted rule, Dr. -ittscher

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt8https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt9https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt8https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt9


33/43

correctly fled in the RTC o% *a#ati City, +hich then covered as Pi`as, *etro *anila,

the petition %or the pro!ate o% his +ill and %or the issuance o% letters testamentary to

respondent.

$9& Section :, Rule E> o% the Rules o% Court statesO

S'C. :. eirs, devisees, legatees, and e/ecutors to !e notifed !y mail or personally. L

I% the testator as#s %or the allo+ance o% his o+n +ill, notice shall !e sent only to his

compulsory heirs.

In this case, petitioner, +ith +hom Dr. -ittscher had no child, and Dr. -ittscherFs

children %rom his previous marriage +ere all duly notifed, !y registered mail, o% the

pro!ate proceedings. Petitioner even appeared in court to oppose respondentFs

petition %or the issuance o% letters testamentary and she also fled a motion to

dismiss the said petition. She li#e+ise fled a motion %or reconsideration o% the

issuance o% the letters testamentary and o% the denial o% her motion to dismiss. We

are convinced petitioner +as accorded every opportunity to de%end her cause.

There%ore, petitionerFs allegation that she +as denied due process in the pro!ate

proceedings is +ithout !asis. Petitioner should realize that the allo+ance o% her

hus!andFs +ill is conclusive only as to its due e/ecution.66 The authority o% the

pro!ate court is limited to ascertaining +hether the testator, !eing o% sound mind,

%reely e/ecuted the +ill in accordance +ith the %ormalities prescri!ed !y la+.68 Thus,

petitionerFs claim o% title to the properties %orming part o% her hus!andFs estate

should !e settled in an ordinary action !e%ore the regular courts.

J)ne 19, 1982

G.R. No. 5=8:8

RAAE E. MANINANG $n' SOEDAD . MANINANG, %etitioners,

vs. CORT O APPEAS, HON. RICARDO . PRONO3E, JR., $s J)'(e o* t"e

Co)rt o* irst Inst$n#e o* Ri$+ $n' ERNARDO S. ASENETA, res%on'ents.

MEENCIOHERRERA, J.

N(CTSO Soledad *aninang fled a petition +ith the CNI0Yuezon City %or the pro!ate o%

the holographic +ill o% Clemencia (seneta +ho instituted her and her hus!and as

heirs. ater on, "ernardo (seneta $herein private respondent&, claiming to !e theadopted child o% the deceased and her sole heir instituted intestate proceedings

+ith the CNI0Rizal. The t+o cases +ere consolidated +ith the latter court. "ernardo

fled a motion to dismiss the testate case on the ground that the +ill +as null and

void !ecause he, !eing the only compulsory heir, +as preterited7 thus, intestacy

should ensue. In her opposition, Soledad averred that the court=s area o% in?uiry is

limited to an e/amination o% and resolution on the e/trinsic validity o% the +ill and

that "ernardo +as eBectively disinherited !y the decedent. The motion +as

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt11https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt12https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt11https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#146c32655564e634_fnt12


34/43

granted. The motion %or reconsideration !y Soledad *aninang +as denied %or lac# o%

merit. In the same order, the court appointed "ernardo (seneta as administrator

considering he is a %orced heir and is not sho+n to !e unft to per%orm the trust.

Soledad *aninang fled petition %or certiorari +ith the Court o% (ppeals. It +as

denied. ence, this petition +as fled.

ISS@'O +hether or not the dismissal o% the court a ?uo o% the testate case properJ

'DO -o, it +as not proper. Pro!ate o% a +ill is mandatory as re?uired !y la+ and

pu!lic policy. 4rdinarily, the pro!ate o% the +ill does not loo# into its intrinsic

validity7 !ut on the e/trinsic validity +hich includes the capacity o% the testator to

ma#e a +ill and the compliance +ith the re?uisites or solemnities +hich the la+

prescri!es %or the validity o% +ills.

o+ever, +hen practical considerations demand, the intrinsic validity o% the +ill

may !e passed upon li#e +hen on its %ace there is really preterition or invalid

disinheritance ma#ing the +ill void. The pro!ate might !ecome an idle ceremony i%

on its %ace it appears to !e intrinsically void. Such +ould shorten the proceedings i%

the issues are decided as early as during the pro!ate proceedings.

In the instant case, there is still dou!t to the alleged preterition or disinheritance o%

the private respondent cannot !e clearly seen on the %ace o% the +ill and needs

%urther determination +hich can only !e made i% the +ill is allo+ed to !e pro!ated.

. D$ni+o AAD, et $+., %etitioners vs. !en$i'o AAD, res%on'ent

G.R. No. 1=-9:, O#to/er 1=, 2448

ACTS PetitionerFs mother, *aria (luad and respondent Xenaido (luad +ere raised

!y the childless spouses *atilde and Crispin (luad. Crispin +as the o+ner o% si/ lots

o% Pilar Cadastre, Capiz. (%ter his death, *atilde ad5udicated the lots to hersel% and

therea%ter, she e/ecuted a Deed o% Donation o% Real Property Inter )ivos in %avor o%

*aria covering all the si/ lots. The Deed provided that such +ill !ecome eBective

upon the death o% the Donor, !ut in the event that the Donee should die !e%ore the

Donor, the present donation shall !e deemed rescinded. Provided, ho+ever, that

anytime during the li%etime o% the Donor or anyone o% them +ho should survive,

they could use, encum!er or even dispose o% any or even all o% the parcels o% the

land.

*atilde sold one o% the lots to Xenaido and su!se?uently, *atilde e/ecuted a last

+ill and testament devising %our $:& o% the lots to *aria and the remaining lot to

Xenaido. *aria died a %e+ months a%ter *atildeFs death. Therea%ter, *ariaFs heirs

$herein petitioners& fled !e%ore the RTC a complaint %or declaration and recovery o%

o+nership and possession o% the t+o lots conveyed and donated to Xenaido,

alleging that no rights have !een transmitted to the latter !ecause such lots have


35/43

!een previously alienated to them to *aria via the Deed o% Donation. The lo+er

court decided in %avor o% the petitioners ho+ever, C( reversed said decision upon

appeal o% Xenaido +hich held that the Deed o% Donation +as actually a donation

mortis causa, not inter vivos and as such it had to, !ut did not, comply +ith the

%ormalities o% a +ill. Due to the denial o% the petitionerFs *otion %or Reconsideration,

the present Petition %or Revie+ has !een fled.

ISSEO Whether or not the Deed o% Donation is donation inter vivos and +hether or

not such deed is validJ

HED The donation to *aria (luad $petitionerFs mother& is one o% mortis causa, it

having the %ollo+ing characteristicsO

It conveys no title or o+nership to the trans%eree !e%ore the death o% the trans%eror,

or +hat amounts to the same thing, that the trans%eror should retain the o+nership

$%ull or na#ed& and control o% the property +hile alive7

That !e%ore the death o% the trans%eror, the trans%er should !e revoca!le, !y the

trans%eror at +ill, ad nutum, !ut revoca!ility may !e provided %or indirectly !y

means o% a reserved po+er in the donor to dispose o% the properties conveyed7 and

That the trans%er should !e void o% the trans%eror should survive the trans%eree.

The phrase in the earlier0?outed Deed o% Donation Kto !ecome eBective upon the

death o% the D4-4RM admits o% no other interpretation than to mean that *atilde

did not intend to trans%er the o+nership o% the si/ lots to petitionerFs mother during

the %ormerFs li%etime. Nurther the statement, Kanytime during the li%etime o% the

D4-4R or anyone o% them +ho should survive, they could use, encum!er or even

dispose o% any or even all the parcels o% land herein donated,M means that *atilde

retained o+nership o% the lots and reserved in her the right to dispose them. Nor the

right to dispose o% a thing +ithout other limitations than those esta!lished !y la+ isan attri!ute o% o+nership. The phrase, Kanyone o% them +ho should surviveM is out

o% sync. Nor the Deed o% Donation clearly stated that it +ould ta#e eBect upon the

death o% the donor, hence, said phrase could only have re%erred to the donor.

The donation !eing then mortis causa, the %ormalities o% a +ill should have !een

o!served !ut they +ere not, as it +as +itnessed !y only t+o, not three or more

+itnesses %ollo+ing (rticle H;< o% the Civil Code. It is void and transmitted no right

to petitionerFs mother. "ut even assuming arguendo that the %ormalities +ere

o!served, since it +as not pro!ated, no right to the t+o lots +as transmitted to

*aria. *atilde thus validly disposed the lot to Xenaido !y her last +ill andtestament, su!5ect to the ?ualifcation that her +ill must !e pro!ated. With respect

to the conveyed lot, the same had !een validly sold !y *atilde to Xenaido.

-. RAA v. NTAAN, G.R. Nos. -255: A%ri+ 2=, 1989;


36/43

ACTS The late Rosendo Ralla fled a petition %or the pro!ate o% his o+n +ill in thethen CNI o% (l!ay, +hich +as doc#eted as Special Proceedings -o. :. In his +ill hele%t his entire estate to his son, Pa!lo $the petitioner herein&, leaving nothing to hisother son, Pedro. In that same year, Pedro Ralla fled an action %or the partition o% the estate o% their mother, Paz 'scarella.

PetitionerFs "rother0in0 la+ fled a petition, doc#eted as Special Proceedings-o. 66;>, %or the pro!ate o% the same +ill o% Rosendo Ralla on the ground that thedecedent o+ed him P


37/43

4ppositors Nernandez and Reyes petitioned %or reconsideration, andVor ne+trial, insisting that the issues o% estoppel and revocation !e considered andresolved7 +hereupon, on 1uly 8E, 6A7 *ercado vs.Santos, >> Phil. 86& !rothers and sisters, namelyO (l%redo, Nederico, Remedios, Conrado,ourdes and (l!erto, all surnamed -uguid.

Petitioner Remedios -uguid fled in the Court o% Nirst Instance o% Rizal aholographic +ill allegedly e/ecuted !y Rosario -uguid on -ovem!er 6E, 6A


38/43

alia, is that !y the institution o% petitioner Remedios -uguid as universal heir o% thedeceased, oppositors _ +ho are compulsory heirs o% the deceased in the directascending line _ +ere illegally preterited and that in conse?uence the institution isvoid. The court=s order o% -ovem!er H, 6A>9, held that the +ill in ?uestion is acomplete nullity and +ill per%orce create intestacy o% the estate o% the deceased

Rosario -uguid and dismissed the petition

ISSE Whether or not the Court may rule on the validity o% the Will.

HED The case is %or the pro!ate o% a +ill. The court=s area o% in?uiry is limited _to an e/amination o%, and resolution on, the etrinsic validity o% the +ill. The duee/ecution thereo%, the testatri/=s testamentary capacity, and the compliance +iththe re?uisites or solemnities !y la+ prescri!ed, are the ?uestions solel% to !epresented, and to !e acted upon, !y the court. Said court at this stage o% theproceedings _ is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or ecacy o% theprovisions o% the +ill, the legality o% any devise or legacy therein.

I% the case +ere to !e remanded %or pro!ate o% the +ill, nothing +ill !egained. 4n the contrary, this litigation +ill !e protracted. (nd %or aught that appearsin the record, in the event o% pro!ate or i% the court re5ects the +ill, pro!a!ility e/iststhat the case +ill come up once again !e%ore us on the same issue o% the intrinsicvalidity or nullity o% the +ill. ResultO +aste o% time, eBort, e/pense, plus addedan/iety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a !elie% that +emight as +ell meet head0on the issue o% the validity o% the provisions o% the +ill in?uestion.9 (%ter all, there e/ists a 5usticia!le controversy crying %or solution.

9. SPOSES ROERTO AND THEMA AJERO, petitioners, vs.THE CORT O APPEAS AND CEMENTE SAND, respondents.

G.R. No. 14-=24 Se%te7/er 15, 199:

ACTS 4n 1anuary 8;, 6AH9, petitioners instituted %or allo+ance o% decedent=s$(nnie sand& holographic +ill. They alleged that at the time o% its e/ecution, she +aso% sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress,%raud or undue inuence, and+as in every respect capacitated to dispose o% her estate !y +ill.

This +as opposed on the grounds thatO neither the testament=s !ody nor thesignature therein +as indecedent=s hand+riting7 it contained alterations and corrections +hich +ere not dulysigned !y decedent7and, the +ill +as procured !y petitioners through improper pressure and undueinuence. The petition +as li#e+ise opposed !y Dr. 1ose (5ero. e contested thedisposition in the +ill o% a house and lot located in Ca!ad!aran, (gusan Del -orte.e claimed that said property could not !e conveyed !y decedent in its entirety, asshe +as not its sole o+ner.


39/43

The trial court having %ound that the holographic +ill in ?uestion +as +rittenentirely, dated and signed inthe hand+riting o% the testatri/ +ith three $9& +itnesses to have e/plicitly andcategorically identifed thehand+riting +ith +hich the holographic +ill in ?uestion +as +ritten to !e the

genuine hand+riting andsignature o% the testatri/ admitted the pro!ate, ho+ever on appeal +ith C( this +asreversed and thepetition %or pro!ate +as dismissed on the ground that it %ails to meet there?uirements %or its validity !y not complying articles H69 and H6: o% the -CC +hichread, as %ollo+sO

(rt. H69O When a num!er o% dispositions appearing in a holographic +ill are signed+ithout !eing dated, and the last disposition has a signature and date, such datevalidates the dispositions preceding it, +hatever !e the time o% prior dispositions.

(rt. H6:O In case o% insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic +ill,

the testator mustauthenticate the same !y his %ull signature.It alluded to certain dispositions in the +ill +hich +ere either unsigned and undated,or signed !ut not dated. It also %ound that the erasures, alterations andcancellations made thereon had not !een authenticated !y decedent.

ISSEWhether or not the C( +as correct in disallo+ing the pro!ate o% the +ill!ased on the provisions o% (rt (rt H69 and (rt H6:J

HED -o.The Court said it is erroneous %or the C( to say that the holographic +illo% (nne Sand +as note/ecuted in accordance +ith the %ormalities prescri!ed !y la+ and held that (rticlesH69 and H6: o% the -e+ Civil Code +ere not complied +ith, hence, it disallo+ed thepro!ate o% said +ill.

The Court citedO Section A, Rule E> o% the Rules o% Court provides that +ill shall !edisallo+ed inany o% the %ollo+ing casesO

$a& I% not e/ecuted and attested as re?uired !y la+7$!& I% the testator +as insane, or other+ise mentally incapa!le to ma#e a +ill, at thetime o% its e/ecution7$c& I% it +as e/ecuted under duress, or the inuence o% %ear, or threats7$d& I% it +as procured !y undue and improper pressure and inuence, on the part o% the !enefciary, or o% some other person %or his !eneft7$e& I% the signature o% the testator +as procured !y %raud or tric#, and he did notintend that the instrumentshould !e his +ill at the time o% f/ing his signature thereto. In the same vein, (rticleH9A o% the -e+ Civil Code readsO

(rt. H9AO The +ill shall !e disallo+ed in any o% the %ollo+ing cases7


40/43

$6& I% the %ormalities re?uired !y la+ have not !een complied +ith7$8& I% the testator +as insane, or other+ise mentally incapa!le o% ma#ing a +ill, atthe time o% its e/ecution7$9& I% it +as e/ecuted through %orce or under duress, or the inuence o% %ear, orthreats7$:& I% it +as procured !y undue and improper pressure and inuence, on the part o%

the !enefciary or o% some other person7$& I% the testator acted !y mista#e or did not intend that the instrument he signedshould !e his +ill at thetime o% a/ing his signature thereto.

These lists are e/clusive7 no other grounds can serve to disallo+ a +ill. Thus, in apetition to admit aholographic +ill to pro!ate, the only issues to !e resolved areO $6& +hether theinstrument su!mitted is,indeed, the decedent=s last +ill and testament7 $8& +hether said +ill +as e/ecuted in

accordance +ith the%ormalities prescri!ed !y la+7 $9& +hether the decedent had the necessarytestamentary capacity at the time the +ill +as e/ecuted7 and, $:& +hether thee/ecution o% the +ill and its signing +ere the voluntary acts o% the decedent.

In the case o% holographic +ills +hat assures authenticity is the re?uirement thatthey !e totally autographic or hand+ritten !y the testator himsel%, as providedunder (rticle H6; o% the -e+ Civil Code, thusO( person may e/ecute a holographic +ill +hich must !e entirely +ritten, dated, andsigned !y the hand o% the testator himsel%. It is su!5ect to no other %orm, and may !e made in or out o% thePhilippines, and neednot !e +itnessed. Nailure to strictly o!serve other %ormalities +ill not result in thedisallo+ance o% a holographic +ill that is un?uestiona!ly hand+ritten !y thetestator.

( reading o% (rticle H69 o% the -e+ Civil Code sho+s that its re?uirement aBects thevalidity o% thedispositions contained in the holographic +ill, !ut not its pro!ate. I% the testator %ailsto sign and date some o% the dispositions, the result is that these dispositionscannot !e eBectuated. Such %ailure, ho+ever, does not render the +hole testamentvoid.

i#e+ise, a holographic +ill can still !e admitted to pro!ate, not+ithstanding non0compliance +ith theprovisions o% (rticle H6:. 4rdinarily, +hen a num!er o% erasures, corrections, andinterlineations made !y the testator in a holographic Will have not !een notedunder his signature, . . . the Will is not there!y invalidated as a +hole, !ut at mostonly as respects the particular +ords erased, corrected or interlined. Thus, unlessthe unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions +ere made on the dateo% the holographic +ill or on testator=s signature, A their presence does not


41/43

invalidate the +ill itsel%. 6; The lac# o% authentication +ill only result in disallo+anceo% such changes.

4nly the re?uirements o% (rticle H6; o% the -e+ Civil Code _ and not those %ound in(rticles H69 and H6: o% the same Code _ are essential to the pro!ate o% aholographic +ill.

Petition is R(-T'D. The Decision o% the Court o% (ppeals is R')'RS'D and S'T(SID', e/cept +ith respect to the invalidity o% the disposition o% the entire houseand lot in Ca!ad!aran, (gusan del -orte. The Decision o% the Regional Trial Courtadmitting to pro!ate the holographic +ill o% decedent (nnie Sand, is here!yR'I-ST(T'D, +ith the a!ove ?ualifcation as regards the Ca!ad!aran property. -ocosts.

:4. JOAINA RINANTE DE ARAN!, ANTONIO RINANTE, CAROS R.INANTE, MERCEDES RINANTE DE EDNIC0, AREDO RINANTE,TERESITA RINANTE, RAMON RINANTE, ORENCIA RINANTE DE DIAS,MARTIN RINANTE, JOSE RINANTE IN $n' JOAIN RINANTECAMPE, petitioners, vs.THE HON. NICOAS GAING, PRESIDING JDGE, REGIONA TRIA CORT,NATIONA CAPITA JDICIA REGION, RAN CH NO. 1--, PASIG, METROMANIA AND JOAIN RINANTE, respondents.

G.R. No. ==4:= M$& 28, 1988

ACTS 4n 9 *arch 6AH>, private respondent fled +ith the Regional Trial Court o%Pasig, a petition %or the pro!ate and allo+ance o% the last +ill and testament o% the

late *ontserrat R0In%ante y 0Pola The petition specifed the names and ad0 dresseso% herein petitioners as legatees and devisees.

4n 68 *arch 6AH>, the pro!ate court issued an order setting the petition %or hearingon < *ay 6AH> at HO9; o=cloc# in the morning. Said order +as pu!lished in the-ueva 'raM, ne+spaper o% general circulation in *etro *anila once a +ee# %or three$9& consecutive +ee#s. 4n the date o% the hearing, no oppositor appeared thus,moved to 68 *ay 6AH>, on +hich date, the pro!ate court issued an order admittingprivate respondents evidence e/0parte, allo+ed the latter to place (rturi (rceo asone o% the testamentary +itnesses, and appointed private respondent as e/ecutor.

Petitioners fled a motion %or reconsideration o% the order o% 68 *ay 6AH> alleging

that, as named legatees, no notices +ere sent to them as re?uired !y Sec. :, RuleE> o% the Rules o% Court and they prayed that they !e given a period o% ten $6;&days +ithin +hich to fle their opposition to the pro!ate o% the +ill. Pro!ate court,acting on the opposition o% private respondent and the reply thereto o% petitioners,issued an order denying petitioners motion %or reconsideration.


42/43

Petitioners fled +ith this Court a petition %or certiorari and prohi!ition +hich +as,ho+ever, re%erred to the Court o% (ppeals. The Court o% (ppeals dismissed thepetition. ence, the instant petition.

PetitionerFs contentionO Court o% (ppeals erred in holding that personal notice o%pro!ate proceedings to the #no+n legatees and devisees is not a 5urisdictional

re?uirement in the pro!ate o% a +ill and that under Sec. : o% Rule E> o% the Rules o%Court, said re?uirement o% the la+ is mandatory and its omission constitutes areversi!le error %or !eing constitutive o% grave a!use o% discretion.

Court o% (ppealsF contentionO The re?uirement o% notice on individual heirs,legatees and devisees is merely a matter o% procedural convenience to !ettersatis%y in some instances the re?uirements o% due process,

ISSE Whether or not personal notice o% pro!ate proceedings to the #no+nlegatees and devisees is not a 5urisdictional re?uirement in the pro!ate o% a +ill.

HED es. We grant the petition.

Sec. :, Rule E> o% the Rules o% Court readsO

S'C. :. 4eirs, de/isees, legatees, and eecutors to be noti5ed b% mailor personall% . _ The court shall also cause copies o% the notice o% thetime and place f/ed %or proving the +ill to !e addressed to thedesignated or other #no+n heirs, legatees, and devisees o% the testatorresident in the Philippines at their places o% residence, and deposited inthe post oce +ith the postage thereon prepaid at least t+enty $8;&days !e%ore the hearing, i% such places o% residence !e #no+n. ( copyo% the notice must in li#e manner !e mailed to the person named as

e/ecutor, i% he !e not, the petitioner7 also, to any person named as co0e/ecutor not petitioning, i% their places o% residence !e #no+n. Personalservice o% copies o% the notice at least ten $6;& days !e%ore the day o%hearing shall !e e?uivalent to mailing.

It is clear %rom the a%orecited rule that notice o% the time and place o% the hearing%or the allo+ance o% a +ill shall !e %or+arded to the designated or other #no+nheirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places o% residence,i% such places o% residence !e #no+n. There is no ?uestion that the residences o%herein petitioners legatees and devisees +ere #no+n to the pro!ate court. Thepetition %or the allo+ance o% the +ill itsel% indicated the names and addresses o% thelegatees and devisees o% the testator. = "ut despite such #no+ledge, the pro!ate

court did not cause copies o% the notice to !e sent to petitioners. The re?uirement o% the la+ %or the allo+ance o% the +ill +as not satisfed !y mere pu!lication o% thenotice o% hearing %or three $9& +ee#s in a ne+spaper o% general circulation in theprovince.

W'R'N4R', the decision o% the Court o% (ppeals dated 69 1anuary 6AHE is here!y(--@'D and S'T (SID'. The case is here!y ordered remanded to the Regional

Trial Court o% Pasig %or %urther proceedings in accordance +ith this decision.


43/43

T$n vs Ge'orio

$#ts @pon the death o% erardo Tan on 4ct. 6:, 8;;;, private respondents Rogelo

im Suga and elen Tan Racoma, +ho +ere claiming to !e the children o% thedecedent moved %or the appointment o% their attorney0in0%act, Romualdo im asspecial administrator. This +as opposed !y the petitioner )ilma Tan, 1a#e Tan anderaldine Tan, claiming that none o% the respondents can !e appointed since theyare not residing in the country, that Romualdo does not have the same competenceas )ilma Tan +ho +as already acting as the de %acto administratri/ o% the estate,and that the nearest o% #in, !eing the legitmate children, is pre%erred in the choiceo% administrator $claiming that the respondent +ere illegitmate children&. o+ever,upon %ailure o% )ilma to %ollo+ a court directive to account %or the income o% theestate, the court granted Romualdo=s appointment as special administrator.Petitioners appealed to the Court o% (ppeals and +as denied, hence the petition %or

revie+ on certiorari.

Iss)e Whether or not the court violated Sec. >, Rule EH o% the Rules o% Court intheir selection o% a special administrator.

R)+in( The pre%erence under Section >, Rule EH o% the Rules o% Court %or the ne/to% #in re%ers to the appointment o% a regular administrator, and not o% a specialadministrator, as the appointment o% the latter lies entirely in the discretion o% thecourt, and is not appeala!le. I% petitioners really desire to avail themselves o% theorder o% pre%erence , they should pursue the appointment o% a regular administratorand put to an end the delay +hich necessitated the appointment o% a specialadministrator. CommentO The court +as correct in granting the appointment o%Romualdo as special administrator since it +as sho+n that )ilma +as in remiss a%ter%ailing to %ollo+ the series o% directives and e/tension given to her to account %or theestate.

pursuant to Section 8, Rule 6:6 o% the Rules o% Court, or the trial court may orderthe payment o% such fling %ees +ithin a reasona!le time. on the issue o% personalservice, as in *usa v. (mor, a +ritten e/planation +hy service +as not donepersonally Kmight have !een superuous !ecause the distance %rom thepetitioner=s residence and the respondent court is very %ar. Petition granted.CommentO es, in this case the court +as too !linded +ith its sense o% duty to %ollo+to the rules to the letters. The court should have rela/ed and li!erally construed the

procedural rule on the re?uirement o% a +ritten e/planation %or non0personalservice, in the interest o% su!stantial 5ustice. "ecause in the end, it +ould !e theestate that +ould !eneft upon !eing given notice o% a money claim against it so itcan !e inspected and verifed.

specproc digested

Documents