This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
Requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place . situs of assets. CA FACTS: . his will shall be proved. the CFI of any province in which he had estate. Laguna. actual or physical habitation of a person. or letters of administration granted. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent. Venue and Processes Contained in a law of procedure merely a matter of method & convenience to parties o Rule 4 Sec 4 . intestacy.really a matter of venue Clause “so far….CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule . 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. name.) What does the word “resides” in Rule 73 Sec 1 mean Resides – “actual residence” .CFI denied opposition .Amado Garcia died . or of the location of his estate. DISPOSITION: Fule’s petition DENIED. 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 . and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him2 . However.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. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. 992.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.Virginia Garcia Fule (illeg sis) pet for letters of admin & ex parte appointment as special administratix in CFI Laguna . existence. except in an appeal from that court. ISSUES/HELD a. right of person who seeks administration as next of kin.Motion was granted. in the original case. .GARCIA FULE V. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestado from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. 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. 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. ROC fixed the venue (of settlement of estates. And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. . . The jurisdiction assumed by a court.petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. whether a citizen or an alien. 1 Rule 79 Sec 2 . 3 RULE 73 Sec.Venue is subject to waiver but Preciosa did not waive it.left property in Calamba.) Venue v. . and should allege all the necessary facts such as death. merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse b. court loses power to exercise it legally. VENUE – place where each case shall be brought o Because there are many CFIs.Popular sense – the personal. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death. it is still construed as residence & not domicile in its technical sense . shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings. last residence. creditor or otherwise to be appointed 2 NCC Art. 21) death certs presented by Fule show QC as deceased’s last residence > Fule was a creditor of the estate. if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death.In statutes fixing venue “residence” & “domicile” synonymous even when statue uses “domicile”.1.Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. actual residence or place of abode .” Caption “Settlement of estate of Deceased Person. or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
Cuenco died in Manila .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 . shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts FACTS: .Opposition and motion to dismiss .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 The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent.Cuenco vs.Survived by a) widow and 2 minor sons (QC) and b) children of the 1st marriage (Cebu) .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 .Lourdes opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon > lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue.CFI Cebu held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI QC shall have acted on the probate proceedings . considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case .Denied .Sen.
with the condition that. Hodges’ death. 5 and a half years later. inasmuch as Mrs. devised and bequeathed” to the brothers and sisters of the latter.Said that under Texas law. 3. Hodges . Magno – administratrix of Mrs. Hodges’ estate. Hodges inherited by her siblings consists of 1/4 of the community estate of the spouses at the time of her death. Those disposed with remunerations still belong to his wife’s estate.” subject to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other. This is only a simple case of conditional simultaneous institution of heirs. Mrs. wherever situated or located. spouse has no legitime PCIB – administrator of Mr. Her husband would have complete rights of dominion over the whole estate during his lifetime. 2. RULE 109 SECTION 2 allowed Hodges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final adjudication. 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.Claims that under Texas law. Hodges’ estate . minus whatever Hodges had gratuitously disposed of therefrom during the period from her death to his death. Hodges was not only usufruct but also ownership with right to dispose of the properties . . 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. How much is not yet ascertained. which manner of institution is not prohibited by law.Claims that what was passed to Mr. brothers & sisters only had ¼ as legitime HELD: 1. Hodges’ estate . 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. Hodges had no creditors and all pertinent taxes have been paid. No final distribution and adjudication can be made yet. with no obligation to preserve anything for them and what would go to the brothers & sisters would be only the remainder of Mrs.Claims that naked ownership passed to siblings. devise and bequeath all of the rest. At best. 4. residue and remainder. whereby the institution of Hodges is subject to a partial resolutory condition. both real and personal. . her husband. of my estate.Only lifetime usufruct was given to Mr. Charles Newton Hodges died as well. Hodges simultaneously instituted her brothers & sisters as co-heirs with her husband. On the assumption that Hodges’ purported renunciation should not be upheld. There is an estate of Mrs. Both of them left wills with the clause “I give.PCIB V. Hodges to be distributed. left at the time of Mr. ESCOLIN NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died on May 23. 1957. the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is “given. the estate of Mrs. The estate of Mrs. and the pertinent laws of Texas. there being no possible prejudice to 3rd parties. the operative contingency of which is coincidental with that of the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters in law. to my beloved spouse to have to hold unto (him/her) – during (his/her) natural lifetime.
The manner of applying NCC Article 16 to the situation and 2. Factual and legal issue as to WON Charles Newton Hodges had effectively and legally renounced his inheritance under the will of his wife 3. Liquidation of the estates . and determine: 1. As to the contracts to sell executed by Hodges “after” the death of his wife. Probate Courts to proceed with the proceedings. the proceeds belong to the estate of Mrs. DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.6. Lower Courts AFFIRMED. Hodges.
no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate 2. this is a short summary…case is long…) Facts -Charles & Linnie Hodges. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled 2. BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. Hodges’ estate. HODGES PCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus. ESCOLIN Short Summary: Mr. Hodges died first then Mr. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) Would include distribution of residue of estate -Here: a. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED. Hodges died first.P. Magno. provided in their respective wills that • bequeath remainder of estate to spouse…during lifetime • remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse -Mrs. Mrs. Appeal insufficient remedy -many appeals. thus ulit. Upon death of the latter spouse. initially administratrix of both spouse's estate. Mr. 33 appeals were timely made -Court did not pass upon its timeliness WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper? YES. he made statements that the estate of Mrs. HODGES' HEIRS? YES. Merely allowed advance or partial payments/implementation of will before final liquidation d. their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands. same facts. the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. same issues = multiplicity of suits WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estate b. 1. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate WON Action is prescribed? NO. S.PCIB V. why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is indeed the sole heir? 3. with the exception of the Texas property.1 (on RESIDUE): …after residue assigned to parties entitled to it. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. 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. …should be paid already 3. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths. but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. both TEXAN nationals. the brothers and sisters of Mrs. no residue left. R90. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO …. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE: 1. (believe me. No special application made by charles/PCIB c. he failed to make accounting. tapos na special proceeding) BUT SC: . failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's estate -Charles died. Debts • Funeral expenses • Expenses of administration • Widow allowance • Taxes • Etc. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR • in Financial Statements submitted before the court. If charles already deemed sole heir. Hodges.
stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney • In Petition for will's probate. OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER H: NO. 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.motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding 3.2 . It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate yet b. Order . Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights: • In FS. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings .6 d. Mr. both PCIB and Magno should administer a. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue. Whatever was intended.R73. as Surviving spouse. can't close SP yet >PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET.1. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles. he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate 2. PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY. over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78. of trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF 4. Admin should both be • impartial • extent of interest c.
which when dismissed. ♥ Pursuant thereto. 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. there is an implied trust in favor of the person whose benefit is contemplated..VALERA V. When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to hold it for. 1453.. Valera and his spouse Consolacion Sarosa and their child Teresa died. 1987. therefore the fishpond should be restored to the estate of the spouses. unless *issue is procedural:* The claimant and all the other parties having legal interest in the property consent. Art. ♥ Probate Court (Judge Adil): there has been an implied trust created... Court of Appeals reversed (fishpond to be returned to Garin Heirs and their lessee Fabiana) saying that a. he directed the sheriff to enforce reconveyance of the fishpond to the estate. The fishpond was leased by the Garin Heirs to Fabiana. then instituted a separate action for injunction and damages.. J. expressly or impliedly. INSERTO May 7.. but merely to determine whether or not it should be included in the inventory of the estate of the spouses.) that the Title of the Garin Heirs is a stronger claim that rebuts the presumption that the estate owns the fishpond c.. a separate action has to be filed...) Probate Court had no jurisdiction b. Or the interests of 3rd persons are not thereby prejudiced. He transferred it by “fictitious sale” to his daughter Teresa to support her children with the agreement that when the children finishes schooling.. NCC Art. 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. the fishpond will be returned to him. or transfer it to another or the grantor. Rafael Valera . who although willingly surrendered it to the sheriff filed a complaint – in – intervention.Consolacion Sarosa Teresa .... 1451. ♥ The cognizance of the Probate Court as to the title over the fishpond was not definite. a trust is established by implication of law for the benefit of the true owner. . acquiring title thereto.) that assuming the Probate Court had competence to resolve ownership. to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgement. permanent nor writing a “finis” thereto.Jose Garin children The administrators of the spouses claim that the fishpond should be returned to the spouses’ estates.. The heirs of Teresa – her husband Jose Garin and their children bought the fishpond from the government. When land passes by succession to any person and he causes the legal title to be put in the name of another..
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. The fishpond cannot be subject of execution. or conveyed away the same. DISPOSITION: CA Affirmed. the Probate Court would have no authority to resolve the issue. embezzled. Of course. On the other hand. . if the third person asserts a right to the property contrary to the decedent's. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. ♥ ♥ Presumption of conclusiveness of the title. the Probate Court simply issues the appropriate direction for the delivery of the property to the estate. no difficulty arises. a separate action must be instituted by the administrator to recover the property. or of having concealed. The same norm governs the situation contemplated in Section 6. if the latter lays no claim to the property and manifests willingness to tum it over to the estate. 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.It is merely provisional in character. especially if the holder is in possession.
1978. 31. and the rights of 3rd parties are not impaired. Prima Francisco Roseller • Desmothenes Eliza CFI ordered .Teresa Magtuba they had 3 children: Concepcion Yamuta Maria Eusebio Apolinar Guadalupe Pizarras Francis Agerian Benjamin Perla Francisco Helen Jr. ISSUES: WON separate proceedings should be filed to determine ownership? HELD: No. . They should not be forced to incur additional expenses by bringing a . BORROMEO Jan.or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court. the case is an exception. CA sustained CFI.or if the question is one of collation or advancement. or exclusion from. then the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership.Without taking into consideration ownership of a 12-ha land claimed by the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan. may not pass upon ownership Except: If the interested parties are all heirs. Later on. J. The appellees belong to the poor stratum of society. GR: Probate Ct. (case at bar) . 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.Giving atty’s fees to Crispin Borromeo . Aquino NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Juan Pangilinan –(married)-.partitioned the properties: .COCA V. RATIO: The probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion in. the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. 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.
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.separate action to determine ownership of the 12 hectare portion. A new trial should be held on those matters. Case remanded to CFI for further proceedings in accordance with the guidelines set forth here. .