BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

Rule 76 Allowance or Disallowance of Will petitioned that they be admitted for probate. The court issued an order
dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
Jurisdictional Requirements for Probate of Will
ISSUE: Who is entitled to apply for probate? WON the court acquired
G.R. No. L-45463 March 18, 1937 jurisdiction over the case

EMERITA SANTOS, in her behalf and as guardian of the persons and RULING: Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no will
property of the minors Bienvenido, Apolonio Manuel, Juana and shall pass either real or personal estate, unless it is proved and allowed. For
Norberta, surnamed Azores y Santos,petitioners, this purpose, section 626 provides that the person who has the custody of he
vs. will shall, within 4 days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver
MODESTO CASTILLO, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and, the will to the court which has jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the
JOSE, SINFOROSA, and ANTONIO AZORES, respondents. will. Sections 628 and 629 proscribed coercive means to compel a person
having the custody of a will to deliver it to the court which has jurisdiction.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Petitioner alleged that the deceased designated nobody as custodian of his
FACTS: Petitioner Emerita Santos, in her behalf and as guardian of the will but that he directed his nephew Manuel Azores to deliver a copy
minor acknowledge natural children of the deceased, filed a petition for thereof to her, to keep one in his possession, and to turn over the other two
probate of the will of Nicolas Azores. She also filed a motion for the copies to his son Jose Azores, with instructions to the effect that if petitioner
appointment of a special administrator. At the hearing, respondents Jose, or his son failed to present said will for probate, Manuel should take charge
Sinfrosa and Antonio Azores, legitimate children of the deceased filed their of presenting it to the court. Taking everything into account therefore, it is
opposition, on the ground that the court had not acquired jurisdiction on the of the court's view that Jose Azores, the son of the deceased, had the
case. custody of the will because the original thereof was turned over to him.

Petitioner's allegations being insufficient to confer jurisdiction because she For the sake of argument, however, admitting that the testator had
did not allege that she had the custody of the will, and therefore, was not designated nobody as custodian of the will, it cannot be denied that his act
entitled to present it for probate and furtherance because the will that should of subsequent making a codicil and entrusting the custody thereof to his
be probated is the original and not a copy thereof, as the one presented by legitimate children, clearly modified his last will. In this sense, the custody
the petitioner. Petitioner filed an amended petition praying that respondents of both is entrusted to his legitimate children and not to Manuel Azores or
be required to present the copies of the will and the codicil in their to petitioner. Hence, as the legitimate children of the deceased had custody
possession. of the originals of the will and of the codicil, they alone could, had the right
and where bound by law to apply for the probate of their father' last will. In
Court issued an order denying the petition for the appointment of a special order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of
administrator by petitioner and ordered Jose Azores, who has custody of the a will and for the administration of the properties left by a deceased person,
last will and testament and all other documents in relation thereto, to deliver the application must allege, in addition to the residence of the deceased and
said papers to the court within the date from notice. other indispensable facts or circumstances, that the applicant is the executor
in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be probated. The
Consequently, petitioner filed a motion praying that her amended petition original of said document must be presented or sufficient reasons given to
be admitted. However, before this motion was decided, respondents, after justify the nonrepresentation of said original and the acceptance of the copy
their father's death, presented the original of the will and codicil, and or duplicate thereof. Inasmuch as these requisites had not been complied
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

with in the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent judge did not the court: it constituted a mere procedural error that may or may not be the
exceed in jurisdiction in dismissing the application in question. basis of reversal (Jocson vs. Nable, 48 Off. Gaz., 90). Indeed, this Tribunal
has ruled that the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in
G.R. No. L-12359 July 15, 1959 the estate through the publication of the petition in the newspapers (In re
Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 159; Joson vs. Nable, supra) — which in this
In the Matter of the Petition for the Summary Settlement of the Estate case admittedly took place.
left by the deceased Carida Perez. BERNARDINO PEREZ, petitioner-
appellee, Service of notice on individual heirs or legatees or devisees is a matter of
vs. procedural convenience, not jurisdictional requisite. (Joson vs.
CONRADA PEREZ, ET AL., oppositors-appellants. Nable, supra) So much so that even if the names of some legatees or heirs
had been omitted from the petition for allowance of the will and therefore
Efrain B. Treñas for appellee. were not adviced — the decree allowing the will does not ipso facto become
Gaudioso Geduspan for appellants. void for want of jurisdiction.

BENGZON, J.: G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988

FACTS: This appeal does not belong here. Involving, as it does the JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ANTONIO R-INFANTE,
summary settlement of a testate estate worth P6,000.00 according to CARLOS R. INFANTE, MERCEDES R-INFANTE DE LEDNICKY,
petitioner, or P10,000 according to oppositors, it should not have been ALFREDO R-INFANTE, TERESITA R-INFANTE, RAMON R-
brought directly to this Court from the Iloilo Court of First Instance, INFANTE, FLORENCIA R-INFANTE DE DIAS, MARTIN R-
inasmuch as several questions of fact are raised in relation with testimonial INFANTE, JOSE R-INFANTE LINK and JOAQUIN R-INFANTE
evidence: for example, the soundness of the mind of the testatrix and her CAMPBELL, petitioners,
freedom from constraint in signing the will. vs.
THE HON. NICOLAS GALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
The printed brief makes no assignment expressly challenging the court's TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,
jurisdiction; but in discussing their second error, oppositors-appellants insist BRANCH NO. 166, PASIG, METRO MANILA AND JOAQUIN R-
the lower court did not "acquire jurisdiction to receive the evidence for the INFANTE, respondents.
allowance of the alleged will" because two heirs (Melanio Perez, Jr. and
Milagros Perez) had not been notified in advance of such will. PADILLA, J.:

In reply to this, the petitioner-appellee says the persons mentioned were not FACTS: Private respondent filed with the RTC a petition for the probate
entitled to notice, since they were not forced heirs — grandnephew and and allowance of the last will and testament of the late Montserrat R-Infante
niece — and had not been mentioned as legatees or devisees in the will of y G-Pola The petition specified the names and ad- dresses of herein
the deceased. And as to Milagros Perez, petitioner asserts that notice had petitioners as legatees and devisees.
been addressed to her last known residence in this country.
The probate court issued an order selling the petition for hearing. Said order
ISSUE: WON the absence of notice to individual heirs affect the was published in the "Nueva Era" A newspaper of general circulation in
jurisdiction of the court. NO Metro Manila once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks.

HELD: At any rate the omission, if any, did not affect the jurisdiction of During the proceedings, private respondent was appointed executor.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

indicated the names and addresses of the legatees and devisees of the
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order alleging that, as testator. But despite such knowledge, the probate court did not cause copies
named legatees, no notices were sent to them as required by Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the notice to be sent to petitioners. The requirement of the law for the
of the Rules of Court allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of
hearing for three (3) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
The probate court issued an order denying petitioner's motion for province.
reconsideration.
Basa v. Mercado
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari of the petitioners.
Facts: Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance
It is the view of petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that of Pampanga, allowed and probated the last will and testament of Ines Basa,
personal notice of probate proceedings to the known legatees and devisees deceased. On January 30, 1932, the same judge approved the account of the
is not a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will. Contrary to the administrator of the estate, declared him the only heir of the deceased under
holding of the Court of Appeals that the requirement of notice on individual the will and closed the administration proceedings. On April 11, 1934, the
heirs, legatees and devisees is merely a matter of procedural convenience to herein petitioners-appellants filed a motion in which they prayed that said
better satisfy in some instances the requirements of due process. proceedings be reopened and alleged that the court lacked jurisdiction to act
in the matter because there was a failure to comply with requirements as to
ISSUE: WON personal notice of probate proceedings to the known legatees the publication of the notice of hearing prescribed in the following section
and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement. NO of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants claim that the provisions of
section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied with in
HELD: Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court reads: view of the fact that although the trial judge, on May 29, 1931, ordered the
publication of the required notice for "three weeks successively" previous to
SEC. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or the time appointed for the hearing on the will, the first publication was on
personally. — The court shag also cause copies of the notice of the time and June 6, 1931, the third on June 20, 1931, and the hearing took place on the
place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other 27th of that month, only twenty-one days after the date of the first
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the publication instead of three full weeks before the day set for the hearing.
Philippines at their places of residence, and deposited in the post office with The appellants also contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the
the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing, if weekly newspaper, Ing Katipunan, in which the notice of hearing was
such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice must in like published, was a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of
manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he be not, the Pampanga.
petitioner; also, to any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their Issues: Whether the 21 days requirement for publication be followed
places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at pursuant to the sec. 630 of Code of Civil Procedure?
least ten (10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.
Whether the said Ing Katipunan newspaper considered a newspaper
It is clear from the aforecited rule that notice of the time and place of the of general circulation
hearing for the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or
Held: In view of the foregoing, it is held that the language used in section
other known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their
630 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean that the notice, referred
places of residence, if such places of residence be known. There is no
to therein, should be published for three full weeks before the date set for
question that the residences of herein petitioners legatees and devisees were
the hearing on the will. In other words the first publication of the notice
known to the probate court. The petition for the allowance of the wig itself
need not be made twenty-one days before the day appointed for the hearing.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

The record shows that Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation appear. I know what is right and wrong. I can decide for myself. I do not
in view of the fact that it is published for the dissemination of local news consider Nonoy as my adopted son. He has made me do things against my
and general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying will.
subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals and that the trial court
ordered the publication to be made in Ing Katipunan precisely because it xxx xxx xxx
was a "newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga." The Petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the Will of the
law does not require that publication of the notice, referred to in the Code of decedent with the Court of First Instance-Branch IV, Quezon City.
Civil Procedure, should be made in the newspaper with the largest numbers
is necessary to constitute a newspaper of general circulation. respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole
heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings with
**Note: SEC. 630. Court to appoint hearing on will. — When a will is the Court of First Instance-Branch XI, Pasig, Rizal
delivered to a court having jurisdiction of the same, the court shall appoint a
time and place when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance of The Testate and Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated before Branch
the will, and shall cause public notice thereof to be given by publication in XI, presided by respondent Judge.
such newspaper or newspapers as the court directs of general circulation in
Respondent Bernardo then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on
the province, three weeks successively, previous to the time appointed, and
the ground that the holographic will was null and void because he, as the
no will shall be allowed until such notice has been given. At the hearing all
only compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, intestacy should ensue.
testimony shall be taken under oath, reduced to writing and signed by the
witnesses. In her Opposition to said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner Soledad averred that
it is still the rule that in a case for probate of a Will, the Court's area of
SCOPE OF INQUIRY OF PROBATE PROCEEDING
inquiry is limited to an examination of and resolution on the extrinsic
G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982 validity of the will; and that respondent Bernardo was effectively
disinherited by the decedent.
RAFAEL E. MANINANG and SOLEDAD L. MANINANG,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO L. The lower Court ordered the dismissal of the Testate Case.
PRONOVE, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and Petitioners Maninang resorted to a certiorari Petition before respondent
BERNARDO S. ASENETA, respondents.
Court of Appeals alleging that the lower Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
Clemencia Aseneta, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital at age issuing the Orders of dismissal of the Testate Case.
81. She left a holographic will, the pertinent portions of which are quoted
Respondent Court denied certiorari
hereunder:
Issue: W/N the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismisses the
xxx xxx xxx
case by reason of it intrinsic validity.
It is my will that all my real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon
Ruling: Yes. We find that the Court a quo a quo acted in excess of its
City, Albay and Legaspi City and all my personal properties shagllbe
jurisdiction when it dismissed the Testate Case.
inherited upon my death by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang with whose family I
have lived continuously for around the last 30 years now. Dra. Maninang Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory.
and her husband Pamping have been kind to me. ... I have found peace and
happiness with them even during the time when my sisters were still alive The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it,
and especially now when I am now being troubled by my nephew Bernardo because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole
and niece Salvacion. I am not incompetent as Nonoy would like me to
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be those of disinheritance. Pretention under Article 854 of the New Civil Code
rendered nugatory. shall annul the institution of heir. This annulment is in toto, unless in the
wail there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises
Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same
The authentication of a will decides no other question than such as touch Code, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs", but only
upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with those requisites or "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited", which last phrase was
solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not omitted in the case of preterition.
determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the
of the provisions, these may be impugned as being vicious or null, estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived.
notwithstanding its authentication. The questions relating to these points
remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that
authenticated. controversial issue has not been thoroughly considered. We gather from the
assailed Order of the trial Court that its conclusion was that respondent
Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will Bernardo has been preterited We are of opinion, however, that from the face
cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding because its only purpose is of the Will, that conclusion is not indubitable.
merely to determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the
requirements of the law. Nuguid case: In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the Court's area of
inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic
The Nuguid and the Balanay cases provide the exception rather than the validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary
rule. The intrinsic validity of the Wills in those cases was passed upon even capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by
before probate because "practical considerations" so demanded. Moreover, law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court
for the parties in the Nuguid case, the "meat of the controversy" was the has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. However, where
intrinsic validity of the Will; in fact, the parties in that case "shunted aside practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be
the question of whether or not the Will should be allowed probate." Not so passed upon, even before it is probated, the Court should meet that issue.
in the case before us now where the probate of the Will is insisted on by
petitioners and a resolution on the extrinsic validity of the Will demanded. The parents of the testator are completely preterited.
Moreover, in the Nuguid case, this Court ruled that the Will was Balanay vs. Hon. Martinez
intrinsically invalid as it completely preterited the parents of the testator. In
the instant case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is whether under the The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity
terms of the decedent's Will, private respondent had been preterited or even before its formal validity had been established. The probate of a will
disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance. might become an Idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically
Preterition and disinheritance are two diverse concepts. void. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of
the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet
Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs the issue.
or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though
mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987
disinherited." (Neri vs. Akutin, 72 Phil. 325). Disinheritance, in turn, "is a CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE
testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in the
APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A.
legitimate for a cause authorized by law." Disinheritance is always
FERNANDEZ and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents
"voluntary", preterition upon the other hand, is presumed to be
"involuntary". The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

Facts: On May 1984, Constantino Acain (petitioner hereinafter Acain) filed property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate
on the RTC of Cebu City, a petition for the probate of the will of the late and an interested party is one who would be benefited by the estate. Acain,
Nemesio Acain and for the issuance to Acain of letters testamentary. When at the outset, appears to have an interest in the will as an heir, however,
Nemesio died, he left a will in which Acain and his siblings were instituted intestacy having resulted from the preterition of Fernandez and the universal
as heirs. The will allegedly executed by Nemesio was submitted by institution of heirs, Acain is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no
petitioner without objection raised by private respondents. Segundo, the legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and
brother of Nemesio, was initially instituted as the heir, in case Segundo pre- must then be dismissed.
deceased Nemesio, Segundo’s children would then succeed. After the
petition was set for hearing, the respondents (Virginia Fernandez, legally **3. The general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to
adopted daughter of Nemesio, and the latter's widow, Rosa Acain) filed a the extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testator's
motion to dismiss on the following grounds: for the petitioner has no legal testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities
capacity to institute these proceedings; he is merely a universal heir and the prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only
Rosa and Fernandez have been pretirited. Motion was denied. After the after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. The
denial, respondents filed with the SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional
with preliminary injunction which was subsequently referred to the IAC. circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation
The IAC granted the private respondents' petition and ordered the TC to constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will. Where
dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of Nemesio. His MR having circumstances demand that intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions be
been denied, Acain filed this present petition for the review of IAC’s passed upon even before the extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the
decision. probate court should meet the issue. The remedies of certiorari and
prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents. The petition is
Issues: 1. Whether private respondents have been preterited. hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
No for the widow, yes for Fernandez. In the instant case private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition
in Sp. Proceedings No. 591 ACEB of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on
2. Whether Acain has legal standing to intervene in the probate proceedings. the following grounds: (1) petitioner has no legal capacity to institute the
No. proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the
adopted daughter have been preterited. It was denied by the trial court in an
3. Whether the probate court went beyond its authority. No. order dated January 21, 1985 for the reason that "the grounds for the motion
to dismiss are matters properly to be resolved after a hearing on the issues in
Ratio/Held: 1. Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of
the course of the trial on the merits of the case. A subsequent motion for
the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned
reconsideration was denied by the trial court on February 15, 1985.
therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are
expressly disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned, there is no For private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed
preterition, for she is not in the direct line. However, the same cannot be the case to progress when on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void
said for Fernandez. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and as petitioner and his brothers and sisters were instituted as universal heirs
preterited in the will of the testator. Neither can it be denied that she was not coupled with the obvious fact that one of the private respondents had been
expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of the preterited would have been an exercise in futility. It would have meant a
Fernandez. The universal institution of Acain and his siblings to the entire waste of time, effort, expense, plus added futility. The trial court could have
inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will. denied its probate outright or could have passed upon the intrinsic validity
of the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of the will was
2. In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate
resolved.
proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

PROOF REQUIRED ON PROBATE HEARING Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering their evidence, refused
to probate the alleged will.
G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958
The trial judge refused to credit the petitioner's evidence for several reasons,
TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP the most important of which were these: (a) if according to his evidence, the
deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ILDEFONSO decedent wanted to keep her will a secret, so that her husband would not
YAP, oppositor-appellee. know it, it is strange she executed it in the presence of Felina Esguerra,
Facts: Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure leaving properties knowing as she did that witnesses were unnecessary; (b) in the absence of a
in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in the City of Manila. showing that Felina was a confidant of the decedent it is hard to believe that
the latter would have allowed the former to see and read the will several
Fausto E. Gan initiated them proceedings in the Manila court of first times; (c) it is improbable that the decedent would have permitted Primitivo
instance with a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly Reyes, Rosario Gan Jimenez and Socorro Olarte to read her will, when she
executed by the deceased, substantially in these words: precisely wanted its contents to remain a secret during her lifetime; (d) it is
also improbable that her purpose being to conceal the will from her husband
Nobyembre 5, 1951. she would carry it around, even to the hospital, in her purse which could for
Ako, si Felicidad E. Alto-Yap, may asawa, at ganap na pag-iisip, ay one reason or another be opened by her husband; (e) if it is true that the
nagsasalaysay na ang aking kayamanan sa bayan ng Pulilan, Bulacan ay husband demanded the purse from Felina in the U.S.T. Hospital and that the
aking ipinamamana sa aking mga kamag-anakang sumusunod: will was there, it is hard to believe that he returned it without destroying the
will, the theory of the petitioner being precisely that the will was executed
Vicente Esguerra, Sr. .............................................5 Bahagi behind his back for fear he will destroy it.
Fausto E. Gan .........................................................2 Bahagi In the face of these improbabilities, the trial judge had to accept the
oppositor's evidence that Felicidad did not and could not have executed
Rosario E. Gan .........................................................2 Bahagi
such holographic will.
Filomena Alto ..........................................................1 Bahagi
Issue: W/N a holographic will may be probated upon the testimony of
Beatriz Alto ..............................................................1 Bahagi witnesses who have been allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the
handwriting of the testator.
At ang aking lahat ng ibang kayamanan sa Maynila at iba panglugar ay
aking ipinamamana sa aking asawang si Idelfonso D. Yap sa kondisyong Ruling: No. The New Civil Code effective in 1950 revived holographic
siya'y magpapagawa ng isang Health Center na nagkakahalaga ng di wills in its arts. 810-814. "A person may execute a holographic will which
kukulangin sa halagang P60,000.00 sa bayan ng Pulilan, Bulacan, na must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
nakaukit ang aking pangalang Felicidad Esguerra-Alto. At kung ito ay may himself. It is subject to no other form and may be made in or out of the
kakulangan man ay bahala na ang aking asawa ang magpuno upang Philippines, and need not be witnessed."
matupad ang aking kagustuhan.
Authenticity and due execution is the dominant requirements to be fulfilled
(Lagda) Felicidad E. Alto-Yap. when such will is submitted to the courts for allowance. For that purpose
the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses would be sufficient if
Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that there is no opposition (Sec. 5, Rule 77). If there is, the three must testify, if
the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her available.From the testimony of such witnesses (and of other additional
lifetime. witnesses) the court may form its opinion as to the genuineness and
authenticity of the testament, and the circumstances its due execution.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, signature. Taking all the above circumstances together, we reach the
and of assessing the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty conclusion that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
of authenticity — the testator's handwriting — has disappeared. holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who
have seen and/or read such will.
The Rules of Court, (Rule 77) approved in 1940 allow proof (and probate)
of a lost or destroyed will by secondary — evidence the testimony of Turning now to the evidence presented by the petitioner, we find ourselves
witnesses, in lieu of the original document. Yet such Rules could not have sharing the trial judge's disbelief. In addition to the dubious circumstances
contemplated holographic wills which could not then be validly made here. described in the appealed decision, we find it hard to believe that the
deceased should show her will precisely to relatives who had received
Could Rule 77 be extended, by analogy, to holographic wills? nothing from it: Socorro Olarte and Primitivo Reyes. These could pester her
Spanish commentators agree that one of the greatest objections to the into amending her will to give them a share, or threaten to reveal its
holographic will is that it may be lost or stolen4 — an implied admission execution to her husband Ildefonso Yap. And this leads to another point: if
that such loss or theft renders it useless. she wanted so much to conceal the will from her husband, why did she not
entrust it to her beneficiaries? Opportunity to do so was not lacking: for
Civil Code requires it to be protocoled and presented to the judge, (Art. instance, her husband's trip to Davao, a few days after the alleged execution
689) who shall subscribe it and require its identity to be established by the of the will.
three witnesses who depose that they have no reasonable doubt that the will
was written by the testator (Art. 691). And if the judge considers that the In fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a
identity of the will has been proven he shall order that it be filed (Art. 693). lost holographic will, we think the evidence submitted by herein petitioner
All these, imply presentation of the will itself. Art. 692 bears the same is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure
implication, to a greater degree. It requires that the surviving spouse and the up to that "clear and distinct" proof required by Rule 77, sec. 6.
legitimate ascendants and descendants be summoned so that they may make **note: in the case of gan what was required as proof by the was clear and
"any statement they may desire to submit with respect to the authenticity of distinct. As such it is the holographic will itself that could clearly and
the will." As it is universally admitted that the holographic will is usually distinctively proved the existence of a will, which in this case they failed to
done by the testator and by himself alone, to prevent others from knowing present. In the next case however, there is a photocopy of the testators
either its execution or its contents, the above article 692 could not have the holographic will which can be examined and compared thus can proved
idea of simply permitting such relatives to state whether they know of the whether there exist a valid holographic will or not.
will, but whether in the face of the document itself they think the testator
wrote it. Obviously, this they can't do unless the will itself is presented to G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
the Court and to them.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL
Undoubtedly, the intention of the law is to give the near relatives the choice OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA RODELAS,
of either complying with the will if they think it authentic, or to oppose it, if petitioner-appellant, vs. AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-
they think it spurious. Such purpose is frustrated when the document is not appellees, ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor.
presented for their examination. If it be argued that such choice is not
essential, because anyway the relatives may oppose, the answer is that their Facts: The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will
opposition will be at a distinct disadvantage, and they have the right and of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The petition was opposed by the appellees on
privilege to comply with the will, if genuine, a right which they should not the ground that the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or
be denied by withholding inspection thereof from them. otherwise.
The courts will not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance
with his holographic will, unless they are shown his handwriting and
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the Rule 77 Allowance of Will Proved Outside of the
original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the
original. Phil. And Administration of Estate Thereunder
Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a
photocopy In the matter of the testate estate of Basil Gordon Butler
Mercedes de Leon and Ada Loggey Ghezzi
RULING: Yes. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of
v.
holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due
Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. thru Philippine Branch
execution has been proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If
uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is
Facts: Basil Gordon Butler, a former resident of the Philippines, died testate
available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying
in Brooklyn, New York in 1945. In the same year, his will was duly
witnesses are required. However, if the holographic will has been lost or
probated in the Surrogate’s Court of New York County. The will contained
destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be probated
a residuary clause by which the decedent allowed the named executors to
because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
purchase an annuity for the benefit of Mercedes de Leon. Since the said
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten
Mercedes de Leon is “not of sound judgment, and discretion in the handling
statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy
of money” In accordance therewith, one of the executors, James Madison
or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison
Ross Jr., bought an annuity from the Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. in
can be made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam
Toronto, Canada with the contract stipulating a monthly payment of $57.60
vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents
to Mercedes de Leon with the proviso that in the event of her death, the
of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare
residue shall be paid to Ross Jr. or his successor. With the object of getting
testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself
hold the entire amount invested in the annuity, de Leon presented Butler’s
must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the
will for probate in the CFI of Manila and secured the appointment of Ada
document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said
Loggey Ghezzi as administratrix. The latter filed a motion praying that the
decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or
Manager of the Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. Manila Branch to appear
photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
and render a complete accounting of funds in its possession that purportedly
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
belong to the estate of Butler. The CFI denied the motion ruling. De Leon
may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the
and Ghezzi appealed.
photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be
admitted because then the authenticity
Issue: Whether the Manila Court has authority over the assets involved
of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.
Held: No. Administration extends only to the assets of a decedent found
within the state or country where it was granted, so that an administrator
appointed in one state or country has no power over property in another
state or country. It is manifest from the facts before set out that the funds in
question are outside the jurisdiction of the probate court of Manila. Having
been invested in an annuity in Canada under a contract executed in the
country, Canada is the suits of the money. The party whose appearance the
appellant seeks is only a branch or agency of the company which holds the
funds in its possession, the agency's intervention being limited to delivering
to the annuitant the checks made out and issued from the home office.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

The entire amount invested in a contract of annuity by virtue of which the Held: NO. The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China is a
beneficiary receives a periodical sum during her lifetime, no longer forms probate court mustbe proved. The law of China on procedure in the probate
part of a decedent’s estate and is beyond the control of the probate court. It or allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the
has passed completely into the hands of the company in virtue of a contract execution of the will in China in 1931 should also be established by
duly authorized and validly executed. Whether considered as a trust or as competent evidence. There is no proof on these points.Moreover, it appears
simple consideration for the company's assumed obligation, which it has that all the proceedings had in the municipal district court ofAmoy were for
been religiously performing, of paying periodical allowances to the the purpose of taking the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will
annuitant, the proceeds of the sale can not be withdrawn without the consent and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy does not purport
of the company, except, upon the death of the annuitant, the residuary to probate the will.
legatee may claim the remainder, if there be any. Neither the domiciliary or
ancillary executor of Butler's will, nor the trustee, nor the annuitant has The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China does not purport to
disposition of any of these funds beyond the amounts and except upon the probate or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view
conditions agreed upon in the contract for annuity. thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been
done in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and
Suntay vs. Suntay principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills. Consequently, the
G.R. No. L-3807 and L-3088, July 31, 1954 authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court
of Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to
Facts: In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the the probate of allowance of a will and therefore, the will referred to therein
Philippines, died in Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties in the cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.
Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he married twice, the
first wife was Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The Vda. De Peres v. Tolete
second marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian, with whom he had G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994
a son, petitioner Silvino Suntay.
Facts: Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who
Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first marriage. became American citizens and residents of New York, each executed a will
While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China, also in New York, containing provisions on presumption of survivorship (in
filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased the event that it is not known which one of the spouses died first, the
which was claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on husband shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire
November, 1929. The petition was denied due to the loss of the will before family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was
the hearing thereof. After the pacific war, Silvino, claimed to have found named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the
among the records of his father, a last will and testament in Chinese wills.
characters executed and signed by the deceased on January, 1931 and
probated in the Amoy District Court. He filed a petition in the intestate Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in
proceedings for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on Bulacan. Rafael opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir according to
November 1929 or the will executed in Amoy China on November, 1931. New York law. He contended that since the wills were executed in New
York, New York law should govern. He further argued that, by New York
Issue: Whether the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as such entitled to
probated in the Philippines notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very
that the two wills were in accordance with New York law. But before she glaring fact - petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr.
could present evidence to prove the law of New York, the reprobate court Evelyn Perez Cunanan and because she does not consider herself an heir of
already issued an order, disallowing the wills. Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filing of
the proceedings. Thus, even in the instant petition, she only impleaded
Issue: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is being assailed is
merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA
Held: Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens 876 [1992]).

The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall
will only be effective in this country upon compliance with the following "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for
provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines: allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with
regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time.
Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require
in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees,
or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor,
if he is not the petitioner, are required.
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New
York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative. The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's
claim, are entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills.
Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall
also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and
been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due devisees of the testator, . . . "
execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator
has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge
will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the shall allow petitioner reasonable time within which to submit evidence
foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on needed for the joint probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it
procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and
Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; copies of all pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings.
Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except for the first and last
requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence. Ancheta Vs Guersey-Dalaygon
Facts: Spouses Audrey O’Neil and W. Richard Guersey were American
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the Citizens with an adopted daughter named Kylie Guersey Hill, and have
probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts lived in the Philippines for 30 years. Audrey died leaving a will bequeathing
cannot take judicial notice of them. her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as executor. The will
was admitted probate before the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore, Mary Land,
On Lack of Notice to Jose’s Heirs U.S.A. which named James N. Philips as executor due to Richard’s
renunciation of his appointment. Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta, herein petitioner,
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law offices was likewise Honorable as it seems, petitioners motive in equitably distributing Audreys
designated by the court as ancillary administrator. In 1981 Richard married estate cannot prevail over Audreys and Richards wishes. As stated in Bellis
herein respondent Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon with whom he has two v. Bellis:
children. Subsequently, Audrey’s will was admitted probate by then Court x x x whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our
of First Instance of Rizal. As administrator of Audrey’s estate in the system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the
Philippines, petitioner filed an inventory and appraisal of Audrey’s succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave,
properties. On July 20, 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national
bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests Law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was also
admitted to probate by the Orphan’s Court of Ann Arundel, Maryland,
U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was likewise appointed as executor, who in RULE 78 Letters of Testamentary and of
turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or any member of the Quasha
Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices, as ancillary administrator. Administration, When and to Whom Issued
On October 19, 1987, petitioner filed in Special Proceeding No.9625 before
QUALIFICATIONS
the Makati RTC, a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Aubrey
and apportioned to them ¾ and ¼ of all the estate, respectively. This motion NGO THE HUA v. CHUNG KITA HUA
and project of partition was granted and approved by the trial court in its
Order dated February 12, 1988. This was opposed by respondent on the FACTS: Ngo The Hua, claiming to be surviving spouse of the deceased
ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, “a legacy passes to the Chung Liu, filed a petition to be appointed administratrix of his estate. Her
legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject of the petition was opposed by Chung Kiat Hua, Lily Chung Cho, Bonifacio
legacy.” Respondent argued that since Audrey devised her entire estate to Chung Sio Pek and Chung Ka Bio, all claiming to be children of the
Richard, then it should be wholly adjudicated to him and not merely ¾ deceased Chung Liu by his first wife.
thereof, and since Richard left his entire estate to the respondent, except for
the A/G Interior Inc. shares, then the entire property should now pertain to
They claim that Ngo The Hua is morally and physically unfit to execute the
respondent. The Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s Orders in
duties of the trust as administratrix, and that she and the deceased have
Speacial Proceeding No. 9625 and later denied the appeal of the petitioner,
secured an absolute divorce in Taiwan, both being Chinese citizens,
thus the petition for review on certiorari.
confirmed a legalized by the Taipei District Court. In this same opposition
they prayed the Chung Kiat Hua, allegedly the eldest child of the deceased,
Issue: Whether the entire property should now pertain to Guersey-
be appointed administrator instead.
Dalaygon.

Held: Yes. In this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of Maryland The lower court found that Ngo The Hua and the deceased were validly
has been brought to record before the CA, and the trial court in Special divorced by the Taipei District Court, and that Chung Kiat Hua, Lily Chung
Proceeding No. M-888 appropriately took note of the same in disapproving Cho, Bonifacio Chung Siong Pek and Chung Kiat Bio are children of the
the proposed project of partition of Richards estate, not to mention that deceased. So it issued the order appointing Chung Kiat Hua as administrator
petitioner or any other interested person for that matter, does not dispute the of the estate of Chung Liu.
existence or validity of said law, then Audreys and Richards estate should
be distributed according to their respective wills, and not according to the 1st ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in passing upon the
project of partition submitted by petitioner. Consequently, the entire Makati validity of the divorce obtained by Ngo Hua and the deceased and upon the
property belongs to respondent. filiation of the oppositors?
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

HELD: Sec. 1, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court provides: 2nd ISSUE (If asked): WON Chun Kiat Rang, claiming to be the nephew of
the deceased, my intervene in the proceedings?
SECTION 1. When order for distribution of residue made. — . . When the
debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the allowances to the HELD: No. It is well-settled that for a person to be able to intervene in an
widow and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance administration proceeding concerning the estate of a deceased, it is
with law, have been paid, the court . . shall assign the residue of the estate necessary for him to have interest in such estate. An interested party has
of the Persons entitled to the same . . been defined in this connection as one who would be benefited by the estate
such as an heir, or one who has a certain claim against the estate, such as a
No distribution shall be allowed until payment of the obligations above- creditor. Chung Kiat Kang does not claim of to be a creditor of Chung Liu's
mentioned has been made or provided for . . (Emphasis supplied). estate. Neither is he an heir in accordance with the Civil Code of the
Republic of China, the law that applies in this case, Chung Liu being a
What the court is enjoined from doing is the assignment or distribution of Chinese citizen. Appellant not having any interest in Chung Liu's estate,
the residue of the deceased's estate before the above-mentioned obligations either as heir or creditor, he cannot be appointed as co-administrator of the
chargeable to the estate are first paid. Nowhere from said section may it be estate, as he now prays.
inferred that the court cannot make a declaration of heirs prior to the
satisfaction of these obligations. It is to be noted, however, that the court in SERAFIN MEDINA and ROSALIA M. DEL CARMEN, assisted by
making the appointment of the administrator did not purport to make a DOMINADOR DEL CARMEN, petitioners,
declaration of heirs. vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE
It was was deemed necessary by the lower court to determine the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES and BEDA
relationship of the parties to be able to appoint an administrator in GONZALES, respondents.
accordance with the order preference established in Section 5, Rule 79 of
the Rules of Court. Said section provides that letters of administration shall September 28, 1973
be granted to the surviving spouse the next of kin, or to any principal
creditor, in this order. Since these applicants were asking for the letter of FACTS: Agustin Medina died intestate. The court first appointed Demetrio
administration on the theory that they are preferred according to Section 5 Encarnacion as the administrator of his estate later replaced by the clerk of
Rule 79 because of their relationship to the deceased Chu Liu, the lower court Atty. De Castro. A year later, Gonzales was appointed as the special
court necessarily had to pass first on the truth of their respective claims of administrator replacing de Castro. An urgent motion was filed to revoke
relationship to be able to appoint an administrator in accordance with the Gonzales’ appointment, on the ground that Gonzales is now assuming
aforementioned order of preference. inconsistent positions of administering the estate especially the Bitukang
Manok property and at the same time appealing from the order approving
What the lower court actually decided is the relationships between the the sale of that property only for the purpose of enabling himself to buy and
deceased and the parties of claiming the right to be appointed his acquire that property to the loss and prejudice of the estate.
administrator, to determine who among them is entitled to the
administration, not who are his heirs who are entitled to share in his estate. The sale to Rosalia of the Bitukang Manok property (initially owned by the
This issue of heirship is one to be determined in the decree of distribution, estate) having been approved and confirmed by respondent lower court over
and the findings of the court in the case at bar on the relationship of the the personal opposition of said respondent which approval he appealed to
parties is not a final determination of such relationships as a basis of the Court of Appeals, his subsequent appointment as special administrator
distribution. of the estate a year later under respondent lower court's order allegedly
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

created a clear conflict of interest that could cause grave damage and favor his personal interests as one interested in the purchase of the property
prejudice to the estate and subject it to unnecessary suits. for himself, although he denies obliquely in his brief such personal interest.
Grave prejudice may thus be inflicted by him on petitioner Rosalia's as an
The lower court then excluded Gonzales from interfering in the possession heir as well as the other heirs such as petitioner Serafin Medina because of
and enjoyment of the harvests of the property known as "Bitukang Manok" the further delay (13 years now) in their receiving their distributive shares
by petitioner Rosalia M. del Carmen. of their father's estate (as against their co-heirs who have sold and assigned
their rights and shares in the estate to Gonzales) as well as to Rosalia as
1st ISSUE: WON Gonzales, as special administrator, should be excluded? buyer because of Gonzales' interference with her enjoyment of the property
paid for in full by her since 1970.
HELD: YES. In this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for
appointment as administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind of Hence, the established doctrine that an administrator is deemed unsuitable
hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. A person with an and should be removed where his personal interests conflict with his official
adverse conflicting interest is unsuitable for the trust reposed in an duties, by virtue of the equally established principle that an administrator is
administrator of an estate. Gonzales cannot be at the same time an appellant a quasi trustee, disqualified from acquiring properties of the estate, and who
in his personal capacity opposing the sale of the property and an appellee should be indifferent between the estate and claimants of the property
representing the estate and upholding the same sale as made by the estate except to preserve it for due administration, and who should be removed
through Gonzales' predecessor as special administrator with the due when his interest conflicts with such right and duly.
approval and confirmation of the lower court. The sale to Rosalia of the
Bitukang Manok property having been approved and confirmed by The SC allowed the appointment of Gonzales as special administrator to
respondent lower court over the personal opposition of said respondent stand, insofar as taking care temporarily of the other properties of the estate
which approval he appealed to the Court of Appeals, his subsequent are concerned, but to the exclusion of the Bitukang Manok property
appointment as special administrator of the estate a year later created a previously sold by the estate to petitioner Rosalia M. del Carmen, who is
clear conflict of interest that could cause grave damage and prejudice to the entitled to the enjoyment of said property as the vendee thereof.
estate and subject it to unnecessary suits.
2nd ISSUE (if asked): WON the lower court correctly appointed the clerk
With specific reference to the Bitukang Manok property as sold by the of court as administrator?
estate through Gonzales' predecessor as special administrator and confirmed
by the lower court, the same has passed to petitioner Rosalia's ownership HELD: The Court does not look with favor on such practice of clerks of
and possession since the court's confirmation of the and the estate makes no court or other court employees being appointed as administrators of estates
further claim against the same but on the contrary has defended the sale and of decedents pending settlement before the probate court. The objectivity
Rosalia's title thereto as the vendee thereof as against Gonzales' adverse and impartiality of such clerks of court or other employees so appointed as
opposition in the appeal brought by Gonzales in his personal capacity. Yet administrators in discharging their regular functions may be easily
now, as complained of by Rosalia, Gonzales by virtue of his appointment, compromised by extraneous considerations. Furthermore, because of the
as special administrator a year later seeks in such other capacity to interfere administrator's fees and compensation payable to them, it is not
with her in the harvests of the property purportedly on behalf of the estate inconceivable that self-interest intrudes and consciously or unconsciously,
when in fact he is going against the official stand of the estate which obstacles are placed against the prompt settlement and termination of the
upholds the sale. proceedings in derogation of the primordial purpose of the law to strive to
have the estate settled expeditiously and promptly so that the benefits that
It is readily seen thereby that Gonzales has been placed in an unduly may flow therefrom may be immediately enjoyed by the decedent's heirs
favored position where he may use his position as special administrator to and beneficiaries. Probate courts are therefore enjoined to desist from such
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

practice of appointing their clerks of court or other court employees as notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of such grounds. A petition may, at
administrators or receivers of estates or the like. the same time, be filed for letters of administration with the will annexed.

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. PACITA DE LOS REYES Under this provision, it has been held that an "interested person" is one who
PHILLIPS, respondent. would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor, and whose interest is material and
FACTS: Dr. Arturo de Santos filed a petition for probate of his will in direct, not merely incidental or contingent.
RTC Makati. In his petition, Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no
compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be
the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; and that he disposed by his will his considered an "heir" of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary
properties with an approximate value of not less than P2,000,000. No succession that one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of
opposition was filed during the hearing. The RTC issued an order granting his entire estate by will.
the petition and allowing the will and it also appointed Ms. Pacita de los Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who may have
Reyes Phillips as executor. Shortly after the probate of his will, Dr. De been preterited in the testators will. Nor does he have any right to intervene
Santos died. in the settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a creditor of
the deceased. Since the testator instituted or named an executor in his will,
Thereafter, Pacita, as executrix, filed a motion for the issuance of letters of it is incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. As we
testamentary with Branch 61. She however withdrew the motion but later on stated in Ozaeta v. Pecson:
refilled it with RTC Makati Branch 65.
The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a
Meanwhile, Octavio Maloles II filed a motion for intervention with Branch testator, a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of
61 claiming that as the full blooded nephew of Arturo, he should be his property in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the
appointed as the administrator of the estate and that he is an heir. testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence, one
*not so important to the main issue: Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal
issued an order transferring the motion filed by Pacita to Branch 61. Judge of his estate. The curtailment of this right may be
Santos ratiocinated that since the probate proceeding started in Branch 61, considered a curtailment of the right to dispose.
then it should be the same court which should hear Pacita’s motion. Branch Only if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to
61 however refused to consolidate and referred the case back to Branch 65. give bond may the court appoint other persons to administer the estate.
Branch 65 subsequently consolidated the case per refusal of Branch 61. None of these circumstances is present in this case.
Eventually, Branch 65 allowed the motion for intervention filed by Octavio.
2nd ISSUE (if asked): WON the probate proceedings in Branch 61 of
1st ISSUE: WON petitioner has the right to intervene and oppose the RTC-Makati terminated upon the issuance of the order allowing the will of
petition for issuance of letters testamentary? Dr. De Santos?

HELD: NO.Rule 79, 1 provides: HELD: YES. Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the
death of the testator, so much so that, after approving and allowing the will,
Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for the court proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of the
administration. - Any person interested in a will may state in writing the testator. In fact, in most jurisdictions, courts cannot entertain a petition for
grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons named probate of the will of a living testator under the principle of ambulatory
therein as executors, or any of them, and the court, after hearing upon nature of wills.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition for Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a Motion for Partial
probate of the will filed by the testator himself. Rule 76, 1 likewise Reconsideration against said order. Imelda herself filed a motion for
provides: reconsideration on the ground that the will is lost and that petitioner has not
proven its existence and validity. Thereafter, Ferdinand filed the bond.
Sec. 1 Who may petition for the allowance of will. - Any However, the RTC subsequently issued letters of administration to BIR
executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato as special administratrix. It also
person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the denied the motion for reconsideration by both the petitioner and respondent.
death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to Petitioner filed with the SC a petition for review on certiorari but the SC 1st
have the will allowed, whether the same be in his division referred the same to the C.A.
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
ISSUE: WON respondents are incompetent to serve as executors of the will
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition in the of Ferdinand Marcos on the grounds of (1) want of integrity, and (2)
court for the allowance of his will. conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude?

Thus, after the allowance of the will of Dr. De Santos, there was nothing HELD: Section 1(c), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court defines who are
else for Branch 61 to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will incompetent to serve as executors, to wit:
pursuant to Rule 73, 12 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as
3rd ISSUE (if asked):WON Pacita is guilty of forum shopping? executors or administrators. No person is competent to
serve as executor or administrator who:
HELD: No. As stated earlier, the petition for probate was filed by Dr. De
Santos, the testator, solely for the purpose of authenticating his will. Upon xxxx
the allowance of his will, the proceedings were terminated. On the other
hand, the petition for issuance of letters testamentary was filed by private (c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute
respondent, as executor of the estate of Dr. De Santos, for the purpose of the duties of trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence,
securing authority from the Court to administer the estate and put into effect or want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of
the will of the testator. The estate settlement proceedings commenced by the conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
filing of the petition terminates upon the distribution and delivery of the (Emphasis Supplied)
legacies and devises to the persons named in the will. Clearly, there is no
identity between the two petitions, nor was the latter filed during the Petitioner contends that respondents have been convicted of a
pendency of the former. There was, consequently, no forum shopping. number of cases and, hence, should be characterized as one without
integrity, or at the least, with questionable integrity. However, the RTC
Republic v Marcos held that it saw no evidence on record to substantiate said allegation. The
SC stands by the findings of the RTC. After all, the 2 criminal cases alleged
FACTS: Pasig RTC, acting as probate court, issued an order to be filed against Imelda Marcos have already been reversed by the SC.
granting letters testamentary in solidum to respondents Ferdinand R. Hence, the so-called convictions against respondent Imelda Marcos cannot
Marcos II and Imelda Trinidad Romualdez-Marcos as executors of the last serve as a ground for her disqualification to serve as an executor.
will and testament of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos upon the filing of a bond
in the amount of P50,000. On the other hand, the 8 cases filed against respondent Ferdinand
Marcos II involve 4 charges for failure to file income tax returns and four
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

charges for non-payment of deficiency taxes under the NIRC. The CA of palpable error or gross abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere
acquitted Ferdinand of 4 and the other 4 (where he was convicted) are on with the RTCs discretion.
appeal. Therefore, it cannot serve as basis to disqualify him to be appointed
as an executor of the will of his father. More importantly, even assuming ORDER OF PREFERENCE
arguendo that his conviction is later on affirmed, the same is still
insufficient to disqualify him as the failure to file an income tax return is not In the matter of the administration of the estate of Tan Po Pic,
a crime involving moral turpitude. The failure to file an income tax return is deceased. MARTA TORRES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUAN L.
not a crime involving moral turpitude as the mere omission is already a JAVIER, as administrator of the estate of Tan Po Pic, deceased,
violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or willfulness of the individual. respondent-appellee.

2ND ISSUE: WON respondents, in denying the existence of the will, are FACTS: This is an appeal in proceeding to appoint an administrator of the
estopped from claiming to be the rightful executors thereof? estate of Tan Po Pic, deceased. The trial court refused to appoint Marta
Torres who claimed to be the lawful wife of the deceased, and, instead,
HELD: No. Respondents opposed the petition for probate not because they appointed Juan L. Javier administrator. The appeal is taken by Marta Torres
are disclaiming the existence of the will, but because of certain legal from that order of appointment.
grounds, to wit: (a) petitioner does not have the requisite interest to institute
it; (b) the original copy of the will was not attached to the petition for It appears that two women are claiming to be the legal wife of Tan Po Pic,
probate as required by the rules; and (c) the Commissioner of the BIR deceased, Marta Torres and a Chinese woman named Yu Teng New. Marta
Revenue is not qualified to be appointed as administrator of the estate. Torres objected to the appointment of any one except herself, while Juan
Cailles Tan Poo, on behalf of the Chinese woman, opposed the appointment
Based on the foregoing, considering the nature of their opposition, of Marta Torres. The probate court being unable to determine who, if either,
respondents cannot be held guilty of estoppel as they merely acted within was the lawful wife of the deceased, appointed a disinterested third person
their rights when they put in issue legal grounds in opposing the probate to act as administrator.
proceedings. More importantly, even if said grounds were later on overruled
by the RTC, said court was still of opinion that respondents were fit to serve 1st ISSUE: WON the decision of the probate court should be affirmed?
as executors notwithstanding their earlier opposition. Again, in the absence
of palpable error or gross abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere HELD: Yes. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that
with the RTCs discretion. letters of administration should be granted, first, to the surviving husband
or wife; second, to other relatives in the order named; third, in case the
3rd ISSUE: WON petitioners’ act of strongly objecting to the transfer to the surviving wife or next of kin or person selected by them be unsuitable, the
Philippines of the Marcos assets deposited in the Swiss Banks, should serve administration may be granted to some other person, such as one of the
as a ground for their disqualification to act as executors? principal creditors; and fourth, if there is no such creditor competent and
willing to serve, the administration may go to such person as the court may
HELD: No. In the first place, the same are mere allegations which, without appoint.
proof, deserve scant consideration. Time and again, this Court has stressed
that this Court is a court of law and not a court of public opinion. Moreover, 2nd ISSUE (if asked): WON the court erred in taking into consideration the
petitioner had already raised the same argument in its motion for partial claim that Tan Po Pic, deceased, had a Chinese wife in China?
reconsideration before the RTC. Said court, however, still did not find the
same as a sufficient ground to disqualify respondents. Again, in the absence HELD: No. It must be remembered that the probate court did not find as a
fact that there was a wife in China; nor does his appointment of a third
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

person determine the fact of the existence of another wife in China. The RULING: The principal consideration reckoned with in the appointment of
court considered the facts and circumstances as they were presented in the the administrator of the estate of a deceased person is the interest in said
proceedings and upon the whole believed it for the best interest of all estate of the one to be appointed as such administrator. This is the same
concerned to appoint as administrator a disinterested third person, consideration which the law takes into account in establishing the
particularly in view of the fact that there was likely to be litigation between preference of the widow to administer the estate of her husband, upon the
Marta Torres and the Chinese wife as to which is in fact his legal wife and latter's death, because she is supposed to have an interest therein as a
entitled to an interest in the estate of the deceased Tan Po Pic. We do not partner in the conjugal partnership. But this preference established by law
find the errors assigned sufficient to warrant any action on the part of this is not absolute, if there are other reasons justifying the appointment of
court. an administrator other than surviving spouse. If the interest in the
estate is what principally determines the preference in the appointment
3rd ISSUE (If asked): WON that the trial court erred in not finding that of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, and if, under the
Marta Torres was the lawful wife of the deceased Tan Po Pic? circumstances of each case, it develops that there is another who has
more interest therein than the surviving spouse, the preference
HELD: No. The court had a right in view of the controversy between the established in the latter's favor becomes untenable.
women to name a disinterested third person as administrator and leave the The application filed by Nicolasa de Guzman for her appointment alleges
controversy between them to be settled in the administration proceedings at that during the marital life of the deceased with his first wife Agatona
the proper time. Santos, both, through their mutual labor, acquired all the properties left by
the deceased, not having acquired any property during his second marriage
G.R. No. L-46134 April 18, 1939 with Angela Limcolioc.
In the Matter of the Intestate of Proceso de Guzman. If the properties left by the deceased Proceso de Guzman were acquired
NICOLASA DE GUZMAN, applicant-appellee, vs. ANGELA during his marriage with Agatona Santos, his children, among them
LIMCOLIOC, oppositor-appellant. Nicolasa, have more interest therein than his now widow, Angela
Limcolioc, who would only be entitled, by way of usufruct, to a portion
FACTS: Proceso de Guzman died on January 1, 1937, without leaving a equal to that corresponding to one of the children who has received no
will. The deceased was first married to Agatona Santos, with whom he had betterment.
four children, named Nicolasa, Apolinario, Ana and Tomasa. After
Agatona's death, the deceased contracted a second marriage with Angela G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953
Limcolioc, with whom he did not have any child. Intestate estate of the deceased Luis Morales, JOSE TORRES,
The Court of First Instance of Rizal appointed Nicolasa de Guzman judicial petitioner,
administratrix of the properties of the deceased Proceso de Guzman. PEDRO DE JESUS, administrator-appelle, vs. HERMENEGILDA
Angela Limcolioc, widow of the deceased, asked that this appointment be SICAT VDA. DE MORALES, oppositor-appellant.
set aside and that she had named administratrix instead, on that ground of FACTS: On August 25, 1950, Luis Morales, married to Hermenegilda
her preference as the widow. The court denied this petition and sustained Sicat, died in the municipality of Tarlac, Tarlac. Jose Torres alleging to be a
the appointment of Nicolasa. creditor of the conjugal partnership commenced this special proceeding in
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in appointing Nicolasa de Guzman as the Tarlac court petitioning for the issuance of letter of administration in
administratrix. NO. favor of Atty. Pedro B. De Jesus, for the purpose of settling the estate of the
deceased.
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

The widow voiced her opposition, and claimed preference to be appointed In our opinion it is a sound juridical principle that the administrator should
as administratrix. She said the only close relatives and forced heirs were her not adopt attitudes nor take steps inimical to the interests of the creditors.
six legitimate minor children, besides herself. The administration of the intestate is undertaken for the benefit of both the
heirs and the creditors but by creditors we mean those declared to be so in
The trial judge, disregarding the preference established by law for the appropriate proceedings. Before their credits are fully established they are
surviving widow, entered on August 16, 1951 an order appointing Atty. not "creditors" within the purview of the above principle. So it is not
Pedro B. De Jesus as administrator. improper — it is even proper — for the administrator or whoever is
ISSUE: WON this appointment should be upheld, ignoring the surviving proposed for appointment as such, to oppose, or to require competent proof
widows preferential right. NO. of, claims advanced against the estate. "The propriety of contesting
particular claims must frequently be left largely to his discretion and no
RULING: Under section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, when a person presumption of bad faith or misconduct will be made against him."
dies intestate, administration should be granted:
On the other hand, the appealed order conceding that the evidence "showed
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or clearly that the surviving widow is fully competent in a high degree to
both, . . . ; administer the intestate of her deceased husband", plainly indicates that
except for her supposed hostility to creditors she was suitable for the trust.
(b) if such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
Consequently, having found that her attitude did not per se constitute
the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, . . . it may be
antagonism to the creditors, we must necessarily declare and enforce
granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to
her superior right to appointment as administratrix under Rule 78.
serve;
G.R. No. 183053 October 10, 2012
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be
granted to such other person as the court may select. EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioner, vs. ISABEL COJUANGCO-
SUNTAY, Respondent.
The order of preference provided in this section is founded on the
assumption that the persons preferred are suitable. If they are not, the FACTS: The decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina) died intestate
court may entirely disregard the preference thus provided. This is the on 4 June 1990. Cristina was survived by her spouse, Dr. Federico Suntay
reason for the rule that in the selection of an administrator courts may (Federico) and five grandchildren: three legitimate grandchildren, including
exercise discretion, and, as stated elsewhere, the person appearing in the herein respondent, Isabel; and two illegitimate grandchildren, including
order of preference may not be appointed where he appears to be unsuitable petitioner Emilio III, all by Federico’s and Cristina’s only child, Emilio A.
for the trust, he having an adverse interest or is hostile to the interested Suntay (Emilio I), who predeceased his parents.
parties to such an extent as to make his selection inadvisable. But, of course,
the order of preference may be disregarded only when the reasons therefor The illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita, were both reared
are positive and clear." from infancy by the spouses Federico and Cristina. Their legitimate
grandchildren, Isabel and her siblings, Margarita and Emilio II, lived with
The trial judge was cognizant of this statutory preference. But he expressly their mother Isabel Cojuangco, following the separation of Isabel’s parents,
stated his reason for disregarding it, saying in effect: "Apparently the Emilio I and Isabel Cojuangco.
amount of credits exceeds the value of the conjugal assets; therefore the
interest of the creditors deserves paramount consideration. Now inasmuch On 27 September 1993, more than three years after Cristina’s death,
as the widow has shown hostility to the creditors by openly disputing their Federico adopted his illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita.
credits, she is therefore unsuitable, for having adverse interests. On 26 October 1995, respondent Isabel, filed before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan, a petition for the issuance of letters of
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

administration over Cristina’s estate. Federico, opposed the petition. decedent’s estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate,
Federico nominated Emilio III to administer the decedent’s estate on his but an interest therein greater than any other candidate.
behalf in the event letters of administration issues to Federico.
Consequently, Emilio III filed an Opposition-In-Intervention, echoing the It is to this requirement of observation of the order of preference in the
allegations in his grandfather’s opposition, alleging that Federico, or in his appointment of administrator of a decedent’s estate, that the
stead, Emilio III, was better equipped than respondent to administer and appointment of co-administrators has been allowed, but as an
manage the estate of the decedent, Cristina. exception. We again refer to Section 6(a) of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court
which specifically states that letters of administration may be issued to both
On 13 November 2000, Federico died. the surviving spouse and the next of kin. In addition and impliedly, we can
refer to Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court which say that “x x x
Almost a year thereafter or on 9 November 2001, the trial court rendered a when an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed, the
decision appointing Emilio III as administrator of decedent Cristina’s remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, x x x.”
intestate estate.
Under certain circumstances and for various reasons well-settled in
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Philippine and American jurisprudence, we have upheld the appointment of
RTC, revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III, and co-administrators: (1) to have the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at
appointed respondent as administratrix of the subject estate. all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity
On appeal by certiorari, we reversed and set aside the ruling of the appellate demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management
court. We decided to include Emilio III as co-administrator of Cristina’s of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any
estate, giving weight to his interest in Federico’s estate. cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested
persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best
ISSUE: Who, as between Emilio III and Isabel, is better qualified to act as interests of the estate; and when a person entitled to the administration of an
administrator of the decedent’s estate? ISABEL. estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the
office.
RULING: The general rule in the appointment of administrator of the
estate of a decedent is laid down in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court. The collected teaching is that mere demonstration of interest in the
Textually, the rule lists a sequence to be observed, an order of preference, in estate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested person to co-
the appointment of an administrator. This order of preference, which administration thereof. Neither does squabbling among the heirs nor
categorically seeks out the surviving spouse, the next of kin and the adverse interests necessitate the discounting of the order of preference
creditors in the appointment of an administrator, has been reinforced in set forth in Section 6, Rule 78. Indeed, in the appointment of
jurisprudence. administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal
consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over
appointed as administrator. Given Isabel’s unassailable interest in the
the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest in the
estate as one of the decedent’s legitimate grandchildren and undoubted
estate. This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into
nearest “next of kin,” the appointment of Emilio III as co-administrator of
account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of
the same estate, cannot be a demandable right. It is a matter left entirely to
administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those who
the sound discretion of the Court and depends on the facts and the attendant
will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of the
circumstances of the case.
estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence
or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to Contrary to the assumption made in the Decision that Emilio III’s
administer the estate correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an demonstrable interest in the estate makes him a suitable co-administrator
order of preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a thereof, the evidence reveals that Emilio III has turned out to be an
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

unsuitable administrator of the estate. Respondent Isabel points out that JOSE D. VILLEGAS, Administrator, ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ,
after Emilio III’s appointment as administrator of the subject estate in 2001, movant-appellee, vs. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, and RIZALINA SANTOS
he has not looked after the welfare of the subject estate and has actually RIVERA, oppositors-appellants.
acted to the damage and prejudice.
FACTS: On November 11, 1954, Irene Santos died intestate, leaving as her
The general denial made by Emilio III does not erase his unsuitability as only heirs her surviving spouse Jose D. Villegas and two nieces —
administrator rooted in his failure to “make and return x x x a true and daughters of a deceased brother, Rizalina Santos Rivera and Adela Santos
complete inventory” which became proven fact when he actually filed Gutierrez. Thereafter, the surviving spouse filed with the Rizal CFI, Pasay
partial inventories before the probate court and by his inaction on two City Branch, a petition for Letters of Administration (Sp. Proc. No. 2100),
occasions of Federico’s exclusion of Cristina’s other compulsory heirs, and was appointed administrator of the estate. In the petition, he named as
herein Isabel and her siblings, from the list of heirs. intestate heirs, besides himself, Rizalina Santos Rivera and Adela Santos
Gutierrez.
As administrator, Emilio III enters into the office, posts a bond and executes
an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of settling the decedent’s estate An unverified manifestation signed by Adela Gutierrez, accompanied by a
with the end in view of distribution to the heirs, if any. This he failed to do. public instrument entitled "Kasulatan ng Bilihan at Salinan", whereby Adela
renounced all her rights, interests and participation in the estate in favor of
In this case, palpable from the evidence on record, the pleadings, and her sister, Rizalina, was presented to the Probate Court.
the protracted litigation, is the inescapable fact that Emilio III and
respondent Isabel have a deep aversion for each other. To our mind, it Adela averred that the deed of assignment of her rights, participation and
becomes highly impractical, nay, improbable, for the two to work as co- interest in the estate of Irene Santos and the first manifestation were
administrators of their grandmother’s estate. The allegations of Emilio obtained thru fraud practiced by the administrator upon her and were
III, the testimony of Federico and the other witnesses for Federico and vitiated by mistake or undue influence.
Emilio III that Isabel and her siblings were estranged from their
grandparents further drive home the point that Emilio III bears hostility On February 9, 1956, Adela presented with the Probate Court, a motion
towards Isabel. More importantly, it appears detrimental to the decedent’s praying that the administrator and/or his attorneys be required to furnish her
estate to appoint a co-administrator (Emilio III) who has shown an adverse all copies of pleadings filed or to be filed in the intestate proceedings, it
interest of some kind or hostility to those, such as herein respondent Isabel, appearing that the administrator presented pleadings in Court without
immediately interested in the said estate. serving her copies thereof.
An opposition was interposed by the administrator, who alleged that the
RULE 79 Opposing Issuance of Letters of movant, although originally a party to the probate proceeding, has
voluntarily and expressly desisted from being so, and that having assigned
Testamentary. Petition and Contest for Letters by sale, all her rights, interests and participations in the estate, she has no
of Administration longer any legal standing in the case.
ISSUE: WON Adela Santos Gutierrez is still entitled to be furnished with
INTERESTED PARTY pleadings filed by the administrator in the probate proceedings and orders
therein issued by the lower court. YES.
G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962
RULING: Adela Santos Gutierrez is an indispensable party to the
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE proceedings in question. Her interest in the estate is not inchoate, it was
DECEASED IRENE SANTOS. established at the time of death of Irene Santos on November 11, 1954.
While it is true that she executed a deed of assignment, it is also a fact
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

that she asked the same to be annulled, which action is now pending G.R. No. L-23372 June 14, 1967
before the Rizal CFI, Pasig Branch. Although Adela had filed a
manifestation dropping herself from the proceedings and presenting IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE PIO DURAN.
therewith the supposed Deed of Assignment, the record, nevertheless fails CIPRIANO DURAN and MIGUEL DURAN, petitioners-appellants,
to show that action thereon had been taken by the probate Court. Every act vs. JOSEFINA B. DURAN, movant-oppositor and appellee.
intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees FACTS: Pio Duran died without testament on February 28, 1961 in
is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an Guinobatan Albay. Among his alleged heirs are Josefina Duran, as
exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction (Art. 1082, NCC). No surviving spouse; several brothers and sisters; nephews and nieces.
serious argument can be offered to deny the co-heirship of appellee in the
estate under probate. It appearing (if We assume the due execution of the Subsequent to his death, on June 2, 1962, Cipriano Duran, one of the
Deed of Assignment), that the transaction is in the nature of extrajudicial surviving brothers, executed a public instrument assigning and renouncing
partition, court approval is imperative, and the heirs cannot just divest the his hereditary rights to the decedent's estate in favor of Josefina Duran, for
court of its jurisdiction over the estate and over their persons, by the mere the consideration of P2,500.00.
act of assignment and desistance.
A year later, on June 8, 1963, Cipriano Duran filed in the Court of First
We agree with appellee that the motion in question is not one of Instance of Albay a petition for intestate proceedings to settle Pio Duran's
intervention, but solely a plea to enforce a right and that is to receive estate, further asking that he be named the administrator.
pleadings and orders related to the case. Evidently, the use of the word
Against said petition, Josefina Duran filed on August 9, 1963 an opposition,
"intervention" in the manifestation and pleadings presented by Adela was
praying for its dismissal upon the ground that the petitioner is not an
resorted to for want of another appropriate word. In effect, all she wanted to
"interested person" in the estate, in view of the deed of transfer and
convey was that she should participate or continue taking part in the case
renunciation the estate; in the alternative, she asked to be appointed
for being an original party therein. It was her belief that in filing the
administratrix.
manifestation dropping herself from the proceedings (but which she later
informed the court to have been secured thru fraud), her standing might ISSUE: WON Cipriano Duran is an interested person in the estate. NO.
have been affected. Intervention as contemplated by the Rules is a
proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the RULING: The Rules of Court provides that a petition for administration
court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is and settlement of an estate must be filed by an "interested person."
sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of Appellants contend that the deed of assignment executed by Cipriano did
plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or not operate to render him a person without interest in the estate. Relying on
proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending In re Irene Santos, L-11848, May 31, 1962, they argue that an assignment
between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original by one heir of his share in the estate to a co-heir amounts to a partition
party to pending legal proceedings, which such person becomes a party needing approval by the settlement court to be effective; and that the
thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be assigning heir does not lose his status as a person interested in the estate,
affected by such proceedings. The circumstances stated above do not fit even after said assignment is approved by the court.
the status of Adela in the probate proceedings; she was not a third
person; she was an original party therein. The situation in the Santos case involves an assignment between co-heirs
pendente lite, during the course of settlement proceedings, properly and
We see no prejudice to be suffered by the administrator and Rizalina, if they validly commenced. At the time of said assignment, therefore, the
are required to furnish copies of their pleadings to appellee. On the contrary, settlement court had already acquired jurisdiction over the properties of
doing so, will give appellee her day in court and provide protection to the estate. As a result, any assignment regarding the same had to be approved
administrator himself. by said court. And since the approval the court is not deemed final until the
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

estate is closed the assigning heir remains an interested person in no such allegation, the action becomes one to compel recognition which
proceedings even after said approval, which can be vacated is given. cannot be brought after the death of the putative father.
In the present case, however, the assignment took place when no settlement The Motion was denied.
proceedings was pending. The properties subject matter of the assignment
were not under the jurisdiction of a settlement court. Allowing that the CA: upheld the denial of petitioners motion and directed the trial court to
assignment must be deemed a partition as between the assignor and proceed with the case with dispatch.
assignee, the same does not need court approval to be effective as between
the parties. An extrajudicial partition is valid as between the participants ISSUE: WON respondents petition for the issuance of letters of
even if the requisites of Sec. 1, Rule 74 for extrajudicial partition are not administration sufficiently states a cause of action considering that
followed, since said requisites are for purposes of binding creditors and respondent merely alleged therein that she is an illegitimate child of the
non-participating heirs only. Should it be contended that said partition was decedent, without stating that she had been acknowledged or recognized as
attended with fraud, lesion or inadequacy of price, the remedy is to rescind such by the latter. YES
or to annul the same in an action for that purpose. And in the meanwhile,
assigning heir cannot initiate a settlement proceedings, for until the HELD: Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for the
deed of assignment is annulled or rescinded, it is deemed valid and issuance of letters of administration must be filed by an interested person or
effective against him, so that he is left without that "interest" in the one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a
estate required to petition for settlement proceedings. claim against the estate, such as a creditor. This interest, furthermore, must
be material and direct, not merely indirect or contingent.
G.R. No. 174680
Essentially, the petition for the issuance of letters of administration is a suit
Tayag v. Tayag for the settlement of the intestate estate of Ismael Tayag. The right of
respondent to maintain such a suit is dependent on whether she is entitled to
FACTS: Respondent herein, Felicidad A. Tayag-Gallor, filed a petition for successional rights as an illegitimate child of the decedent which, in turn,
the issuance of letters of administration over the estate of Ismael may be established through voluntary or compulsory recognition.
Tayag. Respondent alleged that she is one of the three (3) illegitimate
children of the late Ismael Tayag and Ester C. Angeles. The decedent was Voluntary recognition must be express such as that in a record of birth
married to petitioner herein, Victoria C. Tayag, but the two allegedly did appearing in the civil register, a final judgment, a public instrument or
not have any children of their own. private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. The
voluntary recognition of an illegitimate child by his or her parent needs no
Ismael Tayag died intestate, leaving behind two (2) real properties both of further court action and is, therefore, not subject to the limitation that the
which are in the possession of petitioner, and a motor vehicle which the action for recognition be brought during the lifetime of the putative parent.
latter sold preparatory to the settlement of the decedents estate. Judicial or compulsory recognition, on the other hand, may be demanded
by the illegitimate child of his parents and must be brought during the
Petitioner opposed the petition and prayed for the dismissal of the suit lifetime of the presumed parents.
because respondent failed to state a cause of action.
Petitioners thesis is essentially based on her contention that by Ismael
In a Motion, petitioner reiterated her sole ownership of the properties and Tayags death, respondents illegitimate filiation and necessarily, her interest
presented the transfer certificates of title thereof in her name. She also in the decedents estate which the Rules require to be material and direct,
averred that it is necessary to allege that respondent was acknowledged may no longer be established. Petitioner, however, overlooks the fact that
and recognized by Ismael Tayag as his illegitimate child. There being
 BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

respondents successional rights may be established not just by a judicial

In contrast, respondent in this case had not been given the opportunity to
present evidence to show whether she had been voluntarily recognized and
acknowledged by her deceased father because of petitioners opposition to
her petition and motion for hearing on affirmative defenses. There is, as yet,
no way to determine if her petition is actually one to compel recognition
which had already been foreclosed by the death of her father, or whether
indeed she has a material and direct interest to maintain the suit by reason of
the decedents voluntary acknowledgment or recognition of her illegitimate
filiation.

We find, therefore, that the allegation that respondent is an illegitimate child

The appellate court was, therefore, correct in allowing the proceedings to