Specpro Case Digests Midterms Rule 72 90

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (RULE 72 - RULE 90)
1. SILVERIO VS SILVERIO 6. Jr. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari

(Rule 45) before the SC challenging the CA
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction of Probate Court Order but the same was denied by SC for
failure to show sufficient reversible error. MR
At the outset, we emphasize that the probate for the same was likewise denied;
court having jurisdiction over properties
under administration has the authority not 7. With Sr.’s urgent motion, IC reinstated Sr.
only to approve any disposition or as administrator. This order was challenged in
conveyance, but also to annul an unauthorized the first of three petitions (Rule 45);
sale by the prospective heirs or administrator.
x x x It being settled that property under 8. The second petition challenges the denial
administration needs the approval of the of Jr.’s motion for inhibition of Judge Guanlao
probate court before it can be disposed of, any (of IC) on the ground of the latter’s partiality
unauthorized disposition does not bind the as he appeared once as counsel in the intestate
estate and is null and void. proceedings;
FACTS: 9. The third challenged order involves the

sale made by Jr. in favor of Citrine of a parcel
1. In 7 October 1987, Sr.’s wife Beatriz died of land in Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati via
intestate and was survived by 6 heirs, Sr., a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) executed on
Edmundo, Edgardo, Jr., Neilia and Ligaya. 16 October 2007. Another parcel of land in
This led the heirs to file an SP Proc. No. M- Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park, Makati was
2629 under Rule 74; sold to Ocampo in 16 September 2010, which
the latter sold to Zee2. Individual titles were
2. The Intestate Court (IC) first appointed issued under the buyers’ names respectively;
Edgardo as administrator. The latter withdrew
thru a motion in 3 November 1999 which then 10. Nelia filed a Petition for Certiorari before
caused the appointment of Sr. as new the CA with prayer for injunction. A TRO was
administrator; issued on 5 February 2007, and later, a Writ of
Prelim. Injunction conditioned upon the
3. On 3 January 2005, IC replaced Sr. with Jr. posting of a bond of Php 2,000,000.00;
as administrator and denied the MR
challenging such order. Thus, IC granted Jr.’s 11. Nelia initially paid the said bond but
motion to take oath as administrator and failed to comply with the other requirements
expunged Sr.’s inventor report; of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. CA Ordered Nelia to
comply and increased the bond to Php
4. On 12 December 2005, IC recalled the 10,000,000.00 which the latter did;
Order granting letters of administration to Jr.
upon Sr.’s motion, but the same was reinstated 12. However, with the issuance of the order
through Jr.’s motion for partial consideration reinstating Sr. as administrator (see Fact No. 5),
for Sr.’s alleged gross violation of his duties Sr. sought for a TRO/Pre. Prohibitory
and functions under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Injunction v. Jr., Ocampo and Citrine and their
Rules of Court; successors-in-interest from committing any act
that would affect the titles issued in their
5. Sr. filed an MR while Nelia filed a Petition names. Likewise, Sr. sought the IC to declare
for Certiorari before the CA, leading to the the DOAS executed as null and void. IC
reinstatement of Sr. as administrator due to granted said motions;
the declaration of nullity of certain portions of
the Orders, for which a writ of preliminary 13. Jr. filed a consolidated petition for
injunction was issued and made the said certiorari before the CA challenging the
portions permanent; reinstatement of Sr. as administrator, the
1
denial of Jr.’s motion for inhibition, and the respondent Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA
declaration of nullity of the DOAS. CA denied would have expressly set aside as well the
the first 2 but granted the latter, thereby directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing
reversing IC’s declaration of nullity. Hence, the sale of the subject properties. Moreover,
the instant petition (Rule 45). the CA Decision attained finality only on
February 11, 2011 when this Court denied
ISSUES: WON the CA erred in reversing the with finality respondent Silverio, Jr.’s motion
IC’s declaration that the DOAS and the titles for reconsideration of the February 11, 2009
issued to buyers are null and void. Resolution denying his petition for review
(G.R. No. 185619).
PROVISION: RULING + RATIO: No. The
CA was correct in reversing the IC Decision. 2. SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS
·
In reversing the IC, CA relied on Jr.’s FACTS: The instant case involves the
arguments that the issuance of the writ of settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San
preliminary injunction pertained only to the Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former
portion of Sr.’s reinstatement as administrator. governor of the Province of Laguna. During
It ruled: his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three
marriages. His first marriage was with
x x x In reversing the intestate court’s order Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
annulling the sale of the subject properties, the were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila,
CA noted that said ruling is anchored on the fact Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August
that the deeds of sale were executed at the time 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.
when the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 was still in effect. Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo
It then concluded that the eventual decision in married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he
the latter case making the writ of preliminary had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15,
injunction permanent only with respect to the 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
appointment of petitioner as administrator and not Complaint for Divorce before the Family
to the grant of authority to sell mooted the issue Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii,
of whether the sale was executed at the time United States of America (U.S.A.), which
when the TRO and writ of preliminary issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce
injunction were in effect. x x x and Awarding Child Custody on December
14, 1973.
x x x The October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order of the
testate [sic] court in so far as it authorizes the sale On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married
of the three properties in question was not declared respondent Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed
by the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division as null Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr. William Meyer,
and void. x x x Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. He
x x x While it is true that petitioner was had no children with respondent but lived
eventually reinstated as Administrator with her for 18 years from the time of their
pursuant to the August 28, 2008 decision in marriage up to his death on December 18,
CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 (petition for certiorari 1992.
filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee), we agree with the Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution
CA that the permanent injunction issued of their conjugal partnership assets and the
under the said decision, as explicitly stated in settlement of Felicisimo's estate. On December
its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of
October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order upholding administration before the Regional Trial Court
the grant of letters of administration to and of Makati City
taking of an oath of administration by
2
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of
Luis, one of the children of Felicisimo by his Court is of such nature - residence rather than
first marriage, filed a motion to dismiss on the domicile is the significant factor. Even where
grounds of improper venue and failure to state the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is
a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the construed as meaning residence and not
petition for letters of administration should domicile in the technical sense. Some cases
have been filed in the Province of Laguna make a distinction between the terms
because this was Felicisimo's place of "residence" and "domicile" but as generally
residence prior to his death. He further used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are
claimed that respondent has no legal synonymous, and convey the same meaning
personality to file the petition because she was as the term "inhabitant." In other words,
only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at "resides" should be viewed or understood in
the time of his death, was still legally married its popular sense, meaning, the personal,
to Merry Lee. On February 15, 1994; Linda actual or physical habitation of a person,
invoked the same grounds and joined her actual residence or place of abode. It signifies
brother Rodolfo in seeking the dismissal physical presence in a place and actual stay
thereat. In this popular sense, the term means
On September 12, 1995, the trial court merely residence, that is, personal residence,
dismissed the petition for letters of not legal residence or domicile. Residence
administration. It held that, at the time of his simply requires bodily presence as an
death, Felicisimo was the duly elected inhabitant in a given place, while domicile
governor and a resident of the Province of requires bodily presence in that place and also
Laguna. Hence, the petition should have been an intention to make it one's domicile. No
filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and not in Makati particular length of time of residence is
City. It also ruled that respondent was without required though; however, the residence must
legal capacity to file the petition for letters of be more than temporary.
administration because her marriage with
Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. There is a distinction between "residence" for
It found that the decree of absolute divorce purposes of election laws and "residence" for
dissolving Felicisimo's marriage to Merry Lee purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In
was not valid in the Philippines and did not election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are
bind Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It treated as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed
also ruled that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the permanent residence to which when absent,
Family Code cannot be retroactively applied one has the intention of returning. However,
because it would impair the vested rights of for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules
Felicisimo's legitimate children. of Court, the "residence" of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals actual residence or place of abode, which may
which reversed and set aside the orders of the not necessarily be his legal residence or
trial court in its assailed Decision dated domicile provided he resides therein with
February 4, 1998 continuity and consistency. Hence, it is
possible that a person may have his residence
ISSUE: whether or not the venue was in one place and domicile in another.
properly laid
From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo
RULING: Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for
Rules of Court, the petition for letters of purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement
administration of the estate of Felicisimo of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition
should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of for letters of administration was validly filed
the province "in which he resides at the time of in the Regional Trial Court which has
his death. territorial jurisdiction over Alabang,
3
Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on during the existence of the second marriage as
December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa shown by TCT No. (38254) and TCT No.
was still a municipality and the branches of (38255) which showed on its face that
the Regional Trial Court of the National decedent was married to Caridad Garcia,
Capital Judicial Region which had territorial which fact oppositors failed to contradict by
jurisdiction over Muntinlupa. evidence other than their negative allegations,
the greater part of the estate is perforce
3. AGTARAP VS AGTARAP accounted by the second marriage and the
compulsory heirs thereunder. It also declared
FACTS: Joaquin Agtarap died intestate on that the real estate properties belonged to the
November 21, 1964 in Pasay City without any conjugal partnership of Joaquin and Lucia. It
known debts or obligations. Joaquin also directed the modification of the October
contracted two marriages during his lifetime, 23, 2000 Order of Partition to reflect the correct
with Lucia Garcia (Lucia) and with Caridad sharing of the heirs. However, before the RTC
Garcia (Caridad) respectively. Joaquin and could issue a new order of partition, Eduardo
Lucia, who died on April 24, 1924, had three and Sebastian both appealed to the CA. The
children—Jesus (died without issue), CA settled, together with the settlement of the
Milagros, and Jose (survived by three children, estate of Joaquin, the estates of Lucia, Jesus,
namely, Gloria, Joseph, and Teresa). Joaquin Jose, Mercedes, Gloria, and Milagros.
married Caridad on February 9, 1926 and also Moreover, the CA the estate of Milagros in the
had three children—Eduardo, Sebastian, and intestate proceedings despite the fact that a
Mercedes (survived by her daughter Cecile). proceeding was conducted in another court for
At the time of his death, Joaquin left two the probate of the will of Milagros,
parcels of land with improvements in Pasay bequeathing all to Eduardo whatever shares
City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title that she would receive from Joaquin’s estate.
(TCT) Nos. 873-(38254) and 874-(38255). CA also affirmed that the bulk of the realties
Joseph, a grandson of Joaquin, had been subject of this case belong to the first marriage
leasing and improving the said realties and of Joaquin to Lucia, notwithstanding that the
had been appropriating for himself P26, 000.00 certificates of title were registered in the name
per month since April 1994. of Joaquin Agtarap casado con ("married to")
Caridad Garcia.
Eduardo asked to be appointed administrator
and was granted by the probate court, issuing ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC, acting as an
him with letters of administrator. Joseph, intestate court with limited jurisdiction, is
Gloria, and Teresa filed their vested with the power and authority to
answer/opposition. They alleged that the two determine questions of ownership.
subject lots belong to the conjugal partnership
of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucia’s HELD: Yes. The general rule is that the
death in April 1924, they became the pro jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a
indiviso owners of the subject properties. They probate or an intestate court, relates only to
said that their residence was built with the matters having to do with the probate of the
exclusive money of their late father Jose, and will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased
the expenses of the extensions to the house persons, but does not extend to the
were shouldered by Gloria and Teresa, while determination of questions of ownership that
the restaurant (Manong’s Restaurant) was arise during the proceedings. The patent
built with the exclusive money of Joseph and rationale for this rule is that such court merely
his business partner. exercises special and limited jurisdiction. As
held in several cases, a probate court or one in
Thereafter, the RTC issued an Order of charge of estate proceedings, whether testate
Partition, holding that considering that the or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine
bulk of the estate properties were acquired title to properties claimed to be a part of the
4
estate and which are claimed to belong to 4. SUNTAY III VS COJUANGCO-

outside parties, not by virtue of any right of SUNTAY
inheritance from the deceased but by title
adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. FACTS: Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died
All that the said court could do as regards said intestate on 4 June 1990. Cristina was survived
properties is to determine whether or not they by her spouse, Federico and five
should be included in the inventory of grandchildren: three legitimate grandchildren,
properties to be administered by the including respondent Isabel; and two
administrator. If there is no dispute, there illegitimate grandchildren, including
poses no problem, but if there is, then the petitioner Emilio III, all by Federico’s and
parties, the administrator, and the opposing Cristina’s only child, Emilio A. Suntay (Emilio
parties have to resort to an ordinary action I) who predeceased.
before a court exercising general jurisdiction
for a final determination of the conflicting Federico Cristina
claims of title.
Emilio 1 Isabel Cojuangco
However, this general rule is subject to
exceptions as justified by expediency and Emilio III Nenita Emilio II Margarita Isabel
convenience. Illegitimate Legitimate
First, the probate court may provisionally pass In 1965, the marriage between Emilio I and
upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding the Isabel Cojuancgo was declared null and void
question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, by a judicial decree. The illegitimate children
the inventory of a piece of property without grew up with Grandparents Federico and
prejudice to the final determination of Cristina. The legitimates were raised by their
ownership in a separate action. Second, if the mother, Isabel Cojuangco.
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or
the question is one of collation or In 1993, after Cristina’s death, Federico
advancement, or the parties consent to the adopted his two illegitimate grandchildren.
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate
court and the rights of third parties are not In 1995, Isabel filed for an application for letter
impaired, then the probate court is competent of administration. Federico opposed in that he
to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its is the nearest of kin and the application did
jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or not include the two illegitimates as heirs.
collateral to the settlement and distribution of Federico prayed that he be appointed as
the estate, such as the determination of the administrator or Emilio III in his stead.
status of each heir and whether the property in
the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property In November of 2000, Federico died. Emilio III
of the deceased spouse. was appointed as administrator in 2001. On
appeal, the appointment was revoked and
We hold that the general rule does not apply Isabel was appointed administrator.
to the instant case considering that the parties
are all heirs of Joaquin and that no rights of On appeal to the Supreme Court, Emilio III
third parties will be impaired by the resolution and Isabel were appointed as co-
of the ownership issue. More importantly, the administrators. Isabel filed for a Motion for
determination of whether the subject Reconsideration.
properties are conjugal is but collateral to the
probate court’s jurisdiction to settle the estate ISSUE: Who between Isabel and Emilio III is
of Joaquin. better qualified as administrator.
5
RULING: Partially Granted. Letter of 5. LEE VS RTC OF QC

Administration is issued solely to Isabel.
FACTS:
The paramount consideration in the
appointment of an administrator over the  Rafael and Jose Ortaez were
estate of a decedent is the prospective appointed by the RTC of QS as the
administrator’s interest in the estate. This is joint special administrators of their
the same consideration which Section 6, Rule fathers estate. As special
78 takes into account in establishing the order administrators they submitted an
of preference in the appointment of inventory of the estate of their father
administrator for the estate. The rationale which included, among other
behind the rule is that those who will reap the properties, shares of stock in
benefit of a wise, speedy and economical Philippine International Life Insurance
administration of the estate, or, in the Company (Philinterlife)
alternative, suffer the consequences of waste,
improvidence or mismanagement, have the  During its pendency, the decedent’s
highest interest and most influential motive to wife claiming that she owned some
administer the estate correctly. Mere shares of stock as her conjugal share in
demonstration of interest in the estate to be the estate, sold said shares in favor of
settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested herein petitioner Filipino Loan
person to co-administration thereof. Neither Assistance Group (FLAG), likewise,
does squabbling among the heirs nor adverse Special Administrator Jose Ortaez
interests necessitate the discounting of the acting in his personal capacity also
order of preference set forth in Section 6, Rule sold the remaining shares of stocks as
78. Indeed, in the appointment of his inheritance share in the estate in
administrator of the estate of a deceased favor of herein petitioner FLAG.
person, the principal consideration reckoned
with is the interest in said estate of the one to  After being appointed as Special
be appointed as administrator. Administratix, private respondent
Enderes filed a motion to declare void
In this case, both parties have interest to the ab initio the deeds of sale of
estate and are heirs of the decedent. Emilio III Philinterlife shares of stock, which
was reared by the decent and was nominated was opposed by Special Administrator
by Federico as the administrator. On the other Jose Ortaez.
hand, Isabel grew apart from the decedent and
became only interested with the estate upon  Jose Ortaez filed an omnibus motion
her grandmother’s death. for the approval of the deeds of sale of
the Philinterlife shares of stock but it
However, Emilio III showed incompetence in was denied by the intestate court.
administering the properties. He failed to
provide for a complete inventory of the  Petitioners Lee and Aggabao (officers
properties as required by the court. He of the Philinterlife) subsequently filed
likewise committed fraud in transferring the before the Court of Appeals a petition
properties to different names. With this, the for certiorari, alleging that the
court sees that Isabel Emilio III is unfit to intestate court gravely abused its
administer the estate. discretion in (1) declaring that the
ownership of FLAG over the
Philinterlife shares of stock was null
and void and (2) ordering the
execution of its order declaring such
nullity.
6
ISSUE (1): WON the intestate court committed In this case, the order of the intestate court
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to nullifying the sale was affirmed by the
excess or want of jurisdiction in declaring that appellate courts. The finality of the decision of
the ownership of FLAG over the Philinterlife the Supreme Court was entered in the book of
shares of stock was null and void. entry of judgments on February 23, 1999.
Considering the finality of the order of the
HELD (1): NO. intestate court nullifying the sale, as affirmed
by the appellate courts, it was correct for
The jurisprudence is clear that (1) any private respondent-Special Administratrix
disposition of estate property by an Enderes to thereafter move for a writ of
administrator or prospective heir pending execution and for the intestate court to grant
final adjudication requires court approval and it.
(2) any unauthorized disposition of estate
property can be annulled by the probate court, 6. HEIRS OF HILARIO RUIZ VS
there being no need for a separate action to EDMOND RUIZ
annul the unauthorized disposition. In a
prevailing jurisprudence, an heir can only FACTS: Hilario M. Ruiz executed a
alienate such portion of the estate that may be holographic will naming as his heirs his only
allotted to him in the division of the estate by son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted daughter,
the probate or intestate court after final private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes,
adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall and his three granddaughters, private
have been paid or the devisees or legatees respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice
shall have been given their shares. This means Albertine and Maria Angeline, all children of
that an heir may only sell his ideal or Edmond Ruiz. The testator bequeathed to his
undivided share in the estate, not any specific heirs substantial cash, personal and real
property therein. In the present case, Juliana properties and named Edmond Ruiz executor
Ortaez and Jose Ortaez sold specific properties of his estate.
of the estate in favor of petitioner FLAG. This
they could not lawfully do pending the final Hilario Ruiz died for unknown reasons,
adjudication of the estate by the intestate court Edmond, the named executor, did not take
because of the undue prejudice it would cause any action for the probate of his father's
the other claimants to the estate, as what holographic will.
happened in the present case.
Four years after the testator's death, private
ISSUE (2): WON the intestate or probate court respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes filed
can execute an order nullifying the invalid before the RTC, a petition for the probate and
sale? approval of Hilario Ruiz's will and for the
issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond
HELD (2): YES Ruiz. Edmond opposed the petition on the
The intestate court has the power to execute its ground that the will was executed under
order with regard to the nullity of an undue influence.
unauthorized sale of estate property,
otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized One of the properties of the estate — the house
or fraudulent disposition of estate property and lot at No. 2 Oliva Street, Valle Verde IV,
would be meaningless. Enforcement is a Pasig which the testator bequeathed to Maria
necessary adjunct of the intestate or probate Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria
courts power to annul unauthorized or Angeline— was leased out by Edmond Ruiz to
fraudulent transactions to prevent the third persons.
dissipation of estate property before final
adjudication. The probate court ordered Edmond to deposit
with the Branch Clerk of Court the rental
7
deposit and payments totaling P540, 000.00 HELD 1: On the matter of allowance, Section 3
representing the one-year lease of the Valle of Rule 83 of the Revised Rules of Court
Verde property. In compliance, Edmond provides:
turned over the amount of P348, 583.56,
representing the balance of the rent after Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and family. — The
deducting P191, 416.14 for repair and widow and minor or incapacitated children of
maintenance expenses on the estate. a deceased person, during the settlement of
the estate, shall receive therefrom under the
Edmond moved for the release of P50, 000.00 direction of the court, such allowance as are
to pay the real estate taxes on the real provided by law.
properties of the estate. The probate court
approved the release of P7, 722.00. Petitioner contends that the testator's three
granddaughters do not qualify for an
The probate court admitted the will to probate allowance because they are not incapacitated
and ordered the issuance of letters and are no longer minors but of legal age,
testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon married and gainfully employed. In addition,
the filing of a bond in the amount of P50, the provision expressly states "children" of the
000.00. deceased which excludes the latter's
grandchildren.
Petitioner Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz, with
Edmond Ruiz as executor, filed an "Ex-Parte It is settled that allowances for support under
Motion for Release of Funds." It prayed for the Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be limited to
release of the rent payments deposited with the "minor or incapacitated" children of the
the Branch Clerk of Court. Respondent Montes deceased. Article 188of the Civil Code of the
opposed the motion. Montes prayed for the Philippines, the substantive law in force at the
release of the said rent payments to Maria time of the testator's death, provides that
Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria during the liquidation of the conjugal
Angeline and for the distribution of the partnership, the deceased's legitimate spouse
testator's properties, specifically the Valle and children, regardless of their age, civil
Verde property and the Blue Ridge status or gainful employment, are entitled to
apartments, in accordance with the provisions provisional support from the funds of the
of the holographic will. estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the
right and duty to support, especially the right
The probate court ordered the release of the to education, subsist even beyond the age of
rent payments to the decedent's three majority.
granddaughters. It further ordered the
delivery of the titles to and possession of the Be that as it may, grandchildren are not
properties bequeathed to the three entitled to provisional support from the funds
granddaughters and respondent Montes upon of the decedent's estate. The law clearly limits
the filing of a bond of P50, 000.00. Hence, this the allowance to "widow and children" and
petition. does not extend it to the deceased's
grandchildren, regardless of their minority or
ISSUES: Whether the probate court, after incapacity.It was error, therefore, for the
admitting the will to probate but before appellate court to sustain the probate court's
payment of the estate's debts and obligations, order granting an allowance to the
has the authority: (1) to grant an allowance grandchildren of the testator pending
from the funds of the estate for the support of settlement of his estate.
the testator's grandchildren; (2) to order the
release of the titles to certain heirs; and (3) to HELD 2: Respondent courts also erred when
grant possession of all properties of the estate they ordered the release of the titles of the
to the executor of the will. bequeathed properties to private respondents
8
six months after the date of first publication of HELD 3: Still and all, petitioner cannot
notice to creditors. An order releasing titles to correctly claim that the assailed order
properties of the estate amounts to an advance deprived him of his right to take possession of
distribution of the estate which is allowed only all the real and personal properties of the
under the following conditions: estate. The right of an executor or
administrator to the possession and
Sec. 2. Advance distribution in special management of the real and personal
proceedings. — Nothwithstanding a pending properties of the deceased is not absolute and
controversy or appeal in proceedings to settle can only be exercised "so long as it is necessary
the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its for the payment of the debts and expenses of
discretion and upon such terms as it may administration, "Section 3 of Rule 84 of the
deem proper and just, permit that such part of Revised Rules of Court explicitly provides:
the estate as may not be affected by the
controversy or appeal be distributed among Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole
the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with estate to pay debts and to administer estate not
the conditions set forth in Rule 90 of these willed. — An executor or administrator shall
Rules. have the right to the possession and
management of the real as well as the personal
In settlement of estate proceedings, the estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary
distribution of the estate properties can only for the payment of the debts and expenses for
be made: (1) after all the debts, funeral administration.
charges, expenses of administration, allowance
to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; It was relevantly noted by the probate court
or (2) before payment of said obligations only that petitioner had deposited with it only a
if the distributees or any of them gives a bond portion of the one-year rental income from the
in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon Valle Verde property. Petitioner did not
the payment of said obligations within such deposit its succeeding rents after renewal of
time as the court directs, or when provision is the lease. Neither did he render an accounting
made to meet those obligations. of such funds.
In the case at bar, the probate court ordered Petitioner must be reminded that his right of
the release of the titles to the Valle Verde ownership over the properties of his father is
property and the Blue Ridge apartments to the merely inchoate as long as the estate has not
private respondents after the lapse of six been fully settled and partitioned. As executor,
months from the date of first publication of the he is a mere trustee of his father's estate. The
notice to creditors. The questioned order funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds
speaks of "notice" to creditors, not payment of and he is held to the duties and
debts and obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly responsibilities of a trustee of the highest
left no debts when he died but the taxes on his order. He cannot unilaterally assign to himself
estate had not hitherto been paid, much less and possess all his parents' properties and the
ascertained. The estate tax is one of those fruits thereof without first submitting an
obligations that must be paid before inventory and appraisal of all real and
distribution of the estate. If not yet paid, the personal properties of the deceased, rendering
rule requires that the distributees post a bond a true account of his administration, the
or make such provisions as to meet the said expenses of administration, the amount of the
tax obligation in proportion to their respective obligations and estate tax, all of which are
shares in the inheritance. Notably, at the time subject to a determination by the court as to
the order was issued the properties of the their veracity, propriety and justness.
estate had not yet been inventoried and
appraised. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
9
SP No. 33045 affirming the order dated determine whether it is a proper one which
December 22, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, should be allowed. The plain and obvious
Branch 156, Pasig in SP Proc. No. 10259 are design of the rule is the speedy settlement of
affirmed with the modification that those the affairs of the deceased and the early
portions of the order granting an allowance to delivery of the property to the distributees,
the testator's grandchildren and ordering the legatees, or heirs.
release of the titles to the private respondents
upon notice to creditors are annulled and set 8. GARCIA-QUIAZON VS BELEN
aside.
FACTS: Elise Quiazon is the daughter of
7. UNION BANK VS SANTIBANEZ Eliseo Quiazon and his common-law wife Ma.
Lourdes Belen. When Eliseo died intestate,
FACTS: The deceased, Efraim Santibañez Elise represented by her mother, Lourdes,
entered into a loan agreement with First filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) for before the RTC of Las Piñas City in order to
the payment of Agricultural Tractors. Efraim preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the
died, leaving a holographic will. Testate dissipation of its value. She likewise sought
proceedings commenced before the RTC of her appointment as administratrix of her late
Iloilo City. Edmund was appointed as the father’s estate.
special administrator of the estate. In the
meantime, FCCC assigned all its assets and Amelia Quiazon, to whom Eliseo was married,
liabilities to petitioner Union Bank. Demand together with her two children, filed an
letters were sent by Union Bank to Edmund, Opposition/Motion to Dismiss on the ground
but the latter refused to pay. Thus, Union of improper venue asserting that Eliseo was a
Bank filed a Complaint for sum of money resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Piñas
against the heirs of Efraim Santibañez, before City. In addition to their claim of improper
the RTC of Makati City. Union Bank asserts venue, the petitioners averred that there are no
that the obligation of the deceased had passed factual and legal bases for Elise to be
to his legitimate heirs. appointed administratix of Eliseo’s estate.
ISSUE: W/N the claim of Union Bank should RTC rendered a decision directing the
have been filed with the probate court before issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise
which the testate estate of the late Efraim upon posting the necessary bond. On appeal,
Santibañez was pending. the decision of the trial court was affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals. In validating the
HELD: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that a findings of the RTC, the Court of Appeals held
probate court has the jurisdiction to determine that Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and
all the properties of the deceased, to determine Lourdes lived together as husband and wife
whether they should or should not be by establishing a common residence at No. 26
included in the inventory or list of properties Everlasting Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las
to be administered. The said court is primarily Piñas City, from 1975 up to the time of Eliseo’s
concerned with the administration, liquidation death in 1992. For purposes of fixing the venue
and distribution of the estate. of the settlement of Eliseo’s estate, the Court of
Appeals upheld the conclusion reached by the
The filing of a money claim against the RTC that the decedent was a resident of Las
decedent’s estate in the probate court is Piñas City.
mandatory. This requirement is for the
purpose of protecting the estate of the ISSUE/S:
deceased by informing the executor or
administrator of the claims against it, thus 1. Whether or not Las Pinas City was the
enabling him to examine each claim and to proper venue.
10
2. Whether or not Elise is qualified to be understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
administrator of the estate. personal, actual or physical habitation of a
person, actual residence or place of abode. It
HELD: signifies physical presence in a place and
actual stay thereat. Venue for ordinary civil
1. YES. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of actions and that for special proceedings have
Court, the petition for letters of administration one and the same meaning. As thus defined,
of the estate of a decedent should be filed in "residence," in the context of venue provisions,
the RTC of the province where the decedent means nothing more than a person’s actual
resides at the time of his death: residence or place of abode, provided he
resides therein with continuity and
Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons consistency.
settled. – If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a Viewed in light of the foregoing principles, the
citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for
letters of administration granted, and his affirming the ruling of the RTC that the venue
estate settled, in the Court of First Instance for the settlement of the estate of Eliseo was
now Regional Trial Court in the province in properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident
which he resides at the time of his death, and from the records that during his lifetime,
if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Eliseo resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road,
Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this
Court of any province in which he had estate. reason, the venue for the settlement of his
The court first taking cognizance of the estate may be laid in the said city.
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all 2. Elise, as a compulsory heir who stands to be
other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a benefited by the distribution of Eliseo’s estate,
court, so far as it depends on the place of is deemed to be an interested party. With the
residence of the decedent, or of the location of overwhelming evidence on record produced
his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or by Elise to prove her filiation to Eliseo, the
proceeding, except in an appeal from that petitioners’ pounding on her lack of interest in
court, in the original case, or when the want of the administration of the decedent’s estate, is
jurisdiction appears on the record. just a desperate attempt to sway this Court to
The term "resides" connotes ex vi termini reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.
"actual residence" as distinguished from "legal Certainly, the right of Elise to be appointed
residence or domicile." This term "resides," administratix of the estate of Eliseo is on good
like the terms "residing" and "residence," is grounds. It is founded on her right as a
elastic and should be interpreted in the light of compulsory heir, who, under the law, is
the object or purpose of the statute or rule in entitled to her legitimate after the debts of the
which it is employed. In the application of estate are satisfied. Having a vested right in
venue statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one of his
the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature – natural children, Elise can rightfully be
residence rather than domicile is the considered as an interested party within the
significant factor.13 Even where the statute purview of the law.
uses word "domicile" still it is construed as
meaning residence and not domicile in the 9. PILAPIL VS HEIRS OF MAXIMINO
technical sense. Some cases make a distinction R. BRIONES
between the terms "residence" and "domicile"
but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, FACTS: Petitioners are the heirs of the late
the terms are synonymous, and convey the Donata Ortiz-Briones, consisting of her
same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In surviving sister, Rizalina Ortiz-Aguila;
other words, "resides" should be viewed or Rizalina’s daughter, Erlinda Pilapil; and the
11
other nephews and nieces of Donata. they truly believed that they still had rights
Respondents are the heirs of the late thereto.
Maximino Briones, composed of his nephews
and nieces, and grandnephews and The heirs of Maximino knew he died on 1 May
grandnieces, in representation of the deceased 1952. They even attended his wake. They did
siblings of Maximino. not offer any explanation as to why they had
waited 33 years from Maximino’s death before
Maximino was married to Donata but their one of them, Silverio, filed a Petition for
union did not produce any children. When Letters of Administration for the intestate
Maximino died, Donata instituted intestate estate of Maximino on 21 January 1985. After
proceedings to settle her husband’s estate, learning that the intestate estate of Maximino
which appointed Donata as the administratrix was already settled in a special proceeding,
of Maximino’s estate. Donata died. Erlinda they waited another two years, before
instituted a petition for the administration of instituting, on 3 March 1987, a complaint for
the intestate estate of Donata. Erlinda and her partition, annulment and recovery of the real
husband, Gregorio, were appointed as property belonging to the estate of Maximino.
administrators of Donata’s intestate estate.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents’ right to
Silverio Briones, a nephew of Maximino, filed recover possession of the disputed properties,
for Letters of Administration for the intestate based on implied trust, is also barred by
estate of Maximino, which was initially laches.
granted. The trial court also issued an order,
allowing Silverio to collect rentals from HELD: Yes. Respondents’ right to recover
Maximino’s properties. But then, Gregorio possession of the disputed properties, based
filed with the RTC a Motion to Set Aside the on implied trust, is also barred by laches.
Order, claiming that the said properties were
already under his and his wife’s Considering the circumstances in the afore-
administration as part of the intestate estate of quoted paragraphs, as well as respondents’
Donata. Silverio’s Letters of Administration conduct before this Court, particularly the
for the intestate estate of Maximino was belated submission of evidence and argument
subsequently set aside by the RTC. of new issues, respondents are consistently
displaying a penchant for delayed action,
The heirs of Maximino filed a complaint without any proffered reason or justification
against the heirs of Donata for the partition, for such delay.
annulment, and recovery of possession of real
property. They alleged that Donata, as It is well established that the law serves those
administratrix of the estate of Maximino, who are vigilant and diligent and not those
through fraud and misrepresentation, in who sleep when the law requires them to act.
breach of trust, and without the knowledge of The law does not encourage laches,
the other heirs, succeeded in registering in her indifference, negligence or ignorance. On the
name the real properties belonging to the contrary, for a party to deserve the
intestate estate of Maximino. Furthermore, the considerations of the courts, he must show
facts show that after Donata’s death, Erlinda that he is not guilty of any of the aforesaid
took possession of the real properties, and failings.
continued to manage the same and collect the
rental fees thereon. Donata and, subsequently, 10. SABIDONG VS SOLAS
Erlinda, were so obviously exercising rights of
ownership over the real properties, in FACTS: Trinidad Sabidong, complainant’s
exclusion of all others, which must have mother, is one of the longtime occupants of a
already put the heirs of Maximino on guard if parcel of land, designated as Lot 11 originally
registered in the name of C. N. Hodges and
12
situated at Barangay San Vicente, Jaro, Iloilo The writ of possession over Lot 11 was
City. The Sabidongs are in possession of one- eventually issued. Consequently, TCT No. T-
half portion of Lot 11 of the said Estate 11836 in the name of C. N. Hodges was
(Hodges Estate), as the other half-portion was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT
occupied by PriscilaSaplagio. Lot 11 was the No. T-107519 in the name of respondent was
subject of an ejectment suit filed by the issued.
Hodges Estate, docketed as Civil Case No.
14706 of the MTCC Iloilo City, Branch 4. On On June 14, 1999, this Court received the
May 31, 1983, a decision was rendered in said sworn letter-complaint asserting that as court
case ordering the defendant to immediately employee respondent cannot buy property in
vacate the portion of Lot 11 leased to her and litigation (consequently he is not a buyer in
to pay the plaintiff rentals due, attorney’s fees, good faith), commit deception, dishonesty,
expenses and costs. At the time, respondent oppression and grave abuse of authority.
was the Clerk of Court III of MTCC, Branch 3,
Iloilo City. Court Administrator Benipayo issued an
Evaluation and Recommendation finding
Sometime in October 1984, respondent respondent guilty of violating Article 1491 of
submitted an Offer to Purchase on installment the Civil Code. Said rule prohibits the
Lots 11 and 12. The Administratrix of the purchase by certain court officers of property
Hodges Estate rejected respondent’s offer in and rights in litigation within their
view of an application to purchase already jurisdiction.
filed by the actual occupant of Lot 12, "in line
with the policy of the Probate Court to give On September 10, 2007, respondent
priority to the actual occupants in awarding compulsorily retired from service. Eventually,
approval of Offers". While the check for initial the case was assigned to Judge Roger B.
down payment tendered by respondent was Patricio, the new EJ of the Iloilo City RTC for
returned to him, he was nevertheless informed investigation, report and recommendation.
that he may file an offer to purchase Lot 11 Judge Patricio submitted his final Report and
and that if he could put up a sufficient down Recommendation finding respondent liable
payment, the Estate could immediately for grave misconduct and dishonesty under or
endorse it for approval of the Probate Court so the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
that the property can be awarded to him The Court noted Judge Patricio’s Investigation
"should the occupant fail to avail of the Report and referred the same to the OCA for
priority given to them." evaluation, report and recommendation. Then
Court Administrator Jose P. Perez found
The following day, respondent again respondent liable for serious and grave
submitted an Offer to Purchase Lot 11 with an misconduct and dishonesty and recommended
area of 234 square meters for the amount of the forfeiture of respondent’s salary for six
P35,100. Under the Order issuedby the probate months, which shall be deducted from his
court (RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27) in Special retirement benefits.
Proceedings No. 1672, respondent’s Offer to
Purchase Lot 11 was approved upon the ISSUE: Whether Clerk of Court Solas violated
court’s observation that the occupants of the the rule on disqualification to purchase
subject lots "have not manifested their desire property in litigation
to purchase the lots they are occupying up to
this date and considering time restraint and HELD: NO. Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the
considering further, that the sales in favor of Civil Code prohibits court officers such as
the x xxofferors are most beneficial to the clerks of court from acquiring property
estate x xx". The probate court issued another involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or
Order granting respondent’s motion for territory of their courts. Said provision reads:
issuance of a writ of possession in his favor.
13
Article 1491. The following persons cannot judge. A property forming part of the estate
acquire by purchase, even at a public or under judicial settlement continues to be
judicial auction, either in person or through subject of litigation until the probate court
the mediation of another: issues an order declaring the estate
proceedings closed and terminated. The rule is
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, that as long as the order for the distribution of
clerks of superior and inferior courts, and the estate has not been complied with, the
other officers and employees connected with probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed
the administration of justice, the property and and terminated. The probate court loses
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution jurisdiction of an estate under administration
before the court within whose jurisdiction or only after the payment of all the debts and the
territory they exercise their respective remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled
functions; this prohibition includes the act of to receive the same. Since there is no evidence
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to to show that Sp. Proc. No. 1672 in the RTC of
lawyers, with respect to the property and Iloilo, Branch 27, had already been closed and
rights which may be the object of any terminated at the time of the execution of the
litigation in which they may take part by Deed of Sale With Mortgage dated November
virtue of their profession. 21, 1994, Lot 11 is still deemed to be "in
litigation" subject to the operation of Article
The rationale advanced for the prohibition is 1491 (5) of the Civil Code.
that public policy disallows the transactions in
view of the fiduciary relationship involved, This notwithstanding, we hold that the sale of
i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and Lot 11 in favor of respondent did not violate
the peculiar control exercised by these the rule on disqualification to purchase
persons. "In so providing, the Code tends to property because Sp. Proc. No. 1672 was then
prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to pending before another court (RTC) and not
give occasion for fraud, which is what can and MTCC where he was Clerk of Court.
must be done."
11. ARANAS VS MERCADO
For the prohibition to apply, the sale or
assignment of the property must take place FACTS: Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died
during the pendency of the litigation intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his
involving the property. Where the property is second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita),
acquired after the termination of the case, no and their five children, namely: Allan V.
violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M.
Civil Code attaches. Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado, and Maria
Teresita M. Anderson; and his two children by
In the case at bar, when respondent purchased his first marriage, namely: respondent
Lot 11-A on November 21, 1994, the Decision Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M.
in Civil Case No. 14706 which was Aranas (Thelma). Emigdio inherited and
promulgated on May 31, 1983 had long acquired real properties during his lifetime.
become final. Be that as it may, it cannot be He owned corporate shares in Mervir Realty
said that the property is no longer "in Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu
litigation" at that time considering that it was Emerson Transportation Corporation (Cebu
part of the Hodges Estate then under Emerson). He assigned his real properties in
settlement proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 1672). exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir
Realty, and sold his real property in Badian,
A thing is said to be in litigation not only if Cebu (Lot 3353 covered by Transfer Certificate
there is some contest or litigation over it in of Title No. 3252) to Mervir Realty. Thelma
court, but also from the moment that it filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu
becomes subject to the judicial action of the City a petition for the appointment of Teresita
14
as the administrator of Emigdio's estate. The administration of the estate of the late Emigdio
RTC granted the petition considering that S. Mercado which had come to her possession.
there was no opposition. The letters of Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio,
administration in favor of Teresita. timely sought the reconsideration of the order
As the administrator, Teresita submitted an of March 14, 2001 on the ground that one of
inventory of the estate of Emigdio for the the real properties affected, Lot No. 3353
consideration and approval by the RTC. She located in Badian, Cebu, had already been sold
indicated in the inventory that at the time of to Mervir Realty, On appeal, the CA reversed
his death, Emigdio had "left no real properties the RTC decision insofar as the inclusion of the
but only personal properties" worth P6, inclusion of parcels of land known as Lot No.
675,435.25 in all, consisting of cash of P32, 3353 located at Badian, Cebu with an area of
141.20; furniture and fixtures worth P20, 53,301 square meters subject matter of the
000.00; pieces of jewelry valued at P15, 000.00; Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 9,
44,806 shares of stock of Mervir Realty worth 1989 and the various parcels of land subject
P6,585,585.80; and 30 shares of stock of Cebu matter of the Deeds of Assignment dated
Emerson worth P22,708.25. Claiming that February 17, 1989 and January 10, 1991 in the
Emigdio had owned other properties that revised inventory to be submitted by the
were excluded from the inventory, Thelma administratrix is concerned.
moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC committed
the inventory, and to be examined regarding grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
it. Teresita filed a compliance with the order of excess of jurisdiction in directing the inclusion
January 8, 1993, 3 supporting her inventory of certain properties in the inventory
with copies of three certificates of stocks notwithstanding that such properties had been
covering the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of either transferred by sale or exchanged for
stock; 4 the deed of assignment executed by corporate shares in Mervir Realty by the
Emigdio on January 10, 1991 involving real decedent during his lifetime?
properties with the market value of
P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir RULING: No.
Realty shares of stock with total par value of
P4,440,700.00; 5 and the certificate of stock The CA's conclusion of grave abuse of
issued on January 30, 1979 for 300 shares of discretion on the part of the RTC was
stock of Cebu Emerson worth P30,000.00. unwarranted and erroneous. WHEREFORE,
Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be the Court GRANTS the petition for review on
examined under oath on the inventory. certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
The RTC issued an order expressing the need decision promulgated on May 15, 2002;
for the parties to present evidence and for REINSTATES the orders issued on March 14,
Teresita to be examined to enable the court to 2001 and May 18, 2001 by the Regional Trial
resolve the motion for approval of the Court in Cebu; DIRECTS the Regional Trial
inventory. Thelma opposed the approval of Court in Cebu to proceed with dispatch in
the inventory, and asked leave of court to Special Proceedings No. 3094-CEB entitled
examine Teresita on the inventory. The RTC Intestate Estate of the late Emigdio Mercado,
issued on March 14, 2001 an order finding and Thelma Aranas, petitioner, and to resolve the
holding that the inventory submitted by case; and ORDERS the respondents to pay the
Teresita had excluded properties that should costs of suit.
be included. The RTC denied the
administratrix's motion for approval of RATIO: The probate court is authorized to
inventory and orders the said administratrix determine the issue of ownership of properties
to re-do the inventory of properties which are for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion
supposed to constitute as the estate of the late from the inventory to be submitted by the
Emigdio S. Mercado. The RTC also directed administrator, but its determination shall only
the administratrix to render an account of her be provisional unless the interested parties are
15
all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one appearing to belong to the decedent can be
of collation or advancement, or the parties excluded from the inventory, regardless of
consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by their being in the possession of another person
the probate court and the rights of third or entity. The objective of the Rules of Court in
parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction requiring the inventory and appraisal of the
extends to matters incidental or collateral to estate of the decedent is "to aid the court in
the settlement and distribution of the estate, revising the accounts and determining the
such as the determination of the status of each liabilities of the executor or the administrator,
heir and whether property included in the and in malting a final and equitable
inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property distribution (partition) of the estate and
of the deceased spouse. otherwise to facilitate the administration of the
estate." Hence, the RTC that presides over the
Under Section 6 (a), Rule 78 of the Rules of administration of an estate is vested with wide
Court, the letters of administration may be discretion on the question of what properties
granted at the discretion of the court to the should be included in the inventory.
surviving spouse, who is competent and
willing to serve when the person dies According to Peralta v. Peralta, the CA cannot
intestate. Upon issuing the letters of impose its judgment in order to supplant that
administration to the surviving spouse, the of the RTC on the issue of which properties are
RTC becomes duty-bound to direct the to be included or excluded from the inventory
preparation and submission of the inventory in the absence of "positive abuse of discretion,"
of the properties of the estate, and the for in the administration of the estates of
surviving spouse, as the administrator, has the deceased persons, "the judges enjoy ample
duty and responsibility to submit the discretionary powers and the appellate courts
inventory within three months from the should not interfere with or attempt to replace
issuance of letters of administration pursuant the action taken by them, unless it be shown
to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, viz.: that there has been a positive abuse of
discretion." As long as the RTC commits no
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be patently grave abuse of discretion, its orders
returned within three months. - Within three must be respected as part of the regular
(3) months after his appointment every performance of its judicial duty. There is no
executor or administrator shall return to the dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court
court a true inventory and appraisal of all the as an intestate court is special and limited. The
real and personal estate of the deceased which trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties
has come into his possession or knowledge. In claimed to be a part of the estate but are
the appraisement of such estate, the court may claimed to belong to third parties by title
order one or more of the inheritance tax adverse to that of the decedent and the estate,
appraisers to give his or their assistance. not by virtue of any right of inheritance from
the decedent. All that the trial court can do
The usage of the word all in Section 1, supra, regarding said properties is to determine
demands the inclusion of all the real and whether or not they should be included in the
personal properties of the decedent in the inventory of properties to be administered by
inventory. However, the word all is qualified the administrator. Such determination is
by the phrase which has come into his provisional and may be still revised.
possession or knowledge, which signifies that
the properties must be known to the As the Court said in Agtarap v. Agtarap: The
administrator to belong to the decedent or are general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial
in her possession as the administrator. court, either as a probate court or an intestate
court, relates only to matters having to do
Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase with the probate of the will and/or settlement
true inventory implies that no properties of the estate of deceased persons, but does not
16
extend to the determination of questions of herein Teresita herself, to "bring into the mass
ownership that arise during the proceedings. of the estate any property or right which he (or
The patent rationale for this rule is that such she) may have received from the decedent,
court merely exercises special and limited during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order
court or one in charge of estate proceedings, that it may be computed in the determination
whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate of the legitime of each heir, and in the account
or determine title to properties claimed to be a of the partition."
part of the estate and which are claimed to
belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court also
right of inheritance from the deceased but by provided that any advancement by the
title adverse to that of the deceased and his decedent on the legitime of an heir "may be
estate. All that the said court could do as heard and determined by the court having
regards said properties is to determine jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, and the
whether or not they should be included in the final order of the court thereon shall be
inventory of properties to be administered by binding on the person raising the questions
the administrator. If there is no dispute, there and on the heir."
poses no problem, but if there is, then the Rule 90 thereby expanded the special and
parties, the administrator, and the opposing limited jurisdiction of the RTC as an intestate
parties have to resort to an ordinary action court about the matters relating to the
before a court exercising general jurisdiction inventory of the estate of the decedent by
for a final determination of the conflicting authorizing it to direct the inclusion of
claims of title. However, this general rule is properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous
subject to exceptions as justified by title to any compulsory heir by the decedent.
expediency and convenience. The probate The determination of which properties should
court may provisionally pass upon in an be excluded from or included in the inventory
intestate or a testate proceeding the question of estate properties was well within the
of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the authority and discretion of the RTC as an
inventory of a piece of property without intestate court. In making its determination,
prejudice to final determination of ownership the RTC acted with circumspection, and
in a separate action. proceeded under the guiding policy that it
Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to was best to include all properties in the
the estate, or the question is one of collation or possession of the administrator or were
advancement, or the parties consent to the known to the administrator to belong to
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that
court and the rights of third parties are not could turn out in the end to be actually part of
impaired, then the probate court is competent the estate. As long as the RTC commits no
to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders
jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or must be respected as part of the regular
collateral to the settlement and distribution of performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse
the estate, such as the determination of the of discretion means either that the judicial or
status of each heir and whether the property in quasi-judicial power was exercised in an
the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
of the deceased spouse. passion or personal hostility, or that the
respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a
The inventory of the estate of Emigdio must be positive duty, or virtually refused to perform
prepared and submitted for the important the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of
purpose of resolving the difficult issues of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or
collation and advancement to the heirs. Article board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
1061 of the Civil Code required every powers acted in a capricious or whimsical
compulsory heir and the surviving spouse,
17
manner as to be equivalent to lack of documents conveying the subject properties to

jurisdiction. the petitioners and certificates of title issued to
them.
12. BUTIONG VS PLAZO
Petitioners denied the allegations of the
FACTS: In 1989, Pedro Riñoza died intestate, complaint on the ground of lack of personal
leaving several heirs, including his children knowledge and good faith in acquiring the
with his first wife, who are also the subject properties. In the course of his
respondents in this case; (Ma. Gracia and Ma. testimony during trial, petitioner Francisco
Fe). Pedro also left several properties contended that what they purchased was only
including a resort and a family home both the resort. He also presented an Extrajudicial
located in Nasugbu, Batangas. Settlement with Renunciation, Repudiations
and Waiver of Rights and Sale which provides
The respondents alleged that in 1991, their co- that respondents' co-heirs sold the family
heirs - Pedro's second wife Benita, and other home to a certain spouses Bondoc for P1M as
children had sold the subject properties to the well as a Deed of Sale whereby Benita sold the
petitioner spouses, Francisco Villafria and resort to petitioners for P650K.
Maria Butiong without their knowledge and
consent. The spouses are now deceased and In 2001, the trial court nullified the transfer of
substituted by their son, Ruel. the subject properties to petitioners (Butiong;
Villafria) and the spouses Bondoc due to
They confronted Benita about the sale, and she irregularities in the documents of conveyance
acknowledged the same, showing a document, offered by petitioners; as well as the
she believed to be as a receipt of her share in circumstances surrounding the execution of
the sale. However, said document did not the same. The Extrajudicial Settlement was
refer to any sort of sale but to a previous loan notarized by a notary public who was not duly
obtained by Pedro (decedent) and Benita from commissioned as such on the date it was
a bank. The document actually evidenced executed. The Deed of Sale was undated, the
receipt from Banco Silangan of the amount of date of the acknowledgment therein was left
P87, 352.62 releasing Pedro and Benita's blank, and the typewritten name "Pedro
indebtedness therefrom. Riñoza, Husband" on the left side of the
document was not signed. Also, both
Upon inquiry, the Register of Deeds of documents were never presented to the Office
Nasugbu informed respondents that he has no of the Register of Deeds for registration and
record of any sale transaction involving the that the titles to the subject properties were
subject properties, giving them certified true still in the names of Pedro and his second wife
copies of the titles to the same. When Benita. In addition, the supposed notaries and
respondents went to the subject properties, buyers of the subject properties were not even
they discovered that 4 out of the 8 cottages in presented as witnesses who supposedly
the resort had been demolished. They were witnessed the signing and execution of the
not able to enter as the premises were documents of conveyance. On the basis
padlocked. thereof, the trial court ruled in favor of
respondents. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
Respondents learned that in July 1991, a notice ruling which was grounded on the premise
of an extrajudicial settlement of estate of their that the complaining heirs are insisting that
late father was published in a tabloid called the settlement of the family home and the
"Balita". Because of this, respondents caused resort deed are void as their signatures
the annotation of their adverse claims over the thereon are forgeries as opposed to the
subject properties before the Register of Deeds Villafrias who profess the deeds'
of Nasugbu and filed their complaint praying, enforceability. And that after the complaining
among others, for the annulment of all heirs presented proofs in support of their
18
claim that their signatures were forged, the decedent Pedro. Considering that settlement
burden then fell upon the Villafrias to of estate is a special proceeding cognizable by
disprove the same, or conversely, to prove the a probate court of limited jurisdiction while
authenticity and due execution of the said judicial partition with annulment of title and
deeds. The Villafrias failed in this regard. recovery of possession are ordinary civil
actions cognizable by a court of general
The Villafrias did not present as witnesses (a) jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its
the notary public who purportedly notarized jurisdiction in entertaining the latter while it
the questioned instrument, (b) the witnesses was sitting merely in its probate jurisdiction.
who appeared in the instruments as This is in view of the prohibition found in the
eyewitnesses to the signing, or (c) an expert to Rules on the joinder of special civil actions and
prove the authenticity and genuineness of all ordinary civil actions. Thus, petitioner argued
the signatures appearing on the said that the ruling of the trial court is void and has
instruments. Verily, the rule that, proper no effect for having been rendered in without
foundation must be laid for the admission of jurisdiction.
documentary evidence; that is, the identity
and authenticity of the document must be Petitioner also reiterates the arguments raised
reasonably established as a prerequisite to its before the appellate court that since the
admission, was prudently observed by the finding of forgery relates only to the signature
lower court when it refused to admit the of respondents and not to their co-heirs who
settlement of the family home and the resort assented to the conveyance, the transaction
deeds as their veracity are doubtful. should be considered valid as to them.
Petitioner also denies the findings of the courts
Aggrieved, Ruel then filed a Motion for below that his parents are builders in bad faith
Reconsideration raising the trial court's lack of for they only took possession of the subject
jurisdiction. He alleged that when the properties after the execution of the transfer
Complaint for Judicial Partition with documents and after they paid the
Annulment of Title and Recovery of consideration on the sale.
Possession was filed, there was yet no
settlement of Pedro's estate, determination as The Motion for Reconsideration was, however,
to the nature thereof, nor was there an denied by the CA.
identification of the number of legitimate
heirs. As such, the trial court ruled on the ISSUE: WON the CA committed reversible
settlement of the intestate estate of Pedro in its error in not ruling that the trial court acted
ordinary jurisdiction when the action filed was without jurisdiction in entertaining the special
for Judicial Partition. Considering that the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
instant action is really one for settlement of Pedro and the civil action for annulment of
intestate estate, the trial court, sitting merely title of the heirs and third persons in one
in its probate jurisdiction, exceeded its proceeding
jurisdiction when it ruled upon the issues of
forgery and ownership. Thus, petitioner RULING: NO.
argued that said ruling is void and has no
effect for having been rendered without Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of
jurisdiction. respondents' causes of action pertaining to the
properties left behind by the decedent Pedro,
Petitioner asserts that while the complaint his known heirs, and the nature and extent of
filed by respondents was captioned as their interests thereon, may fall under an
"Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title action for settlement of estate. However, a
and Recovery of Possession," the allegations complete reading of the complaint would
therein show that the cause of action is readily show that, based on the nature of the
actually one for settlement of estate of suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs
19
prayed for, the action is clearly one for judicial In this relation, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules
partition with annulment of title and recovery of Court provides:
of possession.
RULE 69
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court
provides: Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of
real estate. — A person having the right to
RULE 74 compel the partition of real estate may do so
Summary Settlement of Estate as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
complaint the nature and extent of his title and
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by an adequate description of the real estate of
agreement between heirs. — If the decedent which partition is demanded and joining as
left no will and no debts and the heirs are all defendants all other persons interested in the
of age, or the minors are represented by their property.
judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may As can be gleaned from the foregoing
without securing letters of administration, provisions, the allegations of respondents in
divide the estate among themselves as they their complaint are but customary, in fact,
see fit by means of a public instrument filed in mandatory, to a complaint for partition of real
the office of the register of deeds, and should estate. Particularly, the complaint alleged: (1)
they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary that Pedro died intestate; (2) that respondents,
action of partition. If there is only one heir, he together with their co-heirs, are all of legal
may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by age, with the exception of one who is
means of an affidavit filled in the office of the represented by a judicial representative duly
register of deeds. The parties to an authorized for the purpose; (3) that the heirs
extrajudicial settlement, whether by public enumerated are the only known heirs of
instrument or by stipulation in a pending Pedro; (4) that there is an account and
action for partition, or the sole heir who description of all real properties left by Pedro;
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by (5) that Pedro's estate has no known
means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously indebtedness; and (6) that respondents, as
with and as a condition precedent to the filing rightful heirs to the decedent's estate, pray for
of the public instrument, or stipulation in the the partition of the same in accordance with
action for partition, or of the affidavit in the the laws of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that
office of the register of deeds, a bond with the based on the allegations of the complaint, the
said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent case is one for judicial partition. That the
to the value of the personal property involved complaint alleged causes of action identifying
as certified to under oath by the parties the heirs of the decedent, properties of the
concerned and conditioned upon the payment estate, and their rights thereto, does not
of any just claim that may be filed under perforce make it an action for settlement of
section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that estate.
the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a
petition for letters of administration within It must be recalled that the general rule is that
two (2) years after the death of the decedent. when a person dies intestate, or, if testate,
failed to name an executor in his will or the
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or executor so named is incompetent, or refuses
administration shall be published in a the trust, or. fails to furnish the bond required
newspaper of general circulation in the by the Rules of Court, then the decedent's
manner provided in the next succeeding estate shall be judicially administered and the
section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be competent court shall appoint a qualified
binding upon any person who has not administrator in the order established in
participated therein or had no notice thereof. Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court. An
20
exception to this rule, however, is found in the age or not, are not bound to submit the
aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 74 wherein the property to a judicial administration, which is
heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no always long and costly, or to apply for the
debts due from his estate, may divide the appointment of an administrator by the Court.
estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary It has been uniformly held that in such case
action for partition without submitting the the judicial administration and the
same for judicial administration nor applying appointment of an administrator are
for the appointment of an administrator by the superfluous and unnecessary proceedings.
court. The reason is that where the deceased
dies without pending obligations, there is no Thus, respondents committed no error in filing
necessity for the appointment of an an action for judicial partition instead of a
administrator to administer the estate for them special proceeding for the settlement of estate
and to deprive the real owners of their as the same is expressly permitted by law.
possession to which they are immediately That the complaint contained allegations
entitled. inherent in an action for settlement of estate
does not mean that there was a prohibited
In this case, it was expressly alleged in the joinder of causes of action for questions as to
complaint, and was not disputed, that Pedro the estate's properties as well as a
died without a will, leaving his estate without determination of the heirs, their status as such,
any pending obligations. Thus, contrary to and the nature and extent of their titles to the
petitioner's contention, respondents were estate, may also be properly ventilated in
under no legal obligation to submit me subject partition proceedings alone.
properties of the estate to a special proceeding
for settlement of intestate estate, and are, in
fact, encouraged to have the same partitioned, --- END OF MIDTERMS ---
judicially or extrajudicially.
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of

Court, however, does not preclude the heirs
from instituting administration proceedings,
even if the estate has no" debts or obligations,
if they do not desire to resort for good reasons
to an ordinary action for partition. While
Section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate
among themselves as they may see fit, or to
resort to an ordinary action for partition, the
said provision does not compel them to do so
if they have good reasons to take a different
course of action. It should be noted that
recourse to an administration proceeding even
if the estate has no debts is sanctioned only if
the heirs have good reasons for not resorting
to an action for partition. Where' partition is
possible, either in or out of court, the estate
should not be burdened with an
administration proceeding without good and
compelling reasons.
Thus, it has been repeatedly held that when a

person dies without leaving pending
obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of aiza/2017
21

Specpro Case Digests Midterms Rule 72 90

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specpro Case Digests Midterms Rule 72 90

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specpro Case Digests Midterms Rule 72 90

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (RULE 72 - RULE 90)

1. SILVERIO VS SILVERIO 6. Jr. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari

FACTS: 9. The third challenged order involves the

estate and which are claimed to belong to 4. SUNTAY III VS COJUANGCO-

RULING: Partially Granted. Letter of 5. LEE VS RTC OF QC

manner as to be equivalent to lack of documents conveying the subject properties to

Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of

Thus, it has been repeatedly held that when a

You might also like