This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Rombe is a corp. organized and existing under Philippine laws with its main office in Mandaluyong. It owns real properties in Malolos, Bulacan. It is represented by the spouses Romeo and Marrionette Peralta. In 2002, Rombe filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehab. Plan with RTC. On May 3, 2002, RTC issued a Stay Order in accordance with Interim Rules of Procedure on Corp Rehab (IRPCR), Rule 4, Section 6. SEC, BPI, Asiatrust opposed the petition. RTC dismissed the case on September 24, 2002, due to 1.) Rombe misrepresented materially its true financial status
a.) b.) c.) d.) e.) f.) g.) h.) Did not submit audited f/s Made it appear that it had sufficient assets to pay its outstanding obligations, but when examined were registered with other persons and only 2 were unencumbered Mis-declared the value of its assets Gave only general references to the location of the properties without mention of the book values nor condition of the properties in its Inventory of Assets Did not attach evidence of title or ownership to the properties enumerated Did not attach nor provide a Schedule of A/R, indicating amount of each, maturity dates, degree of collectivity, Had not complied with its reportorial duty to file Gen. Info Sheet and F/S from 19921995 and 2002, which its F/S 1999-2000 were filed late B/S claimed it had receivables but did not indicate nature, basis and other information
2. WON the injunctive writ issued in the annulment of foreclosure interfered with the
Sept. 24, 2002 Order in the rehab case? No, it did not. RATIO: Rehab – special proceeding – summary and non-adversarial in nature def’n. Rule 1 Section 3 (c.) one that seeks to establish the status of a party or a particular fact the status or fact sought to be established is the inability of the corp debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that a rehab plan, containing the formula for the successful recovery of the corporation, may be approved in the end. No COA. Governed by special rules, in this case A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC Sept. 4, 2001 IRPCR Annulment of Foreclosure – civil action – def’n. Rule 1 S3. (a.) One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or rederess of a wrong. The COA in this case is the act of Asiatrust in foreclosing the mortgage on Rombe’s properties by which the latter’s right to the properties was allegedly violated; Also to annul the unilateral increase in interest rate by Asiatrust Rule 2 Section 2. Cause of Action – act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Governed by regular rules of procedure under 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Furthermore, upon the Annulment of Foreclosure Proceedings, there was no rehab case pending before any court to speak of, being dismissed already. DISPOSITION: CA REVERSED & SET ASIDE. RTC to conduct further proceedings in the civil case with dispatch. NOTES:
2.) Did not have a feasible Rehab Plan 3.) Was Insolvent. Rombe did not appeal. Instead, anticipating the foreclosure, it filed a Complaint for Annulment of Documents and Damages with Prayer for a TRO and Injunction against Asiatrust and the Sheriff, which was granted. CA reversed, lifting the preliminary injunction, ground: the Order of Dismissal in the Rehab Proceedings. ISSUES/ HELD: 1. WON the rehabilitation case is distinct and dissimilar from the annulment of the foreclosure case (Nature, Purpose, Reliefs Sought)? Yes
SPEC PRO - - - - - 2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 - - - - PROF. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. LEE
nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. or letters of administration granted. Martin NATURE: Petitions for review of the decision of the CA FACTS: On April 26. therefore the venue of Laguna was improper.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 .) Preciosa is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix. Same meaning as “inhabitant”. right of person who seeks administration as next of kin. creditor or otherwise to be appointed.. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestado from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.PROF. last residence. LEE 2 . except in an appeal from that court. the CFI of any province in which he had estate.) Who is entitled? HELD/RATIO: a. 29. ISSUES: a. and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. 1976. his will shall be proved.TOPIC: II.) RULE 73 SECTION 1. J. wife of deceased. Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4)... merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse. 992... 1973. RULE 79 SECTION 2. SPEC PRO . and should allege all the necessary facts such as death. venue is distinct from “jurisdiction” which is conferred by Judiciary Act of 1948.. However. Garcia. c. b. Old rules basis ay: appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will. actual or physical habitation of a person. or of the location of his estate. shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings. but Preciosa did not waive it. and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death. New: added .. Popular sense – the personal. UNDER RULES OF COURT A. he owned property in Calamba. and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him1) CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule.) Venue v. (there was an allegation that the wife was Carolina Carpio) Preciosa B. Laguna. Virginia G. in the original case. Fule field with CFI Laguna a petition for letters of administration and ex parte appointment as special administratix over the estate.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean? c. the court may appoint a xxx” 1 NCC Art. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES 1. Motion was granted. (Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate. intestacy. Garcia died. 1973 Amado G. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent. Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. actual residence or place of abode Must be more than temporary Distinguished from “legal residence or domicile” – requires bodily presence and an intention to make it one’s domicile. demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. as amended to be with CFIs independently from the place of residence of the deceased. jurisdiction b. situs of assets. existence. name.) Resides – ex vi termini “actual residence” Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. which was denied by CFI. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.” Fule’s own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at the time of his death. The New Rules RULE 80 SECTION 1 broadened the basis for appointment of special administrator (temporarily) to take possession and charge of the estates of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and (regular) executors or administrators appointed.“xxx delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause (includes parties cannot agree among themselves) including an appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will. On May 2. Garcia opposed. whether a citizen or an alien. CA Nov. VENUE & JURISDICTION CASE #2: GARCIA FULE V. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. “if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death. The jurisdiction assumed by a court. or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
if not more. interest in administering the entire estate correctly than any other next of kin. 2002. In Raymond V CA (1988) and Bejer V CA (1989). he was in the process of transferring his personal belongings to his new QC house and died before he could move therein. that their staying with him due to their medical treatments and hospitalization were transitory. at the election of the plaintiff. SC held that venue for ordinary civil actions and for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. SECTION 2. and purchased a house in QC to be nearer to his doctor. RTC designated J. In re: Fule. died and the Court held that the situs of the settlement proceedings was at his domicile. wherein the decedent was from San Fernando.. Perico Jao instituted a petition for issuance of letters of administration with request for appointment of special administrator before RTC QC. Rodolfo opposed claiming that their parents resided at Angeles. V. Here their parents lived with Rodolfo for 3-4 years before they died. decedents. Jao. CA as to the term “resides”.. and differentiated between: Venue in ordinary civil actions RULE 4 SPEC PRO . it is not required that the administratrix be entitled to share in the estate of the decedent – only that one is entitled to the administration. The contention is non-sequitur.. Factual findings substantiated by evidence are conclusive and binding. she would have as such.The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not is with the probate court. For such reason. J. NOTES: RULE 80 SECTION 2. Venue in Special Proceedings RULE 73 SECTION 1. et. Death certificates are admissible in evidence and were properly considered and presumed to be correct by the court a quo. al. because there. suffering from a heart ailment. or in the case of a non-resident defendant. alleging that his brother is dissipating the assets of the estate. Clearly provides where the decedent resides at the time of his death. Pampanga.PROF. Ynares-Santiago NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. had 2 sons: Rodolfo and Perico Jao.2 SEM SY 2008-2009 . Plus Ignacio died a year before Andrea. DISPOSITION: Fule’s petition DENIED. but Rodolfo did not correct the entry in their mother’s death certificate either. Eusebio. the paramount consideration is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. LEE 3 . besides her share in the conjugal partnership.. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside. Eusebio is not applicable in the case at bar. Venue of Personal Actions.. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. CA May 29. SC cited Garcia-Fule V. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. but the preference of Preciosa is with sufficient reason – the widow would have the right of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent. that domicile is where the records of the properties are kept and where most of the properties of the decedents are located.. ISSUES: Where should the settlement proceedings be had? HELD: QC RATIO: RULE 73 SECTION 1. nd CASE # 3: JAO V. Powers and Duties of Special Administrator CA dismissed Rodolfo’s petition for certiorari. where he may be found. Rodolfo cited Eusebio V. Death Certificate entry by Rodolfo was that the spouses last resided with him in QC. Carlos L. (1956).. Pampanga. Sundiam as special administrator of the estate.
CASE # 4: LEE V. 28. Villareal and Epitasia Tan. and 2nd to the spouses Salvador & Dolores Saldana. SC dismissed petition for certiorari. Alberto Tabar Tabada. CA Dec. Judgment became final and was executed.. NOTES: RATIO: The intestate estate has long been closed.. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. There is no longer any property of the estate to administer or distribute and settle among the recognized 3 heirs who have no claims whatsoever for the probate court to adjudicate.. one of the heirs before the partition of the estate sold all his rights and interests over the estate 1st to his co-heirs. J. CA AFFIRMED. Again.DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. 2nd to the spouses Salvador & Dolores Saldana..2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . Teehankee NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Andres Tabar died and his estate was left to 3 heirs. This time the spouses Saldana sold it to Cesar T. CA denied MFR. but such question of ownership has to be resolved in an appropriate separate action. Alberto Tabar Tabada sold his share twice 1st to his co-heirs. affirming CFI. the heirs discovered some more real properties belonging to the estate of the deceased. The issue in the case to quiet title is simply a question of conflicting claims of ownership. CFI Order to Archive is also SET ASIDE. CFI upheld the validity of the 1st sale. 1973. After the Special Proceedings was terminated. saying that the parties are required to reopen the Special Intestate Estate Proceedings and there settle the distribution of the newly discovered properties. The co-heirs filed a petition for the annulment of the Deed of Sale to the spouses. NOTES: SPEC PRO . The probate court has no authority to decide in the estate proceedings whether property disputed belongs to one or the other. The probate court had already lost jurisdiction over the estate. and without reopening the Spec Pro executed an extra-judicial partition of said real properties... HELD: CA gravely erred in upholding CFI’s order to archive the petitioners’ action to quiet title and requiring the parties to reopen the intestate estate. and declared the nullity of the 2nd sale.. This is the proper subject matter of the action to quiet title and is beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court to determine.PROF. and none of the 3 heirs nor any affected 3rd party has ever questioned the extra-judicial partition of the more recent discovered real properties. CFI directed to proceed with the hearing and determination of the action to quiet title on its merits. CA affirmed. CFI issued an Order to Archive the Case in the meantime. (see also RULE 87. The co-heirs filed a petition to quiet their title over the 3 lots conveyed by Alberto Tabar Tabaada. SEC 2 & SEC 6) DISPOSITION: CA Order SET ASIDE. LEE 4 .
he directed the sheriff to enforce reconveyance of the fishpond to the estate.. acquiring title thereto.. there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated. the fishpond will be returned to him. Valera and his spouse Consolacion Sarosa and their child Teresa died.. a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner. Art. On the other hand. ♥ Probate Court (Judge Adil): there has been an implied trust created.. ♥ ♥ Presumption of conclusiveness of the title.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . 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. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. The fishpond cannot be subject of execution.. or transfer it to another or the grantor... 1451.. permanent nor writing a “finis” thereto. It is merely provisional in character. unless *issue is procedural:* The claimant and all the other parties having legal interest in the property consent. The same norm governs the situation contemplated in Section 6.. the Probate Court would have no authority to resolve the issue.PROF.) that assuming the Probate Court had competence to resolve ownership.. 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.) Probate Court had no jurisdiction SPEC PRO . J..CASE # 5: VALERA V. a separate action must be instituted by the administrator to recover the property.. ♥ Pursuant thereto. especially if the holder is in possession. INSERTO May 7. who although willingly surrendered it to the sheriff filed a complaint – in – intervention. if the latter lays no claim to the property and manifests willingness to tum it over to the estate. The fishpond was leased by the Garin Heirs to Fabiana. Of course. therefore the fishpond should be restored to the estate of the spouses.Consolacion Sarosa Teresa .... 1987. Or the interests of 3rd persons are not thereby prejudiced.. 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 3 rd person adversely to the decedent.. a separate action has to be filed. if the third person asserts a right to the property contrary to the decedent's. When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for. 1453. Rafael Valera . ♥ The cognizance of the Probate Court as to the title over the fishpond was not definite. When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another. b.. expressly or impliedly. LEE 5 . the Probate Court simply issues the appropriate direction for the delivery of the property to the estate.) that the Title of the Garin Heirs is a stronger claim that rebuts the presumption that the estate owns the fishpond c. but merely to determine whether or not it should be included in the inventory of the estate of the spouses. The heirs of Teresa – her husband Jose Garin and their children bought the fishpond from the government. Court of Appeals reversed (fishpond to be returned to Garin Heirs and their lessee Fabiana) saying that a.. then instituted a separate action for injunction and damages. to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgement. which when dismissed. He transferred it by “fictitious sale” to his daughter Teresa to support her children with the agreement that when the children finishes schooling. 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 of having concealed. embezzled.. no difficulty arises.Jose Garin children The administrators of the spouses claim that the fishpond should be returned to the spouses’ estates.. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. or conveyed away the same.. NCC Art.
CASE #6: COCA V.or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court. The appellees belong to the poor stratum of society. LEE 6 .. and the rights of 3rd parties are not impaired.. 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. They should not be forced to incur additional expenses by bringing a separate action to determine ownership of the 12 hectare portion. 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 NOTES: Roseller • Desmothenes CFI ordered that a separate ordinary action is needed to determine ownership of the land in dispute..PROF. J. 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.. (case at bar) or if the question is one of collation or advancement. may not pass upon ownership Except: If the interested parties are all heirs. Later on. Case remanded to CFI for further proceedings in accordance with the guidelines set forth here. Aquino NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Juan Pangilinan –(married)-.. 1978. 31. GR: Probate Ct. SPEC PRO . . NOTES: ISSUES: WON separate proceedings should be filed to determine ownership? HELD: No. Eliza A new trial should be held on those matters.Teresa Magtuba they had 3 children: Concepcion Yamuta Maria Eusebio Apolinar Guadalupe Pizarras Francis Agerian Benjamin Perla Francisco Helen Jr. the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.. BORROMEO Jan. the case is an exception. then the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership.partitioned the properties: Giving atty’s fees to Crispin Borromeo Without taking into consideration ownership of a 12-ha land claimed by the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan.. CA sustained CFI. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . CFI ordered . Prima Francisco RATIO: The probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion in. or exclusion from.DISPOSITION: CA Affirmed.
. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES CASE # 7: PEREIRA V. CIV. legitimacy. etc. Summary Settlement Only RATIO: action for partition lang ang kelangan. Jr. 2005 NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Jose Q. Portugal (RIP 1985) Married both: Paz Lazaro (in 1942) Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal • • Isabel dela Puerta (in 1948) - DISPOSITION: remanded to RTC.1 when only 1 heir or when heirs are all of legal age • • Only property need not be burdened with burdensome superfluous expensive long proceedings when RTC could have easily determined the issues In the cases: Litam Solivio Guilas There was a need to file one but if putative heir Lost the right to spec pro (my thought example by prescription) Or spec pro was instituted & has ended then ORD. Gancayco. CA J...TOPIC: II. UNDER RULES OF COURT A...BELTRAN J. PORTUGAL . 3 (C)] Not civil procedure Enforce rights CA affirmed: Main issue is annulment of title to property Contending parties’ status and rights not establish in proper proceedings V. sec. Carpio Morales – Aug 16. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R.2: because determination of staus as heirs is SPEC PRO [RULE 1. SEC. June 20. NOTES: Only has 1 property: a lot in Caloocan Aleli believing sole heir adjudicated everything to herself by Rule 74 sec. No administrator need be assigned DISPOSITION: Letters of Administration issued by RTC to sister Rita Pereira Nagac are hereby revoked and the administration proceedings dismissed w/o prejudice to her right to commence an action for partition of the property left by decedent. claiming they are the legal heirs RTC dismissed: Grounds: probate court has jurisdiction . In Carino: the main issue is which of the 2 marriages is valid? Who the rightful heir is between the two wives is only secondary.PROF. • • ISSUES: do petitioners have to institute special proceedings to establish their status as heirs before they can pursue case for annulment of Aleli’s affidavit of adjudication and TCT? HELD: no RATIO: GENERAL RULE: when a peson dies. 1989 NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Andres de Guzman Pereira left only 2 heirs a) Wife of 10 months b) Sister • sister filed petition for issuance of administration in her favor • wife opposed: a) property 1: death benefits she is only beneficiary b) savings deposit: used for burial expenses c) only real property – house in Rizal ISSUES: Should there be judicial proceedings? HELD: No. NOTES: • The son by bigamous marriage and his mother (2nd wife) in 1996 [not extrajudicial settlement] filed claim to annul title issued to Aleli. (citing Cariño) CASE # 8: PORTUGAL V. LEE 7 . SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES 2. his estate is judicially administered . validity of marriage.) so long as they are essential as to the determination of the case...1 SPEC PRO . RTC to proceed with the case Jose Douglas Portugal. Estate not substantial Simple case. ACTIONS can be filed and RTC can pass upon those issues (heirship.Rule 78 EXCEPTION: Rule 74.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 .
792) The will is intrinsically valid. Delia – Anti-probate Claimed that the renunciation of Felix Sr. though not belonging to the testator when he made the will.TOPIC: II. Aquino NATURE: Petition for Certiorari of an Order of CFI FACTS: Felix Balanay Sr ----. Testacy is preferred over intestacy.. 143.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . LEE 8 . c) - The rule is that “the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions. the disposition shall take effect. afterwards becomes his. UNDER RULES OF COURT A. J. 788 & 791)..PROF. was not valid.. Carolina. unless it is presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the 1 st invalid disposition had not been made. should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention. But if the thing bequeathed. Beatriz. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition operative takes precedence over a construction that will nullify a provision of the will (NCC ART. Non division of estate. 1975. 1080 envisages that 1 or more children are assigned the whole estate. that’s why the rest of the children are to be paid their legitimes in cash WON RTC assignment of clerk of court as special administrator proper? No No Yes c) WON notice to creditors proper? - d) WON Felix.) Generally the probate of a will is mandatory.. her share was inchoate and pro-indiviso NCC ART. Sr.” d) - SPEC PRO . will was void. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. JR. conformed to his wife’s will and renounced his share in favor of their children Felix Jr. parents were preterited in favor of siblings Here. Avelina Beatriz Carolina Delia Emilia • • • • e) NCC ART. Preterition can only be in the ascending or descending line.. RTC dismissed petition for probate. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. Intestate proceedings • Leodegaria excuted a will with some void provisions: ISSUES/HELD: a) b) Validity of RTC order to disallow will from probate? No a) Declaring she owns southern half of 9 conjugal lots b) Although she was a co-owner. 1083 only allows a deceased’s estate to remain undivided for a period of 20years.’s conformity to his wife’s will was valid? RATIO: a..” (NCC ART. The legacy or device of a thing belonging to another person is void. :. Compromise future legitimes Felix Sr.. PROBATE OF WILLS RULES CASE # 9: BALANAY. his preterition did not produce intestacy. by whatever title. some. NCC ART 794 provides that “property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES 3. Emilia – Pro will Avelina. The expressed desire of the testator must be followed. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R.” Husband was preterited Succession class: There is no preterition of the husband. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator shall annul the institution of heir. NCC ART 854 “the preterition or omission of one. 930. Different from Nuguid case because there.. Any disposition in his will is better than that which the law can make. as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will.Leodegaria Julian Six children Felix Jr. if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. MARTINEZ June 27. Disposing of her husband’s share as well NCC ART. V. and providing that the legitimes be paid in cash from fruits of the land NCC ART. without assigning the whole estate to any single or more children heirs.
not signed by the witnesses on the margin of page 3 (out of 4 pages. Gutierrez.) A notice to creditors is not in order if only a special administrator has been appointed. One of the Exceptions: the probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void. 3 CASE # 10: NEPOMUCENO V. concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. Nuguid) 2 DISPOSITION: CFI decision SET ASIDE. A portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and maintenance. CA reversed and set aside the CFI decision. Nepomuceno. A court employee should devote his official time to his official duties and should not have as a sideline. descendants and ascendants. NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16. 1974 in Malabon. by reason of his office. Oct. d. In the case referred to in No... CFI directed to conduct further proceedings in consonance with this opinion. the rest compliant with statute).. 9 . Jr. and the guild of the donor and done may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action. NOTES: The following donations shall be void: (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation. (2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense. CFI denied probate because on the face of the will.. He left behind a will. (3) Those made to a public officer or his wife.PROF..) He could validly do so. but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a donation. the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of said court” Clearly contemplates the appointment of an executor or regular administrator and not that of a special administrator. in consideration thereof. it should be subject to the limitations in NCC ART 750 & 752.. ISSUES: WON the CA has jurisdiction to declare the provision in favor of Nepomuceno as null and void? HELD: Yes it has. Or at least his legitime should be respected. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon.” Nepomuceno filed a petition for the probate of the deceased and asked for issuance of letters testamentary. RULE 86 SECTION 1 “immediately after granting letters of testamentary or of administration.. LEE The prohibitions mentioned in ART 739. Rizal. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or done.b. Its Order setting for hearing the petition for probate is AFFIRMED.) It is not a salutary practice because it might engender the suspicion that the probate judge and his clerk of court are in cahoots in milking the decedent’s estate. RATIO: GR: in probate proceedings. 9. even before it is probated. The will contained “that he has been estranged from his wife with whom he had 2 legitimate children: Oscar and Carmelita and is living with Sofia J. (Nuguid V. the invalidity of the intrinsic provisions is evident. The legal wife Rufina Gomez opposed the petition. the court should meet the issue. c. Should the clerk of court commit any abuse or devastavit in the course of his administration. declaring the Will to be valid except the devise in favor of Nepomuceno as being null and void pursuant to NCC ART 7392 in relation with ART 10283. the administration of a decedent’s estate. the probate judge might find it difficult to hold him to a strict accountability.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 .. 1. CA J. RULE 86 SECTION 10 & RULE 88 SECTION 1 It is the executor or regular administrator who is supposed to oppose the claims against the estate and to pay such claims when duly allowed. 1985 SPEC PRO .
1966. some of which to Marcelina Guerra.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . RATIO: Substantial Evidence of due execution. Adelaida Nista filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will and testament and codicil dated April 18. 3. to secure the schedule of partition dated Jan. 31. In view hereof. committed acts of ingratitude when they abandoned the testatrix and denied her support after they managed. Miguel Gavino.. And a parcel of land to Adelaida Nista. SPEC PRO . IAC AFFIRMED.. NOTES: The CA affirmed the disapproval of the compromise agreement but disallowed the probate of the will on the ground that evidence failed to establish that the testatrix signed her will in the presence of instrumental witnesses in accordance with NCC ART 805. Amor Danila. Buenaventura and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra filed an opposition alleging that they are the legally adopted son and daughter of the spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila..that the lawyers who drafted the will uphold the lofty purposes of the law. donated or disposed of all her properties. (PRO . 5. appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. NOTES: CASE # 12: RODELAS V. 1978. Repudiated their institution as heirs and executors when they failed to cause the recording of the 1951 will 2.. LEE 10 . That there was photographs of witness signing and none of the testatrix signing – pictures are worthy only of what they show and prove and NOT OF WHAT THEY DO NOT SPEAK OF including the events they FAIL TO CAPTURE. J. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. the CFI disapproved the compromise agreement and allowed the probate of the 2nd will. 2 out of 3 witnesses did not see the testatrix sign the will. The parties entered into a compromise agreement: 1. 2. & half-hearted.400. 15. CASE # 11: RAMOS V. Felix Danila. Guerrero NATURE: Appeal by way of Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Eugenia Danila died on May 21. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. 7.. On June 2. 1977. The 1963 will and codicil are considered abrogated and set aside. Inter vivos. Probate of 2nd will allowed. filed a motion for leave to intervene as co-petitioners alleging that they are heirs of the late Eugenia Danila. no evidence to show that the lawyers were motivated by any material interest to take sides or that his statement is truth perverted of the acknowledgement before a Notary Public A negative testimony does not enjoy equal standing with a positive assertion. The Probate of a Will is a Special Proceeding not embued with adversary character. did not know what they signed daw) The Attestation Clause was signed by all 3 witnesses. DISPOSITION: CA reversed insofar as to allow the probate of the 2nd will.In addition. Consolacion Santos. That therefore the deceased has no more estate left 4. shall belong to her adopted children.800 to creditors which was assumed by Marcelina Guerra but Adelaida Nista shall contribute P3. CA Jan.WILL) They allege that the adopted children: 1. Eugenia Danila already sold.2nd . 1963 of the deceased. especially faced with the convincing appearance of the will. and the other signatories waive such in favor of Buenaventura and Marcelina Guerra. 11. 1982.. 1962. That the parties waive and renounce further claims against each other Rosario de Ramos. Nepomuceno is not innocent nor in good faith. Presumption of regularity . DISPOSITION: petition DISMISSED. 1966.PROF. 7. Miguel Danila – son of late Fortunato Danila. through fraud and undue influence. (plus their negative testimony is self-serving. wherein courts should relax the rules on evidence “to the end that nothing less than the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible” should be presented to the court before a purported will may be probated or denied probate. J. ISSUE: WON the last testament and its accompanying codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities of the law? HELD: Yes. 6. and that their adoptive mother already made a will in 1951 which was probated in her lifetime and never withdrawn. ARANZA Dec. That any other property of the deceased which may be discovered later.. Miguel Danila. That the deceased owed P6. Relova NATURE: Petition for Review the order of CA FACTS: On Jan.
at least 1 identifying witness is required and. In the probate of a holographic will. NOTES: SPEC PRO . A photostatic copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R.. at least three of such witnesses shall be required.. In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph. it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If contested. if no witness is available. if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available. The authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . dismissal of CFI of petition to approve the will SET ASIDE. ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proven by means of a photostatic copy? HELD: Yes RATIO: NCC Art. However..PROF.. expert testimony may be resorted to. (619a) Probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved.. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. Gan V.There were oppositors. experts may be resorted to. If uncontested. at least 3 identifying witnesses are required. was cited. The probate may be uncontested or not. If the will is contested. LEE 11 .. Yap. its footnote 8. and if the court deem it necessary. DISPOSITION: CA Order denying MFR. 811.. the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.
the estate of Mrs. Hodges to be distributed. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. inasmuch as Mrs. At best. 1957. RULE 109 SECTION 2 allowed Hodges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final adjudication. Hodges’ estate Claims that naked ownership passed to siblings.. spouse has no legitime PCIB – administrator of Mr. Her husband would have complete rights of dominion over the whole estate during his lifetime. Hodges simultaneously instituted her brothers & sisters as co-heirs with her husband. with no obligation to preserve anything for them and what would go to the brothers & sisters would be only the remainder of Mrs. brothers & sisters only had ¼ as legitime HELD: 1. with the condition that.. 6.” subject to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other. the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is “given. The estate of Mrs.TOPIC: II. How much is not yet ascertained. 3. devised and bequeathed” to the brothers and sisters of the latter. Lower Courts AFFIRMED. and determine: 1. 5. Liquidation of the estates NOTES: SPEC PRO . Hodges had no creditors and all pertinent taxes have been paid. Hodges Claims that under Texas law. ESCOLIN March 29. Probate Courts to proceed with the proceedings. DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED. Hodges. 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 the pertinent laws of Texas. EXECUTORS & ADMINISTRATORS RULES 78-85 CASE # 13: PCIB V. Hodges’ death. As to the contracts to sell executed by Hodges “after” the death of his wife. Only lifetime usufruct was given to Mr. Both of them left wills with the clause “I give. 4. devise and bequeath all of the rest. Hodges was not only usufruct but also ownership with right to dispose of the properties Said that under Texas law. 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 There is an estate of Mrs. whereby the institution of Hodges is subject to a partial resolutory condition. wherever situated or located. which manner of institution is not prohibited by law. Hodges’ estate Claims that what was passed to Mr.2nd SEM SY 2008-2009 . On the assumption that Hodges’ purported renunciation should not be upheld. This is only a simple case of conditional simultaneous institution of heirs. UNDER RULES OF COURT A. Barredo Discussed in SUCCESSION already NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died on May 23. 5 and a half years later. No final distribution and adjudication can be made yet. 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.. Magno – administratrix of Mrs. residue and remainder. minus whatever Hodges had gratuitously disposed of therefrom during the period from her death to his death. of my estate. LEE 12 .PROF.. J. the proceeds belong to the estate of Mrs. left at the time of Mr. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES 4. 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. Charles Newton Hodges died as well. both real and personal. the operative contingency of which is coincidental with that of the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters in law. The manner of applying NCC Article 16 to the situation and 2. her husband.... to my beloved spouse to have to hold unto (him/her) – during (his/her) natural lifetime. Mrs. there being no possible prejudice to 3rd parties. Hodges inherited by her siblings consists of 1/4 of the community estate of the spouses at the time of her death. Hodges’ estate. Those disposed with remunerations still belong to his wife’s estate. 2. 1974.