NATCHER v.

CA & HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. Clearly, matters which involve settlement

GR No. 133000, Oct 2 2001 and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited

Buena, J. jurisdiction.

FACTS: Moreover, the RTC in this case was not properly constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass upon the question of advancement

made by the decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein petitioner Natcher.
Graciano and Graciana are married and own a parcel of land. They have 6 children. When Graciana died, Graciano and children entered

into an extrajudicial settlement of Graciana’s estate adjudicating and dividing among themselves the real property left. Under the

agreement, Graciano received 8/14 share while each of the six children received 1/14 share of the said property. Graciano’s share was
ALAN SHEKER v. ESTATE OF ALICE SHEKER
further divided into 2 and one of them was sold to a third person. Twenty-nine (29) years later, Graciano married Patricia Natcher, herein
GR No 157912, December 13, 2007
petitioner, and during the said marriage, Graciano sold his land to Patricia. When Graciano died, his children with Graciana filed a civil
Austria-Martinez, J.
case against Patricia alleging that the latter acquired the aforementioned lot through fraud, misrepresentation, and forgery and that with

such, the children’s legitime has been impaired. FACTS:

The RTC ruled that while Graciano and Patricia couldn’t enter into a contract of sale or donation with each other, the sale of the land by In a probate proceeding of the holographic will of Alice Sheker, the RTC issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims

the former to the latter may be considered as an extension of advance inheritance of Patricia as Graciano’s compulsory heir. The CA against the estate. In compliance therewith, petitioner Alan thus filed his contingent money claim against the estate of Alice Sheker but

reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. the executrix thereof moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the requisite docket fee, as

prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-
ISSUE:
forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served personally. Thus,

May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages, the RTC dismissed without prejudice the money claim of Alan based on the grounds advanced by the respondent.

adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person particularly in questions as to advancement of property
ISSUE:
made by the decedent to any of the heirs?

Did the RTC err in dismissing petitioner’s contingent money claim against respondent estate based on the grounds advanced by the
HELD:
executrix of the latter?

NO. The CA correctly ruled that it is the probate court and not the RTC that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution
HELD:
of the estate.

An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a YES. In the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where

deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary
1
actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments15 and the character of the

shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees relief sought 16 in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling.

for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings
PIZZARO v. CA
such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.
GR No. L-31979, August 6, 1980

MANALO v. CA Melencio-Herrera, J.

GR No. 129242, January 16, 2001

FACTS:
De Leon, Jr., J.

Upon the death of Aurelio Pizarro, Sr., Special Proceedings No. 1421 entitled "In the Intestate Estate of the Deceased Aurelio Pizarro, Sr.,"
FACTS:
was instituted by petitioners in the Davao RTC Branch1. Listed among the properties of the estate were parcels of land. The Court, upon

Eight (8) out of eleven (11) children of the decedent filed a petition with the RTC if the judicial settlement of the estate of the decedent agreement of the parties, appointed Corias, Clerk of Court of said Court, as Administrator of the estate, who then filed a Motion for

and for the appointment of one of their brothers as administrator therein. The other children of the decedent, herein petitioners, Authority to Sell the said properties to settle the debts of the estate, to which the heirs opposed thereto, stating that the claims against

opposed the said petition, claiming that the previous petition, as an ordinary civil action, should be dismissed for the opposing party’s the estate had not yet been properly determined and that the sale of one of the lots owned would be more than sufficient to cover the

failure to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, the same being involved with members of the said family, and supposed obligations of the estate, which they claimed were exaggerated and prejudicial to them. However, the RTC granted the Motion

thus filed a “Petition for issuance of letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate” in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626. to Sell and the said lot was conditionally sold to Anglionto. Thus, the heirs, except Alicia P. Ladisla and Lydia P. Gudani, filed a "Motion for

Cancellation or Rescission of Conditional Contract of Sale" of the said lot in favor of Anglionto and in a separate motion prayed that Corias
ISSUE:
resign as administrator, which were dismissed by the RTC based on the ground that it could not review the actuations of a coordinate

Is the petition herein an ordinary civil action or a special proceeding? branch of the court besides the fact that a MR was still pending. The CA likewise dismissed the Petition on Certiorari and Mandamus with

Prohibition and Injunction, opining that the Davao RTC Branch 1did not abuse its discretion in approving the sale and even granting that it
HELD:
did, the proper remedy was appeal, not certiorari.

It is a special proceeding. It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for
ISSUES:
any cause of action as in fact no defendant was imploded therein. The Petition for issuance of letters of Administration, Settlement and

Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek 1. Did the CA correctly uphold the decision of the RTC in dismissing the said petitions?

to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. 26 the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to establish the fat of
2. Will the proprietary of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari lie despite the existence of the remedy of appeal?
death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise

their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction HELD:

of the probate court.

2
1. NO. The cause of action in filing the Rescission case was within the judicial competence and authority of the trial Court as a Court of ISSUES:

First Instance with exclusive original jurisdiction over civil cases the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. . It
1. Is the Petition for Certiorari the correct recourse in this case?
behooved the trial Court, therefore, to have taken cognizance of and to have heard the Rescission Case on the merits and it was reversible

error for the Court of Appeals to have upheld its dismissal. 2. Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case

could proceed?
2. NO, but in this case it was made to lie because while an Order of dismissal is, indeed, final and appealable as it puts an end to litigation

and leaves nothing more to be done on the merits in the lower Court, so that certiorari is ordinarily unavailable, that general rule allows HELD:

of exceptions, namely, when appeal is inadequate and ineffectual or when the broader interest of justice so requires. In this case, appeal
1. NO. It was an improper recourse. Their proper remedy should have been an appeal. An order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final
would have not afforded the heirs an effective and speedy recourse. It would have entailed a protracted litigation and in the interim, the
order, which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of certiorari.
heirs stood to suffer as a consequence of the approval of the sale. The prompt stoppage of that sale was vital to them. Thusly, appeal not

being speedy enough to bring about the desired objective and to be of any utility to the heirs, their availment of certiorari must be held to 2. NO. The RTC correctly ratiocinated and ruled that “the plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel

have been proper. Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it — except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the

aforementioned Yaptinchays — that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the determination of who are

the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for

HEIRS OF YAPTINCHAY v. JUDGE DEL ROSARIO reconveyance of property. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance.” The trial court cannot make a declaration of

GR NO. 124320, March 2, 1999 heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.

Purisima, J.

FACTS:
HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA & LOURDES PACANA

Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay—owners-claimants of two (2) real properties in GR No. 150206, March 13, 2009

Carmona, Cavite-- and thus executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the estate of the deceased couple. However, the petitioners learned Leonardo-De Castro, J.

that the said properties were titled in the name of Golden Bay Realty, whereby the latter sold portions of the said lands. This prompted
FACTS:
the petitioners to file with the "RTC" an Amended Complaint to implead new and additional defendants and to mention the TCTs to be

annulled. But the respondent court granted the private respondents motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioners "have not The subject of this case is a parcel of land apparently owned by Juan Gabatan. This land was claimed by the private respondent, after

shown any proof or even a semblance of it — except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the above-named Yaptinchays — that submitting a typewritten copy of her mother’s birth certificate as proof of her ownership by heirship. This was denied by the petitioners,

they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple," among others. The petitioners thus filed a Petition for Certiorari under R. maintaining that Juan Gabatan died single in 1934 and without any issue and that Juan was survived by one brother and two sisters,

65 to seek relief from the respondent court’s Orders under attack. namely: Teofilo (petitioners predecessor-in-interest), Macaria and Justa, who was said to have been in uninterrupted possession of the
3
subject property for more than 50 years. The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondent, to which was appealed by the petitioners to Was the RTC’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the subject complaint failed to state a cause of action, proper?

the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Thus, the instant case.
HELD:

ISSUE:
QUALIFIED YES, since a determination of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary action for recovery of ownership and/or possession.

Was the CA correct in affirming the decision of the RTC awarding the ownership of the property to the private respondent? However, it must be pointed out that the RTC erred in ruling on Gaudioso’s heirship which should be threshed out and determined in the

proper special proceeding. The issue on cause of action is thus set aside, and nevertheless making the dismissal proper.
HELD:

NO. The respondent’s main cause of action in the court a quo is the recovery of ownership and possession of property. Jurisprudence

dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and

not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of
LIMOS v. ODONES
possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for
GR No. 186979, August 11, 2010
the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
Nachura, J.

FACTS:

HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON v. RICAFORTE & THE REGISTER OF DEED OF TOLEDO CITY
Private respondents filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed, Title and Damages against petitioners, alleging that they are the owner of a
GR No. 198680, July 8, 2013
parcel of land by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and sale, executed by the surviving grandchildren and heirs of Lardizabal in
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
whom the original title to the land was registered. However, Petitioners were able to secure TCT No. 329427 by virtue of a Deed of

FACTS: Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Donata Lardizabal and her husband Francisco Razalan, to which the respondents sought the

cancellation thereof, alleging that such were forgeries, because they died prior the execution of the said deed. The RTC ordered that the
The petitioners filed a civil complaint against the private respondent, alleging that they, and not the private respondent, are the
petitioners give an Answer and thus pleaded affirmative defenses like lack of cause of action, among others, which were denied by the
decedent’s collateral relatives and successors-in-interest of his estate. Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno, private respondent
respondents. The petitioners then served upon respondents a Request for Admission of certain facts, but he respondents failed to
executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title, leading to their
respond to the same, prompting the petitioners to file a Motion to Set for Prelim Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses, arguing
subsequent transfer in his name, to the prejudice of petitioners. The RTC dismissed the subject complaint filed as it failed to show a cause
that the respondents’ failure to respond/object to the Request for Admission amounted to an implied admission. The RTC ruled against
of action against the private respondent, and ruled in favor of the latter.
the RA contending that the facts raised were already pleaded in the petitioner’s Answer thus making it redundant.

ISSUE:
ISSUES:

4
1. Should the status of the heirs of Lardizabal who sold the property to the respondents first be established in a special proceeding to FACTS:

prove the existence of the sale transaction of the subject property?

Sps. Ismael and Felisa Reyes are the owners of a parcel of land. They have 11 children, 2 of which are the petitioner (Oscar) and

2. Is failure to respond to a Request for Admission an implied admission to all the matters contained therein? respondent (Cesar) in this case. Before Ismael’s death, he was informed by the BIR that he has income tax deficiencies arising from his sale

of a parcel of land, but no payment was made so the property was levied and eventually forfeited by the BIR. Verily, Oscar availed of BIR’s
3. Is non-joinder of indispensable parties a ground for dismissal of an action?
Tax Amnesty and was able to redeem the property upon payment of the reduced tax using his own funds. Oscar likewise paid for the

HELD: property of his mother, so as not to be sold at public auction for nonpayment of real estate tax. Cesar then filed a petition for issuance of

letters of administration with the Regional Trial Court praying for his appointment as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ismael.
1. NO. The declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding and not in a civil action. It must be noted that in Yaptinchay
Oscar filed his conditional opposition thereto on the ground that the Arayat properties do not form part of the estate of the deceased as
and Enriquez, the plaintiffs’ action for annulment of title was anchored on their alleged status as heirs of the original owner whereas in
he (Oscar) had acquired the properties by redemption and or purchase. A hearing on the inventory was scheduled where administrator
this case, the respondents claim is rooted on a sale transaction. Respondents herein are enforcing their rights as buyers in good faith and
Cesar was required to present evidence to establish that the properties belong to the estate of Ismael Reyes and the oppositor to adduce
for value of the subject land and not as heirs of the original owner.
evidence in support of his objection to the inclusion of certain properties in the inventory. The probate court ruled in favor of Cesar,and

2. YES. It must be emphasized, however, that the application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the ordered the inclusion of the subject property in the inventory, and this was affirmed by the RTC.

court. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting partys pleading but
ISSUES:
should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said party’s cause of action or

defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless, useless, and a mere redundancy. In this case, the redundant and unnecessarily 1. Does a probate court have limited jurisdiction? If so, what are the matters that it may only resolve?

vexatious nature of petitioners Request for Admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant so as to proscribe the operation of the
2. Was the respondent Court correct in affirming the provisional inclusion of the subject property to the estate of the deceased in this
implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. There being no implied admission attributable to respondents failure to
case?
respond, the argument that a preliminary hearing is imperative loses its point.

HELD:
3. NO. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the

party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. It is only when the plaintiff refuses to implead an 1. YES. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of

indispensable party despite the order of the court, that the latter may dismiss the complaint.[31] In this case, no such order was issued by wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees. The question of

the trial court. ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining

whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED ISMAEL REYES, THE HEIRS OF OSCAR REYES v. REYES
title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
GR No. 139587, November 22, 2000
The Regional Trial Court acting as a probate court exercises but limited jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of and
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

5
determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all other parties HELD:

having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for
MANDATORY. The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that “shall” in a statute commonly denotes an imperative
adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced.
obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word shall, when used in a statute is

2. YES. The respondent Court did not err in affirming the provisional inclusion of the subject properties to the estate of the deceased mandatory. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if

Ismael Reyes without prejudice to the outcome of any action to be brought thereafter in the proper court on the issue of ownership the holographic will is contested, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

considering that the subject properties are still titled under the torrens system in the names of spouses Ismael and Felisa Revita Reyes
The decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to
which under the law is endowed with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the manner indicated in the law. The declaration
adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the probate of the holographic will of the deceased
of the provisional character of the inclusion of the subject properties in the inventory as stressed in the order is within the jurisdiction of

the Probate Court.

CODOY & RAMONAL v. CALUGAY

GR No. 123486, August 12, 1999

INFANTE v. JUDGE GALING
Pardo, J.
GR No. 77047, May 28, 1988

FACTS: Padilla, J.

This case is about the probate of a deceased’s holographic will, which was contested for being illegible and a forgery. Respondents FACTS:

presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the assailed decision of the CA where it held that that personal notice of probate proceedings
evidence, claiming that respondents failed to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic will of the
to the known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will; and that the requirement of notice on
deceased, which was granted by the RTC. Upon appeal, , the CA ruled that the appeal was meritorious, citing the decision in the case of
individual heirs, legatees and devisees is merely a matter of procedural convenience to better satisfy in some instances the requirements
Azaola vs. Singson: “even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article 811 of the civil code cannot be interpreted as
of due process. Here, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the basis that they did not receive any notice regarding the
to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of the having the
presentation of the respondents of evidence ex-parte and other orders of the probate court, which was denied by the probate court.
probate denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the holographic will. And the rule requiring the production of three

witnesses is merely permissive.” ISSUE:

ISSUE: Was the CA correct in holding that personal notice of probate proceedings to the known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional

requirement in the probate of a will?

Are the provisions in Art. 811 of the Civil Code permissive or mandatory?

6
HELD: 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.
NO. Under Sec. 4 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, said requirement of the law is mandatory and its omission constitutes a reversible error

for being constitutive of grave abuse of discretion, where it says that “notice of the time and place of the hearing for the allowance of a REPUBLIC v. MARCOS

will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of GR Nos. 130371 & 13085, August 4, 2009

residence, if such places of residence be known.” Peralta, J.

PALAGANAS v. PALAGANAS (copied from the internet https://www.scribd.com/document/154522904/Republic-v-Marcos)

GR No. 169144, January 26, 2011

FACTS:
Abad, J.

On January 11, 1996, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as a probate court, issued an Order granting letterstestamentary in solidum to
FACTS:
respondents Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Imelda Trinidad Romualdez-Marcos asexecutors of the last will and testament of the late

This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by a foreigner although it has not been probated in its Ferdinand E. Marcos.The dispositive portion of the Order mentioned that upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00, let letters

place of execution. testamentary be issued in solidum to Imelda Trinidad Romualdez-Marcos AND Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos II,named executors

therein.Pending the filing of said bond and their oath, Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato of the Bureau of InternalRevenue is hereby
ISSUE:
authorized to continue her functions as Special Administrator of the Estate of Ferdinand EdralinMarcos.On January 15, 1996, the

May a will executed by a foreigner abroad be probated in the Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration in so far as the RTC Order granted letters testamentary to

country where it was executed? respondents. On the other hand, respondent Imelda Marcos filedher own motion for reconsideration on the ground that the will is lost

and that petitioner has not proven its existenceand validity.On February 5, 1996, respondent Ferdinand Marcos II filed a Compliance
HELD:
stating that he already filed a bond in theamount of P50,000.00 as directed by the RTC Order and that he took his oath as named executor

YES. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and of the will on January 30, 1996.On March 13, 1996, the RTC issued Letters of Administration to BIR Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato

allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states inaccordance with an earlier Order dater, appointing her as Special Administratrix of the Marcos Estate.On April 1, 1996, respondent

that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law Ferdinand Marcos II filed a Motion to Revoke the Letters of Administration issued bythe RTC to BIR Commissioner Vinzons-Chato.On April

of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country. In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 26, 1996, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion for partial reconsideration filed by petitioner aswell as the motion for

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 reconsideration filed by respondent Imelda Marcos.On June 6, 1996, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari,

may take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, or legatee questioning the aforementionedRTC Orders granting letters testamentary to respondents.The First Division of this Court issued a

7
Resolution referring the petition to the CA. On March 13, 1997, the CAissued a Decision, dismissing the referred petition for having taken In the case at bar, petitioner anchored its opposition to the grant of letters testamentary to respondents, specifically on the following

the wrong mode of appeal. grounds: (1) want of integrity, and (2) conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. Petitioner contends that respondents have been

convicted of a number of cases and, hence, should be characterized as one without integrity, or at the least, with questionable integrity.

The RTC, however, in its January 11, 1996 Order, made the following findings:

However, except for petitioner Republic’s allegation of want of integrity on the part of Imelda Trinidad Romualdez-Marcos and Ferdinand

ISSUE: Romualdez Marcos II, named executors in the last will and testament, so as to render them "incompetent" to serve as executors, the

Court sees at this time, no evidence on record, oral or documentary, tosubstantiate and support the said allegation
DID THE PROBATE COURT GRAVELY ERR IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT RESPONDENTS IMELDAR. MARCOS AND FERDINAND R. MARCOS II

BE DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AND SERVE ASEXECUTORS?

HELD:

Because of the preceding discussion, herein petition must necessarily fail. However, even if this Court were to set aside petitioners’

procedural lapses, a careful review of the records of the case reveal that herein petition is without merit.

At the crux of the controversy is a determination of whether or not respondents are incompetent to serve asexecutors of the will of

Ferdinand Marcos.

In the case of Ozarta v. Pecson it was been held that the choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator,a necessary

concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of

his confidence, one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of theestate. The curtailment of this right may be

considered as a curtailment of the right to dispose. And as the rights granted by will take effect from the time of death (Article 777, Civil

Code of the Philippines), the management of his estate by the administrator of his choice should be made as soon as practicable, when no

reasonable objection tohis assumption of the trust can be interposed any longer.

It has been held that when a will has been admitted to probate, it is the duty of the court to issue letters testamentary to the person

named as executor upon his application.