Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Maninang V CA (Rule 75)

    Uploaded by

    EJ Plan
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the allowance of the will. In a probate proceeding, the court's role is limited to examining the extrinsic validity of the will, such as whether it was properly executed and authenticated. Questions regarding the intrinsic validity or legality of the will's provisions cannot normally be entertained and are to be resolved later. Only in rare cases where the will is intrinsically void on its face can intrinsic validity be determined in the probate proceeding. The high court granted certiorari to correct the trial court's act in excess of its jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maninang V CA (Rule 75)

    Uploaded by

    EJ Plan
    24 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the allowance of the will. In a probate proceeding, the court's role is limited to examining the extrinsic validity of the will, such as whether it was properly executed and authenticated. Questions regarding the intrinsic validity or legality of the will's provisions cannot normally be entertained and are to be resolved later. Only in rare cases where the will is intrinsically void on its face can intrinsic validity be determined in the probate proceeding. The high court granted certiorari to correct the trial court's act in excess of its jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    Maninang v CA (Rule 75)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the allowance of the will. In a probate proceeding, the court's role is limited to examining the extrinsic validity of the will, such as whether it was properly executed and authenticated. Questions regarding the intrinsic validity or legality of the will's provisions cannot normally be entertained and are to be resolved later. Only in rare cases where the will is intrinsically void on its face can intrinsic validity be determined in the probate proceeding. The high court granted certiorari to correct the trial court's act in excess of its jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Maninang V CA (Rule 75)

    Uploaded by

    EJ Plan
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the allowance of the will. In a probate proceeding, the court's role is limited to examining the extrinsic validity of the will, such as whether it was properly executed and authenticated. Questions regarding the intrinsic validity or legality of the will's provisions cannot normally be entertained and are to be resolved later. Only in rare cases where the will is intrinsically void on its face can intrinsic validity be determined in the probate proceeding. The high court granted certiorari to correct the trial court's act in excess of its jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MANINANG V.

    CA
    Rule 75 – Production of Will, Allowance of Will Necessary

    FACTS: On 21 May 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single, died. She left a holographic will, the pertinent
    portions of which provides that all her properties shall be inherited by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang (with
    whose family she have lived continuously for around the last 30 years). It was also indicated that
    Clemencia does not consider Nonoy (Respondent) as her adopted son.

    On 9 June 1977, Petitioner filed a Petition for probate of the Will. On 25 July 25, 1977, Respondent
    Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta,
    instituted intestate proceedings with the CFI Pasig. Cases were consolidated. Respondent filed a MTD on
    the ground that he was preterited. Petitioner opposed on the ground that in a case for probate of a Will,
    the Court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination of and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the
    will; and that respondent Bernardo was effectively disinherited by the decedent.

    CFI denied the petition for probate.

    ISSUE: W/N there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CFI denying the allowance of Will.

    HELD: Yes. No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
    accordance with the Rules of Court. The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it,
    because unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to
    dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.

    Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. The authentication of a will
    decides no other question than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with
    those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not determine
    nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency of the provisions. These may be impugned as
    being vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication. The questions relating to these points remain
    entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been authenticated.

    Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained in
    Probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been executed in
    accordance with the requirements of the law. Exception: Instances when intrinsic validity can be
    determined - practical considerations so demanded if the probate of the will would become an idle
    ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.

    An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its jurisdiction may be corrected by Certiorari. And even
    assuming the existence of the remedy of appeal, we harken to the rule that in the broader interests of
    justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy
    and adequate relief.

    You might also like