Santos v.

Castillo 64 Phil 211 (1937)

FACTS:
Petitioner Emerita Santos, in her behalf and as guardian of the minor acknowledge natural children of the
deceased, filed a petition for probate of the will of Nicolas Azores. She also filed a motion for the appointment of a
special administrator. At the hearing, respondents Jose, Sinfrosa and Antonio Azores, legitimate children of the
deceased filed their opposition, on the ground that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the casepetitioners
allegations being insufficient to confer jurisdiction because she did not allege that she had the custody of the will, and
therefore, was not entitled to present it for probate; and furtherance because the will that should be probated is the
original and not a copy thereof, as the one presented by the petitioner. Petitioner filed an amended petition praying
that respondents be required to present the copies of the will and the codicil in their possession.
Court issued an order denying the petition for the appointment of a special administrator by petitioner and
ordered Jose Azores, who has custody of the last will and testament and all other documents in relation thereto, to
deliver said papers to the court within 10 days from notice. Consequently, petitioner filed a motion praying that her
amended petition be admitted. However, before this motion was decided, respondents, 16 days after their fathers
death, presented the original of the will and codicil, and petitioned that they be admitted for probate.
The court issued an order dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
ISSUE: [1] Who is entitled to apply for probate?
[2] W/N Court has acquired jurisdiction
HELD: [1] Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no will shall pass either real or personal estate,
unless it is proved and allowed. For this purpose, section 626 provides that the person who has the custody of he
will shall, within 30 days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to the court which has jurisdiction,
or to the executor named in the will. Sections 628 and 629 proscribed coercive means to compel a person having
the custody of a will to deliver it to the court having jurisdiction.
Petitioner alleged that the deceased designated nobody as custodian of his will but that he directed his
nephew Manuel Azores to deliver a copy thereof to her, to keep one in his (Manuels) possession, and to turn over
the other two copies to his son Jose Azores, with instructions to the effect that if petitioner or his son failed to present
said will for probate, Manuel should take charge of presenting it to the court.
Taking everything into account therefore, it is of the Courts view that Jose Azores, the son of the deceased,
had the custody of the will because the original thereof was turned over to him.
For the sake of argument, however, admitting that the testator had designated nobody as custodian of the
will, it cannot be denied that his act of subsequently making a codicil and entrusting the custody thereof to his
legitimate children, clearly modified his last will. In this sense, the custody of both is entrusted to his legitimate
children and not to Manuel Azores or to petitioner.
Hence, as the legitimate children of the deceased had custody 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's last will.
[2] In order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will and for the
administration of the properties left by a deceased person, the application must allege, in addition to the residence of
the deceased and 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 original of said document must be presented or sufficient
reasons given to justify the non-representation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate thereof.
Inasmuch as these requisites had not been complied with in the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent
judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in dismissing the application in question.