Sanchez vs CA GR No 108947

Facts:

“[Herein private respondent] Rosalia S. Lugod is the only child of spouses Juan C.
Sanchez and Maria Villafranca while [herein private respondents] Arturo S. Lugod,
Evelyn L. Ranises and Roberto S. Lugod are the legitimate children of [herein private
respondent] Rosalia.
[Herein petitioners] Rolando, Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna, all surnamed Sanchez,
are the illegitimate children of Juan C. Sanchez.
On October 30, 1969, however, [herein private respondent] Rosalia and [herein
petitioners] assisted by their respective counsels executed a compromise agreement
(Annex ‘D’, Petition) wherein they agreed to divide the properties enumerated therein of
the late Juan C. Sanchez.

This compromise agreement was not approved by the probate court.

Issue:

Is the Compromise Agreement partitioning the property of the estate without approval of
the probate court valid?

Held:

Yes.
Petitioners contend that, because the compromise agreement was executed during the
pendency of the probate proceedings, judicial approval is necessary to shroud it with
validity. They stress that the probate court had jurisdiction over the properties covered
by said agreement. They add that Petitioners Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna were all
minors represented only by their mother/natural guardian, Laureta Tampus.
These contentions lack merit. Article 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise
agreement as “a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid
a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.” Being a consensual contract, it is
perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the parties. Judicial approval is not required
for its perfection. Petitioners’ argument that the compromise was not valid for lack of
judicial approval is not novel; the same was raised in Mayuga vs. Court of Appeals,]
where the Court, through Justice Irene R. Cortes, ruled:
 “It is alleged that the lack of judicial approval is fatal to the compromise. A
compromise is a consensual contract. As such, it is perfected upon the meeting
of the minds of the parties to the contract. (Hernandez v. Barcelon, 23 Phil. 599
[1912]; see also De los Reyes v. de Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505 [1945].) And from that
moment not only does it become binding upon the parties (De los Reyes v. De
Ugarte, supra ), it also has upon them the effect and authority of res judicata
(Civil Code, Art. 2037), even if not judicially approved (Meneses v. De la Rosa,
77 Phil. 34 [1946]; Vda. De Guilas v. David, 132 Phil. 241, L-24280, 23 SCRA
762 [May 27, 1968]; Cochingyan v. Cloribel, L-27070-71 [April 22, 1977], 76
SCRA 361).” (Italics found in the original.)
In the case before us, it is ineludible that the parties knowingly and freely entered into a
valid compromise agreement. Adequately assisted by their respective counsels, they
each negotiated its terms and provisions for four months; in fact, said agreement was
executed only after the fourth draft. As noted by the trial court itself, the first and second
drafts were prepared successively in July, 1969; the third draft on September 25, 1969;
and the fourth draft, which was finally signed by the parties on October 30, 1969,
followed. Since this compromise agreement was the result of a long drawn out process,
with all the parties ably striving to protect their respective interests and to come out with
the best they could, there can be no doubt that the parties entered into it freely and
voluntarily. Accordingly, they should be bound thereby. To be valid, it is merely required
under the law to be based on real claims and actually agreed upon in good faith by the
parties thereto.
Indeed, compromise is a form of amicable settlement that is not only allowed but also
encouraged in civil cases. Article 2029 of the Civil Code mandates that a “court shall
endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.”
In opposing the validity and enforcement of the compromise agreement, petitioners harp
on the minority of Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna. Citing Article 2032 of the Civil
Code, they contend that the court’s approval is necessary in compromises entered into
by guardians and parents in behalf of their wards or children.
It is also significant that all the parties, including the then minors, had already
consummated and availed themselves of the benefits of their compromise. This Court
has consistently ruled that “a party to a compromise cannot ask for a rescission after it
has enjoyed its benefits.”By their acts, the parties are ineludibly estopped from
questioning the validity of their compromise agreement.
Heirs of Reyes vs Reyes 139587 2000

Facts:

Leoncia Reyes and three out of four children decided to execute a deed denominated
Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli, where they sold land to the Spouses Benedicto
Francia and Monica Ajoco (Spouses Francia) for P500.00, subject to the vendors right
to repurchase for the same amount sa oras na sila'y makinabang. Leoncia and her
children did not repay the amount of P500.00. Alejandro Reyes, one Leoncia’
grandchildren, repaid the P500.00 from the Spouses Francia. By virtue of his payment,
Alejandro executed a Kasulatan ng Pagmeme-ari, wherein he declared that he had
acquired all the rights and interests of the heirs of the Spouses Francia, including the
ownership of the property, after the vendors had failed to repurchase within the given
period. Nevertheless, Alejandro, Leoncia, and his father Jose, Sr. executed an
additional document Magkakalakip na Salaysay, by which Alejandro acknowledged the
right of Leoncia, Jose, Jr., and Jose, Sr. to repurchase the property at any time for the
same amount of P500.00.

After Alejandro’s death, Amanda Reyes, the wife of Alejandro Reyes, asked his
deceased husband’s cousins to vacate the property because she and her children
already needed it. Respondents alleged that their predecessor Alejandro had acquired
ownership of the property by virtue of the deed Pagsasa-ayos ng Pag-aari at
Pagsasalin; that on the basis of such deed of assignment, Alejandro had consolidated
his ownership of the property via his Kasulatan ng Pagmeme-ari; and that under the
Magkasanib na Salaysay, Alejandro had granted to Leoncia, his father Jose, Sr., and
his uncles, Teofilo and Jose, Jr. the right to repurchase the property, but they had failed
to do so.

The petitioners averred that the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli was an equitable
mortgage, not a pacto de retro sale; that the mortgagors had retained ownership of the
property; that the heirs of the Spouses Francia could not have validly sold the property
to Alejandro through the Pagsasaayos ng Pag-aari at Pagsasalin; that Alejandros right
was only to seek reimbursement of the P500.00 he had paid from the co-owners.

The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents declaring that Alejandro had acquired
ownership of the property in 1965 by operation of law upon the failure of the petitioners
predecessors to repurchase the property; that the joint affidavit executed by Alejandro,
Leoncia and Jose, Jr. and Jose, Sr., to extend the period of redemption was
inefficacious, because there was no more period to extend due to the redemption period
having long lapsed by the time of its execution.

The CA reversed the finding of the trial court and ruled that that the transaction covered
by the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli was not a pacto de retro sale but an equitable
mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code; that even after the deeds execution,
Leoncia, Teofilo, Jose, Jr. and their families had remained in possession of the property
and continued paying realty taxes for the property; that the purported vendees had not
declared the property for taxation purposes under their own names; and that such
circumstances proved that the parties envisaged an equitable mortgage in the
Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are now barred from claiming that the transaction
under the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli was an equitable mortgage by their failure
to redeem the property for a long period of time?

Held: No, considering that sa oras na silay makinabang, the period of redemption
stated in the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli, signified that no definite period had
been stated, the period to redeem should be ten years from the execution of the
contract, pursuant to Articles 1142 and 1144 of the Civil Cod. The acceptance of the
payments even beyond the 10-year period of redemption estopped the mortgagees
heirs from insisting that the period to redeem the property had already expired. Their
actions impliedly recognized the continued existence of the equitable mortgage. The
conduct of the original parties as well as of their successors-in-interest manifested that
the parties to the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli really intended their transaction to
be an equitable mortgage, not a pacto de retro sale.

Alaban vs CA

FACTS:

Petitioners maintain that they were not made parties to the case in which the decision
sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus, they could not have availed of the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment and other
appropriate remedies, contrary to the ruling of the CA.

ISSUE:

W/N Petitioners were made parties in the proceedings

HELD:

Petitioners in this case are mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not become
parties to the probate proceedings.

Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that
with the corresponding publication of the petition the court’s jurisdiction extends to all
persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent.

Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they
eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of
hearing.

On the other hand, according to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.

Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate
heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules.
Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or
to personally notify them of the same.

Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported
infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice.

SUMILANG V. RAMAGOSA 21 SCRA 1369

FACTS
Mariano Sumilang filed a petition for theprobate of a document alleged to be thelast will
and testament of HilarionRamagosa. Said document institutesMariano as the sole heir
of the testator.The petition was opposed by two SaturninaRamagosa, et. al, who
questioned the dueexecution of the document, claiming thatit was made under duress
and was notreally intended by the deceased to be hislast will and testament. Saturnino
andSantiago Ramagosa also claimed thatthey, instead of Mariano, were entitled
toinherit the estate of the deceased.After Mariano presented evidence andrested his
case, oppositors moved for thedismissal of the petition on the ground thatdecedent
revoked his will by implication oflaw six years before his death by selling theparcels of
land to Mariano Sumilang andhis brother Mario so that at the time of thetestator's death,
the titles to said landswere no longer in his name.On the other hand, Mariano moved
tostrike out oppositors pleadings on theground that the oppositors have no interestin the
probate of the will as they have norelationship with the decedent within thefifth degree.
The lower court ruled in favor of Mariano stating that the allegations ofthe oppositors go
to the very intrinsic valueof the will and since the oppositors have nostanding to oppose
the probate of the willas they are strangers, their pleadings areordered stricken out from
the record.
ISSUE
Whether the probate court should passupon the intrinsic validity of the will.

HELD
The petition being for the probate of a will,the court's area of inquiry is limited to
theextrinsic validity only. The testator'stestamentary capacity and thecompliance with
the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the onlyquestions presented
for the resolution ofthe court. Any inquiry into the intrinsicvalidity or efficacy of the
provisions of thewill or the legality of any devise or legacy ispremature (Nuguid vs.
Nuguid).To establish conclusively as againsteveryone and once for all, the facts that
awill was executed with the formalitiesrequired by law and that the testator wasin a
condition to make a will, is the onlypurpose of the proceedings . . . for theprobate of a
will. The judgment in suchproceedings determines and candetermine nothing more.
(Alemany, et al.vs. CFI of Manila)True or not, the alleged sale is no groundfor the
dismissal of the petition for probate.Probate is one thing the validity of thetestamentary
provisions is another. The firstdecides the execution of the documentand the
testamentary capacity of thetestator; the second relates to descentand distributionThe
revocation invoked by the oppositors isnot an express one, but merely impliedfrom
subsequent acts of the testatrixallegedly evidencing an abandonment ofthe original
intention to bequeath or devisethe properties concerned. As such, therevocation would
not affect the will itself,but merely the particular devise or legacy

Guevara v. Guevara Digest 98 Phil 249

Facts:
1. Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made various bequests t his
wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He has a legitimate son Ernesto and a
natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he acknowledged Rosario as his natural daughter.

2. In 1933, Victorino died but his last will was never presented for probate nor was there
any settlement proceeding initiated. It appeared that only his son Ernest possessed the
land which he adjudicated to himself. While Rosario who had the will in her custody, did
nothing to invoke the acknowledgment, as well as the devise given to her.

3. Subsequently, Rosario filed an action for the recovery of her legitime from Ernesto, a
portion of a large parcel of land invoking the acknowledgment contained in the will and
based on the assumption that the decedent died intestate because his will was not
probated. She alleged that the disposition in favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.

4. The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory.

Issue: Whether or not the probate of a will can be dispensed with

RULING: No. Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an attempt to
circumvent the last will and testament of the decedent. The presentation of a will to the
court for probate is mandatory and its allowance is essential and indispensable to its
efficacy.

Suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy for without probate, the right
of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.

Cuenco vs. CA G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973

FACTS:

Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two
minor sons, residing in Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing in Cebu.
Lourdes, one of the children from the first marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of
Administration with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the senator died
intestate in Manila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.

The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco, the second wife, filed
a petition with CFI Rizal for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was
named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but
this court held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon shall have
acted on the probate proceedings.

Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, on ground of lack of
jurisdiction and/or improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The opposition and motion to dismiss were denied.
Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of prohibition to CFI
Quezon.

ISSUEs:

 Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition

 Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the
probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly consenting in
deference to the precedence of probate over intestate proceedings

HELD:
The Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against
the Quezon City court from proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and
setting aside all its orders and actions, particularly its admission to probate of the last
will and testament of the deceased and appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof
without bond pursuant to the deceased testator's wish.

On Venue and Jurisdiction

Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
decent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction
over the subject matter but merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect the
prompt administration of justice.

The court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognizance of the
settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all
other courts.

SALAZAR vs. CFI OF LAGUNA AND RIVERA, 64 PHIL 78 (1937)

FACTS:
Crispin Oben instituted special proceeding and prayed for the probate of the will
allegedly made by his deceased mother on May 13, 1924. The petition was opposed by
Sabina Rivera and prayed for the probate of the will of the deceased alleged made on
May 11, 1930, copy of which was attached thereto, and for the issuance, to that effect,
of the order setting the hearing thereof and directing such publications as required by
law.
The court denied the motion for publication and ordered the Rivera to institute
another proceeding and apply separately for the probate of the alleged will. The
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and the court, on March 31, 19937, issued
an order setting aside the former one and directing that the will presented by the
respondent be set for hearing, that the publications required by law be made and that
said will be heard jointly with the will presented by the petitioner in the same proceeding
instituted by the latter. Sometime later, the court ordered that the expenses for the
publications made in the newspapers be defrayed by the respondent.
The petitioner filed two motions for reconsideration which were denied and,
finally, instituted this certiorari proceeding. In order that the hearing and publications
ordered by the court may be carried out, the respondent, on July 20, 1937, deposited
P24 and filed the original of the will the probate of which had been sought by her.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the court acquired no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the counter-
petition for the probate of the second will, or to set the same for hearing of said will to be
held in the same proceeding jointly with the first will, on the ground that the respondent
had not previously filed her pleading nor paid the fees of the clerk of court.

HELD:
YES. Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction to probate a will when it is shown
by evidence before it:
(1) That a person has died leaving a will;
(2) in the case of a resident of this country, that he died in the province where the court
exercises territorial jurisdiction;
(3) in the case of a nonresident, that he has left a estate in the province where the court
is situated, and (4) that the testament or last will of the deceased has been delivered
to the court and is in the possession thereof.
According to the facts alleged and admitted by the parties, it is evident that the court
has acquired jurisdiction to probate the second will, in view of the presence of all the
jurisdictional facts above-stated. The respondent's counter-petition should, in this case,
be considered as a petition for the probate of the second will, the original of which was
filed by her on July 20, 1937.
The payment of the fees of the clerk of court for all services to be rendered by him in
connection with the probate of the second will and for the successive proceedings to be
conducted and others to be issued is not jurisdiction in the sense that its omission does
not deprive the court of its authority to proceed with the probate of a will

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA

PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS AND BENJAMIN GREGORIO
PALAGANAS VS. ERNESTO PALAGANAS

G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011

FACTS:
Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a naturalized United
States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she
executed in California, she designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the
executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.

Respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another brother of Ruperta, filed

with the a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special
administrator of her estate. However, petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel)
and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the
petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in
the U.S. where she executed it

The RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will; (b)
appointing respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the
U.S.-based executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special
Administration to Ernesto.

Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that an
unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the
first time in the Philippines.

The CA affirmed order of the RTC, holding that the RTC properly allowed the
probate of the will. The CA pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court
does not require prior probate and allowance of the will in the country of its execution,
before it can be probated in the Philippines. The present case is different from
reprobate, which refers to a will already probated and allowed abroad. Reprobate is
governed by different rules or procedures.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines
although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was
executed.

HELD:

Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the
decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has an
estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule
76 further state that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other
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, whether the same be in his
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.

Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so
far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and
residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the
probable value and character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the person
for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the
name of the person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death of
the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the province where the probate
court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such
province. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed
and probated in the country of its execution.

In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have been first probated and allowed by the
court of California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the
procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here. But, reprobate or re-
authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is different
from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court.
Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court. Contrary to
petitioners’ stance, since this latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will, it cannot be
made to apply to the present case. In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as
binding the findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter
can be established.

Besides, petitioners’ stand is fraught with impractically. If the instituted heirs do

not have the means to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is as good as depriving
them outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless the will has been proved and allowed by the proper
court.

G.R. No. L-9633 January 29, 1957

EMILIO SORIANO, vs. ANTONIO ASI,