CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Prof. Gerald L. Chan LLM, MBA
Atty.gerald.chan@gmail.com
2nd Semester 2018- 2019
UE College of Law

RULES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

RULE 72: Subject Matter and Applicability of Special Rules

Section 1. SUBJECT MATTER OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS.
(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
(b) Escheat;
(c) Guardianship and custody of children;
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
(h) Habeas corpus;
(i) Change of name;
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
(k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
(l) Constitution of family home;
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
(n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry.

The list under Rule 72, Section 1 is not exclusive Any petition which has for its main purpose the establishment of a status, right or a
particular fact may be included as a special proceeding (Festin, 2011).

Vda de Manalo vs CA
349 sCRA 125; January 16, 2001
De Leon, J:
FACTS: Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992. He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his eleven children,
who are all of legal age. At the time of his death, Troadio Manalo left several real properties located in Manila and in the province of
Tarlac including a business under the name and style Manalo's Machine Shop.

The eight of the surviving children of the late Troadio Manalo filed a petition with the respondent RTC of Manila of the judicial
settlement of the estate of their late father and for the appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as administrator thereof.

The trial court issued an order and set the reception of evidence of the petitioners therein. However, the trial court upon motion of
set this order of general default aside herein petitioners (oppositors therein) who were granted then 10 days within which to file their
opposition to the petition. Several pleadings were subsequently filed by herein petitioners, through counsel, culminating in the filling
of an Omnibus Motion.

Pleadings and Practice; Estate Proceedings; Probate Courts; It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an
action or proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, shall be controlling; The
fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent
proceedings in the administration of the estate rest.—It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action
or proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be
controlling. A careful scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in
SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition
contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fact of
death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. The
fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent
proceedings in the administration of the estate rest. The petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the
names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate
proceedings. In addition, the reliefs prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners
therein (private respondents herein) to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father, Troadio Manalo.

Same; Same; Same; A party may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of an essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate
of a decedent by raising matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition; A trial court, sitting as a probate court, has
limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only
in an ordinary civil action.—It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid
petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said
petition. It must be emphasized that the trial court, sitting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear
and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule
has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the
averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too difficult to
have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem. So it should be in the instant petition
for settlement of estate.
CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO

Same; Same; Same; Motion to Dismiss; A party may not take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court
to justify an invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code for the dismissal of a petition for settlement of estate.—The argument is
misplaced. Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify
the invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the
deceased Troadio Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough, to wit: Art. 222. No suitshall be filed or maintained
between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the
same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.

Same; Same; Article 222 of the Civil Code applies only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the
same family.—The above-quoted provision of the law is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term “suit” that
it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the
remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil
action is thus an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. Besides, an excerpt from the Report of the Code Commission unmistakably reveals the intention of the Code
Commission to make that legal provision applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the
same family, thus: It is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same family.
It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the
family. It is known that lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than strangers.

Same; Same; Special Proceedings; A petition for issuance of letters of administration, settlement and distribution of estate is a
special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioner therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact.—It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of
action as in fact no defendant was impleaded 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 to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to establish
the fact of 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 of the probate court.

Natcher vs. CA
366 SCRA 385
Buena, J:

Facts: Graciano is married to graciana, they have 6 children. They are the owners of a parcel of land with an area of 9,322 SQ in
manila. Upon the death of Graciana, Graciano together with his 6 children entered into a extrajudicial settlement of the said estate,
they divided the said property where a new title was given.

Graciano donated to his children a portion of his interest in the land amounting to 4,949.30 SQ leaving only 447 SQ registered under
his name as covered by a title. Subsequently, his remaining lot has also been divided and the other portion was sold to a third person.

Graciano married Natcher, during their marriage, Graciano sold his remaining land to Natcher. Graciano died leaving Natcher and his
6 children as heirs.

The Children of Graciano filed a complaint against Natcher stating that she employed fraud
misrepresentation and forgery, aquired the land by making it appear that Graciano executed a deed of sale over the said land, in
consequence their legitime has been impaired.

RTC: Deed of sale is prohibited by law

DOS is not a valid donation
DOS may however be an extension of advanc inheritance.

CA: RTC do not have jurisdiction, as the PROBATE COURT has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and
legal distribution of the estate.

RTC was trying an ordinary action, hence the acts performed should have been in a probate court.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC, acting as a court of gen. jurisdiction, adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person PARTICULARLY ON QUESTIONS AS TO ADVANCEMENT OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE DECEDENT TO
ANY OF THE HEIRS?

HELD: THE SC, differentiated Action VS. Special Proceedings. an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a
civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly
requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.

The matter in this case fall w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO
Under Sec 2, Rule 90 of ROC, QUESTIONS AS TO ADVANCEMENT MADE OR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE
DECEASED TO ANY HEIR MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE ESTATE
PROCEEDINGS.

While it may be true that the Rules used the word MAY it is nevertheless clear that it contemplates a probate court when it speaks
of the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings.

RTC acting in its general jurisdiction is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the said issue.

Actions; Special Proceedings; Words and Phrases; “Action,” and “Special Proceeding,” Distinguished.—As could be gleaned from the
foregoing, there lies a marked distinction between an action and a special proceeding. An action is a formal demand of one’s right in
a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to
definite established rules. The term “special proceeding” may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or
right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so
provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion.”
Same; Same; Estate Proceedings; Probate Courts; Reconveyance; An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is
a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person partake of the nature of a special
proceeding; Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of
the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.—Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and annulment of
title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement
of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of
specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the
decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Questions as to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard
and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, i.e., a probate court.—Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of
the Rules of Court, questions as to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and
determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on
the person raising the questions and on the heir. While it may be true that the Rules used the word “may,” it is nevertheless clear that
the same provision contemplates a probate court when it speaks of the “court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; A Regional Trial Court acting in its general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication
and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in favor of an heir.—Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant
case, acting in its general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the
real property in favor of herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 71075 for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to thresh out said question. Moreover, under the present circumstances, the RTC of
Manila, Branch 55 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Court is not unaware of its pronouncement in Coca v. Borromeo, 81 SCRA 278 (1978), and Mendoza v.
Teh, 269 SCRA 764 (1997), that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure involving a mode
of practice “which may be waived.”—In resolving the case at bench, this Court is not unaware of our pronouncement in Coca vs.
Borromeoand Mendoza vs. Teh that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the Regional Trial Court (then Court of First
Instance) in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question
of procedure. In essence, it is a procedural question involving a mode of practice “which may be waived.” Notwithstanding, we do not
see any waiver on the part of herein private respondents inasmuch as the six children of the decedent even assailed the authority of
the trial court, acting in its general jurisdiction, to rule on this specific issue of advancement made by the decedent to petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Although generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the interested
parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by
the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the question of
ownership.—Analogously, in a train of decisions, this Court has consistently enunciated the long standing principle that although
generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is
one of collation or advancement, orthe parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third
parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Before any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that
the net estate of the decedent must first be ascertained.—Of equal importance is that before any conclusion about the legal share
due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that certain steps be taken first. The net estate of the decedent must be
ascertained, by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his
death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus determined, the legitime of the
compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only thereafter can it be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the
legitimes.

NATURE OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Tabuada vs Ruiz
GR 168799, 27 June 2008
NACHURA, J:
Actions; Compromise Agreements; Special Proceedings; While a compromise agreement or an amicable settlement is very strongly
encouraged, the failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural sanction, much less provide an authority for the court
to jettison the case; Given the non-contentious nature of special proceedings (which do not depend on the will of an actor, but on a
CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO
state or condition of things or persons not entirely within the control of the parties interested), its dismissal should be ordered only
in the extreme case where the termination of the proceeding is the sole remedy consistent with equity and justice, but not as a
penalty for neglect of the parties therein.—While a compromise agreement or an amicable settlement is very strongly encouraged, the
failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural sanction, much less provide an authority for the court to jettison the
case. Sp. Proc. No. 5198 should not have been terminated or dismissed by the trial court on account of the mere failure of the
parties to submit the promised amicable settlement and/or the Motion for Judgment Based On An Amicable Settlement. GIVEN
THE NON-CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (WHICH DO NOT DEPEND ON THE WILL OF AN ACTOR,
BUT ON A STATE OR CONDITION OF THINGS OR PERSONS NOT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE PARTIES
INTERESTED), ITS DISMISSAL SHOULD BE ORDERED ONLY IN THE EXTREME CASE WHERE THE TERMINATION OF
THE PROCEEDING IS THE SOLE REMEDY CONSISTENT WITH EQUITY AND JUSTICE, BUT NOT AS A PENALTY FOR
NEGLECT OF THE PARTIES THEREIN.
Same; Same; An order requiring submission of an amicable settlement does not find support in our jurisprudence and is premised on
an erroneous interpretation and application of the law and rules.—The third clause of Section 3, Rule 17, which authorizes the motu
proprio dismissal of a case if the plaintiff fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court, cannot even be used to justify the
convenient, though erroneous, termination of the proceedings herein. An examination of the December 6, 2004 Order readily reveals
that the trial court neither required the submission of the amicable settlement or the aforesaid Motion for Judgment, nor warned
the parties that should they fail to submit the compromise within the given period, their case would be dismissed. Hence, it cannot
be categorized as an order requiring compliance to the extent that its defiance becomes an affront to the court and the rules. And
even if it were worded in coercive language, the parties cannot be forced to comply, for, as aforesaid, they are only strongly
encouraged, but are not obligated, to consummate a compromise. An order requiring submission of an amicable settlement does not
find support in our jurisprudence and is premised on an erroneous interpretation and application of the law and rules.
Speedy Disposition of Cases; Inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court
dockets—while they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning
between the parties.—The Court notes that inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion
of court dockets. While they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate
reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief
continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court.

Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall
be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.

HILADO VS CA
GR 164108; 8 May 2009
TINGA, J

Wills and Succession; Settlement of Estates; Intervention; Notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule
19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim—the definition of “intervention” under
Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims.—It is not immediately evident that intervention under the Rules of Civil
Procedure necessarily comes into operation in special proceedings. The settlement of estates of deceased persons fall within the
rules of special proceedings under the Rules of Court, not the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 2, Rule 72 further provides that
“[i]n the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special
proceedings.” We can readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does not
extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim. The definition of “intervention” under Rule 19 simply
does not accommodate contingent claims.
Same; Same; Same; Torts; Actions for tort or quasi-delict, being as they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be
commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87.—Had the claims of petitioners against Benedicto been based on
contract, whether express or implied, then they should have filed their claim, even if contingent, under the aegis of the notice to
creditors to be issued by the court immediately after granting letters of administration and published by the administrator
immediately after the issuance of such notice. However, it appears that the claims against Benedicto were based on tort, as they
arose from his actions in connection with Philsucom, Nasutra and Traders Royal Bank. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not
fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86. These actions, being as they are civil,
survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87. Indeed, the
records indicate that the intestate estate of Benedicto, as represented by its administrator, was successfully impleaded in Civil Case
No. 11178, whereas the other civil case was already pending review before this Court at the time of Benedicto’s death.
Same; Same; Same; While there is no general right on the part of a creditor or any person interested in the estate to intervene on the
part of the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for
under the Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality
under the Rules by which such interests can be protected—it is under this standard that we assess the three prayers sought by
petitioners.—In the same manner that the Rules on Special Proceedings do not provide a creditor or any person interested in the
estate, the right to participate in every aspect of the testate or intestate proceedings, but instead provides for specific instances
when such persons may accordingly act in those proceedings, we deem that while there is no general right to intervene on the part of
the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the
Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality under the Rules
by which such interests can be protected. It is under this standard that we assess the three prayers sought by petitioners.466
Same; Same; Same; Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the records of the intestate proceedings is an eminently
preferable precedent than mandating the service of court processes and pleadings upon them; Nonetheless, in the instances that the
Rules on Special Proceedings do require notice to any or all “interested parties, petitioners as “interested parties” will be entitled to
such notice.—Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the records of the intestate proceedings is an eminently
preferable precedent than mandating the service of court processes and pleadings upon them. In either case, the interest of the
CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO
creditor in seeing to it that the assets are being preserved and disposed of in accordance with the rules will be duly satisfied.
Acknowledging their right to access the records, rather than entitling them to the service of every court order or pleading no matter
how relevant to their individual claim, will be less cumbersome on the intestate court, the administrator and the heirs of the
decedent, while providing a viable means by which the interests of the creditors in the estate are preserved. Nonetheless, in the
instances that the Rules on Special Proceedings do require notice to any or all “interested parties” the petitioners as “interested
parties” will be entitled to such notice. The instances when notice has to be given to interested parties are provided in: (1) Sec. 10,
Rule 85 in reference to the time and place of examining and allowing the account of the executor or administrator; (2) Sec. 7(b) of
Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise
encumber real estates; and; (3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the application for an order for distribution of the estate
residue. After all, even the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted inventory, the existence of the pending cases filed by
the petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; There are reliefs available to compel an administrator to return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all
the real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3) months from appointment and to render an account of his
administration within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of administration, but a person whose claim against the
estate is still contingent is not the party entitled to do so.—Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to return to the court a
true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3) months from appointment, while
Section 8 of Rule46 of his administration within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of administration. We do not
doubt that there are reliefs available to compel an administrator to perform either duty, but a person whose claim against the estate
is still contingent is not the party entitled to do so. Still, even if the administrator did delay in the performance of these duties in the
context of dissipating the assets of the estate, there are protections enforced and available under Rule 88 to protect the interests
of those with contingent claims against the estate.
Same; Same; Same; While Section 2, Rule 82 is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the administrator, the Court
does not doubt that a creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek such relief.—Concerning complaints
against the general competence of the administrator, the proper remedy is to seek the removal of the administrator in accordance
with Section 2, Rule 82. While the provision is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the administrator, we do not
doubt that a creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek such relief. After all, the interest of the creditor in
the estate relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for the debt, and the general competence or good faith of the
administrator is necessary to fulfill such purpose.

Settlement Of Estate Of Deceased Persons

RULE 73

Venue and Process

Section 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,
whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First
Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of
First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on
the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an
appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

Section 2. Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. — When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife,
the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate
proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or
intestate proceedings of either.

Section 3. Process. — In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Courts of First Instance may issue warrants and process necessary to
compel the attendance of witnesses or to carry into effect theirs orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by law. If
a person does not perform an order or judgment rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant
for the apprehension and imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is released.

Section 4. Presumption of death. — For purposes of settlement of his estate, a person shall be presumed dead if absent and unheard
from for the periods fixed in the Civil Code. But if such person proves to be alive, he shall be entitled to the balance of his estate
after payment of all his debts. The balance may be recovered by motion in the same proceeding.

RULE 74

Summary Settlement of Estate

CHIEF NOTES: SPECPRO
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of
age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without
securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the
office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir,
he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an
extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the
filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a
bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under
oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It
shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years
after the death of the decedent.

The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner
provided in the nest succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated
therein or had no notice thereof.

Section 2. Summary settlement of estate of small value. — Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he
died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Court of First Instance having
jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month
nor more than three (3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice to interest persons as the court
may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without delay, to grant,
if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate, and to
apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due; and such
persons, in their own right, if they are of 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.

Section 3. Bond to be filed by distributees. — The court, before allowing a partition in accordance with the provisions of the
preceding section, my require the distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a bond in an amount to be fixed
by court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which may be filed under the next succeeding section.

Section 4. Liability of distributees and estate. — If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and
distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other
person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement
of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within
the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that
an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the
estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much
and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require,
against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such
real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such
distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.

Section 5. Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person. — If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years
prescribed in the preceding section the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or
outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after such disability is removed.