TOPIC: Lien does not apply to one “who has
not participated therein [the extrajudicial
partition] or had no notice thereof” [last
sentence sec. 1, Rule 74]; prescriptive period
in case of fraud.
(51) BENNY SAMPILO v. CA
Quick facts:
Teodoro died intestate. His left as heir his
widow Leonica, who executed an affidavit
stating she was the only heir of the
deceased. She sold some land to Benny
Sampilo. Felisa Sinopera instituted
proceedings for the administration of the
estate of Teodoro Tolete. Sampilo contented
that Felisa Sinopera’s right of action as
administratix has prescribed and lapsed
because it was not brought within the
prescriptive period of 2 years as provided in
Secs. 1 and 4 of Rule 74 of the RoC.
Doctrine:
Section 1 of Rule 74 provides: it is required
that if there are two or more heirs, both or
all of them should take part in the
extrajudicial settlement. To those who did
not take part in the settlement or had no
notice of the death of the decedent or of the
settlement, it is unreasonable and unjust
that they also be required to assert their
claims within the period of two years.
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary
(52) HEIRS OF GUIDO AND ISABEL
YATINCHAY, et. Al. v. HON. ROY S. DEL
ROSARIO
Quick facts:
Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs
of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay
which they executed an Extra-Judicial
Settlement of the estate of the deceased
Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay. Private
respondents presented a Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that they have not established
their status as heirs.
Doctrine:
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 reconveyance of
property.
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary
(53) FAUSTINO REYES v. PETER B. REYES
Quick facts:
Petitioners were contending respondents-
plaintiffs were seeking
first and foremost to be declared heirs of
Anacleto Cabrera since they cannot in order
to demand the partition of the real property
without first being declared as legal heirs
and such may not be done in an ordinary civil
action, as in this case. Respondents argued
they need not to be declared heirs in a
special proceeding first before the court
could decide on the civil action of annulling
the titles to the land sold.
Doctrine:
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 reconveyance of
property. This must take precedence over
the action for reconveyance.
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary
(54) HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON v.
RICAFORTE
Quick facts:
Petitioners filed a complaint for cancellation
of title and reconveyance against Gaudioso.
They allege that Magdaleno died intestate
and childless. Gaudioso, the respondent,
claimed to be the sole heir of Magdaleno and
executed an affidavit of self-adjudication
which caused the cancellation of the
certificates of title in questionRTC held
petitioner failed to state the cause of action
against Gaudioso
Doctrine:
The rule that the determination of a
decedent’s lawful heirs should be made in
the corresponding special proceeding
precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for
cancellation of title and reconveyance, from
granting the same.
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary
(55) FIGURACION-GERILLA v. CAROLINA
VDA. DE FIGURACION, ET. AL.
Quick facts:
The right to an inheritance is transmitted
immediately to the heirs by operation of law,
at the moment of death of the
decedent.There is no doubt that, as one of
the heirs of Leandro Figuracion, Emilia has a
legal interest in Lot 2299. But can she compel
partition at this stage? While Emilia points
out that the estate is allegedly without any
debt and she and Carolina (and her 6
children) are Leandro Figuracion’s only legal
heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the
CA that “certain expenses” including those
related to her father’s final illness and burial
have not been properly settled. Thus, the
heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to
submit their father’s estate to settlement
because the determination of these
expenses cannot be done in an action for
partition.
Doctrine:
In a situation where there remains an issue
as to the expenses chargeable to the estate,
partition is inappropriate
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary: The Exceptions
(56) PORTGAL v. PORTUGAL-BLETRAN
Quick facts:
In the case at bar, respondent, believing
rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir
to Portugal’s estate, executed on February
15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of
Adjudication under the second sentence of
Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of
Court. Said rule is an exception to the
general rule that when a person dies leaving
a property, it should be judicially
administered and the competent court
should appoint a qualified administrator, in
the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in
case the deceased left no will, or in case he
did, he failed to name an executor therein.
Doctrine:
Section 2, Rule 74. “xxx if there is only one
heir, he may adjudicate to himself the
entire estate by means of an affidavit filed
in the office of the register of deeds.”
(exception to the general rule)
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary: The Exceptions
(57) HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN, ET. AL. v.
CA
Quick facts:
Petitioners denied that respondent’s mother
Hermogena was the daughter of Juan
Gabatan with Laureana Clarito and that
Hermogena or respondent is the rightful heir
of Juan Gabatan. Respondent presented a
Deed of Absolute Sae containing such
declaration. RTC and CA Affirmed such
decision. SC ruled otherwise. A perusal of the
transcript of the testimony of Felicisima
Nagac Pacana (who identified the photocopy
of the Deed of Absolute Sale) plainly shows
that she gave no testimony regarding the
whereabouts of the original, whether it was
lost or whether it was recorded in any public
office.
Doctrine:
Under the best evidence rule, when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself.
Although the best evidence rule admits of
exceptions and there are instances where
the presentation of secondary evidence
would be allowed, such as when the original
is lost or the original is a public record, the
basis for the presentation of secondary
evidence must still be established
TOPIC: When Judicial Administration is
Necessary: The Exceptions
(58) REBUSQUILLO, ET. AL. v. SPS.
REBUSQUILLO GUALVEZ, ET. AL
Quick facts:
In effect, Avelina was not in the right position
to sell and transfer the absolute ownership
of the subject property to respondents. As
she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her
Affidavit of Self- Adjudication is void, the
subject property is still subject to partition.
Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute
ownership of the subject property but only
an aliquot portion.
Doctrine:
As pointed out by the trial court, an Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the
affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. The
second sentence of Section 1, Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court is patently clear that self-
adjudication is only warranted when there is
only one heir.
TOPIC: Allowance of Will Necessary
(59) SPS. SIOSON v. CA
Quick facts:
Remedios anchored her claim over the lots
on the devise of these lots under Catalina’s
Last will. However, TC found that the probate
court did not issue any order admitting the
Last Will to probate. Remedios even
admitted that the probate proceeding is still
pending. Art 838 of the Civil Code states that
“No will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court. Hence,
since the probate court has not admitted
Catalina’s Last Wil, Remedios has not
acquired any right under the Last Will. Thus,
Remedios has no cause of action to seek
reconveyance.
Doctrine:
No will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court
TOPIC: Allowance of Will Necessary
(60) UNION BANK v. SANTIBANEZ
Quick facts:
In the holographic will, the deceased
stipulated an all-encompassing provision
embracing all the properties he left including
the unpaid tractors. This being so, any
partition involving the said tractors among
the heirs is not valid. The joint agreement
executed by Edmund and Florence,
partitioning the tractors among themselves,
is invalid, specially so since at the time of its
execution, there was already a pending
proceeding for the probate of their late
father’s holographic will covering the said
tractors. To dispose of them in any way
without the probate court’s approval is
tantamount to divesting it with jurisdiction
which the Court cannot allow. Thus, In
executing any joint agreement which appears
to be in the nature of an extrajudicial
partition, as in the case at bar, court approval
is imperative, and the heirs cannot just divest
the court of its jurisdiction over that part of
the estate
Doctrine:
There can be no valid partition among the
heirs until after the will has been probated
Money claims against the deceased shall be
filed against his estate.
TOPIC: Allowance of Will Necessary
(61) SEANGIO ET. AL, v. HON REYES
Quick facts:
The purported holographic will of Segundo
that was presented by petitioners was dated,
signed and written by him in his own
handwriting. Except on the ground of
preterition, private respondents did not raise
any issue as regards the authenticity of the
document. The document, entitled Kasulatan
ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed
Segundo's intention of excluding his eldest
son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the
reasons that he cited therein. In effect,
Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo.
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually
prepared by one who is not learned in the
law, as illustrated in the present case, should
be construed more liberally than the ones
drawn by an expert, taking into account the
circumstances surrounding the execution of
the instrument and the intention of the
testator
Doctrine:
The law favors testacy over intestacy; the
probate of the will cannot be dispensed with.
TOPIC: Allowance of Will Necessary
(62) TESTATE ESTATE OF MOLATO v.
MOLATO
Quick facts:
Adriania Molato died intestate. However, a
document purporting to be the last will and
testament of Adriana Maloto was delivered
to the CFI of Iloilo. The document or papers
burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was
not satisfactorily established to be a will at all.
The burning was not proven to have been
done under the express direction of Adriana,
the burning was not in her presence. Both
witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio (both
illiterates- only hearsay knowledge that it was
a will), stated that they were the only ones
present as the papers were burned.
Doctrine:
Art. 830. (3) the physical act of destruction of
a will, like burning in this case, does not per
se constitute an effective revocation, unless
the destruction is coupled with animus
revocandi on the part of the testator. It may
be performed by another person but under
the express direction and in the presence of
the testator.
TOPIC: Allowance of Will Necessary
(63) GRIMM ROBERTS v. HON. LEONIDAS
Quick facts:
43 days after Grimm’s death, Ethel filed with
Branch 20 CFI an intestate proceeding for the
settlement of his estate. The second wife,
Maxine, through the Angara law office, filed
an opposition and motion to dismiss the
intestate proceeding on the ground of the
pendency of Utah of a proceeding for the
probate of Grimm’s will.
Doctrine:
The probate of the will is mandatory. It is
anomalous that the estate of a person who
died testate should be settled in an intestate
proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case
should be consolidated with the testate
proceeding and the judge assigned to the
testate proceeding should continue hearing
the two cases.
TOPIC: Gen Rule: During Probate Proper, the
Court’s Area of Inquiry is Limited to the Area
of the Extrinsic Validity of a Will.
(64) MANINANG v. CA
Quick facts:
On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, died
single and left a holographic will. Petitioner
Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate
of the Will of the decedent. 16 DAYS
thereafter, respondent Bernardo Aseneta,
who, as the adopted son, claims to be the
sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta,
instituted intestate proceedings. The 2 cases
were then consolidated before Branch XI
Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss of the
Testate Case on the ground that the assailed
Holographic Will of the decedent was null
and void because he claims to be a preterited
heir thus intestacy was proper citing the case
of Naguid v Naguid. Petitioner argued that
the Probate Court’s area of inquiry during
Probate proceedings is limited only on the
extrinsic validity of the Will and not the
Intrinsic aspect of it.
Doctrine:
The authentication of a will decides no other
question than such as touch upon the
capacity of the testator and the compliance
with those requisites or solemnities which
the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It
does not determine nor even by implication
prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) of the
provisions, these may be impugned as being
vicious or null, notwithstanding its
authentication. The questions relating to
these points remain entirely unaffected, and
may be raised even after the will has been
authenticated
TOPIC: Gen Rule: During Probate Proper, the
Court’s Area of Inquiry is Limited to the Area
of the Extrinsic Validity of a Will.
(65) TESTATE ESTATE OF RAMAGOSA v.
RAMAGOSA
Quick facts:
Oppositors would want the court a quo to
dismiss petition for probate on the ground
that the testator had impliedly revoked his
will by selling, prior to his death, the lands
disposed of therein. True or not, the alleged
sale is no ground for the dismissal of the
petition for probate. Probate is one thing, the
validity of the testamentary provisions is
another. The first decides the execution of
the document and the testamentary capacity
of the testator; the second relates to descent
and distribution. The alleged revocation
implied from the execution of the deeds of
conveyance in favor of the testamentary heir
is plainly irrelevant to and separate from the
question of whether the testament was duly
executed.
Doctrine:
The petition being for the probate of a will,
the court's area of inquiry is limited to the
extrinsic validity thereof. The testator's
testamentary capacity and the compliance
with the formal requisites or solemnities
prescribed by law are the only questions
presented for the resolution of the court.
TOPIC: Some Exceptions (From the above
Rule)
(66) NUGUID v. NUGUID
Quick facts:
Petitioner instituted herself as the universal
heir of the deceased, as it provides that she
is the sole heir remaining. However, the
deceased left forced heirs in the direct
ascending line her parents, now oppositors
Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. And,
the will completely omits both of them: They
thus received nothing by the testament;
tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime;
neither were they expressly disinherited—a
clear case of preterition. The validity of the
will to be admitted to probate hinges on the
intrinsic validity of finding out whether
respondent parents were preterited. Hence,
the court entertained respondent’s
argument and considered it as an exception
to the general rule.
Doctrine:
Questioning the intrinsic validity of the will
normally comes only after the court has
declared that the will has been duly
authenticated. But if the case were to be
remanded for probate of the will, nothing will
be gained. In the event of probate or if the
court rejects the will, probability exists that
the case will come up once again before this
Court on the same issue of the intrinsic
validity or nullity of the will. The result would
be waste of time, effort, expense, plus added
anxiety. These practical considerations
induce this Court to meet head-on the issue
of the nullity of the provisions of the will in
question, there being a justiciable
controversy awaiting solution.
TOPIC: Some Exceptions (From the above
Rule)
(67) ACAIN v. IAC
Quick facts:
When Nemesio died, he left a will in which
Acain and his siblings were instituted as heirs.
The will allegedly executed by Nemesio was
submitted by petitioner without objection
raised by private respondents. After the
petition was set for hearing, the respondents
(Virginia Fernandez, legally adopted
daughter of Nemesio, and the latter's widow,
Rosa Acain) filed a motion to dismiss on the
following grounds: for the petitioner has no
legal capacity to institute these proceedings;
he is merely a universal heir and the Rosa and
Fernandez have been pretirited. Intestacy
having resulted from the preterition of
respondent adopted child and the universal
institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not
an heir of the testator. He has no legal
standing to petition for the probate of the will
left by the deceased and the probate
proceeding must be dismissed.
Doctrine:
Intestacy having resulted from the
preterition of an adopted child and the
universal institution of heirs, a probate
proceeding filed by another person who has
no legal standing due to the preterition of an
heir must be dismissed.