You are on page 1of 1

Matute vs. Court of Appeals 26 SCRA 768G.R. No.

L-26751, 26106January 31, 1969(L-26751)







Facts: On August 20, 1965 when Carlos S. Matute, one of the Matute heirs and a full-blood brother of both the petitioner and the herein respondent Matias S. Matute, filed in Special Proceeding (settlement of the Matute estate) a petition praying for the removal of Matias as co-administrator and his appointment in such capacity. Carlos alleged that for a period of more than two years from the date of his appointment, saidMa tias S. Matute has neglected to render a true, just and complete account of his administration and that he is not only incompetent but also negligent in his management of the estate under his charge consisting of five haciendas. The respondent Matias opposed the allegation that it is completely without basis and false. Records show that he made an accounting and the same was submitted to the court. That his competence to act as administrator has been established to the satisfaction of the court.It appears that during the reception of evidence conducted on December 29, 1965 by the probate court, Carlos S. Matute and the other heirs submitted their respective lists of exhibits in support of their motion to ousts Matias. On January 8, 1966 Matias filed a written objection to the admission of he movants exhibits on the ground that the same were hearsay, self-serving, irrelevant and/or merephotostatic copies of supposed originals which never properly identified nor shown in court. four days later, the Counsel for Matias filed with leave of Court a Motion to Dismiss and/or Demurrer toEvidence which avers that there is no sufficient evidence on record to justify and support the motions for the removal of the herein co-administrator Matias S. Matute.The probate court issued an order removing Matias S. Matute as co-administrator. Hence, the certiorari. The respondent contends that the disputed order removing him as co-administrator is a patent nullity. Upon the other hand, the petitioner advances the reason in support of the order of removal that the probate judge accorded the respondent all the opportunity to adduce his evidence but the latter resorted to dilatory tactics such as filing a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence. Issue: Whether or not Rule 33 regarding judgment on demurrer to evidenceis applicable to special proceedings such that its disregard by the probate court amounts to grave abuse of discretion. Held: Yes. Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. The application of the above cited Rule in special proceedings, like the case at bar, is authorized by the Rules. Instead of resolving the foregoing motion, the probate judge issued the controverted order removing the respondent as co-administrator without giving him the opportunity to adduce his own evidence despite his explicit reservation that he be afforded the chance to introduce evidence in his behalf in the event of denial of his motion to dismiss and/or demurrer to evidence. The Court view that the above actuation of the probate judge constituted grave abuse of discretion which dooms his improvident order as nullity.
ANCHETA V. GUERSEY-DALAYGON (Succession) Binding 490 June Effect of Judgments 140 2006

Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audreys estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA Decision annulling the RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, must be upheld.
Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon 490 SCRA 140Austria-Martinez, J: Facts: Audrey and Richard were married. They had a son, Kyle. They are American Citizens, domiciled therein but has been residing in the Philippines for 30 years. When Audrey died she left a will bequeathing ALLHER PROPERTIES (including the Makati property, shares in a company and savings account) to her husband. Richard remarried to herein respondent. When Richard died, he left a will bequeathing also, all his properties to respondent except the shares which he gave to his son. The will of Audrey was duly probated in Maryland. The same is true with that of Richard. Ancheta was appointed as the anciliary administrator of the estate. The latter filed probate proceedings here in the Philippines and filed a PROJECT PARTITION whereby he did not apply the LAW OF MARYLAND but instead applied the Philippine Law. Hence, instead of bequeathing all the Makati property to respondent, he only awarded thereof and gave the to Kyle. Respondent alleged that the latter violated his fiduciary duty because he did not apply the Maryland Law and also, he disregarded the wills of Richard and AudreyDefense of petitioner: He did not act in bad faith as executor. The respondent cannot anymore asked for the setting aside of the PROJECT OF PARTITION because it has already become FINAL. Petitioner also contended that the action has already prescribed since respondent already knew of the distribution of the estate since 1984 but no action was made thereon Respondents allegations: That petitioner committed EXTRINSIC FRAUD because he did not perform his fiduciary duty in upholding the will of Audrey. Hence, such EXTRINSIC FRAUD is sufficient to set aside thedecision. Respondent replied that he was not able to question the distribution because he was not aparty to it The CA found merit in respondents cause and found that petitioners failure to follow the terms of Audreys will, despite the latters declaration of good faith, amounted to extrinsic fraUd Issue: 1.WON 2.WON 3.WON final 4.WON the State of Maryland Law shall apply in this case the defense of GF in applying Philippine law may be accepted in this case the judgment may still be set aside on the ground of FRAUD even if it is already the action for annulment has already prescribed

Guy v. CA (Court of Appeals) Digest

Facts: 1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy Susim). Private-respondents Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors were represented by their mother Remedios Oanes who filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City. 2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving spouse, filed for the dismissal of the petition alleging that his father left no debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of letters administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that the certification of non-forum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and not by counsel. 3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason of a Release of Claim or waiver stating that in exchange for financial and educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharged the estate of the decedent from any and all liabilities. 4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the supplemental motion ruling that the mother is not the duly constituted guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed the waiver. It also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of nonforum shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate the inheritance the wards RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and parents and guardians must necessarily obtain judicial approval. repudiation of inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the best interest of the ward. Not having been authorized by the court, the release or waiver is therefore void. Moreover, the private-respondents could not have waived their supposed right as they have yet to prove their status as illegitimate children of the decedent. It would be inconsistent to rule that they have waived a right which, according to the petitioner, the latter do not have. As to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the heirs The court is not precluded to receive evidence to determine the filiation of the claimants even if the original petition is for the issuance of letters administration. Its jurisdiction extends to matters collateral and incidental to the settlement of the estate, with the determination of heirship included. As held in previous decision, two causes of action may be brought together in one complaint, one a claim for recognition, and the other to claim inheritance. (Briz v. Briz)


Facts: Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). Audrey died in 1979. She left a will wherein she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard consisting of Audreys conjugal share in real estate improvements at Forbes Park, current account with cash balance and shares of stock in A/G Interiors. Two years after her death, Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon. Four years thereafter, Richard died and left a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, except for his shares in A/G, which he left to his adopted daughter. Petitioner, as ancillary administrator in the court where Audreys will was admitted to probate, filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a project of partition of Audreys estate. The motion and project of partition were granted. Meanwhile, the ancillary administrator with regards to Richards will also filed a project of partition, leaving 2/5 of Richards undivided interest in the Forbes property was allocated to respondent Candelaria, while 3/5 thereof was allocated to their three children. Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, where Richard was a native of, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject to the legacy. Issue: Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled under the circumstances.

Held: A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the estate in the distributees, which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once it becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in rem.
However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Further, in Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court ruled that a party interested in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through