Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Agtarap vs. Agtarap ( RULE 90) intestate proceedings of either.

—Section 2, Rule 73 of the


Rules of Court provides that when the marriage is dissolved
Settlement of Estates; Probate Courts; Jurisdiction; The by the death of the husband or the wife, the community
general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated,
a probate or an intestate court, relates only to matters having and the debts thereof paid; in the testate or intestate
to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the proceedings of the deceased spouse, and if both spouses have
estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate
determination of questions of ownership that arise during the or intestate proceedings of either. Thus, the RTC had
proceedings.—The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction to determine whether the properties are conjugal
trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only as it had to liquidate the conjugal partnership to determine the
to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or estate of the decedent. In fact, should Joseph and Teresa
settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not institute a settlement proceeding for the intestate estate of
extend to the determination of questions of ownership that Lucia, the same should be consolidated with the settlement
arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule proceedings of Joaquin, being Lucia’s spouse. Accordingly,
is that such court merely exercises special and limited the CA correctly distributed the estate of Lucia, with respect to
jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in the properties covered by TCT Nos. 38254 and 38255 subject
charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, of this case, to her compulsory heirs.
cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be
a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside Same; Inheritance Tax; Payment of the inheritance tax, per
parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the se, does not settle the estate of a deceased person.—Neither
deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his can Sebastian’s claim that Joaquin’s estate could have already
estate. All that the said court could do as regards said been settled in 1965 after the payment of the inheritance tax be
properties is to determine whether or not they should be upheld. Payment of the inheritance tax, per se, does not settle
included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the estate of a deceased person. As provided in Section 1, Rule
the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no 90 of the Rules of Court—SECTION 1. When order for
problem, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and distribution of residue made.—When the debts, funeral
the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the
a court exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in
of the conflicting claims of title. accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the
application of the executor or administrator, or of a person
Same; Same; Same; The jurisdiction of a probate court interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall
extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the
and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which
the status of each heir and whether the property in the each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover
inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or
spouse.—However, this general rule is subject to exceptions any other person having the same in his possession. If there is
as justified by expediency and convenience. First, the probate a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of
court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate the deceased person or as to the distributive share to which
proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be
inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to the final heard and decided as in ordinary cases. No distribution shall
determination of ownership in a separate action. Second, if the be allowed until the payment of the obligations above
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the
one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations
of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is within such time as the court directs. Thus, an estate is settled
competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its and distributed among the heirs only after the payment of the
jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the debts of the estate, funeral charges, expenses of
settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax.
determination of the status of each heir and whether the The records of these cases do not show that these were
property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of complied with in 1965.
the deceased spouse.

Same; Same; Same; When the marriage is dissolved by the San Luis vs. San Luis (RULE 73)
death of the husband or the wife, the community property
shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the Venue; In the case of Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals (74
debts thereof paid; in the testate or intestate proceedings of SCRA 189 [1976]), we laid down the doctrinal rule for
the deceased spouse, and if both spouses have died, the determining residence—as contradistinguished from domicile
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or —of the decedent for purposes of fixing the venue of

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
settlement of his estate.—Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and
estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
of the province “in which he resides at the time of his death.” another. If the attestation clause is in a language not known to
In the case of Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 189 the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. Art. 806. Every
(1976), we laid down the doctrinal rule for determining the will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
residence—as contradistinguished from domicile—of the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be
decedent for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the
his estate. Office of the Clerk of Court.

Same; For purpose of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, Same; Same; Same; The state of being forgetful does not
the residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render
habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may him unfit to execute a Will.—We agree with the position of the
not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided CA that the state of being forgetful does not necessarily make
he resides therein with continuity and consistency.—It is a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute
incorrect for petitioners to argue that “residence,” for purposes a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound
of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of mind. Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code states: Art.
Felicisimo, is synonymous with “domicile.” The rulings in 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator
Nuval and Romualdez are inapplicable to the instant case be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his
because they involve election cases. Needless to say, there is a mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by
distinction between “residence” for purposes of election laws disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the
and “residence” for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In testator was able at the time of making the will to know the
election cases, “residence” and “domicile” are treated as nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his
synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
which when absent, one has the intention of returning.
However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Same; Same; Same; A purported will is not to be denied
Court, the “residence” of a person is his personal, actual or legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very
physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its
which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact,
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. whether it will be probated would have to depend largely on
Hence, it is possible that a person may have his residence in the attitude of those interested in the estate of the deceased.—
one place and domicile in another. It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how
forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence
cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations.
Baltazar vs. Laxa ( RULE 75 and 76 ) Furthermore, “a purported will is not [to be] denied
legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very
Civil Law; Wills; Testamentary Succession; Due execution of institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its
the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact,
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in whether x x x it will be probated would have to depend largely
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.—Due on the attitude of those interested in [the estate of the
execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to deceased.
whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the
will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. Same; Same; Same; The very existence of the Will is in itself
These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the prima facie proof that the supposed testatrix has willed that
New Civil Code, to wit: Art. 805. Every will, other than a her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it
holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire
testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some be given full effect independent of the attitude of the parties
other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and affected thereby.—It bears stressing that “[i]rrespective x x x
attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in of the posture of any of the parties as regards the authenticity
the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or and due execution of the will x x x in question, it is the
the person requested by him to write his name and the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court
instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, and/or [evidence that] ought to be before it that is controlling.”
each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left “The very existence of [the Will] is in itself prima facie proof
margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in that the supposed [testatrix] has willed that [her] estate be
letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent
shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full
written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected
page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, thereby.” This, coupled with Lorenzo’s established

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and
of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a
evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-serving contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is an
testimonies, constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate
authenticity of the Will and its allowance for probate. proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for
allowance of the decedent’s will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule
86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary
Sheker vs. Estate of Alice O. Sheker ( RULE 86 ) or of administration, all persons having money claims against
the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the
Actions; Special Proceedings; Special provisions under Part estate administrator of their respective money claims;
II of the Rules of Court govern special proceedings, but in the otherwise, they would be barred, subject to certain exceptions.
absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in Part I Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more
of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be akin to a motion for creditors’ claims to be recognized and
applicable to special proceedings, as far as practicable.—The taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the
petition is imbued with merit. However, it must be emphasized properties of the estate. In Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, 459
that petitioner’s contention that rules in ordinary actions are SCRA 753 (2005) the Court explained thus: x x x The office
only supplementary to rules in special proceedings is not of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a
entirely correct. Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules material but incidental matter arising in the progress of
of Court provides: Sec. 2. Applicability of Rules of Civil the case in which the motion is filed. A motion is not an
Actions.—In the absence of special provisions, the rules independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question
applicable in special proceedings. Stated differently, special that is collateral to the main object of the action and is
provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern special connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy.
proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules (Emphasis supplied) A money claim is only an incidental
provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent’s
actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant
practicable. cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent
claim. Hence, herein petitioner’s contingent money claim,
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Practicable,” Defined; In not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a
the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions certification against non-forum shopping.
may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible
and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings.—The word “practicable” is defined as: possible Same; Filing Fees; Non-payment of filing fees for a money
to practice or perform; capable of being put into practice, claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for
done or accomplished. This means that in the absence of dismissing a money claim against the estate.—On the issue of
special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of Appeals, 300
special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so SCRA 214 (1998), that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on
would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. Nowhere in a money claim (attorney’s fees) against an estate for services
the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in rendered by a lawyer to the administratrix to assist her in
ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to fulfilling her duties to the estate even without payment of
special proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a
a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the
initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal Rules of Court, or the trial court may order the payment of
service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money such filing fees within a reasonable time. After all, the trial
claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate court had already assumed jurisdiction over the action for
proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings settlement of the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of
such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not one of
the present case. the grounds for dismissing a money claim against the estate.

Same; Same; Probate Proceedings; Pleadings and Practice;


Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; The certification of Same; Service of Pleadings; Personal Service; Personal
non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other
initiatory plead-ings—a contingent money claim against the modes of service and filing, the exception; Whenever personal
estate of a decedent is not an initiatory pleading; A probate service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of
proceeding is initiated upon the filing of the petition for time, place and person, personal service or filing is
allowance of the decedent’s will; A contingent money claim, mandatory.—With regard to the requirement of a written
not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a explanation, Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay, 481
certification against non-forum shopping.—The certification SCRA 415 (2006) is squarely in point. Therein, the Court held

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
thus: x x x If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be
innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring personal granted: (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may
service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to
the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
not filed if the other modes of service or filing were not requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or
personal service was not done in the first place. The next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or
exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects
practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for
with the clause “whenever practicable.” We thus take this administration or to request that administration be granted to
opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve; (c) If
the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it
filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service may be granted to such other person as the court may select.
or filing is practicable, in the light of the circumstances of However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends
time, place and person, personal service or filing is on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case.
mandatory. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. In
Same; Same; Same; The ruling spirit of the probate law is the the main, the attendant facts and circumstances of this case
speedy settlement of estates of deceased persons for the necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both
benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by way of respondent and Emilio III of their grandmother’s, Cristina’s,
inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of estate.
administration have been paid.—The ruling spirit of the
probate law is the speedy settlement of estates of deceased Same; Same; Legitimate and Illegitimate Relatives; Iron
persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to Curtain Bar Rule; The Court is not unmindful of the critiques
residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and of civilists of a conflict and a lacuna in the law concerning the
expenses of administration have been paid. The ultimate bone of contention that is Article 992 of the Civil Code.—
purpose for the rule on money claims was further explained in Counsel for petitioner meticulously argues that Article 992 of
Union Bank of the Phil. v. Santibañez, 452 SCRA 228 (2005) the Civil Code, the successional bar between the legitimate
thus: The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate and illegitimate relatives of a decedent, does not apply in this
in the probate court is mandatory. As we held in the vintage instance where facts indubitably demonstrate the contrary—
case of Py Eng Chong v. Herrera, 70 SCRA 130 (1976): x x x Emilio III, an illegitimate grandchild of the decedent, was
This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate actually treated by the decedent and her husband as their own
of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator son, reared from infancy, educated and trained in their
of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each businesses, and eventually legally adopted by decedent’s
claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which husband, the original oppositor to respondent’s petition for
should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is letters of administration. We are not unmindful of the critiques
the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the of civilists of a conflict and a lacuna in the law concerning the
early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or bone of contention that is Article 992 of the Civil Code,
heirs. The law strictly requires the prompt presentation beginning with the eminent Justice J.B.L. Reyes: In the
and disposition of the claims against the decedent’s estate Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of representation was
in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as admitted only within the legitimate family; so much so that
possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue. Article 943 of that Code prescribed that an illegitimate child
can not inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father and mother. The Civil Code of the
Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay ( RULE 78 ) Philippines apparently adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish Code in its own Art.
Succession; The order of preference set out in Section 6, Rule 992, but with fine inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990,
78 of the Rules of Court in the appointment of an 995 and 998) our Code allows the hereditary portion of the
administrator of an estate is not absolute for it depends on the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
attendant facts and circumstances of each case— legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art. 992 prevents the
jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from representing him
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.— in the intestate succession of the grandparent, the illegitimates
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of of an illegitimate child can now do so. This difference being
preference in the appointment of an administrator of an estate: indefensible and unwarranted, in the future revision of the
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. Civil Code we shall have to make a choice and decide either
—If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or that the illegitimate issue enjoys in all cases the right of
executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give representation, in which case Art. 992 must be suppressed; or

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
contrariwise maintain said article and modify Articles 995 and fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said
998. The first solution would be more in accord with an obligations within such time as the court directs, or when
enlightened attitude vis-à-vis illegitimate children. provision is made to meet those obligations.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The peculiar circumstances Same; Wills; Probate of Wills; The probate of a will is
of this case, painstakingly pointed out by counsel for conclusive as to its due execution and extrinsic validity and
petitioner, overthrow the legal presumption in Article 992 of settles only the question of whether the testator, being of
the Civil Code that there exist animosity and antagonism sound mind, freely executed it in accordance with the
between legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a deceased. formalities prescribed by law—questions as to intrinsic
—The factual antecedents of this case accurately reflect the validity may still be raised even after the will has been
basis of intestate succession, i.e., love first descends, for the authenticated.—It was also too early in the day for the probate
decedent, Cristina, did not distinguish between her legitimate court to order the release of the titles six months after
and illegitimate grandchildren. Neither did her husband, admitting the will to probate. The probate of a will is
Federico, who, in fact, legally raised the status of Emilio III conclusive as to its due execution and extrinsic validity and
from an illegitimate grandchild to that of a legitimate child. settles only the question of whether the testator, being of
The peculiar circumstances of this case, painstakingly pointed sound mind, freely executed it in accordance with the
out by counsel for petitioner, overthrow the legal presumption formalities prescribed by law. Questions as to the intrinsic
in Article 992 of the Civil Code that there exist animosity and validity and efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality
antagonism between legitimate and illegitimate descendants of of any devise or legacy may be raised even after the will has
a deceased. been authenticated.

Estate of Hilario M. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals ( RULE 83 and Same; Same; Same; Same; Executors and
84 ) Administrators; The right of an executor or administrator to
the possession and management of the real and personal
Succession; Support; Allowances for support under Section 3 properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be
of Rule 83 should not be limited to the “minor or exercised “so long as it is necessary for the payment of the
incapacitated” children of the deceased—the law is rooted on debts and expenses of administration.”—Still and all,
the fact that the right and duty to support, especially the right petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order
to education, subsist even beyond the age of majority.—It is deprived him of his right to take possession of all the real and
settled that allowances for support under Section 3 of Rule 83 personal properties of the estate. The right of an executor or
should not be limited to the “minor or incapacitated” children administrator to the possession and management of the real
of the deceased. Article 188 of the Civil Code of the and personal properties of the deceased is not absolute and can
Philippines, the substantive law in force at the time of the only be exercised “so long as it is necessary for the payment
testator’s death, provides that during the liquidation of the of the debts and expenses of administration.”
conjugal partnership, the deceased’s legitimate spouse and
children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Trusts; An heir’s
employment, are entitled to provisional support from the funds right of ownership over the properties of the decedent is
of the estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the right and merely inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled
duty to support, especially the right to education, subsist even and partitioned; An executor is a mere trustee of the estate—
beyond the age of majority. the funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is
held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the
Same; Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support highest order.—Petitioner must be reminded that his right of
from the funds of the decedent’s estate.—Be that as it may, ownership over the properties of his father is merely inchoate
grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned.
funds of the decedent’s estate. The law clearly limits the As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father’s estate. The
allowance to “widow and children” and does not extend it to funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to
the deceased’s grandchildren, regardless of their minority or the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order.
incapacity. It was error, therefore, for the appellate court to He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his
sustain the probate court’s order granting an allowance to the parents’ properties and the fruits thereof without first
grandchildren of the testator pending settlement of his estate. submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal
properties of the deceased, rendering a true account of his
Same; Settlement of Estates; Conditions before administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of
distribution of estate properties can be made.—In settlement the obligations and estate tax, all of which are subject to a
of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties determination by the court as to their veracity, propriety and
can only be made: (1) after all the debts, funeral charges, justness.
expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate
tax have been paid; or (2) before payment of said obligations
only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
Pascual vs. Court of Appeals ( RULE 82, Sec 2 ) discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed
through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Settlement of Estates; Executors and Administrators; Actions; Court.
A monetary claim against the person administering an estate,
in relation to his or her acts of administration, in its ordinary
course, can be filed at the court where a special proceeding Same; Same; Administrator’s Bond; The administration bond
for the settlement of the estate is pending.—The rule does not is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it compels
have the effect of divesting the intestate court of jurisdiction. the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the
Its jurisdiction subsists because the proper party in this case is trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent
the estate of Don Andres, which is distinct and separate from upon, him.—Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond
that of Doña Adela who merely served as the former’s secures the performance of the duties and obligations of an
administratrix. Doña Adela was merely a representative party, administrator namely: (1) to administer the estate and pay the
and the claim was an item of the administrative expense of debts; (2) to perform all judicial orders; (3) to account within
Don Andres’ estate. It is well-settled that a monetary claim one (1) year and at any other time when required by the
against the person administering an estate, in relation to his or probate court; and (4) to make an inventory within three (3)
her acts of administration, in its ordinary course, can be filed months. More specifically, per Section 4 of the same Rule, the
at the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the
the estate is pending. administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special
administrator to (1) make and return a true inventory of the
Ocampo vs. Ocampo ( RULE 80 ) goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased
which come to his possession or knowledge; (2) truly account
Probate Proceedings; Settlement of Estates; Administrators; for such as received by him when required by the court; and
When appointed, a special administrator is not regarded as an (3) deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or
agent or representative of the parties suggesting the regular administrator, or to such other person as may be
appointment.—A special administrator is an officer of the authorized to receive them. Verily, the administration bond is
court who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it compels the
work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust
smooth administration and speedy settlement. When reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent upon,
appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or him. Its object and purpose is to safeguard the properties of
representative of the parties suggesting the appointment. The the decedent, and, therefore, the bond should not be
principal object of the appointment of a temporary considered as part of the necessary expenses chargeable
administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the against the estate, not being included among the acts
hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the constituting the care, management, and settlement of the
benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 estate. Moreover, the ability to post the bond is in the nature of
of the Rules of Court. a qualification for the office of administration.

Same; Same; Same; It has long been settled that the


selection or removal of special administrators is not governed Avelino vs. Court of Appeals (RULE 74)
by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular
administrators—the probate court may appoint or remove Wills and Succession; Testate and Intestate Proceedings;
special administrators based on grounds other than those Administrators.—When a person dies intestate, or, if testate,
enumerated in the Rules at its discretion.—While the RTC failed to name an executor in his will or the executor so named
considered that respondents were the nearest of kin to their is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to furnish the bond
deceased parents in their appointment as joint special required by the Rules of Court, then the decedent’s estate shall
administrators, this is not a mandatory requirement for the be judicially administered and the competent court shall
appointment. It has long been settled that the selection or appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in
removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules Section 6 of Rule 78.
regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators.
The probate court may appoint or remove special Same; Exceptions to the Rule Requiring Appointment of
administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated Administrator.—The exceptions to this rule are found in
in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first pass Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 74 which provide: “SECTION 1.
upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs.—If the
application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age
78, as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal
do not obtain. As long as the discretion is exercised without representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties
grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice, and legal may, without securing letters of administration, divide the
principles, interference by higher courts is unwarranted. The estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public
appointment or removal of special administrators, being instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.
should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of administration proceedings, and the court may convert an
partition . . . “SEC. 2. Summary settlement of estates of small heir’s action for letters of administration into a suit for
value.—Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased judicial partition, upon motion of the other heirs.—Nor can
person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed we sustain petitioner’s argument that the order of the trial
ten thousand pesos, and that fact if made to appear to the court converting an action for letters of administration to one
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction of the estate by the for judicial partition has no basis in the Rules of Court, hence
petition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall procedurally infirm. The basis for the trial court’s order is
be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. It provides that in
months from the date of the last publication of a notice which cases where the heirs disagree as to the partition of the estate
shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive and no extrajudicial settlement is possible, then an ordinary
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, action for partition may be resorted to, as in this case. We have
and after such other notice to interested persons as the court held that where the more expeditious remedy of partition is
may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the available to the heirs, then the heirs or the majority of them
appointment of an executor or administrator, and without may not be compelled to submit to administration
delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, proceedings. The trial court appropriately converted
to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate petitioner’s action for letters of administration into a suit for
in the estate and to apportion and divide it among them after judicial partition, upon motion of the private respondents. No
the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then reversible error may be attributed to the Court of Appeals
find to be due; and such persons, in their own right, if they are when it found the trial court’s action procedurally in order.
lawful age and legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees
legally appointed and qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon
be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the
portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. The
court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs
of the proceedings, and all orders and judgments made or
rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of
the clerk, and the order of partition or award, if it involves real
estate, shall be recorded in the proper register’s office.”

Same; When a person dies without leaving pending


obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the property
for judicial administration, nor apply for the appointment of
an administrator by the court.—The heirs succeed
immediately to all of the rights and properties of the deceased
at the moment of the latter’s death. Section 1, Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide the estate among
themselves without need of delay and risks of being
dissipated. When a person dies without leaving pending
obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the property
for judicial administration, nor apply for the appointment of an
administrator by the court.

Same; Same; Same; Partition; A complete inventory of


the estate may be done during the partition proceedings,
especially since the estate has no debts.—In a last-ditch effort
to justify the need for an administrator, petitioner insists that
there is nothing to partition yet, as the nature and character of
the estate have yet to be determined. We find, however, that a
complete inventory of the estate may be done during the
partition proceedings, especially since the estate has no debts.
Hence, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error
when it ruled that the lower court did not err in converting
petitioner’s action for letters of administration into an action
for judicial partition.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the more expeditious


remedy of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs or
the majority of them may not be compelled to submit to

Doctrines – Midterms | Special Proceedings | judge Covarrubias II | BSU-College of Law | San Pedro, Dem – Roger C.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen