SP13.1 Guevarra v. Guevarra, 98 Phil.

249 (1956)

FACTS: Victorino Guevara executed a will, distributing assorted movables and a residential lot
among his children and stepchildren. Victorino bequeathed to his wife, Augustia Posadas, in
addition to various movables, a portion (25 hectares) out of a 259-hectare parcel of land + five
hectares in settlement of her widows usufruct. The rest of said parcel was distributed as follows:
100 hectares reserved for disposal during Victorinos lifetime and for payment of his debts
and family expenses
108.08+ hectares to his legitimate son Ernesto Guevara, and 21.6 hectares for his hija
natural reconocida [Recognized natural daughter? Yo no hablo Espaol.], Rosario
Guevara.
Victorino executed a deed of sale in favor of Ernesto, conveying to the latter the southern half of
the 259-hectare lot, and expressly recognized him [Ernesto] as owner of the northern half. Later
on, a TCT was issued in the name of Ernesto for the whole tract of land. Soon, Victorino died.
Victorinos last will was never presented for probate, nor was there any settlement proceeding
initiated. 4 years later, Rosario, on the assumption that Victorino had died intestate, brought suit
against Ernesto to recover 423,492 square meters of the land as the portion that should
correspond to her by way of legitime. THE case reached the CA and was decided in Rosarios
favor, but upon certiorari, the SC modified the judgment, holding that the lower courts ruling
that one-half of the land belongs to Victorinos estate, and the other half, to Ernesto, in
consideration of his assumption of the obligation to pay all the debts of the deceased is affirmed,
but the judgment of the CA insofar as it awarded any relief to Rosario is reversed and set aside,
and that the parties are ordered to present the will to the proper court for probate in accordance
with law. Claiming to act pursuant to the foregoing decision, Rosario commenced Spec. Proc. No.
2646 in the Pangasinan CFI for the probate of Victorino's will Ernesto opposed the probate, and
filed a motion to dismiss, grounded on:
(a) the petition itself alleging that the will was revoked;
(b) that whatever right to probate the parties may have had has already prescribed; and
(c) the purpose of the probate being solely to have Rosario be declared an acknowledged
natural child of the deceased
CFI denied the motion to dismiss. Ernesto filed a motion for reconsideration = approved, petition
dismissed grounds:
petition did not ask for the probate in toto of the will, contrary to the SCs order; and
her right to petition for the probate of the will had prescribed

Rosario appealed to the CA w/c affirmed the lower courts decision, w/ modification. Hence this
petition.

ISSUES:
1. Can probate proceedings be dispensed with?
2. Is the petition for probate of Victorinos will barred by the statute of limitations (having been
filed 12 years after his death)?
RULING: NO, and NO. SC affirmed CA ruling in toto. The presentation of a decedents will to the
competent court has always been deemed by the law as more of a duty than a right. The neglect
of such obligation carries with it the corresponding penalty and it is inconsistent with that policy
that the court should refuse to admit wills to probate, without inquiry into their validity. The
authority given to testators to dispose freely of a portion of their estate would be imperfectly
safeguarded, unless adequate measures were provided by the state to assure that the wishes of
the deceased would be carried out.

Sec. 1, Rule 74, cc. Rule 76: if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees
desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to the
court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will. The heirs may not disregard
the provisions of the will unless those provisions are contrary to law. Neither may they do away
with the presentation of the will to the court for probate, because such suppression of the will is
contrary to law and public policy. The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy
requires it, because unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world,
the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory, as is
attempted to be done in the instant case

Also: The law on the probate of wills excludes the proceeding from the purview of the statute of
limitations: any person interested in the estate may, at any time after the death of the testator,
petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed