[G.R. Nos. L-21938-39. May 29, 1970.

]
VICENTE URIARTE, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER "ALL MATTERS OF
PROBATE." — Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Section 44, paragraph (e), Courts of First Instance have original
exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate.
2. ID.; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; VENUE; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PROVINCE WHERE
DECEDENT INHABITANT OF PHILIPPINES RESIDED AT TIME OF HIS DEATH OR WHERE INHABITANT OF FOREIGN
COUNTRY HAD ESTATE. — The matter of venue, or the particular Court of First Instance where the special proceeding
should be commenced, is regulated by Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the
estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the
court of first instance in the province of which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate. Accordingly, when the estate to be
settled is that of a non-resident alien — like the decedent in the instant case — the Courts of First Instance in
provinces where the deceased left any property have concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper special
proceeding for the settlement of his estate.
3. ID.; ID.; TESTATE PROCEEDINGS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. — Testate proceedings for
the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.
Thus, if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found that the decedent had
left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage
an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the
estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood to be without prejudice
that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. This is a
clear indication that proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority over intestate proceedings.
4. ID.; ID.; PROBATE OF WILL SHOULD BE FILED IN SAME COURT WHERE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN
COMMENCED. — Where intestate proceedings had already been commenced before a court of first instance, as in the
case at bar, the probate of the will of the decedent should be submitted to the same court, either in a separate
proceeding or in an appropriate motion for said purpose in the intestate proceedings. It is not in accord with public
policy and the orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation, especially if
several courts would be involved. Furthermore, the party seeking the probate of the will in the instant case knew
before filing the petition for probate with another court of first instance of the pendency of the intestate proceedings .
5. ID.; ID.; VENUE; WRONG VENUE WAIVABLE; WAIVER BY LACHES; INSTANT CASE. — It is well settled in this
jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waivable procedural defect. Petitioner, in the instant case, has waived the
right to raise such objection or is precluded from doing so by laches.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; COURT NOT INCLINED TO ANNUL PROCEEDINGS REGULARLY HAD IN LOWER COURT ON THE
GROUND OF IMPROPER VENUE. — This Court is not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had in a lower Court even
if the latter was not the proper venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in
some other court of the same jurisdiction; more so in a case like the present where the objection against said
proceedings is raised too late.
7. CIVIL LAW; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; NATURAL CHILD: QUESTION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT MAY BE PRESENTED

8. or intervene in proceedings for the probate of will of testator if it is still open. Branch IV. or to ask for its re-opening.IN INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR COMPULSORY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. supra. 51396. in the Negros court. 51396. 51396. 6344. the first disapproving his record on appeal and the second denying his motion for reconsideration. Respondent Manila court erred in failing to dismiss its Special Proceeding No. and the order of 1 July 1963 (Annex ’K’) of respondent Manila court denying petitioner’s omnibus motion to intervene and to dismiss the later-instituted Special Proceeding No. ID. and the second being an order denying petitioner’s motion for the reconsideration of said order of dismissal. L-21939 — praying. supra. 1964. On July 15. 6344. and consequently annulling all proceedings had in Special Proceeding No. would enable petitioner to circumvent our ruling that he can no longer question the validity of said orders. "For the preservation of the rights of the parties pending these proceedings. respectively — praying: jgc:chanroble s. 51396. supra. 1963 petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed an original petition for certiorari — docketed as G. 1963. — A party claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of testator is entitled to submit for determination the question of his acknowledgment as a natural child of said deceased testator in the proceeding instituted precisely for his compulsory acknowledgment as such natural child. in the case at bar. notwithstanding proof of prior filing of Special Proceeding No. 1963 and February 26. INSTANT CASE. and further commanding said court to approve his record on appeal and to give due course to his appeal. and the Courts of First Instance of Negros Occidental and of Manila. 6344. supra of the respondent Manila court as all taken without jurisdiction. as a result of what has been said heretofore. On April 22. L-21938 — against the respondents Juan Uriarte Zamacona. or worse still. has become moot and academic for if the said petition is successful it will only result in compelling the Negros Court to give due course to the appeal that petitioner was taking from the orders of said court dated December 7. the probate having jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of the deceased testator and whether or not a particular party is or should be declared his acknowledged natural child. supra. supra." cralaw virtua1aw library Reasons in support of said petition are stated therein as follows: "6. 1964 petitioner filed against the same respondents a pleading entitled SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MANDAMUS — docketed in this Court as G. — The supplemental petition for mandamus. the first being the order of the said court dismissing Special Proceeding No." cralaw virtua1aw library The writ of preliminary injunction prayed for was granted and issued by this Court on October 24. and failing to declare itself ’the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of’ the deceased Don Juan Uriarte y Goite as prescribed in Rule 75 section 1 of the Rules of Court. 1963 and February 26. until further orders of this Court. that after due proceedings judgment be rendered annulling the orders of 19 April 1963 (Annex ’H’) and 11 July 1963 (Annex ’I’) of respondent Negros court dismissing the first instituted Special Proceeding No. both special proceedings pertaining to the settlement of the same estate of the same deceased. petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents Manila court.ph ". Respondent Negros court erred in dismissing its Special Proceeding No. .R. On October 3. supra. Said order being. who will be referred to hereinafter as the Negros Court and the Manila Court. that judgment be rendered annulling the orders issued by the Negros Court on December 7. DISMISSAL AS MOOT AND ACADEMIC. . if it has already been closed. 1964 We issued a . 6344.R.. 1964. No. the conclusion can not be other than that the intended appeal would serve no useful purpose. PETITION FOR MANDAMUS.com. beyond petitioner’s power to contest. for the reasons therein stated. Juan Uriarte Zamacona and Higinio Uriarte from proceeding with Special Proceeding No. Higinio Uriarte.

Juan Uriarte Zamacona. 6344 of the Negros Court a motion to dismiss the same on the following grounds: (1) that. 1962. petitioner had instituted Civil Case No. No. 1961 and two days later it set the date for the hearing of the petition and ordered that the requisite notices be published in accordance with law. petitioner proceeded to file his notice of appeal. Upon petitioner’s motion the Negros Court appointed the Philippine National Bank as special administrator on November 13. G.com : virtual law library On December 19.. Et Al. however. The record discloses. 6344) alleging therein. bringing this case squarely before the Supreme Court on questions of law which is tantamount to petitioner’s abandoning his appeal from this Court.resolution deferring action on this Supplemental Petition until the original action for certiorari (G. 51396 in the Manila Court for the probate of a document alleged to be the last will of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite. and that. v. as a natural son of the latter. as the Negros Court was first to take cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. that. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. On April 19. 1961 petitioner filed with the Negros Court a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte y Goite (Special Proceeding No. and under date of December 7. 1963. 51396 objected to the approval of the record on appeal. His motion for reconsideration of said order having been denied on July 27. It appears that on November 6. L-21938. On October 21. commenced Special Proceeding No. one of the two private respondents herein. 1961.R. filed an opposition to the abovementioned petition alleging that he was a nephew of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite who had "executed a Last Will and Testament in Spain. it had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the same pursuant to Rule 75. chanrobles.ph "Oppositor prays that the record on appeal filed by the petitioner on July 27. the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court entitled Vicente Uriarte. there was no legal basis to proceed with said intestate proceedings. the Philippine National Bank never actually qualified as special administrator. appeal bond and record on appeal for the purpose of appealing from said orders to this court on questions of law.com. In the meantime. 1963. A copy of the Petition for Probate and of the alleged Will were attached to the Motion to Dismiss. that. be dismissed for having been filed out of time and for being incomplete. L-21938) is taken up on the merits. Petitioner opposed the aforesaid motion to dismiss contending that. he not being an acknowledged natural son of the decedent. a duly authenticated copy whereof has been requested and which shall be submitted to this Honorable Court upon receipt thereof. Petitioner. the other private respondent. for one reason or another. 1963. 6142 in the same Court for his compulsory acknowledgment as such natural son. as the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a last will. and (2) that petitioner Vicente Uriarte had no legal personality and interest to initiate said intestate proceedings.R. 1963 the respondents in G. L-21938 filed their answer traversing petitioner’s contention that the respondent courts had committed grave abuse of discretion in relation to the matters alleged in the petition for certiorari. 6344 pending before it. inter alia. during the lifetime of said decedent. The administrator with the will annexed appointed by the Manila Court in Special Proceeding No. cralawnad . he was his sole heir.R. before the said record on appeal was approved by this Court." and further questioning petitioner’s capacity and interest to commence the intestate proceeding. the Negros Court sustained Juan Uriarte Zamacona’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the Special Proceeding No. On August 28. 1963 the Negros Court issued the following order: jgc:chanroble s. and on the same date he filed in Special Proceeding No. Higinio Uriarte.

Civil Case No. The principal legal questions raised in the petition for certiorari are (a) whether or not the Negros Court erred in dismissing Special Proceeding No. the matter of venue. Up to this time. asking for leave to intervene therein. after proper proceedings were had in Special Proceeding No. as stated heretofore. Courts of First Instance have original exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate. and on the other. It is admitted that. and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. no final judgment to that effect appears to have been rendered. In the case before Us. the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate. failed to qualify. the Manila Court admitted to probate the document submitted to it as the last will of Juan Uriarte y Goite. the Negros Court and petitioner Vicente Uriarte knew of the existence of the aforesaid last will and of the proceedings for its probate. therefore. now Section 1. it is not denied that to the motion to dismiss the special proceeding pending before the Negros Court filed by Higinio Uriarte were attached a copy of the alleged last will of Juan Uriarte y Goite and of the petition filed with the Manila Court for its probate. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. 6644. shall be in the court of first instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death. While their jurisdiction over such subject matter is beyond question. the petition for probate appearing not to have been contested.ph : virtual law library Likewise. chanrobles. Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court. This motion was denied by said court in its order of July 1 of the same year. 6344 in the Negros Court. 1963 Vicente Uriarte filed an Omnibus Motion in Special Proceeding No. or the particular Court of First Instance where the special proceeding should be commenced. 6344. during the lifetime of Juan Uriarte y Goite. It is clear. 51396 notwithstanding proof of the prior filing of Special Proceeding No."WHEREFORE. It appears further that. Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44. petitioner filed the supplemental petition for mandamus mentioned heretofore. On April 15. for the dismissal of the petition and the annulment of the proceedings had in said special proceeding. it is not disputed that. Clearly inferrable from this is that at the time he filed the action. 1963 denied petitioner Vicente Uriarte’s Omnibus Motion for Intervention." cralaw virtua1aw library In view of the above-quoted order. the record on appeal filed by the petitioner is hereby disapproved. over special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate. that almost from the start of Special Proceeding No. these Courts of First Instance are the . as stated heretofore. on the one hand. paragraph (e)]. (b) whether the Manila Court similarly erred in not dismissing Special Proceeding No. Dismissal of Petition and Annulment of said proceedings. 6142 to obtain judgment for his compulsory acknowledgment as his natural child. On the other hand. he had not yet been acknowledged as natural son of Juan Uriarte y Goite. when the estate to be settled is that of a non-resident alien — like the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite — the Courts of First Instance in provinces where the deceased left any property have concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper special proceeding for the settlement of his estate. Accordingly. 51396. the order issued by the Manila Court on July 1." that is. whether a citizen or an alien. as well as when he commenced the aforesaid special proceeding. The record further discloses that the special proceeding before the Negros Court has not gone farther than the appointment of a special administrator in the person of the Philippine National Bank who. in order to give way to the certiorari. 6344 of the Negros Court. Vicente Uriarte filed in the same court. as alleged in the basic petition filed in Special Proceeding No.com . 51396 pending in the Manila Court. is regulated by former Rule 75. which provides that the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death.

filed his motion to dismiss Special Proceeding No. he had submitted to the Negros Court a copy of the alleged will of the decedent. Thus it has been held repeatedly that. and when the other respondent. while the second court similarly erred in not dismissing Special Proceeding No. as he did. in effect. the Manila Court no longer had jurisdiction to take cognizance of Special Proceeding No. and that consequently. 51396 intended to settle the estate of the same decedent in accordance with his alleged will. whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will. 6344. the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found that the decedent had left a last will. This. that petitioner has waived the right to raise such objection or is precluded from doing so by laches. this is a clear indication that proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. is understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved. either in a separate special proceeding or in an appropriate motion for said purpose filed in the already pending Special Proceeding No. like Higinio Uriarte. 6344. and so hold. however. 6344. he had already informed the Negros Court that the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a will in Spain. Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed the petition for the purpose with the Manila Court. It is enough to consider in this connection that petitioner knew of the existence of a will executed by Juan Uriarte y Goite since December 19. 6344 — or was entitled to commence the corresponding separate proceedings. in the Manila Court. is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement of his estate. as the Negros Court had first taken cognizance of the special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of said decedent (Special Proceeding No. The following considerations and the facts of record would seem to support the view that he should have submitted said will for probate to the Negros Court. testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Upon the facts before Us the question arises as to whether Juan Uriarte Zamacona should have filed the petition for the probate of the last will of Juan Uriarte y Goite with the Negros Court — particularly in Special Proceeding No.Negros and the Manila Courts — province and city where the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite left considerable properties. it is not in accord with public policy and the orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation. As far as Higinio Uriarte is concerned. from which fact it may be inferred that. albeit we say that it was not the proper venue therefor. that in accordance with settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction. It is equally true. But the fact is that instead of the aforesaid will being presented for probate to the Negros Court. he had expressly promised to submit said will for probate to the Negros Court. was the result of the submission of the will aforesaid to the Manila Court. Juan Uriarte Zamacona. As already adverted to. however. and. when respondent Higinio Uriarte filed an opposition to Vicente Uriarte’s petition for the issuance of letters of administration. in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case. In the second place. we are of the opinion. it seems quite clear that in his opposition to petitioner’s petition in Special Proceeding No. 6344. This. of which a copy had been requested for submission to said court. 6344). chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary It can not be denied that a special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased person. 51396. proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed. the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. the first court erred in dismissing Special Proceeding No. In the first place. chanrobles law library It is well settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural defect. he knew before filing the petition for probate with the Manila Court that there was already a special proceeding pending in the Negros Court for the settlement of the estate of the same deceased person. especially if several courts would be involved. From this premise petitioner argues that. We can not accept petitioner’s contention in this regard that the latter court had no jurisdiction to consider said petition. 1961 when Higinio Uriarte filed .

if it is still open. 51396 an Omnibus motion asking for leave to intervene and for the dismissal and annulment of all the proceedings had therein up to that date. 47 O. 51396 would put a premium on his negligence. or intervene in Special Proceeding No. Moreover.G. Judge Fernandez of the Negros Court said that he was "not inclined to sustain the contention of the petitioner that inasmuch as the herein petitioner has instituted Civil Case No. that in view of the conclusions heretofore stated. worse still. 249. 51396 in the Court of First Instance of Manila instead of maintaining an independent action. more so in a case like the present where the objection against said proceedings is raised too late. or to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed. for indeed his supposed interest in the estate of the decedent is of his doubtful character pending the final decision of the action for compulsory acknowledgment. 1962.R.R. 6344. L-21939. In his order of April 19. To allow him now to assail the exercise of jurisdiction over the probate of the will by the Manila Court and the validity of all the proceedings had in Special Proceeding No. Lopez. If the said supplemental petition is successful. the proper thing for him to do would be to intervene in the testate estate proceedings entitled Special Proceedings No. the first being the order of said court dismissing Special Proceeding No. If the petitioner is to be consistent with the authorities cited by him in support of his contention. said court having. Severino. Lopez v. . and the second being an order denying petitioner’s motion for the reconsideration of said order of dismissal. 1964. would enable petitioner to circumvent our ruling that he can no longer question the validity of said orders. 343. Said orders being. and Jimoga-on v.R. 44 Phil. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS. 1119). 1963 that he filed with the Manila Court in Special Proceeding No. as a result. the same has become moot and academic. 1963 and February 26. 13 Phil. 1962 when Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed a motion for the dismissal of Special Proceeding No. it will only result in compelling the Negros Court to give due course to the appeal that petitioner was taking from the orders of said court dated December 7. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is set aside. We are of the opinion.his opposition to the initial petition filed in Special Proceeding No. thus enabling the Manila Court not only to appoint an administrator with the will annexed but also to admit said will to probate more than five months earlier. as well as the supplemental petition for mandamus docketed as G. the petition for certiorari filed in G. 1963 dismissing Special Proceeding No. 476. on October 31. it was only on April 15. beyond petitioner’s power to contest." cralaw virtua1aw library We believe in connection with the above matter that petitioner is entitled to prosecute Civil Case No. in its capacity as a probate court. No. With costs against petitioner. 227. 68 Phil. 6142 for compulsory acknowledgment by the decedent such action justifies the institution by him of this proceedings. jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of the deceased testator and whether or not a particular party is or should be declared his acknowledged natural child (II Moran on Rules of Court. No. L-21939). it must be remembered that this Court is not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue therefor. 6142 until it is finally determined. L-21938. Severino v. so as to be able to submit for determination the question of his acknowledgment as natural child of the deceased testator. All these notwithstanding. or more specifically. 1957 Ed. judgment is hereby rendered denying the writs prayed for and. 6344. as a result of what has been said heretofore. and so hold. that petitioner likewise was served with notice of the existence (presence) of the alleged last will in the Philippines and of the filing of the petition for its probate with the Manila Court since August 28. Coming now to the supplemental petition for mandamus (G. Abaya.. 6344. p. 51396 of the Manila Court. Conde v. or. 6344. if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction. are hereby dismissed. No. Belmonte. the conclusion can not be other than that the intended appeal would serve no useful purpose.

Guevara. 53. 74 Phil. his two children by a first marriage which ended in divorce (Sub-Annexes A and B. Elsa Grimm McFadden (Ethel Grimm Roberts). pp. 36-47. Juanita Grimm Morris. named Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm.R. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by Maxine Tate Grimm and E. chanroble s virtual lawlibrary Antecedents. or on April 25. Sec. MANDATORY. In its order dated April 10. Two weeks later. Benitez Street." (First clause. 1977. Rollo). No. can be entertained by its Branch 38 (after a probate in the Utah district court). Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January. 55509. Therefore. He executed on January 23. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. In both wills. It was issued upon consideration of the stipulation dated April 4. because I have provided for each of them in a separate will disposing of my Philippine property. The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara v. the testator said: "I purposely have made no provision in this will for my daughter. Rollo). 249. РEdward M. РWe hold that respondent Judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. May 7. E. La Var Tate on March 7. California and Mrs. 3720 of the Third Judicial District Court of Tooele County. Juanita Kegley Grimm (first wife). SUCCESSION. 1978. Maxine Tate Grimm. A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved add allowed" (Art. WILLS. 1978 in Probate No. the second wife and two children were favored. or my daughter. Horseshoe Village. Juanita Grimm Morris of Cupertino. Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts" (Annex C. 1. Rules of Court). Pa̱o. 1978 "by and between the attorneys for Maxine Tate Grimm. Linda Grimm. Maxine and her two children Linda and Pete. 71 SCRA 86). 43-47. v. and Ethel. L-42088. and by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden). JUDGE TOMAS R. He was survived by his second wife. 1984. an American resident of Manila. as the first parties. pp. 479 and 98 Phil. amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 1978. 838. The two children of the first marriage were given their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in this country. The question in this case is whether a petition for allowance of wills and to annul a partition. The second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines. LEONIDAS SYLLABUS 1. Baluyot v. Roberts of 15 C. Rollo).[G. in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss the petition for probate of Grimm's two wills. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Rollo). 48-51. Rule 75. CIVIL LAW. Edward Miller Grimm II. INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS FILED PRIOR TO TESTATE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED WITH LATTER. California. died at 78 in the Makati Medical Center on November 27. Rollo). Petitioner. Quezon City were notified of the probate proceeding (Sub-Annex C. and their two children. pp. PROBATE THEREOF. 1959 two wills in San Francisco. Utah. .] ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS. pp. 1978 (p. 1976. April 27. the Third Judicial District Court admitted to probate the two wills and the codicil. Civil Code. 48-55. One will disposed of his Philippine estate which he described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife. approved in an intestate proceeding by Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance. Grimm. La Var Tate. In the will dealing with his property outside this country.

William C. as lawyers of the parties. 78. 135. Record). appointed them joint administrators.. chanroble s. Manila (par.Juanita Grimm Morris and their mother Juanita Kegley Grimm. The intestate court in its orders of May 23 and June 2 noted that Maxine. and by lawyer Limqueco (Annex L. F-1. Molina in his order of July 27. with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila. Maxine and her two children replaced Limqueco with Octavio del Callar as their lawyer. Judge Conrado M. p. Limqueco (partner of Gerardo B. 140142.500. Annex. by Pete and Linda and the attorney-in-fact of Maxine and by the attorney-in-fact of Ethel. The court ignored the will already found in the record. It was stipulated in paragraph 6 that the decedent's four children "shall share equally in the Net Distributable Estate" and that Ethel and Juanita Morris should each receive at least 12-1/2% of the total of the net distributable estate and marital share. Rex Roberts. it was stipulated that Maxine. – At this juncture. Record). On March 11. Ethel. Intestate proceeding No. Reyes and Gerardo B. Pete and Ethel would be designated as personal representatives (administrators) of Grimm's Philippine estate (par. chanroble s.com : virtual law library Six days later. the second wife. p. Maxine. With the authority and approval of the court. 4). Holbrook. Acting on the declaration of heirs and project of partition signed and filed by lawyers Limqueco and Macaraeg (not signed by Maxine and her two children). Inc. It turned out that the buyer.546. was incorporated by Ethel and her husband. or January 9. Linda and Juanita allegedly conformed with the sale (pp. 113024. testate case). 1979 the so-called Palawan Pearl Project. pp. through a new lawyer. The agreement indicated the computation of the "net distributable estate. this was done pursuant to the aforementioned Utah compromise agreement. 120-129.com. 1978. pp. Macaraeg. entered into a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate." It recognized that the estate was liable to pay the fees of the Angara law firm (par. moved to defer approval of the project of partition. No mention at all was made of the will in that order. Ethel and Pete. 49. testate case). A supplemental memorandum also dated April 25. 1979 adjudicated to Maxine one-half (4/8) of the decedent's Philippine estate and one-eighth (1/8) each to his four children or 12-1/2% (pp. through the Angara law office. Makiling Management Co.000 plus the homes in Utah and Santa Mesa. 113024 for the settlement of his estate. a business owned by the deceased. Juanita Grimm Morris and Juanita Kegley Grimm.267 shares of RFM Corporation (p. Record). his daughter of the first marriage. It is found in pages 58 to 64 of the record. at the behest of Maxine. filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the ground of the pendency of Utah of a proceeding for the probate of Grimm's will. it should be stated that forty-three days after Grimm's death. or on August 2. Macaraeg. 2).ph : virtual law library Also with the court's approval and the consent of Linda and Juanita. Apparently. as the second parties.000 on March 21. It was signed by David E. The court considered the motion moot .. She also moved that she be appointed special administratrix. The three administrators submitted an inventory. It was also stipulated that Maxine's one-half conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for her and that would not be less than $1. She was named special administratrix. 5). Testate case). 1978 was executed by the parties (Sub-Annex F. they sold for P75. She submitted to the court a copy of Grimm's will disposing of his Philippine estate. 90. they sold for P1. 49-61. chanroble s law library In that agreement. withdrew that opposition and motion to dismiss and.136 to Joseph Server and others 193. through lawyers Deogracias T. who on August 9. Salisbury and Donald B. filed with Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance intestate proceeding No. 75-76.

sec. there was no movement or activity in the intestate case. or on June 10. chanroble s law library Ruling.233. that the 1978 Utah compromise agreement was illegal. 1976. Record). Ethel submitted to the court a certification of the Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated October 2. praying that the testate proceeding be dismissed. amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The court noted the certification as in conformity with its order of July 27. Before that motion could be heard. 838. 153. It should be recalled that the firm had previously appeared in the case as Maxine's counsel on March 11. 1980. Vinluan of the Angara law firm. alternatively that the two proceedings be consolidated and heard in Branch 20 and that the matter of the annulment of the Utah compromise agreement be heard prior to the petition for probate (pp. or.69 as estate tax and penalties and that he interposed no objection to the transfer of the estate to Grimm's heirs (p. that the 1979 partition approved by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked. when it filed a motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding and furnished the court with a copy of Grimm's will. Guevara. filed a motion for accounting "so that the Estate properties can be partitioned among the heirs and the present intestate estate be closed. 134559. 78. 25-35. 22-23." Del Callar. 1979 alleged that he was no longer connected with Makiling Management Co. A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. Civil Code. Ethel then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge . Lawyer Limqueco in a letter to Maxine dated August 2. 149. Baluyot v. L-42088. testate case). 1. On April 18. Petition to annul partition and testate proceeding No. May 7. 249. 71 SCRA 86)..992. that the intestate proceeding is void because Grimm died testate and that the partition was contrary to the decedent's wills. Pete and Linda. the firm was then superseded by lawyer Limqueco. 1979 or for a period of more than five months. Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. 1980. Pa̱o. Therefore. It was stated therein that Maxine paid P1. Rogelio A. Rules of Court). РOn September 8. the Angara law firm filed again its appearance in collaboration with Del Callar as counsel for Maxine and her two children. in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss. Rollo). Rule 75. Maxine's lawyer was notified of that motion.considering that it had already approved the declaration of heirs and project of partition (p. 1980 Juanita Grimm Morris. Grimm's second wife and two children alleged that they were defraud due to the machinations of the Roberts spouses. Inc. Rollo). 74 Phil. in behalf of Maxine. 1978. Linda and Pete. p. The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara v. Judge Leonidas denied it for lack of merit in his order of October 27. 1979. Record). 479 and 98 Phil. filed in Branch 38 of the lower court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm's two wills (already probated in Utah). РWe hold that respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. that Maxine be appointed executrix and that Ethel and Juanita Morris be ordered to account for the properties received by them and to return the same to Maxine (pp. After November. 1980. 1979. through Ethel's lawyers. when the Palawan Pearl Project was sold: that it was Maxine's son Pete who negotiated the sale with Rex Roberts and that he (Limqueco) was going to sue Maxine for the lies she imputed to him (Annex H. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. As already noted.

Facts: -Edward Grimm died in Makati Med -Heirs 1st marriage (ended in divorce) children: Juanita Grimm Morris Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden) 2nd marriage: 2nd wife MAXINE Son Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) Daughter Linda Grimm -he left 2 wills: 1 for his properties in RP (conjugal property w/ 2nd wife). Therefore. WHEREFORE. The temporary restraining order is dissolved. No costs. 838. the petition is dismissed. TESTATE COURT: filed 2 years after intestate proceedings -sought to set aside the 1979 partition approved by intestate court -Ethel filed MTD . Civil Code. should be served with copies of orders. Morris. -The probate of the will is mandatory. Short summary: Intestate proceedings already commenced and was about to be closed (there already been a project of partition) when testate proceedings initiated. acquiesced by Linda (daughter in 2nd marriage) and Juanita (other daughter in 1st marriage) -PROJECT PARTITION APPROVED BY INTESTATE COURT -Ethel filed MOTION for accounting so that Estate properties can be partitioned among heirs and intestate estate be closed.assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. sec. Rule 75. notices and other papers in the testate case. 1. who appeared in the intestate case. Maxine. the other for his estate outside RP wherein the daughters in the 1st marriage were intentionally not given anything -43 days after decedent's death. Juanita G. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. Rules of Court). -so dismissed Ethel's petition for certiorari . Court held that probate proceedings are proper and intestate proceedings should be consolidated with the testate proceedings.denied for lack of merit WON THE TESTATE COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR PROBATE? NO -A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. ETHEL filed Intestate proceedings. was named special administrator >>>Maxine (2nd wife/stepmom) filed OPPOSITION + MTD: there's Utah proceedings for the probate of will Prayed that she be appointed special administratrix >>>w/drawn by Maxine INTESTATE COURT: since the parties wanted it. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Ethel may file within twenty days from notice of the finality of this judgment an opposition and answer to the petition unless she considers her motion to dismiss and other pleadings sufficient for the purpose. Pete and Ethel were all appointed as joint administrators (Intestate court already knew there was a will but did not do anything about it) -Administrators submitted an inventory -Palawan Pearl Project (business owned by deceased) sold to Makiling Management Co (owned by Ethel and husband and lawyer). The decedent left 2 wills which the petitioners for the intestate proceedings knew.

of Hon. 1967. Petitioner on July 23. an action for ejectment (Civil Case No. Rule 39. . Petitioner. the plaintiff shall be entitled to `immediate execution to restore plaintiff in possession of the premises and to recover all the unpaid monthly rents from June 1. Dr. dated June 30. 2. 1 Assailed likewise is an Order. Respondents. in the City Court of Iloilo City.R. filed certiorari proceedings in this Court (G. Rosendo Baltazar. HON. 7 Unsuccessful in her motion for reconsideration. 1962. 3 Many years back. No. from June 1964 to December 31.R. 4. ordering the demolition of the residential house of petitioner. Rovira.160. 3508 situated at La Paz. 6823. 3. the residential house therefrom . 9 Said agreement inter alia. 1966. December 18. Defendant (petitioner herein) agreed to vacate the premises and remove . Upon failure of defendant to comply with any . 5 The filing of said case spawned various court suits. Defendant ’waive her right. approving said demolition. fifty (50) days .00) Pesos per calendar month . with private respondent Laguda relative to Civil Case No. Rules of Court. Court of First Instance and HON. of the said premises . L-26694. For the use and occupation . . 8 Suffering from these series of legal reverses. VALERION ROVIRA. 6823) was filed by private respondent Laguda against petitioner in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband. . Judge. No. as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo stationed at Iloilo City. . . . dated August 25. Bacaling.R. 1966. 6162) but the same was dismissed on December 1. . petitioner on November 12.00. . 6 With this setback. 1962. filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. totalling P2.00. . No.] NELITA MORENO VDA. provides as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library 1. with the acquiescence of private respondent Laguda. 6. . 1962. Valerio V.[G. of Eighty (P80. before December 31. 1964 until said premises are vacated’ by defendant. . 1969’. petitioner went to the Court of Appeals by way of certiorari (CA-G. the petitioner entered into a compromise agreement on July 29. under Sec. provision of the amicable settlement within . I Nature of the Case The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul an Order of Hon. paying a monthly rental of P80. . v. . . 1966. Judge. 4 Unable to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to September 1961. . 31882-R) but her petition was dismissed by that Court on March 7. HECTOR LAGUNA. to bar enforcement of the execution of the judgment in the case at anytime within one (1) year from December 31. constructed a residential house on a portion of said lot fronting Huevana Street. 1964. Iloilo City. . Dr. . . L-20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit on August 3. Ramon Bacaling. 1973. 2 II Facts of the Case The record of this case discloses the following facts: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Private respondent Hector Laguda is the registered owner of a residential land known as lot No. City Court of Iloilo. 1962. JUDGE ROSENDO BALTAZAR. the said defendant will pay plaintiff a monthly rent . as Judge of the City Court of Iloilo. . 1969.. DE BACALING. petitioner and her late husband.

petitioner interposed an opposition alleging: chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library 1.00 for which she is entitled to reimbursement as a builder in good faith. alleging that as judicial administratrix as of July 29. 1469 and of the fact that the properties involved therein are in custodia legis. 1965. Atty. 13 Thereafter. 1964. 1469 for the approval of the City Court’s order of execution which was granted despite petitioner’s opposition. Rule 39. 11 Meanwhile on July 23. 1964. of the City Court of Iloilo sought to be executed and. subject. who replaced petitioner upon her discharge as such on November 28. 1966. and 3. motion. her act was binding upon the present judicial administrator. 1964. Dr. 1965. private respondent Laguda moved the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Special Proceedings No. therefore. Ramon Bacaling. the City Court of Iloilo City approved the amicable settlement and enjoined the parties to comply with its terms. 21 Impugning the said Order as violative of the provisions of Sec. 16 On June 30. 1469. private respondent Laguda moved for execution which the Court granted on July 7. 2. 1964. 1965. 15 On April 14. . That the guardian ad litem of the minor children was not notified of the motion for the issuance of an order of demolition. petitioner on July 19. 10 On July 14. respondent Laguda by way of reply disputed petitioner’s claim and supported the legality of the court’s ruling. 14 With the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 4. she was legally authorized to enter into the amicable settlement which was the basis of the decision dated July 30. the respondent City Judge of Iloilo City issued an alias writ of execution upon representations of private respondent Laguda. 1965. 20 On the same date. 1966. petitioner moved for reconsideration to quash the writ of execution. 1469. in Special Proceedings No. No. 17 Upon the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. the City Court however. respondent Laguda on July 12.In a decision dated July 30. considering the pendency of Special Proceedings No. 1965. on October 25. Roberto Dineros in his capacity as judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased. served notice of her intention to take the case to the Court of Appeals. filed a manifestation in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Special Proceedings No. 1966. Iloilo stamped its imprimatur. 1469. 36989-R) which dismissed the same on January 18.000. 1965. 19 On August 25. 1966. For failure of the petitioner to satisfy the conditions of the settlement within the 50day period. however. a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was brought before the Court of Appeals (CA-G. 1966. 14. 12 Denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and to quash writ of execution on September 30. respondent Laguda filed an opposition to the petitioner’s July 14. in addition to reasonable expenses they may incur in transferring the same to another place. 1966. Roberto Dineros. the probate court in Special Proceedings No. a Special Order of Demolition was issued by the respondent City Judge upon motion of private respondent Laguda and over petitioner’s opposition. to the approval of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Special Proceedings No. but before the Court could resolve the motion. 1469 approved the order of demolition of the house in controversy. praying for the confirmation of the Order to demolish the house under custodia legis. copies of which were served by the sheriff upon the petitioner and Atty. 18 On August 4. That the residential house to be demolished is worth P35. held in abeyance the enforcement of the alias writ of execution until the Court of First Instance of. 1965.R. That she was no longer in control of the estate funds when the stipulated obligations in the amicable settlement became due and payable. 1965.

23 Upon petitioner’s posting a bond of P1. 26 It is next urged by petitioner that there was denial of due process for failure of private respondent to notify the guardian ad litem of the minor children of the deceased. the special order of demolition could not be enforced. will be protected. Rule 82 of the Rules of Court. the building in question was already partially demolished. until further orders. petitioner’s lawful acts before the revocation of her letters of administration or before her removal shall have the same validity as if there was no such revocation or removal. 1966. petitioner moved to reconsider the same but the motion was denied by the Court on September 26. and was no longer in control of estate funds when the stipulated obligations in the amicable settlement became due and payable. but the acts of the executor or administrator. Whether or not petitioner is a builder in good faith and. 1469 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Upon giving due course to the petition. like petitioner. entitled to reimbursement in addition to reasonable expenses that may be incurred in transferring the house to another place. Discussion Petitioner claims before this Court that since she was no longer the judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband. 1966. Bamon Bacaling. Dr. 24 III. 1966.of the Rules of Court. therefore. of the motion for execution. 2. Such a view is not tenable. petitioner brought this present action of certiorari with preliminary injunction. this Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 21. and petitioner in connection with the motion for the issuance of the order of demolition. The rule is well-settled that lessees. . because they knew that their occupancy of the premises continues only during the life of the lease. 22 Frustrated in her effort to set aside the Order of Demolition. to prevent the enforcement of the order of demolition in Special Proceedings No. Under Section 3.000. Their rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to one-half of the value of their improvements if the lessor so elects. and they cannot as a matter of right. and of the constitutional mandate on due process. are not possessors in good faith. but when served upon the respondents. Issues of the Case The issues raised in the instant petition boil down to the following: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library 1. entitled to reimbursement. issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the herein respondents from proceeding with the order of demolition. 3. IV. and a similar protection will be extended to rights acquired under a previous grant of administration. much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed. done in good faith prior to the revocation of the letters. the same cannot stand legal scrutiny.25 cralaw:red In connection with the petitioner’s contention that she be considered a builder in good faith and. Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or removal are valid and binding upon her successor.00. recover the value of their improvements from the lessor. It is elementary that the effect of revocation of letters testamentary or of administration is to terminate the authority of the executor or administrator. this Court on November 10. Ramon Bacaling. Whether or not due process was denied to the minor children of deceased Ramon Bacaling. and/or reasonable expenses that may be incurred in transferring the house to another place. therefore.

guardian ad litem of the minor children of the late Bamon Bacaling.A perusal of the pleadings yields the conclusion that petitioner failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that there was denial of due process. Treble costs against the petitioner for the reasons above set forth. 30 There is something more to be said about the nature and apparent purpose of this case which has its genesis in the case for illegal detainer (Civil Case No. In the case at bar. What transpired therein presents a glaring example of a summary proceeding which was deliberately protracted and made to suffer undue delay in its disposal. VI. 34 The present petition smacks of a dilatory tactic and a frivolous attempt resorted to by petitioner to frustrate the prompt termination of the ejectment case and to prolong litigation unnecessarily. 1960. is immediately set aside. V. For that purpose the abuse of discretion must be grave and patent. 1966. 1966. there is absolutely no showing that the respondent courts acted so "arbitrarily". 1966. "Grave abuse of discretion" which is a ground for certiorari means "such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent. On the contrary. and as also shown by the certification of private respondent’s counsel at the foot of his opposition dated September 15. 31 it reached the appellate courts five (5) times." 29 Even mere abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. 27 filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. which is not the case made out by the present petition. . Such conduct on the part of petitioner and her counsel deserves the vigorous condemnation of this Court. twice before the Court of Appeals 32 . A recourse of this kind unduly taxes the energy and patience of courts and simply wastes the precious time that they could well devote to really meritorious cases. "despotically" or "capriciously" as to amount to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on November 10. and twice before this Court. Judgment IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the instant petition should be. dismissed. to lack of jurisdiction. as it is hereby. 28 likewise filed with the same Court. Once before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo 33 . 35 because it evinces a flagrant misuse of the remedy of certiorari which should only be resorted to in cases of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by an inferior court. Conclusion The petitioner is not entitled to the writ of certiorari. has been duly apprised of the issuance of the assailed special order to demolish. and it must be shown that it was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. there is evidence to show that Acting Fiscal Alfonso Illemberger. 6823) brought before the Iloilo City Court. as shown by the certification of the counsel for petitioner at the foot of his opposition dated August 4. It was originally filed on September 13. in the eyes of the law.

LUZON SURETY V.. the bond was held liable and inevitably. losses…. QUEBAR Short summary: Surety company entered into an indemnity agreements wherein they agreed to become sureties to 2 administrator's bond in favor of Pastor Quebar. even if they did not renew it. Surety sues the administrator for amounts due to it. Quebar submitted a project of partition and accounts which was approved by the court. not paying anything more to the surety).expenses -Quebar paid for the first year. 111 NY 531. . not all expenses were paid yet …project partition: estate may be partitioned even before the termination of the administration proceedings. And even if there's already a project of partition. ROC -The statute which requires the giving of a bond becomes a part of the bond and imparts into the bond any condition prescribed by statute -PURPOSE OF BOND: indemnify creditors. Court held that the administrators bond still exists.liquidation: the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses . -EFFECT OF APROVAL OF PROJECT OF PARTITION: NONE . Oppermann. -Quebar and Kilayco filed a MOTION FOR CANCELLATION AND/OR REDUCTION OF EXECUTOR'S BOND: heirs already received their shares (so tapos na dapat trabaho nila. as long as not all of the debts are paid. the CFI could still exercise jurisidction over the administration proceedings WHEN SURETY LIABLE: as long as probate proceedings are ongoing . conditioned upon the faithful performance of the administrator's trust .Quebar and Kilayco appealed CA: referred case to SC. in case defendant-appellant Pastor T. that is. thus. it follows that the administrator is still duty bound to respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him in consideration of the suretyship. Hence. Quebrar was administrator of the estates. heirs.5k each ~ P5k) -Luzon Surety filed for collection.here. because they were still in force and effect until cancelled by Court order. P304. di na kelangan ng bond) >>>CFI: cancelled bonds.. Even w/ the approval of the partition. The surety became liable under the bond for the faithful administration of the estate by the administrator/executor. so Quebar argues that the bond should now be cancelled (thus. P15k each.As a result.the surety is then liable under the administrator's bond. the surety already assumed the risk involved. for as long as the administrator has duties to do as such administrator/executor. Facts: -Luzon Surety Company entered into an indemnity agreement w/ Pastor Quebar: Luzon Surety Company would issue 2 administrator's bond. the bond still subsists and the administrator is still liable to pay the surety. for 2 Special proceedings Quebar and Kilayco would pay Luzon Surety P300 in advance as premium for every 12 months…. the administrator's job is not yet done. for as long as defendant-appellant Pastor T. and the latter agreed to pay them. legatees and the estate. CFI: allowed Luzon Surety to recover: defendants liable under terms of the Indemnity Agreements.1. Since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the administrator and embraces the performance of every duty he is called upon to perform in the course of administration (Deobold vs. Kilayco and Quebar refused to pay the amount demanded by Luzon Surety (which amounted to almost P2.50 each -Quebar submitted a Project Partition and Accounts >>>CFI approved it -when Luzon Surety demanded payment of premiums and documentary stamps for the years after the first. . Quebrar defaults in his administrative duties.or renewed by them Quebar and Kilayco also agrees to indemnify Luzon Surety for all damages. questions of law involved HELD: With the payment of the premium for the first year. coterminous with the probate proceedings. 19 NE 94). the plaintiff-appellee's liability subsists since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the administrator HOW TO INTERPRET LIABILITY FOR THE BOND: Look on the language of the bond itself -HERE: the bond is practically the same as R81.

. The obligation of the bond was therefore continuous -The payment of the annual premium is to be enforced as part of the consideration. . the duration of the counter-bond was made dependent upon the existence of the original bond. and. does not necessarily extinguish or terminate the effectivity of the counter-bond in the absence of an express stipulation in the contract making such non-payment of premiums a cause for the extinguishment or termination of the undertaking. But such non-payment alone of the premiums for the succeeding years . consequently. and not as a condition -"the one-year period mentioned therein refers not to the duration or lifetime of the bond." CORPORATE SURETY: Suretyship became regarded as insurance -no need to interpret the contract because NO AMBIGUITY . CAN'T INTERPRET THE TWO BONDS SEPARATELY: the terms of the bond makes them jointly and severally liable -so 1 can't claim that the bond and the indemnity agreement failed to have effect since… …approval of the project partition …nonpayment of stated premiums WON PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND DST ARE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVITY OF BONDS? NO -no provision or condition in the bond to the effect that it will terminate at the end of the first year if the premium for continuation thereafter is not paid. does not affect at all the effectivity or efficacy of such bond. And the term of a bond does not usually expire until the administration has been closed and terminated in the manner directed by law -As long as the probate court retains jurisdiction of the estate. the contract ran on until affirmative action was taken to avoid it. for matters occurring during the term covered by the bond. the bond contemplates a continuing liability (Deobold vs. . but merely to the payment of premiums. There is no necessity for an extension or renewal of the agreement because by specific provision thereof. And there is no clause by which its obligation is avoided or even suspended by the failure of the obligee to pay an annual premium -Even on a failure to pay an annual premium. supra) notwithstanding the non-renewal of the bond by the defendants-appellants. Oppermann. . .The sureties of an administration bond are liable only as a rule.

Facts: -Don Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain. executed in Spain. JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA (di ko alam how related) commenced SPECPRO for PROBATE OF LAST WILL OF DON JUAN before Manila courts + MTD in Negros Courts . . OPPOSITION TO PETITION by HIGINIO URIARTE (nephew of Don Juan): Don Juan left a will. petitioner considered to have waived the defect by laches. whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will. or to have it opened if already finished. decedent left properties both in Manila and in Negros Even if Negros court first took cognizance of the case. Alleged natural son opposed.But Negros court dismissed the special proceeding. the court held that if ever recognized as the natural child of the decedent. BUT testate proceedings.DENIED -Manila court admitted to probate the last will WON NEGROS COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT? NO. no need for intestate proceedings before Negros Courts. -The alleged natural son of Don Juan. CFI Short summary: alleged natural child of the deceased filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE estate of Don Juan Uriarte y Goite in Negros Occidental Court. Pending this. it had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the same NEGROS COURT: DISMISS proceedings before it. so he should have filed a MTD in Manila court earlier: Manila court already *appointed an administrator *admitted the will to probate more than 5 months earlier -court would not annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue therefor. PNB was even appointed as special administrator. for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Petitioner contested it. VICENTE filed OMNIBUS MOTION in Manila Court for leave to intervene + dismissal of petition for probate + annulment of proceedings . filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE ESTATE of Don Juan before the Negros Occidental court. Vicente had no legal personality to sue >>>OPPOSED by VICENTE: Negros Courts first took cognizance. Note that during that time. duly authenticated . Court held that since the decedent was a non-resident. so the courts in the province s where he left property may take cognizance of settlement of his estate -here. but PNB failed to qualify. contending that Negros courts already had exclusive jurisdiction of the case.submitted before Negros court. the deceased made a will AND that petitioner had doubtful interest (proceeding for his recognition as a natural child not yet done). Even if the venue was improper. So even pending Intestate proceedings. still has to give way to Manila court special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased person. Since there's a will. and (2) to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed. left properties both in Manila and Negro. proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed. MTD filed by nephew of Don Juan. he could opt to intervene in the probate proceedings. both Manila and Negros courts may be proper venues for the proceedings. Decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country (Spain) during the time of his death. the nephews instituted a petition for probate of the will of Don Juan in Manila. and the Manila court proceeded to probate the will. VICENTE URIARTE. -PNB also was appointed as special administrator of the estate. the proceedings for compulsory acknowledgment as the natural son of Don Juan was still pending . if it is found it hat the decedent had left a last will. If will rejected or disproved. is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement of his estate.URIARTE V. the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. But since probate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. proceedings shall continue as intestacy VICENTE already waived procedural defect of VENUE IMPROPERLY LAID -He knew that there was a will when a MTD was filed in Negros court. but PNB failed to qualified. if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction As to interest of Vicente in the case -two alternatives for an acknowledged natural child to prove his status and interest in the estate of the deceased parent: (1) to intervene in the probate proceeding if it is still open. alleging that while he was in Spain. Lastly. action by Manila court proper. ViCENTE's capacity and interest are questionable .

they should leave the property. Ramon Bacaling and her wife Nelita to build a residential house on a portion of the lot. because they knew that their occupancy of the premises continues only during the life of the lease. recover the value of their improvements from the lessor. she entered (as the judicial administratrix) an compromise agreement w/ Hector where she agreed to pay the accrued rents and vacate the premises and demolish the house. Rule 82 of the Rules of Court. much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed. She was however replaced as judicial administratrix so she now claims that the amicable settlement cannot be enforced against her. upon payment of monthly rentals -since the spouses were unable to pay the rentals. Facts: -Hector Laguda owned a residential lot in La Paz. as shown by the certification of the counsel for Nelia at the foot of her opposition to the motion for execution . Court held that her acts bound the next administrator of the estate. -Compromise agreement approved by the courts -Nelia refused to comply with the agreement -Hector moved for execution of the compromise agreement -pending this. Nelia was discharged as the judicial administrator of her husband's estate so she was claiming in a motion to quash that the settlement was not binding on the new administrator . Iloilo -He allowed Dr. who was also the judicial administratrix of her husband co-lesee. It is elementary that the effect of revocation of letters testamentary or of administration is to terminate the authority of the executor or administrator. entered into an amicable settlement w/ the owner of the property wherein she agreed to leave the property. Ramon already died) as the judicial administratrix of the estate of her husband -suffering many legal setbacks and unable to have the action for ejectment dismissed. and they cannot as a matter of right. LAGUDA Short summary: The lessees of the land were sought to be evicted but since they put up a residential house on the property. WON THERE WAS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED OF THE MOTION FOR EXECUTION? NO -there was evidence that the guardian ad litem has been duly apprised. they refused to do so.denied -Alias writ of execution issued by court -to stop the demolition of the house. done in good faith prior to the revocation of the letters.VIUDA DE BACALING V. and a similar protection will be extended to rights acquired under a previous grant of administration. WON NELIA WAS A BUILDER IN GF? NO -Lessees. Nelia filed certiorari proceedings w/ TRO before SC WON ACTS OF NELIA AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX PRIOR TO HER DISCHARGE OR REMOVAL ARE VALID AND BINDING UPON HER SUCCESSOR? YES -Under Section 3. Their rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to one-half of the value of their improvements if the lessor so elects. are not possessors in good faith. petitioner's lawful acts before the revocation of her letters of administration or before her removal shall have the same validity as if there was no such revocation or removal. but the acts of the executor or administrator. The lessee. thus. will be protected. an action for ejectment was filed against Nelita (Dr. like petitioner.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful