CASE DIGESTS FOR SPECPRO

//sorry I'm late

//so very late
//anyways
//here are my cases
CASES:
1. REYES v. SOTERO, et al.
GR 167405
February 16, 2006 [on the limited jurisdiction of probate courts]
2. PEDROSA v. CA
353 SCRA 620
2001 [on new actions to annul settlement within the reglementary period]
3. GUEVARA v. GUEVARA
98 Phil. 249
1956 [on the mandatory nature of probate proceedings]
CASE 1: REYES v. SOTERO
FACTS:
respondent Corazon Chichioco filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration &
settlement of estate of the late Elena Lising before the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, docketed
as Spec. Proc. No. 204, claiming that she [Chichioco] was the niece and heir of Lising who
died intestate, among other co-heirs
petitioner Ana Joyce Reyes filed an opposition to the petition, claiming that she was an
adopted child of Lising and the latters husband, Serafin Delos Santos and asserting that
she was the sole heir of the deceased
Reyes filed a supplement to the opposition, attaching thereto the (a) Certification issued
by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Paniqui stating that Reyes was indeed adopted by
Lising and Delos Santos pursuant to a decision rendered in Spec. Proc. No. 1410; and (b)
a Certification issued by the clerk of court of the Tarlac RTC stating that a judgment was
indeed rendered in said special proceeding decreeing Reyes' adoption
case was soon deemed submitted for resolution
sometime later, Chichioco and her alleged co-heirs filed before the CA a petition for
annulment of the adoption decree, claiming that no proceedings for Reyes' adoption
took place
Upon motion of Chichioco, the RTC ordered the suspension of hearings on Spec. Proc.
204 pending the outcome of the petition for annulment of the adoption decree
CA dismissed the petition for failure to complly with Sec. 4, par. 3 of Rule 47 of the Rules
of Court
Reyes filed a motion before the RTC praying that the opposition to Spec. Proc. No. 204 be
finally resolved and that the petition be dismissed, w/ an ex parte motion praying for the
immediate resolution of her opposition
Chichioco et al. filed with the RTC a comment to the opposition, stating that reasonable
doubts have been cast on petitioners claim that she was legally adopted due allegedly to
certain "badges of fraud" and informed same that they filed a criminal complaint against
Reyes for alleged falsification of the adoption decree (later on dismissed)
the RTC issued a Resolution deferring resolution of Reyes' opposition to Spec. Proc. No.
204, pending the outcome of the criminal case filed against her

 Chichioco filed an urgent motion to appoint a special administrator, on the ground that
there was yet no true determination and appraisal of the decedents universal estate,
praying that the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Paulino Saguyod, be appointed -- this was
granted by the RTC
Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, contending that (a) Atty.
Saguyod was appointed without being required to file a bond; and (b) she is the sole heir
of the decedent but to no avail
Chichioco and the other alleged co-heirs filed a motion before the RTC to enjoin Reyes
from conducting business in a certain property belonging to the estate this was also
granted by the RTC by way of resolution issued on Sept. 18, 2002; a motion for
reconsideration was likewise filed as regards this, which was denied on Nov. 12, 2002
Reyes filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA, assailing the Sept. 18 and
Nov. 12 resolutions of the RTC
CA rendered judgment nullifying the resolutions of the RTC, but without dismissing
Spec. Proc. 204 since the dismissal of SP No. 53457 was not a judgment on the merits
and did not operate as res judicata to the former
Reyes' motion for reconsideration = denied
hence this petition
ISSUE: Does Reyes still need to prove the validity of her adoption due to imputation of
irregularity (see Sec. 47, Rule 39)?
RULING: NO. Spec. Proc. No. 204 is dismissed.
Reyes need not prove her legal adoption by any evidence other than those which she had
already presented before the trial court
documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by
a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
mere "imputations of irregularities" will not cast a "cloud of doubt" on the adoption
decree since the certifications and its contents are presumed valid until proof to the
contrary is offered
such contrary proof can be presented only in a separate action brought principally
for the purpose of nullifying the adoption decree; the latter cannot be assailed
collaterally in a proceeding for the settlement of a decedents estate (Santos v.
Aranzanso)
respondents cannot assail in these proceedings the validity of the adoption decree
in order to defeat petitioners claim that she is the sole heir of the decedent
absent a categorical pronouncement in an appropriate proceeding that the decree
of adoption is void, the certifications regarding the matter, as well as the facts
stated therein, should be deemed legitimate, genuine and real
CASE 2: PEDROSA v. CA
FACTS:
4/18/1946: spouses Miguel and Rosalina de Rodriguez initiated proceedings before the
Ozamiz City CFI for the legal adoption of petitioner Maria Elena Rodriguez Pedrosa; the
CFI granted the petition
4/29/1972: Miguel died intestate
petitioner and Rosalina entered into an extrajudicial settlement of Miguel's estate,
adjudicating between themselves in equal proportion Miguel's estate

 private respondents (Jose, Carmen, Mercedes, Ramon, and Rosalina Rodriguez) filed an
action to annul the adoption of Maria Elena
CFI denied the petition and upheld the validity of the adoption
private respondents appealed the decision to the CA
whilst the appeal was pending, the Rodriguezes entered into an extrajudicial settlement
with Rosalina for the partition of the estate of Miguel and of another sister, Pilar
Rosalina acted as the representative of Miguel's heirs
the properties involved were divided among private respondents (with Miguel's heirs
represented solely by Rosalina)
new TCTs under the name of the respondents were subsequently issued
Maria Elena sent her daughter, Loreto Jocelyn, to claim their share of the properties
from the Rodriguezes
the Rodriguezes refused, refused saying that Maria Elena and Loreto were not heirs
since they were not their blood relatives
Maria Elena filed a complaint to annul the partition
RTC dismissed the complaint
Maria Elena appealed to the CA, w/c affirmed the decision of the trial court
hence this petition
ISSUE: Has the action for the complaint for the annulment of the "Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Partition" already prescribed?
RULING: NO.
Sec. 4, Rule 74: two-year prescriptive period -- (1) to persons who have participated or
taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition; and (2) when the provisions of
Sec. 1, Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the
decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by
themselves or through guardians
Maria Elena did not participate in the extrajudicial partition; thus, the two-year
prescriptive period is not applicable in her case
the applicable prescriptive period would be four years from the discovery of the
fraud [since after all, this is an action for the annulment of a deed of "extrajudicial
settlement" upon the ground of fraud, for the lack of notice and consent of Maria
Elena (in the words of the SC: a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same is
fraudulent and vicious)]
"discovery" is deemed to have taken place when said instrument was filed with the
Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the name of respondents
exclusively
considering that the complaint of the petitioner was filed on 1/28/1987, or three years
and ten months after the questioned extrajudicial settlement dated 3/11/1983 was
executed, her action against the respondents on the basis of fraud has not yet prescribed
Another thing, re: publication rule on extrajudicial settlement: Sec. 1, Rule 74 provides:
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section;
but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not
participated therein or had no notice thereof.
Lastly: to say that Maria Elena was represented by Rosalina in the partitioning is
imprecise at that time, Maria Elena was no longer a minor; thus, Rosalina only
represented herself during the settlement
[> since Miguel predeceased Pilar intestate, a sister, his estate automatically is vested to his
child and widow in equal shares]

CASE 3: GUEVARA v. GUEVARA

FACTS:
Victorino Guevara executed a will, distributing assorted movables and a residential lot
among his children and stepchildren
Victorino bequeathed to his wife, Augustia Posadas, in addition to various movables, a
portion (25 hectares) out of a 259-hectare parcel of land + five hectares in settlement of
her widows usufruct
the rest of said parcel was distributed as follows: 100 hectares reserved for disposal
during Victorinos lifetime and for payment of his debts and family expenses, 108.08+
hectares to his legitimate son Ernesto Guevara, and 21.6 hectares for his hija natural
reconocida [Recognized natural daughter? Yo no hablo Espaol.], Rosario Guevara
Victorino executed a deed of sale in favor of Ernesto, conveying to the latter the
southern half of the 259-hectare lot, and expressly recognized him [Ernesto] as owner of
the northern half
later on, a TCT was issued in the name of Ernesto for the whole tract of land
soon, Victorino died
Victorinos last will was never presented for probate, nor was there any settlement
proceeding initiated
four years later, Rosario, on the assumption that Victorino had died intestate, brought
suit against Ernesto to recover 423,492 square meters of the land as the portion that
should correspond to her by way of legitime
the case reached the CA and was decided in Rosarios favor, but upon certiorari, the SC
modified the judgment, holding that the lower courts ruling that one-half of the land
belongs to Victorinos estate, and the other half, to Ernesto, in consideration of his
assumption of the obligation to pay all the debts of the deceased is affirmed, but the
judgment of the CA insofar as it awarded any relief to Rosario is reversed and set aside,
and that the parties are ordered to present the will to the proper court for probate in
accordance with law
claiming to act pursuant to the foregoing decision, Rosario commenced Spec. Proc. No.
2646 in the Pangasinan CFI for the probate of Victorino's will
Ernesto opposed the probate, and filed a motion to dismiss, grounded on: (a) the
petition itself alleging that the will was revoked; (b) that whatever right to probate the
parties may have had has already prescribed; and (c) the purpose of the probate being
solely to have Rosario be declared an acknowledged natural child of the deceased
the CFI denied the motion to dismiss
Ernesto filed a motion for reconsideration = approved, petition dismissed
grounds: (a) Rosarios petition did not ask for the probate in toto of the will, contrary to
the SCs order; and (b) her right to petition for the probate of the will had prescribed
Rosario appealed to the CA w/c affirmed the lower courts decision, w/ modification
hence this petition
ISSUES:
1. Can probate proceedings be dispensed with?
2. Is the petition for probate of Victorinos will barred by the statute of limitations (having
been filed 12 years after his death)?
RULING:

1. NO.
2. NO.

SC affirmed CA ruling in toto

as in the SC just quoted whole blocks of text from the CA ruling
nakakatamad basahin tong kaso na to
wala lang, nag-vent lang ako, lols lets move on

the presentation of a decedents will to the competent court has always been deemed by
the law as more of a duty than a right
the neglect of such obligation carries with it the corresponding penalty and it is
inconsistent with that policy that the court should refuse to admit wills to probate,
without inquiry into their validity
the authority given to testators to dispose freely of a portion of their estate would be
imperfectly safeguarded, unless adequate measures were provided by the state to
assure that the wishes of the deceased would be carried out
Sec. 1, Rule 74, cc. Rule 76: if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and
legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present
that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will
the heirs hey may not disregard the provisions of the will unless those provisions are
contrary to law
neither may they do away with the presentation of the will to the court for probate,
because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy
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, as is
attempted to be done in the instant case
also: the law on the probate of wills excludes the proceeding from the purview of the
statute of limitations: any 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