Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Specpro Digests

Specpro Digests

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Kristal Lee
Specpro digests
Specpro digests

More info:

Published by: Kristal Lee on Jul 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Portugal vs. Portugal-BeltranFacts:
 Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo. Subsequently, he contracted anothermarriage with Isabel de la Puerta. Isabel gave birth to a boy named Jose DouglasPortugal Jr., while Paz gave birth to a girl, Aleli, who was later on baptized as LeonilaPerpetua Aleli Portugal. Jose and his four siblings executed a Deed of Extra-judicialPartition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano, who diedintestate. Jose’s siblings waived their rights, interests and participation over a parcelof land in his favor. The TCT which covered the said parcel of land was in the nameof “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo.” Paz died, and later on Jose also diedintestate. Aleli executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person adjudicating to herself the parcel of land, and later on, a new TCTwas issued in the name of Aleli. After finding out about Jose’s death and the transferof the property to Aleli’s name, Isabel and Douglas filed a complaint for annulmentof the Affidavit of Execution and the TCT issued in Aleli’s name. They contendedthat Aleli is not related to Jose; hence she was not entitled to inherit the parcel of land.
Whether Isabel and Douglas have to institute a special proceeding todetermine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of Aleli’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her name
 The common doctrine in
Litam, Solivio,
in which the adverseparties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the specialproceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of thecase, a need to file one, then the determination of, among other issues, heirshipshould be raised and settled in said special proceedings. Where special proceedingshad been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, however, or if aputative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedingsas co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil actioncan be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of thepartition or distribution or adjudication of a property or properties belonging to theestate of the deceased.In the case at bar, Aleli, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Jose’s estate, executed the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the secondsentence of Rule 74, Section 1. Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive heirsof Jose. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has jurisdiction to declare who arethe heirs of a deceased. It appearing, however, that in the present case the onlyproperty of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to stillsubject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which couldbe long, hence not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs isnot only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that theparties to the civil case – subject of the present case, could and had already in factpresented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the caseupon the issued it defined during pre-trial.In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compellingreason to still subject Portugal’s estate to administration proceedings since adetermination of petitioners’ status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filedby petitioners, the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented bythe parties during the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it definedduring pre-trial.
Bernardo vs. CAFacts:
Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. Eusebio diedand a testate proceeding for the settlement of his estate was instituted. His will wasadmitted to probate, disposing of his properties in favor of his widow and hiscousins. Hermogena later on died, and upon the petition of Deogracias Bernardo,executor of the estate of Eusebio, she was substituted by her collateral relativesand intestate heirs. Deogracias filed a project of partition in the testate proceedingin accordance with the terms of the will, adjudicating the estate of Eusebio amongthe testatmentary heirs with the exception of Hermogena, whose share was allottedto her collateral relatives. Later on the relatives filed an opposition to the project of partition and submitted a counter-project of partition of their own, claiming ½ of theproperties mentioned in the will of Eusebio on the theory that they belonged not tothe latter alone but to the conjugal partnership of the spouses.In the memorandum for the executor and the instituted heirs, it was contended thatthe properties disposed of in the will of Eusebio belonged to him exclusivelybecause Hermogena had donated to him her half share of the conjugal partnership,that the collateral heirs of Hermogena had no lawful grounds to question thevalidity of the donation, and that even assuming that they could question thevalidity of the donation, the same must be litigated not in the testate proceedingbut in a separate civil action.
Whether the trial court as well as the CA erred in upholding the power of theprobate court in this case to adjudicate in the testate proceedings, the question asto whether the properties herein involved belong to the conjugal partnership of Eusebio and Hermogena, or to the deceased husband exclusively
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is the question of ownership of certain properties involved – whether they belong to the conjugalpartnership or to the husband exclusively. This is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugalpartnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to bedistributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, of course, the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who havebeen substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who have appearedvoluntarily. There are no third parties whose rights may be affected. It is true thatthe heirs of the deceased widow are not the heirs of the testator-husband, but thewidow is, in addition to her won right to the conjugal property. And it is this rightthat is being sought to be enforced by her substitutes. Therefore, the claim that isbeing asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, consequently, itcomplies with the requirement of the exception that the parties interested are allheirs claiming title under the testator.Petitioners contend additionally that they have never submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the probate court, for the purpose of the determination of thequestion of ownership of the disputed properties. However, by presenting theirproject of partition including therein the disputed lands, petitioners themselves putin issue the question of ownership of the properties – which is well within thecompetence of the probate court – and just because of an opposition thereto, theycannot thereafter withdraw either their appearance or the issue from the jurisdictionof the court. There is here a waiver where the parties who raise the objection are
the ones who set the court in motion. They cannot be permitted to complain if thecourt, after due hearing, adjudges question against them.
Calma vs. TanedoFacts:
Spouses Eulalio Calma and Fausta Macasaquit were the owners of aproperty, being their conjugal property. They were also indebted to Esperanza Tanedo, chargeable against the conjugal property, in the sums of P948.34 andP247, with interest at 10% per annum. Fausta died leaving a will wherein sheappointed her daughter, Maria Calma, as administratrix of her properties. While theprobate proceedings of Fausta were pending, Tanedo filed a complaint againstEulalio for the recovery of the sums of money, and the CFI rendered judgment forthe payment of the debt. In the execution of the judgment, despite the third partyclaim filed by Fausta, the property was sold by the sheriff.
WON the sale of the property was valid; WON the estate of Fausta is the soleand absolute owner of the property in question
 The amendment introduced by Act No. 3176 consists in authorizing theinstitution of testate or intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of adeceased spouse or of an ordinary action for the liquidation and partition of theproperty of a conjugal partnership. It should be understood that these remedies arealternative, and not cumulative, in the sense that they cannot be availed of at thesame time. Consequently, the testamentary proceedings of Fausta having beeninstituted, the liquidation and partition of the conjugal property by reason of hermarriage to Eulalio should be made in these proceedings, to the exclusion of anyother proceeding for the same purpose. The SC also decided in another case that when the marriage is dissolved by deathof the wife, the legal power of management of the husband ceases, passing to theadministrator appointed by the court in the testate or intestate proceedingsinstituted to that end if there be any debts to be paid. From the foregoing, it followsthat when Esperanza Tanedo brought suit against Eulalio for the payment of thedebt, which were debts chargeable against the conjugal property, the power of Eulalio as legal administrator of the conjugal property while Fausta was living, hadceased and passed tot eh administratrix Maria. Hence, this being an indebtednesschargeable against conjugal property, no complaint for its payment can be broughtagainst Eulalio, who had already ceased as administrator of the conjugal property. The claim for this amount had to be filed in the testamentary proceedings of Fausta.
Ocampo vs. PotencianoFacts:
Edilberto Ocampo, married to Paz Yatco, executed a deed purporting toconvey to his relative, Conrado Potenciano and his wife Rufina Reyes, by way of salewith
 pacto de retro
for the sum of P2,500, a town lot with a house as strongmaterials standing thereon. On the same day Ocampo signed another document,making it appear that, for an annual rental of P300, which is equivalent to 12% of the purchase price, the vendees were leasing to him the house and lot for theduration of the redemption period. Though registered in the name of Ocampo alone,it in reality belonged to him and his wife as conjugal property. The period originallyfixed for the repurchase was one year, “extendible to another year,” but severalextensions were granted, with the vendor paying part of the principal in addition to

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->