COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: - Troadio Manalo died intestate  survived by wife and 11 children  left several properties in Manila and Tarlac. - 8 children (resps)  pet for the judicial settlement of the estate in RTC Manila & appointment of bro Romeo as admin - TC  order “declaring the whole world in default, except the government.” - order of general default set aside upon motion of pets (wife & remaining 3 children) - TC order admitting the petition for judicial settlement of estate. - Pets  pet for certiorari under Rule 65 - absence of earnest efforts towards compromise among members of the same family; and no certification of non forum shopping was attached to the petition. - CA denied the petition & MFR - Pets – petition claiming Pet for issuance of letters of admin, settlement & distribution of estate is an ordinary civil action thus should be dismissed under Rule 16, Sec 1(j) of the ROC on the ground that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with as there was failure to comply with the requirement in Art 222 CC ISSUE: Is the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate an ordinary civil action, thus Rule 16, Sec 1(j) Rules of Court vis-a-vis Article 222 CC apply as a ground for the dismissal of the petition  NO HELD:  Rule: In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averment and the character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, shall be controlling. o scrutiny of the Petition for ILASD of Estate belies herein petitioner’s claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. • petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate  fact of death  residence at the time of his said death  enumeration of the names of his legal heirs  tentative list of the properties left w/c are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings.  reliefs prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father.
o petition contains certain averments which may be typical of an ordinary civil action & so petitioners, as oppositors took advantage of such in an apparent effort to make out a case of an ordinary civil action and ultimately seek its dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court vis-à-vis, Article 222 of the Civil Code.

civil action/suit - action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the protection or redress of a wrong. o Art 222 applicable only to ordinary civil actions • Use of term “suit” • excerpt from the report of the Code Commission to make it applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the same family. Special proceedings – remedy where petitioner seeks to establish a status, right or particular fact. o Pet for ILASD of Estate = special proc

merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse b. 1 Rule 79 Sec 2 . therefore the venue of Laguna was improper (death cert admissible to prove residence of deaceased at time of his death) o Rule 73 Sec 13 . or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.CA  reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule . except in an appeal from that court. or letters of administration granted. . shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings. existence. intestacy. CA FACTS: . nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestado from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. 21)  death certs presented by Fule show QC as deceased’s last residence > Fule was a creditor of the estate. Venue and Processes  Contained in a law of procedure  merely a matter of method & convenience to parties o Rule 4 Sec 4 . And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. Laguna. The jurisdiction assumed by a court.GARCIA FULE V.left property in Calamba. whether a citizen or an alien. and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death .Requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place .In statutes fixing venue “residence” & “domicile” synonymous  even when statue uses “domicile”.Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k.Amado Garcia died .Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. name. court loses power to exercise it legally.) What does the word “resides” in Rule 73 Sec 1 mean  Resides – “actual residence” . right of person who seeks administration as next of kin.petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. ROC fixed the venue (of settlement of estates. .really a matter of venue  Clause “so far…. it is still construed as residence & not domicile in its technical sense .) Venue v.Preciosa Garcia (wife) and in behalf of their child  opposed > failure to satisfy jurisdictional requirement & improper venue (avers no domicile/residence of deceased as required by Rule 79 Sec. and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him2 . and should allege all the necessary facts such as death. in the original case. his will shall be proved. the CFI of any province in which he had estate. ISSUES/HELD a. creditor or otherwise to be appointed 2 NCC Art. Jurisdiction  JURISDICTION – power/authority of court over subject matter o Jurisdiction over all probate cases is w/ CFIs independently from the place of residence of the deceased (Judiciary act 1948) o Not changed by procedure o There are cases though that if such power is not exercised conformably w/ procedure. situs of assets. actual or physical habitation of a person. .1.CFI  denied opposition .Motion was granted. DISPOSITION: Fule’s petition DENIED.Virginia Garcia Fule (illeg sis)  pet for letters of admin & ex parte appointment as special administratix in CFI Laguna . 992. actual residence or place of abode . probate of will & issuance of letters of admin)  place of residence of deceased / province  Death Certificate  deceased resided in QC at the time of his death. this doesn’t amount to loss of jurisdiction over subject matter but only over the person or that judgment may be rendered defective for lack of something essential to sustain it. . last residence. if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death . or of the location of his estate .”  Caption “Settlement of estate of Deceased Person. 3 RULE 73 Sec.Venue is subject to waiver  but Preciosa did not waive it. However.  VENUE – place where each case shall be brought o Because there are many CFIs.No particular length of time required but must be more than temporary  legal residence or domicile – requires bodily presence and an intention to make it one’s domicile. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.Popular sense – the personal. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent.

Survived by a) widow and 2 minor sons (QC) and b) children of the 1st marriage (Cebu) .Lourdes (child from 1st marriage)  Petition for Letters of Administration in CFI Cebu > senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and QC .CA – upon appeal ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of prohibition to CFI QC ISSUEs: 1) Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition  YES 2) WON CFI QC acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly consenting in deference to the precedence of probate over intestate proceedings .Denied .Lourdes  opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon > lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue. Cuenco died in Manila . shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts FACTS: . considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case .Sen. CA The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent.Cuenco (2nd wife) – pet for probate of will in CFI QC (while pet of Lourdes pending in Cebu) – named executrix > also filed opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu .CFI Cebu  held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI QC shall have acted on the probate proceedings .Opposition and motion to dismiss .Cuenco vs.

On the assumption that Hodges’ purported renunciation should not be upheld. 1957. Hodges was not only usufruct but also ownership with right to dispose of the properties . RULE 109 SECTION 2 allowed Hodges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final adjudication. Both of them left wills with the clause “I give. Hodges had no creditors and all pertinent taxes have been paid. her husband. . No final distribution and adjudication can be made yet. Hodges to be distributed. How much is not yet ascertained. Charles Newton Hodges died as well. and the pertinent laws of Texas. ESCOLIN NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died on May 23. whereby the institution of Hodges is subject to a partial resolutory condition. minus whatever Hodges had gratuitously disposed of therefrom during the period from her death to his death. The estate of Mrs. Those disposed with remunerations still belong to his wife’s estate. Hodges inherited by her siblings consists of 1/4 of the community estate of the spouses at the time of her death. Hodges simultaneously instituted her brothers & sisters as co-heirs with her husband.Said that under Texas law. At best. which manner of institution is not prohibited by law. residue and remainder. brothers & sisters only had ¼ as legitime HELD: 1. devise and bequeath all of the rest. Hodges’ estate . 3. Hodges’ estate . 4.” subject to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other. Her husband would have complete rights of dominion over the whole estate during his lifetime.Only lifetime usufruct was given to Mr. Magno – administratrix of Mrs. the operative contingency of which is coincidental with that of the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters in law. spouse has no legitime PCIB – administrator of Mr. The brothers and sisters of Linnie Jane alleged that Charles Newton Hodges made statements and ratifications that he had renounced his inheritance from his wife in favor of her other heirs. There is an estate of Mrs. to my beloved spouse to have to hold unto (him/her) – during (his/her) natural lifetime.Claims that under Texas law. of my estate. Hodges’ death. Hodges’ estate. left at the time of Mr. 5 and a half years later. This is only a simple case of conditional simultaneous institution of heirs. it will appear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno (2) WON Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife 5. with the condition that. both real and personal. with no obligation to preserve anything for them and what would go to the brothers & sisters would be only the remainder of Mrs. inasmuch as Mrs. there being no possible prejudice to 3rd parties. the estate of Mrs.Claims that naked ownership passed to siblings. devised and bequeathed” to the brothers and sisters of the latter. Mrs.Claims that what was passed to Mr. Hodges . Hodges inherited by her brothers & sisters could be more than just stated but is dependent on: (1) Whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to NCC Article 16. wherever situated or located. 2.PCIB V. the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is “given. .

As to the contracts to sell executed by Hodges “after” the death of his wife. The manner of applying NCC Article 16 to the situation and 2. Liquidation of the estates . Lower Courts AFFIRMED.6. Factual and legal issue as to WON Charles Newton Hodges had effectively and legally renounced his inheritance under the will of his wife 3. and determine: 1. the proceeds belong to the estate of Mrs. Probate Courts to proceed with the proceedings. Hodges. DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.

initially administratrix of both spouse's estate. later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate WON Action is prescribed? NO. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. 1. same issues = multiplicity of suits WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS.1 (on RESIDUE): …after residue assigned to parties entitled to it.PCIB V. with the exception of the Texas property. Hodges died first then Mr. no residue left. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estate b. Appeal insufficient remedy -many appeals. he made statements that the estate of Mrs. If charles already deemed sole heir. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled 2.no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate 2. why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is indeed the sole heir? 3. R90. (believe me. Mr. Hodges died first. Magno. same facts. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's estate -Charles died. thus ulit. ESCOLIN Short Summary: Mr. 33 appeals were timely made -Court did not pass upon its timeliness WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper? YES.P. HODGES' HEIRS? YES. Debts • Funeral expenses • Expenses of administration • Widow allowance • Taxes • Etc. BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED. S. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO …. Mrs. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) Would include distribution of residue of estate -Here: a. Upon death of the latter spouse. the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges. …should be paid already 3. he failed to make accounting. HODGES PCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE: 1. their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths. this is a short summary…case is long…) Facts -Charles & Linnie Hodges. Hodges’ estate. No special application made by charles/PCIB c. Merely allowed advance or partial payments/implementation of will before final liquidation d. tapos na special proceeding) BUT SC: . Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR • in Financial Statements submitted before the court. both TEXAN nationals. provided in their respective wills that • bequeath remainder of estate to spouse…during lifetime • remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse -Mrs. Hodges is 1/2 of conjugal estate • that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in US • for 5 years before his death. the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters.

stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney • In Petition for will's probate. he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate 2.6 d.R73.2 . over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78. OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER H: NO. Whatever was intended.1. Admin should both be • impartial • extent of interest c. can't close SP yet >PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET. both PCIB and Magno should administer a. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate yet b.motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding 3. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights: • In FS. as Surviving spouse. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles. of trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF 4. PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings . Order . Mr. he listed the bros and sis as heirs • Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of Charles when latter was still executor of Linney's estate – so may know what Charles' intended • Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney • He even allegedly renounced his share of the estate (but was not proven) • Charles had duty.

He transferred it by “fictitious sale” to his daughter Teresa to support her children with the agreement that when the children finishes schooling.. expressly or impliedly..VALERA V...) Probate Court had no jurisdiction b... ♥ The cognizance of the Probate Court as to the title over the fishpond was not definite. ♥ Pursuant thereto.Consolacion Sarosa Teresa . Rafael Valera . Or the interests of 3rd persons are not thereby prejudiced.. the fishpond will be returned to him. a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner. Narvasa NATURE: Petition to Review the judgment of CFI & CA FACTS: Rafael Valera was granted leasehold rights over an 18 hectare fishpond in Iloilo by the government to last during his lifetime. therefore the fishpond should be restored to the estate of the spouses. When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another.. The heirs of Teresa – her husband Jose Garin and their children bought the fishpond from the government. or transfer it to another or the grantor. The fishpond was leased by the Garin Heirs to Fabiana. Court of Appeals reversed (fishpond to be returned to Garin Heirs and their lessee Fabiana) saying that a. ISSUE: WON Probate Court had authority to order reconveyance of the fishpond? HELD: No RATIO: ♥ The Probate Court exercises limited jurisdiction and has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a 3rd person adversely to the decedent.. INSERTO May 7. J. 1451.. NCC Art. acquiring title thereto. he directed the sheriff to enforce reconveyance of the fishpond to the estate. unless *issue is procedural:* The claimant and all the other parties having legal interest in the property consent. 1453. ♥ Probate Court (Judge Adil): there has been an implied trust created.. who although willingly surrendered it to the sheriff filed a complaint – in – intervention.) that the Title of the Garin Heirs is a stronger claim that rebuts the presumption that the estate owns the fishpond c. 1987. then instituted a separate action for injunction and damages.. to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgement. Art. When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for.. which when dismissed..) that assuming the Probate Court had competence to resolve ownership..Jose Garin children The administrators of the spouses claim that the fishpond should be returned to the spouses’ estates. a separate action has to be filed. but merely to determine whether or not it should be included in the inventory of the estate of the spouses. . there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated. permanent nor writing a “finis” thereto. Valera and his spouse Consolacion Sarosa and their child Teresa died.

if the third person asserts a right to the property contrary to the decedent's. especially if the holder is in possession. On the other hand. Of course. The fishpond cannot be subject of execution. no difficulty arises. the Probate Court would have no authority to resolve the issue. expressly invoked by the Probate Court in justification of its holding a hearing on the issue arising from the parties' conflicting claims over the fishpond. or conveyed away the same. DISPOSITION: CA Affirmed. ♥ ♥ Presumption of conclusiveness of the title. a separate action must be instituted by the administrator to recover the property. the Probate Court simply issues the appropriate direction for the delivery of the property to the estate. The same norm governs the situation contemplated in Section 6. The examination provided in the cited section is intended merely to elicit evidence relevant to property of the decedent from persons suspected of having possession or knowledge thereof. or of having concealed. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. . if the latter lays no claim to the property and manifests willingness to tum it over to the estate. embezzled.It is merely provisional in character.

the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. then the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership. 1978. J. They should not be forced to incur additional expenses by bringing a .or if the question is one of collation or advancement.or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court. (case at bar) . RATIO: The probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion in. they approved the project of partition but excluded the 12 ha and did not bother to decide how the remainder should be partitioned and WON Prima had a share in that remainder. Aquino NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Juan Pangilinan –(married)-.partitioned the properties: . CA sustained CFI.Giving atty’s fees to Crispin Borromeo . ISSUES: WON separate proceedings should be filed to determine ownership? HELD: No. and the rights of 3 rd parties are not impaired.COCA V. The appellees belong to the poor stratum of society. or exclusion from. of a 6 ha land claimed by Crispin Borromeo and: a) Debt to Concepcion’s estate b) If Prima sold her share to Francisco Note: WON Prima was excluded as an heir CFI ordered that a separate ordinary action is needed to determine ownership of the land in dispute. BORROMEO Jan. may not pass upon ownership Except: If the interested parties are all heirs.Without taking into consideration ownership of a 12-ha land claimed by the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan. 31. . GR: Probate Ct. Prima Francisco Roseller • Desmothenes Eliza CFI ordered . the case is an exception. Later on.Teresa Magtuba they had 3 children: Concepcion Yamuta Maria Eusebio Apolinar Guadalupe Pizarras Francis Agerian Benjamin Perla Francisco Helen Jr.

separate action to determine ownership of the 12 hectare portion. . DISPOSITION: The lower court’s Order excluding the 12 hectares and the 2 orders regarding the claim of Guadalupe Pizarras and her children are REVERSED & SET ASIDE. Case remanded to CFI for further proceedings in accordance with the guidelines set forth here. A new trial should be held on those matters.