Maloles II vs Phillips Maloles II vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 129505 GR No. 133359

January 31, 2000

FACTS
In 1995, Dr. Arturo De Los Santos filed a petition for probate of his will. He
declared that he has no compulsory heirs and that he is naming as sole devisee and
legatee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. (ASF). The named executrix is Pacita De
Los Reyes Phillips. The petition was filed in RTC Makati Branch 61. Judge Fernando
Gorospe of said court determined that Arturo is of sound mind and was not acting in
duress when he signed his last will and testament and so Branch 61 allowed the last will
and testament on February 16, 1996.
On Feb. 26, 1996, Arturo died. Thereafter, Pacita, as executrix, filed a motion for
the issuance of letters of testamentary with Branch 61. She however withdrew the
motion but later on refiled it with RTC Makati Branch 65.
Meanwhile, Octavio Maloles II filed a motion for intervention with Branch 61
claiming that he was a full blooded nephew of Arturo and as a next of kin, he should be
appointed as the administrator of the estate and that he is an heir.
Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 issued an order transferring the motion filed by
Pacita to Branch 61. Judge Santos ratiocinated that since the probate proceeding
started in Branch 61, it should be the same court which should hear Pacitas motion.
Branch 61 however, refused to consolidate and referred the case back to Branch 65.
Branch 65 subsequently consolidated the case per refusal of Branch 61. Eventually,
Branch 65 allowed the motion for intervention filed by Octavio.

ISSUE: Whether or not Octavio Maloles II has the right to intervene in the probate
proceeding.

HELD
No. The Supreme Court first clarified that the probate of will filed in Branch 61
has already terminated upon the allowance of the will. In cases of probate of wills, the
authority of the court is limited only to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e.,
whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed it in accordance with the
formalities of the law. Thus, after allowance of the will on Feb. 16, 1996, there was
nothing else for Branch 61 to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will.
Hence when Pacita filed a motion with Branch 65, the same is already a separate
proceeding and not a continuance of the already concluded probate in Branch 61. There
is therefore no reason for Branch 65 to refer back the case to Branch 61 as it initially
did. Further, even if the probate was terminated, under Rule 73 of the Rules of Court
concerning the venue of settlement of estates, it is provided that when a case is filed in
one branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to
the exclusion of the other branches. Trial may be held or proceedings continue by and
before another branch or judge.
Anent the issue of Octavio being an heir, the contention has no merit. He is not
an heir or legatee under the will. Neither is he a compulsory heir. As next of kin, he
may only inherit if Arturo died intestate. In this case, Arturo left a valid will which
expressly provided that ASF is the sole legatee and devisee of his estate.

- - full text on subsequent page - -

 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129505. January 31, 2000]

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. PACITA DE LOS REYES

PHILLIPS, respondent.

[G.R. No. 133359. January 31, 2000]

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR., in his Official Capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and PACITA PHILLIPS as the alleged executrix of the
alleged will of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, respondents. Scmis

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

These are petitions for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Thirteenth and the
Special Eighth Divisions of the Court of Appeals which ruled that petitioner has no right
to intervene in the settlement of the estate of Dr. Arturo de Santos. The cases were
consolidated considering that they involve the same parties and some of the issues
raised are the same.

The facts which gave rise to these two petitions are as follows:

On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a
petition for probate of his will[1] in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, docketed
as Sp. Proc. No. M-4223. In his petition, Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no
compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the Arturo
de Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he disposed by his will his properties with an
approximate value of not less than P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said will were in
the custody of the named executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. A
copy of the will[2] was annexed to the petition for probate.

On February 16, 1996, Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr. of RTC-Makati, Branch 61 issued
an order granting the petition and allowing the will. The order reads:

On 03 August 1995, the Court issued an Order setting the hearing of the
petition on 12 September 1995, at 8:30 oclock in the morning, copies of
which were served to Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. and Ms. Pacita de
los Reyes Phillips (Officers Return, dated 04 September 1995 attached to
the records). When the case was called for hearing on the date set, no
oppositor appeared nor any written opposition was ever filed and on
motion of petitioner, he was allowed to adduce his evidence in support of
the petition.

Petitioner personally appeared before this Court and was placed on the
witness stand and was directly examined by the Court through "free
wheeling" questions and answers to give this Court a basis to determine
the state of mind of the petitioner when he executed the subject will.
After the examination, the Court is convinced that petitioner is of sound
and disposing mind and not acting on duress, menace and undue
influence or fraud, and that petitioner signed his Last Will and Testament
on his own free and voluntary will and that he was neither forced nor
influenced by any other person in signing it. Mis sc

Furthermore, it appears from the petition and the evidence adduced that
petitioner in his lifetime, executed his Last Will and Testament (Exhs. "A",
"A-1", "A-2", "A-4", "A-5") at his residence situated at 9 Bauhinia corner
Intsia Streets, Forbes Park, Makati City; said Last Will and Testament was
signed in the presence of his three (3) witnesses, namely, to wit: Dr.
Elpidio Valencia (Exhs. "A-6", "A-7", "A-8", "A-16", "A-16-A"), Atty. Edward
J. Berenguer (Exhs. "A-3", "A-3-A", "A-9", "A-10", & "A-11"), and Atty.
Victoria C. delos Reyes (Exhs. "A-12", "A-13", "A-14", "A-17", & "A-18"),
who in turn, in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each
and all of the witnesses signed the said Last Will and Testament and duly
notarized before Notary Public Anna Melissa L. Rosario (Exh. "A-15"); on
the actual execution of the Last Will and Testament, pictures were taken
(Exhs. "B" to "B-3").

Petitioner has no compulsory heirs and Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.,

with address at No. 9 Bauhinia corner Intsia Streets, Forbes Park, Makati
City has been named as sole legatee and devisee of petitioners
properties, real and personal, approximately valued at not less than P2
million, Ms. Pacita de los Reyes Phillips was designated as executor and to
serve as such without a bond.

From the foregoing facts, the Court finds that the petitioner has
substantially established the material allegations contained in his petition.
The Last Will and Testament having been executed and attested as
required by law; that testator at the time of the execution of the will was
of sane mind and/or not mentally incapable to make a Will; nor was it
executed under duress or under the influence of fear or threats; that it
was in writing and executed in the language known and understood by
the testator duly subscribed thereof and attested and subscribed by three
(3) credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of another; that
the testator and all the attesting witnesses signed the Last Will and
 Testament freely and voluntarily and that the testator has intended that
the instrument should be his Will at the time of affixing his signature
thereto.

WHEREFORE, as prayed for by the petitioner (testator himself) the

petition for the allowance of the Last Will and Testament of Arturo de
Santos is hereby APPROVED and ALLOWED.

Shortly after the probate of his will, Dr. De Santos died on February 26, 1996.

On April 3, 1996, petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming
that, as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testators sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr.,
he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise
alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. Petitioner thus prayed for the
reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of letters of
administration in his name. Mis spped

On the other hand, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, the designated
executrix of the will, filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with Branch
61. Later, however, private respondent moved to withdraw her motion. This was
granted, while petitioner was required to file a memorandum of authorities in support of
his claim that said court (Branch 61) still had jurisdiction to allow his intervention.[3]

Petitioner filed his memorandum of authorities on May 13, 1996. On the other hand,
private respondent, who earlier withdrew her motion for the issuance of letters
testamentary in Branch 61, refiled a petition for the same purpose with the Regional
Trial Court, Makati, which was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and assigned to
Branch 65.

Upon private respondents motion, Judge Salvador Abad Santos of Branch 65 issued an
order, dated June 28, 1996, appointing her as special administrator of Dr. De Santoss
estate.

On July 29, 1996, petitioner sought to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and to set
aside the appointment of private respondent as special administrator. He reiterated that
he was the sole and full blooded nephew and nearest of kin of the testator; that he
came to know of the existence of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 only by accident; that the
probate proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. M-4223 before Branch 61 of the same court was
still pending; that private respondent misdeclared the true worth of the testators
estate; that private respondent was not fit to be the special administrator of the estate;
and that petitioner should be given letters of administration for the estate of Dr. De
Santos.
On August 28, 1996, Judge Abad Santos ordered the transfer of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343
to Branch 61, on the ground that "[it] is related to the case before Judge Gorospe of
RTC Branch 61 . . ."

It appears, however, that in Sp. Proc. No. M-4223, Judge Gorospe had denied on
August 26, 1996 petitioners motion for intervention. Petitioner brought this matter to
the Court of Appeals which, in a decision[4] promulgated on February 13, 1998, upheld
the denial of petitioners motion for intervention.

Meanwhile, Judge Gorospe issued an order, dated September 4, 1996, returning the
records of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 to Branch 65 on the ground that there was a pending
case involving the Estate of Decedent Arturo de Santos pending before said court. The
order reads: Spped

Acting on the ORDER dated 28 August 1996 of Branch 65, this Court,
transferring this case to this Branch 61 on the ground that this case is
related with a case before this Court, let this case be returned to Branch
65 with the information that there is no related case involving the ESTATE
OF DECEDENT ARTURO DE SANTOS pending before this Branch.

There is, however, a case filed by ARTURO DE SANTOS, as petitioner

under Rule 76 of the Rules of Court for the Allowance of his will during his
lifetime docketed as SP. PROC. NO. M-4223 which was already decided on
16 February 1996 and has become final.

It is noted on records of Case No. M-4223 that after it became final,

herein Petitioner Pacita de los Reyes Phillips filed a MOTION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, which was subsequently
withdrawn after this Court, during the hearing, already ruled that the
motion could not be admitted as the subject matter involves a separate
case under Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, and movant withdrew her
motion and filed this case (No. 4343).

Octavio de Santos Maloles [II] filed a MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

before Case No. M-4223 and this motion was already DENIED in the order
(Branch 61) of 26 August 1996 likewise for the same grounds that the
matter is for a separate case to be filed under Rule 78 of the Rules of
Court and cannot be included in this case filed under Rule 76 of the Rules
of Court.

It is further noted that it is a matter of policy that consolidation of cases

must be approved by the Presiding Judges of the affected Branches.

Initially, in his decision dated September 23, 1996,[5] Judge Abad Santos appeared firm
in his position that " . . . it would be improper for (Branch 65) to hear and resolve the
petition (Sp. Proc. No. M-4343)," considering that the probate proceedings were
commenced with Branch 61. He thus ordered the transfer of the records back to the
latter branch. However, he later recalled his decision and took cognizance of the case
"to expedite the proceedings." Thus, in his Order, dated October 21, 1996, he stated:

Considering the refusal of the Hon. Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr. of Branch 61

to continue hearing this case notwithstanding the fact that said branch
began the probate proceedings of the estate of the deceased and must
therefore continue to exercise its jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others,
until the entire estate of the testator had been partitioned and distributed
as per Order dated 23 September 1996, this branch (Regional Trial Court
Branch 65) shall take cognizance of the petition if only to expedite the
proceedings, and under the concept that the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City is but one court. Jo spped

Furnish a copy of this order to the Office of the Chief justice and the
Office of the Court Administrator, of the Supreme Court; the Hon.
Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr.; Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips, Petitioner; and
Octavio de Santos Maloles, Intervenor.

On November 4, 1996, Judge Abad Santos granted petitioners motion for intervention.
Private respondent moved for a reconsideration but her motion was denied by the trial
court. She then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, on February
26, 1997, rendered a decision[6] setting aside the trial courts order on the ground that
petitioner had not shown any right or interest to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343.

Hence, these petitions which raise the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court - Makati,

Branch 61 has lost jurisdiction to proceed with the probate proceedings
upon its issuance of an order allowing the will of Dr. Arturo de Santos

2. Whether or not the Honorable (Regional Trial Court - Makati,

Branch 65) acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of letters
testamentary filed by (private) respondent.

3. Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of the late Dr.

Arturo de Santos, has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for
issuance of letters testamentary filed by the respondent.

4. Whether or not (private) respondent is guilty of forum shopping

in filing her petition for issuance of letters testamentary with the Regional
Trial Court - Makati, Branch 65 knowing fully well that the probate
proceedings involving the same testate estate of the decedent is still
pending with the Regional Trial Court - Makati, Branch 61. Spped jo
First. Petitioner contends that the probate proceedings in Branch 61 of RTC-Makati did
not terminate upon the issuance of the order allowing the will of Dr. De Santos. Citing
the cases of Santiesteban v. Santiesteban[7] and Tagle v. Manalo,[8] he argues that the
proceedings must continue until the estate is fully distributed to the lawful heirs,
devisees, and legatees of the testator, pursuant to Rule 73, 1 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, petitioner contends that Branch 65 could not lawfully act upon private
respondents petition for issuance of letters testamentary.

The contention has no merit.

In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of the court is
limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being
of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
law.[9]

Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so
much so that, after approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters
testamentary and settle the estate of the testator. The cases cited by petitioner are of
such nature. In fact, in most jurisdictions, courts cannot entertain a petition for probate
of the will of a living testator under the principle of ambulatory nature of wills.[10]

However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition for probate of the
will filed by the testator himself. It provides:

Civil Code, Art. 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.

The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having
jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance of wills after the
testators death shall govern. Miso

The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may
be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition of the testator.

Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the
lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due
execution.

Rule 76, 1 likewise provides:

Sec. 1 Who may petition for the allowance of will. - Any executor, devisee,
or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate,
may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having
 jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.

The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition in the court for the
allowance of his will.

The rationale for allowing the probate of wills during the lifetime of testator has been
explained by the Code Commission thus:

Most of the cases that reach the courts involve either the testamentary
capacity of the testator or the formalities adopted in the execution of wills.
There are relatively few cases concerning the intrinsic validity of
testamentary dispositions. It is far easier for the courts to determine the
mental condition of a testator during his lifetime than after his death.
Fraud, intimidation and undue influence are minimized. Furthermore, if a
will does not comply with the requirements prescribed by law, the same
may be corrected at once. The probate during the testators life,
therefore, will lessen the number of contest upon wills. Once a will is
probated during the lifetime of the testator, the only questions that may
remain for the courts to decide after the testators death will refer to the
intrinsic validity of the testamentary dispositions. It is possible, of course,
that even when the testator himself asks for the allowance of the will, he
may be acting under duress or undue influence, but these are rare cases.

After a will has been probated during the lifetime of the testator, it does
not necessarily mean that he cannot alter or revoke the same before his
death. Should he make a new will, it would also be allowable on his
petition, and if he should die before he has had a chance to present such
petition, the ordinary probate proceeding after the testators death would
be in order.[11]

Thus, after the allowance of the will of Dr. De Santos on February 16, 1996, there was
nothing else for Branch 61 to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will
pursuant to Rule 73, 12 of the Rules of Court. There is, therefore, no basis for the
ruling of Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 of RTC-Makati that -Nex old

Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati having begun the probate
proceedings of the estate of the deceased, it continues and shall continue
to exercise said jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. It should be
noted that probate proceedings do not cease upon the allowance or
disallowance of a will but continues up to such time that the entire estate
of the testator had been partitioned and distributed.
 The fact that the will was allowed during the lifetime of the testator meant
merely that the partition and distribution of the estate was to be
suspended until the latters death. In other words, the petitioner, instead
of filing a new petition for the issuance of letters testamentary, should
have simply filed a manifestation for the same purpose in the probate
court.[12]

Petitioner, who defends the order of Branch 65 allowing him to intervene, cites Rule 73,
1 which states:

Where estate of deceased persons settled. - If the decedent is an

inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or
an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and
his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which
he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had
estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of
a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of
residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be
contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in
the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

The above rule, however, actually provides for the venue of actions for the settlement
of the estate of deceased persons. In Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, it was held:[13]

The aforequoted Section 1, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75, Section 1),

specifically the clause "so far as it depends on the place of residence of
the decedent, or of the location of the state," is in reality a matter of
venue, as the caption of the Rule indicates: "Settlement of Estate of
Deceased Persons. Venue and Processes." It could not have been
intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject matter, because such
legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merely with
procedural matters. Procedure is one thing, jurisdiction over the subject
matter is another. The power or authority of the court over the subject
matter "existed was fixed before procedure in a given cause began." That
power or authority is not altered or changed by procedure, which simply
directs the manner in which the power or authority shall be fully and justly
exercised. There are cases though that if the power is not exercised
conformably with the provisions of the procedural law, purely, the court
attempting to exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally. However,
this does not amount to a loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Rather, it means that the court may thereby lose jurisdiction over the
person or that the judgment may thereby be rendered defective for lack
 of something essential to sustain it. The appearance of this provision in
the procedural law at once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing
to do with the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. In plain
words, it is just a matter of method, of convenience to the parties.Mani
kx

Indeed, the jurisdiction over probate proceedings and settlement of estates with
approximate value of over P100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila) or P200,000.00 (in
Metro Manila) belongs to the regional trial courts under B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. The
different branches comprising each court in one judicial region do not possess
jurisdictions independent of and incompatible with each other.[14]

It is noteworthy that, although Rule 73, 1 applies insofar as the venue of the petition
for probate of the will of Dr. De Santos is concerned, it does not bar other branches of
the same court from taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the testator
after his death. As held in the leading case of Bacalso v. Ramolote:[15]

The various branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu under the
Fourteenth Judicial District, are a coordinate and co-equal courts, and the
totality of which is only one Court of First Instance. The jurisdiction is
vested in the court, not in the judges. And when a case is filed in one
branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or judge
alone, to the exclusion of the other branches. Trial may be held or
proceedings continue by and before another branch or judge. It is for this
reason that Section 57 of the Judiciary Act expressly grants to the
Secretary of Justice, the administrative right or power to apportion the
cases among the different branches, both for the convenience of the
parties and for the coordination of the work by the different branches of
the same court. The apportionment and distribution of cases does not
involve a grant or limitation of jurisdiction, the jurisdiction attaches and
continues to be vested in the Court of First Instance of the province, and
the trials may be held by any branch or judge of the court.

Necessarily, therefore, Branch 65 of the RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over Sp.
Proc. No. M-4343.

Second. Petitioner claims the right to intervene in and oppose the petition for issuance
of letters testamentary filed by private respondent. He argues that, as the nearest next
of kin and creditor of the testator, his interest in the matter is material and direct. In
ruling that petitioner has no right to intervene in the proceedings before Branch 65 of
RTC-Makati City, the Court of Appeals held:

The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will of
the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the
 latter. As the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can
inherit from the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has
left a will which has already been probated and disposes of all his
properties the private respondent can inherit only if the said will is
annulled. His interest in the decedents estate is, therefore, not direct or
immediate. Maniks

His claim to being a creditor of the estate is a belated one, having been
raised for the first time only in his reply to the opposition to his motion to
intervene, and, as far as the records show, not supported by evidence.

. . . . [T]he opposition must come from one with a direct interest in the
estate or the will, and the private respondent has none. Moreover, the
ground cited in the private respondents opposition, that the petitioner has
deliberately misdeclared the truth worth and value of the estate, is not
relevant to the question of her competency to act as executor. Section 2,
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court requires only an allegation of the probable
value and character of the property of the estate. The true value can be
determined later on in the course of the settlement of the estate.[16]

Rule 79, 1 provides:

Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for

administration. - Any person interested in a will may state in writing the
grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons named
therein as executors, or any of them, and the court, after hearing upon
notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of such grounds. A petition may, at
the same time, be filed for letters of administration with the will annexed.

Under this provision, it has been held that an "interested person" is one who would be
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
such as a creditor, and whose interest is material and direct, not merely incidental or
contingent.[17]

Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be considered
an "heir" of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one
who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will. Thus,
Art. 842 of the Civil Code provides:

One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or
any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. Manikan

One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does
not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of
said heirs.
Compulsory heirs are limited to the testators -

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their

legitimate parents and ascendants;

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants,

with respect to their legitimate children and descendants;

(3) The widow or widower;

(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal

fiction;

(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of the Civil

Code.[18]

Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who may have been
preterited in the testators will.

Nor does he have any right to intervene in the settlement proceedings based on his
allegation that he is a creditor of the deceased. Since the testator instituted or named
an executor in his will, it is incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires of the
testator. As we stated in Ozaeta v. Pecson:[19]

The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, a

necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the
manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint
one of his confidence, one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in
the disposal of his estate. The curtailment of this right may be considered
a curtailment of the right to dispose.

Only if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond
may the court appoint other persons to administer the estate.[20] None of these
circumstances is present in this case.

Third. Petitioner contends that private respondent is guilty of forum shopping when
she filed the petition for issuance of letters testamentary (Sp. Proc. No. M-4343) while
the probate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. M-4223) were still pending. According to
petitioner, there is identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for in the two
actions which are founded on the same facts, and a judgment in either will result in res
judicata in the other.

This contention has no merit. As stated earlier, the petition for probate was filed by Dr.
De Santos, the testator, solely for the purpose of authenticating his will. Upon the
allowance of his will, the proceedings were terminated. Oldmis o
On the other hand, the petition for issuance of letters testamentary was filed by private
respondent, as executor of the estate of Dr. De Santos, for the purpose of securing
authority from the Court to administer the estate and put into effect the will of the
testator. The estate settlement proceedings commenced by the filing of the petition
terminates upon the distribution and delivery of the legacies and devises to the persons
named in the will. Clearly, there is no identity between the two petitions, nor was the
latter filed during the pendency of the former. There was, consequently, no forum
shopping.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decisions of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.