SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









1


only
 law
 which
 could
 possibly
 sanction
 the
 appointment
 of
 assessors
 is
 Act
 190,

PRELIMINARIES

which
provided
that
when
the
parties
request
for
the
appointment
of
an
assessor,


 the
judge
would
consequently
provide
the
same.



ACTION
 SPECIAL
PROCEEDING
 

An
action
by
which
a
party
sues
another
 An
application
to
establish
the
status
or
 The
 trial
 court
 judge
 would
 be
 sustained
 if
 it
 is
 found
 that
 the
 provision
 also

for
 the
 enforcement
 or
 protection
 of
 a
 right
 of
 a
 party
 or
 a
 particular
 fact,
 or
 contemplated
“special
proceedings”
when
it
mentioned
“action”.

right,
 or
 the
 prevention
 or
 redress
 of
 a
 any
remedy
other
than
an
ordinary
suit
 

wrong
 in
a
court
of
justice
 HELD:


 There
is
a
marked
distinction
between
an
"action"
and
a
"special
proceeding.
"An

It
 is
 a
 formal
 demand
 of
 one’s
 legal
 Generally
 commenced
 through
 action
is
a
formal
demand
of
one's
legal
rights
in
a
court
of
justice
in
the
manner

rights
in
a
court
of
justice
in
the
manner
 application,
 petition,
 or
 special
 form
 of
 prescribed
by
the
court
or
by
the
law.
It
is
the
method
of
applying
legal
remedies

prescribed
by
the
court
of
by
the
law
 pleading
 according
 to
 definite
 established
 rules.
 The
 term
 "special
 proceeding"
 may
 be


 
 defined
as
an
application
or
proceeding
to
establish
the
status
or
right
of
a
party,
or

It
 is
 absolute
 rule
 that
 there
 is
 an
 Publication
usually
necessary
to
acquire
 a
particular
fact.
Usually,
in
special
proceedings,
no
formal
pleadings
are
required,

adversarial
party
 jurisdiction
 unless
 the
 statute
 expressly
 so
 provides.
 The
 remedy
 in
 special
 proceedings
 is


 
 generally
 granted
 upon
 an
 application
 or
 motion.
 Illustrations
 of
 special

General
jurisdiction
 It
 is
 a
 general
 rule
 that
 there
 is
 no
 proceedings,
 in
 contradistinction
 to
 actions,
 may
 be
 given:
 Proceedings
 for
 the


 adverse
 party
 (exception:
 in
 cases
 of
 appointment
of
an
administrator,
guardians,
tutors;
contest
of
wills;
to
perpetuate

Usually
 constitute
 actions
 in
 personam,
 habeas
corpus
proceedings)
 testimony;
 to
 change
 the
 name
 of
 persons;
 application
 for
 admission
 to
 the
 bar,

wherein
the
decision
of
the
court
would
 
 etc.

only
bind
the
parties
in
the
case
 Constitute
 actions
 in
 rem—wherein
 


 these
proceedings
bind
the
whole
world
 From
all
of
the
foregoing,
in
the
present
proceeding,
the
judge
of
the
Court
of
First

Issues
determined
by
the
pleadings
 once
they
are
concluded
 Instance
 is
 without
 authority
 to
 appoint
 assessors.
 Therefore,
 the
 demurrer
 is


 
 hereby
overruled
and
the
prayer
of
the
petition
is
hereby
granted,
and
it
is
hereby

There
is
a
prescriptive
period
involved
 Issues
determined
by
law
 ordered
 and
 decreed
 that
 the
 order
 of
 the
 respondent
 judge
 appointing
 the


 
 assessors
 described
 in
 the
 petition
 be
 and
 the
 same
 is
 hereby
 annulled
 and
 set

There
can
be
an
award
for
damages
 There
is
no
prescriptive
period
involved
 aside;
and,
without
any
finding
as
to
costs,
it
is
so
ordered.


 

No
award
of
damages
 2
 NATCHER
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS


 
 366
SCRA
380

Generally,
 no
 default
 in
 special
 

proceedings
 FACTS:


 Spouses
del
Rosario
were
the
owners
of
a
parcel
of
land.

When
the
wife
died,
the

1
 HAGANS
V.
WISLEZENUS
 husband
 and
 the
 children
 extrajudicially
 partitioned
 the
 property.
 
 Graciano


 42
PHIL
880
 likewise
 donated
 part
 of
 his
 share
 in
 the
 land
 to
 his
 children
 and
 consequently


 divided
his
share
into
two—selling
one
lot
to
a
third
person
and
the
other
lot,
he

FACTS:
 retained
as
his
own.

He
later
contracted
a
second
marriage
to
petitioner.

Before

A
petition
for
certiorari
was
filed
against
a
judge
who
ordered
the

appointment
of
 his
death,
he
sold
the
second
lot
to
petitioner.

Upon
his
death,
the
children
filed

assessors
 in
 a
 special
 proceeding.
 
 Of
 all
 the
 laws
 existing
 during
 the
 period,
 the
 an
action
for
annulment
of
title,
alleging
that
before
their
father’s
death,
through




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









2




fraud
and
forgery,
petitioner
unlawfully
transferred
the
land
to
her.

The
trial
court
 advancement
 made
 by
 the
 decedent
 Graciano
 Del
 Rosario
 to
 his
 wife,
 herein

ruled
 that
 the
 deed
 of
 sale
 was
 void
 and
 against
 the
 law.
 
 nonetheless,
 the
 petitioner
Natcher.

conveyance
can
be
considered
as
an
advance
inheritance.

This
was
reversed
by
the
 

Court
of
Appeals
however
on
appeal—ruling
that
the
trial
court
shouldn't
rule
on
 3
 VDA.
DE
MANALO
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS

matters
which
the
probate
court
has
proper
jurisdiction
over.


 
 349
SCRA
135


 

HELD:
 FACTS:

As
could
be
gleaned
from
the
foregoing,
there
lies
a
marked
distinction
between
an
 Troadio
 Manalo
 died
 intestate,
 leaving
 his
 spouse
 and
 children
 as
 heirs.
 
 Eight
 of

action
 and
 a
 special
 proceeding.
 An
 action
 is
 a
 formal
 demand
 of
 one's
 right
 in
 a
 these
children
filed
for
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
their
father.

The
trial
court

court
 of
 justice
 in
 the
 manner
 prescribed
 by
 the
 court
 or
 by
 the
 law.
 It
 is
 the
 issued
 an
 order
 setting
 a
 date
 for
 hearing
 as
 well
 as
 publication
 of
 the
 same
 in

method
of
applying
legal
remedies
according
to
definite
established
rules.
The
term
 newspapers.
 
 Petitioners
 opposed
 and
 sought
 that
 they
 be
 heard
 on
 their

"special
 proceeding"
 may
 be
 defined
 as
 an
 application
 or
 proceeding
 to
 establish
 affirmative
defenses
regarding
the
case’s
dismissal
as
well
as
that
the
court
hasn't

the
status
or
right
of
a
party,
or
a
particular
fact.
Usually,
in
special
proceedings,
no
 acquired
 jurisdiction
 over
 them.
 
 The
 trial
 court
 issued
 an
 order
 overruling
 the

formal
 pleadings
 are
 required
 unless
 the
 statute
 expressly
 so
 provides.
 In
 special
 petitioner’s
contention.

It
was
sustained
by
the
appellate
court
despite
allegations

proceedings,
the
remedy
is
granted
generally
upon
an
application
or
motion."
 of
 the
 petitioners
 that
 the
 special
 proceedings
 applied
 for
 by
 respondents
 was


 actually
in
the
nature
of
an
ordinary
civil
action
filed
against
them.



Applying
these
principles,
an
action
for
reconveyance
and
annulment
of
title
with
 

damages
is
a
civil
action,
whereas
matters
relating
to
settlement
of
the
estate
of
a
 HELD:

deceased
person
such
as
advancement
of
property
made
by
the
decedent,
partake
 It
 is
 a
 fundamental
 rule
 that
 in
 the
 determination
 of
 the
 nature
 of
 an
 action
 or

of
the
nature
of
a
special
proceeding,
which
concomitantly
requires
the
application
 proceeding,
 the
 averments
 and
 the
 character
 of
 the
 relief
 sought
 16
 in
 the

of
specific
rules
as
provided
for
in
the
Rules
of
Court.
 complaint,
or
petition,
as
in
the
case
at
bar,
shall
be
controlling.
A
careful
srutiny
of


 the
Petition
for
Issuance
of
Letters
of
Administration,
Settlement
and
Distribution

Clearly,
 matters
 which
 involve
 settlement
 and
 distribution
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 of
Estatein
SP.
PROC.
No.
92‐63626
belies
herein
petitioners'
claim
that
the
same
is

decedent
fall
within
the
exclusive
province
of
the
probate
court
in
the
exercise
of
 in
 the
 nature
 of
 an
 ordinary
 civil
 action.
 The
 said
 petition
 contains
 sufficient

its
limited
jurisdiction.
 jurisdictional
facts
required
in
a
petition
for
the
settlement
of
estate
of
a
deceased


 person
such
as
the
fact
of
death
of
the
late
Troadio
Manalo
on
February
14,
1992,

Thus,
under
Section
2,
Rule
90
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
questions
as
to
advancement
 as
well
as
his
residence
in
the
City
of
Manila
at
the
time
of
his
said
death.
The
fact

made
or
alleged
to
have
been
made
by
the
deceased
to
any
heir
may
be
heard
and
 of
 death
 of
 the
 decedent
 and
 of
 his
 residence
 within
 he
 country
 are
 foundation

determined
by
the
court
having
jurisdiction
of
the
estate
proceedings;
and
the
final
 facts
upon
which
all
the
subsequent
proceedings
in
the
administration
of
the
estate

order
of
the
court
thereon
shall
be
binding
on
the
person
raising
the
questions
and
 rest.
 The
 petition
 is
 SP.PROC
 No.
 92‐63626
 also
 contains
 an
 enumeration
 of
 the

on
the
heir.

 names
 of
 his
 legal
 heirs
 including
 a
 tentative
 list
 of
 the
 properties
 left
 by
 the


 deceased
 which
 are
 sought
 to
 be
 settled
 in
 the
 probate
 proceedings.
 In
 addition,

Corollarily,
 the
 Regional
 Trial
 Court
 in
 the
 instant
 case,
 acting
 in
 its
 general
 the
 relief's
 prayed
 for
 in
 the
 said
 petition
 leave
 no
 room
 for
 doubt
 as
 regard
 the

jurisdiction,
is
devoid
of
authority
to
render
 an
adjudication
and
resolve
the
issue
 intention
 of
 the
 petitioners
 therein
 (private
 respondents
 herein)
 to
 seek
 judicial

of
 advancement
 of
 the
 real
 property
 in
 favor
 of
 herein
 petitioner
 Natcher,
 settlement
of
the
estate
of
their
deceased
father,
Troadio
Manalo.

inasmuch
 as
 Civil
 Case
 No.
 471075
 for
 reconveyance
 and
 annulment
 of
 title
 with
 

damages
 is
 not,
 to
 our
 mind,
 the
 proper
 vehicle
 to
 thresh
 out
 said
 question.
 JURISDICTION

Moreover,
under
the
present
circumstances,
the
RTC
of
Manila,
Branch
55
was
not
 

properly
constituted
as
a
probate
court
so
as
to
validly
pass
upon
the
question
of
 EXTENT
OF
JURISDICTION




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









3




1. Concurrent
 jurisdiction
 over
 guardianship
 and
 adoption
 cases
 is
 now
 to
her
of
her
share
in
the
Hacienda
Evangelista
upon
the
ground
that
the
same
was

eliminated
and
exclusive
jurisdiction
is
now
vested
with
the
RTC
 acquired
by
respondent
through
fraud
or
misrepresentation
cannot
be
obtained
by

2. Municipal
 trial
 courts
 can
 likewise
 appoint
 guardians
 ad
 litem
 in
 proper
 a
mere
petition
in
the
probate
proceedings.
The
court
of
first
instance,
acting
as
a

cases
 and
 where
 said
 incompetent
 is
 not
 represented
 by
 his
 parents
 or
 probate
court,
has
limited
jurisdiction
and
can
take
cognizance
only
of
"matters
of

judicial
guardian
 probate,
 both
 testate
 and
 intestate
 estates,
 ...
 and
 all
 such
 special
 cases
 and

3. Municipal
 trial
 courts
 have
 exclusive
 jurisdiction
 over
 probate
 cases
 proceedings
as
are
not
otherwise
provided
for
"
The
jurisdiction
of
a
probate
court

involving
 a
 gross
 value
 of
 the
 estate
 not
 exceeding
 P20,000—later
 is
 limited
 and
 special,
 and
 this
 should
 be
 understood
 to
 comprehend
 only
 cases

amended
by
increasing
it
to
P300,000
and
P400,000
in
Metro
Manila
 related
to
those
powers
specified
in
the
law,
and
can
not
extend
to
the
adjucation

4. The
writ
of
habeas
corpus
may
be
issued
by
the
Supreme
Court,
Court
of
 of
collateral
matters.

Appeals,
and
RTC
 

5. Special
jurisdiction
is
conferred
to
municipal
court
judges
in
the
absence
 The
 petition
 filed
 by
 petitioner
 before
 the
 probate
 court
 which
 seemingly
 seeks

of
any
RTC
judge
 merely
 the
 reconveyance
 to
 her
 of
 her
 undivided
 share
 in
 a
 parcel
 of
 land
 which

6. Family
 Courts
 have
 exclusive
 original
 jurisdiction
 over
 petitions
 for
 originally
formed
part
of
the
estate
of
her
father
in
fact
calls
for
the
nullification,
of

guardianship,
 custody,
 habeas
 corpus
 in
 relation
 to
 the
 latter,
 and
 the
order
of
execution
issued
by
the
probate
court
which
is
already
final,
and
of
the

adoption
of
children
and
revocation
thereof
 subsequent
 sale
 of
 a
 property
 to
 respondent,
 upon
 the
 alleged
 ground
 of
 fraud.

7. Publication
 of
 judicial
 orders
 and
 notices
 is
 often
 required
 in
 special
 The
 defense
 interposed
 by
 respondent
 is
 that
 petitioner's
 action
 to
 recover
 the

proceedings
for
jurisdictional
purposes
 property
is
already
barred
by
prescription,
laches,
and
res
judicata.
The
petition
for


 reconveyance
has
given
rise
to
a
controversy
involving
rights
over
a
real
property

4
 MANGALIMAN
V.
GONZALES
 which
 would
 require
 the
 presentation
 of
 evidence
 and
 the
 determination
 of
 legal


 36
SCRA
462
 questions
that
should
be
ventilated
in
a
court
of
general
jurisdiction.


 

FACTS:
 5
 BAYBAYAN
V.
AQUINO

Petitioner
was
the
illegitimate
daughter
of
the
decedent
and
was
given
a
legacy
of
 
 149
SCRA
185

1/8
undivided
portion
in
Hacienda
Evangelista.

Since
she
was
still
a
minor
during
 

this
time,
she
was
placed
under
guardianship.

One
of
the
legitimate
children
was
 FACTS:

the
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate.
 
 On
 allegations
 that
 his
 fees
 weren’t
 paid
 yet,
 he
 Private
 respondents,
 alleging
 themselves
 to
 be
 the
 nephews
 and
 nieces
 of
 a

filed
 for
 a
 writ
 of
 execution.
 
 The
 whole
 Hacienda
 Evangelista
 was
 sold
 in
 public
 decedent,
sought
the
summary
settlement
of
the
same’s
estate.

The
probate
court

auction
to
respondent‐administrator,
including
that
share
of
petitioner.

When
she
 ordered
the
submission
of
a
project
of
partition
together
with
the
accounting
and

came
of
age,
she
tried
to
annul
the
sale
to
her
half‐brother
but
she
was
overruled
 inventory
 of
 the
 properties.
 
 The
 property
 was
 then
 distributed
 and
 writs
 of

on
the
ground
that
the
guardian
knew
of
the
sale
and
should
have
filed
the
action
 possession
were
issued
to
the
private
respondents.

Consequently,
motions
to
cite

to
 annul
 long
 before.
 
 She
 then
 discovered
 that
 the
 fees
 were
 actually
 paid
 and
 petitioners
 in
 contempt
 of
 court
 were
 filed,
 who
 allegedly
 interrupted
 private

through
 fraud
 and
 machinations,
 brother‐administrator
 was
 able
 to
 sell
 the
 respondents
in
taking
possession
of
the
land.

The
petitioners
on
the
other
hand,

Hacienda
 to
 himself.
 
 She
 sought
 then
 the
 annulment
 of
 the
 sale
 again,
 in
 the
 filed
for
quieting
of
title
against
the
sheriff
and
other
private
respondents.

Later,

probate
 court,
 alleging
 anew
 the
 fraud
 employed.
 
 Her
 complaint
 was
 again
 the
 probate
 court
 found
 out
 that
 the
 land
 specified
 in
 the
 application
 was

dismissed.


 registered
in
the
names
of
petitioners.

It
then
issued
an
order
denying
the
motion


 for
 contempt
 of
 court
 and
 likewise
 ordered
 the
 petitioners
 to
 amend
 their

HELD:
 complaint
against
private
respondents.

The
 probate
 court
 has
 no
 jurisdiction
 to
 take
 cognizance
 of
 the
 petition
 for
 

reconveyance,
in
question.
The
remedy
sought
by
petitioner
for
the
reconveyance
 HELD:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









4




The
 contention,
 in
 our
 opinion,
 is
 not
 meritorious.
 While
 it
 may
 be
 true
 that
 the
 decedent.
 
 They
 likewise
 prayed
 for
 the
 appointment
 of
 their
 brother
 as
 special

order
to
amend
the
complaint
filed
in
Civil
Case
No.
231‐R
was
issued
in
Spec.
Proc.
 administrator
 in
 lieu
 of
 the
 husband
 to
 protect
 their
 interest
 and
 also
 due
 to
 the

No.
 24‐R,
 so
 that
 it
 cannot
 ordinarily
 bind
 the
 herein
 petitioners
 who
 are
 not
 failure
 to
 file
 an
 inventory.
 
 The
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 in
 the
 meantime
 was
 denied

parties
 in
 said
 special
 proceedings,
 it
 appears,
 however,
 that
 the
 petitioners
 and
 to
 this,
 the
 husband
 appealed.
 
 Consequently,
 the
 brother
 was
 appointed
 as

voluntarily
 submitted
 themselves
 to
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 probate
 court,
 when
 administrator.
 
 The
 husband
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 certiorari
 and
 for
 preliminary

they
 filed
 an
 Omnibus
 Motion
 in
 Civil
 Case
 No.
 231‐R,
 wherein
 they
 prayed
 for
 injunction,
 praying
 therein
 the
 annulment
 of
 the
 brother
 as
 co‐administrator
 and

leave
to
amend
their
complaint
in
accordance
with
the
order
of
the
probate
court
 the
 prohibition
 of
 the
 probate
 court
 from
 proceeding
 in
 his
 removal
 as

of
 30
 October
 1975.
 They
 cannot
 now
 be
 allowed
 belatedly
 to
 adopt
 an
 administrator.

The
petitioners
moved
for
the
certification
of
the
same
to
the
SC
as

inconsistent
 posture
 by
 attacking
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 respondent
 trial
 Judge
 to
 the
 amount
 involved
 exceeds
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 CA.
 
 Nevertheless,
 the
 CA

whom
they
submitted
their
cause
voluntarily.

 decided
in
favor
of
the
husband.


 

We
 find,
 however,
 that
 the
 respondent
 Judge
 committed
 a
 grave
 abuse
 of
 HELD:

discretion,
amounting
to
lack
of
jurisdiction,
in
dismissing
the
complaint
filed
by
the
 Under
 Section
 2,
 Rule
 75,
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 the
 property
 to
 be
 administered

petitioners,
for
their
alleged
failure
to
amend
their
complaint
to
exclude
therefrom
 and
 liquidated
 in
 testate
 or
 intestate
 proceedings
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouse
 is,
 not

Lot
E
which
the
respondent
Judge
found,
in
his
order
of
30
October
1975,
issued
in
 only
 that
 part
 of
 the
 conjugal
 estate
 pertaining
 to
 the
 deceased
 spouse,
 but
 the

the
 probate
 court,
 to
 be
 owned
 by
 the
 petitioners
 Cipriano
 Evangelista
 and
 entire
 conjugal
 estate.
 This
 Court
 has
 already
 held
 that
 even
 if
 the
 deceased
 had

Consuelo
 Baybayan.
 The
 findings
 of
 the
 respondent
 Judge
 as
 to
 the
 ownership
 of
 left
no
debts,
upon
the
dissolution
of
the
marriage
by
the
death
of
the
husband
or

Lot
E
after
the
hearing
conducted
in
Spec.
Proc.
No.
24‐R
do
not
justify
the
order
to
 wife,
the
community
property
shall
be
inventoried,
administered,
and
liquidated
in

amend
the
complaint
since
the
determination
of
the
ownership
of
the
said
lot
by
 the
testate
or
intestate
proceedings
of
the
deceased
spouse.

In
a
number
of
cases

the
 respondent
 Judge
 presiding
 over
 a
 court
 exercising
 probate
 jurisdiction
 is
 not
 where
 appeal
 was
 taken
 from
 an
 order
 of
 a
 probate
 court
 disallowing
 a
 will,
 this

final
 or
 ultimate
 in
 nature
 and
 is
 without
 prejudice
 to
 the
 right
 of
 an
 interested
 Court,
 in
 effect,
 recognized
 that
 the
 amount
 or
 value
 involved
 or
 in
 controversy

party
to
raise
the
question
of
ownership
in
a
proper
action.

 therein
 is
 that
 of
 the
 entire
 estate.
 
 Not
 having
 appellate
 jurisdiction
 over
 the


 proceedings
 in
 probate
 (CA‐G.R.
 No.
 27478‐R),
 considering
 that
 the
 amount

It
is
a
well‐settled
rule
in
this
jurisdiction,
sanctioned
and
reiterated
in
a
long
fine
of
 involved
therein
is
more
than
P200,000.00,
the
Court
of
Appeals
cannot
also
have

decisions,
that
"when
questions
arise
as
to
ownership
of
property
alleged
to
be
a
 original
 jurisdiction
 to
 grant
 the
 writs
 of
 certiorari
 and
 prohibition
 prayed
 for
 by

part
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
person,
but
claimed
by
some
other
person
to
be
 respondent
in
the
instant
case,
which
are
merely
incidental
thereto.



his
 property,
 not
 by
 virtue
 of
 any
 right
 of
 inheritance
 from
 the
 deceased,
 but
 by
 

title
 adverse
 to
 that
 of
 the
 deceased
 and
 his
 estate,
 such
 questions
 cannot
 be
 Note
 also
 that
 the
 present
 proceedings
 under
 review
 were
 for
 the
 annulment
 of

determined
in
the
courts
of
administrative
proceedings.
The
Court
of
First
Instance,
 the
 appointment
 of
 Eliezar
 Lopez
 as
 special
 co‐administrator
 and
 to
 restrain
 the

acting,
as
a
probate
court,
has
no
jurisdiction
to
adjudicate
such
contentions,
which
 probate
court
from
removing
respondent
as
special
administrator.
It
is
therefore,
a

must
 be
 submitted
 to
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 in
 the
 exercise
 of
 its
 general
 contest
 for
 the
 administration
 of
 the
 estate
 and,
 consequently,
 the
 amount
 or

jurisdiction
as
a
court
of
first
instance."

 value
of
the
assets
of
the
whole
estate
is
the
value
in
controversy
(4
C.J.S.
204).
It


 appearing
that
the
value
of
the
estate
in
dispute
is
much
more
than
P200,000.00,

6
 FERNANDEZ
V.
MARAVILLA
 the
 Court
 of
 Appeals
 clearly
 had
 no
 original
 jurisdiction
 to
 issue
 the
 writs
 in


 10
SCRA
589
 question.


 

FACTS:
 7
 MANALO
V.
PAREDES

Maravilla
 sought
 the
 probate
 of
 his
 late
 wife’s
 will.
 
 The
 siblings
 sought
 denial
 of
 
 47
PHIL
938

probate
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 it
 wasn't
 signed
 on
 each
 and
 every
 page
 by
 the
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









5




FACTS:
 his
ministerial
duty
imposed
by
section
330
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure;
because

Hidalgo
 filed
 with
 the
 court
 her
 letters
 of
 administration
 of
 the
 estate
 left
 by
 her
 this
remedy,
being
extraordinary,
cannot
be
used
in
lieu
of
appeal,
or
writ
of
error

deceased
 husband.
 
 In
 the
 same
 proceedings,
 the
 illegitimate
 children
 together
 (26
 Cyc.,
 177;
 18
 R.C.L.,
 par.
 443);
 especially
 when
 the
 parties
 interested
 have

with
the
common‐law
wife
of
the
decedent,
asked
for
the
probate
of
the
supposed
 agreed
 to
 disregard
 the
 testamentary
 provisions
 and
 divide
 the
 estate
 as
 they

will
of
the
decedent.

Publication
of
the
application
was
properly
made
as
well
as
a
 pleased,
each
of
them
taking
what
pertained
to
him
(25
R.C.L.,
359).

guardian
 for
 the
 minoir
 children
 was
 appointed.
 
 When
 asked
 by
 the
 court
 to
 

produce
the
will,
the
common‐law
wife
admitted
to
have
coerced
the
husband
to

RULE
72

sign
the
will
to
secure
that
the
children
would
be
left
something
out
of
his
estate.


SUBJECT
MATTER
AND
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
RULES

The
parties
then
subsequently
entered
into
an
agreement
wherein
the
application

for
probate
was
withdrawn
and
consequently,
the
court
denied
the
probate
of
the
 

will.
 
 Thereafter,
 using
 the
 same
 will,
 a
 cousin
 of
 the
 decedent
 filed
 another
 Section
1.
Subject
matter
of
special
proceedings.
Rules
of
special
proceedings
are

application
for
probate.

And
upon
denial
of
the
judge
to
public
the
application
or
 provided
for
in
the
following
cases:

give
due
course
to
the
same,
he
filed
for
mandamus.


 


 (a)
Settlement
of
estate
of
deceased
persons;

HELD:
 

The
proceeding
for
the
probate
of
a
will
is
a
proceeding
in
rem
(40
Cyc.,
p.
1265),
 (b)
Escheat;

and
 the
 court
 acquires
 jurisdiction
 over
 all
 the
 persons
 interested
 through
 the
 

publication
of
the
notice
prescribed
by
section
630
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
 (c)
Guardianship
and
custody
of
children;

and
 any
 order
 that
 may
 be
 entered
 is
 binding
 against
 all
 of
 them.
 Through
 the
 

publication
ordered
by
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Laguna
of
the
application
for
 (d)
Trustees;

the
 probate
 of
 the
 supposed
 will
 of
 Francisco
 Villegas,
 filed
 by
 Justina
 Mendieta
 

and
her
minor
children
Lazaro
and
Daria
Mendieta
and
Melecio
Fule,
testamentary
 (e)
Adoption;

executor,
 through
 their
 attorney,
 Mr.
 Eusebio
 Lopez,
 said
 court
 acquired
 

jurisdiction
over
all
such
persons
as
were
interested
in
the
supposed
will,
including
 (f)
Rescission
and
revocation
of
adoption;

Gelacio
Malihan.
The
court
having
tried
said
application
for
probate,
hearing
all
the
 

testimony
of
the
attesting
witnesses
of
the
said
supposed
will,
the
applicant
Justina
 (g)
Hospitalization
of
insane
persons;

Mendieta
for
herself
and
as
guardian
ad
litem
of
her
minor
children,
represented
 

by
their
attorneys,
Messrs.
Marcelino
Lontok
and
Marcial
Azada,
on
the
one
hand,
 (h)
Habeas
corpus;

and
 Laureana
 Hidalgo,
 widow
 of
 Francisco
 Villegas,
 represented
 by
 her
 attorney,
 

Jesus.
E.
Blanco,
on
the
other,
having
submitted
a
stipulation
wherein
the
former
 (i)
Change
of
name;

withdrew
her
application
and
the
latter
reserved
certain
rights
over
the
estate
left
 

by
Francisco
Villegas
in
favor
of
Justina
Mendieta
and
her
minor
children;
and
the
 (j)
Voluntary
dissolution
of
corporations;

court
 having
 approved
 said
 stipulation
 and
 declared
 that
 Francisco
 Villegas
 died
 

intestate
 according
 to
 said
 agreement,
 all
 the
 parties
 became
 bound
 by
 said
 (k)
Judicial
approval
of
voluntary
recognition
of
minor
natural
children;

judgment;
and
if
any
of
them
or
other
persons
interested
were
not
satisfied
with
 

the
 court's
 decision,
 they
 had
 the
 remedy
 of
 appeal
 to
 correct
 any
 injustice
 that
 (l)
Constitution
of
family
home;

might
 have
 been
 committed,
 and
 cannot
 now
 through
 the
 special
 remedy
 of
 

mandamus,
 obtain
 a
 review
 of
 the
 proceeding
 upon
 a
 new
 application
 for
 the
 (m)
Declaration
of
absence
and
death;

probate
of
the
same
will
in
order
to
compel
the
respondent
judge
to
comply
with
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









6




(n)
Cancellation
of
correction
of
entries
in
the
civil
registry.
 of
Appeals
shall
be
sent
to
the
proper
court,
which
shall
hear
the
same
as
if
it
had


 originally
been
brought
before
it".

Section
 2.
 Applicability
 of
 rules
 of
 civil
 actions.
 
 In
 the
 absence
 of
 special
 

provisions,
 the
 rules
 provided
 for
 in
 ordinary
 actions
 shall
 be,
 as
 far
 as
 On
 the
 question
 of
 the
 appointment
 of
 petitioner
 Eliezar
 Lopez
 as
 special

practicable,
applicable
in
special
proceedings.
 administrator,
we
agree
with
respondent
that
there
was
no
need
for
it.
Note
that


 the
 Rules
 of
 Court
 contain
 no
 provision
 on
 special
 co‐administrator,
 the
 reason

RELATION
TO
PROVISIONS
IN
THE
RULES
OF
COURT
 being,
that
the
appointment
of
such
special
administrator
is
merely
temporary
and

• Distinction
 between
 final
 and
 interlocutory
 orders
 in
 civil
 actions
 for
 subsists
 only
 until
 a
 regular
 executor
 or
 administrator
 is
 duly
 appointed.
 Thus,
 it

determining
the
issue
of
appealability
is
not
strictly
applicable
to
orders
 would
not
only
be
unnecessary
but
also
impractical,
if
for
the
temporary
duration

issued
in
special
proceedings
 of
 the
 need
 for
 a
 special
 administrator,
 another
 one
 is
 appointed
 aside
 from
 the

• Rule
 33
 on
 judgment
 on
 demurrer
 to
 evidence
 is
 applicable
 to
 special
 husband,
 in
 this
 case,
 upon
 whom
 the
 duty
 to
 liquidate
 the
 community
 property

proceedings

 devolves
merely
to
protect
the
interests
of
petitioners
who,
in
the
event
that
the


 disputed
will
is
allowed
to
probate,
would
even
have
no
right
to
participate
in
the

CONSTRUCTION
OF
THE
RULES
ON
SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
 proceedings
at
all.


• Liberal
construction
as
long
as
no
substantive
rights
will
be
prejudiced
or
 

violated


 SETTLEMENT
OF
ESTATE

8
 FERNANDEZ
V.
MARAVILLA
 


 Supra

RULE
73



VENUE
AND
PROCESS

HELD:

The
cases
cited
by
respondent
where
this
Court
ruled
that
the
separate
total
claim
 

of
 the
 parties
 and
 not
 the
 combined
 claims
 against
 each
 other
 determine
 the
 Section
 1.
 Where
 estate
 of
 deceased
 persons
 settled.
 
 If
 the
 decedent
 is
 an

appellate
 jurisdictional
 amount,
 are
 not
 applicable
 to,
 the
 instant
 case,
 because
 inhabitant
 of
 the
 Philippines
 at
 the
 time
 of
 his
 death,
 whether
 a
 citizen
 or
 an

Section
2,
Rule
75
of
the
Rules
of
Court
is
explicit
that
the
amount
or
value
involved
 alien,
his
will
shall
be
proved,
or
letters
of
administration
granted,
and
his
estate

or
 in
 controversy
 in
 probate
 proceedings
 is
 that
 of
 the
 entire
 estate.
 Assuming,
 settled,
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 in
 the
 province
 in
 which
 he
 resides
 at
 the

arguendo,
 that
 the
 rule
 in
 the
 cases
 cited
 by
 respondent
 is
 here
 applicable,
 it
 time
of
his
death,
and
if
he
is
an
inhabitant
of
a
foreign
country,
the
Court
of
First

should
be
noted
that
respondent
claims
the
whole
estate
of
at
least
more
than
3/4
 Instance
of
any
province
in
which
he
had
estate.
The
court
first
taking
cognizance

thereof.
Said
claim,
reduced
to
a
pecuniary
standard,
on
the
basis
of
the
inventory,
 of
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 decedent,
 shall
 exercise
 jurisdiction
 to
 the

would
 amount
 to
 more
 than
 P200,000.00
 and,
 consequently,
 within
 the
 exclusive
 exclusion
 of
 all
 other
 courts.
 The
 jurisdiction
 assumed
 by
 a
 court,
 so
 far
 as
 it

jurisdiction
of
the
Supreme
Court.
 depends
 on
 the
 place
 of
 residence
 of
 the
 decedent,
 or
 of
 the
 location
 of
 his


 estate,
 shall
 not
 be
 contested
 in
 a
 suit
 or
 proceeding,
 except
 in
 an
 appeal
 from

While
it
is
true
that
questions
of
fact
have
been
raised
in
the
probate
proceedings
 that
court,
in
the
original
case,
or
when
the
want
of
jurisdiction
appears
on
the

(Spec.
Proc.
No.
4977,
CFI
of
Negros
Occidental)
which
was
appealed
by
respondent
 record.

to
the
Court
of
Appeals,
it
becomes
immaterial,
in
view
of
Sections
17
and
31
of
the
 

Judiciary
 Act
 of
 1948,
 as
 amended,
 providing
 that
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 shall
 have
 Section
2.
Where
estate
settled
upon
dissolution
of
marriage.

When
the
marriage

exclusive
 appellate
 jurisdiction
 over
 "all
 cases
 in
 which
 the
 value
 in
 controversy
 is
dissolved
by
the
death
of
the
husband
or
wife,
the
community
property
shall
be

exceeds
 two
 hundred
 thousand
 pesos,
 exclusive
 of
 interests
 and
 costs",
 and
 that
 inventoried,
 administered,
 and
 liquidated,
 and
 the
 debts
 thereof
 paid,
 in
 the

"all
cases
which
may
be
erroneously
brought
to
the
Supreme
Court,
or
to
the
Court
 testate
 or
 intestate
 proceedings
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouse.
 If
 both
 spouses
 have




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









7




died,
 the
 conjugal
 partnership
 shall
 be
 liquidated
 in
 the
 testate
 or
 intestate
 1. The
interested
parties
who
are
all
heirs
of
the
deceased
consent
thereto

proceedings
of
either.
 and
the
interests
of
third
parties
aren’t
prejudiced


 2. Provisional
manner
only

RESIDENCE,
ACCORDING
TO
FULE
CASE
 

• Means
his
personal,
actual,
or
physical
habitation,
his
actual
residence,
or
 AT
 WHAT
 INSTANCES
 MAY
 THE
 PROBATE
 COURT
 ONLY
 ISSUE
 WRITS
 OF

place
of
abode
 EXECUTION?


 1. To
 satisfy
 the
 contributive
 shares
 of
 the
 devisees,
 legatees
 and
 heirs
 in

WHAT
 IS
 DETERMINED
 BY
 THE
 QUESTION
 OF
 RESIDENCE
 IN
 SETTLEMENT
 OF
 possession
of
the
decedent’s
assets

ESTATES?
 2. To
enforce
payment
of
partition
expenses

• Determinative
of
venue
and
doesn’t
affect
the
question
of
jurisdiction
of
 3. To
 satisfy
 the
 costs
 when
 a
 person
 is
 cited
 for
 examination
 in
 probate

the
court
 proceedings

• As
 venue
 may
 be
 waived,
 the
 submission
 of
 all
 affected
 parties
 to
 said
 4. To
execute
against
the
bond
executed
by
the
administrator/executor

proceeding
is
a
waiver
of
objection
to
this
error
 5. To
 satisfy
 administration
 fees
 pursuant
 to
 agreement
 (if
 we
 follow
 the

• However,
where
the
proceeding
was
commenced
in
the
improper
venue
 case
of
Mangaliman)

and
it
was
questioned
seasonably,
the
petition
should
be
dismissed
and
 

should
be
instituted
in
the
proper
court
 Section
3.
Process.

In
the
exercise
of
probate
jurisdiction,
Courts
of
First
Instance


 may
issue
warrants
and
process
necessary
to
compel
the
attendance
of
witnesses

WHICH
 COURT
 HAS
 EXCLUSIVE
 JURISDICTION
 TO
 RESOLVE
 THE
 QUESTION
 OF
 or
to
carry
into
effect
theirs
orders
and
judgments,
and
all
other
powers
granted

IMPROPER
VENUE?
 them
by
law.
If
a
person
does
not
perform
an
order
or
judgment
rendered
by
a

• The
 court
 in
 which
 the
 proceedings
 were
 first
 filed
 has
 the
 exclusive
 court
 in
 the
 exercise
 of
 its
 probate
 jurisdiction,
 it
 may
 issue
 a
 warrant
 for
 the

jurisdiction
to
settle
the
question
of
improper
venue
 apprehension
and
imprisonment
of
such
person
until
he
performs
such
order
or

• It
 acquires
 exclusive
 jurisdiction
 to
 resolve
 all
 questions
 concerning
 the
 judgment,
or
is
released.

settlement
of
the
estate
to
the
exclusion
of
the
other
courts

 


 Section
 4.
 Presumption
 of
 death.
 For
 purposes
 of
 settlement
 of
 his
 estate,
 a

CAN
A
COURT
BE
DIVESTED
OF
JURISDICTION
UPON
FILING
OF
PETITION?
 person
shall
be
presumed
dead
if
absent
and
unheard
from
for
the
periods
fixed

• No,
 the
 court
 acquires
 jurisdiction
 upon
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 and
 it
 in
the
Civil
Code.
But
if
such
person
proves
to
be
alive,
he
shall
be
entitled
to
the

cannot
be
divested
of
the
same
through
subsequent
acts
of
the
parties
or
 balance
 of
 his
 estate
 after
 payment
 of
 all
 his
 debts.
 The
 balance
 may
 be

through
filing
another
petition
for
settlement
in
another
court
 recovered
by
motion
in
the
same
proceeding.


 

HOW
 SHOULD
 THE
 CONJUGAL
 PARTNERSHIP
 BE
 LIQUIDATED
 UPON
 DEATH
 OF
 9
 SALAZAR
V.
CFI

EITHER
OR
BOTH
SPOUSES?
 
 64
PHIL
78

• It
 shall
 be
 liquidated
 in
 the
 proceedings
 for
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 

spouse
and
if
both
died,
in
the
proceedings
of
either
estate
 FACTS:

• If
 separate
 proceedings
 have
 been
 instituted
 for
 each
 estate,
 both
 Salazar
filed
a
petition
for
the
probate
of
the
alleged
will
of
his
deceased
mother.


proceedings
may
be
consolidated
if
they
were
filed
in
the
same
court
 In
 opposition
 thereto,
 the
 respondent
 Rivera
 filed
 her
 counter‐petition,
 wherein


 she
alleged
that
the
will
she
has
in
possession
is
the
true
will
of
the
deceased.

She

WHEN
 MAY
 A
 PROBATE
 COURT
 PASS
 UPON
 QUESTIONS
 OF
 OWNERSHIP
 OF
 prayed
that
the
second
will
be
admitted
to
probate
instead.

At
first
order,
she
was

PROPERTY?
 denied
by
the
court
but
on
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
she
was
allowed
to
do
so,

with
 the
 proper
 publications,
 etc.
 accordingly
 made.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 to
 by




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









8




Salazar
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 Rivera
 was
 not
 able
 to
 pay
 accordingly
 the
 court
 fees
 FACTS:

and
thus,
the
court
has
not
acquired
jurisdiction
over
the
case.


 When
his
daughter
died,
the
father
executed
an
affidavit
executing
in
his
favor
the


 estate.

Later
on,
 one
of
the
decedent’s
sisters
submitted
for
probate
the
alleged

HELD:
 will
of
the
decedent.

It
was
shown
that
the
decedent
was
a
citizen
of
the
US
and

Under
 the
 foregoing
 provisions,
 a
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 acquires
 jurisdiction
 to
 that
she
died
while
temporarily
residing
with
her
sister.

The
father
opposed
this
at

probate
 a
 will
 when
 it
 is
 shown
 by
 evidence
 before
 it:
 (1)
 That
 a
 person
 has
 died
 first
but
later
on
withdrew
the
opposition
which
was
affirmed
by
his
manifestation.


leaving
 a
 will;
 (2)
 in
 the
 case
 of
 a
 resident
 of
 this
 country,
 that
 he
 died
 in
 the
 When
 the
 order
 admitting
 for
 probate
 was
 given
 by
 the
 court,
 the
 father
 alleged

province
 where
 the
 court
 exercises
 territorial
 jurisdiction;
 (3)
 in
 the
 case
 of
 a
 that
he
withdrew
the
opposition
erroneously
through
fraud
employed
against
him.


nonresident,
that
he
has
left
a
estate
in
the
province
where
the
court
is
situated,
 This
 was
 however
 unsubstantiated.
 
 The
 father
 consequently
 died
 and
 leaving

and
 (4)
 that
 the
 testament
 or
 last
 will
 of
 the
 deceased
 has
 been
 delivered
 to
 the
 petitioner
to
substitute
him.

court
and
is
in
the
possession
thereof.
 


 HELD:

The
law
is
silent
as
to
the
specific
manner
of
bringing
the
jurisdictional
allegations
 Finally,
we
find
the
contention
of
the
petition
as
to
the
issue
of
jurisdiction
utterly

before
the
court
but
practice
and
jurisprudence
have
established
that
they
should
 devoid
of
merit.
Under
Rule
73,
Section
1,
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
it
is
provided
that:

be
 made
 in
 the
 form
 of
 an
 application
 and
 filed
 with
 the
 original
 of
 the
 will
 

attached
thereto.
It
has
been
the
practice
in
some
courts
to
permit
attachment
of
a
 SECTION
 1.
 Where
 estate
 of
 deceased
 persons
 settled.
 
 If
 the
 decedent
 is
 an

mere
copy
of
the
will
to
the
application,
without
prejudice
to
producing
the
original
 inhabitant
of
the
Philippines
at
the
time
of
his
death,
whether
a
citizen
or
an
alien,

thereof
 at
 the
 hearing
 or
 when
 the
 court
 so
 requires.
 This
 precaution
 has
 been
 his
will
shall
be
proved,
or
letters
of
administration
granted,
and
his
estate
settled,

adapted
by
some
attorneys
to
forestall
its
disappearance,
which
has
taken
place
in
 in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
in
the
province
in
which
he
resided
at
the
time
of
his

certain
cases.
 death,
and
if
he
is
an
inhabitant
of
a
foreign
country,
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of


 any
 province
 in
 which
 he
 had
 estate.
 The
 court
 first
 taking
 cognizance
 of
 the

According
 to
 the
 facts
 alleged
 and
 admitted
 by
 the
 parties,
 it
 is
 evident
 that
 the
 settlement
of
the
estate
of
a
decedent,
shall
exercise
jurisdiction
to
the
exclusion

court
has
acquired
jurisdiction
to
probate
the
second
will,
in
view
of
the
presence
 of
all
other
courts.
The
jurisdiction
assumed
by
a
court,
so
far
as
it
depends
on
the

of
 all
 the
 jurisdictional
 facts
 above‐stated.
 The
 respondent's
 counter‐petition
 place
 of
 residence
 of
 the
 decedent,
 or
 of
 the
 location
 of
 his
 estate,
 shall
 not
 be

should,
in
this
case,
be
considered
as
a
petition
for
the
probate
of
the
second
will,
 contested
 in
 a
 suit
 or
 proceeding,
 except
 in
 an
 appeal
 from
 that
 court,
 in
 the

the
original
of
which
was
filed
by
her
on
July
20,
1937.
 original
case,
or
when
the
want
of
jurisdiction
appears
on
the
record.


 

The
payment
of
the
fees
of
the
clerk
of
court
for
all
services
to
be
rendered
by
him
 Therefore,
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Adoracion
 Campos
 was
 correctly
 filed

in
 connection
 with
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 second
 will
 and
 for
 the
 successive
 with
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 of
 Manila
 where
 she
 had
 an
 estate
 since
 it
 was

proceedings
 to
 be
 conducted
 and
 others
 to
 be
 issued,
in
accordance
 with
 section
 alleged
 and
 proven
 that
 Adoracion
 at
 the
 time
 of
 her
 death
 was
 a
 citizen
 and

788,
as
amended,
is
not
jurisdiction
in
the
sense
that
its
omission
does
not
deprive
 permanent
 resident
 of
 Pennsylvania,
 United
 States
 of
 America
 and
 not
 a
 "usual

the
 court
 of
 its
 authority
 to
 proceed
 with
 the
 probate
 of
 a
 will,
 as
 expressly
 resident
 of
 Cavite"
 as
 alleged
 by
 the
 petitioner.
 Moreover,
 petitioner
 is
 now

provided
 for
 by
 section
 630.
 It
 is
 the
 inevitable
 duty
 of
 the
 court,
 when
 a
 will
 is
 estopped
from
questioning
the
jurisdiction
of
the
probate
court
in
the
petition
for

presented
to
it,
to
appoint
hearing
for
its
allowance
and
to
cause
notice
thereof
to
 relief.
 It
 is
 a
 settled
 rule
 that
 a
 party
 cannot
 invoke
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 a
 court
 to

be
given
by
publication.
 secure
affirmative
relief,
against
his
opponent
and
after
failing
to
obtain
such
relief,


 repudiate
or
question
that
same
jurisdiction.


10
 CAYETANO
V.
LEONIDAS
 


 129
SCRA
522
 11
 IN
RE
KAW
SINGCO


 
 74
PHIL
239




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









9





 the
 right
 of
 the
 person
 who
 seeks
 administration,
 as
 next
 of
 kin,
 creditor,
 or

FACTS:
 otherwise,
to
be
appointed.
The
fact
of
death
of
the
intestate
and
his
last
residence

A
 resolution
 was
 issued
 by
 the
 court
 certifying
 the
 case
 to
 the
 /CA
 for
 further
 within
the
country
are
foundation
facts
upon
which
all
subsequent
proceedings
in

proceedings,
wherein
a
question
of
fact
as
to
where
the
decedent
died
was
to
be
 the
administration
of
the
estate
rest,
and
that
if
the
intestate
was
not
an
inhabitant

inquired
into.

This
was
questioned
by
the
petitioner.


 of
the
state
at
the
time
of
his
death,
and
left
no
assets
in
the
state,
no
jurisdiction
is


 conferred
on
the
court
to
grant
letters
of
administration.

HELD:
 

The
 law
 which
 provides
 that
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 shall
 be
 settled
 in
 the
 The
 aforequoted
 Section
 1,
 Rule
 73
 (formerly
 Rule
 75,
 Section
 1),
 specifically
 the

province
 where
 he
 last
 resided
 couldn't
 have
 been
 intended
 to
 have
 meant
 as
 clause
 "so
 far
 as
 it
 depends
 on
 the
 place
 of
 residence
 of
 the
 decedent,
 or
 of
 the

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 probate
 court
 over
 the
 subject
 matter.
 
 such
 provision
 is
 location
 of
 the
 estate,"
 is
 in
 reality
 a
 matter
 of
 venue,
 as
 the
 caption
 of
 the
 Rule

contained
in
a
law
of
procedure
and
deals
mainly
with
procedural
matters.
 indicates:
 "Settlement
 of
 Estate
 of
 Deceased
 Persons.
 Venue
 and
 Processes.
 
 It


 could
 not
 have
 been
 intended
 to
 define
 the
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 subject
 matter,

12
 GARCIA
FULE
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
 because
such
legal
provision
is
contained
in
a
law
of
procedure
dealing
merely
with


 74
SCRA
189
 procedural
matters.
Procedure
is
one
thing;
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
is


 another.
The
power
or
authority
of
the
court
over
the
subject
matter
"existed
and

FACTS:


 was
fixed
before
procedure
in
a
given
cause
began."
That
power
or
authority
is
not

Garcia
 Fule
 filed
 letters
 for
 administration
 of
 the
 decedent.
 
 She
 alleged
 that
 the
 altered
 or
 changed
 by
 procedure,
 which
 simply
 directs
 the
 manner
 in
 which
 the

deceased
 last
 resided
 in
 Calamba.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 by
 the
 respondent
 on
 the
 power
or
authority
shall
be
fully
and
justly
exercised.
There
are
cases
though
that
if

ground
that
the
venue
was
improperly
laid
and
that
jurisdiction
over
subject
matter
 the
power
is
not
exercised
conformably
with
the
provisions
of
the
procedural
law,

wasn't
acquired.

She
questioned
the
appointment
of
petitioner
as
well
as
special
 purely,
 the
 court
 attempting
 to
 exercise
 it
 loses
 the
 power
 to
 exercise
 it
 legally.

administratix
since
the
latter
has
allegedly
adverse
interest
over
the
estate.


 However,
 this
 does
 not
 amount
 to
 a
 loss
 of
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 subject
 matter.


 Rather,
 it
 means
 that
 the
 court
 may
 thereby
 lose
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 person
 or

HELD:
 that
 the
 judgment
 may
 thereby
 be
 rendered
 defective
 for
 lack
 of
 something

Section
 1,
 Rule
 73
 of
 the
 Revised
 Rules
 of
 Court
 provides:
 "If
 the
 decedent
 is
 an
 essential
 to
 sustain
 it.
 The
 appearance
 of
 this
 provision
 in
 the
 procedural
 law
 at

inhabitant
of
the
Philippines
at
the
time
of
his
death,
whether
a
citizen
or
an
alien,
 once
raises
a
strong
presumption
that
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
jurisdiction
of

his
will
shall
be
proved,
or
letters
of
administration
granted,
and
his
estate
settled,
 the
court
over
the
subject
matter.
In
plain
words,
it
is
just
a
matter
of
method,
of

in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
in
the
province
in
which
he
resides
at
the
time
of
his
 convenience
to
the
parties.


death,
and
if
he
is
an
inhabitant
of
a
foreign
country,
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
 

any
 province
 in
 which
 he
 had
 estate.
 The
 court
 first
 taking
 cognizance
 of
 the
 Divergent
claims
are
maintained
by
Virginia
G.
Fule
and
Preciosa
B.
Garcia
on
the

settlement
of
the
estate
of
a
decedent,
shall
exercise
jurisdiction
to
the
exclusion
 residence
 of
 the
 deceased
 Amado
 G.
 Garcia
 at
 the
 time
 of
 his
 death.
 One
 alleges

of
all
other
courts.
The
jurisdiction
assumed
by
a
court,
so
far
as
it
depends
on
the
 that
 he
 died
 in
 Calamba
 while
 the
 other
 alleges
 that
 it
 was
 in
 Quezon
 City
 as

place
 of
 residence
 of
 the
 decedent,
 or
 of
 the
 location
 of
 his
 estate,
 shall
 not
 be
 evinced
by
the
death
certificate.



contested
 in
 a
 suit
 or
 proceeding,
 except
 in
 an
 appeal
 from
 that
 court,
 in
 the
 

original
 case,
 or
 when
 the
 want
 of
 jurisdiction
 appears
 on
 the
 record."
 With
 On
this
issue,
it
is
ruled
that
the
last
place
of
residence
of
the
deceased
Amado
G.

particular
 regard
 to
 letters
 of
 administration,
 Section
 2,
 Rule
 79
 of
 the
 Revised
 Garcia
 was
 at
 11
 Carmel
 Avenue,
 Carmel
 Subdivision,
 Quezon
 City,
 and
 not
 at

Rules
 of
 Court
 demands
 that
 the
 petition
 therefor
 should
 affirmatively
 show
 the
 Calamba,
 Laguna.
 A
 death
 certificate
 is
 admissible
 to
 prove
 the
 residence
 of
 the

existence
of
jurisdiction
to
make
the
appointment
sought,
and
should
allege
all
the
 decedent
at
the
time
of
his
death.


And
more
importantly…

necessary
 facts,
 such
 as
 death,
 the
 name
 and
 last
 residence
 of
 the
 decedent,
 the
 

existence,
and
situs
if
need
be,
of
assets,
intestacy,
where
this
is
relied
upon,
and




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









10




“Resides”
 should
 be
 viewed
 or
 understood
 in
 its
 popular
 sense,
 meaning,
 the
 A
fair
reading
of
the
Rule
 
since
it
deals
with
venue
and
comity
between
courts
of

personal,
actual
or
physical
habitation
of
a
person,
actual
knowledge
or
place
of
 equal
 and
 co‐ordinate
 jurisdiction
 
 indicates
 that
 the
 court
 with
 whom
 the

abode.
 
 It
 signifies
 physical
 presence
 in
 a
 place
 and
 actual
 stay
 thereat.
 
 In
 this
 petition
is
first
filed,
must
also
first
take
cognizance
of
the
settlement
of
the
estate

popular
sense,
the
term
merely
means
residence,
that
is,
personal
residence,
and
 in
order
to
exercise
jurisdiction
over
it
to
the
exclusion
of
all
other
courts.

not
legal
residence
or
domicile.

Residence
simply
requires
bodily
presence
in
that
 

particular
 place
 and
 also
 an
 intention
 to
 make
 it
 one’s
 domicile.
 
 No
 particular
 Conversely,
 such
 court,
 may
 upon
 learning
 that
 a
 petition
 for
 probate
 of
 the

length
of
time
of
residence
is
required
though.

However
it
should
be
more
than
 decedent's
 last
 will
 has
 been
 presented
 in
 another
 court
 where
 the
 decedent

temporary.


 obviously
had
his
conjugal
domicile
and
resided
with
his
surviving
widow
and
their

minor
 children,
 and
 that
 the
 allegation
 of
 the
 intestate
 petition
 before
 it
 stating



that
 the
 decedent
 died
 intestate
 may
 be
 actually
 false,
 may
 decline
 to
 take

13
 CUENCO
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS

cognizance
of
the
petition
and
hold
the
petition
before
it
in
abeyance,
and
instead


 53
SCRA
360

defer
 to
 the
 second
 court
 which
 has
 before
 it
 the
 petition
 for
 probate
 of
 the


 decedent's
alleged
last
will.

FACTS:



Upon
the
death
of
Senator
Cuenco,
leaving
his
widow
and
2
minor
children,
letters

This
 exactly
 what
 the
 Cebu
 court
 did.
 Upon
 petitioner‐widow's
 filing
 with
 it
 a

for
 administration
 of
 the
 estate
 was
 filed
 by
 respondent
 in
 Cebu
 City,
 alleging

motion
 to
 dismiss
 Lourdes'
 intestate
 petition,
 it
 issued
 its
 order
 holding
 in

therein
that
the
deceased
died
intestate
and
that
his
last
known
residence
was
in
 abeyance
its
action
on
the
dismissal
motion
and
deferred
to
the
Quezon
City
court,

Cebu
City.

In
the
meantime,
the
widow
filed
in
Quezon
City,
wherein
the
deceased
 awaiting
 its
 action
 on
 the
 petition
 for
 probate
 before
 that
 court.
 Implicit
 in
 the

has
 died,
 petition
 to
 admit
 into
 probate
 the
 last
 will
 and
 testament
 of
 the

Cebu
court's
order
was
that
if
the
will
was
duly
admitted
to
probate,
by
the
Quezon

decedent.
 
 Upon
 learning
 of
 the
 pending
 petition
 in
 Cebu
 City,
 she
 filed
 her

City
court,
then
it
would
definitely
decline
to
take
cognizance
of
Lourdes'
intestate

opposition
and
motion
to
dismiss
the
petition
by
respondent.



petition
 which
 would
 thereby
 be
 shown
 to
 be
 false
 and
 improper,
 and
 leave
 the


 exercise
of
jurisdiction
to
the
Quezon
City
court,
to
the
exclusion
of
all
other
courts.

HELD:

Likewise
by
its
act
of
deference,
the
Cebu
court
left
it
to
the
Quezon
City
court
to

The
 Judiciary
 Act
 concededly
 confers
 original
 jurisdiction
 upon
 all
 Courts
 of
 First

resolve
the
question
between
the
parties
whether
the
decedent's
residence
at
the

Instance
over
"all
matter
of
probate,
both
of
testate
and
intestate
estates."
On
the

time
 of
 his
 death
 was
 in
 Quezon
 City
 where
 he
 had
 his
 conjugal
 domicile
 rather

other
hand,
Rule
73,
section
of
the
Rules
of
Court
lays
down
the
rule
of
venue,
as
 than
in
Cebu
City
as
claimed
by
respondents.
The
Cebu
court
thus
indicated
that
it

the
very
caption
of
the
Rule
indicates,
and
in
order
to
prevent
conflict
among
the

would
 decline
 to
 take
 cognizance
 of
 the
 intestate
 petition
 before
 it
 and
 instead

different
courts
which
otherwise
may
properly
assume
jurisdiction
from
doing
so,

defer
to
the
Quezon
City
court,
unless
the
latter
would
make
a
negative
finding
as

the
 Rule
 specifies
 that
 "the
 court
 first
 taking
 cognizance
 of
 the
 settlement
 of
 the

to
the
probate
petition
and
the
residence
of
the
decedent
within
its
territory
and

estate
of
a
decedent,
shall
exercise
jurisdiction
to
the
exclusion
of
all
other
courts."


venue.


 

It
should
be
noted
that
the
Rule
on
venue
does
not
state
that
the
court
with
whom

It
can
not
be
denied
that
a
special
proceeding
intended
to
effect
the
distribution
of

the
estate
or
intestate
petition
is
first
filed
acquires
exclusive
jurisdiction.

the
estate
of
a
deceased
person,
whether
in
accordance
with
the
law
on
intestate



succession
or
in
accordance
with
his
will,
is
a
"probate
matter"
or
a
proceeding
for

The
Rule
precisely
and
deliberately
provides
that
"the
court
first
taking
cognizance
 the
 settlement
 of
 his
 estate.
 It
 is
 equally
 true,
 however,
 that
 in
 accordance
 with

of
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 decedent,
 shall
 exercise
 jurisdiction
 to
 the

settled
jurisprudence
in
this
jurisdiction,
testate
proceedings
for
the
settlement
of

exclusion
of
all
other
courts."

the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 person
 take
 precedence
 over
 intestate
 proceedings
 for



the
 same
 purpose.
 Thus
 it
 has
 been
 held
 repeatedly
 that,
 if
 in
 the
 course
 of

intestate
 proceedings
 pending
 before
 a
 court
 of
 first
 instance
 it
 is
 found
 that
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









11




decedent
 had
 left
 a
 last
 will,
 proceedings
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 latter
 should
 It
is
not
disputed
that
Andres
Eusebio
was,
and
had
always
been,
domiciled
in
San

replace
the
intestate
proceedings
even
if
at
that
state
an
administrator
had
already
 Fernando,
 Pampanga,
 where
 he
 had
 his
 home,
 as
 well
 as
 some
 other
 properties.

been
appointed,
the
latter
being
required
to
render
final
account
and
turn
over
the
 Inasmuch
 as
 his
 heart
 was
 in
 bad
 condition
 and
 his
 son,
 Dr.
 Jesus
 Eusebio,
 who

estate
in
his
possession
to
the
executor
subsequently
appointed.
This
however,
is
 treated
him,
resided
in
Quezon
City,
Andres
Eusebio
bought
a
house
and
lot
in
said

understood
to
be
without
prejudice
that
should
the
alleged
last
will
be
rejected
or
 City.
While
transferring
his
belongings
to
this
house,
soon
thereafter,
the
decedent

is
disapproved,
the
proceeding
shall
continue
as
an
intestacy.
As
already
adverted
 suffered
a
stroke
(probably
heart
failure),
for
which
reason
Dr.
Eusebio
took
him
to

to,
this
is
a
clear
indication
that
proceedings
for
the
probate
of
a
will
enjoy
priority
 his
 (Dr.
 Eusebio's)
 aforementioned
 residence,
 where
 the
 decedent
 remained
 until

over
intestate
proceedings.
 he
 was
 brought
 to
 the
 UST
 Hospital,
 in
 the
 City
 of
 Manila.
 On
 this
 date,
 he


 contracted
 marriage
 in
 articulo
 mortis
 with
 his
 common
 law
 wife,
 Concepcion

14
 ONGSINGCO
V.
TAN
 Villanueva,
 in
 said
 hospital.
 Two
 (2)
 days
 later,
 he
 died
 therein
 of
 "acute
 left


 97
PHIL
330
 ventricular
 failure
 secondary
 to
 hypertensive
 heart
 disease".
 Consequently,
 he


 never
stayed
or
even
slept
in
said
house
at
España
Extention.

FACTS:
 

Ongsingco
 was
 appointed
 as
 judicial
 guardian
 of
 her
 husband
 who
 was
 declared
 HELD:

incompetent
in
an
earlier
proceeding.

She
took
outright
possession
of
two
parcels
 In
view,
however,
of
the
last
sentence
of
said
section,
providing
that:

of
 land
 which
 purportedly
 was
 owned
 by
 her
 husband.
 
 In
 the
 ongoing
 estate
 

proceedings
of
Francisco’s
first
wife,
Tangco,
the
administrator
therein
prayed
that
 .
 .
 .
 The
 jurisdiction
 assumed
 by
 a
 court,
 so
 far
 as
 it
 depends
 on
 the
 place
 of

Ongsingco
 be
 disallowed
 from
 harvesting
 the
 palay
 from
 the
 two
 parcels
 of
 land.

 residence
of
the
decedent,
or
of
the
location
of
his
estate,
shall
not
be
contested
in

The
probate
court
ordered
accordingly.
 a
suit
or
proceedings,
except
in
an
appeal
from
that
court,
in
the
original
case,
or


 when
the
want
of
jurisdiction
appears
on
the
record.

HELD:
 

The
dispute
between
petitioner
and
respondent
administrator
involving,
as
it
does,
 If
proceedings
for
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
resident
are
instituted

the
ownership
of
two
parcels
of
land
situated
in
Santa
Rosa,
Nueva
Ecija,
and
this
 in
 two
 or
 more
 courts,
 and
 the
 question
 of
 venue
 is
 raised
 before
 the
 same,
 the

question
 having
 been
 squarely
 raised
 in
 an
 action
 pending
 in
 the
 court
 of
 first
 court
in
which
the
first
case
was
filed
shall
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
decide
said

instance
 of
 said
 province,
 which
 was
 instituted
 by
 petitioner
 against
 respondent
 issue,
and
we
so
held
in
the
case
of
Taciana
Vda.
De
Borja
vs.
Tan,
L‐7792
(July
27,

administrator
precisely
because
of
the
dispute
that
had
arisen
between
them
over
 1955).
 Should
 it
 be
 decided,
 in
 the
 proceedings
 before
 the
 said
 court,
 that
 venue

said
 property,
 it
 is
 the
 sense
 of
 this
 Tribunal
 that
 respondent
 court
 exceeded
 its
 had
 been
 improperly
 laid,
 the
 case
 pending
 therein
 should
 be
 dismissed
 and
 the

jurisdiction
in
acting
upon
the
said
question
in
its
capacity
as
probate
court.
On
the
 corresponding
proceedings
may,
thereafter,
be
initiated
in
the
proper
court.

face
 of
 such
 issue
 which
 necessarily
 involves
 the
ownership
of
the
properties,
 we
 

consider
of
no
consequence
the
claim
that
what
respondent
court
merely
did
was
 In
conclusion,
we
find
that
the
decedent
was,
at
the
time
of
his
death,
domiciled
in

to
look
into
the
identity
of
said
properties.
This
question
is
necessarily
imbibed
in
 San
Fernando,
Pampanga;
that
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Rizal
had
no
authority,

the
greater
issue
of
ownership
and
being
interwoven
one
can
hardly
draw
the
line
 therefore,
 to
 appoint
 an
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased,
 the
 venue

of
demarcation
that
would
separate
one
from
the
other.
 having
 been
 laid
 improperly;
 and
 that
 it
 should,
 accordingly,
 have
 sustained


 appellants'
opposition
and
dismissed
appellee's
petition.

15
 EUSEBIO
V.
EUSEBIO
 


 100
PHIL
593
 16
 SANDOVAL
V.
SANTIAGO


 
 83
PHIL
784

FACTS:
 

FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









12




Sandoval
 petitioned
 the
 admission
 to
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 Marquez.
 
 She
 was
 From
 the
 pleadings
 before
 us,
 which
 are
 copies
 of
 their
 originals
 attached
 to
 the

accordingly
 appointed
 as
 the
 executrix
 of
 the
 estate.
 
 Pending
 the
 probate
 record
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 of
 Batangas,
 the
 want
 of
 jurisdiction
 of
 said

proceedings,
the
heirs
extrajudicially
partitioned
the
estate
among
themselves
and
 court
 does
 not
 clearly
 appear.
 The
 communication
 of
 the
 municipal
 treasurer
 of

took
possession
of
the
respective
properties.

This
was
made
without
authority
of
 Tabaco,
Albay,
stating
that
the
deceased
Esteban
M.
Manzanero
appears
in
the
list

the
 court.
 
 When
 the
 judge
 ordered
 Sandoval
 to
 file
 a
 bond,
 petitioner
 averred
 of
 registered
 voters,
 and
 the
 affidavit
 of
 the
 municipal
 president
 thereof
 stating

there
 was
 no
 need
 to
 do
 so
 as
 the
 heirs
 already
 took
 possession
 and
 partitioned
 that
 the
 deceased
 resided
 before
 his
 death
 in
 Tabaco,
 Albay,
 do
 not
 form
 part
 of

the
properties.
 the
record
of
the
lower
court.
It
not
appearing
from
the
orders
of
the
lower
court,


 as
 disclosed
 by
 the
 copies
 thereof
 attached
 to
 the
 record
 of
 these
 certiorari

HELD:
 proceedings,
that
said
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
take
cognizance
of
the
application

We
 are
 of
 the
 opinion,
 and
 so
 hold,
 that
 the
 respondent,
 Judge
 or
 Court
 of
 First
 for
summary
settlement
by
reason
of
the
legal
residence
of
the
deceased,
Esteban

Instance
of
Quezon
Province,
wherein
the
deceased
was
residing
at
the
time
of
his
 M.
 Manzanero,
 certiorari
 does
 not
 lie,
 an
 appeal
 being
 specially
 provided
 in
 such

death,
 has
 acquired
 exclusive
 jurisdiction
 to
 settle
 the
 testate
 estate
 of
 the
 case
by
section
603
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.

deceased
 Daniel
 Marquez
 and
 over
 the
 heirs
 and
 other
 person
 interested
 in
 the
 

estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 from
 the
 moment
 the
 application
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 REMEMBER
 CIVIL
 PROCEDURE
 ACCORDING
 TO
 LOUIE
 (94
 SA
 CIVPRO
 FINALS
  ):


decedent's
 will
 was
 filed
 with
 the
 said
 court
 and
 the
 publication
 required
 by
 law
 Jurisdiction
is
determined
from
the
allegations
in
the
pleadings,
in
this
case,
the

were
made;
and
the
heirs
of
the
deceased
Marquez
could
not
divest
the
Court
of
 allegations
 of
 the
 petitioner
 in
 his
 petition.
 
 If
 there
 is
 opposition,
 then
 there

First
 Instance
 of
 its
 already
 acquired
 jurisdiction
 by
 the
 mere
 fact
 of
 dividing
 couldn't
be
any
question
if
it
appears
in
the
record
or
not.



extrajudicially
the
estate
of
the
deceased
among
themselves.





18
 BENEDICTO
V.
JAVELLANA

17
 VDA.
DE
MANZANERO
V.
CFI


 10
PHIL
197


 61
PHIL
850


 

FACTS:

FACTS:

Maximo
 made
 a
 claim
 against
 the
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 his
 brother

While
working
as
an
assistant
city
engineer
in
Albay,
Esteban
died.

his
brother
in

respecting
 payment
 of
 a
 sum
 of
 money
 creditable
 for
 him
 in
 relation
 to
 a
 legacy

Batangas,
filed
for
the
settlement
of
his
estate,
alleging
therein
that
the
deceased

resided
 in
 Batangas
 prior
 to
 his
 death.
 
 Upon
 publication
 of
 the
 application
 and
 given
 to
 him
 by
 the
 latter.
 
 The
 administrator
 questions
 the
 claim
 filed,
 averring

that
the
claim
should
be
filed
against
all
the
legatees
and
parties
to
the
estate
and

setting
 the
 proceedings
 for
 hearing,
 no
 opposition
 was
 made
 by
 petitioner.
 
 And

not
 to
 administrator
 alone.
 
 It
 would
 be
 seen
 from
 the
 will
 by
 the
 way
 that
 the

when
the
proceedings
have
ended,
wherein
the
insurance
company
was
ordered
to

estate
was
distributed
by
legacies.



pay
proceeds
to
the
heirs
of
the
insured,
it
was
only
then
she
surfaced
and
tried
to



file
a
petition
for
certiorari.






 HELD:

As
 to
 specific
 devices,
 section
 729
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure
 provides

HELD:

exemption
 from
 the
 payment
 of
 debts
 and
 expenses
 if
 there
 is
 sufficient
 other

According
to
the
above
cited
legal
provision,
the
jurisdiction
assumed
by
a
Court
of

property
and
if
it
appears
to
the
court
necessary
to
carry
into
effect
the
intention

First
Instance,
for
the
settlement
of
an
estate,
so
far
as
it
depends
on
the
place
of

residence
of
a
person,
or
of
the
location
of
his
estate,
cannot
be
contested
in
a
suit
 of
 the
 testator;
 and,
 as
 the
 legacies
 stated
 in
 the
 aforesaid
 will
 consist
 of
 specific

property,
 less
 the
 annuity
 provided
 for
 by
 clause
 6,
 which
 is
 made
 a
 special
 lien

or
 proceeding,
 except
 in
 an
 appeal
 from
 that
 court,
 in
 the
 original
 case,
 or
 when

upon
the
property
for
by
clause
6,
which
is
made
a
special
lien
upon
the
property

the
want
of
jurisdiction
appears
on
the
record.

bequeathed
to
Francisco
and
Sofia
Jalandoni,
it
is
unquestionable
that
in
this
case



the
debts
and
expenses
of
the
estate
must
be
paid
pro
rata
by
the
legatees
in
the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









13




manner
provided
in
the
will,
or
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
sections
753
 

and
754
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
 20
 CUIZON
V.
RAMOLETE


 129
SCRA
495

On
 the
 other
 hand,
 and
 for
 such
 effects
 as
 may
 be
 proper,
 it
 should
 be
 stated
 

herein
 that
 any
 challenge
 to
 the
 validity
 of
 a
 will,
 any
 objection
 to
 the
 FACTS:

authentication
 thereof,
 and
 every
 demand
 or
 claim
 which
 any
 heir,
 legatee,
 or
 Marciano
owned
two
parcels
of
land
and
adjudicated
the
same
in
favor
of
his
two

party
in
interest
in
a
testate
or
intestate
succession
may
make,
must
be
acted
upon
 daughters—Rufina
 and
 Irene.
 
 The
 lot
 of
 Irene
 was
 subsequently
 sold
 to

and
decided
within
the
same
special
proceedings
not
in
a
separate
action
and
the
 petitioners.

The
TCT
however
wasn't
cancelled
given
that
they
thought
they
need

same
 judge
 having
 jurisdiction
 in
 the
 administration
 of
 the
 estate
 shall
 take
 not
 to
 because
 of
 the
 lifetime
 usufruct
 rights
 of
 Irene.
 
 Irene
 died
 later
 on
 and

cognizance
 of
 the
 question
 raised,
 inasmuch
 as
 when
 the
 day
 comes
 he
 will
 be
 Rufina
 adjudicated
 to
 herself
 the
 property
 in
 question
 in
 favor
 of
 all
 petitioners.


called
upon
to
make
distribution
and
adjudication
of
the
property
to
the
interested
 Respondents
 then
 filed
 in
 another
 court
 for
 letters
 of
 administration.
 
 In
 the

parties,
as
may
be
seen
in
part
II
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
from
section
551
 inventory
for
the
same,
they
included
the
disputed
property
notwithstanding
that

forward.
 the
ownership
thereof
is
of
petitioner’s.

The
probate
court
then
ordered
that
the


 land
 be
 sold
 in
 public
 auction
 and
 consistently,
 the
 respondents
 tried
 to
 force

19
 CASIANO
V.
MALOTO
 themselves
in
the
land.




 70
SCRA
232
 


 HELD:

FACTS:
 Having
 been
 apprised
 of
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 property
 in
 question
 was
 in
 the

The
nephews
and
nieces
of
the
decedent,
believing
that
no
will
was
left,
filed
for
 possession
of
third
parties
and
more
important,
covered
by
a
transfer
certificate
of

the
 intestate
 proceedings.
 
 The
 will
 of
 the
 decedent
 was
 later
 found,
 on
 which
 it
 title
 issued
 in
 the
 name
 of
 such
 third
 parties,
 the
 respondent
 court
 should
 have

was
indicated
that
two
would
get
bigger
shares.

These
two
sought
the
annulment
 denied
 the
 motion
 of
 the
 respondent
 administrator
 and
 excluded
 the
 property
 in

of
the
intestate
proceedings
and
the
probate
of
the
will.

They
were
denied
by
the
 question
 from
 the
 inventory
 of
 the
 property
 of
 the
 estate.
 It
 had
 no
 authority
 to

court.

They
then
instituted
a
new
proceeding
for
the
admission
to
probate
of
the
 deprive
 such
 third
 persons
 of
 their
 possession
 and
 ownership
 of
 the
 property.

alleged
will.


 Respondent
 court
 was
 clearly
 without
 jurisdiction
 to
 issue
 the
 order
 of
 June
 27,


 1979.
Thus,
it
was
unnecessary
for
the
petitioners
to
first
apply
for
relief
with
the

HELD:
 intestate
court.

The
probate
court
had
no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
the
petition
for
the
probate
of
 

the
 alleged
 will
 of
 Adriana
 Maloto
 in
 Special
 Proceeding
 No.
 1736.
 Indeed,
 the
 Even
 assuming
 the
 truth
 of
 the
 private
 respondents'
 allegations
 that
 the
 sale
 of

motion
to
reopen
the
proceedings
was
denied
because
the
same
was
filed
out
of
 December
29,
1971
was
effected
under
suspicious
circumstances
and
tainted
with

time.
Moreover,
it
is
not
proper
to
make
a
finding
in
an
intestate
estate
proceeding
 fraud
 and
 that
 the
 right
 of
 Rufina
 as
 alleged
 half‐sister
 and
 sole
 heir
 of
 Irene

that
the
discovered
will
has
been
revoked.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
probate
court
in
 remains
open
to
question,
these
issues
may
only
be
threshed
out
in
a
separate
civil

Special
 Proceeding
 No.
 1736
 stated
 in
 the
 order
 of
 November
 16,
 1968
 that
 action
filed
by
the
respondent
administrator
against
the
petitioners
and
not
in
the

"Movants
should
have
filed
a
separate
action
for
the
probate
of
the
Will."
13
And
 intestate
proceedings.


this
 court
 stated
 in
 its
 resolution
 of
 May
 14,
 1969
 that
 "The
 more
 appropriate
 

remedy
of
the
petitioners
in
the
premises
stated
in
the
petition
is
for
petitioners
to
 21
 BERNARDO
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS

initiate
a
separate
proceeding
for
the
probate
of
the
alleged
with
in
question."

 
 7
SCRA
367


 

You
cannot
convert
an
intestate
proceeding
into
a
testate
proceeding.


 FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









14




Spouses
 Capili
 were
 the
 owners
 of
 parcels
 of
 land.
 
 The
 husband
 died
 first
 and
 It
can
not
be
denied
that
a
special
proceeding
intended
to
effect
the
distribution
of

testate
proceedings
were
held
wherein
his
wife,
as
well
brothers
and
sisters
were
 the
estate
of
a
deceased
person,
whether
in
accordance
with
the
law
on
intestate

instituted
as
heirs.

The
wife
also
died
later
on
and
was
substituted
by
her
collateral
 succession
or
in
accordance
with
his
will,
is
a
"probate
matter"
or
a
proceeding
for

relatives.
 
 In
 the
 project
 of
 partition
 submitted
 by
 the
 executor,
 there
 was
 the
 settlement
 of
 his
 estate.
 It
 is
 equally
 true,
 however,
 that
 in
 accordance
 with

opposition
on
the
ground
that
some
properties
were
conjugal
properties
and
thus
 settled
jurisprudence
in
this
jurisdiction,
testate
proceedings,
for
the
settlement
of

part
 should
 not
 be
 included
 in
 the
 inventory.
 
 Consequently,
 two
 projects
 for
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 person
 take
 precedence
 over
 intestate
 proceedings
 for

partition
 was
 submitted
 for
 hearing
 and
 the
 other
 party
 contends
 that
 the
 the
 same
 purpose.
 Thus
 it
 has
 been
 held
 repeatedly
 that,
 if
 in
 the
 course
 of

properties
in
dispute
were
indeed
exclusive
property.


 intestate
proceedings
pending
before
a
court
of
first
instance
it
is
found
it
hat
the


 decedent
 had
 left
 a
 last
 will,
 proceedings
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 latter
 should

HELD:
 replace
the
intestate
proceedings
even
if
at
that
stage
an
administrator
had
already

In
the
case
now
before
us,
the
matter
in
controversy
is
the
question
of
ownership
 been
appointed,
the
latter
being
required
to
render
final
account
and
turn
over
the

of
 certain
 of
 the
 properties
 involved
 whether
 they
 belong
 to
 the
 conjugal
 estate
in
his
possession
to
the
executor
subsequently
appointed.
This,
however,
is

partnership
 or
 to
 the
 husband
 exclusively.
 This
 is
 a
 matter
 properly
 within
 the
 understood
to
be
without
prejudice
that
should
the
alleged
last
will
be
rejected
or

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 probate
 court
 which
 necessarily
 has
 to
 liquidate
 the
 conjugal
 is
disapproved,
the
proceeding
shall
continue
as
an
intestacy.
As
already
adverted

partnership
 in
 order
 to
 determine
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 decedent
 which
 is
 to
 be
 to,
this
is
a
clear
indication
that
proceedings
for
the
probate
of
a
will
enjoy
priority

distributed
 among
 his
 heirs
 who
 are
 all
 parties
 to
 the
 proceedings,
 including,
 of
 over
intestate
proceedings.

course,
the
widow,
now
represented
because
of
her
death,
by
her
heirs
who
have
 

been
 substituted
 upon
 petition
 of
 the
 executor
 himself
 and
 who
 have
 appeared
 Zamacona
 should
 have
 submitted
 for
 probate
 the
 will
 he
 has
 on
 hand
 with
 the

voluntarily.
There
are
no
third
parties
whose
rights
may
be
affected.
It
is
true
that
 Negros
court.



the
 heirs
 of
 the
 deceased
 widow
 are
 not
 heirs
 of
 the
 testator‐husband,
 but
 the
 

widow
is,
in
addition
to
her
own
right
to
the
conjugal
property.
And
it
is
this
right
 In
 the
 first
 place,
 it
 is
 not
 in
 accord
 with
 public
 policy
 and
 the
 orderly
 and

that
is
being
sought
to
be
enforced
by
her
substitutes.
Therefore,
the
claim
that
is
 inexpensive
administration
of
justice
to
unnecessarily
multiply
litigation,
especially

being
 asserted
 is
 one
 belonging
 to
 an
 heir
 to
 the
 testator
 and,
 consequently,
 it
 if
several
courts
would
be
involved.
This,
in
effect,
was
the
result
of
the
submission

complies
 with
 the
 requirement
 of
 the
 exception
 that
 the
 parties
 interested
 (the
 of
 the
 will
 aforesaid
 to
 the
 Manila
 Court.
 In
 the
 second
 place,
 when
 respondent

petitioners
and
the
widow,
represented
by
dents)
are
all
heirs
claiming
title
under
 Higinio
Uriarte
filed
an
opposition
to
Vicente
Uriarte's
petition
for
the
issuance
of

the
testator.
 letters
 of
 administration,
 he
 had
 already
 informed
 the
 Negros
 Court
 that
 the


 deceased
 Juan
 Uriarte
 y
 Goite
 had
 left
 a
 will
 in
 Spain,
 of
 which
 a
 copy
 had
 been

22
 URIARTE
V.
CFI
 requested
 for
 submission
 to
 said
 court;
 and
 when
 the
 other
 respondent,
 Juan


 33
SCRA
252
 Uriarte
Zamacona,
filed
his
motion
to
dismiss
Special
Proceeding
No.
6344,
he
had


 submitted
 to
 the
 Negros
 Court
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 alleged
 will
 of
 the
 decedent,
 from

FACTS:
 which
 fact
 it
 may
 be
 inferred
 that,
 like
 Higinio
 Uriarte,
 he
 knew
 before
 filing
 the

Upon
 the
 death
 of
 Don
 Juan
 Uriarte,
 his
 alleged
 natural
 son
 filed
 for
 intestate
 petition
 for
 probate
 with
 the
 Manila
 Court
 that
 there
 was
 already
 a
 special

proceedings
 in
 the
 Negros
 Court.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 to
 by
 one
 of
 the
 nephews,
 proceeding
 pending
 in
 the
 Negros
 Court
 for
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the

alleging
that
a
will
was
indeed
executed
in
Spain
and
asked
for
the
submission
of
 same
deceased
person.
As
far
as
Higinio
Uriarte
is
concerned,
it
seems
quite
clear

the
 said
 will.
 
 Meanwhile,
 one
 of
 the
 nephews,
 who
 was
 in
 possession
 of
 the
 that
 in
 his
 opposition
 to
 petitioner's
 petition
 in
 Special
 Proceeding
 No.
 6344,
 he

alleged
will,
instituted
in
the
Manila
Copurt
petition
for
probate
of
the
will.

He
also
 had
expressly
promised
to
submit
said
will
for
probate
to
the
Negros
Court.

sought
to
intervene
in
the
instestate
proceedings
in
Negros
Court.


 


 But
the
fact
is
that
instead
of
the
aforesaid
will
being
presented
for
probate
to
the

HELD:
 Negros
 Court,
 Juan
 Uriarte
 Zamacona
 filed
 the
 petition
 for
 the
 purpose
 with
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









15




Manila
 Court.
 We
 can
 not
 accept
 petitioner's
 contention
 in
 this
 regard
 that
 the
 

latter
court
had
no
jurisdiction
to
consider
said
petition,
albeit
we
say
that
it
was
 HELD:

not
the
proper
venue
therefor.
 We
 are
 not
 unmindful
 of
 the
 fact
 that
 under
 Section
 2
 of
 Rule
 73,
 "When
 the


 marriage
is
dissolved
by
the
death
of
the
husband
or
wife,
the
community
property

It
 is
 well
 settled
 in
 this
 jurisdiction
 that
 wrong
 venue
 is
 merely
 a
 waiveable
 shall
 be
 inventoried,
 administered,
 and
 liquidated,
 and
 the
 debts
 thereof
 paid,
 in

procedural
 defect,
 and,
 in
 the
 light
 of
 the
 circumstances
 obtaining
 in
 the
 instant
 the
testate
or
intestate
proceedings
of
the
deceased
spouse.
If
both
spouses
have

case,
 we
 are
 of
 the
 opinion,
 and
 so
 hold,
 that
 petitioner
 has
 waived
 the
 right
 to
 died,
 the
 conjugal
 partnership
 shall
 be
 liquidated
 in
 the
 testate
 or
 intestate

raise
 such
 objection
 or
 is
 precluded
 from
 doing
 so
 by
 laches.
 It
 is
 enough
 to
 proceedings
 of
 either."
 Indeed,
 it
 is
 true
 that
 the
 last
 sentence
 of
 this
 provision

consider
in
this
connection
that
petitioner
knew
of
the
existence
of
a
will
executed
 allows
or
permits
the
conjugal
partnership
of
spouses
who
are
both
deceased
to
be

by
 Juan
 Uriarte
 y
 Goite
 since
 December
 19,
 1961
 when
 Higinio
 Uriarte
 filed
 his
 settled
or
liquidated
in
the
testate
or
intestate
proceedings
of
either,
but
precisely

opposition
 to
 the
 initial
 petition
 filed
 in
 Special
 Proceeding
 No.
 6344;
 that
 because
 said
 sentence
 allows
 or
 permits
 that
 the
 liquidation
 be
 made
 in
 either

petitioner
 likewise
 was
 served
 with
 notice
 of
 the
 existence
 (presence)
 of
 the
 proceeding,
 it
 is
 a
 matter
 of
 sound
 judicial
 discretion
 in
 which
 one
 it
 should
 be

alleged
 last
 will
 in
 the
 Philippines
 and
 of
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 for
 its
 probate
 made.
 After
 all,
 the
 former
 rule
 referring
 to
 the
 administrator
 of
 the
 husband's

with
the
Manila
Court
since
August
28,
1962
when
Juan
Uriarte
Zamacona
filed
a
 estate
in
respect
to
such
liquidation
was
done
away
with
by
Act
3176,
the
pertinent

motion
for
the
dismissal
of
Special
Proceeding
No.
6344.
All
these
notwithstanding,
 provisions
of
which
are
now
embodied
in
the
rule
just
cited.

it
 was
 only
 on
 April
 15,
 1963
 that
 he
 filed
 with
 the
 Manila
 Court
 in
 Special
 

Proceeding
No.
51396
an
Omnibus
motion
asking
for
leave
to
intervene
and
for
the
 Thus,
it
can
be
seen
that
at
the
time
of
the
death
of
Hodges,
there
was
already
the

dismissal
 and
 annulment
 of
 all
 the
 proceedings
 had
 therein
 up
 to
 that
 date;
 thus
 pending
 judicial
 settlement
 proceeding
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Mrs.
 Hodges,
 and,
 more

enabling
 the
 Manila
 Court
 not
 only
 to
 appoint
 an
 administrator
 with
 the
 will
 importantly,
that
the
former
was
the
executor
of
the
latter's
will
who
had,
as
such,

annexed
 but
 also
 to
 admit
 said
 will
 to
 probate
 more
 than
 five
 months
 earlier,
 or
 failed
for
more
than
five
years
to
see
to
it
that
the
same
was
terminated
earliest,

more
specifically,
on
October
31,
1962.
To
allow
him
now
to
assail
the
exercise
of
 which
 was
 not
 difficult
 to
 do,
 since
 from
 ought
 that
 appears
 in
 the
 record,
 there

jurisdiction
over
the
probate
of
the
will
by
the
Manila
Court
and
the
validity
of
all
 were
 no
 serious
 obstacles
 on
 the
 way,
 the
 estate
 not
 being
 indebted
 and
 there

the
proceedings
had
in
Special
Proceeding
No.
51396
would
put
a
premium
on
his
 being
 no
 immediate
 heirs
 other
 than
 Hodges
 himself.
 Such
 dilatory
 or
 indifferent

negligence.
 attitude
 could
 only
 spell
 possible
 prejudice
 of
 his
 co‐heirs,
 whose
 rights
 to


 inheritance
 depend
 entirely
 on
 the
 existence
 of
 any
 remainder
 of
 Mrs.
 Hodges'

23
 PCIB
V.
ESCOLIN
 share
in
the
community
properties,
and
who
are
now
faced
with
the
pose
of
PCIB


 56
SCRA
266
 that
 there
 is
 no
 such
 remainder.
 Had
 Hodges
 secured
 as
 early
 as
 possible
 the


 settlement
 of
 his
 wife's
 estate,
 this
 problem
 would
 not
 arisen.
 All
 things

FACTS:
 considered,
We
are
fully
convinced
that
the
interests
of
justice
will
be
better
served

Spouses
Hodges
made
similar
wills,
wherein
on
each
will
it
was
provided
that
if
one
 by
 not
 permitting
 or
 allowing
 PCIB
 or
 any
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Hodges

predeceases
the
other,
the
other
spouse
would
get
the
estate’s
properties
and
can
 exclusive
administration
of
all
the
properties
in
question.
We
are
of
the
considered

use
it
in
his/her
liking.

And
in
case
the
widow/er
dies
as
well,
the
property
will
go
 opinion
and
so
hold
that
what
would
be
just
and
proper
is
for
both
administrators

to
the
siblings
of
the
spouse
who
predeceased.

Linnie
died
ahead
of
Charles
and
 of
 the
 two
 estates
 to
 act
 conjointly
 until
 after
 said
 estates
 have
 been
 segregated

the
 latter
 administered
 the
 estate
 of
 his
 wife.
 
 However,
 he
 wasn't
 able
 to
 from
each
other.

completely
 settle
 the
 estate
 when
 he
 died.
 Linnie’s
 sister
 took
 over
 in
 

administration
of
both
estates
in
different
proceedings
and
this
in
turn,
began
the
 24
 DEL
ROSARIO
V.
DEL
ROSARIO

long
 cycle
 of
 changes
 in
 administrators
 until
 the
 administration
 of
 both
 estates
 
 67
PHIL
652

ended
up
with
PCIB.

Consequently,
problems
ensued
in
the
administration
of
the
 

estates.


 FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









16




Spouses
Del
Rosario
were
the
owners
of
properties.

The
husband
died
first
and
no
 conjugal
properties
of
the
second
marriage
shall
be
liquidated,
so
as
to
determine

intestate
proceedings
were
held
to
settle
his
estate
until
the
time
that
the
wife
also
 the
 half
 corresponding
 to
 the
 widow
 Teopista
 Dolar
 and
 the]
 other
 half

died.


 corresponding
 to
 the
 deceased
 (article
 1426
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code).
 The
 properties


 corresponding
 to
 the
 deceased,
 acquired
 during
 his
 first
 and
 second
 marriages,

HELD:
 constitute
his
estate,
which
should
be
partitioned
among
his
widow
Teopista
Dolar

Act
No.
3176
only
amends
the
former
law
in
the
sense
that
upon
the
death
of
any
 (articles
931
and
834
of
the
Civil
Code).

of
the
spouses
the
community
property
shall
be
liquidated
in
the
testamentary
or
 

intestate
 proceedings
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouse.
 But
 whatever
 law
 might
 be
 There
being
forced
heirs,
the
legacy
of
P8,000
should
be
taken
from
the
free
third

applicable,
and
even
assuming
that
it
was
that
prior
to
Act
No.
3176,
the
intestate
 only,
without
touching
the
obligatory
legitime,
and
the
other
the
free
third,
so
as
to

of
Ramon
del
Rosario
not
having
been
commenced
upon
his
death
in
1895
until
his
 determine
the
properties
from
which
the
legacy
being
by
way
of
usufruct,
the
heirs

widow
 Florencia
 Arcega
 also
 died
 in
 1933,
 and
 the
 testamentary
 proceedings
 of
 may
 comply
 therewith
 or
 deliver
 to
 the
 legatee
 properties
 equivalent
 to
 the
 free

Florencia
Arcega
having
been
subsequently
initiated,
wherein,
among
other
things,
 third
 (article
 820,
 paragraph
 3,
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code).
 The
 fruits
 of
 the
 properties

the
 liquidation
 of
 her
 conjugal
 properties
 with
 the
 deceased
 Ramon
 del
 Rosario
 already
received
or
to
be
received
shall
answer
for
the
legacy
with
respect
to
one‐
should
be
made,
the
pendency
of
these
testamentary
proceedings
of
the
deceased
 third
thereof
only,
the
remaining
two‐thirds
being
those
of
the
heirs
(article
813
of

wife
 excludes
 any
 other
 proceeding
 aimed
 at
 the
 same
 purpose
 (Zaide
 vs.
 the
 Civil
 Code).
 The
 legal
 usufruct
 of
 the
 widow
 should
 be
 taken
 from
 the
 third

Concepcion
and
Quintana,
32
Phil.,
403).
At
the
rate,
the
plaintiffs
have
a
right
to
 available
for
betterment
(article
835
of
the
Civil
Code).

intervene
in
these
proceedings
as
parties
interested
in
the
liquidation
and
partition
 

of
 the
 conjugal
 properties
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouses
 Ramon
 del
 Rosario
 and
 26
 ALFONSO
V.
NATIVIDAD

Florencia
Arcega
among
their
heirs.
 
 6
PHIL
240


 

25
 DOLAR
V.
ROMAN
CATHOLIC
 FACTS:


 68
PHIL
727
 Alfonso
 in
 his
 capacity
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate,
 brought
 an
 action
 against


 respondents
for
the
return
of
the
land
they
were
allegedly
wrongfully
possessing.



FACTS:
 

Paulino
 contracted
 two
 marriages
 during
 his
 lifetime,
 leaving
 children
 behind
 in
 HELD:

both
marriages.

The
widow
was
appointed
as
the
administratix
of
the
estate.

The
 By
the
provisions
of
the
new
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
in
the
settlement
of
estates
of

first
 project
 of
 partition
 wasn't
 approved
 due
 to
 the
 opposition
 of
 the
 heirs
 and
 deceased
 persons
 it
 is
 necessary
 to
 appoint
 commissioners,
 before
 whom
 the

legacies.
 
 She
 again
 submitted
 a
 second
 project
 which
 wasn't
 also
 approved
 but
 creditors
 of
 the
 deceased
 must
 present
 their
 claims
 within
 a
 time
 fixed
 by
 the

consequently,
the
court
allowed
her
to
take
possession
of
the
estate’s
properties.


 court.
The
husband
is
the
administrator
of
the
conjugal
partnership.
(Art.
1412.)
His


 debts
 contracted
 during
 the
 marriage
 are
 its
 debts.
 (Art.
 1418.)
 When
 a
 conjugal

HELD:
 partnership
is
dissolved
by
the
death
of
the
husband
it
would
be
extremely
difficult

Unless
the
widow
Teopista
Dolar,
the
heirs
of
the
deceased
by
his
two
marriages,
 to
 settle
 his
 estate
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 provisions
 of
 the
 present
 Code
 of

the
 representative
 of
 the
 legacy
 for
 P8,00,
 and
 the
 creditors
 of
 the
 estate,
 Procedure
 without
 settling
 the
 partnership
 affairs.
 It
 is
 difficult
 to
 harmonize
 the

otherwise
 come
 to
 an
 agreement,
 the
 partition
 should
 be
 made
 with
 the
 new
system
with
the
part
of
the
old
which
remains,
but
we
conclude
that
when
the

intervention
 of
 all
 the
 interested
 parties
 according
 to
 law.
 All
 the
 debts
 and
 partnership
 is
 dissolved
 by
 the
 death
 of
 the
 husband
 the
 inventory
 which
 is

administration
 expenses
 shall
 first
 be
 paid.
 (Section
 753
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 mentioned
 in
 article
 1418
 should
 be
 made,
 and
 the
 partnership
 affairs
 settled
 in

Procedure).
The
conjugal
properties
of
the
first
marriage
shall
be
liquidated
so
as
to
 the
Court
of
First
Instance
which
takes
jurisdiction
of
the
settlement
of
his
estate,

determine
 those
 corresponding
 to
 the
 children
 had
 with
 the
 deceased
 Margarita
 and
 in
 the
 same
 proceeding.
 This
 view
 being
 adopted,
 it
 follows
 as
 a
 necessary

Doctura,
 as
 her
 heirs,
 and
 those
 corresponding
 to
 the
 deceased.
 Likewise,
 the
 consequence
that
the
executor
or
administrator
appointed
in
that
proceeding
must




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









17




be
 the
 person
 who
 is
 entitled
 to
 the
 custody
 of
 the
 property
 of
 the
 conjugal
 

partnership
while
the
settlement
is
being
made.
 Since
 the
 complaint
 for
 partition
 alleges
 that
 there
 are
 no
 debts
 to
 pay,
 and
 as
 it


 does
 not
 appear
 that
 there
 are
 any,
 said
 action
 will
 lie,
 for
 while
 it
 is
 true
 that
 it

This
construction
of
the
law
does
not
deprive
the
wife,
the
surviving
partner,
of
all
 prays
for
a
liquidation
of
the
property
of
the
conjugal
partnership
dissolved
by
the

intervention
 in
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 affairs
 of
 the
 partnership,
 for
 in
 intestate
 death
 of
 Juliana
 Nabong,
 said
 liquidation
 is
 implied
 in
 the
 action
 for
 partition

estates
 she
 is
 entitled
 to
 be
 appointed
 administratrix
 of
 her
 husband's
 estate,
 (Remolino
and
Bautista
vs.
Peralta,
G.
R.
No.
10834).1

unless
some
good
reason
for
not
appointing
her
is
shown.
 


 For
 the
 foregoing
 considerations,
 we
 are
 of
 the
 opinion
 and
 hold,
 that
 in

Applying
 these
 principles
 to
 the
 present
 case
 it
 appears
 that
 the
 partnership
 was
 accordance
 with
 section
 685
 of
 Act
 No.
 190,
 as
 amended
 by
 Act
 No.
 3176,
 when

dissolved
 by
 the
 death
 of
 the
 husband;
 that
 its
 affairs
 should
 be
 settled
 in
 the
 there
 are
 no
 debts
 to
 pay,
 the
 liquidation
 and
 partition
 of
 the
 property
 of
 the

proceedings
for
the
settlement
of
his
estate;
that
the
plaintiff
is
the
administrator
 conjugal
partnership,
dissolved
by
the
death
of
one
of
the
spouses,
may
be
made
in

appointed
 in
 that
 proceeding;
 that
 the
 property
 in
 question
 belonged
 to
 the
 an
ordinary
action
instituted
for
that
purpose.


partnership,
 and
 that
 therefore
 the
 plaintiff
 is
 entitled
 to
 maintain
 this
 action.
 In
 

the
 settlement
 of
 the
 affairs
 of
 the
 partnership
 hereafter,
 this,
 with
 all
 other
 28
 DE
LA
RAMA
V.
DE
LA
RAMA

property
of
the
partnership,
including
the
debt
of
Pedro
Natividad.

 
 7
PHIL
745


 

27
 CRUZ
V.
DE
JESUS
 FACTS:


 52
PHIL
870
 The
 trial
 court
 found
 in
 favor
 of
 plaintiff
 in
 the
 divorce
 proceedings
 against
 her


 husband.

She
alleged
adultery
and
thereafter,
she
was
granted
by
the
court,
part

FACTS:
 of
 the
 conjugal
 property,
 together
 with
 alimony,
 etc.
 
 The
 husband
 sought
 the

Plaintiffs
 sought
 the
 amendment
 of
 their
 complaint
 to
 liquidation
 and
 partition,
 reversal
 of
 the
 decision
 on
 which
 he
 was
 granted
 reconsideration.
 
 The
 wife

wherein
they
alleged
that
the
decedent
died
without
any
debts
on
hand
and
thus,
 appealed
the
same
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
US.



they
 should
 be
 allowed
 to
 liquidate
 in
 the
 same
 partition
 proceedings.
 
 This
 was
 

denied
 by
 the
 court.
 
 The
 court
 ordered
 that
 the
 liquidation
 of
 conjugal
 property
 HELD:

should
be
made
in
the
estate
proceedings
before
any
partition
may
be
made.


 There
could
be
liquidation
of
conjugal
partnership
in
the
same
divorce
proceedings


 if
the
decree
of
divorce
is
granted.

HELD:
 

It
is
to
be
noted
that
this
legal
provision
establishes
two
methods
of
liquidating
the
 29
 VILLCORTE
V.
MARIANO

property
of
a
conjugal
partnership,
if
the
marriage
is
dissolved
by
the
death
of
one
 
 89
PHIL
342

of
the
spouses:
the
first
by
a
testate
or
intestate
proceeding
according
to
whether
 

the
deceased
died
with
or
without
a
will;
and
the
other
by
an
ordinary
proceeding
 FACTS:

for
liquidation
and
partition.
 Calimon
contracted
three
marriages,
the
latest
with
respondent
Mariano.

He
had


 children
during
his
first
and
second
marriages.

Petitioners,
as
widow
and
children

According
to
the
legal
provision
quoted
above,
when
the
marriage
is
dissolved
by
 of
Calimon,
filed
for
the
recovery
of
parcels
of
land
against
the
children
of
the
first

the
 death
 of
 the
 wife,
 the
 legal
 power
 of
 management
 of
 the
 husband
 ceases,
 children
 and
 Mariano.
 
 Mariano
 alleged
 that
 the
 properties
 were
 exclusive

passing
 to
 the
 administrator
 appointed
 by
 the
 court
 in
 the
 testate
 or
 intestate
 properties
of
Calimon
and/or
acquired
during
their
co‐venture
together.

She
also

proceedings
instituted
to
that
end
if
there
be
any
debts
to
be
paid,
and
when
there
 filed
 a
 cross‐claim
 against
 Canuta
 and
 the
 latter’s
 siblings
 for
 defrauding
 her

is
 no
 debt
 pending,
 the
 liquidation
 and
 partition
 may
 be
 made
 in
 an
 ordinary
 allegedly
 into
 signing
 a
 compromise
 agreement.
 
 The
 trial
 court
 found
 in
 favor
 of

proceeding
for
that
purpose.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









18




Canuta
 and
 her
 siblings,
 giving
 merit
 to
 the
 compromise
 agreement
 and
 it
 was
 Ocampo
sold
a
house
and
lot
to
spouses
Potenciano
under
a
pacto
de
recto
sale.


unnecessary
to
undertake
liquidation
and
partition
proceedings.


 Upon
 death
 of
 one
 of
 the
 spouses,
 Paz
 still
 wanted
 to
 repurchase
 the
 house
 and


 lot.

The
children
left
by
the
spouses
averred
that
it
only
would
pertain
to
the
share

HELD:
 of
their
father
since
they
already
inherited
that
of
those
of
their
mother’s.

CA
ruled

It
was
unnecessary
to
prepare
the
inventory
and
make
the
liquidation
because
the
 in
favor
of
Ocampo
and
ruled
that
it
was
indeed
a
mortgage
with
a
caveat
that
the

parties
 interested,
 i.e.,
 the
 heirs
 of
 Leon
 Calimon
 and
 his
 widow
 had
 already
 option
 agreement
 novated
 the
 mortgage
 agreement.
 
 The
 Potenciano
 children

reached
a
compromise
by
means
of
Exhibit
1‐Mariano.
And
supposing
that
all
those
 alleged
 that
 the
 father
 had
 no
 authority
 to
 enter
 into
 the
 option
 agreement
 and

lots
 were
 community
 property,
 still
 the
 said
 exhibit
 governs
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 they
were
sustained
by
the
SC.

parties.
A
similar
documents
of
renunciation
was
held
valid
and
binding
in
Antonio
 

vs.
 Aloc,
 25
 Phil.
 147.
 And
 under
 the
 provision
 of
 article
 1418
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code,
 HELD:

inventory
shall
not
be
required
if,
after
the
partnership
has
been
dissolved,
one
of
 The
 Court
 of
 Appeals
 erred
 in
 supposing
 that
 the
 surviving
 spouse
 had
 such

the
spouses
of
his
or
her
successors
shall
have
renounced
its
effects.
 authority
 as
 de
 facto
 administrator
 of
 the
 conjugal
 estate.
 As
 pointed
 out
 by


 appellants,
 the
 decisions
 relied
 on
 by
 that
 court
 in
 support
 of
 its
 view
 are
 now

30
 CALMA
V.
TANEDO
 obsolete.
 Those
 decisions
 laid
 down
 the
 rule
 that,
 upon
 the
 dissolution
 of
 the


 66
PHIL
594
 marriage
 by
 the
 death
 of
 the
 wife,
 the
 husband
 must
 liquidate
 the
 partnership


 affairs.
 But
 the
 procedure
 has
 been
 changed
 by
 Act
 No.
 3176
 (approved
 on

FACTS:
 November
24,
1924),
now
section
2,
Rule
75,
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
which
provides

Esperanza
 brought
 suit
 against
 Eulalio
 for
 debts
 payable
 by
 the
 conjugal
 that
 when
 the
 marriage
 is
 dissolved
 by
 the
 death
 of
 either
 husband
 or
 wife,
 the

partnership,
 when
 the
 wife
 died.
 
 The
 debts
 payable
 was
 incurred
 during
 the
 partnership
affairs
must
be
liquidated
in
the
testate
or
intestate
proceedings
of
the

existence
 of
 the
 conjugal
 partnership
 and
 was
 chargeable
 to
 the
 same.
 
 The
 wife
 deceased
spouse
(Moran,
Comments
on
the
Rules
of
Court,
3rd
ed.,
Vol.
II,
p.
324).

died
with
a
will
and
appointed
her
daughter
as
administratix
of
the
estate.


 


 32
 PRADO
V.
NATIVIDAD

HELD:
 
 47
PHIL
776

From
 the
 foregoing
 it
 follows
 that
 when
 Esperanza
 Tanedo
 brought
 suit
 against
 

Eulalio
Calma
for
the
payment
of
the
sums
of
P948.34
and
P247,
which
were
debts
 FACTS:

chargeable
 against
 the
 conjugal
 property,
 the
 power
 of
 Eulalio
 Calma
 as
 legal
 Casimiro
 and
 Maria
 married,
 and
 upon
 marriage,
 it
 was
 Casimiro
 who
 brought

administrator
 of
 the
 conjugal
 property
 while
 Fausta
 Macasaquit
 was
 living,
 had
 property
inside
the
conjugal
property.

Maria
brought
none.

Thereafter,
Maria
died

ceased
 and
 passed
 to
 the
 administratrix
 Maria
 Calma
 appointed
 in
 the
 out
of
pulmonary
complications.

Jose,
the
administrator
appointed
for
the
estate

testamentary
proceedings
of
Fausta
Macasaquit.
Hence,
this
being
an
indebtedness
 of
 Maria
 brought
 an
 action
 against
 Casimiro
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 he
 refused
 to

chargeable
against
conjugal
property,
no
complaint
for
its
payment
can
be
brought
 liquidate
the
conjugal
partnership.



against
 Eulalio
 Calma,
 who
 had
 already
 ceased
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 conjugal
 

property;
the
claim
for
this
amount
had
to
be
filed
in
the
testamentary
proceedings
 HELD:

of
Fausta
Macasaquit.
 At
the
trial
of
the
case,
evidence
was
introduced
tending
to
show
the
existence
of


 said
 properties
 with
 their
 prices
 and
 fruits.
 Also
 evidence
 was
 introduced
 in
 an

31
 OCAMPO
V.
POTENCIANO
 attempt
 to
 show
 the
 true
 expenses
 incurred
 during
 the
 administration
 of
 the


 89
PHIL
160
 conjugal
partnership.
With
that
evidence
in
the
record,
it
is
not
necessary
to
order


 the
defendant,
in
his
capacity
as
administrator
of
the
estate
of
said
partnership,
to

FACTS:
 make
a
formal
liquidation
thereof;
because
what
was
done
during
the
trial
of
the

case
 amounts
 to
 a
 liquidation,
 and
 to
 make
 another
 one
 would
 be
 to
 do
 double




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









19




work,
and
would
give
rise
to
new
controversies
when
the
liquidation
is
submitted
 with
Benita,
he
took
with
him
to
the
conjugal
partnership
a
certain
sum
of
money

for
the
contesting
thereof
by
the
adverse
party.
The
trial
court
has
not,
therefore,
 in
Mexican
pesos.

In
the
inventory
made
by
Josefa
of
the
properties,
she
excluded

committed
any
error
in
not
ordering
a
formal
liquidation.
 therein
 the
 sum
 of
 money
 and
 consequently
 made
 the
 demand
 for
 the
 return
 of


 the
properties
held
by
the
defendants.



33
 DE
LA
RAMA
V.
DE
LA
RAMA
 


 25
SCRA
437
 HELD:


 It
 is
 fact,
 proved
 by
 the
 record,
 that
 the
 conjugal
 partnership
 formed
 between

FACTS:
 Dionisio
Fulgencio,
during
his
lifetime,
and
Benita
Gatchalian
and
dissolved
by
the

Same
facts
basically
from
the
earlier
De
La
Rama
case.
 husband's
death,
owed
several
large
debts
and
the
testamentary
executrix,
in
the


 fulfillment
 of
 her
 duty,
 has
 a
 right
 to
 claim
 the
 possession
 of
 all
 the
 property

HELD:
 belonging
 to
 the
 estate
 of
 which
 she
 is
 the
 judicial
 administratrix,
 in
 order
 that,

As
pointed
out
by
the
trial
judge,
this
inventory
appears
to
have
been
prepared
by
 pursuant
 law,
 she
 may
 make
 the
 required
 inventory
 and
 proceed,
 with
 the

or
 for
 the
 defendant
 for
 the
 purposes
 of
 this
 action;
 and
 in
 any
 event
 it
 was
 authorization
of
the
court,
to
pay
the
debts
duly
presented
to
the
commissioners
of

prepared
 after
 this
 action
 was
 originally
 instituted
 and
 under
 conditions
 which
 appraisal
appointed
in
the
special
proceedings.
It
is
an
incontrovertible
principle
of

justified
 the
 trial
 judge
 in
 believing
 that
 the
 defendant
 had
 every
 opportunity
 to
 law
that,
before
proceeding
with
the
division
among
the
heirs,
of
the
property
left

intervene
in
its
preparation
and
to
use
his
personal
influence
to
have
the
document
 to
them
by
the
deceased
predecessor
in
interest,
without
prejudice
to
the
rights
of

speak
 favorably
 to
 his
 contentions.
 Granting
 that
 it
 is
 true,
 as
 contended
 by
 the
surviving
widow,
in
relation
to
her
own
property
which
does
not
form
a
part
of

defendant,
 that
 this
 document
 was
 admitted
 in
 evidence
 without
 objection,
 it
 by
 the
 conjugal
 partnership
 property
 nor
 is
 liable
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 the
 obligations

no
 means
 follows
 that
 the
 trial
 judge
 was
 bound
 to
 accept
 its
 contents
 as
 true
 existing
against
the
conjugal
partnership.

where
other
evidence
of
record
disclosed
its
inaccuracies
and
its
failure
correctly
to
 

list
the
properties
in
question.
It
was
admitted
for
what
it
was
worth
as
evidence,
 Evidence
 was
 introduced
 to
 prove
 that
 the
 widow,
 Benita
 Gatchalian,
 on

but
in
very
nature
of
things,
it
should
not
be
held
as
conclusive
of
the
truth
of
its
 contracting
 marriage
 with
 the
 now
 deceased
 Dionisio
 Fulgencio,
 brought
 to
 the

contents.
We
think
that
the
trial
judge
is
fully
sustained
by
the
evidence
of
record
 conjugal
 partnership,
 property
 worth
 about
 twelve
 thousand
 pesos,
 being

in
his
findings
that
this
inventory
failed
to
set
forth
the
true
status
of
the
affairs
of
 paraphernalia
 of
 the
 wife's
 exclusive
 ownership;
 but
 once
 included
 among
 the

the
 company,
 and
 we
 are
 of
 opinion,
 and
 so
 hold,
 that
 there
 was
 no
 error
 in
 his
 property
of
the
conjugal
partnership,
a
demand
for
its
exclusion
on
the
part
of
its

findings
as
to
the
true
value
of
the
property
in
question.
 legitimate
owner
could
properly
be
made
only
after
the
formation
of
the
inventory


 of
the
property
that
constitutes
the
estate
of
her
deceased
husband.

What
 has
 been
 said
 sufficiency
 disposes
 of
 all
 the
 errors
 assigned.
 We
 are
 of
 

opinion,
 therefore,
 that
 there
 is
 nothing
 in
 the
 record
 which
 would
 justify
 us
 in
 35
 LUKBAN
V.
REPUBLIC

sustaining
the
contentions
of
the
defendant‐appellant
as
to
error
in
the
findings
of
 
 98
PHIL
574

fact
or
in
the
conclusions
drawn
therefrom
in
the
opinion
filed
by
the
trial
judge.
 


 FACTS:

34
 FULGENCIO
V.
GATCHALIAN
 Lourdes
 married
 Francisco
 and
 after
 a
 big
 quarrel,
 Francisco
 left
 and
 was
 never


 21
PHIL
252
 heard
 of
 again.
 
 Lourdes
 also
 inquired
 with
 his
 friends
 and
 family
 but
 to
 no
 avail.



 He
 was
 nowhere
 to
 be
 found.
 
 And
 now,
 she
 files
 a
 petition
 to
 declare
 the

FACTS:
 presumption
 of
 death
 of
 her
 husband
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 securing
 a
 second

Upon
the
appointment
as
administratix
of
Josefa,
she
brought
a
complaint
against
 marriage.



the
 defendants
 to
 take
 possession
 of
 alleged
 properties
 of
 Dionisio,
 which
 were
 

allegedly
withheld
by
defendants.

Evidence
shows
that
during
Dionisio’s
marriage
 HELD:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









20




While
 it
 is
true
that
 a
 special
 proceeding
 is
 an
 application
to
establish
 a
 status
or
 6. Execution
of
affidavit
adjudicating
to
himself
if
he
is
the
sole
heir

right
of
a
party,
or
a
particular
fact,
that
remedy
can
be
invoked
if
the
purpose
is
to
 

seek
the
declaration
of
death
of
the
husband
but
not
to
establish
a
presumption
of
 GENERAL
 RULE:
 JUDICIAL
 ADMINISTRATION;
 EXCEPTION:
 SUMMARY

death.
 SETTLEMENT
OF
THE
ESTATE


 • When
 a
 person
 dies
 leaving
 property,
 the
 same
 should
 be
 judicially

administered
 and
 the
 competent
 court
 should
 appoint
 a
 qualified

RULE
74:
SETTLEMENT
OF
ESTATE

administrator


 • Exception:
 Section
 1,
 Rule
 74—when
 all
 the
 heirs
 are
 of
 legal
 age
 and

Section
1.
Extrajudicial
settlement
by
agreement
between
heirs.

If
the
decedent
 there
 are
 no
 debts
 due
 from
 the
 estate,
 they
 may
 agree
 in
 writing
 to

left
 no
 will
 and
 no
 debts
 and
 the
 heirs
 are
 all
 of
 age,
 or
 the
 minors
 are
 partition
 the
 property
 without
 instituting
 the
 judicial
 administration
 or

represented
 by
 their
 judicial
 or
 legal
 representatives
 duly
 authorized
 for
 the
 applying
for
the
appointment
of
an
administrator

purpose,
 the
 parties
 may
 without
 securing
 letters
 of
 administration,
 divide
 the
 

estate
among
themselves
as
they
see
fit
by
means
of
a
public
instrument
filed
in
 EXTRAJUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT:
REQUIREMENTS

the
office
of
the
register
of
deeds,
and
should
they
disagree,
they
may
do
so
in
an
 1. The
decedent
left
no
will

ordinary
action
of
partition.
If
there
is
only
one
heir,
he
may
adjudicate
to
himself
 2. The
decedent
left
no
debts

the
 entire
 estate
 by
 means
 of
 an
 affidavit
 filled
 in
 the
 office
 of
 the
 register
 of
 3. Heirs
are
of
legal
age
or
if
there
are
minors,
they
are
duly
represented
by

deeds.
 The
 parties
 to
 an
 extrajudicial
 settlement,
 whether
 by
 public
 instrument
 their
guardians
authorized
for
that
purpose

or
 by
 stipulation
 in
 a
 pending
 action
 for
 partition,
 or
 the
 sole
 heir
 who
 4. Through
a
public
instrument,
they
extrajudicially
partition
the
estate

adjudicates
 the
 entire
 estate
 to
 himself
 by
 means
 of
 an
 affidavit
 shall
 file,
 5. Bond
shall
be
filed
equivalent
to
the
value
of
the
personal
property
under

simultaneously
 with
 and
 as
 a
 condition
 precedent
 to
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 public
 oath

instrument,
 or
 stipulation
 in
 the
 action
 for
 partition,
 or
 of
 the
 affidavit
 in
 the
 6. Publication
requirements—published
once
a
week
for
three
consecutive

office
 of
 the
 register
 of
 deeds,
 a
 bond
 with
 the
 said
 register
 of
 deeds,
 in
 an
 weeks
in
newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
province

amount
equivalent
to
the
value
of
the
personal
property
involved
as
certified
to
 

under
oath
by
the
parties
concerned
and
conditioned
upon
the
payment
of
any
 SOLE
ADJUDICATION:
REQUIREMENTS

just
claim
that
may
be
filed
under
section
4
of
this
rule.
It
shall
be
presumed
that
 1. There
is
only
one
heir

the
 decedent
 left
 no
 debts
 if
 no
 creditor
 files
 a
 petition
 for
 letters
 of
 2. He
may
execute
an
affidavit
filed
with
the
register
of
deeds

administration
within
two
(2)
years
after
the
death
of
the
decedent.
 3. Bond
shall
be
filed
equivalent
to
the
value
of
the
personal
property
of
the


 decedent
under
oath

The
fact
of
the
extrajudicial
settlement
or
administration
shall
be
published
in
a
 4. Publication
requirements—published
once
a
week
for
three
consecutive

newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
manner
provided
in
the
nest
succeeding
 weeks
in
newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
province

section;
but
no
extrajudicial
settlement
shall
be
binding
upon
any
person
who
has
 

not
participated
therein
or
had
no
notice
thereof.
 SUMMARY
SETTLEMENT:
REQUIREMENTS


 1. Gross
value
of
the
estate
doesn’t
exceed
P10,000

MODES
OF
SETTLEMENT
OF
ESTATE
 2. The
decedent
may
have
or
have
not
left
a
will

1. Testate
 3. The
 aforementioned
 fact
 should
 be
 made
 to
 the
 court
 through
 petition

2. Partition
 not
less
than
one
month
nor
more
than
3
months
from
the
date
of
last

3. Extrajudicial
settlement
 publication

4. Summary
settlement
 4. No
administrator
or
executor
need
be
appointed

5. Intestate
proceedings
wherein
administrator
is
appointed
 5. Publication
and
notice
requirements




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









21





 that
 purpose,
 after
 hearing,
 settle
 the
 amount
 of
 such
 debts
 or
 lawful

Section
 2.
 Summary
 settlement
 of
 estate
 of
 small
 value.
 
 Whenever
 the
 gross
 participation
 and
 order
 how
 much
 and
 in
 what
 manner
 each
 distributee
 shall

value
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 person,
 whether
 he
 died
 testate
 or
 intestate,
 contribute
 in
 the
 payment
 thereof,
 and
 may
 issue
 execution,
 if
 circumstances

does
not
exceed
ten
thousand
pesos,
and
that
fact
is
made
to
appear
to
the
Court
 require,
 against
 the
 bond
 provided
 in
 the
 preceding
 section
 or
 against
 the
 real

of
First
Instance
having
jurisdiction
of
the
estate
by
the
petition
of
an
interested
 estate
belonging
to
the
deceased,
or
both.
Such
bond
and
such
real
estate
shall

person
 and
 upon
 hearing,
 which
 shall
 be
 held
 not
 less
 than
 one
 (1)
 month
 nor
 remain
 charged
 with
 a
 liability
 to
 creditors,
 heirs,
 or
 other
 persons
 for
 the
 full

more
 than
 three
 (3)
 months
 from
 the
 date
 of
 the
 last
 publication
 of
 a
 notice
 period
of
two
(2)
years
after
such
distribution,
notwithstanding
any
transfers
of

which
 shall
 be
 published
 once
 a
 week
 for
 three
 (3)
 consecutive
 weeks
 in
 a
 real
estate
that
may
have
been
made.

newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
province,
and
after
such
other
notice
to
 

interest
 persons
 as
 the
 court
 may
 direct,
 the
 court
 may
 proceed
 summarily,
 Section
5.
Period
for
claim
of
minor
or
incapacitated
person.
 
If
on
the
date
of

without
the
appointment
of
an
executor
or
administrator,
and
without
delay,
to
 the
expiration
of
the
period
of
two
(2)
years
prescribed
in
the
preceding
section

grant,
if
proper,
allowance
of
the
will,
if
any
there
be,
to
determine
who
are
the
 the
person
authorized
to
file
a
claim
is
a
minor
or
mentally
incapacitated,
or
is
in

persons
legally
entitled
to
participate
in
the
estate,
and
to
apportion
and
divide
it
 prison
 or
 outside
 the
 Philippines,
 he
 may
 present
 his
 claim
 within
 one
 (1)
 year

among
them
after
the
payment
of
such
debts
of
the
estate
as
the
court
shall
then
 after
such
disability
is
removed.

find
to
be
due;
and
such
persons,
in
their
own
right,
if
they
are
of
lawful
age
and
 

legal
capacity,
or
by
their
guardians
or
trustees
legally
appointed
and
qualified,
if
 36
 UTULO
V.
VDA.
DE
GARCIA

otherwise,
shall
thereupon
be
entitled
to
receive
and
enter
into
the
possession
of
 66
Phil
302
(1938)


the
portions
of
the
estate
so
awarded
to
them
respectively.
The
court
shall
make
 

such
order
as
may
be
just
respecting
the
costs
of
the
proceedings,
and
all
orders
 FACTS:

and
judgments
made
or
rendered
in
the
course
thereof
shall
be
recorded
in
the
 Juan
Garcia
died
intestate
leaving
his
children,
one
of
whom
is
Luz
Garcia,
and
his

office
of
the
clerk,
and
the
order
of
partition
or
award,
if
it
involves
real
estate,
 wife
as
heirs.

During
the
pendency
of
the
intestate
proceedings,
Luz
died
and
she

shall
be
recorded
in
the
proper
register's
office.
 left
no
legitimate
descendants.

Her
only
heirs
were
her
mother
and
husband.

Her


 husband
 then
 applied
 for
 judicial
 administration
 of
 the
 property,
 absent
 any
 will

Section
3.
Bond
to
be
filed
by
distributees.

The
court,
before
allowing
a
partition
 from
his
late
wife.

This
was
opposed
to
by
the
mother
however
she
was
overruled

in
 accordance
 with
 the
 provisions
 of
 the
 preceding
 section,
 my
 require
 the
 and
the
court
decided
in
the
husband’s
favor.

distributees,
if
property
other
than
real
is
to
be
distributed,
to
file
a
bond
in
an
 

amount
to
be
fixed
by
court,
conditioned
for
the
payment
of
any
just
claim
which
 HELD:

may
be
filed
under
the
next
succeeding
section.
 As
 to
 the
 first
 question,
 we
 have
 section
 642
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure


 providing
 in
 part
 that
 "if
 no
 executor
 is
 named
 in
 the
 will,
 or
 if
 a
 person
 dies

Section
4.
Liability
of
distributees
and
estate.

If
it
shall
appear
at
any
time
within
 intestate,
 administration
 shall
 be
 granted"
 etc.
 This
 provision
 enunciates
 the

two
 (2)
 years
 after
 the
 settlement
 and
 distribution
 of
 an
 estate
 in
 accordance
 general
 rule
 that
 when
 a
 person
 dies
 living
 property
 in
 the
 Philippine
 Islands,
 his

with
the
provisions
of
either
of
the
first
two
sections
of
this
rule,
that
an
heir
or
 property
should
be
judicially
administered
and
the
competent
court
should
appoint

other
person
has
been
unduly
deprived
of
his
lawful
participation
in
the
estate,
 a
 qualified
 administrator,
 in
 the
 order
 established
 in
 the
 section,
 in
 case
 the

such
 heir
 or
 such
 other
 person
 may
 compel
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 in
 the
 deceased
left
no
will,
or
in
case
he
had
left
one
should
he
fail
to
name
an
executor

courts
 in
 the
 manner
 hereinafter
 provided
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 satisfying
 such
 therein.
This
rule,
however,
is
subject
to
the
exceptions
established
by
sections
596

lawful
participation.
And
if
within
the
same
time
of
two
(2)
years,
it
shall
appear
 and
597
of
the
same
Code,
as
finally
amended.
According
to
the
first,
when
all
the

that
there
are
debts
outstanding
against
the
estate
which
have
not
been
paid,
or
 heirs
are
of
lawful
age
and
there
are
no
debts
due
from
the
estate,
they
may
agree

that
an
heir
or
other
person
has
been
unduly
deprived
of
his
lawful
participation
 in
writing
to
partition
the
property
without
instituting
the
judicial
administration
or

payable
 in
 money,
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 may,
 by
 order
 for
 applying
for
the
appointment
of
an
administrator.
According
to
the
second,
if
the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









22




property
 left
 does
 not
 exceed
 six
 thousand
 pesos,
 the
 heirs
 may
 apply
 to
 the
 of
no
legal
effect,
but
only
makes
ineffective
the
action
for
specific
performance.
In

competent
 court,
 after
 the
 required
 publications,
 to
 proceed
 with
 the
 summary
 the
United
States,
even
in
those
states
where
the
affirmative
view
of
the
question

partition
 and,
 after
 paying
 all
 the
 known
 obligations,
 to
 partition
 all
 the
 property
 has
been
followed,
"the
weight
of
authority
upholds
the
rule
that
an
oral
partition

constituting
the
inheritance
among
themselves
pursuant
to
law,
without
instituting
 is
effective
when
several
possession
 is
taken
under
 it
 by
the
respective
parties
 to

the
judicial
administration
and
the
appointment
of
an
administrator.
 the
agreement."



 

Construing
the
scope
of
section
596,
this
court
repeatedly
held
that
when
a
person
 On
 general
 principle,
 independent
 and
 in
 spite
 of
 the
 statute
 of
 frauds,
 courts
 of

dies
 without
 leaving
 pending
 obligations
 to
 be
 paid,
 his
 heirs,
 whether
 of
 age
 or
 equity
 have
 enforced
 oral
 partition
 when
 it
 has
 been
 completely
 or
 partly

not,
 are
 not
 bound
 to
 submit
 the
 property
 to
 a
 judicial
 administration
 and
 the
 performed.

appointment
of
an
administrator
are
superfluous
and
unnecessary
proceedings
 


 As
a
general
proposition,
transactions,
so
far
as
they
affect
the
parties,
are
required

37
 HERNANDEZ
V.
ANDAL
 to
 be
 reduced
 to
 writing
 either
 as
 a
 condition
 of
 jural
 validity
 or
 as
 a
 means
 of

78
Phil
196
(1947)
 providing
evidence
to
prove
the
transactions.
Written
form
exacted
by
the
statute


 of
frauds,
for
example,
"is
for
evidential
purposes
only."
The
decisions
of
this
Court

FACTS:
 which
 we
 have
 noticed
 were
 predicated
 on
 this
 assumption.
 The
 Civil
 Code,
 too,

The
Hernandez
siblings
sold
a
part
of
a
parcel
of
land
they
inherited
from
their
late
 requires
 the
 accomplishment
 of
 acts
 or
 contracts
 in
 a
 public
 instrument,
 not
 in

father.
 
 The
 share
 they
 sold
 to
 the
 Andals
 allegedly
 were
 co‐owned
 by
 the
 order
to
validate
the
act
or
contract
but
only
to
insure
its
efficacy
so
that
after
the

intervenors
 based
 on
 an
 oral
 partition
 agreement
 made
 amongst
 them.
 
 Here
 existence
 of
 the
 acts
 or
 contracts
 has
 been
 admitted,
 the
 party
 bound
 may
 be

comes
 petititoner
 who
 wanted
 to
 repurchase
 the
 parcel
 of
 land
 from
 the
 Andals
 compelled
to
execute
the
document.


but
 it
 was
 disputed
 that
 the
 Andals
 didn't
 want
 to
 sell
 the
 same
 to
 her
 at
 her
 

offered
price.

Then,
it
so
happened
that
allegedly
the
Andals
sold
the
same
land
to
 Is
section
1
of
Rule
74
constitutive
and
not
merely
evidential
of
partition?
In
other

the
intervenors
instead.

The
intervenors
then
allege
that
Hernandez
was
acting
in
 words,
 is
 writing
 the
 act
 that
 confers
 legal
 validity
 upon
 the
 agreement?
 There

bad
faith
since
it
was
her
delaying
tactics
that
resulted
to
the
delayed
sale
to
the
 are
 no
 indications
 in
 the
 phraseology
 of
 this
 rule
 which
 justify
 an
 affirmative

Andals
and
the
permission
to
undergo
the
same
transaction.


 answer
to
these
questions.
It
must
be
noted
that
where
the
law
intends
a
writing


 or
other
formality
to
be
the
essential
requisite
to
the
validity
of
the
transactions
it

HELD:
 says
 so
 in
 clear
 and
 unequivocal
 terms.
 Thus,
 the
 statute
 of
 frauds
 as
 originally

There
 is
 a
 conflict
 of
 authority
 as
 to
 whether
 an
 agreement
 of
 partition
 is
 such
 a
 enacted
in
England
and
as
enacted
in
some
of
the
states,
uses
the
words
"utterly

contract
 as
 is
 required
 to
 be
 in
 writing
 under
 the
 statute
 of
 frauds.
 One
 line
 of
 void"
with
statute
transactions
required
to
be
in
writing
are
absolutely
void
and

authorities
holds
the
affirmative
view;
other
authorities
say
no.
The
reason
for
the
 not
merely
voidable
if
not
made
in
the
manner
indicated.
Again
article
633
of
the

rule
 that
 excludes
 partition
 from
 the
 operation
 of
 the
 statute
 of
 frauds
 is
 that
 Civil
Code
says
that
donation
may
be
valid
only
when
made
in
a
public
document.

partition
is
not
a
conveyance
but
simply
a
separation
and
designation
of
that
part
 Article
146
of
the
Mortgage
Law
makes
known
its
intention
to
have
the
execution

of
 the
 land
 which
 belongs
 to
 each
 tenant
 in
 common.
 The
 differences
 in
 the
 of
 a
 public
 instrument
 and
 its
 registration
 in
 the
 registry
 indispensable
 to
 the

conclusions
reached
are
"due
perhaps
to
varied
phraseology
of
the
statutes"
in
the
 validity
of
the
contract
by
using
this
phrase:
"in
order
that
voluntary
mortgages

several
 states.
 However
 the
 case
 may
 be,
 as
 enacted
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 first
 in
 may
 be
 legally
 created
 in
 a
 valid
 manner."
 Article
 1765
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code
 also

section
335
of
the
former
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
and
now
in
Rule
123,
section
21,
 employs
for
the
same
purpose
similar
expression
with
reference
to
the
execution

of
the
Rules
of
Court,
the
law
has
been
uniformly
interpreted
in
a
long
line
of
cases
 of
a
public
document:
"in
order
that
mortgage
may
be
validly
constituted."
And

to
be
applicable
to
executory
and
not
to
completed
or
executed
contracts.
In
this
 with
respect
to
the
formalities
of
last
wills
and
testaments,
section
618
of
Act
No.

jurisdiction
performance
of
the
contract
takes
it
out
of
the
operation
of
the
statute.
 190
 makes
 this
 emphatic
 statement:
 "No
 will
 shall
 be
 valid
 to
 pass
 upon
 any

The
statute
of
frauds
does
not
declare
the
contracts
therein
enumerated
void
and




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









23




estate
 real
 or
 personal
 nor
 change
 or
 affect
 the
 same,
 unless
 it
 be
 written
 etc."
 arise
as
to
them,
viz,
the
title
there
and
their
partition,
if
proven
to
belong
to
the

Other
examples
might
be
mentioned.
 intestate,
 can
 be
 properly
 and
 expeditiously
 litigated
 in
 an
 ordinary
 action
 of


 partition.

Section
 1
 of
 Rule
 74
 contains
 no
 such
 express
 or
 clear
 declaration
 that
 the
 

required
 public
 instruments
 is
 to
 be
 constitutive
 of
 a
 contract
 of
 partition
 or
 an
 39
 ARCILLAS
V.
MONTEJO

inherent
element
of
its
effectiveness
as
between
the
parties.
And
this
Court
had
 26
SCRA
197
(1968)


no
apparent
reason,
in
adopting
this
rule,
to
make
the
efficacy
of
a
partition
as
 

between
 the
 parties
 dependent
 on
 the
 execution
 of
 a
 public
 instrument
 and
 its
 FACTS:

registration.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 the
 opposite
 theory
 is
 not
 without
 reasonable
 Geronimo
Arcillas
filed
a
petition
for
the
cancellation
of
title
in
the
name
of
his
late

support.
 We
 can
 think
 of
 possible
 factors
 against
 the
 proposition
 that
 a
 public
 father.
 
 He
 asked
 in
 the
 same
 petition
 that
 the
 title
 to
 the
 property
 reflect
 the

document
and
its
registration
were
contemplated
as
necessary
ingredients
to
give
 shares
 of
 each
 sibling
 laid
 down
 in
 the
 petition.
 
 He
 alleged
 that
 portions
 of
 the

life
to
a
contract
of
partition
so
that
without
them
no
oral
partition
can
bind
the
 land
were
sold
to
Vicente
Arcillas,
also
an
heir.

Petitioner
on
the
other
hand
filed
a

parties.
 petition
for
the
issuance
of
letters
of
administration
for
the
estate,
including
as
one


 of
 the
 properties
 the
 land
 in
 question.
 
 Respondents
 opposed
 this
 on
 the
 ground

38
 TORRES
V.
TORRES
 that
it
was
unnecessary
to
undertake
administrative
proceedings
as
there
was
only

10
SCRA
185
(1964)

 one
property
involved
and
that
there
was
no
debts
payable.


 

FACTS:
 HELD:

One
of
the
children
of
the
decedent
prayed
for
the
letters
of
administration
for
the
 Having
decided
to
institute
administration
proceedings
instead
of
resorting
to
the

estate
of
his
parent.

This
was
opposed
to
by
another
heir
on
the
ground
that
it
was
 less
 expensive
 modes
 of
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate,
 i.e.
 extrajudicial
 settlement
 or

unnecessary
 to
 undergo
 judivcial
 administration
 since
 there
 was
 a
 previously
 ordinary
action
for
partition,
the
heirs
may
not
then
be
rebuffed
in
the
exercise
of

concluded
 extrajudicial
 partition
 amongst
 them.
 
 Petitioner
 doesn't
 deny
 the
 their
discretion
granted
under
section
1
of
Rule
74
of
the
Rules
of
Court
merely
on

existence
 of
 this
 partition
 however,
 he
 alleges
 that
 the
 same
 didn't
 took
 into
 the
ground
that
the
expenses
usually
common
in
administration
proceedings
may

consideration
 some
 valuable
 properties
 of
 the
 decedent
 as
 well
 as
 the
 existing
 deplete
 the
 funds
 of
 the
 estate.
 The
 resultant
 delay
 and
 necessary
 expenses

obligation
left
by
the
same.


 incurred
 thereafter
 are
 consequences
 which
 must
 be
 deemed
 to
 have
 been


 voluntarily
assumed
by
the
heirs
themselves
so
that
they
may
not
in
the
future
be

HELD:
 heard
 to
 complain
 of
 these
 matters.
 Besides,
 the
 truth
 or
 veracity
 of
 petitioner's

This
is
not
to
overlook
the
allegation
that
the
estate
has
an
outstanding
obligation
 claim
as
to
the
alleged
existence
of
other
properties
of
the
deceased
aside
from
the

of
P50,000.00.
It
is
to
be
noted,
however,
that
appellant,
as
heretofore
observed,
 lot
in
question
can
be
more
adequately
ascertained
in
administration
proceedings

did
 not
 specify
 from
 whom
 and
 in
 what
 manner
 the
 said
 debt
 was
 contracted.
 rather
than
in
any
other
action.

Indeed,
 the
 bare
 allegation
 that,
 "the
 estate
 has
 an
 existing
 debt
 of
 P50,000.00
 

from
 third
 persons"
 cannot
 be
 considered
 as
 concise
 statement
 to
 constitute
 a
 Understandably
the
allowance
of
the
hearing
of
the
"cadastral"
motion,
supposedly

cause
of
action.
It
must
be
for
this
reason
that
the
lower
court,
notwithstanding
the
 brought
under
the
authority
of
section
112
of
Act
496,
cannot
be
sustained.
While

existence
of
such
averment
in
appellant's
supplemental
answer
to
the
opposition,
 this
section
authorizes,
among
others,
a
person
in
interest
to
ask
the
court
for
any

dismissed
the
petition
filed
by
said
appellant.
 erasure,
 alteration,
 or
 amendment
 of
 a
 certificate
 of
 title
 "upon
 the
 ground
 that


 registered
 interests
 of
 any
 description,
 whether
 vested,
 contingent,
 expectant,
 or

Nor
does
the
unverified
statement
that
there
are
other
properties
not
included
in
 inchoate
have
terminated
and
ceased,"
and
apparently
the
November
12
petition

the
deed
of
extrajudicial
partition
in
the
possession
of
one
of
the
heirs,
justify
the
 comes
within
its
scope,
such
relief
can
only
be
granted
if
there
is
unanimity
among

institution
 of
 an
 administration
 proceeding
 because
 the
 same
 questions
 that
 may
 the
 parties,
 or
 there
 is
 no
 adverse
 claim
 or
 serious
 objection
 on
 the
 part
 of
 any




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









24




party
in
interest;
otherwise
the
case
becomes
controversial
and
should
be
threshed
 41
 CARREON
V.
AGCAOILI



out
 in
 an
 ordinary
 case
 or
 in
 the
 case
 where
 the
 incident
 properly
 belongs
 (see
 1
SCRA
521
(1961)


Puguid
 v.
 Reyes,
 L‐21311,
 August
 10,
 1967
 and
 the
 cases
 cited
 therein).
 In
 the
 

instant
case
the
obvious
lack
of
unanimity
among
the
parties
in
interest,
manifestly
 FACTS:

demonstrated
by
petitioners'
express
objection
to
the
cancellation
of
TCT
No.
RT‐ When
Bonifacio
Carreon
died,
his
widow
adjudicated
to
herself
the
parcel
of
land

244,
sufficiently
removes
the
November
12
petition
from
the
scope
of
section
112
 which
they
acquired
during
his
lifetime.

She
didn't
disclose
that
she
had
children

of
 Act
 496.
 Besides,
 the
 proceedings
 provided
 in
 the
 Land
 Registration
 Act
 are
 with
Bonifacio.

She
was
granted,
subject
to
the
annotation
in
the
title
of
Section
4,

summary
in
nature
and
hence
inadequate
for
the
litigation
of
issues
which
properly
 Rule
74.

Thereafter,
she
obtained
a
loan
from
the
bank
and
as
security,
mortgaged

pertain
to
the
case
where
the
incident
belongs.
 ½
of
the
land.

She
was
not
able
to
pay
the
loan
on
time
and
looked
for
a
buyer
for


 the
 land.
 
 There
 came
 Agcaoili
 who
 bought
 the
 same.
 
 The
 loan
 was
 paid.,
 the

40
 ERM8C
V.
MEDELO
 mortgage
subsequently
released.



64
SCRA
359
(1975)

 


 
 Consequently,
the
children
of
Celerina
sought
the
annulment
of
the
sale
to
Agcaoili

FACTS:
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 fraud
 employed
 by
 their
 mother
 in
 adjudicating
 the
 land
 to

One
of
the
grandchildren
of
the
deceased
spouses
filed
for
summary
settlement
of
 herself
notwithstanding
that
she
had
children
who
were
also
heirs
to
the
deceased

the
estate.

There
being
no
opposition
thereto,
he
was
ordered
to
make
a
project
 Bonficacio.



of
partition.

The
court
approved
the
same.

However,
a
motion
for
reconsideration
 

was
 filed
 by
 one
 of
 the
 children
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouses,
 alleging
 that
 the
 lot
 in
 HELD:

issue
shouldn't
be
included
in
the
inventory
as
the
same
was
owned
by
him.

The
 On
 the
 transfer
 certificate
 of
 title
 issued
 to
 Agcaoili
 there
 was
 annotated
 a

trial
court
overruled
his
motion
and
decided
in
favor
of
the
summary
settlement.


 statement
that
it
was
subject
to
Section
4,
Rule
74
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
This
was


 an
annotation
carried
over
from
Celerina's
transfer
certificate.
Section
4,
Rule
74,

HELD:
 provides
the
following:

The
policy
of
the
law
is
to
terminate
proceedings
for
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
 

deceased
 persons
 with
 the
 least
 loss
 of
 time.
 This
 is
 specially
 true
 with
 small
 SEC.
 4.
 Liability
 of
 distributees
 and
 estate.
 
 If
 it
 shall
 appear
 at
 any
 time
 within

estates
for
which
the
rules
provide
precisely
a
summary
procedure
dispensing
with
 two
years
after
the
settlement
and
distribution
of
an
estate
in
accordance
with
the

the
 appointment
 of
 an
 administrator
 together
 with
 the
 other
 involved
 and
 provisions
 of
 either
 of
 the
 first
 two
 sections
 of
 this
 rule,
 that
 an
 heir
 or
 other

cumbersome
 steps
 ordinarily
 required
 in
 the
 determination
 of
 the
 assets
 of
 the
 person
has
been
unduly
deprived
of
his
lawful
participation
in
the
estate,
such
heir

deceased
 and
 the
 persons
 entitled
 to
 inhirit
 therefrom
 and
 the
 payment
 of
 his
 or
such
other
person
may
compel
the
settlement
of
the
estate
in
the
courts
in
the

obligations.
Definitely,
the
probate
court
is
not
the
best
forum
for
the
resolution
of
 manner
hereinafter
provided
for
the
purpose
of
satisfying
such
lawful
participation.

adverse
claims
of
ownership
of
any
property
ostensibly
belonging
to
the
decedent's
 And
 if
 within
 the
 same
 time
 of
 two
 years,
 it
 shall
 appear
 that
 there
 are
 debts

estate.
 While
 there
 are
 settled
 exceptions
 to
 this
 rule
 as
 applied
 to
 regular
 outstanding
against
the
estate
which
have
not
been
paid,
or
that
an
heir
or
other

administration
proceedings,
it
is
not
proper
to
delay
the
summary
settlement
of
a
 person
has
been
unduly
deprived
of
his
lawful
participation
payable
in
money,
the

deceased
 person
 just
 because
 an
 heir
 or
 a
 third
 person
 claims
 that
 certain
 court
having
jurisdiction
of
the
estate
may,
by
order
for
that
purpose,
after
hearing,

properties
do
not
belong
to
the
estate
but
to
him.
Such
claim
must
be
ventilated
in
 settle
the
amount
of
such
debts
or
lawful
participation
and
order
how
much
and
in

an
independent
action,
and
the
probate
court
should
proceed
to
the
distribution
of
 what
 manner
 each
 distributee
 shall
 contribute
 in
 the
 payment
 thereof,
 and
 may

the
estate,
if
there
are
no
other
legal
obstacles
to
it,
for
after
all,
such
distribution
 issue
 execution,
 if
 circumstances
 require,
 against
 the
 bond
 provided
 in
 the

must
always
be
subject
to
the
results
of
the
suit.
For
the
protection
of
the
claimant
 preceding
 section
 or
 against
 the
 real
 estate
 belonging
 to
 the
 deceased,
 or
 both.

the
appropriate
step
is
to
have
the
proper
annotation
of
lis
pendens
entered.
 Such
 bond
 and
 such
 real
 estate
 shall
 remain
 charged
 with
 a
 liability
 to
 creditors,






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









25




heirs,
 or
 other
 persons
 for
 the
 full
 period
 of
 two
 years
 after
 such
 distribution,
 the
law
is
that
"there
are
no
debts
.
.
.
or
all
the
debts
have
been
paid
by
the
heirs."

notwithstanding
any
transfers
of
the
real
estate
that
may
have
been
made.
 When
the
condition
is
fulfilled
the
partition
can
take
place,
no
matter
what
stage


 the
 administration
 may
 have
 reached.
 By
 this
 it
 is,
 of
 course,
 not
 meant
 that
 the

The
 above
 lien
 is
 effective
 only
 for
 a
 period
 of
 two
 years.
 From
 September
 28,
 partition
 after
 the
 appointment
 of
 an
 administrator
 will
 interfere
 with
 the
 rights

1946,
 when
 a
 transfer
 certificate
 of
 title
 was
 issued
 to
 Celerina,
 to
 September
 8,
 acquired
 by
 third
 person
 dealing
 with
 said
 administrator
 within
 the
 limits
 of
 his

1949
 when
 the
 deed
 of
 sale
 in
 favor
 of
 Agcaoili
 was
 issued
 and
 registered,
 more
 authority
and
prior
to
the
partition;
nor
that
the
administrator
can
be
deprived
of

than
two
years
had
elapsed
We
sustain
the
lower
court's
opinion
that
thenceforth
 the
 property
 of
 which
 he
 is
 legally
 in
 possession
 without
 proper
 proceedings
 and

the
right
to
have
such
lien
cancelled
became
vested
on
appellee
Agcaoili
and
that
 the
consent
of
the
court.

the
same
had
become
functus
oficio.
And
there
being
no
fraud
in
the
transaction
 

on
the
part
of
appellee,
nor
proof
that
he
knew
of
any
legal
infirmity
in
the
title
of
 As
 we
 have
 already
 indicated,
 the
 basis
 of
 the
 liability
 of
 a
 surety
 on
 an

his
 vendor,
 we
 find
 no
 reason
 to
 apply
 the
 proposition
 that
 he
 is
 deemed
 to
 be
 administrators'
 bond
 is
 the
 fault
 or
 failure
 of
 the
 principal.
 The
 liability
 of
 the

holding
the
land
in
trust
for
the
children
of
Celerina
Dauag.

 principal
precedes
that
of
the
surety.
If
Velasco
incurred
no
liability,
then
his
surety


 incurred
 none.
 The
 question
 that
 naturally
 suggests
 itself
 is,
 then,
 In
 what
 was

42
 MCMICKING
V.
SY
CONBIENG

 Velasco
at
fault
or
in
what
did
he
fail?
When
the
persons
interested
in
the
estate
of

21
Phil
211
(1912)

 Mariano
Ocampo
agreed
voluntarily
upon
a
partition
and
division
of
the
property


 of
said
estate
and
the
actual
partition
followed,
the
matter
passed
out
of
the
hands

FACTS:
 of
Velasco
as
administrator.
The
parties
to
the
partition
stood
invoking
their
rights

Margarita
 Jose
 died
 intestate
 and
 left
 properties
 here
 and
 abroad.
 
 Palanca
 under
section
596
and
597.
Velasco
was
helpless.
He
was
powerless
to
prevent
the

qualified
as
administrator
of
the
estate
and
took
possession
of
all
the
properties
of
 parties
from
taking
the
property
to
which
they
were
entitled
under
the
agreement,

the
decedent.

Ocampo
and
another
served
as
sureties
of
Palanca.

When
Ocampo
 it
 being
 conceded
 that
 they
 were
 actually
 entitled
 thereto
 in
 law.
 Those
 sections

died,
Palanca
was
ordered
to
file
an
additional
bond
in
replacement
of
the
surety
 were
 applicable
 to
 the
 situation
 and
 there
 was
 nothing
 that
 Velasco
 could
 do
 to

given
 by
 Ocampo.
 
 Ocampo’s
 estate
 was
 in
 turn
 administered
 by
 Velasco,
 with
 prevent
 the
 estate
 from
 being
 divided
 according
 to
 their
 provisions.
 In
 giving
 his

several
 persons
 serving
 as
 his
 sureties.
 
 The
 estate
 was
 extrajudicially
 partitioned
 consent
 to
 the
 partition
 and
 in
 assisting
 the
 parties
 to
 obtain
 the
 approval
 of
 the

by
the
heirs
and
they
undertook
to
pay
any
debts
of
the
estate.

Later
on,
Palarca
 court
thereto
he
did
no
wrong.

was
removed
from
office
for
his
refusal
to
render
accounting
of
the
properties
he
 

took
 in
 administration.
 
 McMicking
 took
 his
 stead
 and
 consequently
 filed
 a
 claim
 Moreover,
the
sureties
of
an
administrator
so
appointed
can
not
be
held
liable
for

against
 the
 estate
 of
 Ocampo,
 arising
 allegedly
 from
 the
 surety
 it
 undertook
 for
 property
which
by
force
of
law
has
been
taken
from
the
principal
and
its
ownership

Palarca.


 and
control
turned
over
to
others.
Their
obligation
is
that
their
principal
shall
obey


 the
law
in
the
handling
and
distribution
of
the
estate.
Their
obligation
is
discharged

HELD:
 when
the
estate
is
legally
turned
over
to
those
entitled
thereto.
 The
law
requires

In
the
case
at
the
bar
we
are
of
the
opinion
that,
under
the
broad
and
liberal
policy
 the
principal
to
turn
it
over
to
those
who
bring
themselves
within
the
provisions
of

which
 we
 must
 adopt
 in
 the
 interpretation
 and
 application
 of
 the
 provisions
 section
 596.
 Having
 turned
 over
 the
 whole
 estate
 under
 the
compelling
 power
of

referred
 to,
 the
 decision
 of
 the
 property
 of
 Mariano
 Ocampo,
 deceased,
 in
 the
 the
law,
his
obligation
ceased.
The
responsibility
of
the
sureties
ceased
at
the
same

form,
in
the
manner
and
for
the
purposes
expressed,
falls
within
the
provisions
of
 time.
Without
their
consent
another
obligation
could
not
be
imposed
upon
them
in

said
sections
and
may
be
termed,
therefore,
and
we
hold
it
to
be,
a
partition
of
the
 relation
to
the
same
principal,
and
the
same
property,
or
apart
thereof,
especially

property
 of
 a
 decedent
 without
 legal
 proceedings
 within
 the
 meaning
 of
 those
 after
 the
 lapse
 of
 two
 years.
 Their
 undertaking
 was
 that
 their
 principal
 should

sections.
The
fact
of
the
prior
appointment
of
an
administrator
and
the
filing
of
an
 discharge
one
obligation,
not
two.

inventory
 before
 such
 partition
 is
 of
 no
 consequence
 so
 far
 as
 the
 right
 of
 the
 

owners
to
partition
is
concerned.
The
only
requisite
for
such
petition
prescribed
by




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









26




We
have
not
overlooked
the
contention
that
at
the
time
this
partition
took
place
 174
SCRA
154
(1939)


there
 was
 a
 contingent
 claim
 against
 the
 estate
 partitioned,
 namely,
 the
 claim
 

which
 would
 arise
 on
 the
 contingency
 that
 the
 administrator
 for
 whom
 Mariano
 FACTS:

Ocampo
 was
 surety
 might
 default
 or
 otherwise
 fail
 to
 perform
 his
 duties
 thus
 Pereira
was
an
employee
of
PAL
until
he
died.

he
was
survived
by
his
widow
and

rendering
 Mariano
 Ocampo
 liable
 on
 his
 bond;
 and
 that
 contingent
 claim,
 being
 sister.
 
 His
 sister
 then
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 letters
 of
 administration
 of
 his
 estate.


one
expressly
recognized
by
sections
746
to
749
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
as
a
 Notwithstanding
 opposition
 from
 the
 widow,
 she
 was
 appointed
 as
 administratix.


claim
entirely
proper
to
present,
no
partition
of
this
estate
under
section
596
and
 It
was
the
petitioner’s
contention
that
judicial
administration
is
unnecessary
given

597
 was
 legally
 possible
 until
 such
 claim
 was
 provided
 for
 by
 the
 petitioning
 there
was
no
estate
left
by
the
husband
and
that
no
debts
are
payable.

parties.
 This
 contention
 goes
 upon
 the
 assumption
 that
 a
 partition
 under
 the
 

sections
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure
 so
 often
 referred
 to
 is
 void
 unless
 every
 HELD:

debt
 is
 paid
 or
 provided
 for
 by
 the
 petitioning
 parties,
 and
 may
 therefore
 be
 The
general
rule
is
that
when
a
person
dies
leaving
property,
the
same
should
be

entirely
disregarded
by
the
creditor
holding
a
claim
either
unpaid
or
provided
for.
 judicially
 administered
 and
 the
 competent
 court
 should
 appoint
 a
 qualified

We
 do
 not
 believe
 that
 this
 assumption
 is
 warranted.
 In
 the
 first
 place,
 we
 must
 administrator,
in
the
order
established
in
Section
6,
Rule
78,
in
case
the
deceased

remember
that
the
partition
proceedings
in
question
are
proceedings
out
of
court.
 left
no
will,
or
in
case
he
had
left
one,
should
he
fail
to
name
an
executor
therein.


Consequently
 there
 is
 no
 prescribed
 method
 of
 ascertaining
 and
 settling
 claims.
 An
 exception
 to
 this
 rule
 is
 established
 in
 Section
 1
 of
 Rule
 74.
 
 Under
 this

The
 appointment
 of
 commissioners,
 the
 publication
of
notice
to
creditors,
and
all
 exception,
when
all
the
heirs
are
of
lawful
age
and
there
are
no
debts
due
from
the

the
 other
 proceedings
 necessary
 in
 cases
 of
 administration
 in
 court
 are
 not
 estate,
they
may
agree
in
writing
to
partition
the
property
without
instituting
the

required
in
partition
out
of
court.
The
law
is
silent
as
to
how
the
claims
are
to
be
 judicial
administration
or
applying
for
the
appointment
of
an
administrator.

ascertained,
 presented
 and
 determined.
 We
 must
 assume,
 therefore,
 that
 the
 

method
 of
 ascertaining
 them
 and
 determining
 their
 validity
 was
 left
 to
 the
 good
 Section
1,
Rule
74
of
the
Revised
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 however,
does
 not
 preclude
the

sense
and
sound
judgment
of
the
persons
concerned.
 heirs
from
instituting
administration
proceedings,
even
if
the
estate
has
no
debts
or


 obligations,
if
they
do
not
desire
to
resort
for
good
reasons
to
an
ordinary
action

In
 the
 second
 place,
 it
 must
 be
 on
 served
 that
 express
 provisions
 is
 made
 by
 for
 partition.
 While
 Section
 1
 allows
 the
 heirs
 to
 divide
 the
 estate
 among

sections
596
and
597
for
the
payment
of
a
claim
discovered
by
them
or
presented
 themselves
as
they
may
see
fit,
or
to
resort
to
an
ordinary
action
for
partition,
the

after
the
partition.
That
is
one
of
the
main
provisions.
It
is
a
necessary
deduction,
 said
provision
does
not
compel
them
to
do
so
if
they
have
good
reasons
to
take
a

therefore,
that
it
was
not
the
intention
of
the
law
to
pronounce
the
partition
void
 different
 course
 of
 action.
 It
 should
 be
 noted
 that
 recourse
 to
 an
 administration

of
no
effect
simply
because
not
all
of
the
debts
were
paid
before
the
partition
was
 proceeding
even
if
the
estate
has
no
debts
is
sanctioned
only
if
the
heirs
have
good

made.
The
fact
of
non
payment
cannot,
then,
because
by
the
creditor
as
a
reason
 reasons
 for
 not
 resorting
 to
 an
 action
 for
 partition.
 Where
 partition
 is
 possible,

for
 attacking
 the
 partition
 directly;
 that
 is,
 by
 asserting
 that,
 inasmuch
 as
 a
 either
in
or
out
of
court,
the
estate
should
not
be
burdened
with
an
administration

payment
 of
 all
 the
 debts
 is
 a
 condition
 precedent
 to
 the
 right
 of
 partition,
 such
 proceeding
without
good
and
compelling
reasons.


partition
cannot
legally
and
validly
take
place
while
a
debt
is
outstanding.
While
a
 

partition
 manifestly
 fraudulent
 in
 inception
 and
 result
 might
 possibly
 be
 attacked
 Thus,
it
has
been
repeatedly
held
that
when
a
person
dies
without
leaving
pending

directly
by
an
action
to
set
aside,
a
question
which
we
do
not
discuss
or
decide,
the
 obligations
to
be
paid,
his
heirs,
whether
of
age
or
not,
are
not
bound
to
submit
the

manner
 of
 attacking
 the
 partition
 prescribed
 by
 the
 law
 is
 the
 one,
 generally
 property
to
a
judicial
administration,
which
is
always
long
and
costly,
or
to
apply
for

speaking,
 preferably
 to
 be
 followed;
 and
 that
 is
 to
 throw
 into
 administration
 so
 the
appointment
of
an
administrator
by
the
Court.
It
has
been
uniformly
held
that

much
 of
 the
 estate
 as
 is
 necessary
 to
 pay
 the
 outstanding
 claim.
 The
 method,
 in
 such
 case
 the
 judicial
 administration
 and
 the
 appointment
 of
 an
 administrator

though
indirect,
accomplishes
a
better
result
than
a
direct
attack.
 are
superfluous
and
unnecessary
proceedings.



 

43
 PEREIRA
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









27




Now,
 what
 constitutes
 "good
 reason"
 to
 warrant
 a
 judicial
 administration
 of
 the
 Respondent
 Judge
 acted
 too
 soon.
 The
 verified
 motion
 on
 the
 part
 of
 private

estate
of
a
deceased
when
the
heirs
are
all
of
legal
age
and
there
are
no
creditors
 respondents
 did
 not
 suffice
 to
 call
 into
 play
 the
 power
 of
 respondent
 Judge
 to

will
depend
on
the
circumstances
of
each
case.

 allow
intervention.
There
must
be
proof
beyond
allegations
in
such
motion
to
show


 the
 interest
 of
 the
 private
 movants.
 In
 the
 absence
 thereof,
 the
 action
 taken
 by

44
 JEREZ
V.
NIETES
 respondent
Judge
could
be
considered
premature.

30
SCRA
905
(1969)

 



RULE
75

FACTS:

PRODUCTION
OF
WILL.
ALLOWANCE
OF
WILL
NECESSARY

When
 Nietes
 died,
 his
 widow
 was
 appointed
 as
 administratix
 of
 his
 estate.
 
 She

submitted
duly
a
project
of
partition
and
accounting
and
was
duly
approved
by
the
 

order
 of
 the
 court.
 
 upon
 closing
 of
 the
 intestate
 proceedings,
 here
 came
 the
 Section
 1.
 Allowance
 necessary.
 Conclusive
 as
 to
 execution.
 No
 will
 shall
 pass

illegitimate
children
of
the
deceased
alleging
that
the
partition
was
contrary
to
law
 either
real
or
personal
estate
unless
it
is
proved
and
allowed
in
the
proper
court.

as
they
were
deprived
of
their
respective
shares.

Upon
this
mere
unsubstantiated
 Subject
to
the
right
of
appeal,
such
allowance
of
the
will
shall
be
conclusive
as
to

motion,
the
trial
court
judge
reopened
the
proceedings
hastily.
 its
due
execution.


 

HELD:
 WILL,
DEFINED.

We
do
so
now
and
definitely
hold
that
rather
than
require
any
party
who
can
allege
 • An
act
whereby
a
person
is
permitted,
with
the
formalities
prescribed
by

a
grievance
that
his
interest
was
not
recognized
in
a
testate
or
intestate
proceeding
 law,
 to
 control
 to
 a
 certain
 degree
 the
 disposition
 of
 his
 estate,
 to
 take

to
file
a
separate
and
independent
action,
he
may
within
the
reglementary
period
 effect
after
his
death.

secure
the
relief
that
is
his
due
by
a
reopening
of
the
case
even
after
a
project
of
 

partition
and
final
accounting
had
been
approved.
 Section
2.
Custodian
of
will
to
deliver.

The
person
who
has
custody
of
a
will
shall,


 within
twenty
(20)
days
after
he
knows
of
the
death
of
the
testator,
deliver
the

It
 is
 indisputable
 that
 after
 the
 project
 of
 partition
 and
 final
 accounting
 was
 will
to
the
court
having
jurisdiction,
or
to
the
executor
named
in
the
will.

submitted
 by
 the
 counsel
 for
 petitioner
 Lucrecia
 Jerez,
 as
 administratrix,
 on
 June
 

14,
 1966,
 respondent
 Judge
 approved
 the
 same
 and
 declared
 closed
 and
 Section
3.
Executor
to
present
will
and
accept
or
refuse
trust.
A
person
named
as

terminated
the
intestacy
the
next
day,
June
15,
1966.
Subsequently,
on
a
verified
 executor
 in
 a
 will
 shall,
 within
 twenty
 (20)
 days
 after
 he
 knows
 of
 the
 death
 of

petition
 by
 private
 respondents,
 filed
 on
 June
 29,
 1966,
 based
 on
 the
 assertion
 the
testate,
or
within
twenty
(20)
days
after
he
knows
that
he
is
named
executor

made
 that
 they
 should
 have
 had
 a
 share
 in
 the
 estate
 as
 illegitimate
 children
 but
 if
he
obtained
such
knowledge
after
the
death
of
the
testator,
present
such
will

that
 they
 were
 omitted
 in
 the
 aforesaid
 project
 of
 partition,
 they
 sought
 to
 be
 to
the
court
having
jurisdiction,
unless
the
will
has
reached
the
court
in
any
other

allowed
 to
 intervene
 and
 "to
 have
 the
 project
 of
 partition
 rejected
 for
 being
 manner,
 and
 shall,
 within
 such
 period,
 signify
 to
 the
 court
 in
 writing
 his

contrary
to
law."
Such
a
pleading,
without
more,
resulted
in
the
questioned
order
 acceptance
of
the
trust
or
his
refusal
to
accept
it.

of
July
30,
1966,
reopening
the
proceedings
and
reconsidering
the
approval
of
the
 

project
 of
 partition
 and
 final
 accounting,
 to
 enable
 the
 private
 respondents
 "to
 Section
 4.
 Custodian
 and
 executor
 subject
 to
 fine
 for
 neglect.
 
 A
 person
 who

present
whatever
evidence
they
may
have
to
show
their
right
to
participate
in
the
 neglects
 any
 of
 the
 duties
 required
 in
 the
 two
 last
 preceding
 sections
 without

estate
 of
 the
 deceased."
 Although
 the
 recognition
 of
 their
 right
 to
 intervene
 excused
 satisfactory
 to
 the
 court
 shall
 be
 fined
 not
 exceeding
 two
 thousand

appeared
to
be
tentative
and
conditional,
it
cannot
be
denied
that
they
were
given
 pesos.

a
standing
sufficient
to
set
aside
the
project
of
partition.
 


 Section
5.
Person
retaining
will
may
be
committed.

A
person
having
custody
of
a

will
 after
 the
 death
 of
 the
 testator
 who
 neglects
 without
 reasonable
 cause
 to




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









28




deliver
the
same,
when
ordered
so
to
do,
to
the
court
having
jurisdiction,
may
be
 NATURE
OF
A
PROBATE
PROCEEDING

committed
to
prison
and
there
kept
until
he
delivers
the
will.
 • Kind
of
special
proceeding
sanctioned
under
the
Rules
of
Court


 • It
is
a
proceeding
in
rem,
it
is
binding
on
all
persons
in
interest
whether

they
appear
to
contest
the
probate
or
not

RULE
76

• The
admission
of
will
to
probate
has
all
the
effects
of
a
judgment,
and
is

ALLOWANCE
OR
DISALLOWANCE
OF
WILL

entitled
to
good
faith
and
credit
in
other
courts


 

DEFINITION
OF
PROBATE
 NATURE
OF
PROBATE
ORDERS

• Probate
is
a
special
proceeding
for
establishing
the
validity
of
a
will
 • When
 a
 probate
 order
 has
 been
 issued
 and
 no
 timely
 appeal
 was
 filed,

• It
 seeks
 to
 prove
 that
 instrument
 submitted
 is
 the
 will
 of
 the
 testator,
 the
order
becomes
final
and
binding
upon
the
whole
world

that
 it
 was
 executed
 according
 to
 the
 formalities
 required
 by
 law,
 and
 • Upon
 such
 finality,
 the
 case
 can
 no
 longer
 be
 opened
 for
 petition
 for

that
the
testator
had
the
testamentary
capacity
at
the
time
of
execution
 annulment
of
the
will


 

KINDS
OF
PROBATE
PROCEEDINGS
 PURPOSE
OF
PROBATE
PROCEEDINGS

1. Post‐mortem
 where
 the
 proceedings
 are
 held
 after
 the
 death
 of
 the
 • Probate
courts
have
limited
jurisdiction

testator
 • Main
purpose
of
the
proceedings
is
to
determine
the
following—

2. Ante‐mortem
 where
 the
 testator
 tests
 the
 validity
 of
 his
 will
 before
 the
 o Identity
of
the
will

probate
court
during
his
lifetime
 o Testamentary
capacity
of
the
testator


 o Compliance
 of
 the
 will
 itself
 with
 the
 formalities
 required
 by

ADVANTAGES
OF
ANTE‐MORTEM
PROCEEDINGS
 law

1. Fraud,
 intimidation,
 and
 undue
 influence
 are
 minimized
 because
 the
 • Once
 these
 three
 things
 have
 been
 established,
 then
 the
 court
 issues
 a

courts
will
have
an
easier
time
determining
the
mental
condition
of
a
live
 probate
order

testator
than
a
dead
one
 • The
probate
order
then
has
limited
jurisdiction
to
determine
what
may
or

2. If
 the
 will
 doesn't
 comply
 with
 the
 requirements
 of
 law,
 it
 can
 be
 may
not
be
included
in
the
inventory
of
the
testator’s
estate

corrected
immediately
 • The
issue
of
ownership
is
determined
provisionally
by
the
probate
court

3. If
probated
during
the
lifetime
of
the
testator,
the
only
question
left
after
 in
order
to
give
effect
to
the
will

the
testator’s
death
would
be
the
intrinsic
validity
of
the
dispositions
 


 WHEN
JURISDICTION
VEST

QUESTIONS
TO
BE
DETERMINED
BY
THE
PROBATE
COURT
 • Upon
filing
of
petition
for
probate

1. Question
of
identity
of
the
will
 

2. Question
of
the
due
execution
of
the
will
in
accordance
with
formalities

required
by
law

3. Question
of
testamentary
capacity



NECESSITY
FOR
PROBATE

• Certain
safeguards
must
be
in
place
to
prevent
forgery
and
other
acts
of

unscrupulous
individuals
and
at
the
same
time,
to
insure
that
the
testator

understood
and
meant
what
he
placed
in
the
will






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









29




Section
1.
Who
may
petition
for
the
allowance
of
will.

Any
executor,
devisee,
or

legatee
named
in
a
will,
or
any
other
person
interested
in
the
estate,
may,
at
any

time
after
the
death
of
the
testator,
petition
the
court
having
jurisdiction
to
have

the
 will
 allowed,
 whether
 the
 same
 be
 in
 his
 possession
 or
 not,
 or
 is
 lost
 or

destroyed.



The
testator
himself
may,
during
his
lifetime,
petition
the
court
for
the
allowance

of
his
will.



WHO
MAY
FILE
A
PETITION
FOR
PROBATE
OF
A
WILL

1. Testator
during
an
ante‐mortem
probate

2. Legatees
or
devisees

3. Heirs

4. Any
other
person
interested
in
the
estate



ANY
 DEFECT
 IN
 THE
 PETITION
 SHALL
 NOT
 RENDER
 THE
 DISALLOWANCE
 OF
 THE

WILL

• The
 rules
 provide
 that
 no
 defect
 in
 the
 petition
 shall
 render
 void
 the

allowance
 of
 the
 will,
 or
 the
 issuance
 of
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 of

administration
with
the
will
annexed

• If
there
is
any
defect,
then
the
court
would
just
order
the
parties
to
make

the
necessary
amendments



Section
2.
Contents
of
petition.

A
petition
for
the
allowance
of
a
will
must
show,

so
far
as
known
to
the
petitioner:



(a)
The
jurisdictional
facts;



(b)
 The
 names,
 ages,
 and
 residences
 of
 the
 heirs,
 legatees,
 and
 devisees
 of
 the

testator
or
decedent;



(c)
The
probable
value
and
character
of
the
property
of
the
estate;



(d)
The
name
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
are
prayed;



(e)
If
the
will
has
not
been
delivered
to
the
court,
the
name
of
the
person
having

custody
of
it.








MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









30




But
 no
 defect
 in
 the
 petition
 shall
 render
 void
 the
 allowance
 of
 the
 will,
 or
 the
 Section
5.
Proof
at
hearing.
What
sufficient
in
absence
of
contest.

At
the
hearing

issuance
of
letters
testamentary
or
of
administration
with
the
will
annexed.
 compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
last
two
preceding
sections
must
be
shown


 before
 the
 introduction
 of
 testimony
 in
 support
 of
 the
 will.
 All
 such
 testimony

PETITION
FOR
PROBATE
CONTAINS
THE
FOLLOWING
 shall
be
taken
under
oath
and
reduced
to
writing.
It
no
person
appears
to
contest

1. The
jurisdictional
facts;
 the
 allowance
 of
 the
 will,
 the
 court
 may
 grant
 allowance
 thereof
 on
 the

2. The
 names,
 ages,
 and
 residences
 of
 the
 heirs,
 legatees,
 and
 devisees
 of
 testimony
of
one
of
the
subscribing
witnesses
only,
if
such
witness
testify
that
the

the
testator
or
decedent;
 will
was
executed
as
is
required
by
law.

3. The
probable
value
and
character
of
the
property
of
the
estate;
 

4. The
name
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
are
prayed;
 In
 the
 case
 of
 a
 holographic
 will,
 it
 shall
 be
 necessary
 that
 at
 least
 one
 witness

5. If
 the
 will
 has
 not
 been
 delivered
 to
 the
 court,
 the
 name
 of
 the
 person
 who
knows
the
handwriting
and
signature
of
the
testator
explicitly
declare
that

having
custody
of
it.
 the
will
and
the
signature
are
in
the
handwriting
of
the
testator.
In
the
absence
of


 any
such
competent
witness,
and
if
the
court
deem
it
necessary,
expert
testimony

Section
3.
Court
to
appoint
time
for
proving
will.
Notice
thereof
to
be
published.

 may
be
resorted
to.

When
a
will
is
delivered
to,
or
a
petition
for
the
allowance
of
a
will
is
filed
in,
the
 

court
having
jurisdiction,
such
court
shall
fix
a
time
and
place
for
proving
the
will
 IF
THE
NOTARIAL
WILL
IS
UNCONTESTED,
HOW
MANY
SUBSCRIBING
WITNESSES

when
all
concerned
may
appear
to
contest
the
allowance
thereof,
and
shall
cause
 ARE
NEEDED
TO
TESTIFY?

notice
 of
 such
 time
 and
 place
 to
 be
 published
 three
 (3)
 weeks
 successively,
 • Only
one
subscribing
witness
may
testify
if
the
will
is
uncontested

previous
 to
 the
 time
 appointed,
 in
 a
 newspaper
 of
 general
 circulation
 in
 the
 • If
the
will
is
contested,
all
subscribing
witnesses
must
testify

province.
 


 WITH
RESPECT
TO
HOLOGRAPHIC
WILLS,
HOW
MANY
WITNESSES
MUST
TESTIFY?

But
no
newspaper
publication
shall
be
made
where
the
petition
for
probate
has
 • At
 least
 one
 witness
 who
 knows
 the
 handwriting
 and
 signature
 of
 the

been
filed
by
the
testator
himself.
 testator
 explicitly
 declaring
 that
 the
 will
 and
 signature
 are
 in
 the


 handwriting
of
the
testator

Section
 4.
 Heirs,
 devisees,
 legatees,
 and
 executors
 to
 be
 notified
 by
 mail
 or
 • In
 the
 absence
 of
 such
 competent
 witness
 and/or
 if
 the
 court
 deems
 it

personally.
The
court
shall
also
cause
copies
of
the
notice
of
the
time
and
place
 necessary,
expert
testimony
may
be
resorted
to

fixed
for
proving
the
will
to
be
addressed
to
the
designated
or
other
known
heirs,
 

legatees,
and
devisees
of
the
testator
resident
in
the
Philippines
at
their
places
of
 Section
6.
Proof
of
lost
or
destroyed
will.
Certificate
thereupon.

No
will
shall
be

residence,
and
deposited
in
the
post
office
with
the
postage
thereon
prepaid
at
 proved
as
a
lost
or
destroyed
will
unless
the
execution
and
validity
of
the
same

least
twenty
(20)
days
before
the
hearing,
if
such
places
of
residence
be
known.
A
 be
established,
and
the
will
is
proved
to
have
been
in
existence
at
the
time
of
the

copy
 of
 the
 notice
 must
 in
 like
 manner
 be
 mailed
 to
 the
 person
 named
 as
 death
 of
 the
 testator,
 or
 is
 shown
 to
 have
 been
 fraudulently
 or
 accidentally

executor,
if
he
be
not
the
petitioner;
also,
to
any
person
named
as
coexecutor
not
 destroyed
 in
 the
 lifetime
 of
 the
 testator
 without
 his
 knowledge,
 nor
 unless
 its

petitioning,
 if
 their
 places
 of
 residence
 be
 known.
 Personal
 service
 of
 copies
 of
 provisions
are
clearly
and
distinctly
proved
by
at
least
two
(2)
credible
witnesses.

the
 notice
 at
 lest
 (10)
 days
 before
 the
 day
 of
 hearing
 shall
 be
 equivalent
 to
 When
 a
 lost
 will
 is
 proved,
 the
 provisions
 thereof
 must
 be
 distinctly
 stated
 and

mailing.
 certified
 by
 the
 judge,
 under
 the
 seal
 of
 the
 court,
 and
 the
 certificate
 must
 be


 filed
and
recorded
as
other
wills
are
filed
and
recorded.

If
the
testator
asks
for
the
allowance
of
his
own
will,
notice
shall
be
sent
only
to
 

his
compulsory
heirs.
 Section
 7.
 Proof
 when
 witnesses
 do
 not
 reside
 in
 province.
 
 If
 it
 appears
 at
 the


 time
 fixed
 for
 the
 hearing
 that
 none
 of
 the
 subscribing
 witnesses
 resides
 in
 the

province,
but
that
the
deposition
of
one
or
more
of
them
can
be
taken
elsewhere,




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









31




the
 court
 may,
 on
 motion,
 direct
 it
 to
 be
 taken,
 and
 may
 authorize
 a
 GROUNDS
FOR
DISALLOWANCE

photographic
copy
of
the
will
to
be
made
and
to
be
presented
to
the
witness
on
 1. Non‐compliance

his
examination,
who
may
be
asked
the
same
questions
with
respect
to
it,
and
to
 2. Insanity
or
mentally
incapable

the
handwriting
of
the
testator
and
others,
as
would
be
pertinent
and
competent
 3. Duress
or
fear

if
the
original
will
were
present.
 4. Undue
influence


 5. Fraud

Section
8.
Proof
when
witnesses
dead
or
insane
or
do
not
reside
in
the
Philippines.

 

If
the
appears
at
the
time
fixed
for
the
hearing
that
the
subscribing
witnesses
are
 Section
 10.
 Contestant
 to
 file
 grounds
 of
 contest.
 
 Anyone
 appearing
 to
 contest

dead
 or
 insane,
 or
 thatnone
 of
 them
 resides
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 the
 court
 may
 the
will
must
state
in
writing
his
grounds
for
opposing
its
allowance,
and
serve
a

admit
 the
 testimony
 of
 other
 witnesses
 to
 prove
 the
 sanity
 of
 the
 testator,
 and
 copy
thereof
on
the
petitioner
and
other
parties
interested
in
the
estate.

the
due
execution
of
the
will;
and
as
evidence
of
the
execution
of
the
will,
it
may
 

admit
proof
of
the
handwriting
of
the
testator
and
of
the
subscribing
witnesses,
 Section
 11.
 Subscribing
 witnesses
 produced
 or
 accounted
 for
 where
 will

or
of
any
of
them.
 contested.
If
the
will
is
contested,
all
the
subscribing
witnesses,
and
the
notary
in


 the
case
of
wills
executed
under
the
Civil
Code
of
the
Philippines,
if
present
in
the

STAGES
OF
A
PROBATE
PROCEEDING
 Philippines
 and
 not
 insane,
 must
 be
 produced
 and
 examined,
 and
 the
 death,

1. Probate
 proper
 where
 the
 court
 determines
 the
 existence
 of
 absence,
or
insanity
of
any
of
them
must
be
satisfactorily
shown
to
the
court.
If

testamentary
capacity,
due
execution
and
identity
of
the
will
 all
 or
 some
 of
 such
 witnesses
 are
 present
 in
 the
 Philippines
 but
 outside
 the

2. The
court
shall
then
issue
an
order
allowing
the
will
 province
where
the
will
has
been
filed,
their
deposition
must
be
taken.
If
any
or

3. Second
 stage
 is
 the
 distribution,
 where
 for
 the
 purposes
 of
 judicial
 all
 of
 them
 testify
 against
 the
 due
 execution
 of
 the
 will,
 or
 do
 not
 remember

orderliness,
the
will
must
be
enforced
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
 having
 attested
 to
 it,
 or
 are
 otherwise
 of
 doubtful
 credibility,
 the
 will
 may

of
 the
 will
 so
 long
 as
 the
 will
 doesn't
 violate
 the
 law,
 especially
 the
 nevertheless,
 be
 allowed
 if
 the
 court
 is
 satisfied
 from
 the
 testimony
 of
 other

provisions
on
legitime
and
the
qualifications
of
the
beneficiary
to
succeed
 witnesses
 and
 from
 all
 the
 evidence
 presented
 that
 the
 will
 was
 executed
 and


 attested
in
the
manner
required
by
law.

Section
9.
Grounds
for
disallowing
will.
The
will
shall
be
disallowed
in
any
of
the
 

following
cases:
 If
 a
 holographic
 will
 is
 contested,
 the
 same
 shall
 be
 allowed
 if
 at
 least
 three
 (3)


 witnesses
 who
 know
 the
 handwriting
 of
 the
 testator
 explicitly
 declare
 that
 the

(a)
If
not
executed
and
attested
as
required
by
law;
 will
 and
 the
 signature
 are
 in
 the
 handwriting
 of
 the
 testator;
 in
 the
 absence
 of


 any
 competent
 witnesses,
 and
 if
 the
 court
 deem
 it
 necessary,
 expert
 testimony

(b)
If
the
testator
was
insane,
or
otherwise
mentally
incapable
to
make
a
will,
at
 may
be
resorted
to.

the
time
of
its
execution;
 


 Section
 12.
 Proof
 where
 testator
 petitions
 for
 allowance
 of
 holographic
 will.

(c)
If
it
was
executed
under
duress,
or
the
influence
of
fear,
or
threats;
 Where
the
testator
himself
petitions
for
the
probate
of
his
holographic
will
and


 no
 contest
 is
 filed,
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 affirms
 that
 the
 holographic
 will
 and
 the

(d)
If
it
was
procured
by
undue
and
improper
pressure
and
influence,
on
the
part
 signature
 are
 in
 his
 own
 handwriting,
 shall
 be
 sufficient
 evidence
 of
 the

of
the
beneficiary,
or
of
some
other
person
for
his
benefit;
 genuineness
and
due
execution
thereof.
If
the
holographic
will
is
contested,
the


 burden
of
disproving
the
genuineness
and
due
execution
thereof
shall
be
on
the

(e)
If
the
signature
of
the
testator
was
procured
by
fraud
or
trick,
and
he
did
not
 contestant.
The
testator
to
rebut
the
evidence
for
the
contestant.

intend
 that
 the
 instrument
 should
 be
 his
 will
 at
 the
 time
 of
 fixing
 his
 signature
 

thereto.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









32




Section
13.
Certificate
of
allowance
attached
to
prove
will.
To
be
recorded
in
the
 

Office
 of
 Register
 of
 Deeds.
 If
 the
 court
 is
 satisfied,
 upon
 proof
 taken
 and
 filed,
 FACTS:

that
the
will
was
duly
executed,
and
that
the
testator
at
the
time
of
its
execution
 Mercado
sought
the
probate
of
the
will
of
his
late
wife.

The
will
was
duly
probated

was
 of
 sound
 and
 disposing
 mind,
 and
 not
 acting
 under
 duress,
 menace,
 and
 and
five
years
after
said
proceedings,
the
five
intervenors
filed
for
the
reopening
of

undue
influence,
or
fraud,
a
certificate
of
its
allowance,
signed
by
the
judge,
and
 the
proceedings.

Their
motion
was
denied.

Thereafter,
they
filed
on
four
different

attested
 by
 the
 seal
 of
 the
 court
 shall
 be
 attached
 to
 the
 will
 and
 the
 will
 and
 instances
 the
 same
 complaint
 for
 alleged
 forgery
 and
 falsification
 employed
 by

certificate
filed
and
recorded
by
the
clerk.
Attested
copies
of
the
will
devising
real
 Mercado.

This
prompted
Mercado
to
be
imprisoned
and
had
to
file
for
bail
several

estate
and
of
certificate
of
allowance
thereof,
shall
be
recorded
in
the
register
of
 times.

He
then
filed
for
injunction
with
the
appellate
court.

deeds
of
the
province
in
which
the
lands
lie.
 


 HELD:

45
 FERNANDEZ
V.
DIMAGIBA
 The
 probate
 of
 a
 will
 by
 the
 probate
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 thereof
 is
 usually


 21
SCRA
428
 considered
as
conclusive
as
to
its
due
execution
and
validity,
and
is
also
conclusive


 that
the
testator
was
of
sound
and
disposing
mind
at
the
time
when
he
executed

FACTS:
 the
will,
and
was
not
acting
under
duress,
menace,
fraud,
or
undue
influence,
and

Dimagiba
 submitted
 a
 petition
 for
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 the
 late
 delos
 Reyes,
 that
the
will
is
genuine
and
not
a
forgery.

instituting
the
former
as
the
sole
heir.

Opposition
was
later
entered
by
Fernandez
 

and
 others.
 
 They
 alleged
 themselves
 to
 be
 intestate
 heirs
 and
 they
 oppose
 the
 The
 probate
 of
 a
 will
 in
 this
 jurisdiction
 is
 a
 proceeding
 in
 rem.
 The
 provision
 of

probate
 on
 grounds
 of
 forgery
 amongst
 others.
 
 They
 were
 overruled
 and
 the
 notice
 by
 Publication
 as
 a
 prerequisite
 to
 the
 allowance
 of
 a
 will
 is
 constructive

probate
was
allowed.

They
later
introduce
evidence
that
the
will
was
revoked
by
 notice
to
the
whole
world,
and
when
probate
is
granted,
the
judgment
of
the
court

alleged
deeds
of
sale
executed
allegedly
by
the
testatrix
but
again,
the
probate
was
 is
binding
upon
everybody,
even
against
the
State.

upheld.

They
tried
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
trial
court
but
the
appellate
court
 

held
that
the
probate
had
become
final
due
to
lack
of
opportune
appeal
from
the
 47
 SUMILANG
V.
RAMAGOSA

oppositors.


 
 21
SCRA
1369


 

HELD:
 FACTS:

As
to
the
first
point,
oppositors‐appellants
contend
that
the
order
allowing
the
will
 Sumilang
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 decedent
 Ramagosa,
 wherein
 the

to
probate
should
be
considered
interlocutory,
because
it
fails
to
resolve
the
issues
 former
 was
 the
 sole
 heir
 to
 the
 estate.
 
 The
 probate
 was
 opposed
 by
 the

of
estoppel
and
revocation
propounded
in
their
opposition.
The
appellant's
stand
is
 respondents
alleging
that
the
will
was
made
under
duress
and
not
intended
to
be

untenable.
It
is
elementary
that
a
probate
decree
finally
and
definitively
settles
all
 the
 decedent’s
 last
 will
 and
 testament.
 
 When
 the
 petitioner
 finished
 adducing

questions
 concerning
 capacity
 of
 the
 testator
 and
 the
 proper
 execution
 and
 evidence
 on
 his
 behalf,
 the
 oppositors
 didn’t
 adduce
 their
 own
 but
 instead,
 they

witnessing
of
his
last
will
and
testament,
irrespective
of
whether
its
provisions
are
 moved
for
the
dismissal
of
the
probate
proceedings,
alleging
that
the
court
didn’t

valid
 and
 enforceable
 or
 otherwise.
 As
 such,
 the
 probate
 order
 is
 final
 and
 have
jurisdiction
as
the
will
was
allegedly
revoked
by
law
when
the
decedent
sold

appealable;
and
it
is
so
recognized
by
express
provisions
of
Section
1
of
Rule
109,
 the
parcels
of
land,
subject
of
the
will,
to
petitioners.

The
motion
was
denied
on

that
 specifically
 prescribes
 that
 "any
 interested
 person
 may
 appeal
 in
 special
 the
ground
that
it
goes
into
the
intrinsic
value
of
the
will,
which
the
probate
court

proceedings
 from
 an
 order
 or
 judgment
 .
 .
 .
 where
 such
 order
 or
 judgment:
 (a)
 doesn’t
have
jurisdiction
to
settle.



allows
or
disallows
a
will."
 


 HELD:

46
 MERCADO
V.
SANTOS
 The
 petition
 below
 being
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 a
 will,
 the
 court's
 area
 of
 inquiry
 is


 66
SCRA
215
 limited
 to
 the
 extrinsic
 validity
 thereof.
 The
 testator's
 testamentary
 capacity
 and




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









33




the
compliance
with
the
formal
requisites
or
solemnities
prescribed
by
law
are
the
 acted
 correctly
 in
 passing
 upon
 the
 will's
 intrinsic
 validity
 even
 before
 its
 formal

only
 questions
 presented
 for
 the
 resolution
 of
 the
 court.
 Any
 inquiry
 into
 the
 validity
had
been
established.
The
probate
of
a
will
might
become
an
idle
ceremony

intrinsic
validity
or
efficacy
of
the
provisions
of
the
will
or
the
legality
of
any
devise
 if
 on
 its
 face
 it
 appears
 to
 be
 intrinsically
 void.
 Where
 practical
 considerations

or
legacy
is
premature.
 demand
 that
 the
 intrinsic
 validity
 of
 the
 will
 be
 passed
 upon,
 even
 before
 it
 is


 probated,
the
court
should
meet
the
issue.

Oppositors
 would
 want
 the
 court
 a
 quo
 to
 dismiss
 petition
 for
 probate
 on
 the
 

ground
that
the
testator
had
impliedly
revoked
his
will
by
selling,
prior
to
his
death,
 It
 was
 wrong
 however
 for
 the
 probate
 court
 to
 convert
 the
 proceedings
 into
 an

the
lands
disposed
of
therein.
 intestate
 one.
 
 The
 rule
 is
 that
 "the
 invalidity
 of
 one
 of
 several
 dispositions


 contained
in
a
will
does
not
result
in
the
invalidity
of
the
other
dispositions,
unless

True
 or
 not,
 the
 alleged
 sale
 is
 no
 ground
 for
 the
 dismissal
 of
 the
 petition
 for
 it
is
to
be
presumed
that
the
testator
would
not
have
made
such
other
dispositions

probate.
Probate
is
one
thing
the
validity
of
the
testamentary
provisions
is
another.

 if
 the
 first
 invalid
 disposition
 had
 not
 been
 made"
 (Art.
 792,
 Civil
 Code).
 "Where

The
first
decides
the
execution
of
the
document
and
the
testamentary
capacity
of
 some
of
the
provisions
of
a
will
are
valid
and
others
invalid,
the
valid
parts
will
be

the
testator;
the
second
relates
to
descent
and
distribution.
 upheld
if
they
can
be
separated
from
the
invalid
without
defeating
the
intention
of


 the
testator
or
interfering
with
the
general
testamentary
scheme,
or
doing
injustice

48
 BALANAY
V.
MARTINEZ
 to
the
beneficiaries"


 64
SCRA
452
 


 49
 PASTOR
V.
COURT
OF
APPEALS

FACTS:
 
 122
SCRA
885

Balanay
Jr.
filed
a
petition
for
the
probate
of
the
will
of
his
late
mother,
which
was
 

opposed
by
his
father
and
siblings.

The
father
claims
to
have
been
preterited
and
 FACTS:

that
 there
 was
 an
 illegal
 partition
 of
 the
 conjugal
 properties.
 
 Balanay
 Jr.
 then
 Pastor
 Sr.
 died
 and
 was
 survived
 by
 his
 wife,
 who
 later
 also
 died,
 2
 legitimate

presented
documents
allegedly
executed
by
the
father
withdrawing
any
opposition
 children—Pastor
 Jr.,
 and
 Sofia,
 and
 one
 illegitimate
 child
 Quemada
 Pastor
 Jr.


to
 the
 probate
 proceedings
 as
 well
 as
 the
 renunciation
 of
 whatever
 share
 in
 the
 Quemada
Pastor
Jr.
sought
the
probate
of
the
alleged
holographic
will
of
his
father.


estate
 of
 his
 late
 wife.
 
 The
 opposition
 was
 then
 overruled
 by
 the
 court
 and
 The
 will
 contained
 only
 one
 testamentary
 disposition:
 a
 legacy
 in
 favor
 of

proceedings
continued.

However,
during
the
proceedings,
one
who
was
allegedly
 QUEMADA
consisting
of
30%
of
PASTOR,
SR.'s
42%
share
in
the
operation
by
Atlas

Balanay’s
new
counsel
filed
a
motion
for
the
dismissal
of
the
probate
proceedings
 Consolidated
Mining
and
Development
Corporation
(ATLAS)
of
some
mining
claims

on
the
ground
that
the
will
is
void
for
illegally
partitioning
the
conjugal
assets
and
 in
Cebu.

He
was
subsequently
appointed
as
the
special
administrator
of
the
estate

constituted
a
compromise
on
future
legitime.

The
motion
included
that
the
testate
 and
 by
 purview
 of
 this
 authority,
 he
 instituted
 actions
 against
 Pastor
 Jr.
 for
 the

proceedings
 should
 be
 dismissed
 and
 replaced
 with
 an
 intestate
 one.
 
 The
 court
 reconveyance
 of
 some
 properties
 of
 the
 estate,
 which
 covers
 the
 legacy

sustained
the
motion
and
dismissed
the
proceedings.

Balanay
Jr.
then
averred
that
 bequeathed
 to
 Quemada.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 by
 Pastor
 Jr.
 and
 his
 wife
 but
 was

he
 didn’t
 authorized
 Montinolla
 to
 file
 the
 same
 motion
 and
 that
 the
 court
 overruled.

Probate
proceedings
commenced
and
Quemada
kept
on
asking
for
the

shouldn’t
dismiss
the
proceedings.

The
trial
court
held
that
it
didn’t
decide
solely
 payment
of
his
legacies.

on
the
basis
of
the
motion
filed
but
due
to
the
reading
of
the
provisions
of
the
will
 

itself.

 While
the
reconveyance
suit
was
still
pending,
the
PROBATE
COURT
issued
the
now


 assailed
Order
of
Execution
and
Garnishment,
resolving
the
question
of
ownership

HELD:
 of
the
royalties
payable
by
ATLAS
and
ruling
in
effect
that
the
legacy
to
QUEMADA

In
view
of
certain
unusual
provisions
of
the
will,
which
are
of
dubious
legality,
and
 was
not
inofficious.


because
of
the
motion
to
withdraw
the
petition
for
probate
(which
the
lower
court
 

assumed
 to
 have
 been
 filed
 with
 the
 petitioner's
 authorization),
 the
 trial
 court




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









34




The
order
found
that
as
per
the
holographic
will
and
a
written
acknowledgment
of
 estate
 of
 the
 testator,"
 which
 clearly
 implies
 that
 the
 issue
 of
 impairment
 of

Pastor,
Jr.
of
the
above
60%
interest
in
the
mining
claims
belonging
to
the
Pastor
 legitime
(an
aspect
of
intrinsic
validity)
was
in
fact
not
resolved.
Finally,
the
Probate

Group,
 42%
 belonged
 to
 Pastor,
 Sr.
 and
 only
 33%
 belonged
 to
 Pastor,
 Jr.
 The
 Order
 did
 not
 rule
 on
 the
 propriety
 of
 allowing
 Quemada
 to
 remain
 as
 special

remaining
25%
belonged
to
E.
Pelaez,
also
of
the
Pastor
Group.
The
probate
court
 administrator
of
estate
properties
not
covered
by
the
holographic
will,
"considering

thus
directed
ATLAS
to
remit
directly
to
Quemada
the
42%
royalties
due
decedent's
 that
this
(Probate)
Order
should
have
been
properly
issued
solely
as
a
resolution
on

estate,
of
which
Quemada
was
authorized
to
retain
75%
for
himself
as
legatee
and
 the
issue
of
whether
or
not
to
allow
and
approve
the
aforestated
will.
"

to
deposit
25%
with
a
reputable
banking
institution
for
payment
of
the
estate
taxes
 

and
 other
 obligations
 of
 the
 estate.
 The
 33%
 share
 of
 PASTOR,
 JR.
 and/or
 his
 It
was,
therefore,
error
for
the
assailed
implementing
Orders
to
conclude
that
the

assignees
 was
 ordered
 garnished
 to
 answer
 for
 the
 accumulated
 legacy
 of
 Probate
 Order
 adjudged
 with
 finality
 the
 question
 of
 ownership
 of
 the
 mining

Quemada
from
the
time
of
Pastor,
Sr.'s
death,
which
amounted
to
over
two
million
 properties
 and
 royalties,
 and
 that,
 premised
 on
 this
 conclusion,
 the
 dispositive

pesos.
 portion
 of
 the
 said
 Probate
 Order
 directed
 the
 special
 administrator
 to
 pay
 the


 legacy
in
dispute.

The
order
being
"immediately
executory",
Quemada
succeeded
in
obtaining
a
Writ
 

of
Execution
and
Garnishment.

Pastor
Jr.
sought
reconsideration.


 With
 respect
 to
 the
 intrinsic
 validity
 of
 the
 will,
 there
 was
 no
 appropriate


 determination,
 much
 less
 payment,
 of
 the
 debts
 of
 the
 decedent
 and
 his
 estate.

HELD:
 Nor
 had
 the
 estate
 tax
 been
 determined
 and
 paid,
 or
 at
 least
 provided
 for,
 as
 of

In
a
special
proceeding
for
the
probate
of
a
will,
the
issue
by
and
large
is
restricted
 December
 5,
 1972.
 
 The
 net
 assets
 of
 the
 estate
 not
 having
 been
 determined,

to
the
extrinsic
validity
of
the
will,
i.e.,
whether
the
testator,
being
of
sound
mind,
 therefore,
 the
 legitime
 of
 the
 forced
 heirs
 in
 concrete
 figures
 could
 not
 be

freely
executed
the
will
in
accordance
with
the
formalities
prescribed
by
law.
As
a
 ascertained.
 
 All
 the
 foregoing
 deficiencies
 considered,
 it
 was
 not
 possible
 to

rule,
 the
question
 of
 ownership
 is
 an
 extraneous
matter
 which
the
 Probate
 Court
 determine
 whether
 the
 legacy
 of
 Quemada
 ‐
 a
 fixed
 share
 in
 a
 specific
 property

cannot
resolve
with
finality.
Thus,
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
a
certain
 rather
 than
 an
 aliquot
 part
 of
 the
 entire
 net
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 ‐
 would

property
should
or
should
not
be
included
in
the
inventory
of
estate
properties,
the
 produce
an
impairment
of
the
legitime
of
the
compulsory
heirs.

Probate
 Court
 may
 pass
 upon
 the
 title
 thereto,
 but
 such
 determination
 is
 

provisional,
not
conclusive,
and
is
subject
to
the
final
decision
in
a
separate
action
 Finally,
 there
 actually
 was
 no
 determination
 of
 the
 intrinsic
 validity
 of
 the
 will
 in

to
resolve
title.
 other
respects.
It
was
obviously
for
this
reason
that
as
late
as
March
5,
1980
‐
more


 than
 7
 years
 after
 the
 Probate
 Order
 was
 issued
 the
 Probate
 Court
 scheduled
 on

Nowhere
 in
 the
 dispositive
 portion
 is
 there
 a
 declaration
 of
 ownership
 of
 specific
 March
25,
1980
a
hearing
on
the
intrinsic
validity
of
the
will.


properties.
On
the
contrary,
it
is
manifest
therein
that
ownership
was
not
resolved.
 

For
it
confined
itself
to
 the
question
of
extrinsic
validity
of
the
win,
and
the
need
 50
 US
V.
CHIU
GUIMOO

for
 and
 propriety
 of
 appointing
 a
 special
 administrator.
 Thus
 it
 allowed
 and
 
 36
PHIL
917

approved
 the
 holographic
 win
 "with
 respect
 to
 its
 extrinsic
 validity,
 the
 same
 

having
 been
 duly
 authenticated
 pursuant
 to
 the
 requisites
 or
 solemnities
 FACTS:

prescribed
by
law."
It
declared
that
the
intestate
estate
administration
aspect
must
 Joaquin
 Cruz
 was
 a
 wealthy
 Chinese
 merchant
 who
 resided
 permanently
 in
 a

proceed
 "
 subject
 to
 the
 outcome
 of
 the
 suit
 for
 reconveyance
 of
 ownership
 and
 certain
municipality.

When
he
visited
China,
he
married
Uy
Chuan
and
had
a
child

possession
of
real
and
personal
properties
in
Civil
Case
274‐T
before
Branch
IX
of
 with
 her.
 
 When
 he
 returned,
 he
 then
 met
 Maria
 who
 he
 also
 married.
 
 He
 then

the
CFI
of
Cebu."
Then
again,
the
Probate
Order
(while
indeed
it
does
not
direct
the
 decided
to
return
to
China
but
he
wasn’t
able
to
come
back
as
he
died.

Before
his

implementation
 of
 the
 legacy)
 conditionally
 stated
 that
 the
 intestate
 death,
 he
 executed
 a
 will
 which
 named
 his
 brother,
 defendant
 in
 this
 case,
 and

administration
aspect
must
proceed
"unless
.
.
.
it
is
proven
.
.
.
that
the
legacy
to
 another
 person
 as
 heir.
 
 The
 brother
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 probate
 but
 didn’t

be
 given
 and
 delivered
 to
 the
 petitioner
 does
 not
 exceed
 the
 free
 portion
 of
 the
 produce
the
will.

He
then
negotiated
with
Maria
for
the
renunciation
of
her
share




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









35




in
the
estate
in
exchange
for
money.

Thereafter,
criminal
action
was
filed
against
 

defendant
 for
 refusing
 to
 produce
 the
 will
 of
 his
 deceased
 brother
 as
 well
 as
 to
 From
 what
 has
 been
 said
 it
 follows
 that
 the
 order
 of
 commitment
 made
 by
 the

distribute
the
estate.
 lower
 court
 remanding
 the
 accused
 to
 jail
 should
 be
 vacated
 and
 if
 subsidiary


 imprisonment
 should
 be
 imposed
 for
 insolvency
 the
 defendant
 shall,
 under
 the

HELD:
 provisions
of
Act
No.
2557,
be
credited
with
the
time
during
which
he
was
confined

The
 judge
 of
 first
 instance
 believed
 that
 he
 had
 authority
 to
 give
 the
 notice
 and
 in
pursuance
of
the
order
of
the
lower
court,
With
this
modification
the
judgment

make
the
order
in
question
under
section
629
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
which
 of
the
court
below
should
be
affirmed
with
costs
against
the
appellant.

provides
the
testator
neglects
without
reasonable
cause
to
deliver
the
same
to
the
 

court
having
jurisdiction,
after
notice
by
the
course
so
to
do,
he
may
be
committed
 51
 RODRIGUEZ
V.
DE
BORJA

to
 the
 prison
 of
 the
 province
 by
 a
 warrant
 issued
 by
 the
 court
 and
 there
 kept
 in
 
 17
SCRA
418

close
confinement
until
he
delivers
the
will.

 


 FACTS:

It
is
our
opinion
that
this
provision
can
only
be
applied
when
a
court
is
acting
in
the
 After
the
death
of
Fr.
Rodriguez,
a
purported
will
of
his
was
submitted
for
probate.


exercise
 of
 its
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 administration
 of
 the
 estates
 of
 deceased
 Maria
 and
 Angela
 Rodriguez
 sought
 the
 examination
 of
 the
 will
 but
 later
 on

persons;
and
where
administration
proceedings
are
not
already
pending,
the
court,
 withdrawn
the
same.

Instead,
they
filed
for
the
settlement
of
the
intestate
estate

before
taking
action
under
this
section,
should
require
that
there
be
before
it
some
 of
 Fr.
 Rodriguez,
 alleging
 therein
 that
 the
 decedent
 didn't
 leave
 any
 will.
 
 One
 of

petition,
information,
or
affidavit
of
such
character
as
to
make
action
by
the
court
 their
allegations
is
that
their
action
precluded
the
probate
proceedings
in
the
other

under
this
section
appropriate.

 court.
 
 The
 same
 parties,
 petitioners
 herein,
 sought
 the
 dismissal
 of
 the
 probate


 proceedings,
but
was
denied.

The
proceedings
in
this
case,
under
section
628
of
the
Code
of
the
Civil
Procedure,
 

is
 an
 ordinary
 criminal
 prosecution.
 The
 act
 penalized
 in
 that
 section
 (628)
 is
 a
 HELD:

special
statutory
offense
and
is
properly
prosecuted
upon
complaint
or
information
 Intestate
succession
is
only
subordinate
or
subsidiary
to
the
testate,
since
intestacy

as
 other
 criminal
 offenses
 created
 by
 law.
 The
 fact
 that
 this
 penal
 provision
 is
 only
takes
place
in
the
absence
of
a
valid
operative
will.

Thus,
following
the
same

contained
in
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
does
not
make
the
proceeding
to
enforce
 principle,
 it
 is
 only
 when
 the
 testate
 succession
 is
 invalidated
 could
 an
 intestate

the
penalty
a
civil
proceeding
in
any
sense.
The
remedy
provided
in
section
629
of
 succession
be
instituted
in
the
form
of
pre‐established
action.

the
 Code
 of
 Procedure
 is
 evidently
 a
 totally
 different
 remedy,
 having
 no
 relation
 

with
 that
 provided
 in
 section
 628;
 and
 it
 is
 in
 our
 opinion
 not
 permissible
 in
 a
 52
 TEOTICO
V.
DEL
VAL

prosecution
under
the
last
mentioned
section
to
superimpose
upon
the
penalty
of
 
 13
SCRA
406

fine
 therein
 prescribed
 the
 additional
 penalty
 of
 imprisonment
 prescribed
 in
 

section
629.

 FACTS:


 Aguirre
died
and
left
a
will,
which
provided
among
others
a
legacy
in
favor
of
Rene

I
may
further
be
observed
that
one
grace
difficulty
in
applying
the
remedy
provided
 Teotico,
the
husband
of
her
niece.

The
will
was
submitted
for
probate
by
Vicente

in
section
629
in
a
prosecution
under
section
628
is
that
to
enforce
the
production
 Teotico
but
was
opposed
against
by
the
adopted
child
of
Aguirre’s
sister.

One
of

of
the
will
b
the
accused
at
such
trial
would
virtually
compel
him
to
convict
himself,
 the
allegations
was
that
the
legacy
to
Teotico
was
void
on
the
ground
that
Teotico

since
 the
 mere
 production
 of
 the
 will
 by
 him
 would
 be
 conclusive
 that
 he
 had
 was
the
physician
who
administered
medical
attention
to
Aguirre
before
her
death.


possession
 of
 it
 as
 charged
 in
 the
 criminal
 complaint;
 and
 it
 seems
 probable
 that
 Vicente
 in
 turn
 filed
 a
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 the
 opposition
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 she

this
would
constitute
an
infringement
of
that
provision
of
law
which
says
that
in
a
 doesn’t
have
any
legal
personality
to
intervene.

In
the
end
of
the
proceedings,
the

criminal
action
the
defendant
shall
be
exempt
from
testifying
against
himself.
(See
 will’s
validity
was
sustained
by
the
probate
court
but
the
legacy
was
held
void.
The

Gen.
Orders
No.
58,
sec.
15.)
 petitioner
sought
reconsideration
of
the
decision
to
nullify
the
legacy.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









36





 Crisostomo.
 
 A
 corresponding
 prayer
 for
 
 the
 appointment
 of
 an
 additional


HELD:
 administrator
of
the
estate.

This
was
opposed
by
the
Fernando
and
instead
moved

Question
on
the
legal
personality
of
oppositor
to
intervene…
 for
 the
 dismissal
 of
 the
 intestate
 proceedings
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 he
 already
 had


 possession
of
the
property
in
favor
of
the
children.

Before
a
person
may
intervene
in
estate
proceedings,
he
should
have
an
interest
in
 

the
estate,
or
in
his
will,
or
in
the
property
to
be
affected
by
it
either
as
an
executor
 HELD:

or
as
a
claimant
of
the
estate,
and
an
interested
party
has
been
defined
as
one
who
 It
will
be
seen
from
the
above
that
the
principal
issue
in
this
case
as
to
whether
the

would
be
benefited
by
the
estate
like
a
creditor.
 intestate
proceedings
should
be
dismissed
has
already
been
decided
by
this
Court


 in
the
certiorari
proceedings
as
far
back
as
July
2,
1948,
with
the
exception
that
if

Where
under
the
will’s
terms,
an
oppositor
has
no
interest
in
the
estate
either
as
 there
 had
 been
 errors
 committed
 in
 the
 appointment
 of
 the
 guardian
 (not
 in
 the

an
 heir,
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 nor
 does
 she
 have
 any
 claim
 to
 any
 property
 institution
 of
 the
 intestate
 proceedings,
 which
 had
 been
 declared
 within
 the

affected
by
the
will,
nor
would
she
acquire
any
interest
in
any
portion
of
the
estate
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 court)
 those
 errors
 in
 the
 appointment
 may
 be
 corrected
 in
 an

as
a
legal
heir
if
the
will
were
denied
probate,
it
is
held
that
said
oppositor
cannot
 appeal.
After
examining
the
record,
we
do
not
see
any
error
in
the
appointment
of

intervene.


 German
 Crisostomo
 and
 Pacita
 Fernando
 as
 co‐administrators
 as
 they
 were
 the


 brother
 and
 sister,
 respectively,
 of
 the
 deceased,
 no
 evidence
 having
 been

Question
on
intrinsic
validity
of
the
will…
 presented
by
the
appellant
why
those
persons
should
not
be
appointed,
either
on


 account
of
their
incompetency
or
lack
of
moral
qualifications.
We,
therefore,
affirm

Opposition
to
the
intrinsic
validity
or
legality
of
the
provisions
of
the
will
cannot
be
 the
order
of
the
court
appointing
them.

entertained
in
Probate
proceeding
because
its
only
purpose
is
merely
to
determine
 

if
the
will
has
been
executed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
law."
 It
should
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
above
resolutions
of
this
Court
constitute
 res


 judicata
and
"the
law
of
the
case"
with
regard
to
this
appeal
and
they
can
no
longer

Pursuant
to
the
foregoing
precedents
the
pronouncement
made
by
the
court
a
quo
 be
questioned
or
put
in
issue
in
the
present
case.
It
results
then,
that
the
claim
of

declaring
invalid
the
legacy
made
to
Dr.
Rene
Teotico
in
the
will
Exhibit
A
must
be
 the
appellant
that
the
intestate
proceedings
should
be
dismissed
has
to
be
denied

set
aside
as
having
been
made
in
excess
of
its
jurisdiction.
Another
reason
why
said
 and,
 as
 all
 the
 other
 questions
 are
 dependent
 on
 said
 issue,
 they
 should
 also
 be

pronouncement
 should
 be
 set
 aside
 is
 that
 the
 legatee
 was
 not
 given
 an
 decided
adversely
to
the
appellant.

opportunity
to
defend
the
validity
of
the
legacy
for
he
was
not
allowed
to
intervene
 

in
 this
 proceeding.
 As
 a
 corollary,
 the
 other
 pronouncements
 touching
 on
 the
 54
 ARAUJO
V.
CELIS

disposition
of
the
estate
in
favor
of
some
relatives
of
the
deceased
should
also
be
 
 6
PHIL
459

set
aside
for
the
same
reason.
 


 FACTS:

53
 FERNANDO
V.
CRISOSTOMO
 Rosario
 Araujo
 owned
 property
 inherited
 from
 her
 late
 mother.
 
 She
 wed
 the


 90
SCRA
585
 defendant’s
son.

She
died
with
no
descendants
and
ascendants
but
only
collateral


 relatives.
 
 These
 relatives
 wanted
 the
 properties
 in
 question
 be
 delivered
 by
 the

FACTS:
 father
 of
 Rosario’s
 husband
 as
 they
 were
 allegedly
 the
 surviving
 heirs
 of
 Rosario.


Fernando
was
the
guardian
of
Rufino
Sr.
and
his
children.

When
the
father
died,
he
 Gregorio
Celis
as
a
matter
of
defense
didn’t
deny
the
possession
of
the
properties

became
 the
 guardian
 of
 the
 children.
 
 He
 then
 filed
 a
 motion
 for
 the
 approval
 of
 but
alleged
that
he
was
entitled
to
the
same.

He
allegedly
inherited
the
same
from

the
 extrajudicial
 partition
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 spouses
 Rufino
 Crisostomo
 and
 Petra
 his
late
son
who
in
turn
inherited
the
property
from
Rosario.


Fernando.

The
guardian
ad
litem
opposed
this
and
was
sustained
by
the
trial
court.

 

A
petition
was
then
filed
for
the
reopening
of
the
intestate
proceedings
by
German
 HELD:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









37




As
the
court
below
properly
found,
the
only
important
and
decisive
question
in
this
 with
Go
Toh
and
Manuel
Lopez,
and
that
this
will
was
placed
in
an
envelope
which

case
 is
 whether
 or
 not
 Rosario
 Darwin
 executed
 a
 legal
 and
 valid
 will
 in
 the
 form
 was
signed
by
the
deceased
and
by
the
instrumental
witnesses.
In
court
there
was

and
 manner
 alleged
 by
 the
 defendant.
 If
 so
 the
 defendant's
 right
 to
 the
 property
 presented
and
attached
to
the
case
an
open
and
empty
envelope
signed
by
Jose
B.

would
be
unquestionable.
If
not
so
the
contrary
would
necessarily
be
the
result.
 Suntay,
Alberto
Barretto,
Go
Toh
and
Manuel
Lopez.
It
is
thus
undeniable
that
this


 envelope
 Exhibit
 A
 is
 the
 same
 one
 that
 contained
 the
 will
 executed
 by
 the

This
point
as
to
the
will,
however,
was
not
as
clearly
established
as
it
should
have
 deceased
 drafted
 by
 Barretto
 and
 with
 the
 latter,
 Go
 Toh
 and
 Manuel
 Lopez
 as

been.
 The
 defendant
 introduced
 no
 will
 in
 evidence,
 offered
 secondary
 parol
 attesting
 witnesses.
 These
 tokens
 sufficiently
 point
 to
 the
 loss
 of
 the
 will
 of
 the

evidence
as
to
its
contents
under
the
claim
that
the
original
will
had
been
lost.
The
 deceased.,
a
circumstance
justifying
the
presentation
of
secondary
evidence
of
its

court
allowed
this
evidence
over
the
objection
of
the
plaintiffs,
and
this
is
one
of
 contents
and
of
whether
it
was
executed
with
all
the
essential
and
necessary
legal

the
 errors
 assigned
 by
 them
 on
 this
 appeal.
 The
 plaintiffs'
 objection
 to
 the
 formalities.

admission
of
such
evidence
was
well
taken
and
that
it
could
therefore
have
been
 











sustained.

 The
trial
of
this
case
was
limited
to
the
proof
of
loss
of
the
will,
and
from
what
has


 taken
 place
 we
 deduce
 that
 it
 was
 not
 petitioner's
 intention
 to
 raise,
 upon
 the

The
loss
of
the
alleged
original
will
has
not
been
sufficiently
established.

 evidence
 adduced
 by
 her,
 the
 other
 points
 involved
 herein,
 namely,
 as
 we
 have

Further,
the
witness
testified
that
the
will,
a
copy
of
which
he
saw
and
had
in
his
 heretofore
indicated,
whether
Exhibit
B
is
a
true
copy
of
the
will
and
whether
the

possession,
was
signed
by
two
witnesses
only.
A
will
signed
by
two
witnesses
only
 latter
 was
 executed
 with
 all
 the
 formalities
 required
 by
 law
 for
 its
 probate.
 The

could
 not
 under
 any
 circumstances
 be
 valid
 under
 the
 law
 in
 force
 at
 the
 time
 testimony
of
Alberto
Barretto
bears
importantly
in
this
connection.

referred
to
by
the
witness,
and
legally
speaking
such
will
could
not
then
have
been
 











probated
or
recorded.
 Wherefore,
the
loss
of
the
will
executed
by
the
deceased
having
been
sufficiently


 established,
 it
 is
 ordered
 that
 this
 case
 be
 remanded
 to
 the
 court
 of
 origin
 for

The
case
is
remanded
to
the
lower
court
for
further
proceedings.
 further
proceedings
in
obedience
to
this
decision,
without
any
pronouncement
as


 to
the
costs.
So
ordered

55
 LIM
BILLIAN
V.
SUNTAY
 


 63
PHIL
793
 56
 BASA
V.
MERCADO


 
 61
PHIL
632

FACTS:
 

Jose
Suntay
died
in
China.

He
married
twice,
having
many
children
during
his
first
 FACTS:

marriage
and
a
son
during
his
second.

When
he
died,
one
of
the
children
from
the
 The
 judge
 allowed
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 Ines
 Basa.
 
 The
 administrator’s

first
 marriage
 instituted
 intestate
 proceedings.
 
 On
 the
 same
 proceedings,
 the
 inventory
 was
 then
 duly
 approved
 and
 he
 was
 held
 to
 be
 the
 sole
 heir
 of
 the

second
 wife
 instituted
 for
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 Jose.
 
 She
 alleged
 that
 before
 testatrix.
 
 The
 petitioners
 thereafter
 came
 forth
 and
 prayed
 for
 the
 reopening
 of

leaving
 for
 China,
 she
 was
 handed
 a
 sealed
 envelope
 purporting
 to
 be
 the
 will
 of
 the
proceedings
on
the
ground
that
the
court
didn’t
have
jurisdiction
due
to
non‐
the
testator.

It
was
snatched
allegedly
by
the
children
of
the
first
marriage.

This
 compliance
with
publication
requirements.

was
of
course
denied
by
the
children.

Witnesses
however
attested
to
the
fact
of
 

the
will.
 HELD:


 It
is
held
that
the
language
used
in
section
630
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
does

HELD:
 not
 mean
 that
 the
 notice,
 referred
 to
 therein,
 should
 be
 published
 for
 three
 full

In
 our
 opinion,
 the
 evidence
 is
 sufficient
 to
 establish
 the
 loss
 of
 the
 document
 weeks
 before
 the
 date
 set
 for
 the
 hearing
 on
 the
 will.
 In
 other
 words
 the
 first

contained
 in
 the
 envelope.
 Oppositors'
 answer
 admits
 that,
 according
 to
 Barretto
 publication
 of
 the
 notice
 need
 not
 be
 made
 twenty‐one
 days
 before
 the
 day

he
 prepared
 a
 will
 of
 the
 deceased
 to
 which
 he
 later
 became
 a
 witness
 together
 appointed
for
the
hearing.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









38





 section
 618.
 
 However,
 a
 petition
 was
 presented
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 of

57
 DE
ARANZ
V.
GALANG
 the
city
of
Manila
for
the
probate
of
this
will,
on
the
ground
that
Johnson
was
at


 161
SCRA
628
 the
time
of
his
death
a
citizen
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
United
States
of
America;
that


 the
 will
 was
 duly
 executed
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 laws
 of
 that
 State;
 and
 hence

FACTS:
 could
 properly
 be
 probated
 here
 pursuant
 to
 section
 636
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil

Joaquin
Infante
filed
a
petition
for
the
probate
of
the
will
of
Montserrat
Infante
and
 Procedure.
This
section
reads
as
follows:

he
 likewise
 named
 the
 legatees
 and
 devisees
 and
 their
 corresponding
 addresses.

 

The
 court
 ordered
 for
 the
 publication
 of
 notice
 of
 the
 hearing
 in
 newspapers
 of
 Will
made
here
by
alien.

A
will
made
within
the
Philippine
Islands
by
a
citizen
or

general
 circulation
 once
 a
 week,
 for
 three
 consecutive
 weeks.
 
 It
 however
 didn’t
 subject
of
another
state
or
country,
which
is
executed
in
accordance
with
the
law

send
personal
notices
to
the
devisees
and
legatees.

No
opposition
was
filed
during
 of
 the
 state
 or
 country
 of
 which
 he
 is
 a
 citizen
 or
 subject,
 and
 which
 might
 be

the
 reglamentary
 period
 and
 thus,
 the
 court
 accepted
 evidence
 ex
 parte
 from
 proved
 and
 allowed
 by
 the
 law
 of
 his
 own
 state
 or
 country,
 may
 be
 proved,

private
respondent.

The
petitioners
then
moved
for
reconsideration
on
the
ground
 allowed,
and
recorded
in
the
Philippine
Islands,
and
shall
have
the
same
effect
as
if

of
jurisdictional
issues.


 executed
according
to
the
laws
of
these
Islands.


 

HELD:
 The
 grounds
 upon
 which
 the
 petitioner
 seeks
 to
 avoid
 the
 probate
 are
 four
 in

It
is
clear
from
the
aforecited
rule
that
notice
of
the
time
and
place
of
the
hearing
 number
and
may
be
stated,
in
the
same
sequence
in
which
they
are
set
forth
in
the

for
 the
 allowance
 of
 a
 will
 shall
 be
 forwarded
 to
 the
 designated
 or
 other
 known
 petition,
as
follows:

heirs,
legatees,
and
devisees
residing
in
the
Philippines
at
their
places
of
residence,
 

if
such
places
of
residence
be
known.
There
is
no
question
that
the
residences
of
 









(1)
Emil
H.
Johnson
was
a
resident
of
the
city
of
Manila
and
not
a
resident
of

herein
 petitioners
 legatees
 and
 devisees
 were
 known
 to
 the
 probate
 court.
 The
 the
State
of
Illinois
at
the
time
the
will
in
question
was
executed;

petition
 for
 the
 allowance
 of
 the
 wig
 itself
 indicated
 the
 names
 and
 addresses
 of
 

the
legatees
and
devisees
of
the
testator.

But
despite
such
knowledge,
the
probate
 









(2)
The
will
is
invalid
and
inadequate
to
pass
real
and
personal
property
in
the

court
did
not
cause
copies
of
the
notice
to
be
sent
to
petitioners.
The
requirement
 State
of
Illinois;

of
the
law
for
the
allowance
of
the
will
was
not
satisfied
by
mere
publication
of
the
 

notice
of
hearing
for
three
(3)
weeks
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
 









(3)
 The
 order
 admitting
 the
 will
 to
 probate
 was
 made
 without
 notice
 to
 the

province.

 petitioner;
and


 

58
 IN
RE
ESTATE
OF
JOHNSON
 









(4)
The
order
in
question
was
beyond
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court.


 39
PHIL
156
 


 HELD:

FACTS:
 Principally,
 the
 issue
 being
 raised
 by
 petitioner
 is
 the
 citizenship
 of
 the
 testator.


Emil
H.
Johnson,
a
native
of
Sweden
and
a
naturalized
citizen
of
the
United
States,
 Assuming
 that
 he
 became
 a
 US
 citizen,
 he
 apparently
 lost
 the
 same
 when
 he

died
 in
 the
 city
 of
 Manila,
 leaving
 a
 will,
 by
 which
 he
 disposed
 of
 an
 estate,
 the
 resided
in
the
Philippines.

However,
there
was
no
law
in
force
by
virtue
of
which

value
 of
 which,
 as
 estimated
 by
 him,
 was
 P231,800.
 This
 document
 is
 an
 any
 person
 of
 foreign
 nativity
 can
 become
 a
 naturalized
 citizen
 of
 the
 Philippine

holographic
 instrument,
 being
 written
 in
 the
 testator's
 own
 handwriting,
 and
 is
 Islands;
and
it
was,
therefore,
impossible
for
the
testator,
even
if
he
had
so
desired,

signed
 by
 himself
 and
 two
 witnesses
 only,
 instead
 of
 three
 witnesses
 required
 by
 to
expatriate
himself
from
the
United
States
and
change
his
political
status
from
a

section
618
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
This
will,
therefore,
was
not
executed
in
 citizen
of
the
United
States
to
a
citizen
of
these
Islands.
This
being
true,
it
is
to
be

conformity
 with
 the
 provisions
 of
 law
 generally
 applicable
 to
 wills
 executed
 by
 presumed
 that
 he
 retained
 his
 citizenship
 in
 the
 State
 of
 Illinois
 along
 with
 his

inhabitants
 of
 the
 Philippines,
 and
 hence
 could
 not
 have
 been
 proved
 under
 status
 as
 a
 citizen
 of
 the
 United
 States.
 It
 would
 be
 novel
 doctrine
 to
 Americans




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









39




living
 in
 the
 Philippine
 Islands
 to
 be
 told
 that
 by
 living
 here
 they
 lose
 their
 the
 legitime
 to
 which
 she
 is
 entitled
 under
 the
 law
 governing
 testamentary

citizenship
in
the
State
of
their
naturalization
or
nativity.
 successions
in
these
Islands.
Upon
this
point
it
is
sufficient
to
say
that
the
probate


 of
 the
 will
 does
 not
 affect
 the
 intrinsic
 validity
 of
 its
 provisions,
 the
 decree
 of

The
 court
 wasn't
 unmindful
 of
 the
 fact
 that
 when
 a
 citizen
 of
 one
 State
 leaves
 it
 probate
being
conclusive
only
as
regards
the
due
execution
of
the
will.


and
 takes
 up
 his
 abode
 in
 another
 State
 with
 no
 intention
 of
 returning,
 he
 

immediately
 acquires
 citizenship
 in
 the
 State
 of
 his
 new
 domicile.
 This
 is
 in
 59
 ABUT
V.
ABUT

accordance
with
that
provision
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to
the
Constitution
 
 45
SCRA
326

of
the
United
States
which
says
that
every
citizen
of
the
United
States
is
a
citizen
of
 

the
 State
 where
 in
 he
 resides.
 The
 effect
 of
 this
 provision
 necessarily
 is
 that
 a
 FACTS:

person
transferring
his
domicile
from
one
State
to
another
loses
his
citizenship
in
 Gavina
 sought
 to
 substitute
 her
 deceased
 brother
 as
 a
 party
 to
 the
 probate

the
 State
 of
 his
 original
 above
 upon
 acquiring
 citizenship
 in
 the
 State
 of
 his
 new
 proceedings
of
the
will
of
their
late
father.

Originally,
Generoso
filed
a
petition
for

abode.
 The
 acquisition
 of
 the
 new
 State
 citizenship
 extinguishes
 the
 old.
 That
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 his
 father.
 
 He
 was
 a
 child
 from
 the
 second
 marriage.


situation
 however
 has
 no
 analogy
 to
 that
 which
 arises
 when
 a
 citizen
 of
 an
 Opposition
 was
 entered
 by
 the
 children
 of
 the
 first
 marriage
 but
 they
 were

American
State
comes
to
reside
in
the
Philippine
Islands.
Here
he
cannot
acquire
a
 overruled
and
Generoso
was
appointed
executor.

When
he
died,
Gavina
sought
to

new
 citizenship;
 nor
 by
 the
 mere
 change
 of
 domicile
 does
 he
 lose
 that
 which
 he
 substitute
but
the
court
instead
consequently
dismissed
the
proceedings
as
no
new

brought
with
him.
 publication
was
allegedly
made.




 

With
 respect
 to
 the
 issue
 of
 compliance
 with
 the
 rules
 pertaining
 to
 execution
 of
 HELD:

wills
in
Illinois,
the
lower
court
may
have
erred
when
it
took
judicial
notice
of
the
 We
 find
 the
 dismissal
 of
 the
 original
 petition
 for
 probate
 and
 the
 refusal
 of
 the

state
 laws
 of
 Illinois
 but
 even
 so,
 the
 remedy
 isn’t
 available
 to
 the
 petitioner
 any
 probate
court
to
admit
the
amended
petition
without
a
new
publication
thereof
to

longer.
 
 First,
 because
 the
 petition
 does
 not
 state
 any
 fact
 from
 which
 it
 would
 be
 untenable.
 The
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 court
 became
 vested
 upon
 the
 filing
 of
 the

appear
that
the
law
of
Illinois
is
different
from
what
the
court
found,
and,
secondly,
 original
petition
and
upon
compliance
with
Sections
3
and
4
of
Rule
76.

because
the
assignment
of
error
and
argument
for
the
appellant
in
this
court
raises
 

no
question
based
on
such
supposed
error.
Though
the
trial
court
may
have
acted
 A
 proceeding
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 a
 will
 is
 one
 in
 rem,
 such
 that
 with
 the

upon
pure
conjecture
as
to
the
law
prevailing
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
its
judgment
 corresponding
 publication
 of
 the
 petition
 the
 court's
 jurisdiction
 extends
 to
 all

could
 not
 be
 set
 aside,
 even
 upon
 application
 made
 within
 six
 months
 under
 persons
interested
in
said
will
or
in
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
the
deceased.

section
 113
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 procedure,
 unless
 it
 should
 be
 made
 to
 appear
 The
 fact
 that
 the
 amended
 petition
 named
 additional
 heirs
 not
 included
 in
 the



affirmatively
 that
 the
 conjecture
 was
 wrong.
 The
 petitioner,
 it
 is
 true,
 states
 in
 original
petition did
not
require
that
notice
of
the
amended
petition
be
published

general
 terms
 that
 the
 will
 in
 question
 is
 invalid
 and
 inadequate
 to
 pass
 real
 and
 anew.


personal
property
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
but
this
is
merely
a
conclusion
of
law.
The
 



affidavits
by
which
the
petition
is
accompanied
contain
no
reference
to
the
subject,
 Jurisdiction
of
the
court
once
acquired
continues
until
the
termination
of
the
case, 

and
we
are
cited
to
no
authority
in
the
appellant's
brief
which
might
tent
to
raise
a
 and
 remains
 unaffected
 by
 subsequent
 events.
 The
 court
 below
 erred
 in
 holding

doubt
 as
 to
 the
 correctness
 of
 the
 conclusion
 of
 the
 trial
 court.
 It
 is
 very
 clear,
 that
it
was
divested
of
jurisdiction
just
because
the
original
petitioner
died
before

therefore,
that
this
point
cannot
be
urged
as
of
serious
moment.
 the
petition
could
be
formally
heard.
Parties
who
could
have
come
in
and
opposed


 the
 original
 petition,
 as
 herein
 appellees
 did,
 could
 still
 come
 in
 and
 oppose
 the

But
 it
 is
 insisted
 in
 the
 brief
 for
 the
 appellant
 that
 the
 will
 in
 question
 was
 not
 amended
petition,
having
already
been
notified
of
the
pendency
of
the
proceeding

properly
 admissible
 to
 probate
 because
 it
 contains
 provisions
 which
 cannot
 be
 by
the
publication
of
the
notice
thereof.

given
effect
consistently
with
the
laws
of
the
Philippine
Islands;
and
it
is
suggested
 

that
as
the
petitioner
is
a
legitimate
heir
of
the
testator
she
cannot
be
deprived
of




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









40




The
 admission
 of
 the
 amended
 petition,
 of
 course,
 does
 not
 mean
 that
 Gavina
 court,"
 Evidently,
 the
 photostatic
 or
 xerox
 copy
 of
 the
 lost
 or
 destroyed

Abut's
 prayer
 that
 she
 be
 appointed
 administratrix
 with
 the
 will
 annexed
 is
 holographic
will
may
be
admitted
because
then
the
authenticity
of
the
handwriting

necessarily
 meritorious.
 It
 simply
 recognizes
 that
 since
 the
 lower
 court
 has
 of
the
deceased
can
be
determined
by
the
probate
court.

acquired
jurisdiction
over
the
res,
such
jurisdiction
continues
until
the
termination
 

of
the
case.
The
first
question
that
the
lower
court
should
hear
and
decide
is
the
 61
 GAN
V.
YAP

probate
 of
 the
 will;
 and
 the
 question
 of
 whether
 or
 not
 Gavina
 Abut
 should
 be
 
 104
PHIL
509

appointed
administratrix
must
be
decided
on
the
basis
of
the
facts
to
be
presented
 

and
after
the
will
is
proved
and
allowed,
as
provided
in
Section
6
of
Rule
78.
 FACTS:


 Felicidad
Yap
died
from
a
heart
attack.

Days
after
her
death,
Fausto
Gan
petitioned

60
 RODELAS
V.
ARANZA
 that
 her
 alleged
 holographic
 will
 be
 admitted
 to
 probate.
 
 The
 husband
 opposed


 119
SCRA
16
 the
existence
of
said
will,
maintaining
his
wife
didn't
left
any
will.




 

FACTS:
 During
 the
 court
 proceedings,
 the
 will
 wasn't
 really
 presented
 as
 evidence
 but

Rodelas
sought
the
probate
of
the
will
of
Ricardo
Bonilla.

This
was
opposed
on
the
 instead,
witnesses
who
allegedly
saw
the
will
were
presented
to
testify.

Allegedly,

ground
that
what
was
presented
was
the
photostatic
copy
of
the
holographic
will
 since
the
testatrix
was
suffering
from
a
long‐time
heart
ailment,
she
expressed
her

and
not
the
original.

The
opposition
maintained
that
first,
the
copy
wasn't
the
true
 intent
 to
 execute
 a
 will
 to
 her
 cousin.
 
 She
 allegedly
 didn't
 want
 her
 husband
 to

copy
of
the
holographic
will
and
that
its
existence
may
not
be
proved
by
secondary
 know
 about
 it.
 
 Asking
 the
 help
 of
 her
 nephew,
 she
 drew
 a
 holographic
 will.
 
 But

evidence.


 after
he
death,
this
was
allegedly
lost.


 

HELD:
 HELD:

Pursuant
 to
 Article
 811
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code,
 probate
 of
 holographic
 wills
 is
 the
 In
 the
 matter
 of
 holographic
 wills,
 no
 such
 guaranties
 of
 truth
 and
 veracity
 are

allowance
 of
 the
 will
 by
 the
 court
 after
 its
 due
 execution
 has
 been
 proved.
 The
 demanded,
 since
 as
 stated,
 they
 need
 no
 witnesses;
 provided
 however,
 that
 they

probate
may
be
uncontested
or
not.
If
uncontested,
at
least
one
Identifying
witness
 are
"entirely
written,
dated,
and
signed
by
the
hand
of
the
testator
himself."
The

is
required
and,
if
no
witness
is
available,
experts
may
be
resorted
to.
If
contested,
 law,
 it
 is
 reasonable
 to
 suppose,
 regards
 the
 document
 itself
 as
 material
 proof
 of

at
 least
 three
 Identifying
 witnesses
 are
 required.
 However,
 if
 the
 holographic
 will
 authenticity,
and
as
its
own
safeguard,
since
it
could
at
any
time,
be
demonstrated

has
 been
 lost
 or
 destroyed
 and
 no
 other
 copy
 is
 available,
 the
 will
 can
 not
 be
 to
 be
 or
 not
 to
 be
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 testator
 himself.
 "In
 the
 probate
 of
 a

probated
because
the
best
and
only
evidence
is
the
handwriting
of
the
testator
in
 holographic
 will"
 says
 the
 New
 Civil
 Code,
 "it
 shall
 be
 necessary
 that
 at
 least
 one

said
will.
It
is
necessary
that
there
be
a
comparison
between
sample
handwritten
 witness
who
knows
the
handwriting
and
signature
of
the
testator
explicitly
declare

statements
 of
 the
 testator
 and
 the
 handwritten
 will.
 But,
 a
 photostatic
 copy
 or
 that
the
will
and
the
signature
are
in
the
handwriting
of
the
testator.
If
the
will
is

xerox
 copy
 of
 the
 holographic
 will
 may
 be
 allowed
 because
 comparison
 can
 be
 contested,
 at
 least
 three
 such
 witnesses
 shall
 be
 required.
 In
 the
 absence
 of
 any

made
 with
 the
 standard
 writings
 of
 the
 testator.
 In
 the
 case
 of
 Gam
 vs.
 Yap,
 104
 such
 witnesses,
 (familiar
 with
 decedent's
 handwriting)
 and
 if
 the
 court
 deem
 it

PHIL.
 509,
 the
 Court
 ruled
 that
 "the
 execution
 and
 the
 contents
 of
 a
 lost
 or
 necessary,
expert
testimony
may
be
resorted
to."

destroyed
holographic
will
may
not
be
proved
by
the
bare
testimony
of
witnesses
 

who
have
seen
and/or
read
such
will.
The
will
itself
must
be
presented;
otherwise,
 The
 witnesses
 so
 presented
 do
 not
 need
 to
 have
 seen
 the
 execution
 of
 the

it
shall
produce
no
effect.
The
law
regards
the
document
itself
as
material
proof
of
 holographic
will.
They
may
be
mistaken
in
their
opinion
of
the
handwriting,
or
they

authenticity."
 But,
 in
 Footnote
 8
 of
 said
 decision,
 it
 says
 that
 "Perhaps
 it
 may
 be
 may
deliberately
lie
in
affirming
it
is
in
the
testator's
hand.
However,
the
oppositor

proved
 by
 a
 photographic
 or
 photostatic
 copy.
 Even
 a
 mimeographed
 or
 carbon
 may
 present
 other
 witnesses
 who
 also
 know
 the
 testator's
 handwriting,
 or
 some

copy;
 or
 by
 other
 similar
 means,
 if
 any,
 whereby
 the
 authenticity
 of
 the
 expert
witnesses,
who
after
comparing
the
will
with
other
writings
or
letters
of
the

handwriting
 of
 the
 deceased
 may
 be
 exhibited
 and
 tested
 before
 the
 probate
 deceased,
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
such
will
has
not
been
written
by
the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









41




hand
 of
 the
 deceased.
 (Sec.
 50,
 Rule
 123).
 And
 the
 court,
 in
 view
 of
 such
 have
purposely
destroyed
it
in
an
"accident"
the
oppositors
have
no
way
to
expose

contradictory
testimony
may
use
its
own
visual
sense,
and
decide
in
the
face
of
the
 the
trick
and
the
error,
because
the
document
itself
is
not
at
hand.
And
considering

document,
 whether
 the
 will
 submitted
 to
 it
 has
 indeed
 been
 written
 by
 the
 that
the
holographic
will
may
consist
of
two
or
three
pages,
and
only
one
of
them

testator.
 need
 be
 signed,
 the
 substitution
 of
 the
 unsigned
 pages,
 which
 may
 be
 the
 most


 important
ones,
may
go
undetected.

Obviously,
when
the
will
itself
is
not
submitted,
these
means
of
opposition,
and
of
 

assessing
the
evidence
are
not
available.
And
then
the
only
guaranty
of
authenticity
 If
testimonial
evidence
of
holographic
wills
be
permitted,
one
more
objectionable

the
testator's
handwriting
has
disappeared.
 feature
feasibility
of
forgery
would
be
added
to
the
several
objections
to
this
kind


 of
wills.

Normally,
 the
 relatives
 of
 the
 decedent
 are
 allowed
 to
 inspect
 the
 document
 to
 

testify
 as
 to
 whether
 the
 will
 was
 executed
 by
 the
 testator.
 
 They
 are
 given
 the
 Furthermore,
 in
 the
 case
 of
 a
 lost
 will,
 the
 three
 subscribing
 witnesses
 would
 be

opportunity
 to
 oppose
 or
 abide
 by
 the
 will.
 
 But
 this
 is
 frustrated,
 when
 the
 testifying
to
a
fact
which
they
saw,
namely
the
act
of
the
testator
of
subscribing
the

document
 itself
 is
 not
 presented
 to
 them
 as
 evidence.
 Furthermore,
 it
 is
 notable
 will;
whereas
in
the
case
of
a
lost
holographic
will,
the
witnesses
would
testify
as
to

that
 commentators
 have
 the
 common
 submission
 that
 before
 the
 court
 allows
 their
 opinion
 of
 the
 handwriting
 which
 they
 allegedly
 saw,
 an
 opinion
 which
 can

distribution
 of
 property
 in
 accordance
 with
 a
 holographic
 will,
 the
 testator’s
 not
 be
 tested
 in
 court,
 nor
 directly
 contradicted
 by
 the
 oppositors,
 because
 the

handwriting
and
signature
must
be
presented.



 handwriting
itself
is
not
at
hand.


 

Taking
all
the
above
circumstances
together,
the
court
reached
the
conclusion
that
 Given
this,
the
Court
finally
agreed
with
the
trial
judge
in
disbelieving
the
dubious

the
execution
and
the
contents
of
a
lost
or
destroyed
holographic
will
may
not
be
 testimonies.

First,
why
would
the
testatrix
show
the
will
precisely
to
relatives
who

proved
by
the
bare
testimony
of
witnesses
who
have
seen
and/or
read
such
will.
 didn't
even
had
a
share
in
the
inheritance.

Second,
if
she
truly
wanted
to
conceal


 the
will
from
her
husband,
why
not
just
entrust
it
with
her
beneficiaries.

The
 above
 could
 easily
 been
 adopted
 as
 a
 rule
 for
 holographic
 wills
 by
 the
 Court
 

but
in
this
case,
it
hesitated
to
apply
the
rule
and
tackled
further
on
the
sufficiency
 62
 GAGO
V.
MAMUYAC

of
the
evidence
presented
by
Gan
and
the
others.


 
 49
PHIL
902


 

In
the
case
of
ordinary
wills,
it
is
quite
hard
to
convince
three
witnesses
(four
with
 FACTS:

the
 notary)
 deliberately
 to
 lie.
 And
 then
 their
 lies
could
be
checked
 and
exposed,
 Gago
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 of
 Miguel
 Mamuyac.
 
 This
 was

their
whereabouts
and
acts
on
the
particular
day,
the
likelihood
that
they
would
be
 opposed
on
the
ground
that
the
testator
executed
a
new
will
and
testament.

Gago,

called
 by
 the
 testator,
 their
 intimacy
 with
 the
 testator,
 etc.
 And
 if
 they
 were
 on
a
second
time,
petitioned
the
probate
of
the
later
will
of
Miguel.

This
again
was

intimates
or
trusted
friends
of
the
testator
they
are
not
likely
to
end
themselves
to
 opposed
by
the
same
oppositors
on
the
ground
that
what
was
presented
was
just
a

nd
any
fraudulent
scheme
to
distort
his
wishes.
Last
but
not
least,
they
cannot
receive
 carbon
copy
of
the
original
2 
will
and
that
the
same
was
revoked
by
the
testator

anything
on
account
of
the
will.
 during
his
lifetime.




 

Whereas
 in
 the
 case
 of
 holographic
 wills,
 if
 oral
 testimony
 were
 admissible
 only
 HELD:

one
 man
 could
 engineer
 the
 fraud
 this
 way:
 after
 making
 a
 clever
 or
 passable
 With
 reference
 to
 the
 said
 cancellation,
 it
 may
 be
 stated
 that
 there
 is
 positive

imitation
of
the
handwriting
and
signature
of
the
deceased,
he
may
contrive
to
let
 proof,
not
denied,
which
was
accepted
by
the
lower
court,
that
will
in
question
had

three
 honest
 and
 credible
 witnesses
 see
 and
 read
 the
 forgery;
 and
 the
 latter,
 been
cancelled
in
1920.
The
law
does
not
require
any
evidence
of
the
revocation

having
no
interest,
could
easily
fall
for
it,
and
in
court
they
would
in
all
good
faith
 or
cancellation
of
a
will
to
be
preserved.
It
therefore
becomes
difficult
at
times
to

affirm
 its
 genuineness
 and
 authenticity.
 The
 will
 having
 been
 lost
 the
 forger
 may
 prove
 the
 revocation
 or
 cancellation
 of
 wills.
 The
 fact
 that
 such
 cancellation
 or




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









42




revocation
 has
 taken
 place
 must
 either
 remain
 unproved
 of
 be
 inferred
 from
 presence
 in
 the
 court
 room.
 As
 far
 as
 we
 can
 see,
 there
 is
 nothing
 in
 the
 leading

evidence
showing
that
after
due
search
the
original
will
cannot
be
found.
Where
a
 case,
 Cabang
 vs.
 Delfinado
 (34
 Phil.,
 291),
 cited
 by
 the
 appellees,
 to
 justify
 a

will
which
cannot
be
found
is
shown
to
have
been
in
the
possession
of
the
testator,
 different
conclusion;
in
that
case
no
effect
was
made
to
produce
the
testimony
of

when
last
seen,
the
presumption
is,
in
the
absence
of
other
competent
evidence,
 the
two
subscribing
witnesses
though
their
abode
was
known
to
the
proponent
of

that
the
same
was
cancelled
or
destroyed.
The
same
presumption
arises
where
it
is
 the
will.

shown
that
the
testator
had
ready
access
to
the
will
and
it
cannot
be
found
after
 

his
death.
It
will
not
be
presumed
that
such
will
has
been
destroyed
by
any
other
 In
 the
 present
 case,
 the
 will
 was
 presented
 for
 probate
 in
 Cebu;
 the
 attesting

person
 without
 the
 knowledge
 or
 authority
 of
 the
 testator.
 The
 force
 of
 the
 witnesses
 were
 living
 in
 Manila
 and
 were
 beyond
 the
 process
 of
 the
 court
 for

presumption
 of
 cancellation
 or
 revocation
 by
 the
 testator,
 while
 varying
 greatly,
 compulsory
attendance.
They
were
called
to
testify
and
produced
before
an
officer

being
weak
or
strong
according
to
the
circumstances,
is
never
conclusive,
but
may
 legally
 authorized
 to
 take
 their
 testimony
 in
 the
 form
 of
 depositions.
 The
 notice

be
overcome
by
proof
that
the
will
was
not
destroyed
by
the
testator
with
intent
to
 required
 by
 section
 361,
 supra,
 was
 duly
 given
 and
 the
 opponents
 given
 the

revoke
it.
 opportunity
 to
 be
 present
 and
 to
 cross‐examine
 the
 witnesses.
 In
 the


 circumstances,
 this
 must
 certainly
 be
 considered
 a
 sufficient
 "calling"
 of
 the

In
view
of
the
fact
that
the
original
will
of
1919
could
not
be
found
after
the
death
 witnesses
and
satisfies
the
law.

of
 the
 testator
 Miguel
 Mamuyac
 and
 in
 view
 of
 the
 positive
 proof
 that
 the
 same
 

had
been
cancelled,
it
is
concluded
that
the
conclusions
of
the
lower
court
are
in
 The
 depositions
 in
 question
 appear
 to
 be
 in
 due
 form
 and
 would
 ordinarily
 be

accordance
with
the
weight
of
the
evidence.
In
a
proceeding
to
probate
a
will
the
 admissible,
 but
 the
 record
 indicates
 that
 the
 failure
 of
 the
 opponents
 to
 be

burden
of
proofs
is
upon
the
proponent
clearly
to
establish
not
only
its
execution
 presented
at
the
examination
of
the
witnesses
was
due
to
the
fact
that
they
were

but
its
existence.
Having
proved
its
execution
by
the
proponents,
the
burden
is
on
 misled
by
the
petitioner's
action
in
seeking
special
authorization
from
the
court
for

the
contestant
to
show
that
it
has
been
revoked.
 the
taking
of
the
depositions.
In
the
interest
of
justice
we
therefore
think
that
the


 depositions
 should
 be
 retaken
 and
 the
 opponents
 given
 another
 opportunity
 to

63
 ALDANESE
V.
SALUTILLO
 examine
the
witnesses.


 47
PHIL
548
 


 64
 CABANG
V.
DELFINADO

FACTS:
 
 34
PHIL
291

Aldanese
filed
a
petition
for
the
probate
of
the
will
of
Avila.

After
due
publication,
 

Salutillo
 and
 others
 opposed
 the
 probate.
 
 During
 the
 proceedings,
 Aldanese
 FACTS:

moved
for
the
taking
of
depositions
of
witnesses
to
the
will.

This
was
opposed
by
 Cabang
sought
the
probate
of
the
will
of
Celestino
Delfinado.

This
was
opposed
by

the
 respondents
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 the
 witnesses
 should
 be
 physicially
 present
 respondent
Delfinado.

During
the
proceedings,
the
petitioner
failed
to
present
two

during
 the
 witnesses
 to
 give
 their
 testimonies.
 
 The
 probate
 court
 sustained
 the
 of
the
subscribing
witnesses
of
the
will
and
based
on
the
orders
of
the
court
and

respondents.
 records,
no
reason
was
adduced
for
failing
to
present
the
witnesses.

The
question


 then
arises
on
whether
the
same
should
be
sustained
and
the
will
be
allowed
to
be

HELD:
 probated.

In
 our
 opinion
 the
 court
 below
 erred
 in
 holding
 that
 the
 depositions
 in
 question
 

were
 inadmissible
 in
 evidence
 in
 the
 probate
 proceedings.
 It
 is
 true
 that
 the
 rule
 HELD:

prevailing
in
this
jurisdiction
is
that
when
a
will
is
contested
the
attesting
witnesses
 The
 rule
 that
 no
 will
 shall
 be
 valid
 to
 pass
 any
 estate,
 real
 or
 personal,
 unless

must
be
called
to
prove
the
will
or
a
showing
must
be
made
that
they
cannot
be
 "attested
 and
 subscribed
 by
 three
 or
 more
 credible
 witnesses,"
 is
 a
 matter
 of

had,
but
that
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
they
must
be
brought
bodily
before
 substantive
 law
 and
 an
 element
 of
 the
 will's
 validity.
 The
 rule
 that
 the
 attesting

the
 court.
 It
 is
 their
 testimony
 which
 is
 needed
 and
 not
 their
 actual
 personal
 witnesses
must
be
called
to
prove
a
will
for
probate
is
one
of
preference
made
so




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









43




by
statute.
This
rule
of
evidence
is
not
to
be
confused
with
rules
of
quantity.
There
 instituted,
all
of
the
attesting
witnesses
must
be
examined,
if
alive
and
within
reach

have
 been
 several
 reasons
 given
 for
 this
 rule
 of
 preference
 for
 the
 attesting
 of
the
process
of
the
court.


witnesses,
one
reason
being
that
the
party
opposing
the
claim
of
proper
execution
 

of
the
will
has
a
right
to
the
benefit
of
cross‐examining
the
attesting
witnesses
as
to
 In
the
present
case
no
explanation
was
made
at
the
trial
as
to
why
all
three
of
the

fraud,
duress,
or
other
matters
of
defense.
The
law
places
these
witnesses
"around
 attesting
witnesses
were
not
produced,
but
the
probable
reason
is
found
in
the
fact

the
 testator
 to
 ascertain
 and
 judge
 of
 his
 capacity"
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 preventing
 that,
although
the
petition
for
the
probate
of
this
 will
had
been
pending
until
the

frauds.
The
soundness
of
the
rule
is
well
illustrated
in
the
case
under
consideration.
 date
set
for
the
hearing,
no
formal
contest
was
entered
until
the
very
day
set
for

Here
 the
 attesting
 clause
 was
 omitted
 and
 the
 testator
 signed
 by
 mark.
 The
 the
 hearing;
 and
 it
 is
 probable
 that
 the
 attorney
 for
 the
 proponent,
 believing
 in

petitioner
 produced
 only
 one
 of
 the
 attesting
 witnesses.
 Had
 there
 not
 been
 a
 good
faith
the
probate
would
not
be
contested,
repaired
to
the
court
with
only
one

contest,
this
would
have
probably
been
sufficient
under
section
631.
While
there
is
 of
 the
 three
 attesting
 witnesses
 at
 hand,
 and
 upon
 finding
 that
 the
 will
 was

no
 testimony
 in
 the
 record
 to
 the
 effect
 that
 the
 testator
 could
 neither
 read
 nor
 contested,
 incautiously
 permitted
 the
 case
 to
 go
 to
 proof
 without
 asking
 for
 a

write,
 there
 is
 conclusive
 evidence
 that
 he
 could
 sign
 his
 name.
 This
 fact
 is
 postponement
 of
 the
 trial
 in
 order
 that
 he
 might
 produce
 all
 the
 attesting

established
by
the
production
of
Exhibit
1,
which
all
agree
the
testator
did
sign.
The
 witnesses.


testator's
signature
to
the
document
shows
that
he
could
write,
at
least
his
name,
 

in
 a
 plain,
 clear
 manner,
 indicating
 a
 fairly
 good
 knowledge
 of
 writing.
 Had
 the
 Although
 this
 circumstance
 may
 explain
 why
 the
 three
 witnesses
 were
 not

proponent
 shown
 that
 the
 other
 two
 subscribing
 witnesses
 were
 not
 within
 the
 produced,
it
does
not
in
itself
supply
any
basis
for
changing
the
rule
expounded
in

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 court
 and
 could
 not,
 therefore,
 be
 called,
 the
 due
 execution
 of
 the
 case
 above
 referred
 to;
 and
 were
 it
 not
 for
 a
 fact
 now
 to
 be
 mentioned,
 this

the
will
would
still
be
very
doubtful.
Believing,
as
we
do,
that
it
was
the
intention
of
 court
 would
 probably
 be
 compelled
 to
 reverse
 this
 case
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 the

the
Legislature
that
the
subscribing
witnesses
must
be
called
or
good
and
sufficient
 execution
 of
 the
 will
 had
 not
 been
 proved
 by
 a
 sufficient
 number
 of
 attesting

reason
shown
why
they
could
not
be
had,
and
being
supported
by
the
authorities
 witnesses.


above
cited
and
quoted,
we
must
conclude
that
the
proponent
did
not
comply
with
 

the
provisions
of
the
law
in
the
presentation
of
her
case.
 66
 SOLIVIO
V.
CA


 
 182
SCRA
119

65
 AVERA
V.
GARCIA
 


 42
PHIL
145
 FACTS:


 This
 case
 is
 regards
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 late
 author
 Esteban
 Javellana
 Jr.
 
 When
 he

FACTS:
 died,
 he
 was
 survived
 by
 only
 his
 maternal
 aunt,
 petitioner
 Solivio
 and
 paternal

Avera
petitioned
for
the
probate
of
the
will
of
Eusebio
Garcia.

This
was
opposed
 aunt,
 respondent
 Villanueva.
 
 Wishing
 to
 fulfill
 the
 decedent’s
 wish
 to
 place
 his

against
by
the
respondents.

Avera
presented
only
one
of
the
subscribing
witnesses
 properties
into
a
foundation,
Solivio
filed
a
petition
for
the
letters
of
administration

and
adduced
no
reason
why
the
other
two
weren’t
presented.

A
caveat
though
to
 of
 the
 estate
 be
 issued
 to
 her
 and
 consequently
 be
 appointed
 as
 a
 special

this
 case
 was
 that
 from
 the
 time
 petition
 was
 filed
 by
 Avera
 till
 the
 time
 of
 the
 administrator.
 
 The
 petition
 was
 later
 amended
 to
 declare
 her
 as
 sole
 heir
 of
 the

hearing,
 no
 opposition
 was
 made.
 
 It
 was
 only
 during
 the
 same
 day
 as
 of
 the
 decedent.

The
court
ruled
in
Solivio’s
favor
and
she
explained
that
she
did
this
to

hearing
wherein
opposition
was
entered.


 facilitate
 the
 formation
 of
 the
 foundation
 among
 other
 reasons.
 
 Subsequently,


 Villanueva
belatedly
sought
the
reconsideration
of
the
order
of
the
court,
averring

HELD:
 that
 Solivio
 wasn’t
 the
 only
 heir
 of
 the
 decedent
 but
 to
 this,
 she
 was
 overruled.


Upon
the
first
point,
while
it
is
undoubtedly
true
that
an
uncontested
will
bay
be
 She
then
filed
a
case
for
reconveyance
and
possession
of
property,
which
the
trial

proved
by
the
testimony
of
only
one
of
the
three
attesting
witnesses,
nevertheless
 court
decided
in
her
favor.

in
 Cabang
 vs.
 Delfinado
 (34
 Phil.,
 291),
 this
 court
 declared
 after
 an
 elaborate
 

examination
 of
 the
 American
 and
 English
 authorities
 that
 when
 a
 contest
 is
 HELD:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









44




After
a
careful
review
of
the
records,
we
find
merit
in
the
petitioner's
contention
 judgment;
and
if
any
of
them
or
other
persons
interested
were
not
satisfied
with

that
 the
 RTC
 lacked
 jurisdiction
 to
 entertain
 Concordia
 Villanueva's
 action
 for
 the
 court's
 decision,
 they
 had
 the
 remedy
 of
 appeal
 to
 correct
 any
 injustice
 that

partition
and
recovery
of
her
share
of
the
estate
of
Esteban
Javellana,
Jr.
while
the
 might
 have
 been
 committed,
 and
 cannot
 now
 through
 the
 special
 remedy
 of

probate
proceedings
for
the
settlement
of
said
estate
are
still
pending
in
Branch
23
 mandamus,
 obtain
 a
 review
 of
 the
 proceeding
 upon
 a
 new
 application
 for
 the

of
the
same
court,
there
being
as
yet
no
orders
for
the
submission
and
approval
of
 probate
of
the
same
will
in
order
to
compel
the
respondent
judge
to
comply
with

the
administratix's
inventory
and
accounting,
distributing
the
residue
of
the
estate
 his
ministerial
duty
imposed
by
section
330
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure;
because

to
the
heir,
and
terminating
the
proceedings.
 this
remedy,
being
extraordinary,
cannot
be
used
in
lieu
of
appeal,
or
writ
of
error


 (26
 Cyc.,
 177;
 18
 R.C.L.,
 par.
 443);
 especially
 when
 the
 parties
 interested
 have

It
is
the
order
of
distribution
directing
the
delivery
of
the
residue
of
the
estate
to
 agreed
 to
 disregard
 the
 testamentary
 provisions
 and
 divide
 the
 estate
 as
 they

the
persons
entitled
thereto
that
brings
to
a
close
the
intestate
proceedings,
puts
 pleased,
each
of
them
taking
what
pertained
to
him
(25
R.C.L.,
359).

an
 end
 to
 the
 administration
 and
 thus
 far
 relieves
 the
 administrator
 from
 his
 

duties.
 
 The
 assailed
 order
 declaring
 Celedonia
 as
 the
 sole
 heir
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 68
 RIERA
V.
PALMAROLI

Esteban
Javellana,
Jr.
did
not
toll
the
end
of
the
proceedings.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
 
 40
PHIL
105

the
 last
 paragraph
 of
 the
 order
 directed
 the
 administratrix
 to
 "hurry
 up
 the
 

settlement
of
the
estate."
 FACTS:


 Pons
was
a
Spanish
resident
who
died
in
the
Philippines.

Subsequently,
the
Consul

67
 MANALO
V.
PAREDES
 General
 submitted
 for
 probate
 his
 purported
 will.
 
 The
 will
 was
 admitted
 to


 Supra
 probate.
 
 This
 was
 later
 on
 opposed
 by
 the
 widow
 of
 the
 decedent,
 alleging
 that


 due
 to
 uncontrollable
 circumstances,
 she
 wasn’t
 able
 to
 outright
 enter
 her

HELD:
 opposition.

She
petitioned
the
SC,
through
section
513,
to
reconsider
the
decision

The
proceeding
for
the
probate
of
a
will
is
a
proceeding
in
rem
(40
Cyc.,
p.
1265),
 of
 the
 lower
 court,
 averring
 regularities
 in
 the
 formalities
 of
 executing
 the
 will.


and
 the
 court
 acquires
 jurisdiction
 over
 all
 the
 persons
 interested
 through
 the
 Section
513
provides—“SEC.
513.
When
a
judgment
is
rendered
by
a
Court
of
First

publication
of
the
notice
prescribed
by
section
630
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
 Instance
 upon
 default,
 and
 a
 party
 thereto
 is
 unjustly
 deprived
 of
 a
 hearing
 by

and
 any
 order
 that
 may
 be
 entered
 is
 binding
 against
 all
 of
 them.
 Through
 the
 fraud,
 accident,
 mistake,
 or
 excusable
 negligence,
 and
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance

publication
ordered
by
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Laguna
of
the
application
for
 which
 rendered
 the
 judgment
 has
 finally
 adjourned
 so
 that
 no
 adequate
 remedy

the
 probate
 of
 the
 supposed
 will
 of
 Francisco
 Villegas,
 filed
 by
 Justina
 Mendieta
 exists
in
that
court,
the
party
so
deprived
of
a
hearing
may
present
his
petition
to

and
her
minor
children
Lazaro
and
Daria
Mendieta
and
Melecio
Fule,
testamentary
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 within
 sixty
 days
 after
 he
 first
 learns
 of
 the
 rendition
 of
 such

executor,
 through
 their
 attorney,
 Mr.
 Eusebio
 Lopez,
 said
 court
 acquired
 judgment,
 and
 not
 thereafter,
 setting
 forth
 the
 facts
 and
 praying
 to
 have
 such

jurisdiction
over
all
such
persons
as
were
interested
in
the
supposed
will,
including
 judgment
set
aside.
.
.
“

Gelacio
Malihan.
The
court
having
tried
said
application
for
probate,
hearing
all
the
 

testimony
of
the
attesting
witnesses
of
the
said
supposed
will,
the
applicant
Justina
 HELD:

Mendieta
for
herself
and
as
guardian
ad
litem
of
her
minor
children,
represented
 From
what
has
been
said
it
will
be
seen
that
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Supreme
Court

by
their
attorneys,
Messrs.
Marcelino
Lontok
and
Marcial
Azada,
on
the
one
hand,
 to
 entertain
 a
 petition
 of
 the
 character
 of
 that
 now
 before
 us
 begins
 in
 point
 of

and
 Laureana
 Hidalgo,
 widow
 of
 Francisco
 Villegas,
 represented
 by
 her
 attorney,
 time
when
the
period
has
passed
within
which
it
was
competent
for
the
Court
of

Jesus.
E.
Blanco,
on
the
other,
having
submitted
a
stipulation
wherein
the
former
 First
 Instance
 to
 entertain
 an
 application
 under
 section
 113;
 and
 apart
 from
 the

withdrew
her
application
and
the
latter
reserved
certain
rights
over
the
estate
left
 requirement
that
the
application
must
be
made
to
the
Supreme
Court
within
two

by
Francisco
Villegas
in
favor
of
Justina
Mendieta
and
her
minor
children;
and
the
 months
after
the
petitioner
first
learns
of
the
rendition
of
judgment
against
which

court
 having
 approved
 said
 stipulation
 and
 declared
 that
 Francisco
 Villegas
 died
 relief
is
sought,
there
is
no
absolute
limit
to
the
period
within
which
the
application

intestate
 according
 to
 said
 agreement,
 all
 the
 parties
 became
 bound
 by
 said
 may
 be
 made.
 But
 of
 course
 if
 relief
 from
 a
 judgment
 is
 sought
 by
 timely




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









45




application
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance,
 and
 the
 application
 is
 there
 denied,
 no
 the
facts
before
us,
this
is
her
only
recourse.
But
if
the
will
in
question
was
in
fact

petition
based
on
the
same
ground
will
thereafter
be
entertained
in
the
Supreme
 proved
 as
 the
 will
 of
 a
 Spanish
 subject
 under
 section
 636
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil

Court
 under
 section
 513,
 as
 the
 proper
 remedy
 in
 that
 case
 would
 be
 to
 appeal
 Procedure,
 the
 intrinsic
 validity
 of
 its
 provisions
 must
 be
 determined
 under
 the

from
the
action
of
the
Court
of
First
Instance.
 Spanish
law
applicable
to
this
testator.


 

It
 is
 manifest
 from
 this
 that
 the
 remedy
 given
 in
 section
 513
 can
 have
 no
 69
 MANAHAN
V.
MANAHAN

application
to
the
order
of
May
20,
1918,
legalizing
the
will
of
Juan
Pons
y
Coll;
and
 
 58
PHIL
448

this
 is
 necessarily
 fatal
 to
 the
 petition
 before
 us.
 This
 consequence
 follows
 

regardless
of
any
irregularities
that
may
have
occurred
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
 FACTS:

in
admitting
the
will
to
probate
and
regardless
of
any
error
which
that
court
may
 The
niece
of
the
deceased
Manahan
petitioned
for
the
probate
of
her
will.

Since

have
committed
in
the
action
taken
upon
the
proof
submitted
at
the
hearing.
It
is
 no
 opposition
 was
 entered
 and
 evidence
 was
 received,
 the
 will
 was
 probated.


not
 alleged
 that
 any
 fraud
 has
 been
 attempted
 or
 committed,
 or
 that
 the
 After
 more
 than
 a
 year,
 respondent
 Manahan
 filed
 a
 motion
 for
 reconsideration

document
 probated
 is
 any
 other
 than
 a
 testamentary
 memorial
 in
 which
 the
 and
 new
 trial
 but
 was
 denied.
 
 She
 alleged
 among
 others
 that
 she
 is
 the
 sister
 of

decedent
 actually
 gave
 expression
 to
 his
 desires
 with
 regard
 to
 the
 disposition
 of
 the
testatrix
and
that
she
was
entitled
to
notice,
etc.



his
property.
But
if
fraud
had
been
charged
as,
for
instance,
if
it
were
alleged
that
 

the
 purported
 will
 is
 forged
 document
 the
 remedy,
 if
 any
 exists,
 would
 not
 be
 HELD:

found
in
a
proceeding
under
section
513,
but
in
an
original
action
in
the
Court
of
 First,
 respondent
 was
 not
 entitled
 to
 notification
 of
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 and

First
Instance.
It
thus
becomes
unneccessary
to
inquire
whether
the
will
in
question
 neither
had
she
the
right
to
expect
it,
inasmuch
as
she
was
not
an
interested
party,

was
 in
 fact
 executed
 in
 conformity
 with
 the
 requirements
 of
 law
 either
 of
 these
 not
 having
 filed
 an
 opposition
 to
 the
 petition
 for
 the
 probate
 thereof.
 Her

Islands
or
of
Spain.
 allegation
 that
 she
 had
 the
 status
 of
 an
 heir,
 being
 the
 deceased's
 sister,
 did
 not


 confer
on
her
the
right
to
be
notified
on
the
ground
that
the
testatrix
died
leaving
a

As
a
result
of
this
decision
it
cannot
be
denied
that,
without
any
fault
on
the
part
of
 will
in
which
the
appellant
has
not
been
instituted
heir.
Furthermore,
not
being
a

the
petitioner
or
her
attorneys,
she
has
been
deprived
not
only
of
the
opportunity
 forced
heir,
she
did
not
acquire
any
successional
right.

of
 opposing
 the
 will
 and
 appealing
 from
 the
 order
 of
 probate
 but
 also
 of
 the
 

opportunity
of
applying
to
the
Court
of
First
Instance
for
relief
under
section
113.
 Second,
 the
 court
 really
 decreed
 the
 authentication
 and
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 in

Even
assuming
that
she
could
have
procured
the
disallowance
of
the
will
by
either
 question,
which
is
the
only
pronouncement
required
of
the
trial
court
by
the
law
in

of
those
methods
 
a
point
upon
which
no
pronouncement
can
here
be
made
 
it
 order
that
the
will
may
be
considered
valid
and
duly
executed
in
accordance
with

is
 obvious
 that
 the
 impossibility
 of
 her
 thus
 obtaining
 relief
 was
 due
 to
 the
law.
In
the
phraseology
of
the
procedural
law,
there
is
no
essential
difference

circumstances
 peculiar
 to
 this
 case;
 and
 the
 possibility
 of
 occassional
 hardship
 between
 the
 authentication
 of
 a
 will
 and
 the
 probate
 thereof.
 The
 words

cannot
affect
the
validity
of
our
procedure
for
the
probate
of
wills.
 authentication
and
probate
are
synonymous
in
this
case.
All
the
law
requires
is
that


 the
 competent
 court
 declared
 that
 in
 the
 execution
 of
 the
 will
 the
 essential

As
has
been
repeatedly
stated
in
the
decisions
of
this
court,
the
probate
of
a
will,
 external
 formalities
 have
 been
 complied
 with
 and
 that,
 in
 view
 thereof,
 the

while
conclusive
as
to
its
due
execution,
in
no
wise
involves
the
intrinsic
validity
of
 document,
as
a
will,
is
valid
and
effective
in
the
eyes
of
the
law.

its
provisions.
If,
therefore,
upon
the
distribution
of
the
estate
of
Juan
Pons
y
Coll,
 

it
should
appear
that
any
provision
of
his
will
is
contrary
to
the
law
applicable
to
his
 Lastly,
 once
 a
 will
 has
 been
 authenticated
 and
 admitted
 to
 probate,
 questions

case,
 the
 will
 must
 necessarily
 yield
 upon
 that
 point
 and
 the
 disposition
 made
 by
 relative
 to
 the
 validity
 thereof
 can
 no
 more
 be
 raised
 on
 appeal.
 The
 decree
 of

law
 must
 prevail.
 The
 petitioner
 is
 therefore
 free
 to
 appear
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 probate
 is
 conclusive
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 due
 execution
 thereof
 and
 it
 cannot

Instance
 at
 the
 proper
 juncture
 and
 discuss
 the
 questions
 of
 the
 validity
 of
 such
 impugned
 on
 any
 of
 the
 grounds
 authorized
 by
 law,
 except
 that
 of
 fraud,
 in
 any

provisions
of
the
will
as
affect
her
interests
adversely;
and
so
far
as
we
can
see,
on
 separate
or
independent
action
or
proceedings




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









46





 Art.
816.
The
will
of
an
alien
who
is
abroad
produces
effect
in
the
Philippines
if

made
with
the
formalities
prescribed
by
the
law
of
the
place
in
which
he
resides,

RULE
77

or
 according
 to
 the
 formalities
 observed
 in
 his
 country,
 or
 in
 conformity
 with

ALLOWANCE
OF
WILL
PROVED
OUTSIDE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES

those
which
this
Code
prescribes.
(n)


 

Section
1.
Will
proved
outside
Philippines
may
be
allowed
here.

Wills
proved
and
 Art.
817.
A
will
made
in
the
Philippines
by
a
citizen
or
subject
of
another
country,

allowed
 in
 a
 foreign
 country,
 according
 to
 the
 laws
 of
 such
 country,
 may
 be
 which
 is
 executed
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 law
 of
 the
 country
 of
 which
 he
 is
 a

allowed,
 filed,
 and
 recorded
 by
 the
 proper
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 in
 the
 citizen
or
subject,
and
which
might
be
proved
and
allowed
by
the
law
of
his
own

Philippines.
 country,
 shall
 have
 the
 same
 effect
 as
 if
 executed
 according
 to
 the
 laws
 of
 the


 Philippines.
(n)

Section
2.
Notice
of
hearing
for
allowance.
When
a
copy
of
such
will
and
of
the
 

order
or
decree
of
the
allowance
thereof,
both
duly
authenticated,
are
filed
with

a
 petition
 for
 allowance
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 by
 the
 executor
 or
 other
 person

interested,
 in
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction,
 such
 court
 shall
 fix
 a
 time
 and
 place

for
the
hearing,
and
cause
notice
thereof
to
be
given
as
in
case
of
an
original
will

presented
for
allowance.



Section
3.
When
will
allowed,
and
effect
thereof.
If
it
appears
at
the
hearing
that

the
 will
 should
 be
 allowed
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 the
 shall
 so
 allow
 it,
 and
 a

certificate
 of
 its
 allowance,
 signed
 by
 the
 judge,
and
attested
by
 the
 seal
 of
the

court,
to
which
shall
be
attached
a
copy
of
the
will,
shall
be
filed
and
recorded
by

the
 clerk,
 and
 the
 will
 shall
 have
 the
 same
 effect
 as
 if
 originally
 proves
 and

allowed
in
such
court.



Section
4.
Estate,
how
administered.
When
a
will
is
thus
allowed,
the
court
shall

grant
letters
testamentary,
or
letters
of
administration
with
the
will
annexed,
and

such
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration,
 shall
 extend
 to
 all
 the
 estate
 of

the
testator
in
the
Philippines.
Such
estate,
after
the
payment
of
just
debts
and

expenses
of
administration,
shall
be
disposed
of
according
to
such
will,
so
far
as

such
 will
may
 operate
 upon
 it;
 and
 the
 residue,
 if
any
shall
be
disposed
 of
as
 is

provided
by
law
in
cases
of
estates
in
the
Philippines
belonging
to
persons
who

are
inhabitants
of
another
state
or
country.





Art.
815.
When
a
Filipino
is
in
a
foreign
country,
he
is
authorized
to
make
a
will
in

any
of
the
forms
established
by
the
law
of
the
country
in
which
he
may
be.
Such

will
may
be
probated
in
the
Philippines.
(n)


 






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









47




HOW
CAN
A
WILL
PROVED
ABROAD
PRODUCE
EFFECT
IN
THE
PHILIPPINES?
 in
 this
 proceedings
 which
 is
 concerned
 only
 with
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 will
 and

1. Petition
for
allowance
of
will
 testament
executed
in
the
Philippines

or
of
the
foreign
will
allegedly
executed
in

2. Duly
authenticated
copy
of
the
will
 Amoy
and
claimed
to
have
been
probated
in
the
municipal
district
court
of
Amoy,

3. Duly
authenticated
order
or
decree
of
the
allowance
 Fookien
province,
Republic
of
China.

4. The
will
should
be
the
following—
 

a. If
 accordance
 with
 the
 formalities
 prescribed
 by
 the
 law
 of
 As
to
the
will
claimed
to
have
been
executed
on
4
January
1931
in
Amoy,
China,
the

place
in
which
he
resides,
or
 law
on
the
point
in
Rule
78.
Section
1
of
the
rule
provides:

b. In
accordance
with
formalities
observed
in
his
country,
or

 Wills
 proved
 and
 allowed
 in
 a
 foreign
 country,
 according
 to
 the
 laws
 of
 such

c. In
accordance
with
formalities
observed
in
the
Philippines
 country,
may
be
allowed,
filed,
and
recorded
by
the
proper
Court
of
First
Instance

5. In
 accordance
 to
 Suntay
 v.
 Suntay,
 it
 must
 be
 proved
 that
 the
 foreign
 in
the
Philippines.

court
ordering
the
allowance
is
a
probate
court
 

6. In
accordance
to
Fluemer
v.
Hix,
if
the
will
was
made
in
a
foreign
country,
 Section
2
provides:

it
must
be
shown
that
the
will
was
made
in
accordance
to
the
laws
of
the
 When
 a
 copy
 of
 such
 will
 and
 the
 allowance
 thereof,
 duly
 authenticated,
 is
 filed

same,
and
necessarily,
a
copy
of
the
law(s)
must
be
produced
or
proved
 with
 a
 petition
 for
 allowance
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 by
 the
 executor
 or
 other
 person

in
court
 interested,
in
the
court
having
jurisdiction,
such
court
shall
fix
a
time
and
place
for

7. In
 case
 there
 is
 failure
 to
 prove
 the
 laws
 and
 procedure
 of
 the
 foreign
 the
 hearing,
 and
 cause
 notice
 thereof
 to
 be
 given
 as
 in
 case
 of
 an
 original
 will

country,
then
it
is
presumed
to
be
the
same
with
Philippine
law
 presented
for
allowance.


 

70
 SUNTAY
V.
SUNTAY
 Section
3
provides:


 95
PHIL
500
 If
 it
 appears
 at
 the
 hearing
 that
 the
 will
 should
 be
 allowed
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 the


 court
shall
so
allow
it,
and
a
certificate
of
its
allowance,
signed
by
the
Judge,
and

FACTS:
 attested
 by
 the
 seal
 of
 the
 courts,
 to
 which
 shall
 be
 attached
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 will,

Suntay
was
a
Filipino
citizen
who
died
in
Amoy,
China.

He
had
properties
in
both
 shall
be
filed
and
recorded
by
the
clerk,
and
the
will
shall
have
the
same
effect
as
if

the
 Philippines
 and
 China,
 and
 was
 survived
 by
 his
 children
 from
 the
 first
 and
 originally
proved
and
allowed
in
such
court.

second
 marriages
 as
 well
 as
 by
 his
 second
 wife.
 
 After
 his
 death,
 petition
 for
 

intestate
proceedings
and
consequently,
for
letters
for
administration
of
his
estate
 The
fact
that
the
municipal
district
court
of
Amoy,
China,
is
a
probate
court
must

was
filed
by
one
of
his
sons
from
his
first
marriage
and
was
duly
allowed
the
same
 be
proved.
The
law
of
China
on
procedure
in
the
probate
or
allowance
of
wills
must

by
the
court.

Another
petition
was
filed
consequently,
this
time
by
the
widow,
for
 also
be
proved.
The
legal
requirements
for
the
execution
of
a
valid
will
in
China
in

the
 probate
 of
 the
 alleged
 will
 of
 the
 testator.
 
 But
 the
 probate
 proceeding
 was
 1931
should
also
be
established
by
competent
evidence.
There
is
no
proof
on
these

dismissed,
 for
 the
 alleged
 loss
 of
 the
 will
 and
 failure
 to
 adduce
 evidence
 on
 its
 points.


Moreover,
it
appears
that
all
the
proceedings
had
in
the
municipal
district

execution.

Subsequently,
the
son
from
the
second
marriage
filed
a
motion
in
the
 court
 of
 Amoy
 were
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 taking
 the
 testimony
 of
 two
 attesting

intestate
proceeding
to
admit
the
alleged
will
he
found
of
his
father
in
China,
but
 witnesses
 to
 the
 will
 and
 that
 the
 order
 of
 the
 municipal
 district
 court
 of
 Amoy

was
denied
by
the
court.
 does
 not
 purport
 to
 probate
 the
 will.
 In
 the
 absence
 of
 proof
 that
 the
 municipal


 district
court
of
Amoy
is
a
probate
court
and
on
the
Chinese
law
of
procedure
in

HELD:
 probate
 matters,
 it
 may
 be
 presumed
 that
 the
 proceedings
 in
 the
 matter
 of

There
 is
 no
 merit
 in
 the
 contention
 that
 the
 petitioner
 Silvino
 Suntay
 and
 his
 probating
 or
 allowing
 a
 will
 in
 the
 Chinese
 courts
 are
 the
 a
 deposition
 or
 to
 a

mother
are
estopped
from
asking
for
the
probate
of
the
lost
will
or
of
the
foreign
 perpetuation
 of
 testimony,
 and
 even
 if
 it
 were
 so
 it
 does
 not
 measure
 same
 as

will
because
of
the
transfer
or
assignment
of
their
share
right,
title
and
interest
in
 those
provided
for
in
our
laws
on
the
subject.
It
is
a
proceedings
in
rem
and
for
the

the
estate
for
the
validity
and
legality
of
such
assignments
cannot
be
threshed
out
 validity
 of
 such
 proceedings
 personal
 notice
 or
 by
 publication
 or
 both
 to
 all




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









48




interested
parties
must
be
made.
The
interested
parties
in
the
case
were
known
to
 presence
of
two
competent
witnesses,
of
that
these
witnesses
subscribed
the
will

reside
in
the
Philippines.
The
evidence
shows
that
no
such
notice
was
received
by
 in
the
presence
of
the
testator
and
of
each
other
as
the
law
of
West
Virginia
seems

the
 interested
 parties
 residing
 in
 the
 Philippines.
 
 The
 proceedings
 had
 in
 the
 to
 require.
 On
 the
 supposition
 that
 the
 witnesses
 to
 the
 will
 reside
 without
 the

municipal
 district
 court
 of
 Amoy,
 China,
 may
 be
 likened
 toe
 or
 come
 up
 to
 the
 Philippine
 Islands,
 it
 would
 then
 the
 duty
 of
 the
 petitioner
 to
 prove
 execution
 by

standard
of
such
proceedings
in
the
Philippines
for
lack
of
notice
to
all
interested
 some
other
means.

parties
 and
 the
 proceedings
 were
 held
 at
 the
 back
 of
 such
 interested
 parties.
 
 In
 

view
thereof,
the
will
and
the
alleged
probate
thereof
cannot
be
said
to
have
been
 It
was
also
necessary
for
the
petitioner
to
prove
that
the
testator
had
his
domicile

done
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 accepted
 basic
 and
 fundamental
 concepts
 and
 in
West
Virginia
and
not
establish
this
fact
consisted
of
the
recitals
in
the
will
and

principles
 followed
 in
 the
 probate
 and
 allowance
 of
 wills.
 Consequently,
 the
 the
 testimony
 of
 the
 petitioner.
 Also
 in
 beginning
 administration
 proceedings

authenticated
 transcript
 of
 proceedings
 held
 in
 the
 municipal
 district
 court
 of
 originally
in
the
Philippines,
the
petitioner
violated
his
own
theory
by
attempting
to

Amoy,
 China,
 cannot
 be
 deemed
 and
 accepted
 as
 proceedings
 leading
 to
 the
 have
the
principal
administration
in
the
Philippines.

probate
or
allowance
of
a
will
and,
therefore,
the
will
referred
to
therein
cannot
be
 

allowed,
filed
and
recorded
by
a
competent
court
of
this
country.
 While
 the
 appeal
 pending
 submission
 in
 this
 court,
 petitioner
 presented
 an


 unverified
 petition
 asking
 the
 court
 to
 accept
 as
 part
 of
 the
 evidence
 the

71
 FLUEMER
V.
HIX
 documents
attached
to
the
petition.
One
of
these
documents
discloses
that
a
paper


 54
PHIL
610
 writing
 purporting
 to
 be
 the
 will
 was
 presented
 for
 probate
 in
 West
 Virginia,
 and


 ordered
 to
 be
 recorded
 and
 filed.
 In
 this
 connection,
 it
 is
 to
 be
 noted
 that
 the

FACTS:
 application
for
the
probate
of
the
will
in
the
Philippines
was
filed
earlier
than
that

Edward
 Hix
 allegedly
 executed
 a
 will
 in
 West
 Virginia
 where
 he
 was
 allegedly
 in
 West
 Virginia.
 These
 facts
 are
 strongly
 indicative
 of
 an
 intention
 to
 make
 the

residing.
 
 When
 he
 died,
 the
 special
 administrator
 of
 his
 estate
 petitioned
 the
 Philippines
 the
 principal
 administration
 and
 West
 Virginia
 the
 ancillary

probate
of
the
will
but
was
denied
by
the
court.

He
alleged
among
others
that
the
 administration.
 However
 this
 may
 be,
 no
 attempt
 has
 been
 made
 to
 comply
 with

will
was
executed
in
West
Virginia
and
in
accordance
with
the
rules
provided
in
the
 Civil
 Procedure,
 for
 no
 hearing
 on
 the
 question
 of
 the
 allowance
 of
 a
 will
 said
 to

said
jurisdiction.
 have
 been
 proved
 and
 allowed
 in
 West
 Virginia
 has
 been
 requested.
 There
 is
 no


 showing
that
the
deceased
left
any
property
at
any
place
other
than
the
Philippines

HELD:
 and
no
contention
that
he
left
any
in
West
Virginia.

The
 laws
 of
 a
 foreign
 jurisdiction
 do
 not
 prove
 themselves
 in
 our
 courts.
 The
 

courts
of
the
Philippine
Islands
are
not
authorized
to
take
American
Union.
Such
 72
 MICIANO
V.
BRIMO

laws
 must
 be
 proved
 as
 facts.
 Here
 the
 requirements
 of
 the
 law
 were
 not
 met.
 
 50
PHIL
867

There
 was
 no
 was
 printed
 or
 published
 under
 the
 authority
 of
 the
 State
 of
 West
 

Virginia,
 as
 provided
 in
 section
 300
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure.
 Nor
 was
 the
 FACTS:

extract
from
the
law
attested
by
the
certificate
of
the
officer
having
charge
of
the
 The
 judicial
 administrator
 of
 Brimo’s
 estate
 submitted
 a
 plan
 of
 partition,
 which

original,
under
the
sale
of
the
State
of
West
Virginia,
as
provided
in
section
301
of
 was
 opposed
 by
 the
 decedent’s
 brother.
 
 He
 alleged
 that
 the
 same
 was
 in

the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
No
evidence
was
introduced
to
show
that
the
extract
 accordance
with
the
denied
will
of
his
brother,
for
not
complying
with
laws
of
his

from
 the
 laws
 of
 West
 Virginia
 was
 in
 force
 at
 the
 time
 the
 alleged
 will
 was
 Turkish
nationality.



executed.
 


 HELD:

In
addition,
the
due
execution
of
the
will
was
not
established.
The
only
evidence
on
 The
brother
is
overruled.

He
failed
to
state
what
Turkish
laws
have
been
violated

this
point
is
to
be
found
in
the
testimony
of
the
petitioner.
Aside
from
this,
there
 by
the
will
in
question.

He
himself
acknowledged
this
fact
when
he
desires
to
be

was
 nothing
 to
 indicate
 that
 the
 will
 was
 acknowledged
 by
 the
 testator
 in
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









49




given
the
opportunity
to
prove
his
point.

As
such,
the
Turkish
laws
are
presumed
 annuitant,
the
residuary
legatee
may
claim
the
remainder,
if
there
be
any.
Neither

to
be
the
same
as
Philippine
laws.
 the
 domiciliary
 or
 ancillary
 executor
 of
 Butler's
 will,
 nor
 the
 trustee,
 nor
 the


 annuitant
 has
 disposition
 of
 any
 of
 these
 funds
 beyond
 the
 amounts
 and
 except

73
 LEON
AND
GHEZZI
V.
MANUFACTURERS
LIFE
INSURANCE
 upon
the
conditions
agreed
upon
in
the
contract
for
annuity.


 90
PHIL
459
 



RULE
78

FACTS:

LETTERS
TESTAMENTARY
AND
OF
ADMINISTRATION,
WHEN
AND
TO
WHOM

Butler
was
a
former
Philippine
resident
who
died
in
the
state
of
New
York.

His
will

ISSUED

was
 probated
 and
 it
 contained
 a
 residuary
 clause,
 which
 provided
 that
 after

legacies
have
been
distributed
and
just
debts
paid,
the
residual
estate
shall
be
paid
 

to
Mercedes
de
Leon
in
annuity.

In
compliance
with
the
will,
Ross
(administrator
in
 Section
 1.
 Who
 are
 incompetent
 to
 serve
 as
 executors
 or
 administrators.
 No

New
York)
bought
an
annuity
in
her
favor
with
the
insurance
company.

Mercedes,
 person
in
competent
to
serve
as
executor
or
administrator
who:

probably
 wanting
 to
 take
 the
 money
 in
 whole,
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 probate
 of
 the
 (a)
Is
a
minor;

same
will
with
the
Manila
court.

She
prayed
that
the
court
ordered
the
insurance
 (b)
Is
not
a
resident
of
the
Philippines;
and

company
bring
forth
the
money
due
allegedly
to
her.


 (c)
Is
in
the
opinion
of
the
court
unfit
to
execute
the
duties
of
the
trust
by
reason


 of
 drunkenness,
 improvidence,
 or
 want
 of
 understanding
 or
 integrity,
 or
 by

HELD:
 reason
of
conviction
of
an
offense
involving
moral
turpitude.

The
important
thing
to
inquire
into
is
the
Manila
court's
authority
with
respect
to
 

the
 assets
 herein
 involved.
 The
 general
 rule
 universally
 recognized
 is
 that
 WHO
 DETERMINES
 WHETHER
 A
 PERSON
 IS
 UNFIT
 TO
 BE
 AN

administration
extends
only
to
the
assets
of
a
decedent
found
within
the
state
or
 ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR?

country
where
it
was
granted,
so
that
an
administrator
appointed
in
one
state
or
 • The
court
has
the
discretion
to
decide
whether
one
is
unfit
or
not

country
has
no
power
over
property
in
another
state
or
country.


 


 CAN
THE
COURT
NOT
APPOINT
THE
NAMED
EXECUTOR
IN
THE
WILL?

It
is
manifest
from
the
facts
before
set
out
that
the
funds
in
question
are
outside
 • Yes
if
the
executor
fails
to
comply
with
his
duties
as
an
executor

the
jurisdiction
of
the
probate
court
of
Manila.
Having
been
invested
in
an
annuity
 

in
 Canada
 under
 a
 contract
 executed
 in
 the
 country,
 Canada
 is
 the
 suits
 of
 the
 
 

money.
The
party
whose
appearance
the
appellant
seeks
is
only
a
branch
or
agency
 EXECUTOR
 ADMINISTRATOR

of
the
company
which
holds
the
funds
in
its
possession,
the
agency's
intervention
 

being
limited
to
delivering
to
the
annuitant
the
checks
made
out
and
issued
from
 Person
 named
 in
 the
 will
 to
 administer
 the
 Person
appointed
by
the
court
to
administer

the
 home
 office.
 There
 is
 no
 showing
 or
 allegation
 that
 the
 funds
 have
 been
 decedent’s
 estate
 and
 carry
 out
 the
 the
 estate
 where
 the
 decedent
 died

provisions
thereof
 intestate
or
where
the
will
was
void
and
not

transferred
or
removed
to
the
Manila
Branch.

allowed
 to
 probate,
 or
 where
 no
 executor


 was
named
in
the
will,
or
the
executor
was

Even
if
the
money
were
in
the
hands
of
the
Manila
Branch,
yet
it
no
longer
forms
 named
 in
 the
 will,
 or
 the
 executor
 named

part
 of
 Butler's
 estate
 and
 is
 beyond
 the
 control
 of
 the
 court.
 It
 has
 passed
 therein
 is
 incompetent
 or
 refuses
 to
 serve

completely
into
the
hands
of
the
company
in
virtue
of
a
contract
duly
authorized
 as
such

and
validly
executed.
Whether
considered
as
a
trust
or
as
simple
consideration
for
 

the
 company's
 assumed
 obligation,
 which
 it
 has
 been
 religiously
 performing,
 of
 Section
 2.
 Executor
 of
 executor
 not
 to
 administer
 estate.
 The
 executor
 of
 an

paying
periodical
allowances
to
the
annuitant,
the
proceeds
of
the
sale
can
not
be
 executor
shall
not,
as
such,
administer
the
estate
of
the
first
testator.

withdrawn
 without
 the
 consent
 of
 the
 company,
 except,
 upon
 the
 death
 of
 the
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









50




Section
3.
Married
women
may
serve.
A
married
woman
may
serve
as
executrix
 3. Where
the
estate
is
large,
or
from
any
cause,
an
intricate
and
perplexing

or
 administratrix,
 and
 the
 marriage
 of
 a
 single
 woman
 shall
 not
 affect
 her
 one
to
settle

authority
so
to
serve
under
a
previous
appointment.
 4. To
have
all
interested
parties
satisfied
and
the
representation
to
work
in


 harmony
for
the
best
interests
of
the
estate

Section
4.
Letters
testamentary
issued
when
will
allowed.
When
a
will
has
been
 5. When
 a
 person
 is
 entitled
 to
 the
 administration
 of
 an
 estate
 desires


proved
 and
 allowed,
 the
 court
 shall
 issue
 letters
 testamentary
 thereon
 to
 the
 another
competent
associated
with
him
in
office

person
named
as
executor
therein,
if
he
is
competent,
accepts
the
trust,
and
gives
 

bond
as
required
by
these
rules.
 74
 GUERRERO
V.
TERAN


 
 13
PHIL
212

Section
5.
Where
some
coexecutors
disqualified
others
may
act.
When
all
of
the
 

executors
named
in
a
will
can
not
act
because
of
incompetency,
refusal
to
accept
 FACTS:

the
 trust,
 or
 failure
 to
 give
 bond,
 on
 the
 part
 of
 one
 or
 more
 of
 them,
 letters
 Teran
was
preliminarily
the
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Antonio
Munoz.

He
only

testamentary
may
issue
to
such
of
them
as
are
competent,
accept
and
give
bond,
 served
as
administrator
of
the
estate
for
a
period
and
was
subsequently
changed

and
they
may
perform
the
duties
and
discharge
the
trust
required
by
the
will.
 when
Maria
Munoz
was
appointed
as
guardian
of
the
properties
of
the
heirs
in
the


 estate
of
Antonio.

Maria
was
however
changed
as
guardian/administrator
when
it

Section
6.
When
and
to
whom
letters
of
administration
granted.
If
no
executor
is
 was
shown
she
wasn’t
a
resident
of
the
Philippines.

Subsequently,
Guerrero
filed
a

named
in
the
will,
or
the
executor
or
executors
are
incompetent,
refuse
the
trust,
 case
 against
 Teran
 for
 differences
 in
 account
 of
 the
 properties
 of
 the
 wards
 the

or
fail
to
give
bond,
or
a
person
dies
intestate,
administration
shall
be
granted:
 former
 represents.
 
 Teran
 counterclaimed
 that
 it
 was
 the
 other
 way
 around—

 Guerrero
 was
 the
 one
 who
 owed
 him.
 
 The
 trial
 court
 held
 that
 Teran
 was

(a)
To
the
surviving
husband
or
wife,
as
the
case
may
be,
or
next
of
kin,
or
both,
 accountable
for
an
n
amount
of
money.

in
the
discretion
of
the
court,
or
to
such
person
as
such
surviving
husband
or
wife,
 

or
next
of
kin,
requests
to
have
appointed,
if
competent
and
willing
to
serve;
 HELD:


 The
 administrators
 of
 an
 estate
 belonging
 to
 minors
 is
 liable
 to
 them
 for
 the

(b)
 If
 such
 surviving
 husband
 or
 wife,
 as
 the
 case
 may
 be,
 or
 next
 of
 kin,
 or
 the
 management
 of
 their
 interests
 therein
 from
 the
 time
 of
 his
 acceptance
 of
 the

person
 selected
 by
 them,
 be
 incompetent
 or
 unwilling,
 or
 if
 the
 husband
 or
 appointment
 until
 his
 removal
 or
 release.
 
 If
 such
 administrator
 has
 in
 the

widow,
or
next
of
kin,
neglects
for
thirty
(30)
days
after
the
death
of
the
person
 meantime,
 permitted
 other
 persons
 to
 intervene
 in
 the
 management,
 the

to
apply
for
administration
or
to
request
that
administration
be
granted
to
some
 responsibility
for
their
acts
falls
upon
him.

The
administrator
however
may
have
a

other
person,
it
may
be
granted
to
one
or
more
of
the
principal
creditors,
if
may
 right
of
action
against
such
persons
for
any
loss
occasioned
by
their
negligence
or

be
granted
to
one
or
more
of
the
principal
creditors,
if
competent
and
willing
to
 corruption.

In
the
case
at
bar,

Teran
would
be
held
liable
for
accounts
during
the

serve;
 period
he
was
the
administrator
 of
 the
 estate.
 
The
records
failed
 to
 adduce
that


 losses
were
incurred
during
the
said
period.

However,
Teran
acknowledges
that
he

(c)
If
there
is
no
such
creditor
competent
and
willing
to
serve,
it
may
be
granted
 owed
a
minimal
amount
of
money
to
Guerrero.

to
such
other
person
as
the
court
may
select.
 


 With
respect
to
the
issue
of
the
removal
of
Munoz
as
administrator
by
virtue
of
her

AT
WHAT
INSTANCES
MAY
CO‐ADMINISTRATORS
BE
APPOINTED
BY
THE
COURT?
 non‐residence
status,
there
is
nothing
in
law
which
requires
the
courts
to
appoint

1. To
 have
 the
 benefit
 of
 judgment
 and
 perhaps,
 at
 all
 times,
 to
 have
 residents
 only
 as
 administrators
 or
 executors.
 
 However,
 notwithstanding
 lack
 of

different
interests
represented
 statutory
requirements,
the
courts
will
find
difficulty
in
safeguarding
the
interests

2. Where
 justice
 and
 equity
 demand
 that
 opposing
 parties
 or
 factions
 be
 of
 the
 wards
 by
 appointing
 administrators
 and
 guardians
 who
 are
 not
 personally

represented
in
the
management
of
the
estate
 subject
to
their
jurisdiction.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









51





 HELD:

75
 SIOCA
NAVAS
V.
GARCIA
 The
reasons
advanced
by
the
appellants
do
not
seem
to
carry
sufficient
weight
to


 44
PHIL
711
 warrant
 the
 reversal
 of
 the
 appealed
 orders.
 When
 the
 retired
 bishop
 Monsignor


 Juan
 Bautista
 Perfecto
 Gorordo
 chose
 Father
 Emiliano
 Mercado
 as
 executor
 and

FACTS:
 administrator
 of
 his
 estate
 after
 his
 death,
 he
 must
 have
 had
 good
 and
 sufficient

Sioca
is
the
widow
of
the
decedent.

She
questioned
the
court
for
not
appointing
 reasons
therefore,
and
his
will
must
be
respected.
The
evidence
shows
that
when

her
as
administrator
of
her
late
husband’s
estate
but
instead,
appointed
another.


 the
 deceased
 bishop
 made
 his
 will
 naming
 said
 priest
 in
 preference
 to
 anybody


 else,
 he
 was
 in
 the
 full
 enjoyment
 of
 his
 intellectual
 faculties.
 Under
 the

HELD:
 circumstances,
it
is
not
only
just
but
also
right
to
fully
comply
with
his
last
will;
and

It
 is
 well
 settled
 that
 a
 probate
 court
 cannot
 arbitrarily
 and
 without
 sufficient
 this
is
precisely
what
the
lower
court
did
in
confirming
the
appointment
of
Father

reason
 disregard
 the
 preferential
 rights
 of
 the
 surviving
 spouse
 to
 the
 Mercado
 as
 executor
 herein.
 As
 a
 matter
 of
 fact,
 section
 641
 of
 Act
 No.
 190

administration
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 spouse.
 But,
 if
 the
 person
 enjoying
 provides
that
when
a
will
has
been
probed
and
allowed,
the
court
is
bound
to
issue

such
preferential
rights
is
unsuitable,
the
court
may
appoint
another
person.

The
 letters
testamentary
thereon
to
the
person
named
as
executor
therein
provided
he

determination
 of
 a
 person's
 suitability
 for
 the
 office
 of
 administrator
 rests,
 to
 a
 accepts
 the
 trust
 and
 gives
 the
 bond
 as
 required
 by
 law,
 which
 Father
 Emiliano

great
 extent,
 in
 the
 sound
 judgment
 of
 the
 court
 exercising
 the
 power
 of
 Mercado
 certainly
 did
 willingly
 before
 assuming
 his
 trust.
 While
 it
 is
 true,
 as
 the

appointment
 and
 such
 judgment
 will
 not
 be
 interfered
 with
 on
 appeal
 unless
 it
 appellants
contend,
that
this
provision
of
the
law
should
not
be
strictly
interpreted

appears
affirmatively
that
the
court
below
was
in
error.

 because
the
court
would
be
deprived
of
its
power
not
to
appoint,
in
certain
cases,


 one
who
is
unworthy
of
the
trust,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
he
was
named
as

In
the
present
case
the
court
based
its
ruling
on
the
fact
that
it
appeared
from
the
 such
by
the
testator
(sec.
653,
Act
No.
190);
it
is
also
true
that
in
order
to
do
this,

record
 in
 Civil
 Case
 No.
 1041
 of
 the
 same
 court,
 that
 the
 appellant
 had
 adverse
 the
 unworthiness,
 incapacity,
 ineptitude
 and
 unfitness
 of
 such
 person
 must
 be

interest
 in
 the
 estate
 of
 such
 a
 character
 as
 to
 render
 him
 unsuitable
 as
 manifest
and
real
and
not
merely
imaginary.

administrator.
 Unsuitableness
 may
 consist
 in
 adverse
 interest
 of
 some
 kind
 or
 

hostility
to
those
immediately
interested
in
the
estate.
(18
Cyc.,
93,
94.)
The
court
 77
 OZAETA
V.
PECSON


below
 therefore
 stated
 facts
 which
 may
 constitute
 sufficient
 grounds
 for
 setting
 
 93
PHIL
416

aside
the
appellant's
preferential
rights
and
which,
in
the
absence
of
proof
to
the
 

contrary,
must
be
presumed
sufficient.
 FACTS:


 Carlos
Palanca
was
able
to
leave
a
will
before
he
died.

He
named
therein
Ozaeta
as

76
 MERCADO
V.
VDA.
DE
JAEN
 executor
of
the
will
in
case
of
unavailability
of
General
Roxas.

When
Palanca
died,


 64
PHIL
75
 Roxas
 died
 after
 and
 Ozaeta
 was
 prompted
 to
 file
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 probate
 of


 Palanca’s
will,
with
the
prayer
of
being
appointed
as
a
special
administrator.

The

FACTS:
 heirs
 opposed
 the
 appointment.
 
 The
 bank
 previously
 appointed
 as
 administrator

Monsignor
Gorordo
left
a
will
when
he
died.

In
the
said
will,
he
instituted
his
sister
 resigned
on
grounds
of
conflict
of
interest.



as
sole
heir
and
in
case
of
her
death,
his
nieces.

He
likewise
instituted
Mercado
as
 

the
executor
of
the
estate
and
in
his
absence,
Espina.

Mercado
was
duly
appointed
 HELD:

as
 executor
 and
 the
 heirs
 opposed
 this
 on
 several
 grounds.
 
 They
 alleged
 that
 It
 should
 be
 noted
 at
 the
 outset
 that
 Rule
 81
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 under
 the

Mercado
was
unfit
and
incapable
of
furthering
his
duties
as
executor.

It
is
alleged
 provisions
 of
 which
 the
 order
 appealed
 from
 was
 made,
 grants
 discretion
 to
 the

that
he
would
be
bias
as
a
legacy
was
provided
for
his
parish.

The
motion
of
the
 probate
court
to
appoint
or
not
to
appoint
a
special
administrator.
It
is
silent
as
to

heirs
was
denied
by
the
court.


 the
person
that
may
be
appointed
as
special
administrator,
unlike
section
6
of
Rule


 79,
 which
 expressly
 gives
 the
 order
 of
 preference
 of
 the
 persons
 that
 may
 be




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









52




appointed
regular
administrator.
The
appointment
of
special
administrators
is
not
 

governed
 by
 the
 rules
 regarding
 the
 appointment
 of
 regular
 administrators.
 78
 DE
GUZMAN
V.
LIMCOLIOC

However,
that
while
the
choice
of
the
person
lies
within
the
court's
discretion,
such
 
 68
PHIL
673

discretion
 should
 not
 be
 a
 whimsical
 one,
 but
 one
 that
 is
 reasonable
 and
 logical
 

and
in
accord
with
fundamental
legal
principles
and
justice.
The
fact
that
a
judge
is
 FACTS:

granted
 discretion
 does
 not
 authorize
 him
 to
 become
 partial,
 or
 to
 make
 his
 Limcolioc
 opposed
 the
 appointment
 of
 Apolinario
 de
 Guzman
 as
 co‐administrator

personal
likes
and
dislikes
prevail
over,
or
his
passions
to
rule,
his
judgment.
Such
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased.
 
 It
 turns
 out
 that
 Apolinario
 is
 the
 brother
 of
 the

discretion
 must
 be
 based
 on
 reason
 and
 legal
 principle,
 and
 it
 must
 be
 exercised
 present
 administrator,
 Nicolasa.
 
 The
 estate
 is
 that
 of
 their
 father’s
 and
 is

within
 the
 limits
 thereof.
 And
 there
 is
 no
 reason
 why
 the
 same
 fundamental
 and
 composed
of
many
fisheries
and
other
properties.



legal
principles
governing
the
choice
of
a
regular
administrator
should
not
be
taken
 

into
account
in
the
appointment
of
the
special
administrator.

 HELD:


 As
held
in
the
case
involving
the
same
parties,
the
principal
consideration
reckoned

The
 choice
 of
 his
 executor
 is
 a
 precious
 prerogative
 of
 a
 testator,
 a
 necessary
 with
in
the
appointment
of
the
administrator
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
person
is

concomitant
 of
 his
 right
 to
 dispose
 of
 his
 property
 in
 the
 manner
 he
 wishes.
 It
 is
 the
interest
in
said
estate
of
the
one
be
appointed
as
such
administrator.
This
is
the

natural
that
the
testator
should
desire
to
appoint
one
of
his
confidence,
one
who
 same
consideration
which
the
law
takes
into
account
in
establishing
the
preference

can
be
trusted
to
carry
out
his
wishes
in
the
disposal
of
the
estate.
The
curtailment
 of
 the
 widow
 to
 administer
 the
 estate
 of
 her
 husband,
 upon
 the
 latter's
 death,

of
this
right
may
be
considered
as
a
curtailment
of
the
right
to
dispose.
And
as
the
 because
 she
 is
 supposed
 to
 have
 an
 interest
 therein
 as
 a
 partner
 in
 the
 conjugal

rights
 granted
 by
 will
 take
 effect
 from
 the
 time
 of
 death,
 the
 management
 of
 his
 partnership.
 But
 this
 preference
 established
 by
 law
 is
 not
 absolute,
 if
 there
 are

estate
 by
 the
 administrator
 of
 his
 choice
 should
 be
 made
 as
 soon
 as
 practicable,
 other
 reasons
 justifying
 the
 appointment
 of
 an
 administrator
 other
 than
 the

when
no
reasonable
objection
to
his
assumption
of
the
trust
can
be
interposed
any
 surviving
 spouse.
 If
 the
 interest
 in
 the
 estate
 is
 what
 principally
 determines
 the

longer.
 It
 has
 been
 held
 that
 when
 a
 will
 has
 been
 admitted
 to
 probate,
 it
 is
 the
 preference
 in
 the
 appointment
 of
 an
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased

duty
 of
 the
 court
 to
 issue
 letters
 testamentary
 to
 the
 person
 named
 as
 executor
 person,
 and
 if,
 under
 the
 circumstances
 of
 each
 case,
 it
 develops
 that
 there
 is

upon
his
application.

It
is
the
testator
that
appoints
his
executor,
as
the
question
 another
who
has
more
interest
therein
than
the
surviving
spouse,
the
preference

as
 to
 his
 peculiar
 fitness
 for
 such
 a
 position
 or
 his
 want
 of
 ability
 to
 manage
 the
 established
in
the
latter's
favor
falls
to
the
ground.

estate
can
not
be
addressed
to
the
discretion
of
the
county
judge.

 


 The
same
reasons
are
applicable
to
the
case
under
consideration,
inasmuch
as
the

In
the
case
at
bar,
the
will
has
already
been
admitted
to
probate,
and
respondent
 appointed
 co‐administrator,
 Apolinario
 de
 Guzman
 
 as
 brother
 of
 Nicolasa
 de

judge
himself
has
expressly
appointed
petitioner
as
administrator.
The
only
reason
 Guzman
whom
the
latter
needs
to
help
her
in
the
administration
of
the
properties

or
ground,
therefore,
for
suspending
his
appointment,
and
for
the
appointment
of
 left
 by
 their
 deceased
 father,
 many
 of
 which
 consist
 in
 fisheries
 situated
 in
 the

a
special
administrator,
who
is
not
the
petitioner
himself,
is
a
very
technical
one.
It
 provinces
 
 is
 as
 interested
 as
 his
 sister
 in
 that
 said
 properties
 be
 duly

also
 appears
 that
 the
 Philippine
 Trust
 Company,
 which
 had
 acted
 as
 special
 administered
and
conserved
for
the
benefit
of
the
heirs.
It
is
true
that
Apolinario
de

administrator
for
a
period
of
only
a
few
months,
has
submitted
a
bill
for
P90,000.
 Guzman's
 father,
 Proceso
 de
 Guzman,
 in
 life,
 filed
 a
 complaint
 against
 his
 son
 on

This
 would
 cut
 deep
 into
 the
 income
 of
 the
 estate,
 and
 if
 the
 new
 special
 the
ground
that
the
latter,
as
administrator
of
his
father's
estate,
misappropriated

administrator
appointed
by
the
respondent
judge
takes
office,
it
is
not
improbable
 cash,
but
said
complaint
was
dismissed
at
the
instance
of
the
father
himself.
In
the

that
 the
 estate
 may
 again
 be
 subjected
 to
 the
 same
 expensive
 cost
 of
 present
case,
aside
from
the
fact
that
Apolinario
de
Guzman,
as
co‐administrator,

administration.
Under
these
circumstances,
it
would
seem
unreasonable
to
refuse
 will
 administer
 properties
 in
 which
 he
 has
 a
 greater
 share
 than
 that
 of
 the

to
appoint
the
petitioner
as
special
administrator.
To
do
so
would
be
delaying
the
 oppositor,
the
childless
widow
of
the
deceased
by
a
second
marriage,
and
will
act

fulfillment
 of
 the
 wishes
 of
 the
 testator
 and
 subjecting
 the
 estate
 to
 unnecessary
 merely
 as
 a
 helper
 of
 his
 sister,
 there
 is
 no
 ground
 to
 believe
 that
 he
 would

expense.
//
 squander
said
properties
and
the
products
thereof.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









53





 each
 other.
 
 Nonetheless,
 but
 mere
 disagreements
 without
 misconduct
 doesn’t


79
 GONZALES
V.
AGUINALDO
 justify
removal.




 190
SCRA
112
 



RULE
79

FACTS:

OPPOSING
ISSUANCE
OF
LETTERS
TESTAMENTARY.
PETITION
AND
CONTEST
FOR

In
 the
 estate
 proceedings
 of
 Ramona
 Gonzales,
 two
 of
 her
 four
 children
 were

LETTERS
OF
ADMINISTRATION

appointed
 as
 co‐administratix.
 
 While
 one
 was
 in
 the
 US
 to
 accompany
 her
 sick

husband
 to
 treatment,
 the
 other
 filed
 a
 motion
 in
 court
 for
 her
 removal.
 
 It
 was
 

alleged
 that
 there
 is
 conflict
 between
 the
 two
 co‐administratrices
 as
 well
 as
 Section
 1.
 Opposition
 to
 issuance
 of
 letters
 testamentary.
 Simultaneous
 petition

continued
misunderstandings.

Without
really
hearing
the
side
of
the
administratrix
 for
 administration.
 Any
 person
 interested
 in
 a
 will
 may
 state
 in
 writing
 the

sought
to
be
removed,
the
court
issued
an
order
for
her
removal.



 grounds
why
letters
testamentary
should
not
issue
to
the
persons
named
therein


 as
executors,
or
any
of
them,
and
the
court,
after
hearing
upon
notice,
shall
pass

HELD:
 upon
 the
 sufficiency
 of
 such
 grounds.
 A
 petition
 may,
 at
 the
 time,
 be
 filed
 for

In
 the
 appointment
 of
 the
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 person,
 the
 letters
of
administration
with
the
will
annexed.

principal
consideration
reckoned
with
is
the
interest
in
said
estate
of
the
one
to
be
 

appointed
as
administrator.
This
is
the
same
consideration
which
Section
6
of
Rule
 Section
2.
Contents
of
petition
for
letters
of
administration.
A
petition
for
letters

78
takes
into
account
in
establishing
the
order
of
preference
in
the
appointment
of
 of
administration
must
be
filed
by
an
interested
person
and
must
show,
so
far
as

administrators
 for
 the
 estate.
 The
 underlying
 assumption
 behind
 this
 rule
 is
 that
 known
to
the
petitioner:

those
who
will
reap
the
benefit
of
a
wise,
speedy,
economical
administration
of
the
 (a)
The
jurisdictional
facts;

estate,
or,
on
the
other
hand,
suffer
the
consequences
 of
waste,
improvidence
or
 (b)
The
names,
ages,
and
residences
of
the
heirs,
and
the
names
and
residences

mismanagement,
 have
 the
 highest
 interest
 and
 most
 influential
 motive
 to
 of
the
creditors,
of
the
decedent;



administer
the
estate
correctly. (c)
The
probable
value
and
character
of
the
property
of
the
estate;


 (d)
The
name
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
of
administration
are
prayed.

Administrators
have
such
an
interest
in
the
execution
of
their
trust
as
entitle
them
 But
 no
 defect
 in
 the
 petition
 shall
 render
 void
 the
 issuance
 of
 letters
 of

to
protection
from
removal
without
just
cause.
Hence,
Section
2
of
Rule
82
of
the
 administration.

Rules
 of
 Court
 provides
 the
 legal
 and
 specific
 causes
 authorizing
 the
 court
 to
 



remove
an
administrator.
 Section
 3.
 Court
 to
 set
 time
 for
 hearing.
 Notice
 thereof.
 When
 a
 petition
 for


 letters
of
administration
is
filed
in
the
court
having
jurisdiction,
such
court
shall

While
it
is
conceded
that
the
court
is
invested
with
ample
discretion
in
the
removal
 fix
a
time
and
place
for
hearing
the
petition,
and
shall
cause
notice
thereof
to
be

of
 an
 administrator,
 it
 however
 must
 have
 some
 fact
 legally
 before
 it
 in
 order
 to
 given
to
the
known
heirs
and
creditors
of
the
decedent,
and
to
any
other
persons

justify
a
removal.
There
must
be
evidence
of
an
act
or
omission
on
the
part
of
the
 believed
to
have
an
interest
in
the
estate,
in
the
manner
provided
in
sections
3

administrator
not
conformable
to
or
in
disregard
of
the
rules
or
the
orders
of
the
 and
4
of
Rule
76.

court,
 which
 it
 deems
 sufficient
 or
 substantial
 to
 warrant
 the
 removal
 of
 the
 

administrator.
 In
 making
 such
 a
 determination,
 the
 court
 must
 exercise
 good
 Section
4.
Opposition
to
petition
for
administration.
Any
interested
person
may,

judgment,
guided
by
law
and
precedents.
 by
 filing
 a
 written
 opposition,
 contest
 the
 petition
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 the


 incompetency
 of
 the
 person
 for
 whom
 letters
 are
 prayed
 therein,
 or
 on
 the

In
the
present
case,
the
court
relied
not
on
the
facts
alleged
by
the
motions
filed
by
 ground
 of
 the
 contestant's
 own
 right
 to
 the
 administration,
 and
 may
 pray
 that

the
 parties
 but
 on
 the
 alleged
 conflicts
 and
 misunderstandings
 between
 the
 co‐ letters
 issue
 to
 himself,
 or
 to
 any
 competent
 person
 or
 person
 named
 in
 the

administrators.
 
 Yes,
 co‐administrators
 must
 have
 harmonious
 relationships
 with
 opposition.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









54





 Philippine
 Islands
 is
 an
 ancillary
 administration
 subsidiary
 to
 the
 domiciliary

Section
5.
Hearing
and
order
for
letters
to
issue.
At
the
hearing
of
the
petition,
it
 administration,
conformable
to
the
provisions
of
sections
601,
602,
and
603
of
the

must
 first
 be
 shown
 that
 notice
 has
 been
 given
 as
 hereinabove
 required,
 and
 Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
The
proper
course
of
procedure
would
be
for
the
ancillary

thereafter
 the
 court
 shall
 hear
 the
 proofs
 of
 the
 parties
 in
 support
 of
 their
 administrator
 to
 pay
 the
 claims
 of
 creditors,
 if
 there
 be
 any,
 settle
 the
 accounts,

respective
allegations,
and
if
satisfied
that
the
decedent
left
no
will,
or
that
there
 and
 remit
 the
 surplus
 to
 the
 domiciliary
 jurisdiction,
 for
 distribution
 among
 the

is
 no
 competent
 and
 willing
 executor,
 it
 shall
 order
 the
 issuance
 of
 letters
 of
 next
of
kin.
Such
administration
appears
to
be
required
in
this
jurisdiction
since
the

administration
to
the
party
best
entitled
thereto.
 provisions
 of
 section
 596
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure,
 which
 permit
 of
 the


 settlement
of
certain
estates
without
legal
proceedings,
have
not
been
met.

Section
 6.
 When
 letters
 of
 administration
 granted
 to
 any
 applicant.
 Letters
 of
 

administration
may
be
granted
to
any
qualified
applicant,
though
it
appears
that
 81
 GUTIERREZ
DE
OCAMPO
V.
CALDERON

there
 are
 other
 competent
 persons
 having
 better
 right
 to
 the
 administration,
 if
 
 59
PHIL
631

such
 persons
 fail
 to
 appear
 when
 notified
 and
 claim
 the
 issuance
 of
 letters
 to
 

themselves.
 FACTS:


 The
 decedent
 was
 a
 bachelor
 and
 left
 no
 ascendants.
 
 He
 was
 survived
 by
 his

80
 JOHANNES
V.
HARVEY
 brother
and
sister,
as
well
as
his
illegitimate
children.

There
being
no
forced
heirs,


 43
PHIL
175
 he
 instituted
 his
 illegitimate
 children
 as
 his
 beneficiaries
 upon
 his
 death.
 
 His


 brother
and
sister
opposed
this.

FACTS:
 

Carmen
 died
 while
 residing
 in
 Singapore.
 
 She
 was
 survived
 by
 her
 husband
 and
 HELD:

brothers
and
sisters.

Estate
proceedings
were
held
in
Singapore.

Her
husband
was
 As
stated
above
the
appellants
in
this
case
are
not
forced
heirs
of
the
deceased
and

appointed
 as
 the
 administrator.
 
 Thereafter,
 estate
 proceedings
 was
 instituted
 by
 therefore
have
no
right
to
any
part
of
the
property
left
by
the
testator,
once
he
had

one
of
the
deceased’s
brother
in
the
Philippines.

The
husband
opposed
this.
 disposed
 of
 the
 same
 by
 will.
 If
 any
 of
 them
 were
 forced
 heirs
 they
 would
 be


 entitled
 to
 intervene
 in
 this
 case
 and
 protect
 their
 interest
 in
 so
 far
 as
 they
 may

HELD:
 have
 been
 prejudiced
 by
 the
 will.
 It
 is
 evident
 therefore
 that
 they
 have
 not
 been

It
 is
 often
 necessary
 to
 have
 more
 than
 one
 administration
 of
 an
 estate.
 When
 a
 injured
 or
 prejudiced
 in
 any
 manner
 whatsoever.
 Only
 forced
 heirs
 whose
 rights

person
dies
intestate
owning
property
in
the
country
of
his
domicile
as
well
as
in
a
 have
been
prejudiced
have
a
right
to
intervene
in
a
case
of
this
character.

foreign
 country,
 administration
 is
 had
 in
 both
 countries.
 That
 which
 is
 granted
 in
 

the
 jurisdiction
 of
 decedent's
 last
 domicile
 is
 termed
 the
 principal
 administration,
 82
 TRILLANA
V.
CRISOSTOMO

while
 any
 other
 administration
 is
 termed
 the
 ancillary
 administration.
 The
 reason
 
 89
PHIL
710

for
the
latter
is
because
a
grant
of
administration
does
not
ex
proprio
vigore
have
 

any
 effect
 beyond
 the
 limits
 of
 the
 country
 in
 which
 it
 is
 granted.
 Hence,
 an
 FACTS:

administrator
 appointed
 in
 a
 foreign
 state
 has
 no
 authority
 in
 the
 United
 States.
 Crisostomo
and
others
appealed
the
denial
of
their
petition
for
relief
of
judgment

The
ancillary
administration
is
proper,
whenever
a
person
dies,
leaving
in
a
country
 of
the
probate
of
the
will
of
the
deceased.

They
alleged
that
the
judgment
allowing

other
 than
 that
 of
 his
 las
 domicile,
 property
 to
 be
 administered
 in
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 probate
 of
 the
 later
 will
 was
 procured
 by
 fraud,
 that
 the
 court
 erred
 when
 it

assets
of
the
decedent,
liable
for
his
individual
debts
or
to
be
distributed
among
his
 didn’t
set
a
date
for
proving
the
probate
of
the
August
1948
will
and
the
failure
to

heirs.
 prove
was
due
to
the
court’s
own
fault
and
negligence.




 

The
 principal
 administration
 in
 this
 instance
 is
 that
 at
 the
 domicile
 of
 the
 late
 HELD:

Carmen
Theodora
Johannes
in
Singapore,
Straits
Settlements.
What
is
sought
in
the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









55




The
 petitioners‐appellants
 having
 failed
 to
 show
 that
 the
 judgment
 of
 the
 lower
 then
filed
a
motion
to
transfer
the
special
proceedings
in
the
same
branch
where
a

court
of
January
5,
1948,
probating
the
will
of
testatrix
of
October
19,
was
obtained
 case
for
the
nullity
of
deed
of
assignment
was
filed.

This
motion
was
denied.

Adela

through
fraud,
the
lower
court
did
not
commit
any
error
in
denying
the
appellant's
 then
 sought
 that
 the
 administrator
 be
 ordered
 to
 furnish
 her
 all
 records
 of
 the

petition
for
relief
under
sec.
2,
Rule
38
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
and
therefore
it
is
not
 proceedings.
 
 The
 administrator
 opposed
 this
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 the
 earlier
 filed

necessary
for
us
to
discuss
and
pass
upon
the
other
propositions
of
the
appellant.
 manifestation.

The
court
ordered
in
favor
of
the
administrator.


 

Besides,
 even
 assuming
 without
 deciding,
 that
 under
 sec.
 3
 of
 Rule
 77,
 the
 court
 HELD:

shall
set
aside
a
date
for
proving
a
will
even
without
petition
when
it
is
delivered
to
 It
 cannot
 be
 successfully
 denied
 that
 Adela
 Santos
 Gutierrez
 is
 an
 indispensable

the,
court
having
jurisdiction,
as
contended
by
the
appellants,
the
lower
court
was
 party
to
the
proceedings
in
question.
Her
interest
in
the
estate
is
not
inchoate,
it

right
in
not
setting
a
date
for
proving
the
will
of
August
16,
1948,
because
this
will
 was
 established
 at
 the
 time
 of
 death
 of
 Irene
 Santos.
 While
 it
 is
 true
 that
 she

was
expressly
and
absolutely
revoked
by
the
will
of
October
19,
1948,
executed
by
 executed
 a
 deed
 of
 assignment,
 it
 is
 also
 a
 fact
 that
 she
 asked
 the
 same
 to
 be

the
 same
 executrix
 or
 deceased,
 which
 was
 filed
 for
 allowance
 on
 November
 1,
 annulled,
 which
 action
 is
 now
 pending.
 Although
 Adela
 had
 filed
 a
 manifestation

1948,
 with
 the
 same
 court.
 According
 to
 the
 attorneys
 for
 the
 appellant,
 the
 will
 dropping
 herself
 from
 the
 proceedings
 and
 presenting
 therewith
 the
 supposed

dated
August
16,
1948,
was
sent
together
with
a
writing
called
"Manifestation"
by
 Deed
of
Assignment,
the
record,
nevertheless
fails
to
show
that
action
thereon
had

registered
mail
on
October
30,
1948,
from
Manila
to
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
 been
 taken
 by
 the
 probate
 Court.
 Every
 act
 intended
 to
 put
 an
 end
 to
 indivision

Bulacan,
by
Attorney
Mr.
Tomas
V.
Barnes,
and
said
will
must
have
been
received
 among
 co‐heirs
 and
 legatees
 or
 devisees
 is
 deemed
 to
 be
 a
 partition,
 although
 it

by
 the
 Clerk
 of
 Said
 Court
 on
 or
 after
 November
 1,
 1948,
 the
 date
 when
 the
 should
purport
to
be
a
sale,
an
exchange,
a
compromise,
or
any
other
transaction

subsequent
will
of
October
19,
was
filed
for
probate.
It
stands
to
reason
that
if
two
 (Art.
 1082,
 NCC).
 No
 serious
 argument
 can
 be
 offered
 to
 deny
 the
 co‐heirship
 of

wills
are
presented
for
allowance
but
one
of
them
revoked
will
cannot
be
included
 appellee
in
the
estate
under
probate.
It
appearing
(if
We
assume
the
due
execution

in
the
probate
of
the
latter
subsequent
will,
because
it
would
be
a
waste
of
time
to
 of
 the
 Deed
 of
 Assignment),
 that
 the
 transaction
 is
 in
 the
 nature
 of
 extrajudicial

allow
the
revoked
will
if
the
subsequent
revoking
will
is
allowed.
The
revoked
will
 partition,
court
approval
is
imperative,
and
the
heirs
cannot
just
divest
the
court
of

may
be
probated
and
allowed
only
if
the
subsequent
revoking
will
is
disallowed.
 its
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 estate
 and
 over
 their
 persons,
 by
 the
 mere
 act
 of


 assignment
and
desistance.

83
 GUTIERREZ
V.
VILLEGAS
 


 5
SCRA
313
 The
 motion
 in
 question
 is
 not
 one
 of
 intervention,
 but
 solely
 a
 plea
 to
 enforce
 a


 right
and
that
is
to
receive
pleadings
and
orders
related
to
the
case.
Evidently,
the

FACTS:
 use
 of
 the
 word
 "intervention"
 in
 the
 manifestation
 and
 pleadings
 presented
 by

Irene
Santos
died
and
was
survived
by
her
husband
and
two
nieces,
daughters
of
 Adela
 was
 resorted
 to
 for
 want
 of
 another
 appropriate
 word.
 In
 effect,
 all
 she

her
 deceased
 brother.
 
 Her
 husband
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 issuance
 of
 letters
 of
 wanted
 to
 convey
 was
 that
 she
 should
 participate
 or
 continue
 taking
 part
 in
 the

administration,
 naming
 himself
 and
 the
 two
 nieces
 as
 the
 surviving
 heirs
 of
 the
 case
 for
 being
 an
 original
 party
 therein.
 It
 was
 her
 belief
 that
 in
 filing
 the

decedent.
 
 He
 was
 later
 named
 by
 the
 court
 as
 administrator.
 
 Thereafter,
 an
 manifestation
dropping
herself
from
the
proceedings
(but
which
she
later
informed

unverified
manifestation
was
filed
by
Adela
Gutierrez,
one
of
the
nieces,
in
court,
 the
court
to
have
been
secured
thru
fraud),
her
standing
might
have
been
affected.

attesting
to
a
deed
of
assignment
conveying
all
her
interest
in
participating
in
the
 Intervention
 as
 contemplated
 by
 the
 Rules
 is
 a
 proceeding
 in
 a
 suit
 or
 action
 by

proceedings
 to
 her
 sister.
 
 On
 a
 later
 date
 however,
 another
 manifestation
 was
 which
 a
 third
 person
 is
 permitted
 by
 the
 court
 to
 make
 himself
 a
 party,
 either

filed
by
Adela,
alleging
that
the
deed
of
assignment
mentioned
in
the
earlier
filed
 joining
 plaintiff
 in
 claiming
 what
 is
 sought
 by
 the
 complaint,
 or
 uniting
 with

manifestation
was
procured
by
the
administrator
by
fraud
and
that
she
signed
the
 defendant
in
resisting
the
claims
of
plaintiff,
or
demanding
something
adversely
to

same
by
mistake.

She
alleged
that
she
was
misled
by
the
husband
in
signing
said
 both
of
them;
the
act
or
proceeding
by
which
a
third
person
becomes
a
party
in
a

manifestation
 in
 exchange
 for
 money
 loaned
 to
 her
 by
 her
 sister,
 and
 that
 she
 suit
pending
between
others;
the
admission,
by
leave
of
court,
of
a
person
not
an

continuously
 seeks
 to
 participate
 in
 the
 intestate
 proceedings
 of
 her
 aunt.
 
 She
 original
 party
 to
 pending
 legal
 proceedings,
 which
 such
 person
 becomes
 a
 party




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









56




thereto
for
the
protection
of
some
right
or
interest
alleged
by
him
to
be
affected
by
 deemed
a
partition
as
between
the
assignor
and
assignee,
the
same
does
not
need

such
proceedings.

The
aforementioned
circumstances
do
not
fit
Adela
as
she
was
 court
approval
to
be
effective
 as
between
the
parties.
An
extrajudicial
partition
is

not
a
third
party
to
the
proceedings
but
rather,
an
original
party
therein.
 valid
 as
 between
 the
 participants
 even
 if
 the
 requisites
 of
 Sec.
 1,
 Rule
 74
 for


 extrajudicial
 partition
 are
 not
 followed,
 since
 said
 requisites
 are
 for
 purposes
 of

84
 DURAN
V.
DURAN
 binding
creditors
and
non‐participating
heirs
only.


 20
SCRA
379
 



RULE
80

FACTS:

SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR

Pio
 Duran
 died
 intestate
 and
 was
 survived
 by
 his
 surviving
 spouse
 Josephine,
 his

brothers
and
sisters,
together
with
his
nephews
and
nieces.

At
the
onset,
one
of
 

his
 brothers,
 Cipriano,
 for
 a
 consideration,
 signed
 a
 deed
 of
 conveyance,
 Section
1.
Appointment
of
special
administrator.
When
there
is
delay
in
granting

bequeathing
all
is
his
interest
in
the
estate
of
his
deceased
brother.

After,
he
filed
 letters
testamentary
or
of
administration
by
any
cause
including
an
appeal
from

a
petition
for
the
letters
of
administration
of
his
brother’s
estate,
and
for
him
to
be
 the
 allowance
 or
 disallowance
 of
 a
 will,
 the
 court
 may
 appoint
 a
 special

named
 as
 the
 administrator.
 
 The
 widow
 opposed
 this
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 lack
 of
 administrator
to
take
possession
and
charge
of
 the
 estate
of
 the
 deceased
 until

interest
in
the
estate
by
virtue
of
the
deed
of
conveyance
signed
by
Cipriano.

The
 the
 questions
 causing
 the
 delay
 are
 decided
 and
 executors
 or
 administrators

court
ruled
in
favor
of
the
opposition
and
dismissed
the
petition.


 appointed.


 

HELD:
 Section
2.
Powers
and
duties
of
special
adminsitrator.
Such
special
administrator

The
Rules
of
Court
provides
that
a
petition
for
administration
and
settlement
of
an
 shall
take
possession
and
charge
of
the
goods,
chattels,
rights,
credits,
and
estate

estate
must
be
filed
by
an
"interested
person"
(See.
2,
Rule
79).
Appellants
contend
 of
 the
 deceased
 and
 preserve
 the
 same
 for
 the
 executors
 or
 administrator

that
the
deed
of
assignment
executed
by
Cipriano
did
not
operate
to
render
him
a
 afterwards
appointed,
and
for
that
purpose
may
commence
and
maintain
suits
as

person
without
interest
in
the
estate.
Relying
on
In
re
Irene
Santos,
L‐11848,
May
 administrator.
He
may
sell
only
such
perishable
and
other
property
as
the
court

31,
1962,
they
argue
that
an
assignment
by
one
heir
of
his
share
in
the
estate
to
a
 orders
 sold.
 A
 special
 administrator
 shall
 not
 be
 liable
 to
 pay
 any
 debts
 of
 the

co‐heir
 amounts
 to
 a
 partition
 needing
 approval
 by
 the
 settlement
 court
 to
 be
 deceased
unless
so
ordered
by
the
court.

effective;
and
that
the
assigning
heir
does
not
lose
his
status
as
a
person
interested
 

in
the
estate,
even
after
said
assignment
is
approved
by
the
court.
 Section
 3.
 When
 powers
 of
 special
 administrator
 cease.
 Transfer
 of
 effects.


 Pending
suits.
When
letters
testamentary
or
of
administration
are
granted
on
the

The
situation
in
the
Santos
case
involves
an
assignment
between
co‐heirs
pendente
 estate
of
the
deceased,
the
powers
of
the
special
administrator
shall
cease,
and

lite,
during
the
course
of
settlement
proceedings,
properly
and
validly
commenced.
 he
 shall
 forthwith
 deliver
 to
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 the
 goods,
 chattels,

At
 the
 time
 of
 said
 assignment,
 therefore,
 the
 settlement
 court
 had
 already
 money,
 and
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 in
 his
 hands.
 The
 executor
 or
 administrator

acquired
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 properties
 of
 estate.
 As
 a
 result,
 any
 assignment
 may
prosecute
to
final
judgment
suits
commenced
by
such
special
administrator.

regarding
the
same
had
to
be
approved
by
said
court.
And
since
the
approval
the
 

court
 is
 not
 deemed
 final
 until
 the
 estate
 is
 closed
 the
 assigning
 heir
 remains
 an
 85
 DE
GUZMAN
V.
ANGELES

interested
person
in
proceedings
even
after
said
approval,
which
can
be
vacated
is
 
 162
SCRA
347

given.
 


 FACTS:

In
 the
 present
 case,
 however,
 the
 assignment
 took
 place
 when
 no
 settlement
 Elaine
de
Guzman
filed
a
petition
for
the
intestate
proceedings
of
her
late
husband.


proceeding
was
pending.
The
properties
subject
matter
of
the
assignment
was
not
 After,
she
filed
a
motion
for
the
issuance
of
writ
of
possession
of
vehicles
allegedly

under
the
jurisdiction
of
a
settlement
court.
Allowing
that
the
assignment
must
be
 owned
by
the
conjugal
partnership
 which
 were
 currently
 in
 the
 possession
of
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









57




petitioner,
her
father‐in‐law.

She
followed
this
up
by
filing
an
ex‐parte
motion
for
 motions
 of
 the
 private
 respondent
 to
 be
 appointed
 as
 special
 administratrix,
 to

the
 appointment
 as
 special
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 her
 late
 husband.
 
 The
 issue
 a
 writ
 of
 possession
 of
 alleged
 properties
 of
 the
 deceased
 person
 in
 the

court
 ordered
 notice
 to
 be
 made
 to
 all
 interested
 parties
 but
 no
 notice
 was
 ever
 widow's
 favor,
 and
 to
 grant
 her
 motion
 for
 assistance
 to
 preserve
 the
 estate
 of

received
 by
 the
 petitioner.
 
 The
 court
 then
 appointed
 Elaine
 as
 special
 Manolito
de
Guzman.

administratrix.
 
 Another
 order
 was
 issued
 by
 the
 court
 for
 the
 taking
 into
 

possession
of
the
vehicles
in
petitioner’s
possession.

This
order
had
difficulty
being
 86
 GARCIA
FULE
V.
CA

executed.
 
 Petitioner
 moved
 for
 the
 reconsideration
 of
 the
 court’s
 orders
 on
 the
 
 Supra


ground
that
it
had
not
acquired
jurisdiction
due
to
lack
of
publication
and
notice,
as
 

required
by
the
rules.


 HELD:


 

HELD:
 87
 ROXAS
V.
PECSON

In
 the
 instant
 case,
 there
 is
 no
 doubt
 that
 the
 respondent
 court
 acquired
 
 82
PHIL
407

jurisdiction
over
the
proceedings
upon
the
filing
of
a
petition
for
the
settlement
of
 

an
intestate
estate
by
the
private
respondent
since
the
petition
had
alleged
all
the
 FACTS:

jurisdictional
 facts,
 the
 residence
 of
 the
 deceased
 person,
 the
 possible
 heirs
 and
 Pablo
 Roxas
 was
 survived
 by
 his
 widow,
 adulterous
 child,
 and
 brother
 and
 sister.


creditors
 and
 the
 probable
 value
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 Manolito
 de
 The
 siblings
 instituted
 intestate
 proceedings,
 praying
 that
 Maria
 be
 appointed
 as

Guzman
pursuant
to
Section
2,
Rule
79
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Court.

 special
 administratrix.
 
 This
 proceeding
 was
 however
 dismissed
 at
 the
 instance
 of


 the
 filing
 of
 petition
 by
 the
 widow
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 her
 husband’s
 alleged
 will.


Differentiation
 must
 be
 made
 however
 between
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 probate
 Correspondingly
 to
 this
 was
 the
 prayer
 to
 be
 appointed
 as
 the
 special

court
over
the
proceedings
for
the
administration
of
an
estate
and
its
jurisdiction
 administratrix.
 
 The
 probate
 was
 consequently
 denied
 for
 the
 failure
 of
 the

over
 the
 persons
 who
 are
 interested
 in
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 witnesses
 to
 sign
 in
 the
 presence
 of
 the
 testator.
 
 However,
 the
 widow
 was
 still

deceased
 person.
 The
 court
 may
 also
 have
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 "estate"
 of
 the
 appointed
 as
 administratrix.
 
 This
 was
 appealed
 by
 the
 siblings
 who
 wanted

deceased
 person
 but
 the
 determination
 of
 the
 properties
 comprising
 that
 estate
 themselves
to
be
administrators.

The
court
subsequently
ordered
the
widow
to
be

must
 follow
 established
 rules.
 The
 probate
 court
 must
 cause
 notice
 through
 special
administratrix
with
respect
to
conjugal
properties
and
the
sister
as
special

publication
of
the
petition
after
it
receives
the
same.
The
purpose
of
this
notice
is
 administratrix
with
respect
to
the
capital
properties
of
the
deceased.



to
 bring
 all
 the
 interested
 persons
 within
 the
 court's
 jurisdiction
 so
 that
 the
 

judgment
therein
becomes
binding
on
all
the
world.

Where
no
notice
as
required
 HELD:

by
 Section
 3,
 Rule
 79
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court
 has
 been
 given
 to
 persons
 believed
 to
 There
 is
 nothing
 wrong
 in
 that
 the
 respondent
 judge,
 in
 exercising
 his
 discretion

have
 an
 interest
 in
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 person;
 the
 proceeding
 for
 the
 and
 appointing
 the
 petitioner
 as
 special
 administratrix,
 had
 taken
 into

settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 is
 void
 and
 should
 be
 annulled.
 The
 requirement
 as
 to
 consideration
the
beneficial
interest
of
the
petitioner
in
the
estate
of
the
decedent

notice
 is
 essential
 to
 the
 validity
 of
 the
 proceeding
 in
 that
 no
 person
 may
 be
 and
 her
 being
 designated
 in
 the
 will
 as
 executrix
 thereof.
 But
 the
 respondent's

deprived
of
his
right
to
property
without
due
process
of
law.


 subsequent
 act
 of
 appointing
 her
 as
 special
 administratrix
 only
 of
 the
 conjugal
 or


 community
 property,
 and
 Maria
 Roxas
 as
 special
 administratrix
 of
 the
 capital
 or

Verily,
notice
through
publication
of
the
petition
for
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
 exclusive
property
of
the
decedent,
does
not
seem
to
be
in
conformity
with
logic
or

a
 deceased
 person
 is
 jurisdictional,
 the
 absence
 of
 which
 makes
 court
 orders
 reason.
The
petitioner
has
or
claims
to
have
the
same
beneficial
interest
after
the

affecting
other
persons,
subsequent
to
the
petition
void
and
subject
to
annulment.

 decision
of
the
court
disapproving
the
will,
which
is
now
pending
on
appeal,
as
she


 had
 prior
 to
 it,
 because
 the
 decision
 is
 not
 yet
 final
 and
 may
 be
 reversed
 by
 the

In
 the
 instant
 case,
 no
 notice
 as
 mandated
 by
 section
 3,
 Rule
 79
 of
 the
 Revised
 appellate
court.


Rules
of
Court
was
caused
to
be
given
by
the
probate
court
before
it
acted
on
the
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









58




Besides,
even
if
the
will
is
not
probated,
the
widow
in
the
present
case
would
have,
 and
 preserve
 the
 same
 for
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 afterwards
 appointed,

under
the
law,
the
right
of
usufruct
over
one‐half
of
the
exclusive
property
of
the
 and
for
that
purpose
may
commence
and
maintain
suits
as
administrator,
and
may

decedent,
 besides
 her
 share
 in
 the
 conjugal
 partnership.
 The
 beneficial
 interest
 sell
 such
 perishable
 and
 other
 property
 as
 the
 court
 orders
 sold.
 A
 special

required
 as
 a
 qualification
 for
 appointment
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 administrator
shall
not
be
liable
to
pay
any
debts
of
the
deceased."


decedent
is
the
interest
in
the
whole
estate
and
not
only
in
some
part
thereof.
The
 

petitioner
 being
 entitled
 to
 one‐half
 in
 usufruct
 of
 all
 the
 exclusive
 properties
 of
 In
view
of
all
the
foregoing,
we
hold
that
the
court
below
has
no
power
to
appoint

the
 decedent,
 she
 would
 have
 as
 much
 if
 not
 more
 interest
 in
 administering
 the
 two
special
administratices
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
husband
or
wife,
one
of
the

entire
estate
correctly,
in
order
to
reap
the
benefit
of
a
wise,
speedy,
economical
 community
 property
 and
 another
 of
 the
 exclusive
 property
 of
 the
 decedent,
 and

administration
 of
 the
 state,
 and
 not
 suffer
 the
 consequences
 of
 the
 waste,
 therefore
 the
 respondent
 judge
 acted
 in
 excess
 of
 the
 court's
 jurisdiction
 in

improvidence
 or
 mismanagement
 thereof.
 The
 good
 or
 bad
 administration
 of
 the
 rendering
or
issuing
the
order
complained
of,
and
therefore
said
order
is
hereby
set

property
may
affect
rather
the
fruits
than
the
naked
ownership
of
a
property.

 aside,
with
costs
against
the
respondents.



 

There
is
absolutely
no
reason
for
appointing
two
separate
administrators,
specially
 88
 PIJUAN
V.
VDA.
DE
GURREA

if
the
estate
to
be
settled
is
that
of
a
deceased
husband
as
in
the
present
case,
for
 
 18
SCRA
898

according
 to
 articles
 1422
 and
 1423
 of
 the
 Civil
 Code,
 only
 after
 the
 dowry
 and
 

parapherna
 of
 the
 wife
 and
 the
 debts,
 charges,
 and
 obligations
 of
 the
 conjugal
 FACTS:

partnership
have
been
paid,
the
capital
or
exclusive
property
of
the
husband
may
 Manuela
 Ruiz
 was
 the
 surviving
 legitimate
 spouse
 of
 Carlos
 Gurrea.
 
 They
 were

be
 liquidated
 and
 paid
 in
 so
 far
 as
 the
 inventoried
 estate
 may
 reach;
 and
 if
 the
 previously
 living
 in
 Spain
 when
 the
 husband
 subsequently
 left
 her,
 lived
 in
 the

estate
inventoried
should
not
be
sufficient
to
pay
the
dowry
and
the
parapherna
of
 Philippines
with
their
son.

He
also
lived
with
a
common‐law
wife
while
being
in
the

the
 wife
 and
 the
 debts,
 charges
 and
 obligations
 of
 the
 partnership,
 the
 provision
 country.

When
Manuela
followed
him
in
the
country,
she
filed
for
support
and
the

relating
to
concurrence
and
preference
of
credits
shall
be
observed.
If
two
separate
 court
ruled
in
her
favor.

Carlos
later
on
died
and
allegedly
left
a
will
disinheriting

administrators
 are
 appointed
 as
 done
 in
 the
 present
 case,
 in
 every
 action
 which
 Manuela
 and
 their
 son,
 as
 well
 as
 instituting
 Pijuan
 as
 executor.
 
 The
 will
 was

one
 of
 them
 may
 institute
 to
 recover
 properties
 or
 credit
 of
 the
 deceased,
 the
 submitted
 for
 probate
 and
 pending
 proceedings,
 Manuela
 not
 only
 prayed
 for

defendant
 may
 raise
 the
 question
 or
 set
 up
 the
 defense
 that
 the
 plaintiff
 has
 no
 support
pendente
lite
but
likewise,
for
appointment
as
administrator.



cause
of
action,
because
the
property
or
credit
in
issue
belongs
to
the
class
which
is
 

being
 administered
 by
 the
 other
 administrator,
 which
 can
 not
 be
 done
 if
 the
 HELD:

administrator
of
the
entire
estate
is
only
one.

 Upon
 the
 other
 hand,
 the
 lower
 court
 denied
 support
 to
 Mrs.
 Gurrea
 because
 of


 absence
 of
 proof
 as
 regards
 the
 status,
 nature
 or
 character
 of
 the
 property
 now

As
under
the
law
only
one
general
administrator
may
be
appointed
to
administer,
 under
the
custody
of
the
Special
Administrator.
Precisely,
however,
on
account
of

liquidate
and
distribute
the
estate
of
a
deceased
spouse,
it
clearly
follows
that
only
 such
lack
of
proof
thereon,
we
are
bound
by
law
to
assume
that
the
estate
of
the

one
special
administrator
may
be
appointed
to
administer
temporarily
said
estate,
 deceased
 consists
 of
 property
 belonging
 to
 the
 conjugal
 partnership,
 one‐half
 of

because
a
special
administrator
is
but
a
temporary
administrator
who
is
appointed
 which
belongs
presumptively
to
Mrs.
Gurrea,
aside
from
such
part
of
the
share
of

to
act
in
lieu
of
the
general
administrator.
"When
there
is
delay
in
granting
letters
 the
 deceased
 in
 said
 partnership
 as
 may
 belong
 to
 her
 as
 one
 of
 the
 compulsory

testamentary
or
of
administration
occasioned
by
an
appeal
from
the
allowance
or
 heirs,
 if
 his
 alleged
 will
 were
 not
 allowed
 to
 probate,
 or,
 even
 if
 probated,
 if
 the

disallowance
 of
 will,
 or
 from
 any
 other
 cause,
 the
 court
 may
 appoint
 a
 special
 provision
therein
disinheriting
her
were
nullified.
Inasmuch
as
the
aforementioned

administrator
 to
 collect
 and
 take
 charge
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 until
 the
 estate
 is
 worth
 P205,397.64,
 according
 to
 the
 inventory
 submitted
 by
 the
 special

questions
causing
the
delay
are
decided
and
executors
or
administrators
thereupon
 administrator,
 it
 is
 clear
 to
 us
 that
 the
 continuation
 of
 the
 monthly
 alimony,

appointed,"
(sec.
1,
Rule
81).
Although
his
powers
and
duties
are
limited
to
"collect
 pendente
lite,
of
P1,000,
authorized
in
said
Civil
Case
No.
5820,
is
fairly
justified.

and
take
charge
of
the
goods,
chattels,
rights,
credits,
and
estate
of
the
deceased
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









59




It
is
next
urged
by
Mrs.
Gurrea
that
the
lower
court
erred
in
denying
her
petition
 merely
for
an
infinitesimal
moment
of
time
on
May
25,
1920,
between
the
precise

for
appointment
as
administratrix,
for,
as
widow
of
the
deceased,
she
claims
a
right
 moment
 when
 Go
 Chiong
 Lee
 acted
 under
 it
 as
 special
 administrator,
 and
 the

of
 preference
 under
 Section
 6
 of
 Rule
 78
 of
 the
 Revised
 Rules
 of
 Court.
 In
 the
 succeeding
 moment
 when
 he
 became
 the
 administrator.
 The
 only
 reasonable

language
of
this
provision,
said
preference
exists
"if
no
executor
is
named
in
the
will
 deduction
is
that
the
powers
of
the
special
administrator
having
ceased,
and
that
at

or
the
executor
or
executors
are
incompetent,
refuse
the
trust,
or
fail
to
give
bond,
 the
 same
 time
 that
 they
 ceased
 permission
 was
 given
 to
 operate
 the
 stores,
 this

or
a
person
dies
intestate."
None
of
these
conditions
obtains,
however,
in
the
case
 authority
 was
 intended
 for
 the
 administrator,
 or
 if
 intended
 for
 the
 special

at
bar.
The
deceased
Carlos
Gurrea
has
left
a
document
purporting
to
be
his
will,
 administrator,
 was
 transmitted
 to
 the
 general
 administrator
 as
 soon
 as
 he
 was

seemingly,
 is
 still
 pending
 probate.
 So,
 it
 cannot
 be
 said,
 as
 yet,
 that
 he
 has
 died
 appointed.


intestate.
Again,
said
document
names
Marcelo
Pijuan
as
executor
thereof,
and
it
is
 That
the
attorney
of
the
defendant
Go
Chiong
Lee
had
knowledge
of
the
addition

not
 claimed
 that
 he
 is
 incompetent
 therefor.
 What
 is
 more,
 he
 has
 not
 only
 not
 to
the
order
of
the
court
naming
Go
Chiong
Lee
administrator,
by
which
the
latter

refused
 the
 trust,
 but,
 has,
 also,
 expressly
 accepted
 it,
 by
 applying
 for
 his
 was
bound
to
render
written
monthly
reports
of
his
administration,
is
established,

appointment
as
executor,
and,
upon
his
appointment
as
special
administrator,
has
 but
that
subsequently
the
court
tacitly
modified
its
order,
is
likewise
disclosed
by

assumed
 the
 duties
 thereof.
 It
 may
 not
 be
 amiss
 to
 note
 that
 the
 preference
 the
record.
The
administrator
was
repeatedly
enjoined
to
submit
accounts
without

accorded
 by
 the
 aforementioned
 provision
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court
 to
 the
 surviving
 specifying
 monthly
 accounts.
 On
 three
 occasions
 the
 administrator
 rendered
 his

spouse
 refers
 to
 the
 appoint
 of
 a
 regular
 administrator
 or
 administratrix,
 not
 to
 accounts
without
protest
from
any
source.


that
of
a
special
administrator,
and
that
the
order
appointing
the
latter
lies
within
 

the
discretion
of
the
probate
court,
and
is
not
appealable.
 That
monthly
reports
would
have
possessed
any
particular
virtue
over
the
reports


 actually
submitted,
to
place
the
court
on
its
guard
and
thus
to
protect
the
estate

89
 TAN
V.
GO
CHIONG
LEE
 from
 losses,
 is
 hardly
 plausible.
 On
 the
 contrary,
 that
 the
 losses
 sustained
 by
 the


 46
PHIL
200
 estate
resulted
from
the
risk
necessarily
attending
the
operation
of
the
two
stores,


 is
a
much
more
reasonable
assumption.
At
least
the
only
testimony
refuting
that
of

FACTS:
 the
former
administrator
comes
from
one
Vidal
Reynes,
a
tailor
by
profession,
and

During
the
lifetime
of
the
deceased,
Go
was
the
encargado.

When
he
died,
Go
was
 is
not
at
all
impressive.


appointed
preliminarily
as
the
special
administrator
of
the
estate.

He
did
his
duties
 

without
 opposition
 from
 anyone.
 
 Later,
 his
 appointment
 as
 special
 administrator
 The
standard
of
responsibility
of
the
administrator
is
best
measured
as
in
essence

ceased
 and
 he
 began
 acting
 as
 the
 general
 administrator.
 
 He
 then
 asked
 the
 responsibility
 of
 a
 bailee.
 Like
 any
 bailee,
 he
 must
 pursue
 his
 discretion

permission
for
the
continuous
operation
of
the
two
stores
owned
by
the
estate,
for
 honestly
 and
 in
 good
 faith,
 or
 he
 will
 become
 personally
 liable,
 to
 those
 who
 are

which
 the
 court
 granted
 him
 to
 do
 so.
 
 He
 religiously
 submitted
 reports
 and
 interested
 in
 the
 estate,
 for
 waste,
 conversion,
 or
 embezzlement.
 But
 where
 an

accounts
for
the
estate,
without
again
any
opposition.

He
then
ceased
from
being
 administrator,
entrusted
with
the
carrying
on
of
an
estate,
acts
in
good
faith
and
in

administrator
and
he
was
replaced
by
Tan.

He
was
thereafter
ordered
by
the
court
 accordance
 with
 the
 usual
 rules
 and
 methods
 obtaining
 in
 such
 business,
 he
 will

to
 pay
 certain
 accounts,
 to
 which
 he
 denied
 for
 allegedly
 already
 having
 paid
 for
 not
be
held
liable
for
losses
incurred.


the
same.


 



RULE
81

HELD:

BOND
OF
EXECUTORS
AND
ADMINISTRATORS

The
 permission
 to
 operate
 the
 stores
 was
 granted
 to
 Go
 Chiong
 Lee
 on
 the
 same

date
when
he
was
relieved
as
special
administrator
and
appointed
"administrador
 

definitivo"
of
the
estate.
He
proceeded
to
act
under
such
authority
for
over
a
year
 Section
 1.
 Bond
 to
 be
 given
 issuance
 of
 letters.
 Amount.
 Conditions.
 
 Before
 an

without
 being
 challenged
 by
 anyone.
 It
 would
 now
 be
 preposterous
 to
 suppose
 executor
 or
 administrator
 enters
 upon
 the
 execution
 of
 his
 trust,
 and
 letters

that
 the
 power
 to
 run
 the
 stores
 actually
 granted
 by
 the
 trial
 judge
 continued




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









60




testamentary
 or
 administration
 issue,
 he
 shall
 give
 a
 bond,
 in
 such
 sum
 as
 the

REVOCATION
OF
ADMINISTRATION,
DEATH,
RESIGNATION,
AND
REMOVAL
OF

court
directs,
conditioned
as
follows:

EXECUTORS
OR
ADMINISTRATORS



(a)
To
make
and
return
to
the
court,
within
three
(3)
months,
a
true
and
complete
 

inventory
of
all
goods,
chattels,
rights,
credits,
and
estate
of
the
deceased
which
 Section
 1.
 Administration
 revoked
 if
 will
 discovered.
 Proceedings
 thereupon.
 If

shall
 come
 to
 his
 possession
 or
 knowledge
 or
 to
 the
 possession
 of
 any
 other
 after
letters
of
administration
have
been
granted
on
the
estate
of
a
decedent
as
if

person
for
him;
 he
had
died
intestate,
his
will
is
proved
and
allowed
by
the
court,
the
letters
of

(b)
 To
 administer
 according
 to
 these
 rules,
 and,
 if
 an
 executor,
 according
 to
 the
 administration
 shall
 be
 revoked
 and
 all
 powers
 thereunder
 cease,
 and
 the

will
 of
 the
 testator,
 all
 goods,
 chattels,
 rights,
 credits,
 and
 estate
 which
 shall
 at
 administrator
 shall
 forthwith
 surrender
 the
 letters
 to
 the
 court,
 and
 render
 his

any
time
come
to
his
possession
or
to
the
possession
of
any
other
person
for
him,
 account
with
such
time
as
the
court
directs.
Proceeding
for
the
issuance
of
letters

and
 from
 the
 proceeds
 to
 pay
 and
 discharge
 all
 debts,
 legacies,
 and
 charges
 on
 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration
 under
 the
 will
 shall
 be
 as
 hereinbefore

the
same,
or
such
dividends
thereon
as
shall
be
decreed
by
the
court;
 provided.

(c)
To
render
a
true
and
just
account
of
his
administration
to
the
court
within
one
 

(1)
years,
and
at
any
other
time
when
required
by
the
court;
 Section
 2.
 Court
 may
 be
 remove
 or
 accept
 resignation
 of
 executor
 or

(d)
To
perform
all
orders
of
the
court
by
him
to
be
performed.
 administrator.
Proceeding
upon
death,
resignation,
or
removal.

If
an
executor
or


 administrator
 neglects
 to
 render
 his
 account
 and
 settle
 the
 estate
 according
 to

Section
2.
Bond
of
executor
where
directed
in
will.
When
further
bond
required.
If
 law,
 or
 to
 perform
 an
 order
 or
 judgment
 of
 the
 court,
 or
 a
 duty
 expressly

the
testator
in
his
will
directs
that
the
executors
serve
without
bond,
or
with
only
 provided
by
these
rules,
or
absconds,
or
becomes
insane,
or
otherwise
incapable

his
individual
bond,
he
may
be
allowed
by
the
court
to
give
bond
in
such
sum
and
 or
 insuitable
 to
 discharge
 the
 trust,
 the
 court
 may
 remove
 him,
 or
 in
 its

with
such
surety
as
the
court
approves
conditioned
only
to
pay
the
debts
of
the
 discretion,
 may
 permit
 him
 to
 resign.
 When
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator
 dies,

testator;
 but
 the
 court
 may
 require
 of
 the
 executor
 a
 further
 bond
 in
 case
 of
 a
 resign,
 or
 is
 removed
 the
 remaining
 executor
 or
 administrator
 may
 administer

change
 in
 his
 circumstance,
 or
 for
 other
 sufficient
 case,
 with
 the
 conditions
 the
the
trust
alone,
unless
the
court
grants
letters
to
someone
to
act
with
him.
If

named
in
the
last
preceding
section.
 there
 is
 no
 remaining
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 administration
 may
 be
 to
 any


 suitable
person.

Section
 3.
 Bonds
 of
 joint
 executors
 and
 administrators.
 When
 two
 or
 more
 

persons
are
appointed
executors
or
administrators
the
court
may
take
a
separate
 Section
3.
Acts
before
revocation,
resignation,
or
removal
to
be
valid.
The
lawful

bond
from
each,
or
a
joint
bond
from
all.
 acts
 of
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator
 before
 the
 revocation
 of
 his
 letters


 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration,
 or
 before
 his
 resignation
 or
 removal,
 shall

Section
4.
Bond
of
special
administrator.
A
special
administrator
before
entering
 have
 the
 like
 validity
 as
 if
 there
 had
 been
 no
 such
 revocation,
 resignation,
 or

upon
 the
 duties
 of
 his
 trust
 shall
 give
 a
 bond,
 in
 such
 sum
 as
 the
 court
 directs,
 removal.

conditioned
that
he
will
make
and
return
a
true
inventory
of
the
goods,
chattels,
 

rights,
 credits,
 and
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 which
 come
 to
 his
 possession
 or
 Section
 4.
 Powers
 of
 new
 executor
 or
 administrator.
 Renewal
 of
 license
 to
 sell

knowledge,
and
that
he
will
truly
account
for
such
as
are
received
by
him
when
 real
 estate.
 The
 person
 to
 whom
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration
 are

required
by
the
court,
and
will
deliver
the
same
to
the
person
appointed
executor
 granted
 after
 the
 revocation
 of
 former
 letters,
 or
 the
 death,
 resignation,
 or

or
administrator,
or
to
such
other
person
as
may
be
authorized
to
receive
them.
 removal
 of
 a
 former
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 shall
 have
 the
 like
 powers
 to


 collect
 and
 settle
 the
 estate
 not
 administered
 that
 the
 former
 executor
 or

administrator
 had,
 and
 may
 prosecute
 or
 defend
 actions
 commenced
 by
 or

RULE
82

against
the
former
executor
or
administrator,
and
have
execution
on
judgments

recovered
 in
 the
 name
 of
 such
 former
 executor
 or
 administrator.
 An
 authority




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









61




granted
 by
 the
 court
 to
 the
 former
 executor
 or
 administrator
 for
 the
 sale
 or
 HELD:

mortgage
of
real
estate
may
be
renewed
in
favor
of
such
person
without
further
 The
law
declares
that
commissioners
shall
pass
upon
all
claims
against
the
estate.

notice
or
hearing.
 They
had
done
so
in
this
case.
The
law
fixed
the
limit
of
the
estate's
liability.
The


 court
could
not
charge
it
with
debts
that
were
never
owed
by
it.
The
administratrix

90
 SOCIEDAD
DE
LIZZARGA
HERMANOS
V.
ABADA
 could
 only
 charge
 the
 estate
 with
 the
 reasonable
 and
 proper
 expenses
 of


 40
PHIL
124
 administration.



 

FACTS:
 The
 estate
 owed
 plaintiffs
 less
 than
 P13,000
 when
 the
 commissioners
 passed
 on

1. Caponong
 died
 with
 debts
 payable
 to
 the
 Sociedad.
 
 Caponong’s
 widow
 their
 claim.
 Part
 of
 this
 has
 been
 paid,
 and
 there
 was
 a
 balance
 due
 plaintiffs
 of

was
duly
appointed
as
administratrix,
together
with
the
appointment
of
 P8,555.78
at
the
time
of
the
trial,
plus
interest.
The
plaintiffs,
after
their
claim
had

commissioners
to
appraise
the
estate
as
well
as
to
facilitate
payment
of
 been
 presented
 and
 allowed
 by
 the
 commissioners,
 made
 advances
 to
 the

accounts
left
by
the
decedent.


 administratrix
till
their
claim
was
more
than
P68,000.


2. In
 the
 meanwhile,
 the
 widow
 leased
 the
 Hacienda
 Coronacion
 to
 a
 

certain
 Zayco
 and
 when
 she
 married
 her
 co‐defendant
 Alvarez,
 Zayco
 It
is
urged
that
the
major
part
of
this
debt
of
P68,000
is
 administration
expenses,

transferred
the
lease
to
Alvarez.


 and
as
such
is
chargeable
against
the
assets
of
the
estate.
No
reason
is
given
why

3. The
 plaintiffs
 after
 7
 years
 from
 the
 death
 of
 Caponong
 then
 sued
 the
 the
expense
of
administration
should
be
so
great,
and
the
evidence
fails
to
sustain

widow
in
her
own
personal
capacity
and
as
administratrix.

They
alleged
 this
position.


that
 the
 widow
 owed
 them
 money,
 which
 she
 used
 in
 exploiting
 the
 

Hacienda.


 The
 administration
 expense
 would
 be
 the
 necessary
 expenses
 of
 handling
 the

4. The
 widow
 in
 turn
 admitted
 to
 her
 debt
 payable.
 
 The
 guardian
 of
 the
 property,
 of
 protecting
 it
 against
 destruction
 or
 deterioration,
 and
 possibly

minor
 children
 of
 Caponong
 then
 sought
 to
 intervene,
 and
 was
 allowed
 producing
 a
 crop,
 but
 if
 plaintiffs,
 holding
 a
 claim
 originally
 for
 less
 than
 P13,000

to
do
so,
and
averred
that
the
estate
didn’t
owe
anything
to
the
plaintiffs.


 against
 the
 estate,
 let
 the
 administratrix
 have
 money
 and
 effects
 till
 their
 claim

5. Thereafter,
 the
 parties
 alleged
 that
 they
 had
 all
 reached
 an
 amicable
 grow
 to
 P68,000
 they
 can
 not
 be
 permitted
 to
 charge
 this
 amount
 as
 expense
 of

settlement
and
sought
the
dismissal
of
the
proceedings.

The
court
duly
 administration.
 They
 might
 be
 allowed
 to
 charge
 it
 against
 the
 current
 revenue

dismissed
the
complaint.

At
this
point
in
time,
the
intestate
proceeding
 from
 the
 hacienda
 or
 the
 net
 proceeds
 of
 the
 "exploitation
 of
 the
 hacienda"
 for

was
still
pending.


 which
it
was
obtained
and
used,
as
plaintiffs
allege,
but
it
cannot
relate
back
to
the

6. Subsequently,
 the
 plaintiffs
 sought
 attachment
 of
 properties
 for
 presenting
 of
 their
 claim
 to
 the
 commissioners,
 and
 be
 a
 charge
 against
 the

satisfaction
 of
 the
 debt
 notwithstanding
 the
 compromise
 agreement.

 inheritance
 of
 the
 heirs,
 or
 even
 a
 claim
 to
 prorate
 with
 other
 creditors'
 claims

They
 averred
 that
 the
 defendants
 were
 not
 complying
 with
 the
 allowed
by
the
commissioners.
By
expense
of
administration
we
understand
to
be

agreement
and
sought
satisfaction
of
the
debt.


 the
reasonable
and
necessary
expense
of
caring
for
the
property
and
managing
it

7. Prior
to
attaching,
the
defendants
filed
an
amended
answer,
where
they
 till
the
debts
are
paid,
as
provided
by
law,
and
of
dividing
it,
if
necessary,
so
as
to

averred
 that
 the
 commissioners
 only
 allowed
 n
 amount
 of
 money
 to
 be
 partition
it
and
deliver
to
the
heirs.


paid,
 that
 the
 properties
 sought
 to
 be
 attached
 were
 owned
 by
 the
 

children
 and
 that
 the
 interest
 of
 the
 widow
 was
 limited
 to
 usufructuary
 The
court
could
not
approve
a
settlement
saddling
upon
the
estate
debts
it
never

rights.

 owed,
and
if
it
did,
its
approval
would
be
a
nullity.


8. Defendants
 were
 in
 turn
 sustained
 by
 the
 court
 and
 consequently,
 the
 

claims
 against
 the
 minor
 children
 were
 dropped
 and
 the
 court
 held
 the
 To
 give
 effect
 to
 the
 compromise
 as
 written
 would
 result
 in
 great
 wrong,
 and

widow
liable
for
n
amount
of
money.

To
this,
she
appealed.




 destroy
 every
 chance
 the
 minor
 children
 had
 to
 participate
 in
 the
 inheritance
 of


 their
father.





MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









62





 business‐like
 manner,
 marshal
 its
 assets,
 and
 close
 the
 estate
 without
 any

91
 WARNER
BARNES
V.
LUZON
SURETY
 unreasonable
or
unnecessary
delay.
He
was
not
appointed
to
act
for
or
on
behalf
of


 95
PHIL
924
 the
 creditors,
 or
 to
 represent
 the
 interests
 of
 the
 heirs
 only.
 He
 should
 have


 administered
the
affairs
of
the
estate
for
the
use
and
benefit
alike
of
all
interested

FACTS:
 persons,
 as
 any
 prudent
 business
 man
 would
 handle
 his
 own
 personal
 business.

Warner
Barnes
filed
a
case
for
recovery
of
sum
of
money
from
Luzon
Surety.

This
is
 When
appointed,
it
is
the
legal
duty
of
the
administrator
to
administer,
settle,
and

premised
on
the
failure
of
the
deceased
administratrix
of
the
estate
of
Gonzaga
to
 close
 the
 administration
 in
 the
 ordinary
 course
 of
 business,
 without
 any

comply
with
the
conditions
of
her
bond,
and
to
pay
the
alleged
claims
of
Warner
 unnecessary
delay.
Neither
does
an
administrator,
in
particular,
without
a
specific

from
 the
 estate.
 
 Luzon
 Surety
 alleged
 that
 until
 the
 time
 that
 the
 administratrix
 showing
or
an
order
of
the
court,
have
any
legal
right
to
continue
the
operation
of

died,
the
court
didn’t
allow
her
yet
to
pay
Warner’s
claims.

Luzon
also
alleged
that
 the
 business
 in
 which
 the
 deceased
 was
 engaged,
 or
 to
 eat
 up
 and
 absorb
 the

were
 it
 not
 for
 her
 untimely
 death,
 the
 administratrix
 could
 have
 complied
 assets
of
the
estate
in
the
payment
of
operating
expenses.
Yet,
in
the
instant
case,

faithfully
with
her
obligations
as
well
as
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
bond.

The
 the
administrator
on
his
own
volition
and
without
any
authority
or
process
of
court

trial
court
ruled
in
favor
of
the
plaintiff
and
ordered
defendant
to
pay.
 continued
 the
 operation
 of
 the
 plantation,
 and
 in
 the
 end,
 as
 shown
 by
 his
 own


 report,
the
estate
was
diminished
and
lost.



HELD:
 

It
was
proper
for
the
court
to
decide
on
the
claim
against
the
surety
bond.

While
 93
 LUZON
SURETY
V.
QUEBRAL

the
 probate
 court
 has
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 forfeiture
 and
 enforcement
 of
 an
 
 127
SCRA
295

administrator’s
 bond,
 it
 doesn’t
 mean
 that
 the
 same
 may
 not
 be
 litigated
 in
 an
 

ordinary
 civil
 action
 brought
 before
 the
 court
 of
 first
 instance.
 
 Moreover,
 where
 FACTS:

there
 are
 no
 proceedings
 for
 the
 administration
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 Luzon
 Surety
 issued
 administrator
 bonds
 in
 favor
 of
 administrator
 Quebral
 with

administrator,
 the
 creditor
 may
 enforce
 then
 his
 bond
 against
 the
 surety
 which
 respect
 to
 two
 estate
 proceedings.
 
 Indemnity
 agreements
 were
 entered
 into
 for

bound
itself
jointly
and
severally
in
the
case
where
the
bond
was
filed.
 the
 payment
 of
 the
 premiums
 due.
 
 Because
 the
 premiums
 were
 not
 yet
 paid
 in


 full,
 Luzon
 Surety
 sought
 payment.
 
 In
 the
 meanwhile,
 Quebral
 filed
 a
 motion
 in

92
 WILSON
V.
REAR
 court
for
the
cancellation
of
the
bonds
by
virtue
of
the
approval
of
the
project
of


 55
PHIL
44
 partition
and
liquidation.




 

FACTS:
 HELD:

Charles
Rear
was
murdered
while
being
in
his
plantation
in
Cotabato.

Wilson
was
 Section
 1
 of
 Rule
 81
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court
 requires
 the
 administrator/executor
 to

appointed
as
administrator.

The
commissioners
were
able
to
make
the
inventory
 put
up
a
bond
for
the
purpose
of
indemnifying
the
creditors,
heirs,
legatees
and
the

of
 the
 properties
 of
 the
 estate
 and
 likewise,
 the
 claims
 against
 it.
 
 The
 estate.
It
is
conditioned
upon
the
faithful
performance
of
the
administrator's
trust.

administrator
 was
 then
 allowed,
 with
 the
 approval
 of
 the
 heirs,
 to
 sell
 all
 the
 


properties,
due
to
the
fact
that
there
wasn’t
sufficient
money
to
settle
the
claims.

 Having
in
mind
the
purpose
and
 intent
 of
 the
 law,
the
 surety
is
 then
liable
under

After
the
sale
and
payment,
the
administrator
filed
its
final
report
and
accounting.

 the
administrator's
bond,
for
as
long
as
the
administrator
has
duties
to
do
as
such

This
was
approved
by
the
court
notwithstanding
numerous
objections
on
the
part
 administrator/executor.
Since
the
liability
of
the
sureties
is
co‐extensive
with
that

of
the
heirs.


 of
the
administrator
and
embraces
the
performance
of
every
duty
he
is
called
upon


 to
perform
in
the
course
of
administration,
it
follows
that
the
administrator
is
still

HELD:
 duty
 bound
 to
 respect
 the
 indemnity
 agreements
 entered
 into
 by
 him
 in

Wilson
 was
 appointed
 and
 qualified
 as
 administrator,
 and
 the
 law
 imposed
 upon
 consideration
of
the
suretyship.

him
 legal
 duties
 and
 obligations,
 among
 which
 was
 to
 handle
 the
 estate
 in
 a
 





MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









63




It
is
shown
that
the
defendant‐appellant
Pastor
T.
Quebrar,
still
had
something
to
 cannot
be
devoid
of
legal
authority
to
execute
and
make
that
bond
answerable
for

do
as
an
administrator/executor
even
after
the
approval
of
the
amended
project
of
 the
very
purpose
for
which
it
was
filed.
It
is
true
that
the
law
does
not
say
expressly

partition
and
accounts.


 or
 in
 so
 many
 words
 that
 such
 court
 has
 power
 to
 execute
 the
 bond
 of
 an


 administrator,
 but
 by
 necessary
 and
 logical
 implication,
 the
 power
 is
 there
 as

The
contention
of
the
defendants‐appellants
that
the
administrator's
bond
ceased
 eloquently
as
if
it
were
phrased
in
unequivocal
term.
When
the
accountability
of
an

to
 be
 of
 legal
 force
 and
 effect
 with
 the
 approval
 of
 the
 project
 of
 partition
 and
 administrator's
 bond
 is
 spoken
 of
 in
 the
 very
 provisions
 dealing
 with
 and
 bearing

statement
of
accounts
on
June
6,
1957
is
without
merit.
The
defendant‐appellant
 directly
on
administration
proceedings,
it
would
involve
a
strained
construction
to

Pastor
 T.
 Quebrar
 did
 not
 cease
 as
 administrator
 after
 June
 6,
 1957,
 for
 hold,
as
appellants
would
have
us
do,
that
where
an
administrator
is
held
liable
for

administration
is
for
the
purpose
of
liquidation
of
the
estate
and
distribution
of
the
 a
devastravit
for
having
squandered
and
misapplied
property
which
he
was
in
duty

residue
among
the
heirs
and
legatees.
And
liquidation
means
the
determination
of
 bound
to
marshal
and
conserve,
the
estate
is
without
a
remedy
to
go
against
the

all
the
assets
of
the
estate
and
payment
of
all
the
debts
and
expenses.

It
appears
 administrator's
bond
in
the
same
probate
proceedings,
but
in
an
action
outside
of

that
 there
 were
 still
 debts
 and
 expenses
 to
 be
 paid.
 
 To
 allow
 the
 defendants‐ and
separate
from
it.
In
this
connection,
it
should
be
observed
that
section
683
of

appellants
 to
 evade
 their
 liability
 under
 the
 Indemnity
 Agreements
 by
 non‐ the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
provides
that
"Upon
the
settlement
of
the
account
of

payment
 of
 the
 premiums
 would
 ultimately
 lead
 to
 giving
 the
 administrator
 the
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 trustee,
 or
 guardians,
 a
 person
 liable
 as
 surety
 in

power
 to
 diminish
 or
 reduce
 and
 altogether
 nullify
 his
 liability
 under
 the
 respect
 to
 such
 amount
 may,
 upon
 application,
 be
 admitted
 as
 a
 party
 to
 such

Administrator's
Bonds.
As
already
stated,
this
is
contrary
to
the
intent
and
purpose
 accounting,
 and
 may
 have
 the
 right
 to
 appeal
 as
 hereinafter
 provided."
 There
 is

of
 the
 law
 in
 providing
 for
 the
 administrator's
 bonds
 for
 the
 protection
 of
 the
 here
 afforded
 to
 a
 person
 who
 may
 be
 held
 liable
 as
 surety
 in
 respect
 to
 an

creditors,
heirs,
legatees,
and
the
estate.
 administrator's
 account
 the
 right,
 upon
 application,
 to
 be
 admitted
 as
 a
 party
 to


 their
accounting,
from
which
we
may
not
unreasonably
infer
that
a
surety,
like
the

94
 COSME
DE
MENDOZA
V.
PACHECO
 appellants
 in
 the
 case
 before
 us,
 may
 be
 charged
 with
 liability
 upon
 the
 bond


 64
PHIL
134
 during
the
process
of
accounting,
that
is,
within
the
recognized
confines
of
probate


 proceedings,
and
not
in
an
action
apart
and
distinct
from
such
proceedings.

FACTS:
 

Soriano
was
the
former
administrator
of
the
estate.

To
ensure
compliance
with
his
 95
 GUSTILO
V.
SIAN

duties,
he
was
made
to
issue
a
bond,
wherein
defendants
acted
as
sureties.

When
 
 53
PHIL
155

the
 new
 administratrix
 was
 appointed,
 the
 former
 administrator
 had
 accounts
 

payable
 to
 the
 estate.
 
 And
 since
 he
 had
 insufficient
 funds,
 the
 bond
 was
 made
 FACTS:

answerable.

However,
having
real
properties
to
satisfy
partially
the
payables,
only
 Agripino
 was
 appointed
 as
 the
 administrator
 of
 his
 late
 father’s
 estate.
 
 His
 own

a
 small
 balance
 was
 left
 to
 be
 paid.
 
 The
 sureties
 sought
 to
 be
 excused
 from
 mother
and
fellow
heirs
moved
for
his
removal,
for
allegedly
being
negligent
in
his

payment
 but
 was
 overruled.
 
 On
 appeal,
 the
 case
 was
 remanded
 to
 the
 lower
 duties
 as
 well
 as
 for
 incurring
 exorbitant
 and
 illegal
 accounts.
 
 Agripino
 in
 the

court.
 
 And
 on
 the
 second
 time
 it
 reached
 the
 appellate
 court,
 the
 sureties
 meanwhile
 submitted
 reports
 which
 didn’t
 coincide
 with
 each
 other
 and
 he
 even

questioned
the
jurisdiction
of
the
probate
court
to
order
execution
of
the
bond.


 prayed
that
he
be
allowed
a
monthly
salary
that
creditors
of
the
estate
opposed
to.



 The
court
consequently
ordered
his
removal
as
well
as
 the
execution
of
the
bond

HELD:
 he
filed.



It
 is
 clear
 that
 a
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance,
 exercising
 probate
 jurisdiction,
 is
 

empowered
 to
 require
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 administrator's
 bond,
 to
 fix
 the
 amount
 HELD:

thereof,
 and
 to
 hold
 it
 accountable
 for
 any
 breach
 of
 the
 administrator's
 duty.
 A
careful
examination
of
the
facts
revealed
in
this
record
concerning
the
activities

Possessed,
as
it
is,
with
an
all‐embracing
power
over
the
administrator's
bond
and
 of
 Agripino
 S.
 Gustilo,
 as
 administrator
 of
 Angel
 Gustilo,
 convinces
 this
 court
 that

over
administration
proceedings,
a
Court
of
First
Instance
in
a
probate
proceeding
 he
is
not
a
fit
person
to
be
administrator
of
this
estate
and
that
he
has
not
in
fact




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









64




administered
it
so
far
with
due
regard
to
the
rights
of
other
persons
in
interest.
It
is
 the
way,
is
not
alone
in
the
trust,
it
appearing
that
his
counsel
has
been
appointed

the
 opinion
 of
 the
 court,
 therefore,
 that
 he
 should
 be
 removed
 and
 required
 to
 special
co‐administrator.

render
his
accounts
as
administrator,
in
accordance
with
the
second
assignment
of
 

error.

RULE
83



INVENTORY
AND
APPRAISAL.
PROVISION
FOR
SUPPORT
OF
FAMILY

The
third
assignment
of
error,
taking
exception
to
the
refusal
of
the
trial
court
to

order
the
forfeiture
of
the
bond
of
the
administrator,
in
our
opinion
contemplates
 

an
order
that
would
be
premature.
 Section
 1.
 Inventory
 and
 appraisal
 to
 be
 returned
 within
 three
 months.
 Within


 three
 (3)
 months
 after
 his
 appointment
 every
 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall

96
 DEGALA
V.
CENIZA
AND
UMIPIG
 return
to
the
court
a
true
inventory
and
appraisal
of
all
real
and
personal
estate


 78
PHIL
791
 of
 the
 deceased
 which
 has
 come
 into
 his
 possession
 or
 knowledge.
 In
 the


 appraisement
of
such
estate,
the
court
may
order
one
or
more
of
the
inheritance

FACTS:
 tax
appraisers
to
give
his
or
their
assistance.

Umipig
 was
 appointed
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Mina.
 
 Petitioner
 Degala
 

sought
 his
 removal
 and
 upon
 being
 denied
 by
 the
 court,
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 WHAT
 PROPERTIES
 SHOULD
 BE
 INVENTORIED
 AND
 APPRAISED
 BY
 THE

certiorari.
 
 Among
 others,
 he
 alleged
 that
 Umipig
 is
 a
 stranger
 to
 the
 estate
 and
 ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR?

that
he
has
an
adverse
interest
to
the
estate,
and
as
such,
should
be
removed
as
 • Real
or
personal
estate
of
the
decedent

soon
as
possible.
 


 ARE
 ONLY
 THOSE
 PROPERTIES
 WHICH
 IS
 IN
 HIS
 POSSESSION
 THAT
 SHOULD
 BE

HELD:
 INVENTORIED
AND
APPRAISED?

Under
the
very
rule
invoked
by
the
petitioner,
the
removal
of
an
administrator
lies
 • No

within
the
discretion
of
the
court
appointing
him.
The
sufficiency
of
any
ground
for
 • In
possession
or
has
come
into
his
knowledge

removal
 should
 thus
 be
 determined
 by
 said
 court,
 whose
 sensibilities
 are,
 in
 first
 

place,
 affected
 by
 any
 act
 or
 omission
 on
 the
 part
 of
 the
 administrator
 not
 Section
 2.
 Certain
 article
 not
 to
 be
 inventoried.
 The
 wearing
 apparel
 of
 the

conformable
to
or
in
disregard
of
the
rules
or
the
orders
of
the
court.
We
cannot
 surviving
 husband
 or
 wife
 and
 minor
 children.,
 the
 marriage
 bed
 and
 bedding,

merely
substitute
our
way
of
thinking
for
that
of
a
lower
court
in
matters
under
its
 and
 such
 provisions
 and
 other
 articles
 as
 will
 necessarily
 be
 consumed
 in
 the

discretionary
 power.
 And
 in
 the
 case
 at
 bar,
 we
 cannot
 hold
 that
 the
 respondent
 substinence
of
the
family
of
the
deceased,
under
the
direction
of
the
court,
shall

Judge
 gravely
 abused
 his
 discretion,
 particularly
 in
 view
 of
 the
 circumstance
 that
 not
be
considered
as
assets,
nor
administered
as
such,
and
shall
not
be
included

the
alleged
grounds
for
removal
are
not
in
fact
weighty.
 in
the
inventory.


 

First,
 the
 fact
 that
 the
 former
 administrator
 is
 his
 counsel
 doesn’t
 automatically
 Section
 3.
 Allowance
 to
 widow
 and
 family.
 
 The
 widow
 and
 minor
 or

mean
 that
 he
 has
 an
 adverse
 interest
 in
 the
 estate.
 
 Second,
 it
 doesn’t
 incapacitated
children
of
a
deceased
person,
during
the
settlement
of
the
estate,

automatically
 mean
 that
 when
 he
 has
 failed
 to
 pay
 some
 taxes,
 it
 was
 done
 shall
 receive
 therefrom,
 under
 the
 direction
 of
 the
 court,
 such
 allowance
 as
 are

willfully.
 
 It
 might
 be
 the
 case
 that
 there
 was
 lack
 of
 funds
 to
 sustain
 payment.

 provided
by
law.

Third,
whether
the
statement
of
accounts
was
filed
on
time
and
whether
the
same
 

is
complete
and
correct,
are
matters
addressed
to
the
judgment
and
discretion
of
 97
 CHUA
TAN
V.
DEL
ROSARIO

the
 respondent
 Judge.
 It
 may
 not
 be
 amiss
 to
 add
 that
 the
 latter
 will
 of
 course
 
 57
PHIL
411

know
 when
 to
 resort
 to
 the
 bond
 filed
 by
 the
 respondent
 administrator
 who,
 by
 

FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









65




Santa
 Juana
 was
 the
 administratrix
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Chua
 Piaco.
 
 She
 filed
 a
 case
 the
 defendant
 administratrix,
 constitutes
 res
 judicata
 in
 another
 case
 where
 the

against
del
Rosario,
the
administratrix
of
the
estate
of
Chua
Toco,
Piaco’s
adopted
 heirs
 of
 the
 alleged
 donor
 are
 plaintiffs
 and
 the
 administratrix
 of
 the
 supposed

son.
 
 Santa
 Juana
 demanded
 del
 Rosario
 to
 render
 an
 accounting
 on
 allegedly
 trustee
is
defendant,
and
in
which
the
partition
of
the
same
funds
and
the
products

delivered
funds
in
trust
by
the
Chua
Piaco
to
Chua
Toco,
which
del
Rosario
allegedly
 thereof
is
sought
between
the
heirs
of
both,
under
the
same
allegation
of
trust,
the

refused
to
do.

Judgment
on
this
case
was
rendered
against
Santa
Juana
however.

 alleged
trustee
being
the
adopted
child
of
the
donor.

And
 in
 the
 present
 case,
 plaintiffs
 are
 the
 presumptive
 heirs
 of
 Chua
 Piaco
 who
 

sought
partition
of
funds.

The
lower
court
sustained
the
defense
of
res
judicata.
 98
 ADAPON
V.
MARALIT


 
 69
PHIL
411

HELD:
 

It
is
the
duty
of
the
administrator
of
the
testate
or
intestate
estate
of
a
deceased
to
 FACTS:

present
an
inventory
of
the
real
estate
and
all
goods,
chattels,
rights,
and
credits
of
 Pedro
 Adapon
 petitioned
 the
 probate
 of
 his
 late
 father’s
 will
 and
 it
 was
 duly

the
 deceased
 which
 have
 come
 into
 his
 possession
 or
 knowledge,
 in
 accordance
 probated.

He
was
appointed
as
the
administrator
of
the
estate
and
duly
filed
the

with
 the
 provisions
 of
 section
 668
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure,
 and
 to
 manage
 inventory
of
properties.

The
second
wife
of
his
late
father
opposed.

She
alleged

them
according
to
section
643
of
the
same
Code;
and
in
order
that
he
may
have
in
 that
 the
 administrator
 failed
 to
 account
 for
 certain
 properties
 owned
 by
 the

his
 power
 and
 under
 his
 custody
 all
 such
 property,
 section
 702
 of
 the
 aforesaid
 testator.

He
is
also
demanded
to
pay
monthly
allowance
to
the
widow.

Adapon
on

Code
 authorizes
 him
 to
 bring
 such
 actions
 for
 the
 purpose
 as
 he
 may
 deem
 the
other
hand
alleged
that
 he
 owned
 the
properties
 in
 dispute
 and
 shouldn’t
 be

necessary.
Section
642
in
providing
for
the
appointment
of
an
administrator
where
 included
in
the
inventory.

The
probate
court
decided
in
favor
of
Adapon.


there
is
no
will
or
the
will
does
not
name
an
executor,
seeks
to
protect
not
only
the
 

estate
of
the
deceased
but
also
the
rights
of
the
creditors
in
order
that
they
may
be
 HELD:

able
 to
 collect
 their
 credits,
 and
 of
 the
 heirs
 and
 legatees
 in
 order
 that
 they
 may
 Under
 section
 599
 of
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure,
 the
 probate
 jurisdiction
 of
 the

receive
the
portion
of
the
inheritance
or
legacy
appertaining
to
them
after
all
the
 Court
of
First
Instance
relates
only
to
matters
having
to
do
with
the
settlement
of

debts
 and
 expenses
 chargeable
 against
 the
 deceased's
 estate
 have
 been
 paid.
 estates
and
probate
of
wills
of
deceased
persons,
the
appointment
and
removal
of

Under
the
provisions
of
the
law,
therefore,
the
judicial
administrator
is
the
legal
 guardians
and
trustees,
and
the
powers,
duties,
and
rights
of
guardians
and
wards,

representative
not
only
of
the
testate
or
intestate
estate,
but
also
of
the
creditors,
 trustees,
 and
 cestuis
 que
 trust."
 As
 may
 be
 seen,
 the
 law
 does
 not
 extend
 the

and
heirs
and
legatees,
inasmuch
as
he
represents
their
interest
in
the
estate
of
 jurisdiction
of
a
probate
court
to
the
determination
of
questions
of
ownership
that

the
deceased.
 arise
during
the
proceeding.












 

Santa
 Juana,
 as
 administratrix
 of
 the
 intestate
 estate
 of
 the
 late
 Chua
 Piaco,
 was
 In
the
case
of
Bauermann
vs.
Casas
(10
Phil.,
392‐393)
this
court,
in
passing
upon

the
legal
representative
not
only
of
said
estate
but
also
of
its
creditors
and
heirs.
In
 the
same
question
now
raised
observed
that
"the
mere
fact
that
one
of
the
parties

view
 of
 this
 relation
 of
 agent
 and
 principal
 between
 her
 and
 the
 plaintiffs
 in
 the
 is
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator
 of
 a
 certain
 estate
 does
 not
 give
 exclusive

present
 case,
 the
 decision
 rendered
 against
 Benedicta
 Santa
 Juana,
 as
 such
 jurisdiction
 to
 the
 probate
 court
 wherein
 the
 estate
 is
 being
 settled,
 of
 questions

administratrix,
 in
 the
 former
 case
 is
 conclusive
 and
 binding
 upon
 said
 plaintiffs
 in
 arising
between
such
the
executors
or
administrators
and
third
persons,
as
to
the

the
present
case..
 ownership
of
specific
property.
Of
course
when
it
is
once
determined
that
certain


 property
 is
 the
 property
 of
 the
 estate
 is
 being
 settled,
 but
 until
 this
 question
 is

A
final
judgment
upon
the
merits
rendered
against
the
judicial
administratrix
of
an
 decided
 the
 mere
 allegation
 that
 certain
 property
 is
 the
 property
 of
 an
 estate
 in

intestate
estate,
as
such,
in
a
case
where
she
is
plaintiff
and
the
administratrix
of
 course
of
jurisdiction
over
questions
touching
the
ownership
of
such
property
and

another
intestate
estate,
as
such
is
the
defendant,
in
which
she
seeks
to
secure
an
 rights
 based
 on
 the
 right
 of
 ownership."
 In
 Devesa
 vs.
 Arbes
 (13
 Phil.,
 281),
 the

accounting
 of
 funds
 alleged
 to
 have
 been
 delivered
 in
 trust
 by
 the
 deceased,
 same
 doctrine
 was
 reiterated
 with
 greater
 force
 and
 emphasis,
 the
 court
 there

represented
by
the
plaintiff
administratrix,
to
the
other
deceased,
represented
by
 holding
that
a
contested
claim
of
an
administrator
that
certain
rights
of
possession




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









66




and
 ownership
 are
 the
 property,
 of
 the
 estate
 which
 he
 represent
 must
 be
 1430,
 when
 the
 same
 is
 requested,
 and
 if
 the
 creditors
 believe
 that
 they
 are

determined
in
a
separate
action,
and
not
in
the
administration
proceedings."
Again,
 prejudiced
 by
 such
 an
 action,
 by
 separating
 from
 the
 estate
 a
 part
 of
 its
 income,

this
 Court
 in
 Guzman
 vs.
 Anog
 and
 Anog
 (37
 Phil.,
 62‐63),decided
 that
 "when
 they
 can
 appeal
 to
 the
 court
 therefrom,
 by
 satisfactorily
 proving
 that
 there
 is
 no

questions
arise
as
to
the
ownership
of
property,
alleged
to
be
a
part
of
the
estate
 property
 or
 asset
 that
 may,
 in
 any
 case,
 be
 allotted
 to
 the
 interested
 parties.
 It

of
a
deceased
person,
but
claimed
by
some
other
person
to
be
his
property,
not
by
 having
proven
that
no
property,
eitherprivate
or
conjugal,
pertains
to
the
surviving

virtue
of
any
right
of
inheritance
from
the
deceased,
but
by
title
adverse
to
that
of
 spouse
or
the
heirs
of
the
deceased,
the
support
cannot
be
granted,
because
this,

the
deceased
and
his
estate,
such
questions
cannot
be
determined
in
that
course
of
 in
effect,
according
to
article
1430,
is
only
an
advance
payment
on
accoount
of
the

administration
proceedings.
The
Court
of
First
Instance,
acting
as
a
probate
court,
 respective
share
of
each
partner.

has
no
jurisdiction
to,
adjudicate
such
contentions,
which
must
be
submitted
to
the
 

court
in
the
exercise
of
its
general
jurisdiction
as
a
Court
of
First
Instance
to
try
and
 Such
 is
 the
 case
 now
 before
 us.
 It
 appears
 from
 the
 record
 that
 the
 liabilities

determine
the
ordinary
actions
mentioned
in
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure."
Finally,
 exceed
the
assets
of
the
estate
of
Samuel
William
Allen
and
that
his
widow,
by
her

in
 the
 case
 of
 Lunsod
 vs.
 Ortega
 (46
 Phil.,
 676)
 where
 the
 same
 question
 like
 as
 own
admission,
had
not
contributed
any
property
to
the
marriage.
Wherefore,
it
is

presented,
 the
 Court
 reaffirmed
 the
 principle
 enunciated
 in
 the
 foregoing
 cases
 unlawful,
 in
 the
 present
 case,
 to
 grant
 the
 support,
 having
 the
 character
 of
 an

stating
that
"it
is
an
established
doctrine
of
this
court
that
the
mere
fact
that
one
of
 advance
payment
to
be
deducted
from
the
respective
share
of
each
partner,
when

the
parties
is
the
executor
or
administrator
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
person
does
 there
is
no
property
to
be
partitioned,
lacks
the
legal
basis
provided
by
article
1430.

not
confer
upon
the
probate
court,
in
which
the
proceeding
for
the
distribution
and
 

settlement
of
said
estate
are
pending,
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
decide
all
question
 100
 SANTERO
V.
CFI

that
may
arise
between
the
said
executor
or
administrator
and
third
persons
as
to
 
 153
SCRA
728

the
title
of
a
specific
property."
 


 FACTS:

99
 MOORE
AND
SONS
MERCANTILE
CO.
V.
WAGNER
 Pablo
Santero
died,
begotting
children
from
two
women.

On
the
settlement
of
his


 50
PHIL
128
 estate,
 on
 behalf
 of
 her
 children,
 Diaz
 filed
 for
 the
 grant
 of
 allowance.
 
 She


 provided
in
her
motion,
the
need
to
sustain
daily
schooling
and
other
expenses
of

FACTS:
 the
 children.
 
 Petitioners
 argue
 that
 private
 respondents
 are
 not
 entitled
 to
 any

In
the
settlement
of
the
intestate
estate
of
Samuel
Allen,
his
widow
prayed
that
the
 allowance
 since
 they
 have
 already
 attained
 majority
 age,
 two
 are
 gainfully

court
 orders
 the
 administrator
 to
 give
 her
 and
 her
 children
allowance.

 The
court
 employed
and
one
is
married
as
provided
for
under
Sec.
3
Rule
83,
of
the
Rules
of

ordered
for
the
same,
despite
opposition
on
the
ground
that
the
estate
is
insolvent.
 Court.
Petitioners
also
allege
that
there
was
misrepresentation
on
the
part
of
the


 guardian
in
asking
for
allowance
for
tuition
fees,
books
and
other
school
materials

HELD:
 and
 other
 miscellaneous
 expenses
 for
 school
 term
 1982‐83
 because
 these
 wards

That
the
support
does
not
encumber
the
property
of
the
deceased
spouse,
but
the
 have
already
attained
majority
age
so
that
they
are
no
longer
under
guardianship.

general
 estate,
 and
 that
 by
 the
 general
 estate
 or
 the
 inventoried
 estate
 is
 meant
 They
further
allege
that
the
administrator
of
the
estate
of
Pablo
Santero
does
not

the
 dowry
 or
 capital
 of
 the
 wife;
 wherefore,
 even
 if
 the
 indebtedness
 exceed
 the
 have
 sufficient
 funds
 to
 cover
 said
 allowance
 because
 whatever
 funds
 are
 in
 the

residue
of
the
estate,
the
wife
can
always
be
allowed
support
as
part
payment
of
 hands
of
the
administrator
constitute
funds
held
in
trust
for
the
benefit
of
whoever

the
 income
 of
 her
 property.
 In
 any
 case,
 the
 support
 is
 given
 prior
 to
 the
 will
 be
 adjudged
 as
 owners
 of
 the
 Kawit
 properties
 from
 where
 these
 funds
 now

termination
 of
 the
 liquidation
 of
 the
 partnership,
 and
 it
 does
 not
 seem
 logical
 to
 held
by
the
administrator
are
derived.

deny
the
same
before
knowing
exactly
the
result
of
the
liquidation,
just
because
of
 

the
 fear
 that
 the
 liabilities
 will
 exceed
 the
 estate,
 or
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 estimates
 HELD:

more
or
less
uncertain,
and
without
any
sufficient
proof
of
its
reality.
The
judge
or
 The
fact
that
private
respondents
are
of
age,
gainfully
employed,
or
married
is
of

the
administrator,
as
the
case
may
be,
must
grant
the
support
referred
to
in
article
 no
moment
and
should
not
be
regarded
as
the
determining
factor
of
their
right
to




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









67




allowance
under
Art.
188.
While
the
Rules
of
Court
limit
allowances
to
the
widow
 WHAT
ARE
THE
GENERAL
POWERS
OF
AN
EXECUTOR
OR
ADMINISTRATOR?

and
minor
or
incapacitated
children
of
the
deceased,
the
New
Civil
Code
gives
the
 1. Have
 access
 to
 partnership
 books
 and
 accounts,
 in
 the
 case
 of

surviving
 spouse
 and
 his/her
 children
 without
 distinction.
 Hence,
 the
 private
 partnership

respondents
 Victor,
 Rodrigo,
 Anselmina
 and
 Miguel
 all
 surnamed
 Santero
 are
 2. To
keep
buildings
and
other
properties
in
repair

entitled
to
allowances
as
advances
from
their
shares
in
the
inheritance
from
their
 3. To
retain
whole
estate
to
pay
debts

father
Pablo
Santero.
Since
the
provision
of
the
Civil
Code,
a
substantive
law,
gives
 4. To
administer
properties
not
mentioned
in
the
will

the
 surviving
 spouse
 and
 to
 the
 children
 the
 right
 to
 receive
 support
 during
 the
 5. To
 bring
 and
 defend
 suits
 which
 survived
 upon
 death
 of
 the
 decedent

liquidation
of
the
estate
of
the
deceased,
such
right
cannot
be
impaired
by
Rule
83
 (Rule
87)

Sec.
 3
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court
 which
 is
 a
 procedural
 rule.
 Be
 it
 noted
 however
 that
 

with
respect
to
"spouse,"
the
same
must
be
the
"legitimate
spouse"
(not
common‐ 101
 CONCEPCION
JOCSON
DE
HILADO
V.
NAVA

law
spouses
who
are
the
mothers
of
the
children
here).
 
 69
PHIL
1


 

FACTS:

RULE
84

The
administratrix
entered
into
a
contract
of
lease
of
one
of
the
properties
of
the

GENERAL
POWERS
AND
DUTIES
OF
EXECUTORS
AND
ADMINISTRATORS

estate.
 
 This
 was
 entered
 into
 without
 the
 intervention
 of
 the
 court.
 
 Opposition


 was
then
entered,
for
the
annulment
of
such
contract.

Section
 1.
 Executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 have
 access
 to
 partnership
 books
 and
 

property.
 How
 right
 enforced.
 The
 executor
 or
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 HELD:

deceased
 partner
 shall
 at
 all
 times
 have
 access
 to,
 and
 may
 examine
 and
 take
 The
contract
here
in
question
being
a
mere
act
of
administration,
could
validy
be

copies
 of,
 books
 and
 papers
 relating
 to
 the
 partnership
 business,
 and
 make
 entered
 into
 by
 the
 administratrix
 within
 her
 powers
 of
 administration,
 even

examine
 and
 make
 invoices
 of
 the
 property
 belonging
 to
 such
 partnership;
 and
 without
 the
 court's
 previous
 authority.
 And
 the
 court
 had
 no
 power
 to
 annul
 or

the
surviving
partner
or
partners,
on
request,
shall
exhibit
to
him
all
such
books,
 invalidate
 the
 contract
 in
 the
 intestate
 proceedings
 wherein
 it
 had
 no
 jurisdiction

papers,
and
property
in
their
hands
or
control.
On
the
written
application
of
such
 over
the
person
of
the
lessee.

executor
 or
 administrator,
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 may
 order
 

any
such
surviving
partner
or
partners
to
freely
permit
the
exercise
of
the
rights,
 102
 SAN
DIEGO
V.
NOMBRE

and
 to
 exhibit
 the
 books,
 papers,
 and
 property,
 as
 in
 this
 section
 provided,
 and
 
 11
SCRA
165

may
punish
any
partner
failing
to
do
so
for
contempt.
 


 FACTS:

Section
 2.
 Executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 keep
 buildings
 in
 repair.
 An
 executor
 or
 Nombre
was
initially
the
appointed
administrator
of
the
estate.

He
entered
into
a

administrator
 shall
 maintain
 in
 tenable
 repair
 the
 houses
 and
 other
 structures
 lease
 contract
 with
 Escaler
 for
 a
 period
 of
 3
 years.
 
 This
 was
 done
 without

and
 fences
 belonging
 to
 the
 estate,
 and
 deliver
 the
 same
 in
 such
 repair
 to
 the
 authorization
 of
 the
 court.
 
 Nombre
 was
 removed
 as
 an
 administrator
 and
 was

heirs
or
devisees
when
directed
so
to
do
by
the
court.
 replaced.
 
 The
 court
 then
 sought
 the
 annulment
 of
 the
 contract,
 for
 lack
 of


 authorization.



Section
3.
Executor
or
administrator
to
retain
whole
estate
to
pay
debts,
and
to
 

administer
estate
not
willed.
An
executor
or
administrator
shall
have
the
right
to
 HELD:

the
possession
and
management
of
the
real
as
well
as
the
personal
estate
of
the
 The
Court
of
Appeals
was
correct
in
sustaining
the
validity
of
the
contract
of
lease

deceased
so
long
as
it
is
necessary
for
the
payment
of
the
debts
and
the
expenses
 in
favor
of
Escanlar,
notwithstanding
the
lack
of
prior
authority
and
approval.
The

of
administration.
 law
and
prevailing
jurisprudence
on
the
matter
militates
in
favor
of
this
view.
While


 it
 may
 be
 admitted
 that
 the
 duties
 of
 a
 judicial
 administrator
 and
 an
 agent




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









68




(petitioner
alleges
that
both
act
in
representative
capacity),
are
in
some
respects,
 waiver
by
the
special
administrator
of
a
prima
facie
exclusive
right
of
the
intestate

identical,
the
provisions
on
agency
(Art.
1878,
C.C.),
should
not
apply
to
a
judicial
 estate
to
the
bank
deposits
in
favor
of
the
co‐owners
of
the
Juna
Subdivision,
who

administrator.
A
judicial
administrator
is
appointed
by
the
Court.
He
is
not
only
the
 were
 allegedly
 claiming
 the
 same
 as
 alleged
 by
 the
 administrator
 in
 his
 motion.


representative
 of
 said
 Court,
 but
 also
 the
 heirs
 and
 creditors
 of
 the
 estate
 (Chua
 The
bank
deposits
were
in
the
name
of
the
deceased;
they,
therefore,
belong
prima

Tan
 v.
 Del
 Rosario,
 57
 Phil.
 411).
 A
 judicial
 administrator
 before
 entering
 into
 his
 facie
 to
 his
 estate
 after
 his
 death.
 And
 until
 the
 contrary
 is
 shown
 by
 proper

duties,
 is
 required
 to
 file
 a
 bond.
 These
 circumstances
 are
 not
 true
 in
 case
 of
 evidence
 at
 the
 proper
 stage,
 when
 money
 claims
 may
 be
 filed
 in
 the
 intestate

agency.
The
agent
is
only
answerable
to
his
principal.
The
protection
which
the
law
 proceedings,
the
special
administrator
is
without
power
to
make
the
waiver
or
to

gives
 the
 principal,
 in
 limiting
 the
 powers
 and
 rights
 of
 an
 agent,
 stems
 from
 the
 hand
over
part
of
the
estate,
or
what
appears
to
be
a
prima
facie
part
of
the
estate,

fact
that
control
by
the
principal
can
only
be
thru
agreements,
whereas
the
acts
of
 to
other
persons
on
the
ground
that
the
estate
is
not
the
owner
thereof.
If
even
to

a
 judicial
 administrator
 are
 subject
 to
 specific
 provisions
 of
law
and
orders
of
the
 sell
for
valuable
consideration
property
of
the
estate
requires
prior
written
notice

appointing
court.
 of
the
application
to
the
heirs,
legatees,
or
devisees
under
Rule
89
of
the
Rules
of


 Court,
such
notice
is
equally,
if
not
more,
indispensable
for
disposing
gratuitously

103
 JARODA
V.
CUSI
 of
 assets
 of
 the
 decedent
 in
 favor
 of
 strangers.
 Admittedly,
 no
 such
 notice
 was


 28
SCRA
1008
 given,
and
without
it
the
court's
authority
is
invalid
and
improper.


 











FACTS:
 Secondly,
 the
 order
 approving
 the
 power
 of
 attorney
 executed
 by
 administrator

Tan
 filed
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 estate
 proceedings
 of
 Villa
 Abrille.
 
 He
 was
 duly
 Tan
and
appointing
himself
as
attorney‐in‐fact
to
sell
the
subdivision
lots
for
a
price

appointed
 as
 regular
 administrator.
 
 During
 the
 proceedings,
 he
 first
 sought
 at
his
discretion
is,
likewise,
void
for
want
of
notice
and
for
approving
an
improper

permission
to
withdraw
money
from
the
bank
account
of
the
deceased.

The
court
 contract
or
transaction.

found
the
motion
meritorious.

Next,
alleging
that
the
deceased
was
the
manager
 

and
 co‐owner
 of
 a
 subdivision,
 he
 sought
 authorization
 to
 sell
 the
 same.
 
 He
 was
 The
 rule
 requires
 "written
 notice
 to
 the
 heirs,
 devisees,
 and
 legatees
 who
 are

likewise
authorized.

Jaroda
then
entered
his
opposition
but
the
court
overruled
his
 interested
 in
 the
 estate
 to
 be
 sold"
 and,
 admittedly,
 administrator
 Tan
 did
 not

opposition.
 furnish
such
notice.
Without
such
notice,
the
order
of
the
court
authorizing
the
sale


 is
void.

HELD:
 

The
 order
 allowing
 the
 special
 administrator
 to
 withdraw
 the
 bank
 deposits

RULE
85

standing
in
the
name
of
the
decedent
is
in
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
lack
of

ACCOUNTABILITY
AND
COMPENSATION
OF
EXECUTORS
AND
ADMINISTRATORS

jurisdiction.
In
the
first
place,
said
withdrawal
is
foreign
to
the
powers
and
duties
of

a
 special
 administrator,
 which,
 are
 to
 take
 possession
 and
 charge
 of
 the
 goods,
 

chattels,
 rights,
 credits
 and
 estate
 of
 the
 decease
 and
 preserve
 the
 same
 for
 the
 Section
 1.
 Executor
 or
 administrator
 chargeable
 with
 all
 estate
 and
 income.

executor
 or
 administrator
 afterwards
 appointed,
 and
 for
 that
 purpose
 may
 Except
as
otherwise
expressly
provided
in
the
following
sections,
every
executor

commence
 and
 maintain
 suits
 as
 administrator.
 He
 may
 sell
 only
 such
 perishable
 or
administrator
is
chargeable
in
his
account
with
the
whole
of
the
estate
of
the

and
 other
 property
 as
 the
 court
 orders
 sold.
 A
 special
 administrator
 shall
 not
 be
 deceased
which
has
come
into
his
possession,
at
the
value
of
the
appraisement

liable
to
pay
any
debts
of
the
deceased
unless
so
ordered
by
the
court.
 contained
 in
 the
 inventory;
 with
 all
 the
 interest,
 profit,
 and
 income
 of
 such












 estate;
and
with
the
proceeds
of
so
much
of
the
estate
as
is
sold
by
him,
at
the

In
 the
 second
 place,
 the
 order
 was
 issued
 without
 notice
 to,
 and
 hearing
 of,
 the
 price
at
which
it
was
sold.

heirs
 of
 the
 deceased.
 The
 withdrawal
 of
 the
 bank
 deposits
 may
 be
 viewed
 as
 a
 

taking
of
possession
and
charge
of
the
credits
of
the
estate,
and
apparently
within
 TO
WHAT
IS
THE
ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR
ACCOUNTABLE
FOR?

the
powers
and
duties
of
a
special
administrator;
but
actually,
said
withdrawal
is
a




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









69




• With
 the
 whole
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 which
 has
 come
 into
 his
 

possession,
at
the
value
of
the
appraisement
contained
in
the
inventory;
 Section
6.
When
allowed
money
paid
as
cost.
The
amount
paid
by
an
executor
or

with
 all
 the
 interest,
 profit,
 and
 income
 of
 such
 estate;
 and
 with
 the
 administrator
 for
 costs
 awarded
 against
 him
 shall
 be
 allowed
 in
 his

proceeds
of
so
much
of
the
estate
as
is
sold
by
him,
at
the
price
at
which
 administration
account,
unless
it
appears
that
the
action
or
proceeding
in
which

it
was
sold.
 the
 costs
 are
 taxed
 was
 prosecuted
 or
 resisted
 without
 just
 cause,
 and
 not
 in


 good
faith.

Section
2.
Not
to
profit
by
increase
or
lose
by
decrease
in
value.
No
executor
or
 

administrator
 shall
 profit
 by
 the
 increase,
 or
 suffer
 loss
 by
 the
 decrease
 or
 MAY
 COSTS
 AWARDED
 AGAINST
 THE
 ADMINISTRATOR
 OR
 EXECUTOR
 BE

destruction,
without
his
fault,
of
any
part
of
the
estate.
He
must
account
for
the
 ALLOWED
IN
HIS
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNT?

excess
when
he
sells
any
part
of
the
estate
for
more
than
the
appraisement,
and
 • Generally
yes,
he
may
charge
it
in
his
administration
account

if
any
is
sold
for
the
less
than
the
appraisement,
he
is
not
responsible
for
the
loss,
 • Exceptions
to
the
rule—

if
the
sale
has
justly
made.
If
he
settles
any
claim
against
the
estate
for
less
than
 o The
 action
 or
 proceeding
 involved
 was
 prosecuted
 or
 resisted

its
 nominal
 value,
 he
 is
 entitled
 to
 charge
 in
 his
 account
 only
 the
 amount
 he
 without
just
cause,
and
not
in
good
faith

actually
paid
on
the
settlement.
 


 Section
 7.
 What
 expenses
 and
 fees
 allowed
 executor
 or
 administrator.
 Not
 to

Section
 3.
 When
 not
 accountable
 for
 debts
 due
 estate.
 No
 executor
 or
 charge
 for
 services
 as
 attorney.
 Compensation
 provided
 by
 will
 controls
 unless

administrator
 shall
 be
 accountable
 for
 debts
 due
 the
 deceased
 which
 remain
 renounced.
An
executor
or
administrator
shall
be
allowed
the
necessary
expenses

uncollected
without
his
fault.
 the
 care,
 management,
 and
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate,
 and
 for
 his
 services,
 four


 pesos
 per
 day
 for
 the
 time
 actually
 and
 necessarily
 employed,
 or
 a
 commission

Section
 4.
 Accountable
 for
 income
 from
 realty
 used
 by
 him.
 If
 the
 executor
 or
 upon
 the
 value
 of
 so
 much
 of
 the
 estate
 as
 comes
 into
 his
 possession
 and
 is

administrator
 uses
 or
 occupies
 any
 part
 of
 the
 real
 estate
 himself,
 he
 shall
 finally
 disposed
 of
 by
 him
 in
 the
 payment
 of
 debts,
 expenses,
 legacies,
 or

account
for
it
as
may
be
agreed
upon
between
him
and
the
parties
interested,
or
 distributive
shares,
or
by
delivery
to
heirs
or
devisees,
of
two
per
centum
of
the

adjusted
by
the
court
with
their
assent;
and
if
the
parties
do
not
agree
upon
the
 first
five
thousand
pesos
of
such
value,
one
per
centum
of
so
much
of
such
value

sum
 to
 be
 allowed,
 the
 same
 may
 be
 ascertained
 by
 the
 court,
 whose
 as
exceeds
five
thousand
pesos
and
does
not
exceed
thirty
thousand
pesos,
one‐
determination
in
this
respect
shall
be
final.
 half
per
centum
of
so
much
of
such
value
as
exceed
one
hundred
thousand
pesos.


 But
 in
 any
 special
 case,
 where
 the
 estate
 is
 large,
 and
 the
 settlement
 has
 been

Section
 5.
 Accountable
 if
 he
 neglects
 or
 delays
 to
 raise
 or
 pay
 money.
 When
 an
 attended
with
great
difficulty,
and
has
required
a
high
degree
of
capacity
on
the

executor
 or
 administrator
 neglects
 or
 unreasonably
 delays
 to
 raise
 money,
 by
 part
of
the
executor
or
administrator,
a
greater
sum
may
be
allowed.
If
objection

collecting
 the
 debts
 or
 selling
 the
 real
 or
 personal
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased,
 or
 to
the
fees
allowed
be
taken,
the
allowance
may
be
re‐examined
on
appeal.

neglects
to
pay
over
the
money
he
has
in
his
hands,
and
the
value
of
the
estate
is
 

thereby
 lessened
 or
 unnecessary
 cost
 or
 interest
 accrues,
 or
 the
 persons
 If
there
are
two
or
more
executors
or
administrators,
the
compensation
shall
be

interested
suffer
loss,
the
same
shall
be
deemed
waste
and
the
damage
sustained
 apportioned
among
them
by
the
court
according
to
the
services
actually
rendered

may
 be
 charged
 and
 allowed
 against
 him
 in
 his
 account,
 and
 he
 shall
 be
 liable
 by
them
respectively.

therefor
on
his
bond.
 


 When
the
executors
or
administrator
is
an
attorney,
he
shall
not
charge
against

WHEN
 MAY
 UNCOLLECTED
 DEBTS
 BE
 CHARGEABLE
 TO
 THE
 the
estate
any
professional
fees
for
legal
services
rendered
by
him.

EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR’S
ACCOUNT?
 

• If
 there
 is
 negligence,
 fault
 or
 unreasonable
 delay
 on
 the
 part
 of
 the
 When
the
deceased
by
will
makes
some
other
provision
for
the
compensation
of

executor
or
administrator
 his
executor,
that
provision
shall
be
a
full
satisfaction
for
his
services
unless
by
a




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









70




written
instrument
filed
in
the
court
he
renounces
all
claim
to
the
compensation
 • Exception:
 when
 the
 court
 directs
 otherwise
 because
 of
 extensions
 of

provided
by
the
will.
 time
for
presentation
of
claims
against
the
estate,
paying
debts
of
estate,


 or
for
disposing
the
estate

HOW
CAN
THE
ADMINISTRATOR
OR
EXECUTOR
BE
COMPENSATED?
 

• For
necessary
expenses
for
the
care,
management
and
settlement
of
the
 Section
9.
Examinations
on
oath
with
respect
to
account.
The
court
may
examine

estate
 the
executor
or
administrator
upon
oath
with
respect
to
every
matter
relating
to

• For
his
services
 any
account
rendered
by
him,
and
shall
so
examine
him
as
to
the
correctness
of


 his
account
before
the
same
is
allowed,
except
when
no
objection
is
made
to
the

HOW
 CAN
 AN
 ADMINISTRATOR
 OR
 EXECUTOR
 BE
 COMPENSATED
 FOR
 HIS
 allowance
 of
 the
 account
 and
 its
 correctness
 is
 satisfactorily
 established
 by

SERVICES?
 competent
 proof.
 The
 heirs,
 legatees,
 distributees,
 and
 creditors
 of
 the
 estate

• It
depends
if
it
is
time‐based
or
commission‐based
 shall
have
the
same
privilege
as
the
executor
or
administrator
of
being
examined

• If
time‐based,
P4/day
actually
and
necessarily
employed
 on
oath
on
any
matter
relating
to
an
administration
account.

• If
commission‐based—
 

o 2%
for
first
P5000
 MAY
 THE
 RENDITION
 OF
 ACCOUNT
 BE
 FORGONE
 IF
 THERE
 IS
 A
 PARTITION

o 1%
for
P5000‐30000
 AGREEMENT?

o 0.5%
for
exceeding
P100,000
 • No
(Joson
v.
Joson)


 • For
the
heirs
to
know
the
state
of
the
estate
and
this
has
been
mandated

WHAT
ARE
THE
EXCEPTIONS
TO
THE
RULE
ON
COMPENSATION?
 by
the
rules

1. When
the
decedent
makes
provision
in
his
will
for
compensation
 

2. In
 any
 special
 case,
 upon
 discretion
 of
 the
 court,
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 Section
10.
Account
to
be
settled
on
notice.
Before
the
account
of
an
executor
or

estate
is
attended
with
great
difficulty,
and
has
required
a
high
degree
of
 administrator
is
allowed,
notice
shall
be
given
to
persons
interested
of
the
time

capacity
on
the
part
of
the
administrator
or
executor
 and
 place
 of
 examining
 and
 allowing
 the
 same;
 and
 such
 notice
 may
 be
 given


 personally
 to
 such
 persons
 interested
 or
 by
 advertisement
 in
 a
 newspaper
 or

WHO
IS
PRIMARY
LIABLE
FOR
ATTORNEY’S
FEES?
 newspapers,
or
both,
as
the
court
directs.

• The
administrator
or
executor,
subject
to
reimbursement
 


 MAY
A
COURT
AUTOMATICALLY
APPROVE
AN
ACCOUNT?

Section
8.
When
executor
or
administrator
to
render
account.
Every
executor
or
 • No

administrator
 shall
 render
 an
 account
 of
 his
 administration
 within
 one
 (1)
 year
 • There
must
be
the
following—

from
 the
 time
 of
 receiving
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration,
 unless
 the
 o Notice
 to
 all
 interested
 parties
 of
 the
 estate—heirs,
 legatees,

court
 otherwise
 directs
 because
 of
 extensions
 of
 time
 for
 presenting
 claims
 devisees,
creditors,
distributees

against,
or
paying
the
debts
of,
the
estate,
or
for
disposing
of
the
estate;
and
he
 o Notice
may
be
made
personally
or
by
publication,
or
by
both

shall
 render
 such
 further
 accounts
 as
 the
 court
 may
 require
 until
 the
 estate
 is
 

wholly
settled.
 Section
11.
Surety
on
bond
may
be
party
to
accounting.
Upon
the
settlement
of


 the
account
of
an
executor
or
administrator,
a
person
liable
as
surety
in
respect

WHEN
SHALL
AN
EXECUTOR
OR
ADMINISTRATOR
RENDER
AN
ACCOUNT?
 to
such
account
may,
upon
application,
be
admitted
as
party
to
such
accounting.

• General
rule:
within
1
year
since
issuance
of
letters
of
administration
or
 

testamentary
 DOES
A
SURETY
AUTOMATICALLY
BECOME
A
PARTY
TO
ACCOUNTING?

• No

• He
must
file
an
application
to
that
effect




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









71





 appellant,
 dated
 August
 14,
 1933,
 and
 March
 15,
 1934,
 respectively,
 which

104
 GARCIA
V.
ESCUDERO
 accounts
appear
in
the
record
on
appeal,
as
amended
by
order
of
the
court.


 43
PHIL
437
 


 The
 court
 a
 quo,
 therefore,
 committed
 no
 error
 in
 ordering
 the
 elimination
 from

FACTS:
 the
 record
 on
 appeal
 of
 the
 other
 pleadings,
 decrees,
 orders
 and
 judgments
 not

Plaintiff’s
 as
 the
 testator’s
 sisters
 were
 the
 testamentary
 heirs.
 
 Escudero
 and
 appealed
 from,
 which,
 according
 to
 the
 appellant
 himself,
 are
 nothing
 more
 than

another
 were
 appointed
 as
 administrators
 of
 the
 estate.
 
 Plaintiffs
 subsequently
 evidence
of
the
services
rendered
by
him
and
his
attorney.

prayed
 for
 the
 delivery
 of
 properties
 to
 them
 as
 well
 as
 the
 accounting
 for
 the
 

same.

Escudero
assailed
such
motion
by
alleging
that
the
plaintiffs
don’t
have
any
 With
respect
to
the
other
expenses
and
fees
which
the
ex‐administrator‐appellant

standing
 in
 court,
 the
 properties
 in
 dispute
 not
 having
 been
 administered
 in
 seeks
 to
 collect
 and
 which
 the
 lower
 court,
 rejected,
 the
 law
 only
 authorizes
 the

accordance
with
the
rules.


 administrator
to
collect
for
his
services
as
such
the
sum
of
P4
for
every
day
actually


 and
 necessarily
 spent
 by
 him
 in
 the
 administration
 and
 care
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a

HELD:
 deceased
person,
not
for
every
act
or
task
he
might
perform,
even
if
it
were
to
take

The
 administrator
 isn’t
 responsible
 for
 the
 loss,
 by
 a
 fortuitous
 event,
 of
 the
 only
a
few
minutes
to
do
so,
as
indicated
by
the
nature
of
the
great
majority
of
the

personal
properties
under
administration
in
the
absence
of
proof
that
said
loss
was
 task
 performed
 by
 him,
 for
 each
 and
 every
 one
 of
 which
 he
 seeks
 to
 collect
 P4.

due
to
his
negligence.

Nor
does
the
fact
that
no
written
evidence
was
introduced
 Therefore
this
court
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
18
days
granted
by
the
lower
court
to

to
prove
that
the
animals
under
administration
died
of
rinderpest
render
him
liable
 the
 ex‐administrator‐appellant
 as
 actually
 and
 necessarily
 spent
 by
 him
 in
 the

for
the
value
of
the
animals.
 performance
of
his
duties,
at
P4
a
day,
are
reasonable.


 

105
 NICOLAS
V.
NICOLAS
 106
 UY
TIOCO
V.
IMPERIAL


 63
PHIL
332
 
 53
PHIL
802


 

FACTS:
 FACTS:

Domingo
 Nicolas
 is
 the
 ex‐administrator
 of
 the
 estate.
 
 He
 appealed
 the
 order
 of
 Panis
 was
 formerly
 the
 counsel
 for
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased.


the
court,
allowing
the
2
accounts
he
submitted
but
lesser
than
what
he
prayed
for.

 Uy
 Tioco
 was
 the
 administrator.
 
 Upon
 cessation
 of
 services,
 Panis
 submitted
 an

Among
 others,
 he
 alleged
 not
 being
 given
 the
 opportunity
 to
 be
 heard
 on
 the
 account
for
the
payment
of
his
attorney’s
fees.

Despite
opposition
by
the
guardian

accounts
 he
 submitted.
 
 He
 likewise
 contested
 the
 fact
 of
 disapproving
 certain
 ad
 litem
 of
 the
 minor
 children
 of
 deceased,
 the
 court
 granted
 the
 request
 of
 the

payments
he
made
and
the
exclusion
of
some
pleadings
and
orders
he
submitted
 lawyer
 and
 ordered
 consequently
 the
 administrator
 to
 pay
 the
 former
 out
 of
 the

to
support
his
claim.
 estate’s
funds.


 

HELD:
 HELD:

What
section
779
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
requires
to
be
transmitted
to
this
 The
arguments
submitted
indicate
a
misconception
of
the
character
of
the
liability

court
 in
 case
 of
 an
 appeal
 from
 a
 decree
 or
 order
 approving
 or
 disapproving
 the
 for
 the
 attorney's
 fees
 are
 claimed
 are
 supposed
 to
 have
 been
 rendered
 to
 the

accounts
of
an
administrator,
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
section
778,
is
a
 executor
or
administrator
to
assist
him
in
the
execution
of
his
trust.
The
attorney

certified
transcript
of
the
appeal,
order,
decree
or
judgment
appealed
from
and
of
 can
therefore
not
hold
the
estate
directly
liable
for
his
fees;
such
fees
are
allowed

the
 accounts
 embraced
 in
 the
 order,
 the
 inclusion
 of
 any
 other
 order,
 decree
 or
 to
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 and
 not
 to
 the
 attorney.
 The
 liability
 for
 the

judgment
 from
 which
 no
 appeal
 has
 been
 taken
 being
 unnecessary
 and
 payment
rests
on
the
executor
or
administrator,
but
if
the
fees
paid
are
beneficial

superfluous.
 The
 appealed
 order
 is
 the
 one
 dated
 June
 20,
 1934,
 and
 accounts
 to
the
estate
and
reasonable,
he
is
entitled
to
the
reimbursement
from
the
estate.

partially
 disapproved
 therein
 are
 those
 submitted
 by
 the
 ex‐administrator‐



MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









72




Such
payment
should
be
included
in
his
accounts
and
the
reimbursement
therefore
 Serquina
 submitted
 for
 probate
 the
 will
 of
 deceased
 Farlin.
 
 There
 being
 no

settled
upon
the
notice
prescribed
in
section
682
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
 opposition,
 the
 will
 was
 duly
 admitted
 to
 probate.
 
 Thereafter,
 the
 counsel


 Serquina
submitted
a
motion
for
payment
of
attorney’s
fees.

This
was
opposed
by

107
 DACANAY
V.
GERNANDEZ
 the
 heirs
 of
 Farlin,
 nonetheless,
 the
 court
 favored
 the
 payment
 and
 ordered
 that


 53
PHIL
824
 the
same
would
constitute
a
lien
over
the
distribution
of
the
estate.


 

FACTS:
 HELD:

Justiniano
Dacanay
died
and
was
originally
survived
by
his
legitimate
daughter
and
 An
 administrator
 or
 executor
 may
 be
 allowed
 fees
 for
 the
 necessary
 expenses
 he

natural
children.

The
legitimate
daughter
eventually
died
and
was
survived
by
her
 has
incurred
as
such,
but
he
may
not
recover
attorney's
fees
from
the
estate.
His

spouse
 Hernandez
 and
 children.
 
 The
 deceased
 Dacanay
 in
 this
 case
 was
 able
 to
 compensation
 is
 fixed
 by
 the
 rule
 but
 such
 a
 compensation
 is
 in
 the
 nature
 of

leave
a
will.

The
legitimate
daughter
was
deprived
of
her
rightful
share
due
to
her
 executor's
 or
 administrator's
 commissions,
 and
 never
 as
 attorney's
 fees.
 In
 one

alleged
 disobedience.
 
 And
 despite
 opposition
 from
 Hernandez,
 the
 will
 was
 case,
"a
greater
sum
[other
 than
 that
established
 by
 the
 rule]
 may
be
 allowed
 'in

admitted
 to
 probate.
 
 On
 the
 accounting
 of
 expenses,
 Tirso
 indicated
 therein
 as
 any
special
case,
where
the
estate
is
large,
and
the
settlement
has
been
attended

account
the
payment
of
attorney’s
fees.

This
was
one
of
the
things
contested,
on
 with
great
difficulty,
and
has
required
a
high
degree
of
capacity
on
the
part
of
the

the
ground
that
the
fees
should
be
shouldered
by

the
administrator
himself.


 executor
or
administrator.'"
It
is
also
left
to
the
sound
discretion
of
the
court.
With


 respect
to
attorney's
fees,
the
rule,
disallows
them.
Accordingly,
to
the
extent
that

HELD:
 the
trial
court
set
aside
the
sum
of
P65,000.00
as
and
for
Mr.
Serquina's
attorney's

As
 will
 be
 seen,
 all
 of
 the
 fees
 relate
 to
 services
 rendered
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 the
 fees,
to
operate
as
a
"lien
on
the
subject
properties,"
the
trial
judge
must
be
said
to

administrator
 himself
 and
 for
 that
 of
 the
 other
 natural
 children
 of
 Justiniano
 have
 gravely
 abused
 its
 discretion
 (apart
 from
 the
 fact
 that
 it
 never
 acquired

Dacanay
and
not
for
the
benefit
of
the
estate.
 jurisdiction,
in
the
first
place,
to
act
on
said
Mr.
Serquina's
"motion
for
attorney's


 fees").


"The
 estate
 cannot
 be
 held
 liable
 for
 the
 costs
 of
 counsel
 fees
 arising
 out
 of
 

litigation
between
the
beneficiaries
thereof
among
themselves,
or
in
the
protection
 The
next
question
is
quite
obvious:
Who
shoulders
attorney's
fees?
We
have
held

of
 the
 interest
 of
 a
 particular
 persons"
 (Woerner
 on
 Administration,
 2d
 ed.,
 sec.
 that
 a
 lawyer
 of
 an
 administrator
 or
 executor
 may
 not
 charge
 the
 estate
 for
 his

516,
 and
 authorities
 there
 cited).
 It
 is
 true
 that
 an
 administrator
 may
 employ
 fees,
 but
 rather,
 his
 client.
 Mutatis
 mutandis,
 where
 the
 administrator
 is
 himself

competent
 counsel
 on
 questions
 which
 affects
 his
 duties
 as
 administrator
 and
 on
 the
counsel
for
the
heirs,
it
is
the
latter
who
must
pay
therefor.


which
 he
 is
 in
 reasonable
 doubt
 and
 that
 reasonable
 expenses
 for
 such
 services
 

may
be
charged
against
the
estate
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
court.
But
such
is
 In
that
connection,
attorney's
fees
are
in
the
nature
of
actual
damages,
which
must

not
 the
 case
 here.
 In
 this
 case
 the
 administrator
 deliberately
 and
 knowingly
 be
duly
proved.
They
are
also
subject
to
certain
standards,
to
wit:
(1)
they
must
be

resorted
to
falsified
documents
for
the
purpose
of
defrauding
the
legitimate
heirs
 reasonable,
 that
 is
 to
 say,
 they
 must
 have
 a
 bearing
 on
 the
 importance
 of
 the

of
the
deceased
and
through
his
own
breach
of
trust,
brought
on
the
litigation
for
 subject
matter
in
controversy;
(2)
the
extent
of
the
services
rendered;
and
(3)
the



which
 he
 now
 demands
 reimbursement
 for
 counsel
 fees.
 We
 know
 of
 no
 legal
 professional
standing
of
the
lawyer.
 In
all
cases,
they
must
be
addressed
in
a
full‐
authority
 for
 such
 reimbursement
 in
 these
 circumstances.
 The
 claim
 for
 P6,175
 is
 blown
trial
and
not
on
the
bare
word
of
the
parties.
And
always,
they
are
subject
to

therefore
disallowed.
 the
moderating
hand
of
the
courts.



 

108
 LACSON
V.
REYES
 109
 ROSENSTOCK
V.
ELSER


 182
SCRA
729
 
 48
PHIL
708


 

FACTS:
 FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









73




Rosenstock
petitioned
the
will
of
deceased
Elser
to
be
admitted
to
probate.

It
was
 before
 an
 account
 of
 the
 administrator
 is
 allowed
 notice
 shall
 be
 given
 to
 all

duly
admitted
and
consequently,
Rosenstock
was
appointed
as
the
executor.

On
a
 persons
interested
of
the
time
and
place
of
examining
and
allowing
the
same.
And

later
 date,
 he
 filed
 a
 motion
 for
 payment
 of
 additional
 compensation
 and
 finally
 Section
 9
 expressly
 directs
 that
 the
 court
 shall
 examine
 the
 administrator

allowance.

This
was
approved
by
the
court.

The
widow
of
the
deceased
moved
for
 upon
 oath
 with
 respect
 to
 every
 matter
 relating
 to
 his
 account
 except
 when
 no

reconsideration
but
was
denied.


 objection
 is
 made
 to
 the
 allowance
 of
 the
 account
 and
 its
 correctness
 is


 satisfactorily
established
by
competent
testimony.

HELD:
 

During
 that
 period
 all
 of
 the
 assets
 and
 liabilities
 of
 the
 estate
 should
 have
 been
 It
thus
appears
that
the
duty
of
an
administrator
to
render
an
account
is
not
a
mere

legally
ascertained
and
determined.
In
other
words
the
character
and
class
of
the
 incident
of
an
administration
proceeding
which
ran
be
waived
or
disregarded
when

work
which
devolves
upon
the
executor
is
of
a
very
different
type
and
nature
now
 the
 same
 is
 terminated,
 but
 that
 it
 is
 a
 duty
 that
 has
 to
 be
 performed
 and
 duly

than
at
the
time
of
his
appointment.
Although
by
mutual
consent
his
compensation
 acted
 upon
 by
 the
 court
 before
 the
 administration
 is
 finally
 ordered
 closed
 and

was
fixed
at
P1,0000
per
month
at
the
time
of
his
appointment
that
was
not
valid
 terminated.
 Here
 the
 administrator
 has
 submitted
 his
 accounts
 for
 several
 years

or
binding
contract
continuous
throughout
the
whole
administration
of
the
estate.
 not
 only
 motu
 proprio
 but
 upon
 requirement
 of
 the
 court,
 to
 which
 accounts
 the

It
 was
 always
 subject
 to
 change
 and
 the
 approval
 of
 the
 court
 and
 to
 either
 an
 heirs
 have
 seasonably
 submitted
 their
 opposition.
 And
 when
 the
 administrator

increase
or
decrease
as
conditions
might
warrant.
At
all
times
the
compensation
of
 moved
the
court
to
close
the
proceedings
and
relieve
him
of
his
administration
and

the
probate
court.
 of
his
accounts,
the
heirs
who
objected
thereto
objected
likewise
to
the
closing
of


 the
 proceedings
 invoking
 their
 right
 to
 be
 heard
 but
 the
 court
 ignored
 their

110
 JOSON
V.
JOSON
 opposition
 and
 granted
 the
 motion
 setting
 forth
 as
 reasons
 therefor
 what
 we


 2
SCRA
83
 quoted
in
the
early
part
of
this
decision.
Verily,
the
trial
court
erred
in
acceding
to


 the
motion
for
in
doing
so
it
disregarded
the
express
provisions
of
our
rules
relative

FACTS:
 to
the
settlement
of
accounts
of
a
judicial
administrator.

Joson
(father)
died
and
left
a
will.

He
was
survived
by
many
children,
as
he
married
 

thrice
during
his
lifetime.

The
will
was
admitted
for
probate
and
one
of
the
sons
 The
 fact
 that
 all
 the
 heirs
 of
 the
 estate
 have
 entered
 into
 an
 extrajudicial

was
appointed
as
an
administrator.

He
filed
accounting
reports
in
different
dates
 settlement
and
partition
in
order
to
put
an
end
to
their
differences
cannot
in
any

and
this
was
opposed
by
some
of
the
heirs,
on
the
ground
that
the
share
of
each
 way
 be
 interpreted
 as
 a
 waiver
 of
 the
 objections
 of
 the
 heirs
 to
 the
 accounts

heir
 in
 the
 yearly
 produce
 was
 allegedly
 being
 diminished.
 
 Thereafter,
 an
 submitted
by
the
administrator
not
only
because
to
so
hold
would
be
a
derogation

extrajudicial
partition
an
compromise
agreement
was
entered
into
by
all
heirs.

This
 of
the
pertinent
provisions
of
our
rules
but
also
because
there
is
nothing
provided

was
approved.

Despite
lack
of
hearing
for
the
accounts,
the
administrator
moved
 in
said
partition
that
the
aforesaid
accounts
shall
be
deemed
waived
or
condoned.

for
the
closure
of
proceedings,
which
the
court
duly
sustained.

Thus,
this
appeal.
 While
 the
 attitude
 of
 the
 heirs
 in
 concluding
 said
 extrajudicial
 settlement
 is


 plausible
 and
 has
 contributed
 to
 the
 early
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate,
 the
 same

HELD:
 cannot
however
be
considered
as
release
of
the
obligation
of
the
administrator
to

Section
1
of
Rule
86
categorically
charges
an
administrator
"with
the
whole
of
the
 prove
 his
 accounts.
 This
 is
 more
 so
 when,
 according
 to
 the
 oppositors,
 the

estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 which
 has
 come
 into
 his
 possession
 at
 the
 value
 of
 administrator
 has
 committed
 in
 his
 accounts
 a
 shortage
 in
 the
 amount
 of

appraisement
contained
in
the
inventory;
with
all
the
interest,
profit,
and
income
 P132,600.00
which
certainly
cannot
just
be
brushed
aside
by
a
mere
technicality.

of
such
an
estate;
and
with
the
proceeds
of
so
much
of
the
estate
as
is
hold
by
him,
 

at
the
price
at
which
sold."
Section
8
of
the
same
rule
imposes
upon
him
the
duty
 111
 PHIL.
TRUST
COMPANY
V.
LUZON
SURETY

to
render
an
account
of
his
administration
within
one
year
from
his
appointment,
 
 2
SCRA
122

unless
the
court
otherwise
directs,
as
well
as
to
render
such
further
accounts
as
the
 

court
may
require
until
the
estate
is
fully
settled.
Section
10
likewise
provides
that
 FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









74




Picard
was
on
the
onset
appointed
as
the
administrator
of
the
intestate
esatate
of
 the
 date
 of
 the
 first
 publication
 of
 the
 notice.
 However,
 at
 any
 time
 before
 an

Burt.

He
accordingly
filed
a
bond,
with
Luzon
Surety
as
his
surety.

Thereafter,
due
 order
of
distribution
is
entered,
on
application
of
a
creditor
who
has
failed
to
file

to
failure
to
do
his
duties
as
administrator
properly,
he
was
replaced
by
PTC.

PTC
 his
 claim
 within
 the
 previously
 limited,
 the
 court
 may,
 for
 cause
 shown
 and
 on

reported
 that
 it
 only
 had
 in
 its
 possession
 a
 small
 amount
 of
 money
 but
 if
 the
 such
 terms
 as
 are
 equitable,
 allow
 such
 claim
 to
 be
 filed
 within
 a
 time
 not

accounts
previously
submitted
by
Picard
is
referred
to,
it
would
show
that
Picard
is
 exceeding
one
(1)
month.

accountable
 for
 a
 bigger
 amount
 of
 money.
 
 As
 such,
 the
 court
 ordered
 him
 to
 WHAT
 IS
 THE
 MAXIMUM
 PERIOD
 WHEN
 A
 COURT
 CAN
 ALLOW
 THE
 FILING
 OF

deliver
the
same.

Failing
to
really
account
for
his
duties
and
accounting,
the
bond
 CLAIMS?

was
made
liable
and
consequently
revoked
by
the
court.


 • 12
months


 • Time
period:
6
months
to
12
months

HELD:
 • The
 court
 can
 set
 a
 period
 less
 than
 12
 months
 but
 not
 less
 than
 6

Appellant's
 contention
 that
 the
 probate
 court,
 ex
 proprio
 motu,
 cannot
 order
 the
 months


confiscation
 or
 forfeiture
 of
 an
 administrator's
 bond,
 is
 clearly
 without
 merit.
 

Whatever
may
be
the
rule
prevailing
in
other
jurisdictions,
in
ours
probate
court
is
 WHEN
DOES
THE
1‐MONTH
PERIOD
COMMENCE?

possessed
with
an
all‐embracing
power
not
only
in
requiring
but
also
in
fixing
the
 • From
approval
of
the
court

amount,
 and
 executing
 or
 forfeiting
 an
 administrator's
 bond.
 The
 execution
 or
 

forfeiture
of
an
administrator's
bond,
is
deemed
be
a
necessary
part
and
incident
 CAN
THE
COURT
SET
A
LESSER
TIME
PERIOD?

of
the
administration
proceedings
as
much
as
its
filing
and
the
fixing
of
its
amount.
 • Yes,
the
1‐month
is
the
maximum
period

The
rule,
therefore,
is
that
the
probate
court
may
have
said
bond
executed
in
the
 

same
probate
proceeding.
 Section
3.
Publication
of
notice
to
creditors.
Every
executor
or
administrator
shall,


 immediately
 after
 the
 notice
 to
 creditors
 is
 issued,
 cause
 the
 same
 to
 be

Moreover,
 the
 condition
 of
 the
 administrator's
 bond
 in
 question
 is
 that
 Francis
 L.
 published
 three
 (3)
 weeks
 successively
 in
 a
 newspaper
 of
 general
 circulation
 in

Picard
shall
faithfully
execute
the
orders
and
decrees
of
the
court;
that
if
he
did
so,
 the
 province,
 and
 to
 be
 posted
 for
 the
 same
 period
 in
 four
 public
 places
 in
 the

the
obligation
shall
become
void,
otherwise
it
shall
remain
in
full
force
and
effect.
 province
 and
 in
 two
 public
 places
 in
 the
 municipality
 where
 the
 decedent
 last

In
 having
 been
 established
 that
 Picard
 disbursed
 funds
 of
 the
 estate
 without
 resided.

authority,
 the
 conclusion
 follows
 that
 he
 had
 and
 his
 surety
 became
 bound
 upon
 

the
terms
of
their
bond.
 WHAT
ARE
THE
POSTING
AND
PUBLICATION
REQUIREMENTS?


 1. Publication
 in
 newspapers
 of
 general
 circulation
 once
 a
 week
 for
 three

consecutive
weeks

RULE
86

2. Posting
of
notice
for
same
period
in
four
public
places
in
the
province

CLAIMS
AGAINST
ESTATE

3. Posting
of
notice
for
same
period
in
two
public
places
in
the
municipality


 where
decedent
last
resided

Section
 1.
 Notice
 to
 creditors
 to
 be
 issued
 by
 court.
 Immediately
 after
 granting
 

letters
testamentary
or
of
administration,
the
court
shall
issue
a
notice
requiring
 Section
 4.
 Filing
 of
 copy
 of
 printed
 notice.
 Within
 ten
 (10)
 days
 after
 the
 notice

all
persons
having
money
claims
against
the
decedent
to
file
them
in
the
office
of
 has
 been
 published
 and
 posted
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 preceding
 section,
 the

the
clerk
of
said
court.
 executor
or
administrator
shall
file
or
cause
to
be
filed
in
the
court
a
printed
copy


 of
the
notice
accompanied
with
an
affidavit
setting
forth
the
dates
of
the
first
and

Section
 2.
 Time
 within
 which
 claims
 shall
 be
 filed.
 In
 the
 notice
 provided
 in
 the
 last
 publication
 thereof
 and
 the
 name
 of
 the
 newspaper
 in
 which
 the
 same
 is

preceding
section,
the
court
shall
state
the
time
for
the
filing
of
claims
against
the
 printed.

estate,
which
shall
not
be
more
than
twelve
(12)
not
less
than
six
(6)
months
after
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









75




WHAT
SHOULD
THE
ADMINISTRATOR
OR
EXECUTOR
DO
WITHIN
10
DAYS
FROM
 WHERE
MUST
A
CLAIM
BASED
ON
A
SOLIDARY
OBLIGATION
OF
THE
DECEDENT
BE

POSTING
AND
PUBLICATION?
 FILED?

1. Execute
an
affidavit
 • It
must
be
claimed
from
the
estate
as
if
the
decedent
is
the
sole
debtor

a. All
details
of
posting
and
publication
 • Without
prejudice
to
reimbursement
from
the
other
solidary
debtor

b. Dates
of
first
and
last
publication
 • Caveat—the
 creditor
 however
 is
 not
 precluded
 from
 filing
 claim
 against

c. Name
of
newspaper
in
which
it
was
published
 the
other
solidary
debtor

2. Printed
copy
of
the
notice

 


 Section
7.
Mortgage
debt
due
from
estate.
A
creditor
holding
a
claim
against
the

Section
 5.
 Claims
 which
 must
 be
 filed
 under
 the
 notice.
 If
 not
 filed,
 barred;
 deceased
 secured
 by
 mortgage
 or
 other
 collateral
 security,
 may
 abandon
 the

exceptions.
 
 All
 claims
 for
 money
 against
 the
 decedent,
 arising
 from
 contract,
 security
and
prosecute
his
claim
in
the
manner
provided
in
this
rule,
and
share
in

express
or
implied,
whether
the
same
be
due,
not
due,
or
contingent,
all
claims
 the
 general
 distribution
 of
 the
 assets
 of
 the
 estate;
 or
 he
 may
 foreclose
 his

for
 funeral
 expenses
 and
 expense
 for
 the
 last
 sickness
 of
 the
 decedent,
 and
 mortgage
or
realize
upon
his
security,
by
action
in
court,
making
the
executor
or

judgment
for
money
against
the
decedent,
must
be
filed
within
the
time
limited
 administrator
a
party
defendant,
and
if
there
is
a
judgment
for
a
deficiency,
after

in
 the
 notice;
 otherwise
 they
 are
 barred
 forever,
 except
 that
 they
 may
 be
 set
 the
sale
of
the
mortgaged
premises,
or
the
property
pledged,
in
the
foreclosure

forth
as
counterclaims
in
any
action
that
the
executor
or
administrator
may
bring
 or
 other
 proceeding
 to
 realize
 upon
 the
 security,
 he
 may
 claim
 his
 deficiency

against
the
claimants.
Where
an
executor
or
administrator
commences
an
action,
 judgment
in
the
manner
provided
in
the
preceding
section
or
he
may
rely
upon

or
prosecutes
an
action
already
commenced
by
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime,
the
 his
mortgage
or
other
security
alone,
and
foreclosure
the
same
at
any
time
within

debtor
may
set
forth
by
answer
the
claims
he
has
against
the
decedent,
instead
 the
period
of
the
statute
of
limitations,
and
in
that
event
he
shall
not
be
admitted

of
 presenting
 them
 independently
 to
 the
 court
 as
 herein
 provided,
 and
 mutual
 as
a
creditor,
and
shall
receive
no
share
in
the
distribution
of
the
other
assets
of

claims
may
be
set
off
against
each
other
in
such
action;
and
if
final
judgment
is
 estate;
but
nothing
herein
contained
shall
prohibit
the
executor
or
administrator

rendered
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 defendant,
 the
 amount
 so
 determined
 shall
 be
 from
 redeeming
 the
 property
 mortgaged
 or
 pledged,
 by
 paying
 the
 debt
 for

considered
 the
 true
 balance
 against
 the
 estate,
 as
 though
 the
 claim
 had
 been
 which
 it
 is
 held
 as
 security,
 under
 the
 direction
 of
 the
 court,
 if
 the
 court
 shall

presented
directly
before
the
court
in
the
administration
proceedings.
Claims
not
 adjudge
it
to
be
for
the
best
interest
of
the
estate
that
such
redemption
shall
be

yet
due,
or
contingent,
may
be
approved
at
their
present
value.
 made.


 

WHAT
 CLAIMS
 ARE
 BARRED
 IF
 NOT
 CLAIMED
 WITHIN
 THE
 PERIOD
 SET
 BY
 THE
 Section
8.
Claim
of
executor
or
administrator
against
an
estate.
If
the
executor
or

RULES?
 administrator
 has
 a
 claim
 against
 the
 estate
 he
 represents,
 he
 shall
 give
 notice

1. Claims
for
money
arising
from
contract
 thereof,
 in
 writing,
 to
 the
 court,
 and
 the
 court
 shall
 appoint
 a
 special

2. Contingent
claims
for
money
arising
from
contract
 administrator,
who
shall,
in
the
adjustment
of
such
claim,
have
the
same
power

3. Funeral
expenses
 and
 be
 subject
 to
 the
 same
 liability
 as
 the
 general
 administrator
 or
 executor
 in

4. Expenses
for
last
sickness
of
decedent
 the
 settlement
 of
 other
 claims.
 The
 court
 may
 order
 the
 executor
 or

5. Judgment
of
money
against
decedent
 administrator
to
pay
to
the
special
administrator
necessary
funds
to
defend
such


 claim.

Section
6.
Solidary
obligation
of
decedent.
Where
the
obligation
of
the
decedent
 

is
solidary
with
another
debtor,
the
claim
shall
be
filed
against
the
decedent
as
if
 AT
WHAT
INSTANCES
MAY
A
SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR
BE
APPOINTED?

he
were
the
only
debtor,
without
prejudice
to
the
right
of
the
estate
to
recover
 1. When
there
is
delay
in
the
appointment
of
administrator
or
executor

contribution
from
the
debtor.
In
a
joint
obligation
of
the
decedent,
the
claim
shall
 2. When
there
is
claims
by
the
administrator
or
executor
himself

be
confined
to
the
portion
belonging
to
him.
 3. When
 the
 proceedings
 have
 ended
 and
 there
 are
 claims
 against
 the


 estate
filed
within
the
reglementary
period





MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









76





 claim,
 the
 court
 may,
 in
 its
 discretion,
 allow
 him
 fifteen
 (15)
 days
 to
 file
 an

Section
 9.
 How
 to
 file
 a
 claim.
 Contents
 thereof.
 Notice
 to
 executor
 or
 answer
to
the
claim
in
the
manner
prescribed
in
the
preceding
section.

administrator.
 A
 claim
 may
 be
 filed
 by
 delivering
 the
 same
 with
 the
 necessary
 

vouchers
to
the
clerk
of
court
and
by
serving
a
copy
thereof
on
the
executor
or
 Section
 12.
 Trial
 of
 contested
 claim.
 Upon
 the
 filing
 of
 an
 answer
 to
 a
 claim,
 or

administrator.
 If
 the
 claim
 be
 founded
 on
 a
 bond,
 bill,
 note,
 or
 any
 other
 upon
 the
 expiration
 of
 the
 time
 for
 such
 filing,
 the
 clerk
 of
 court
 shall
 set
 the

instrument,
 the
 original
 need
 not
 be
 filed,
 but
 a
 copy
 thereof
 with
 all
 claim
 for
 trial
 with
 notice
 to
 both
 parties.
 The
 court
 may
 refer
 the
 claim
 to
 a

indorsements
 shall
 be
 attached
 to
 the
 claim
 and
 filed
 therewith.
 On
 demand,
 commissioner.

however,
of
the
executor
or
administrator,
or
by
order
of
the
court
or
judge,
the
 

original
 shall
 be
 exhibited,
 unless
 it
 be
 list
 or
 destroyed,
 in
 which
 case
 the
 Section
 13.
 Judgment
 appealable.
 
 The
 judgment
 of
 the
 court
 approving
 or

claimant
must
accompany
his
claim
with
affidavit
or
affidavits
containing
a
copy
 disapproving
 a
 claim,
 shall
 be
 filed
 with
 the
 record
 of
 the
 administration

or
 particular
 description
 of
 the
 instrument
 and
 stating
 its
 loss
 or
 destruction.
 proceedings
with
notice
to
both
parties,
and
is
appealable
as
in
ordinary
cases.
A

When
the
claim
is
due,
it
must
be
supported
by
affidavit
stating
the
amount
justly
 judgment
 against
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 be
 that
 he
 pay,
 in
 due

due,
that
no
payments
have
been
made
thereon
which
are
not
credited,
and
that
 course
 of
 administration,
 the
 amount
 ascertained
 to
 be
 due,
 and
 it
 shall
 not

there
are
no
offsets
to
the
same,
to
the
knowledge
of
the
affiant.
If
the
claim
is
 create
any
lien
upon
the
property
of
the
estate,
or
give
to
the
judgment
creditor

not
 due,
 or
 is
 contingent,
 when
 filed,
 it
 must
 also
 be
 supported
 by
 affidavits
 any
priority
of
payment.

stating
the
particulars
thereof.
When
the
affidavit
is
made
by
a
person
other
than
 

the
 claimant,
 he
 must
 set
 forth
 therein
 the
 reason
 why
 it
 is
 not
 made
 by
 the
 Section
14.
Costs.
When
the
executor
or
administrator,
in
his
answer,
admits
and

claimant.
The
claim
once
filed
shall
be
attached
to
the
record
of
the
case
in
which
 offers
 to
 pay
 part
 of
 a
 claim,
 and
 the
 claimant
 refuses
 to
 accept
 the
 amount

the
letters
testamentary
or
of
administration
were
issued,
although
the
court,
in
 offered
 in
 satisfaction
 of
 his
 claim,
 if
 he
 fails
 to
 obtain
 a
 more
 favorable

its
 discretion,
 and
 as
 a
 matter
 of
 convenience,
 may
 order
 all
 the
 claims
 to
 be
 judgment,
he
cannot
recover
costs,
but
must
pay
to
the
executor
or
administrator

collected
in
a
separate
folder.
 costs
 from
 the
 time
 of
 the
 offer.
 Where
 an
 action
 commenced
 against
 the


 deceased
 for
 money
 has
 been
 discontinued
 and
 the
 claim
 embraced
 therein

Section
10.
Answer
of
executor
or
administrator.
Offsets.
Within
fifteen
(15)
days
 presented
as
in
this
rule
provided,
the
prevailing
party
shall
be
allowed
the
costs

after
service
of
a
copy
of
the
claim
on
the
executor
or
administrator,
he
shall
file
 of
his
action
up
to
the
time
of
its
discontinuance.

his
 answer
 admitting
 or
 denying
 the
 claim
 specifically,
 and
 setting
 forth
 the
 

admission
or
denial.
If
he
has
no
knowledge
sufficient
to
enable
him
to
admit
or

RULE
87

deny
 specifically,
 he
 shall
 state
 such
 want
 of
 knowledge.
 The
 executor
 or

ACTIONS
BY
AND
AGAINST
EXECUTORS
AND
ADMINISTRATORS

administrator
 in
 his
 answer
 shall
 allege
 in
 offset
 any
 claim
 which
 the
 decedent

before
death
had
against
the
claimant,
and
his
failure
to
do
so
shall
bar
the
claim
 

forever.
A
copy
of
the
answer
shall
be
served
by
the
executor
or
administrator
on
 Section
1.
Actions
which
may
and
which
may
not
be
brought
against
executor
or

the
 claimant.
 The
 court
 in
 its
 discretion
 may
 extend
 the
 time
 for
 filing
 such
 administrator.
 No
 action
 upon
 a
 claim
 for
 the
 recovery
 of
 money
 or
 debt
 or

answer.
 interest
thereon
shall
be
commenced
against
the
executor
or
administrator;
but


 to
recover
real
or
personal
property,
or
an
interest
therein,
from
the
estate,
or
to

Section
 11.
 Disposition
 of
 admitted
 claim.
 Any
 claim
 admitted
 entirely
 by
 the
 enforce
a
lien
thereon,
and
actions
to
recover
damages
for
an
injury
to
person
or

executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 immediately
 be
 submitted
 by
 the
 clerk
 to
 the
 property,
real
or
personal,
may
be
commenced
against
him.

court
who
may
approve
the
same
without
hearing;
but
the
court,
in
its
discretion,
 

before
approving
the
claim,
may
order
that
known
heirs,
legatees,
or
devisees
be
 WHAT
ACTIONS
MAY
BE
FILED
AGAINST
AN
ADMINISTRATOR
OR
EXECUTOR?

notified
 and
 heard.
 If
 upon
 hearing,
 an
 heir,
 legatees,
 or
 devisee
 opposes
 the
 1. Recovery
of
real
or
personal
property,
or
an
interest
therein

2. To
enforce
lien
against
any
real
or
personal
property




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









77




3. Actions
to
recover
damages
for
an
injury
to
person
or
property
 deed,
conveyance,
bond,
contract,
or
other
writing
which
contains
evidence
of
or


 tends
or
discloses
the
right,
title,
interest,
or
claim
of
the
deceased,
the
court
may

WHAT
ACTIONS
MAY
NOT
BE
FILED?
 cite
such
suspected
person
to
appear
before
it
any
may
examine
him
on
oath
on

• Claim
for
the
recovery
of
money
or
debt
or
interest
thereon
 the
matter
of
such
complaint;
and
if
the
person
so
cited
refuses
to
appear,
or
to


 answer
on
such
examination
or
such
interrogatories
as
are
put
to
him,
the
court

Section
 2.
 Executor
 or
 administrator
 may
 bring
 or
 defend
 actions
 which
 survive.
 may
punish
him
for
contempt,
and
may
commit
him
to
prison
until
he
submits
to

For
 the
 recovery
 or
 protection
 of
 the
 property
 or
 rights
 of
 the
 deceased,
 an
 the
order
of
the
court.
The
interrogatories
put
any
such
person,
and
his
answers

executor
or
administrator
may
bring
or
defend,
in
the
right
of
deceased,
actions
 thereto,
shall
be
in
writing
and
shall
be
filed
in
the
clerk's
office.

for
causes
which
survive.
 


 Section
7.
Person
entrusted
with
estate
compelled
to
render
account.
The
court,

Section
 3.
 Heir
 may
 not
 sue
 until
 shall
 assigned.
 When
 an
 executor
 or
 on
complaint
of
an
executor
or
administrator,
may
cite
a
person
entrusted
by
an

administrator
is
appointed
and
assumes
the
trust,
no
action
to
recover
the
title
or
 executor
or
administrator
with
any
part
of
the
estate
of
the
deceased
to
appear

possession
 of
 lands
 or
 for
 damages
 done
 to
 such
 lands
 shall
 be
 maintained
 before
it,
and
may
require
such
person
to
render
a
full
account,
on
oath,
of
the

against
 him
 by
 an
 heir
 or
 devisee
 until
 there
 is
 an
 order
 of
 the
 court
 assigning
 money,
goods,
chattels,
bonds,
account,
or
other
papers
belonging
to
such
estate

such
lands
to
such
heir
or
devisee
or
until
the
time
allowed
for
paying
debts
has
 as
came
to
his
possession
in
trust
for
such
executor
or
administrator,
and
of
his

expired.
 proceedings
thereon;
and
if
the
person
so
cited
refuses
to
appear
to
render
such


 account,
 the
 court
 may
 punish
 him
 for
 contempt
 as
 having
 disobeyed
 a
 lawful

Section
 4.
 Executor
 or
 administrator
 may
 compound
 with
 debtor.
 
 Within
 the
 order
of
the
court.

approval
 of
 the
 court,
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator
 may
 compound
 with
 the
 

debtor
of
the
deceased
for
a
debt
due,
and
may
give
a
discharge
of
such
debt
on
 WHO
MAY
BE
COMPELLED
OTHER
THAN
THE
ADMINISTRATOR
OR
EXECUTOR,
TO

receiving
a
just
dividend
of
the
estate
of
the
debtor.
 RENDER
AN
ACCOUNT?


 • A
person
entrusted
by
an
executor
or
administrator
with
any
part
of
the

WHAT
DOES
IT
MEAN
FOR
THE
ADMINISTRATOR
OR
EXECUTOR
TO
COMPOUND
 estate
of
the
deceased

WITH
THE
DEBTOR?
 

• It
 means
 to
 enter
 into
 a
 compromise
 agreement
 with
 the
 deceased’s
 Section
8.
Embezzlement
before
letters
issued.
If
a
person,
before
the
granting
of

debtor
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 of
 administration
 on
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased,

• He
may
do
so,
with
the
approval
of
the
court
 embezzles
 or
 alienates
 any
 of
 the
 money,
 goods,
 chattels,
 or
 effects
 of
 such

• He
shall
account
for
the
amount
recovered
on
the
debt
due
 deceased,
 such
 person
 shall
 be
 liable
 to
 an
 action
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 executor
 or


 administrator
of
the
estate
for
double
the
value
of
the
property
sold,
embezzled,

Section
5.
Mortgage
due
estate
may
be
foreclosed.

A
mortgage
belonging
to
the
 or
alienated,
to
be
recovered
for
the
benefit
of
such
estate.

estate
of
a
deceased
person,
as
mortgagee
or
assignee
of
the
right
or
a
mortgage,
 

may
be
foreclosed
by
the
executor
or
administrator.
 Section
9.
Property
fraudulently
conveyed
by
deceased
may
be
recovered.
When


 executor
or
administrator
must
bring
action.
When
there
is
a
deficiency
of
assets

Section
 6.
 Proceedings
 when
 property
 concealed,
 embezzled,
 or
 fraudulently
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 debts
 and

conveyed.
 
 If
 an
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 heir,
 legatee,
 creditor
 or
 other
 expenses
of
administration,
and
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime
had
conveyed
real
or

individual
interested
in
the
estate
of
the
deceased,
complains
to
the
court
having
 personal
property,
or
a
right
or
interest
therein,
or
an
debt
or
credit,
with
intent

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 that
 a
 person
 is
 suspected
 of
 having
 concealed,
 to
defraud
his
creditors
or
to
avoid
any
right,
debt,
or
duty;
or
had
so
conveyed

embezzled,
 or
 conveyed
 away
 any
 of
 the
 money,
 goods,
 or
 chattels
 of
 the
 such
property,
right,
interest,
debt
or
credit
that
by
law
the
conveyance
would
be

deceased,
 or
 that
 such
 person
 has
 in
 his
 possession
 or
 has
 knowledge
 of
 any
 void
as
against
his
creditors,
and
the
subject
of
the
attempted
conveyance
would




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









78




be
 liable
 to
 attachment
 by
 any
 of
 them
 in
 his
 lifetime,
 the
 executor
 or
 Here,
the
court
sits
as
a
probate
court.
Said
court
is
primarily
concerned
with
the

administrator
may
commence
and
prosecute
to
final
judgment
an
action
for
the
 administration,
 liquidation
 and
 distribution
 of
 the
 estate.
 For
 these
 purposes,

recovery
 of
 such
 property,
 right,
 interest,
 debt,
 or
 credit
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 the
 property
in
the
hands
of
the
estate's
administrator
comes
within
the
power
of
the

creditors;
 but
 he
 shall
 not
 be
 bound
 to
 commence
 the
 action
 unless
 on
 probate
court.

application
of
the
creditors
of
the
deceased,
not
unless
the
creditors
making
the
 

application
pay
such
part
of
the
costs
and
expenses,
or
give
security
therefor
to
 With
 the
 foregoing
 as
 parting
 point,
 let
 us
 look
 at
 the
 administrator's
 claim
 for

the
executor
or
administrator,
as
the
court
deems
equitable.
 rentals
 allegedly
 due.
 The
 amount
 demanded
 is
 not,
 by
 any
 means,
 liquidated.


 Conceivably,
the
lessee
may
interpose
defenses.
Compromise,
payment,
statute
of

Section
10.
When
creditor
may
bring
action.
Lien
for
costs.
When
there
is
such
a
 limitations,
 lack
 of
 cause
 of
 action
 and
 the
 like,
 may
 be
 urged
 to
 defeat
 the

deficiency
of
assets,
and
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime
had
made
or
attempted
such
 administrator's
 case.
 Here,
 appellee's
 opposition
 to
 the
 motion
 served
 a
 warning

a
 conveyance,
 as
 is
 stated
 in
 the
 last
 preceding
 section,
 and
 the
 executor
 or
 that
 at
 the
 proper
 time
 he
 will
 set
 up
 the
 defense
 that
 the
 administrator,
 as

administrator
has
not
commenced
the
action
therein
provided
for,
any
creditor
of
 attorney‐in‐fact
of
the
declared
heirs,
had
theretofore
sold
the
estate's
two‐fourths

the
 estate
 may,
 with
 the
 permission
 of
 the
 court,
 commence
 and
 prosecute
 to
 share
in
Hacienda
Rosario
together
with
"all
the
rights,
title
and
interest
(including

final
judgment,
in
the
name
of
the
executor
or
administrator,
a
like
action
for
the
 all
accrued
rents)
that
said
heirs
had
inherited
from
the
said
deceased."
Appellant

recovery
 of
 the
 subject
 of
 the
 conveyance
 or
 attempted
 conveyance
 for
 the
 administrator
in
his
reply
to
the
opposition
admits
the
fact
of
sale
of
the
land,
but

benefit
of
the
creditors.
But
the
action
shall
not
be
commenced
until
the
creditor
 not
of
the
rentals
due.
Accordingly,
the
right
to
collect
the
rentals
is
still
in
a
fluid

has
 filed
 in
 a
 court
 a
 bond
 executed
 to
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 in
 an
 state.
 That
 right
 remains
 to
 be
 threshed
 out
 upon
 a
 full‐dress
 trial
 on
 the
 merits.

amount
 approved
 by
 the
 judge,
 conditioned
 to
 indemnify
 the
 executor
 or
 Because
 of
 all
 of
 these,
 the
 money
 (rentals)
 allegedly
 due
 is
 not
 property
 in
 the

administrator
against
the
costs
and
expenses
incurred
by
reason
of
such
action.
 hands
of
the
administrator;
it
is
not
thus
within
the
effective
control
of
the
probate

Such
creditor
shall
have
a
lien
upon
any
judgment
recovered
by
him
in
the
action
 court.
 Neither
 does
 it
 come
 within
 the
 concept
 of
 money
 of
 the
 deceased

for
such
costs
and
other
expenses
incurred
therein
as
the
court
deems
equitable.
 "concealed,
 embezzled,
 or
 conveyed
 away",
 which
 would
 confer
 upon
 the
 court

Where
 the
 conveyance
 or
 attempted
 conveyance
 had
 been
 made
 by
 the
 incidental
prerogative
to
reach
out
its
arms
to
get
it
back
and,
if
necessary,
to
cite

deceased
 in
 his
 lifetime
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 the
 action
 the
possessor
thereof
in
contempt.

which
a
credit
may
bring
shall
be
in
the
name
of
all
the
creditors,
and
permission
 

of
the
court
and
filing
of
bond
as
above
prescribed,
are
not
necessary.
 113
 QUIRINO
V.
GOROSPE


 
 169
SCRA
702

112
 DELA
CRUZ
V.
CAMON
 


 16
SCRA
886
 FACTS:


 This
involves
the
settlement
of
issues
claimed
by
different
parties
to
the
intestate

FACTS:
 proceedings
 of
 Don
 Alfonso.
 
 Mostly
 are
 claims
 for
 attorney’s
 fees
 as
 well
 as

The
estate
of
Fallon
and
Murphy
owned
a
2/4
prodiviso
share
in
Hacienda
Rosario.

 different
 expenses
 incurred
 with
 respect
 to
 acts
 of
 administration
 of
 the
 estate.


Camon
 was
 the
 lessee
 of
 the
 said
 land
 long
 before
 intestate
 proceedings
 have
 The
court
decided
the
issues
by
piecemeal.

commenced.
 
 Dela
 Cruz
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate,
 filed
 a
 motion
 in
 the
 

probate
court
to
order
Camon
to
pay
the
estate
its
share
in
the
rentals
for
a
certain
 HELD:

span
 of
 years
 over
 the
 rice
 and
 agricultural
 lands.
 
 Camon
 alleged
 on
 the
 other
 On
the
issue
of
claims
against
the
estate
for
attorney’s
fees
and
for
transportation

hand
that
the
probate
court
doesn’t
have
jurisdiction
over
his
person.
 and
representation
expenses…the
term
"claims"
required
to
be
presented
against
a


 decedent's
estate
is
generally
construed
to
mean
debts
or
demands
of
a
pecuniary

HELD:
 nature
 which
 could
 have
 been
 enforced
 against
 the
 deceased
 in
 his
 lifetime
 or

liability
 contracted
 by
 the
 deceased
 before
 his
 death.
 It
 is
 important
 to
 note
 that




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









79




movants
 claims
 for
 attorney's
 fees
 and
 transportation
 as
 wen
 as
 representation
 Upon
the
other
hand,
Rule
88,
section
1,
enumerates
actions
that
survive
against
a

expenses
 are
 for
 services
 rendered
 to
 the
 alleged
 substituted
 heirs
 of
 Don
 Juan
 decedent's
 executors
 or
 administrators,
 and
 they
 are:
 (1)
 actions
 to
 recover
 real

Castellvi
and
such
services
did
not
inure
to
the
benefit
of
Don
Alfonso
Castellvi
or
 and
 personal
 property
 from
 the
 estate;
 (2)
 actions
 to
 enforce
 a
 lien
 thereon;
 and

his
 estate.
 The
 court
 charged
 with
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Don
 Alfonso
 (3)
actions
to
recover
damages
for
an
injury
to
person
or
property.
The
present
suit

Castellvi
 is
 bound
 to
 protect
 the
 estate
 from
 any
 disbursements
 based
 on
 claims
 is
 one
 for
 damages
 under
 the
 last
 class,
 it
 having
 been
 held
 that
 "injury
 to

not
chargeable
to
the
estate.
 property"
is
not
limited
to
injuries
to
specific
property,
but
extends
to
other
wrongs


 by
which
personal
estate
is
injured
or
diminished.

To
maliciously
cause
a
party
to

With
respect
to
the
issue
of
expenses
related
to
acts
of
administration…With
regard
 incur
 unnecessary
 expenses,
 as
 charged
 in
 this
 case,
 is
 certainly
 injurious
 to
 that

to
 Floro's
 claim
 for
 payment
 for
 services
 rendered
 to
 the
 estate
 of
 Don
 Alfonso
 party's
property.

Castellvi,
the
rule
is
that
where
the
monetary
claim
against
the
administrator
has
a
 

relation
to
his
acts
of
administration
in
the
ordinary
course
thereof,
such
claims
can
 115
 MELGAR
V.
BUENVIAJE

be
 presented
 for
 payment
 with
 the
 court
 where
 a
 special
 proceeding
 for
 the
 
 179
SCRA
196

settlement
of
the
estate
is
pending,
although
said
claims
were
not
incurred
by
the
 

deceased
during
his
lifetime
and
collectible
after
his
death.
This
is
so,
because
the
 FACTS:

administration
is
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
court
and
the
administrator
is
 A
vehicular
collision
happened
among
2
passenger
buses
and
a
Ford
Fiera.

The
bus

subject
to
its
authority.
 owned
 by
 Bella
 suddenly
 swerved
 to
 the
 left
 lane
 and
 collided
 head‐on
 with
 the


 Fiera.

It
further
swerved
to
the
left
lane
and
collided
again
with
the
other
bus.

This

114
 AGUAS
V.
LILEMOS
 caused
the
injuries
and
deaths
of
many.

The
victims
in
this
case
then
consequently


 5
SCRA
959
 filed
a
case
against
the
heirs
of
Bella—the
latter
having
been
killed
in
the
accident.




 

FACTS:
 HELD:

Hermogenes
 Llemos
 on
 the
 relevant
 date,
 mailed
 a
 copy
 of
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 Under
Section
5
Rule
86
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
actions
that
are
abated
by
death
are:

issuance
of
a
writ
of
possession
to
Aguas
and
others.

He
likewise
indicated
that
he
 (1)
 All
 claims
 for
 money
 against
 the
 decedent,
 arising
 from
 contract,
 express
 or

will
file
the
same.

This
prompted
Aguas
and
others
to
travel
all
the
way
to
Samar
 implied,
whether
the
same
be
due,
not
due
or
contingent;
(2)
All
claims
for
funeral

with
 their
 lawyers,
 only
 to
 find
 out
 that
 no
 petition
 has
 been
 filed.
 
 This
 expenses
and
expenses
for
the
last
sickness
of
the
decedent;
and
(3)
Judgments
for

consequently
 led
 to
 a
 case
 filed
 against
 Llemos
 but
 the
 latter
 died
 eventually.

 money
against
the
decedent.

It
is
evident
that
the
case
at
bar
is
not
among
those

Aguas
 and
 others
 then
 modified
 their
 complaint,
 including
 therein
 the
 heirs
 of
 enumerated.
Otherwise
stated,
actions
for
damages
caused
by
the
tortious
conduct

Llemos.

They
alleged
among
others
that
the
death
of
the
defendant
doesn’t
abate
 of
the
defendant
survive
the
death
of
the
latter.


the
cause
of
action
for
tort.


 


 The
action
can
therefore
be
properly
brought
under
Section
1,
Rule
87
of
the
Rules

HELD:
 of
Court,
against
an
executor
or
administrator.


Under
 Rule
87,
 section
 5,
 the
 actions
 that
 are
 abated
by
 death
are:
 (1)
 claims
for
 

funeral
expenses
and
those
for
the
last
sickness
of
the
decedent;
(2)
judgments
for
 The
point
of
controversy
is
however
on
the
fact
that
no
estate
proceedings
exist
for

money;
 and
 (3)
 "all
 claims
 for
 money
 against
 the
 decedent,
 arising
 from
 contract
 the
reason
that
her
children
had
not
filed
any
proceedings
for
the
settlement
of
her

express
or
implied".
None
of
these
includes
that
of
the
plaintiffs‐appellants;
for
it
is
 estate,
claiming
that
Balla
left
no
properties.

not
 enough
 that
 the
 claim
 against
 the
 deceased
 party
 be
 for
 money,
 but
 it
 must
 Thus,
while
petitioners
may
have
correctly
moved
for
the
dismissal
of
the
case
and

arise
from
"contract
express
or
implied".
 private
respondents
have
forthwith
corrected
the
deficiency
by
filing
an
amended


 complaint,
 even
 before
 the
 lower
 court
 could
 act
 on
 petitioner's
 motion
 for

reconsideration
of
the
denial
of
their
motion
to
dismiss,
the
action
under
Section




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









80




17
 of
 Rule
 3
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 which
 allows
 the
 suit
 against
 the
 legal
 8. Juana
and
Claudio
subsequently
died.

Salud
now
came
forth
and
filed
for

representative
of
the
deceased,
that
is,
the
executor
or
administrator
of
his
estate,
 reconveyance
 of
 the
 land,
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 the
 deed
 of
 sale
 was
 null

would
still
be
futile,
for
the
same
reason
that
there
appears
to
be
no
steps
taken
 and
void
and
was
procured
through
fraud.

towards
the
settlement
of
the
estate
of
the
late
Felicidad
Balla,
nor
has
an
executor
 

or
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 been
 appointed.
 From
 the
 statement
 made
 by
 the
 HELD:

petitioners
 that
 "many
 persons
 die
 without
 leaving
 any
 asset
 at
 all"
 which
 The
petitioners
would
also
fault
the
private
respondents
for
laches
and
argue
that

insinuates
 that
 the
 deceased
 left
 no
 assets,
 it
 is
 reasonable
 to
 believe
 that
 the
 Salud's
 inaction
 in
 protection
 of
 her
 rights
 should
 bar
 her
 from
 asserting
 them
 at

petitioners
 will
 not
 take
 any
 step
 to
 expedite
 the
 early
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate,
 this
late
hour.
Specifically,
it
is
pointed
out
that
she
failed
to
register
the
deed
of

judicially
or
extra‐judicially
if
only
to
defeat
the
damage
suit
against
the
estate.
 donation
and
its
acceptance;
did
not
oppose
the
inclusion
of
the
subject
land
in
the


 inventory
 of
 Perfecta's
 properties
 submitted
 in
 the
 intestate
 proceedings;
 did
 not

116
 PAJARILLO
V.
IAC
 object
to
the
adjudication
of
the
land
to
Juana
in
the
project
of
partition;
did
not


 176
SCRA
340
 protest
the
sale
of
the
land
to
Claudio
Suterio;
and
did
not
question
its
registration


 in
 his
 name.
 It
 is
 contended
 that
 all
 these
 acts
 constitute
 laches,
 which
 has
 been

FACTS:
 described
by
this
Court
thus:

1. The
 mother
 was
 Juana
 Balane
 de
 Suterio,
 who
 had
 a
 brother
 named
 

Felipe
Balane
and
a
sister
named
Perfecta
Balane
de
Cordero.

 An
 estoppel
 by
 laches
 arises
 from
 the
 negligence
 or
 omission
 to
 assert
 a
 right

2. Perfecta
died
in
1945
leaving
a
tract
of
land.

Juana
and
Felipe
executed
a
 within
 a
 reasonable
 time,
 warranting
 a
 presumption
 that
 the
 party
 entitled
 to

public
instrument
entitled
"Extra‐judicial
Settlement
of
the
Estate
of
the
 assert
it
either
has
abandoned
it
or
declined
to
assert
it.

Deceased
 Perfecta
 Balane
 de
 Cordero."
 
 These
 instruments
 were
 never
 

registered
nor
was
title
transferred
in
Salud's
name
although
she
says
she
 The
problem
with
the
petitioners'
theory
is
that
it
would
regard
Juana
and
Salud
as

immediately
took
possession
of
the
land.

 strangers
when
they
are
in
fact
mother
and
daughter.
One
may
expect
a
person
to

3. Meantime,
 intestate
 proceedings
 were
 instituted
 on
 the
 estate
 of
 be
 vigilant
 of
 his
 rights
 when
 dealing
 with
 an
 acquaintance
 or
 associate,
 or
 even

Perfecta
and
the
said
land
was
among
those
included
in
the
inventory
of
 with
 a
 friend,
 but
 not
 when
 the
 other
 person
 is
 a
 close
 relative,
 as
 in
 the
 case
 at

the
properties
belonging
to
the
decedent.

 bar.
To
begin
with,
the
land
came
from
Juana
herself.
Secondly,
she
requested
her

4. Salud
 interposed
 no
 objection
 to
 its
 inclusion
 nor
 did
 she
 oppose
 its
 daughter
not
to
register
the
land
as
long
as
she
was
still
alive
so
she
could
enjoy
its

subsequent
adjudication
to
her
mother
Juana
in
the
project
of
partition.

 fruits
 until
 her
 death.
 To
 Salud,
 it
 was
 not
 difficult
 to
 comply
 with
 this
 request,

5. It
is
not
clear
if
the
land
was
ever
registered
in
Juana's
name.
However,
 coming
as
it
did
from
her
own
mother.
There
was
no
reason
to
disobey
her.
She
did

there
is
evidence
that
Juana
confirmed
the
earlier
donation
of
the
land
to
 not
have
to
protect
herself
against
her
own
mother.
Indeed,
what
would
have
been

Salud
but
requested
that
she
be
allowed
to
possess
the
same
and
enjoy
 unseemly
was
her
registering
the
land
against
her
mother's
request
as
if
she
had
no

its
fruits,
until
her
death.
 confidence
 in
 her.
 Salud
 did
 no
 less
 than
 what
 any
 dutiful
 daughter
 would
 have

6. Salud
 says
 that
 sometime
 in
 1951,
 acceding
 to
 this
 request,
 she
 done
under
the
circumstances.

transferred
 the
 possession
 of
 the
 land
 to
 her
 mother,
 who
 was
 then
 

staying
 with
 Claudio
 and
 his
 family.
 During
 the
 period
 they
 were
 If
 Salud
 did
 not
 protest
 the
 inclusion
 of
 the
 land
 in
 the
 inventory
 of
 Perfecta's

occupying
the
land,
Claudio
paid
the
realty
taxes
thereon.
 properties
and
its
subsequent
adjudication
to
Juana
in
the
intestate
proceedings,
it

7. A
 deed
 of
 sale
 was
 executed
 by
 Juana
 in
 favor
 of
 Claudio
 for
 a
 was
 because
 she
 did
 not
 feel
 threatened
 by
 these
 acts.
 She
 did
 not
 distrust
 her

consideration
 of
 P12,000.
 Years
 later,
 Claudio
 registered
 the
 land
 in
 his
 mother.
 Moreover,
 Juana
 had
 herself
 acknowledged
 the
 donation
 when
 she
 was

name.


 asked
 in
 whose
 name
 the
 property
 would
 be
 registered
 following
 the
 intestate

proceedings.
Salud
felt
safe
because
she
had
the
extrajudicial
settlement
to
rely
on

to
prove
that
her
mother
and
her
uncle
had
donated
the
subject
land
to
her.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









81





 the
 heirs
 of
 the
 deceased
 widow
 are
 not
 heirs
 of
 the
 testator‐husband,
 but
 the

117
 BERNARDO
V.
CA
 widow
is,
in
addition
to
her
own
right
to
the
conjugal
property.
And
it
is
this
right


 7
SCRA
367
 that
is
being
sought
to
be
enforced
by
her
substitutes.
Therefore,
the
claim
that
is


 being
 asserted
 is
 one
 belonging
 to
 an
 heir
 to
 the
 testator
 and,
 consequently,
 it

FACTS:
 complies
 with
 the
 requirement
 of
 the
 exception
 that
 the
 parties
 interested
 (the

Capili
 and
 Reyes
 were
 husband
 and
 wife.
 
 When
 Capili
 died,
 testate
 proceedings
 petitioners
and
the
widow,
represented
by
dents)
are
all
heirs
claiming
title
under

were
instituted.

His
will
was
duly
probated
and
the
heirs
were
determined
to
be
 the
testator.

his
 widow
 and
 cousins.
 
 Thereafter,
 Reyes
 died
 and
 was
 substituted
 by
 her
 own
 

collateral
relatives.

A
project
of
partition
was
submitted
by
the
administrator
and
 118
 GUANCO
V.
NATIONAL
BANK

this
was
opposed
by
the
wife’s
collateral
relatives.

They
averred
that
some
of
the
 
 54
PHIL
244

properties
of
the
husband
weren’t
his
exclusively
but
of
the
conjugal
partnership.

 

On
the
one
hand,
the
other
parties
averred
that
it
is
exclusive
property
by
virtue
of
 FACTS:

the
deed
of
donation
executed
by
the
wife
during
her
lifetime,
donating
her
share
 The
 now
 deceased
 Guanco
 during
 his
 lifetime
 obtained
 a
 loan
 from
 PNB.
 
 He

in
 the
 conjugal
 property
 to
 her
 husband.
 
 The
 court
 found
 the
 deed
 of
 donation
 furnished
the
bank
with
his
shares
in
different
corporations
as
security
for
the
loan.


void
and
that
the
properties
in
dispute
were
conjugal
in
nature.
 When
he
died,
one
of
the
corporations,
for
which
he
has
shares
of
stock,
issued
to


 the
 bank
 a
 promissory
 note
 with
 an
 amount
 covering
 the
 debt
 of
 Guanco.
 
 It

HELD:
 likewise
furnished
the
bank
with
additional
security
to
cover
any
additional
loan
it

In
a
line
of
decisions,
this
Court
consistently
held
that
as
a
general
rule,
question
as
 would
like
to
take
from
the
bank.

In
the
meantime,
the
administrator
in
the
estate

to
 title
 to
 property
 cannot
 be
 passed
 upon
 on
 testate
 or
 intestate
 proceedings,
 proceedings
moved
that
the
bank
manager
present
himself
in
court
with
respect
to

except
 where
 one
 of
 the
 parties
 prays
 merely
 for
 the
 inclusion
 or
 exclusion
 from
 the
 shares
 of
 stock
 being
 held
 by
 him.
 
 The
 bank
 manager
 didn’t
 appear
 but

the
 inventory
 of
 the
 property,
 in
 which
 case
 the
 probate
 court
 may
 pass
 instead,
the
counsel
of
the
bank
filed
a
motion,
alleging
therein
that
the
shares
in

provisionally
 upon
 the
 question
 without
 prejudice
 to
 its
 final
 determination
 in
 a
 question
were
still
in
its
possession
as
security
for
the
outstanding
debt
of
Guanco.


separate
action.
However,
we
have
also
held
that
when
the
parties
interested
are
 Thereafter,
 the
 administrator
 prayed
 that
 the
 shares
 be
 brought
 in
 court.
 
 The

all
 heirs
 of
 the
 deceased,
 it
 is
 optional
 to
 them
 to
 submit
 to
 the
 probate
 court
 a
 court
 ordered
 for
 the
 same
 and
 the
 bank
 sought
 reconsideration
 on
 the
 ground

question
 as
 to
 title
 to
 property,
 and
 when
 so
 submitted,
 said
 probate
 court
 may
 that
the
court
exceeded
its
jurisdiction.

definitely
pass
judgment
thereon;
and
that
with
the
consent
of
the
parties,
matters
 

affecting
property
under
judicial
administration
may
be
taken
cognizance
of
by
the
 HELD:

court
in
the
course
of
intestate
proceeding,
provided
interests
of
third
persons
are
 Upon
 appeal
 to
 this
 court,
 counsel
 for
 the
 bank
 maintains
 that
 the
 court
 below

not
prejudiced.
 exceeded
its
jurisdiction
in
ordering
the
delivery
of
the
shares
to
the
administrator


 in
a
proceeding
under
section
709
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure.
This
contention
is

In
the
case
now
before
us,
the
matter
in
controversy
is
the
question
of
ownership
 entirely
correct.

of
 certain
 of
 the
 properties
 involved
 
 whether
 they
 belong
 to
 the
 conjugal
 

partnership
 or
 to
 the
 husband
 exclusively.
 This
 is
 a
 matter
 properly
 within
 the
 As
 will
 be
 seen,
 the
 section
 quoted
 only
 provides
 a
 proceeding
 for
 examining

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 probate
 court
 which
 necessarily
 has
 to
 liquidate
 the
 conjugal
 persons
suspected
of
having
concealed,
embezzled,
or
conveyed
away
property
of

partnership
 in
 order
 to
 determine
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 decedent
 which
 is
 to
 be
 the
 deceased
 or
 withholds
 information
 of
 documentary
 evidence
 tending
 to

distributed
 among
 his
 heirs
 who
 are
 all
 parties
 to
 the
 proceedings,
 including,
 of
 disclose
 rights
 or
 claims
 of
 the
 deceased
 to
 such
 property
 or
 to
 disclose
 the

course,
the
widow,
now
represented
because
of
her
death,
by
her
heirs
who
have
 possession
of
his
last
will
and
testament.
The
purpose
of
the
proceeding
is
to
elicit

been
 substituted
 upon
 petition
 of
 the
 executor
 himself
 and
 who
 have
 appeared
 evidence,
 and
 the
 section
 does
 not,
 in
 terms,
 authorize
 the
 court
 to
 enforce

voluntarily.
There
are
no
third
parties
whose
rights
may
be
affected.
It
is
true
that




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









82




delivery
 of
 possession
 of
 the
 things
 involved.
 To
 obtain
 the
 possession,
 recourse
 

must
therefore
generally
be
had
to
an
ordinary
action.
 HELD:


 In
support
of
the
first
assignment
of
error,
the
appellant
contends
that
there
is
no

In
issuing
the
order
from
which
the
appeal
has
been
taken,
the
court
below
relied
 law
 justifying
 the
 order
 made
 by
 the
 lower
 court,
 citing
 her
 to
 appear
 and
 to

largely
on
a
dictum
in
the
Alafriz
case
that
"there
may
be
cases,
where
papers
and
 declare
concerning
the
question
whether
she
had
property
belonging
to
the
estate.

documentary
 evidence
 of
 ownership
 of
 property
 are
 held
 by
 a
 third
 person
 She
 also
 contends
 that
 the
 administrator
 should
 have
 proceeded
 by
 an
 ordinary

belonging
to
the
estate
of
a
deceased
person,
in
which
it
would
be
perfectly
proper
 action,
if
he
believed
that
she
had
in
her
possession
property
of
the
estate.
Section

to
 the
 court
 to
 order
 the
 same
 turned
 over
 to
 the
 court."
 That
 may
 be
 true;
 it
 709
of
the
Code
of
Procedure
in
Civil
Actions
(Act
No.
190)
expressly
authorizes
the

might,
 for
 instance,
 apply
 to
 the
 possession
 of
 a
 will.
 But
 in
 the
 same
 case,
 the
 order
of
which
complaint
is
made.


court
 also
 said
 that
 "the
 court
 had
 no
 right
 to
 deprive
 her
 (the
 appellant)
 of
 her
 

evidence
 relating
 to
 the
 property,
 until
 the
 question
 of
 ownership
 had
 been
 On
the
second
and
third
assignments
of
error,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
pawn
ticket

settled."
 showed
 that
 it
 had
 been
 issued
 to
 the
 deceased
 Navarro.
 That
 fact,
 perhaps,

constituted
prima
facie
proof
of
ownership,
but
it
certainly
was
not
absolute
proof

That
is
practically
this
case.
The
bank
maintains
that
the
pledge
of
the
250
shares
is
 of
 ownership.
 The
 lower
 court
 not
 only
 ordered
 the
 appellant
 to
 turn
 the
 pawn

still
in
force.
It
may
have
documentary
evidence
to
that
effect,
and
it
was
not
under
 ticket
over
to
the
clerk,
but
also
ordered
the
administrator
to
pay
to
the
clerk
with

obligation
 to
 turn
 such
 evidence
 over
 to
 the
 court
 or
 to
 a
 third
 party,
 on
 the
 which
to
redeem
said
jewels.
In
accordance
with
the
order
of
the
court,
the
clerk

strength
 of
 a
 citation
 under
 section
 709.
 The
 possession
 of
 the
 certificates
 of
 the
 did
 actually
 redeem
 said
 jewels
 and
 now
 has
 them
 in
 his
 possession.
 All
 this
 was

shares
 in
 question
 is
 a
 part
 of
 that
 evidence
 and
 it
 is
 obvious
 that
 if
 they
 are
 done
 without
 permitting
 the
 appellant
 to
 be
 jewels
 did,
 in
 fact,
 belong
 to
 the

surrendered
to
the
administrator
of
the
estate
and
possibly
disposed
of
by
him,
the
 appellant
then,
of
course,
the
court
had
no
right
to
deprive
her
of
the
pawn
ticket,

bank
 will
 lose
 its
 day
 in
 court,
 and
 its
 rights
 can
 only
 be
 determined
 in
 a
 nor
to
use
the
funds
of
the
estate
in
redeeming
them.

There
is
nothing
in
section

corresponding
action.
 709
which
justifies
the
orders
complained
of
in
the
second
and
third
assignments
of


 error.
 Said
 section
 (709)
 simply
 provides
 that
 "the
 court
 may
 cite
 such
 suspected

119
 ALAFRIZ
V.
MINA
 person
 to
 appear
 before
 it
 and
 may
 examine
 him
 on
 oath
 on
 the
 matter
 of
 such


 28
PHIL
137
 complaint."
 There
 is
 nothing
 in
 the
 section
 which
 authorizes
 the
 court
 to
 take


 possession
 of
 the
 property,
 if
 any
 should
 be
 found
 in
 the
 possession
 of
 the

FACTS:
 defendant
or
of
the
person
cited.
If,
upon
the
hearing,
there
was
good
reason
for

Alafriz
 was
 the
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Navarro.
 
 He
 filed
 a
 motion
 for
 the
 believing
that
the
person
cited
had
property
in
his
or
her
possession
belonging
to

court
to
order
Mina
to
produce
a
document
evincing
the
deposit
made
by
Navarro
 the
 estate,
 then
 it
 was
 the
 duty
 of
 the
 administrator
 to
 proceed
 by
 an
 ordinary

to
secure
a
loan
he
earlier
obtained.

Mina
complied
with
the
subsequent
order
of
 action
to
recover
possession
of
the
same.
There
may
be
cases,
where
papers
and

the
court
by
surrendering
the
pawn
ticket
to
the
clerk
and
at
the
same
time,
prayed
 documentary
 evidence
 of
 ownership
 of
 property
 are
 held
 by
 a
 third
 person

to
be
exempted
from
the
same
by
averring
that
she
and
her
mother
were
the
real
 belonging
to
the
estate
of
a
deceased
person,
in
which
it
would
be
perfectly
proper

owners
of
the
jewelry.

The
jewelry
in
question
was
later
included
in
the
inventory
 for
the
court
to
order
the
same
turned
over
to
the
court.
We
do
not
now,
however,

of
properties
of
the
estate,
to
which
Mina
prayed
that
it
be
rather
excluded.

She
 attempt
in
any
way
to
indicate
what
would
be
such
a
condition
nor
even
to
finally

also
 prayed
 to
 be
 further
 heard
 so
 that
 she
 could
 prove
 her
 ownership
 over
 the
 decide
 that
 such
 a
 condition
 might
 exist.
 In
 the
 present
 case
 the
 defendant
 was

properties.
 
 However,
 she
 was
 overruled
 and
 the
 property
 in
 question
 was
 still
 entitled
to
retain
possession
of
the
pawn
ticket,
until
the
question
of
the
ownership

included
 in
 the
 inventory.
 
 She
 appealed
 this
 on
 several
 grounds—among
 others,
 of
 the
 jewels
 should
 be
 determined
 in
 the
 proper
 way.
 The
 court
 had
 no
 right
 to

that
there
is
no
legal
basis
to
order
her
to
produce
the
pawn
ticket;
that
the
court
 deprive
 her
 of
 her
 evidence
 relating
 to
 the
 property,
 until
 the
 question
 of

was
 wrong
 to
 order
 Alafriz
 to
 institute
 adequate
 actions
 against
 Mina
 as
 may
 be
 ownership
had
been
settled.

necessary
in
furtherance
of
his
duties
as
administrator.
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









83




Regarding
 the
 court
 ordering
 Alafriz
 to
 institute
 actions
 against
 Mina
 as
 may
 be
 bond
with
sufficient
surety,
to
be
approved
by
the
judge,
conditioned
to
indemnify

necessary
 in
 furtherance
 of
 his
 claims,
 this
 order,
 it
 would
 seem,
 was
 not
 the
executor
or
administrator
against
the
costs
of
such
action.
Such
creditor
shall

authorized
 in
 the
 proceedings
 then
 pending,
 neither
 was
 the
 order
 directing
 the
 have
a
lien
upon
the
judgment
by
him
so
recovered
for
the
costs
incurred
and
such

administrator
 to
 pay,
 out
 of
 the
 funds
 of
 the
 estate,
 the
 amount
 necessary
 to
 other
expenses
as
the
court
deems
equitable.

redeem
 the
 jewels,
 until
 the
 question
 of
 ownership
 had
 been
 settled.
 No
 











complaint,
however,
is
here
made
by
any
one,
relating
to
that
order.
That
part
of
 The
remedy
of
the
appellants
is,
therefore,
to
indemnify
the
administrator
against

the
order
may
properly
be
considered
when
the
administrator
renders
his
account.
 costs
and,
by
leave
of
court,
to
institute
an
action
in
the
name
of
the
administrator

If,
however,
the
estate
or
Pia
Mina
has
been
damaged
by
said
order,
such
damages
 to
 set
 aside
 the
 assignment
 or
 other
 conveyance
 believed
 to
 have
 been
 made
 in

may,
perhaps,
be
settled
in
an
action
brought
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
 fraud
of
creditors.

ownership
of
the
jewels.
For
the
present
we
are
not
inclined
to
revoke
said
order.
It
 

may
 finally
 appear
 that
 the
 jewels
 actually
 belonged
 to
 the
 estate
 and
 not
 to
 Pia
 121
 VELASQUEZ
V.
GEORGE

Mina.
 In
 that
 case
 the
 jewels
 will
 then
 be
 where
 they
 can
 be
 turned
 over
 to
 the
 
 125
SCRA
456
 

administrator
without
further
delay.
 


 FACTS:

120
 HEIRS
OF
GREGORIE
V.
BAKER
 Defendants‐mortgagors
 are
 officers
 of
 the
 Island
 Associates
 Inc.
 Andres
 Muñoz,


 51
PHIL
75
 aside
from
being
the
treasurer‐director
of
said
corporation,
was
also
appointed
and


 qualified
 as
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Benjamin
 George
 in
 the
 above
 special

FACTS:
 proceedings.
 In
 life,
 the
 latter
 owned
 64.8
 percent
 or
 636
 shares
 out
 of
 the

Baker
 was
 the
 appointed
 administrator
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Ankrom.
 
 When
 he
 outstanding
 980
 shares
 of
 stock
 in
 the
 corporation.
 Without
 the
 proper
 approval

prepared
the
inventory
of
the
estate,
he
mistakenly
included
a
tract
of
land.

The
 from
 the
 probate
 court
 and
 without
 notice
 to
 the
 heirs
 and
 their
 counsel,
 the

heirs
of
Gregorie
during
the
proceeding
filed
their
claim
against
the
estate,
based
 defendants‐mortgagors
executed
a
Deed
of
First
Real
Estate
Mortgage
in
favor
of

on
 a
 foreign
 judgment,
 which
 was
 duly
 accepted
 by
 the
 court.
 
 The
 assets
 of
 the
 the
defendant‐mortgagee
Erlinda
Villanueva,
covering
three
parcels
of
land
owned

estate
seemed
sufficient
to
cover
all
debts.

However,
on
a
subsequent
date,
Baker
 by
 Island
 Associates.
 In
 said
 Deed,
 the
 defendants‐mortgagors
 also
 expressly

discovered
that
during
Ankrom’s
lifetime,
he
obtained
a
loan
from
PTC
secured
by
 waived
 their
 right
 to
 redeem
 the
 said
 parcels.
 Subsequently,
 a
 power
 of
 attorney

the
land
in
dispute.

And
that
a
few
days
after
the
loan
and
mortgage,
he
conveyed
 was
 executed
 by
 the
 defendants‐mortgagors
 in
 favor
 of
 Villanueva
 whereby
 the

the
 land
 to
 a
 certain
 person
 in
 Ohio
 for
 a
 consideration
 of
 P1
 and
 other
 valuable
 latter
 was
 given
 the
 full
 power
 and
 authority
 to
 cede,
 transfer,
 and
 convey
 the

consideration.
 
 As
 such,
 Baker
 filed
 an
 amended
 inventory
 and
 was
 approved
 by
 parcels
of
land
within
the
reglementary
period
provided
by
law
for
redemption.
A

the
court.
 certificate
of
sale
was
consequently
issued
to
Villanueva.

The
plaintiffs
then
filed
a


 complaint
 for
 the
 annulment
 of
 the
 same
 but
 was
 overruled
 by
 the
 court.
 
 The

HELD:
 court
held
that
the
SEC
is
the
proper
forum
for
their
complaint.



When
there
is
a
deficiency
of
assets
in
the
hands
of
an
executor
or
administrator
to
 

pay
debts
and
expenses,
and
when
the
deceased
person
made
in
his
life‐time
such
 HELD:

fraudulent
 conveyance
 of
 such
 real
 or
 personal
 estate
 or
 of
 a
 right
 or
 interest
 Whether
 or
 not
 the
 mortgage
 contract,
 with
 an
 unusual
 provision
 whereby
 the

therein,
 as
 is
 stated
 in
 the
 preceding
 section,
 any
 creditor
 of
 the
 estate
 may,
 by
 mortgagors
 waived
 their
 right
 to
 redeem
 the
 mortgaged
 property,
 could
 be

license
 of
 the
 court,
 if
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 has
 not
 commenced
 such
 executed
without
proper
approval
of
the
probate
court
and
without
notice
to
the

action,
commence
and
prosecute
to
final
judgment,
in
the
name
of
the
executor
or
 widow
 and
 legitimate
 children
 of
 the
 deceased
 is
 a
 matter
 clearly
 within
 the

administrator,
 an
 action
 for
 the
 recovery
 of
 the
 same
 and
 may
 recover
 for
 the
 authority
of
a
trial
court
to
decide.
If
in
the
course
of
trial,
the
court
believes
that

benefit
 of
 the
 creditors,
 such
 real
 or
 personal
 estate,
 or
 interest
 therein
 so
 the
validity
of
the
composition
of
the
board
of
directors
is
absolutely
necessary
for

conveyed.
But
such
action
shall
not
be
commenced
until
the
creditor
files
in
court
a
 resolution
of
the
issues
before
it,
the
remedy
is,
at
most,
to
require
that
one
issue




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









84




to
be
threshed
out
before
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
and
to
hold
in
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 sufficient
 assets
 to
 pay
 the
 claim

abeyance,
the
trial
on
the
merits
of
the
principal
issues
in
the
meantime.
Certainly,
 disputed
and
appealed.
When
a
disputed
claim
is
finally
settled
the
court
having

the
 solution
 is
 not
 for
 the
 lower
 court
 to
 surrender
 its
 judicial
 questions
 to
 an
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 shall
 order
 the
 same
 to
 be
 paid
 out
 of
 the
 assets

administrative
agency
for
resolution.
 retained
to
the
same
extent
and
in
the
same
proportion
with
the
claims
of
other

creditors.

The
administrator
is
not
the
proper
party
to
institute
the
action.

The
administrator,
 

Andres
 Muñoz,
 is
 the
 same
 person
 charged
 by
 the
 plaintiffs‐appellants
 to
 have
 Section
13.
When
subsequent
distribution
of
assets
ordered.
 
If
the
whole
of
the

voted
 in
 the
 board
 of
 directors
 without
 securing
 the
 proper
 authority
 from
 the
 debts
 are
 not
 paid
 on
 the
 first
 distribution,
 and
 if
 the
 whole
 assets
 are
 not

probate
 court
 to
 which
 he
 is
 accountable
 as
 administrator.
 In
 Ramirez
 v.
 Baltazar
 distributed,
 or
 other
 assets
 afterwards
 come
 to
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 executor
 or

(24
SCRA
918),
we
ruled
that
"since
the
ground
for
the
present
action
to
annul
the
 administrator,
 the
 court
 may
 from
 time
 to
 time
 make
 further
 orders
 for
 the

aforesaid
 foreclosure
 proceedings
 is
 the
 fraud
 resulting
 from
 such
 insidious
 distributions
of
assets.

machinations
and
collusion
in
which
the
administrator
has
allegedly
participated,
it
 

would
be
far
fetched
to
expect
the
said
administrator
himself
to
file
the
action
in
 Section
 14.
 Creditors
 to
 be
 paid
 in
 accordance
 with
 terms
 of
 order.
 
 When
 an

behalf
of
the
estate.
And
who
else
but
the
heirs,
who
have
an
interest
to
assert
and
 order
is
made
for
the
distribution
of
assets
among
the
creditors,
the
executor
or

to
 protect,
 would
 bring
 the
 action?
 Inevitably,
 this
 case
 should
 fall
 under
 the
 administration
shall,
as
soon
as
the
time
of
payment
arrives,
pay
the
creditors
the

exception,
 rather
 than
 the
 general
 rule
 that
 pending
 proceedings
 for
 the
 amounts
of
their
claims,
or
the
dividend
thereon,
in
accordance
with
the
terms
of

settlement
of
the
estate,
the
heirs
have
no
right
to
commence
an
action
arising
out
 such
order.

of
 the
 rights
 belonging
 to
 the
 deceased."
 The
 case
 at
 bar
 falls
 under
 such
 an
 

exception.
 Section
 15.
 Time
 for
 paying
 debts
 and
 legacies
 fixed,
 or
 extended
 after
 notice,


 within
 what
 periods.
 
 On
 granting
 letters
 testamentary
 or
 administration
 the

court
 shall
 allow
 to
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 a
 time
 for
 disposing
 of
 the

RULE
88

estate
and
paying
the
debts
and
legacies
of
the
deceased,
which
shall
not,
in
the

PAYMENT
OF
THE
DEBTS
OF
THE
ESTATE

first
 instance,
 exceed
 one
 (1)
 year;
 but
 the
 court
 may,
 on
 application
 of
 the


 executor
or
administrator
and
after
hearing
on
such
notice
of
the
time
and
place

Section
 1.
 Debts
 paid
 in
 full
 if
 estate
 sufficient.
 If,
 after
 hearing
 all
 the
 money
 therefor
given
to
all
persons
interested
as
it
shall
direct,
extend
the
time
as
the

claims
 against
 the
 estate,
 and
 after
 ascertaining
 the
 amount
 of
 such
 claims,
 it
 circumstances
 of
 the
 estate
 require
 not
 exceeding
 six
 (6)
 months
 for
 a
 single

appears
 that
 there
 are
 sufficient
 assets
 to
 pay
 the
 debts,
 the
 executor
 or
 extension
 not
 so
 that
 the
 whole
 period
 allowed
 to
 the
 original
 executor
 or

administrator
pay
the
same
within
the
time
limited
for
that
purpose.
 administrator
shall
exceed
two
(2)
years.


 

Section
 11.
 Order
 for
 payment
 of
 debts.
 
 Before
 the
 expiration
 of
 the
 time
 Section
 2.
 Part
 of
 estate
 from
 which
 debt
 paid
 when
 provision
 made
 by
 will.
 
 If

limited
for
the
payment
of
the
debts,
the
court
shall
order
the
payment
thereof,
 the
 testator
 makes
 provision
 by
 his
 will,
 or
 designates
 the
 estate
 to
 be

and
 the
 distribution
 of
 the
 assets
 received
 by
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 for
 appropriated
for
the
payment
of
his
debts,
the
expenses
of
administration,
or
the

that
purpose
among
the
creditors,
as
the
circumstances
of
the
estate
require
and
 family
expenses,
they
shall
be
paid
according
to
the
provisions
of
the
will;
but
if

in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
rule.
 the
 provision
 made
 by
 the
 will
 or
 the
 estate
 appropriated,
 is
 not
 sufficient
 for


 that
 purpose,
 such
 part
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 testator,
 real
 or
 personal,
 as
 is
 not

Section
 12.
 Orders
 relating
 to
 payment
 of
 debts
 where
 appeal
 is
 taken.
 
 If
 an
 disposed
of
by
will,
if
any
shall
be
appropriated
for
that
purpose.

appeal
has
been
taken
from
a
decision
of
the
court
concerning
a
claim,
the
court
 

may
 suspend
 the
 order
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 the
 debts
 or
 may
 order
 the
 Section
3.
Personalty
first
chargeable
for
debts,
then
realty.
The
personal
estate

distributions
among
the
creditors
whose
claims
are
definitely
allowed,
leaving
in
 of
the
deceased
not
disposed
of
by
will
shall
be
first
chargeable
with
the
payment




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









85




of
 debts
 and
 expenses;
 and
 if
 said
 personal
 estate
 is
 not
 sufficient
 for
 that
 executor
or
administrator
is
sufficient.
But
if
the
claim
is
not
so
presented,
after

purpose,
 or
 its
 sale
 would
 redound
 to
 the
 detriment
 of
 the
 participants
 for
 the
 having
 become
 absolute,
 within
 said
 two
 (2)
 years,
 and
 allowed,
 the
 assets

estate,
the
whole
of
the
real
estate
not
dispose
of
by
will,
or
so
much
thereof
as
 retained
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 not
 exhausted
 in
 the

is
necessary,
may
be
sold,
mortgaged,
or
otherwise
encumbered
for
that
purpose
 payment
 of
 claims,
 shall
 be
 disturbed
 by
 the
 order
 of
 the
 court
 to
 the
 persons

by
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 after
 obtaining
 the
 authority
 of
 the
 court
 entitled
 to
 the
 same;
 but
 the
 assets
 so
 distributed
 may
 still
 be
 applied
 to
 the

therefor.
 Any
 deficiency
 shall
 be
 met
 by
 contributions
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 payment
of
the
claim
when
established,
and
the
creditor
may
maintain
an
action

provisions
of
section
6
of
this
rule.
 against
 the
 distributees
 to
 recover
 the
 debt,
 and
 such
 distributees
 and
 their


 estates
 shall
 be
 liable
 for
 the
 debt
 in
 proportion
 to
 the
 estate
 they
 have

Section
6.
Court
to
fix
contributive
shares
where
devisees,
legalitees,
or
heirs
have
 respectively
received
from
the
property
of
the
deceased.

been
 possession.
 
 Where
 devisees,
 legalitees,
 or
 heirs
 have
 entered
 into
 

possession
 of
 portions
 of
 the
 estate
 before
 the
 debts
 and
 expenses
 have
 been
 PAYMENT
OF
CONTINGENT
CLAIMS

settled
and
paid,
and
have
become
liable
to
contribute
for
the
payment
of
such
 • If
the
contingent
claim
becomes
absolute
and
is
presented
to
the
court
as

debts
and
expenses,
the
court
having
jurisdiction
of
the
estate
may,
by
order
for
 an
 absolute
 claim
 within
 2
 years
 from
 the
 time
 allowed
 for
 the

that
 purpose,
 after
 hearing,
 settle
 the
 amount
 of
 their
 several
 liabilities,
 and
 presentation
 of
 claims,
 it
 will
 be
 paid
 in
 the
 same
 manner
 as
 the
 other

order
how
much
and
in
what
manner
each
person
shall
contribute,
and
may
issue
 absolute
claims

execution
as
circumstances
require.
 • After
 said
 period,
 the
 creditor
 may
 proceed
 against
 the
 distributees,


 provided
said
contingent
claims
had
been
seasonably
filed
in
and
allowed

PAYMENT
OF
DEBTS
MUST
BE
TAKEN
FROM
THE
FOLLOWING,
IN
THIS
ORDER—
 by
the
probate
court

1. From
the
portion
or
property
designated
in
the
will
 • The
 property
 reserved
 for
 payment
 of
 such
 contingent
 claims
 may

2. From
the
personal
property
and
 therefore
be
retained
only
within
the
two‐year
period
as
thereafter,
the

3. From
the
real
property
 same
shall
be
included
among
assets
for
distribution
to
the
heirs



 

MAY
THE
COURT
ISSUE
A
WRIT
OF
EXECUTION
FOR
THE
PAYMENT
OF
LEGACY?
 Section
 7.
 Order
 of
 payment
 if
 estate
 insolvent
 
 If
 the
 assets
 which
 can
 be

• No
since
the
legacy
is
not
a
debt
of
the
estate
 appropriated
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 debts
 are
 not
 sufficient
 for
 that
 purpose,
 the


 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 pay
 the
 debts
 against
 the
 estate,
 observing
 the

Section
4.
Estate
to
be
retained
to
meet
contingent
claims.
If
the
court
is
satisfied
 provisions
of
Articles
1059
and
2239
to
2251
of
the
Civil
Code.

that
 a
 contingent
 claim
 duly
 filed
 is
 valid,
 it
 may
 order
 the
 executor
 or
 

administrator
to
retain
in
his
hands
sufficient
estate
to
pay
such
contingent
claim
 Section
 8.
Dividends
 to
 be
 paid
 in
 proportion
 to
 claims.
 
 If
 there
 are
 no
 assets

when
the
same
becomes
absolute,
or
if
the
estate
is
insolvent,
sufficient
to
pay
a
 sufficient
to
pay
the
credits
of
any
once
class
of
creditors
after
paying
the
credits

portion
equal
to
the
dividend
of
the
other
creditors.
 entitled
 to
 preference
 over
 it,
 each
 creditor
 within
 such
 class
 shall
 be
 paid
 a


 dividend
in
proportion
to
his
claim.
No
creditor
of
any
one
class
shall
receive
any

Section
 5.
 How
 contingent
 claim
 becoming
 absolute
 in
 two
 years
 allowed
 and
 payment
until
those
of
the
preceding
class
are
paid.

paid.
Action
against
distributees
later.

If
such
contingent
claim
becomes
absolute
 

and
is
presented
to
the
court,
or
to
the
executor
or
administrator,
within
two
(2)
 Section
 9.
 Estate
 of
 insolvent
 non‐resident,
 how
 disposed
 of.
 
 In
 case

years
from
the
time
limited
for
other
creditors
to
present
their
claims,
it
may
be
 administration
is
taken
in
the
Philippine
of
the
estate
of
a
person
who
was
at
the

allowed
 by
 the
 court
 if
 not
 disputed
 by
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 and,
 if
 time
 of
 his
 death
 an
 inhabitant
 of
 another
 country,
 and
 who
 died
 insolvent,
 his

disputed,
 it
 may
 be
 proved
 and
 allowed
 or
 disallowed
 by
 the
 court
 as
 the
 facts
 estate
found
in
the
Philippines
shall,
as
far
as
practicable,
be
so
disposed
of
that

may
 warrant.
 If
 the
 contingent
 claim
 is
 allowed,
 the
 creditor
 shall
 receive
 his
creditors
here
and
elsewhere
may
receive
each
an
equal
share,
in
proportion

payment
to
the
same
extent
as
the
other
creditors
if
the
estate
retained
by
the
 to
their
respective
credits.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









86





 the
 ground
 of
 prejudice
 on
 its
 part
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 portion
 of
 land
 he
 was

Section
10.
When
and
how
claim
proved
outside
the
Philippines
against
insolvent
 leasing,
among
other
objections.

The
motion
however
was
still
granted.

resident's
estate
paid.
 
If
it
appears
to
the
court
having
jurisdiction
that
claims
 

have
been
duly
proven
in
another
country
against
the
estate
of
an
insolvent
who
 HELD:

was
 at
 the
 time
 of
 his
 death
 an
 inhabitant
 of
 the
 Philippines,
 and
 that
 the
 In
the
second
and
third
assignments
of
error
appellant
argues
that
the
court
below,

executor
 or
 administrator
 in
 the
 Philippines
 had
 knowledge
 of
 the
 presentation
 as
a
probate
court,
has
no
jurisdiction
to
deprive
the
appellant
of
his
rights
under

of
such
claims
in
such
country
and
an
opportunity
to
contest
their
allowance,
the
 the
 lease,
 because
 these
 rights
 may
 be
 annulled
 or
 modified
 only
 by
 a
 court
 of

court
shall
receive
a
certified
list
of
such
claims,
when
perfected
in
such
country,
 general
 jurisdiction.
 The
 above
 arguments
 are
 without
 merit.
 In
 probate

and
add
the
same
to
the
list
of
claims
proved
against
the
deceased
person
in
the
 proceedings
the
court
orders
the
probate
of
the
will
of
the
decedent
(Rule
80,
See.

Philippines
 so
 that
 a
 just
 distribution
 of
 the
 whole
 estate
 may
 be
 made
 equally
 5);
 grants
 letters
 of
 administration
 to
 the
 party
 best
 entitled
 thereto
 or
 to
 any

among
all
its
creditors
according
to
their
respective
claims;
but
the
benefit
of
this
 qualified
 applicant
 (Id.,
 Sec.
 6);
 supervises
 and
 controls
 all
 acts
 of
 administration;

and
 the
 preceding
 sections
 shall
 not
 be
 extended
 to
 the
 creditors
 in
 another
 hears
 and
 approves
 claims
 against
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 (Rule
 87,
 See.
 13);

country
 if
 the
 property
 of
 such
 deceased
 person
 there
 found
 is
 not
 equally
 orders
payment
of
lawful
debts
(Rule
89,
Sec.
14);
authorizes
sale,
mortgage
or
any

apportioned
 to
 the
 creditors
 residing
 in
 the
 Philippines
 and
 the
 other
 creditor,
 encumbrance
of
 real
estate
(Rule
90,
Sec.
 2);
 directs
 the
delivery
of
the
 estate
 to

according
to
their
respective
claims.
 those
 entitled
 thereto
 (Rule
 91,
 See.
 1).
 It
 has
 been
 held
 that
 the
 court
 acts
 as
 a


 trustee,
 and
 as
 such
 trustee,
 should
 jealously
 guard
 the
 estate
 and
 see
 that
 it
 is

Section
16.
Successor
of
dead
executor
or
administrator
may
have
time
extended
 wisely
and
economically
administered,
not
dissipated.

on
notice
within
certain
period.
 
When
an
executor
or
administrator
dies,
and
a
 

new
 administrator
 of
 the
 same
 estate
 is
 appointed,
 the
 court
 may
 extend
 the
 Even
the
contract
of
lease
under
which
the
appellant
holds
the
agricultural
lands
of

time
allowed
for
the
payment
of
the
debts
or
legacies
beyond
the
time
allowed
 the
 intestate
 and
 which
 he
 now
 seeks
 to
 protect,
 was
 obtained
 with
 the
 court's

to
the
original
executor
or
administrator,
not
exceeding
six
(6)
months
at
a
time
 approval.
If
the
probate
court
has
the
right
to
approve
the
lease,
so
may
it
order
its

and
 not
 exceeding
 six
 (6)
 months
 beyond
 the
 time
 which
 the
 court
 might
 have
 revocation,
 or
 the
 reduction
 of
 the
 subject
 of
 the
 lease.
 The
 matter
 of
 giving
 the

allowed
 to
 such
 original
 executor
 or
 administrator;
 and
 notice
 shall
 be
 given
 of
 property
to
a
lessee
is
an
act
of
administration,
also
subject
to
the
approval
of
the

the
time
and
place
for
hearing
such
application,
as
required
in
the
last
preceding
 court.
Of
course,
if
the
court
abuses
its
discretion
in
the
approval
of
the
contracts

section.
 or
 acts
 of
 the
 administrator,
 its
 orders
 may
 be
 subject
 to
 appeal
 and
 may
 be


 reversed
on
appeal;
but
not
because
the
court
may
make
an
error
may
it
be
said

122
 TIMBOL
V.
CANO

 that
it
lacks
jurisdiction
to
control
acts
of
administration
of
the
administrator.

1
SCRA
1271
 


 123
 JAUCIAN
V.
QEUROL

FACTS:
 38
PHIL

Intestate
Cano
died
leaving
his
only
son
Timbol
as
sole
heir.

Timbol
at
the
time
of
 

death
of
his
father
was
still
a
minor.

His
uncle
Jose
was
appointed
in
the
meantime
 FACTS:

as
the
administrator
of
the
estate.

Jose
petitioned
that
he
be
allowed
to
lease
the
 Rogero
and
Dayandante
signed
a
document
acknowledging
their
debt
to
Jaucian.

It

land
owned
by
Cano
and
he
would
accordingly
pay
for
its
rental.

This
was
allowed
 seemed
that
Rogero
signed
the
document
in
the
capacity
of
surety
but
nowhere
in

by
 the
 court
 together
 with
 the
 approval
 to
 convert
 a
 portion
 of
 the
 land
 into
 a
 the
document
is
this
apparent.

A
reading
of
the
document
would
show
that
they

subdivision.

Plans
of
partition
were
as
well
apprvoved.

Later
on,
when
Timbol
was
 were
binding
themselves
jointly
and
severally.

On
a
relevant
date,
Rogero
sought

appointed
 as
 the
 administrator
 in
 Jose’s
 stead,
 he
 petitioned
 that
 the
 land
 area
 the
 annulment
 of
 the
 document
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 his
 signature
 was
 procured

allotted
 for
 subdivision
 development
 be
 increased.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 by
 Jose
 on
 from
fraud.

As
a
matter
of
cross‐claim,
Jaucian
interposed
the
payment
of
debt
to

him.
 
 During
 the
 pendency
 of
 this
 case
 however,
 Rogero
 died
 and
 his
 estate
 was




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









87




substituted
 as
 party.
 
 Later
 on,
 Jaucian
 won
 the
 case.
 
 In
 the
 meanwhile,
 estate
 submitted
and
duly
approved,
the
final
project
of
partition
took
a
later
time
to
do.


proceedings
were
instituted
for
Rogero.

On
the
basis
of
judgment,
Jaucian
claims
 In
the
meanwhile,
Cu
Unjiengs
had
a
counterclaim
against
the
plaintiff.

The
issue
in

payment
but
was
denied
by
the
court
for
many
reasons.

Among
others,
is
the
non‐ this
case
revolves
around
the
nature
of
the
counterclaim
as
a
contingent
claim
and

submission
with
the
commission
on
claims
within
the
required
period.
 whether
the
same
should
have
been
relayed
to
the
probate
court.


 

HELD:
 HELD:

An
examination
of
the
order
in
question,
however,
leads
us
to
conclude
that
it
was
 From
 the
 definitions
 just
 quoted,
 it
 is
 evident
 that
 the
 counterclaim
 of
 the

not
 a
 final
 order,
 and
 therefore
 it
 was
 not
 appealable.
 In
 effect,
 it
 held
 that
 defendants‐appellants
 is
 not
 a
 contingent
 claim
 because
 the
 obligation
 sought
 to

whatever
 rights
 Jaucian
 might
 have
 against
 the
 estate
 of
 Rogero
 were
 subject
 to
 be
enforced
against
the
deceased
or
his
legal
representatives,
the
administrators,

the
performance
of
a
condition
precedent,
namely,
that
he
should
first
exhaust
this
 does
not
depend
on
an
uncertain
or
future
event.
According
to
the
allegations
of

remedy
 against
 Dayandante.
 The
 court
 regarded
 Dayandante.
 The
 court
 regarded
 the
counterclaim
contained
in
the
amended
answer,
the
obligation
contradicted
by

Dayandante
 as
 the
 principal
 debtor,
 and
 the
 deceased
 as
 a
 surety
 only
 liable
 for
 the
 deceased
 arose
 from
 the
 time
 the
 conspiracy
 was
 carried
 out
 and
 from
 the

such
 deficiency
 as
 might
 result
 after
 the
 exhaustion
 of
 the
 assets
 of
 the
 principal
 time
the
preliminary
attachment
was
obtained
illegally
and
without
any
just
cause.

co‐obligor.
 The
 pivotal
 fact
 upon
 which
 the
 order
 was
 based
 was
 the
 failure
 of
 However,
the
administrators
contend
in
their
brief
that
the
counterclaim
is
of
the

appellant
to
show
that
he
had
exhausted
his
remedy
against
Dayandante,
and
this
 nature
of
a
contingent
claim
because
it
can
not
be
realized
until
final
judgment
has

failure
the
court
regarded
as
a
complete
bar
to
the
granting
of
the
petition
at
that
 been
rendered
by
the
court.
This
contention
is
sufficiently
refuted
by
reproducing

time.
 The
 court
 made
 no
 order
 requiring
 the
 appellee
 to
 make
 any
 payment
 what
has
been
stated
in
the
case
of
E.
Gaskell
&
Co.
vs.
Tan
Sit,
supra,
to
the
effect

whatever,
 and
 that
 part
 of
 the
 opinion,
 upon
 which
 the
 order
 was
 based,
 which
 that
"the
term
contigent
has
reference
to
the
uncertainty
of
the
liability
and
not
to

contained
statements
of
what
the
court
intended
to
do
when
the
petition
should
 the
uncertainty
in
which
the
realization
or
collection
of
the
claim
may
be
involved."

be
renewed,
was
not
binding
upon
him
or
any
other
judge
by
whom
he
might
be
 

succeeded.
Regardless
of
what
may
be
our
views
with
respect
to
the
jurisdiction
of
 Referring
now
to
the
contention
of
the
defendants‐appellants
that
they
were
not
in

the
court
to
have
granted
the
relief
demanded
by
appellant
in
any
event,
it
is
quite
 duty
bound
to
inform
the
probate
court
that
they
had
filed
a
counterclaim
against

clear
from
what
we
have
stated
that
the
order
of
April
13,
1914,
required
no
action
 the
 deceased,
 it
 is
 true
 that
 the
 Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure
 contains
 nor
 provision

by
the
administrator
at
that
time,
was
not
final,
and
therefore
was
not
appealable.
 directly
 imposing
 such
 duty
 on
 them.
 However,
 if
 under
 section
 602
 of
 the
 same

We
therefore
conclude
that
no
rights
were
conferred
by
the
said
order
of
April
13,
 Code
 the
 probate
 court
 alone
 had
 acquired
 jurisdiction
 to
 try
 and
 decide
 the

1914,
and
that
it
did
not
preclude
the
administrator
from
making
opposition
to
the
 settlement,
payment
of
debts
and
distribution
of
the
estate
of
the
deceased,
to
the

petition
of
the
appellant
when
it
was
renewed.
 exclusion
of
all
other
courts,
it
cannot
be
denied
that
if
the
defendants‐appellants


 wanted
some
remedy
from
said
court
for
the
protection
of
their
rights,
they
should

124
 CU
UNJIENG
V.
TIAOQUI
 timely
 apply
 to
 it
 and
 ask
 for
 the
 retention
 of
 properties
 sufficient
 to
 pay
 for
 the

64
PHIL
 counterclaim
in
case
it
should
prosper.
This
court
is
not
unmindful
of
the
fact
that


 in
this
case
the
administrators
were
also
in
duty
bound
to
inform
the
probate
court

FACTS:
 of
the
existence
of
the
counterclaim,
which
duty
was
partly
complied
with
by
them

Tiaoqui
filed
a
case
for
collection
of
money
from
the
Cu
Unjiengs.

In
the
said
case
 when
 they
 reiteratedly
 informed
 the
 court
 that
 it
 was
 not
 possible
 to
 present
 a

initially
instituted,
properties
of
the
Cu
Unjiengs
were
preliminarily
attached
upon
 final
 account
 or
 project
 of
 partition
 on
 the
 ground
 that
 there
 were
 pending

filing
 of
 bond
 by
 Tiaoqui
 during
 his
 lifetime.
 
 During
 the
 pendency
 of
 the
 litigations,
 among
 them
 that
 brought
 against
 the
 defendants
 Cu
 Unjiengs,
 and

proceedings,
Tiaoqui
died
and
was
substituted
later
on
by
the
administrators
of
his
 when
they
applied
for
the
reopening
of
the
intestate
proceedings
and
for
authority

estate.
 
 When
 he
 died,
 estate
 proceedings
 were
 commenced
 and
 when
 asked
 to
 to
continue
the
suit
against
said
defendants.
Such
duty,
however,
was
coextensive

file
 accounts
 and
 project
 of
 partition,
 the
 administrators
 found
 difficulty
 in
 the
 with
that
of
the
defendants‐appellants
and
that
latter
were
not
relieved
thereof
by

same
due
to
the
pending
litigation
with
the
Cu
Unjiengs.
When
the
accounting
was
 the
conduct
that
might
have
been
observed
by
the
administrators,
which
conduct,




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









88




on
the
other
hand,
can
not
be
considered
improper
taking
into
consideration
all
the
 Upon
his
death,
he
was
substituted
by
PCIB
as
administrator
of
his
estate.
Being
a

circumstances
hereinbefore
stated.
 money
claim,
said
civil
case
should
have
been
dismissed
and
instituted
as
a
money


 claim
in
the
intestate
estate
of
C.
N.
Hodges.

125
 INTESTATE
OF
JANUARIA
GONZALES
 

72
PHIL
245
 However,
this
is
not
to
suggest
that
because
the
claim
of
petitioner
was
pursued
to


 its
conclusion
in
Civil
Case
No.
6682
instead
of
being
dismissed
and
filed
as
a
money

FACTS:
 claim
 in
 Special
 Proceedings
 No.
 1672,
 the
 judgment
 rendered
 therein
 is
 null
 and

In
 the
 summary
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 Gonzales,
 the
 court
 ordered
 the
 void.

payment
to
creditor
Abarro.

No
payment
being
made,
the
only
property
left
by
the
 

deceased
 was
 sold
 in
 public
 auction
 and
 proceeds
 were
 used
 to
 pay
 the
 debt.

 Moreover,
when
PCIB
as
administrator
of
the
estate
of
C.
N.
Hodges
was
ordered
to

However,
the
court
ordered
the
same
to
be
subject
to
legal
redemption.

One
year
 be
substituted
as
defendant,
it
registered
no
objection
to
the
order.
Thus,
even
if

has
 passed
 and
 since
 then,
 no
 redemption
 was
 made.
 
 Thereafter,
 Abarro
 sought
 We
 admit
 for
 the
 sake
 of
 argument
 that
 the
 trial
 court,
 after
 the
 death
 of
 C.
 N.

the
 finality
 of
 the
 sale.
 
 Tomasa
 as
 one
 of
 the
 heirs
 opposed
 the
 same
 on
 the
 Hodges
 has
 no
 jurisdiction
 to
 render
 a
 judgment
 therein,
 the
 argument
 must
 fail.

ground
she
has
tendered
the
money
already
to
the
sheriff
to
redeem
the
property.


 PCIB,
participated
actively
in
the
said
case.
It
did
not
appeal
the
decision
rendered


 therein,
 neither
 did
 it
 raise
 the
 issue
 of
 jurisdiction
 ion
 at
 any
 stage.
 It
 has
 been

HELD:
 consistently
held
by
this
court
that
while
lack
of
jurisdiction
may
be
assailed
at
any

Tomasa
 de
 Guia
 has
 no
 right
 to
 redeem
 and
 that
 the
 sale
 made
 in
 favor
 of
 stage,
 a
 party's
 active
 participation
 in
 the
 proceedings
 before
 the
 court
 without

Sisenando
 Abarro
 is
 final.
 In
 the
 administration
 and
 liquidation
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 jurisdiction
will
estop
such
party
from
assailing
such
lack
of
jurisdiction.

deceased
person,
sales
ordered
by
the
probate
court
for
payment
of
debts
are
final
 

and
are
not
subject
to
legal
redemption.
Unlike
in
ordinary
execution
sales,
there
is
 The
 Rules
 of
 Court
 allows
 a
 creditor
 to
 file
 his
 claim
 after
 the
 period
 set
 by
 the

no
legal
provision
allowing
redemption
in
the
sale
of
property
for
payment
of
debts
 court
 in
 the
 notice
 to
 creditors,
 provided
 the
 conditions
 stated
 in
 the
 rules
 are

of
a
deceased
person
 present.
 
 The
 period
 prescribed
 for
 creditors
 isn’t
 exclusive
 and
 may
 be
 made


 before
 the
 order
 of
 distribution,
 subject
 to
 the
 discretion
 of
 the
 court
 and
 under

126
 ECHAUS
V.
BLANCO
 equitable
terms.



179
SCRA
704
 



RULE
89

FACTS:

SALES,
MORTGAGES,
AND
OTHER
ENCUMBRANCES
OF
PROPERTY
OF
DECEDENT

Eschaus
 filed
 a
 claim
 in
 her
 capacity
 as
 administratrix
 of
 her
 late
 father’s
 estate

against
 Hodges
 for
 allegedly
 profits
 from
 a
 business
 endeavor.
 
 During
 the
 

pendency
 of
 the
 case,
 Hodges
 died.
 
 However,
 the
 case
 proceeded
 and
 PCIB
 was
 Section
 1.
 Order
 of
 sale
 of
 personalty.
 Upon
 the
 application
 of
 the
 executor
 or

even
 substituted
 as
 a
 party
 to
 the
 case
 with
 no
 objection.
 
 When
 judgment
 was
 administrator,
 and
 on
 written
 notice
 to
 the
 heirs
 and
 other
 persons
 interested,

rendered
in
favor
of
Eschaus,
instead
of
a
writ
of
execution,
a
motion
for
payment
 the
 court
 may
 order
 the
 whole
 or
 a
 part
 of
 the
 personal
 estate
 to
 be
 sold,
 if
 it

pursuant
to
judgment
was
filed
in
the
special
proceedings.

The
widow
opposed
the
 appears
 necessary
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 paying
 debts,
 expenses
 of
 administration,

same.
 or
legacies,
or
for
the
preservation
of
the
property.


 

HELD:
 Section
 2.
 When
 court
 may
 authorize
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other
 encumbrance
 of

It
 must
 be
 noted
 that
 Civil
 Case
 No.
 6628
 which
 is
 a
 money
 claim,
 was
 Instituted
 realty
 to
 pay
 debts
 and
 legacies
 though
 personalty
 not
 exhausted.
 When
 the

during
 the
 lifetime
 of
 C.
 N.
 Hodges.
 During
 its
 pendency
 and
 before
 a
 decision
 personal
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 is
 not
 sufficient
 to
 pay
 the
 debts,
 expenses
 of

could
be
rendered
by
the
Regional
Trial
Court
hearing
the
case,
C.
N.
Hodges
died.
 administration,
and
legacies,
or
where
the
sale
of
such
personal
estate
may
injure




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









89




the
 business
 or
 other
 interests
 of
 those
 interested
 in
 the
 estate,
 and
 where
 a
 sufficient
 to
 pay
 the
 debts,
 expenses
 of
 administration,
 and
 legacies
 there,
 the

testator
 has
 not
 otherwise
 made
 sufficient
 provision
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 such
 court
 here
 may
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 sell
 the
 personal

debts,
 expenses,
 and
 legacies,
 the
 court,
 on
 the
 application
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 estate
 or
 to
 sell,
 mortgage,
 or
 otherwise
 encumber
 the
 real
 estate
 for
 the

administrator
and
on
written
notice
of
the
heirs,
devisees,
and
legatees
residing
 payment
 of
 debts
 or
 legacies
 in
 the
 other
 country,
 in
 same
 manner
 as
 for
 the

in
the
Philippines,
may
authorize
the
executor
or
administrator
to
sell,
mortgage,
 payment
of
debts
or
legacies
in
the
Philippines.

or
otherwise
encumber
so
much
as
may
be
necessary
of
the
real
estate,
in
lieu
of
 

personal
estate,
for
the
purpose
of
paying
such
debts,
expenses,
and
legacies,
if
it
 Section
 6.
 When
 court
 may
 authorize
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other
 encumbrance
 of

clearly
appears
that
such
sale,
mortgage,
or
encumbrance
would
be
beneficial
to
 realty
acquired
on
execution
or
foreclosure.
The
court
may
authorize
an
executor

the
 persons
 interested;
 and
 if
 a
 part
 cannot
 be
 sold,
 mortgaged,
 or
 otherwise
 or
administrator
to
sell
mortgage,
or
otherwise
encumber
real
estate
acquired
by

encumbered
 without
 injury
 to
 those
 interested
 in
 the
 remainder,
 the
 authority
 him
 on
 execution
 or
 foreclosure
 sale,
 under
 the
 same
 circumstances
 and
 under

may
be
for
the
sale,
mortgage,
or
other
encumbrance
of
the
whole
of
such
real
 the
 same
 regulations
 as
 prescribed
 in
 this
 rule
 for
 the
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other

estate,
or
so
much
thereof
as
is
necessary
or
beneficial
under
the
circumstances.
 encumbrance
of
other
real
estate.


 

Section
3.
Persons
interested
may
prevent
such
sale,
etc.,
by
giving
bond.
No
such
 WHEN
 PERSONAL
 PROPERTY
 MAY
 BE
 SOLD,
 OR
 THE
 REAL
 PROPERTY
 BE
 SOLD,

authority
to
sell,
mortgage,
or
otherwise
encumber
real
or
personal
estate
shall
 MORTGAGED,
OR
OTHERWISE
BE
ENCUMBERED—

be
 granted
 if
 any
 person
 interested
 in
 the
 estate
 gives
 a
 bond,
 in
 a
 sum
 to
 be
 1. For
the
payment
of
debts,
expenses
of
administration,
and
legacies
in
the

fixed
by
the
court,
conditioned
to
pay
the
debts,
expenses
of
administration,
and
 Philippines

legacies
 within
 such
 time
 as
 the
 court
 directs;
 and
 such
 bond
 shall
 be
 for
 the
 2. When
 such
 sale
 would
 be
 beneficial
 to
 the
 persons
 interested
 in
 the

security
of
the
creditors,
as
well
as
of
the
executor
or
administrator,
and
may
be
 estate

prosecuted
for
the
benefit
of
either.
 3. For
 the
 payment
 of
 debts,
 expenses
 of
 administration
 and
 legacies


 involved
 in
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 decedent
 in
 a
 foreign

Section
 4.
 When
 court
 may
 authorize
 sale
 of
 estate
 as
 beneficial
 to
 interested
 country

persons.
 Disposal
 of
 proceeds.
 When
 it
 appears
 that
 the
 sale
 of
 the
 whole
 or
 a
 

part
 of
 the
 real
 or
 personal
 estate,
 will
 be
 beneficial
 to
 the
 heirs,
 devisees,
 Section
 7.
 Regulation
 for
 granting
 authority
 to
 sell,
 mortgage,
 or
 otherwise

legatees,
 and
 other
 interested
 persons,
 the
 court
 may,
 upon
 application
 of
 the
 encumber
 estate.
 
 The
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased

executor
 or
 administrator
 and
 on
 written
 notice
 to
 the
 heirs,
 devisees,
 and
 may
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 sell
 personal
 estate,
 or
 to
 sell,

legatees
 who
 are
 interested
 in
 the
 estate
 to
 be
 sold,
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 mortgage,
 or
 otherwise
 encumber
 real
 estate,
 in
 cases
 provided
 by
 these
 rules

administrator
to
sell
the
whole
or
a
part
of
said
estate,
although
not
necessary
to
 and
when
it
appears
necessary
or
beneficial
under
the
following
regulations.

pay
debts,
legacies,
or
expenses
of
administration;
but
such
authority
shall
not
be
 

granted
 if
 inconsistent
 with
 the
 provisions
 of
 a
 will.
 In
 case
 of
 such
 sale,
 the
 (a)
 The
 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 file
 a
 written
 petition
 setting
 forth
 the

proceeds
 shall
 be
 assigned
 to
 the
 persons
 entitled
 to
 the
 estate
 in
 the
 proper
 debts
 due
 from
 the
 deceased,
 the
 expenses
 of
 administration,
 the
 legacies,
 the

proportions.
 value
of
the
personal
estate,
the
situation
of
the
estate
to
be
sold,
mortgaged,
or


 otherwise
encumbered,
and
such
other
facts
as
show
that
the
sale,
mortgage,
or

Section
 5.
 When
 court
 may
 authorize
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other
 encumbrance
 of
 other
encumbrance
is
necessary
or
beneficial.

estate
 to
 pay
 debts
 and
 legacies
 in
 other
 countries.
 When
 the
 sale
 of
 personal
 

estate,
 or
 the
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other
 encumbrance
 of
 real
 estate
 is
 not
 (b)
The
court
shall
thereupon
fix
a
time
and
place
for
hearing
such
petition,
and

necessary
 to
 pay
 the
 debts,
 expenses
 of
 administration,
 or
 legacies
 in
 the
 cause
notice
stating
the
nature
of
the
petition,
the
reasons
for
the
same,
and
the

Philippines,
 but
 it
 appears
 from
 records
 and
 proceedings
 of
 a
 probate
 court
 in
 time
 and
 place
 of
 hearing,
 to
 be
 given
 personally
 or
 by
 mail
 to
 the
 persons

another
 country
 that
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 in
 such
 other
 country
 is
 not




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









90




interested,
 and
 may
 cause
 such
 further
 notice
 to
 be
 given,
 by
 publication
 or
 3. If
 the
 court
 requires
 it,
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 give
 an

otherwise,
as
it
shall
deem
proper;
 additional
bond,
in
such
sum
as
the
court
directs,
conditioned
that
such


 executor
 or
 administrator
 will
 account
 for
 the
 proceeds
 of
 the
 sale,

(c)
If
the
court
requires
it,
the
executor
or
administrator
shall
give
an
additional
 mortgage,
or
other
encumbrance;

bond,
 in
 such
 sum
 as
 the
 court
 directs,
 conditioned
 that
 such
 executor
 or
 4. If
 the
 requirements
 in
 the
 preceding
 subdivisions
 of
 this
 section
 have

administrator
 will
 account
 for
 the
 proceeds
 of
 the
 sale,
 mortgage,
 or
 other
 been
 complied
 with,
 the
 court,
 by
 order
 stating
 such
 compliance,
 may

encumbrance;
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 sell,
 mortgage,
 or
 otherwise


 encumber,
 in
 proper
 cases,
 such
 part
 of
 the
 estate
 as
 is
 deemed

(d)
 If
 the
 requirements
 in
 the
 preceding
 subdivisions
 of
 this
 section
 have
 been
 necessary,
and
in
case
of
sale
the
court
may
authorize
it
to
be
public
or

complied
 with,
 the
 court,
 by
 order
 stating
 such
 compliance,
 may
 authorize
 the
 private,
 as
 would
 be
 most
 beneficial
 to
 all
 parties
 concerned.
 The

executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 sell,
 mortgage,
 or
 otherwise
 encumber,
 in
 proper
 executor
or
administrator
shall
be
furnished
with
a
certified
copy
of
such

cases,
 such
 part
 of
 the
 estate
 as
 is
 deemed
 necessary,
 and
 in
 case
 of
 sale
 the
 order;

court
may
authorize
it
to
be
public
or
private,
as
would
be
most
beneficial
to
all
 5. If
the
estate
is
to
be
sold
at
auction,
the
mode
of
giving
notice
of
the
time

parties
 concerned.
 The
 executor
 or
 administrator
 shall
 be
 furnished
 with
 a
 and
 place
 of
 the
 sale
 shall
 be
 governed
 by
 the
 provisions
 concerning

certified
copy
of
such
order;
 notice
of
execution
sale;


 6. There
shall
be
recorded
in
the
registry
of
deeds
of
the
province
in
which

(e)
If
the
estate
is
to
be
sold
at
auction,
the
mode
of
giving
notice
of
the
time
and
 the
real
estate
thus
sold,
mortgage,
or
otherwise
encumbered
is
situated,

place
 of
 the
 sale
 shall
 be
 governed
 by
 the
 provisions
 concerning
 notice
 of
 a
certified
copy
of
the
order
of
the
court,
together
with
the
deed
of
the

execution
sale;
 executor
or
administrator
for
such
real
estate,
which
shall
be
as
valid
as
if


 the
deed
had
been
executed
by
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime.

(f)
There
shall
be
recorded
in
the
registry
of
deeds
of
the
province
in
which
the
 

real
estate
thus
sold,
mortgage,
or
otherwise
encumbered
is
situated,
a
certified
 TWO
GROUNDS
TO
GRANT
THE
SALE,
ENCUMBERANCE,
MORTGAGE…

copy
 of
 the
 order
 of
 the
 court,
 together
 with
 the
 deed
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 1. To
settle
existing
debts

administrator
for
such
real
estate,
which
shall
be
as
valid
as
if
the
deed
had
been
 2. For
the
benefit
of
the
heirs
and
legatees

executed
by
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime.
 


 Section
 8.
 When
 court
 may
 authorize
 conveyance
 of
 realty
 which
 deceased

PROCEDURE
 TO
 OBTAIN
 AUTHORITY
 FROM
 COURT
 TO
 SELL,
 ENCUMBER,
 OR
 contracted
 to
 convey.
 Notice.
 Effect
 of
 deed.
 
 Where
 the
 deceased
 was
 in
 his

MORTGAGE
PROPERTY—
 lifetime
 under
 contract,
 binding
 in
 law,
 to
 deed
 real
 property,
 or
 an
 interest

1. The
executor
or
administrator
shall
file
a
written
petition
setting
forth
the
 therein,
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 may,
 on
 application
 for
 that

debts
 due
 from
 the
 deceased,
 the
 expenses
 of
 administration,
 the
 purpose,
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 convey
 such
 property

legacies,
the
value
of
the
personal
estate,
the
situation
of
the
estate
to
be
 according
to
such
contract,
or
with
such
modifications
as
are
agreed
upon
by
the

sold,
mortgaged,
or
otherwise
encumbered,
and
such
other
facts
as
show
 parties
and
approved
by
the
court;
and
if
the
contract
is
to
convey
real
property

that
the
sale,
mortgage,
or
other
encumbrance
is
necessary
or
beneficial.
 to
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 the
 clerk
 of
 court
 shall
 execute
 the
 deed.
 The

2. The
court
shall
thereupon
fix
a
time
and
place
for
hearing
such
petition,
 deed
 executed
 by
 such
 executor,
 administrator,
 or
 clerk
 of
 court
 shall
 be
 as

and
 cause
 notice
 stating
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 petition,
 the
 reasons
 for
 the
 affectual
 to
 convey
 the
 property
 as
 if
 executed
 by
 the
 deceased
 in
 his
 lifetime;

same,
 and
 the
 time
 and
 place
 of
 hearing,
 to
 be
 given
 personally
 or
 by
 but
no
such
conveyance
shall
be
authorized
until
notice
of
the
application
for
that

mail
to
the
persons
interested,
and
may
cause
such
further
notice
to
be
 purpose
has
been
given
personally
or
by
mail
to
all
persons
interested,
and
such

given,
by
publication
or
otherwise,
as
it
shall
deem
proper;
 further
 notice
 has
 been
 given,
 by
 publication
 or
 otherwise,
 as
 the
 court
 deems

proper;
 nor
 if
 the
 assets
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 will




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









91




thereby
 be
 reduced
 so
 as
 to
 prevent
 a
 creditor
 from
 receiving
 his
 full
 debt
 or
 2
SCRA
755

diminish
his
dividend.
 


 FACTS:

Section
9.
When
court
may
authorize
conveyance
of
lands
which
deceased
held
in
 In
the
settlement
of
estate
of
spouses
Ros,
the
administrator
then
was
allowed
to

trust.
 
Where
the
deceased
in
his
lifetime
held
real
property
in
trust
for
another
 sell
parcels
of
land
to
Soler,
to
raise
money
to
settle
debts.

On
a
relevant
date,
the

person,
the
court
may
after
notice
given
as
required
in
the
last
preceding
section,
 records
 of
 the
 special
 proceedings
 were
 burned.
 
 Records
 were
 reinstituted
 and

authorize
the
executor
or
administrator
to
deed
such
property
to
the
person,
or
 Bonaga
was
issued
letters
of
administration.

He
then
filed
an
action
to
annul
the

his
executor
or
administrator,
for
whose
use
and
benefit
it
was
so
held;
and
the
 deeds
of
sale
to
Soler.

The
latter
sought
the
dismissal
of
the
same
due
to
lack
of

court
may
order
the
execution
of
such
trust,
whether
created
by
deed
or
by
law.
 capacity
 to
 sue
 and
 the
 finality
 attained
 by
 the
 orders.
 
 Without
 any
 hearing,
 the


 court
dismissed
the
action.

127
 ESTATE
OF
GAMBOA
V.
FLORENZA
 

12
PHIL.
191
 HELD:


 The
sale
on
August
30,
1944
appears
to
be
of
21
parcels
of
abaca,
coconut,
forest

FACTS:
 and
pasture
lands,
covering
an
aggregate
area
of
more
than
1,001
hectares
for
the

The
 administrator
 filed
 in
 the
 special
 proceedings
 a
 motion
 praying
 for
 a
 hearing
 lump
 sum
 of
 P142,800,
 Japanese
 currency.
 Plaintiff‐appellant
 alleges
 (and
 the

for
 preference
 of
 credits
 as
 some
 credits
 were
 secured
 by
 mortgages
 while
 some
 record
 nowhere
 indicates
 the
 contrary),
 that
 these
 lands
 comprised
 almost
 the

were
not.

In
the
whole
course
of
the
proceedings,
the
court
allowed
the
sale
of
a
 entire
estate.
Nothing
in
the
record
would
show
whether,
as
required
by
Rule
90,

property
 for
 the
 payment
 of
 a
 specific
 debt.
 
 The
 rules
 however
 provide
 that
 the
 sections
4
and
7,
the
application
for
authority
to
sell
was
set
for
hearing,
or
that
the

sale
can
be
allowed
to
satisfy
the
debts.
 court
 ever
 caused
 notice
 thereof
 to
 be
 issued
 to
 the
 heirs
 of
 Alejandro
 Ros


 Incidentally,
 these
 heirs
 seem
 not
 to
 have
 gotten
 any
 part
 of
 the
 purchase
 price

HELD:
 since
they
were
then
allegedly
in
Spain.
Yet,
in
the
order
of
declaration
of
heirs
of

There
is
nothing
in
any
one
of
these
sections
nor
in
any
other
sections
of
the
code
 the
wife
and
approving
the
sale
to
Soler
(Annex
"B"),
the
declaration
of
the
heirs
of

which
 indicates
 that
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance,
 in
 the
 exercise
 of
 its
 probate
 the
husband
Alejandro
Ros
was
expressly
held
in
abeyance,
indicating
a
recognition

jurisdiction,
has
any
power
to
order
the
sale
of
a
specific
piece
of
real
estate
for
the
 of
 their
 existence.
 Appellees
 maintain
 that
 the
 sale
 was
 made
 for
 the
 purpose
 of

purpose
of
paying
a
mortgage
debt
which
is
a
lien
thereon.
It
may
be
that
the
court
 paying
 debts,
 but
 this,
 at
 lease,
 is
 controversial.
 Appellant
 asserts
 that
 the
 total

would
 have
 authority
 to
 sell
 the
 property,
 subject
 to
 the
 mortgage
 lien,
 for
 the
 outstanding
debts
of
the
estate
at
the
time
of
the
sale
amounted
to
only
P4,641.48,

purpose
of
paying
other
debts
 of
the
estate,
but
there
is
nothing
giving
the
court
 a
relatively
meager
sum
compared
to
the
large
tracts
of
land
sold.

authority
to
sell
it
for
the
purpose
of
paying
that
specific
debt.



 The
lower
court
erred
in
dismissing
the
action
without
a
hearing
on
the
merits.
A

Another
fatal
objection
to
the
order
of
the
12th
of
November,
directing
the
sale,
is
 sale
 of
 properties
 of
 an
 estate
 as
 beneficial
 to
 the
 interested
 parties,
 under

that
 the
 court
 entirely
 failed
 to
 comply
 with
 the
 provisions
 of
 section
 722
 of
 the
 Sections
4
and
7,
Rule
90,
must
comply
with
the
requisites
therein
provided,
which

Code
 of
 Civil
 Procedure.
 That
 section
 requires
 the
 administrator
 to
 present
 a
 are
mandatory.
Among
these
requisites,
the
fixing
of
the
time
and
place
of
hearing

petition
asking
for
the
sale
of
the
real
estate.
It
also
distinctly
provides
that,
when
 for
 an
 application
 to
 sell,
 and
 the
 notice
 thereof
 to
 the
 heirs,
 are
 essential;
 and

such
 petition
 is
 made,
 the
 court
 shall
 appoint
 a
 time
 and
 place
 for
 hearing
 it
 and
 without
 them,
 the
 authority
 to
 sell,
 the
 sale
 itself,
 and
 the
 order
 approving
 it,

shall
require
notice
of
the
petition
and
of
the
time
and
place
of
such
hearing
to
be
 would
be
null
and
void
ab
initio.
Rule
90,
Section
4,
does
not
distinguish
between

given
 in
 a
 newspaper
 of
 general
 circulation,
 and
 that
 the
 court
 may
 order
 such
 heirs
 residing
 in
 and
 those
 residing
 outside
 the
 Philippines.
 Therefore,
 its

further
notice
given
as
it
deems
proper.
 requirements
should
apply
regardless
of
the
place
of
residence
of
those
required
to


 be
notified
under
said
rule.

128
 BOÑAGA
V.
SOLER




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









92




The
contention
that
the
sale
was
made
under
Section
2,
Rule
90
(wherein
notice
is
 whenever
 the
 deceased
 in
 his
 lifetime
 held
 real
 property
 in
 trust
 for
 another

required
only
to
those
heirs,
etc.,
residing
in
the
Philippines),
is
not
substantiated
 person,
 to
 authorize
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 to
 deed
 such
 property
 to
 the

by
the
record.
Neither
the
deed
of
sale,
nor
the
orders
issued
by
the
probate
court
 person
 or
 persons
 for
 whose
 use
 and
 benefit
 it
 was
 so
 held.
 There
 being
 no

in
connection
there
with,
show
whether,
as
required
by
said
Section
2,
the
personal
 controversy
between
the
former
administratrix
and
the
defendants
that
the
latter

properties
were
insufficient
to
pay
the
debts
and
expenses
of
administration.
There
 and
the
deceased
Melecio
de
Jesus
own
the
lot
in
question
in
common
and
that
it

is
 not
 even
 a
 showing,
 to
 start
 with,
 that
 the
 sale
 was
 made
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 was
registered
in
the
deceased's
name
only
in
trust
for
all
the
co‐owners,
there
was

paying
 debts
 or
 expenses
 of
 administration
 (or
 legacies),
 a
 condition
 which
 no
 need
 to
 file
 a
 separate
 action
 to
 an
 ordinary
 court
 to
 establish
 the
 common

circumscribes
 the
 applicability
 of
 that
 section.
 On
 the
 face
 of
 the
 reamended
 ownership
of
the
parties
over
said
property;
and
the
probate
court
could
approve,

complaint
 at
 any
 rate,
 it
 does
 not
 appear
 that
 the
 contested
 sale
 was
 one
 under
 as
 it
 did
 approve,
 the
 agreement
 wherein
 the
 parties
 expressly
 recognized
 their

section
 2
 of
 Rule
 90;
 and
 the
 same
 can
 not
 be
 invoked
 to
 sustain
 the
 motion
 to
 common
 ownership
 of
 the
 property
 in
 question
 and
 the
 trust
 character
 of
 the

dismiss.
 Without
 reception
 of
 further
 evidence
 to
 determine
 whether
 the
 exclusive
 title
 held
 by
 the
 deceased
 over
 the
 same,
 especially
 since
 the
 parties

requisites
of
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
Rules
had
been
followed,
the
dismissal
 themselves
state
that
such
agreement
was
entered
into
in
order
to
forestall
future

of
 the
 action
 was
 erroneous
 and
 improvident.
 Plaintiff
 should
 at
 least
 have
 been
 litigation
 between
 them
 and
 to
 foster
 family
 relations,
 and
 in
 addition,
 the

given
a
chance
to
prove
his
case.
 defendant
Eusebia
de
Jesus
had
agreed,
in
consideration
of
the
court's
approval
of


 said
agreement,
to
waive
a
money
claim
against
the
estate,
so
that
court
approval

129
 VDA.
DE
CELIS
V
VDA.
DE
LA
SANTA
 of
said
agreement
would
really
redound
to
the
benefit
of
the
estate
and
the
heirs.

93
PHIL
909
 


 Section
 9,
 Rule
 90,
 however,
 provides
 that
 authority
 can
 be
 given
 by
 the
 probate

FACTS:
 court
to
the
administrator
to
convey
property
held
in
trust
by
the
deceased
to
the


 beneficiaries
of
the
trust
only
"after
notice
given
as
required
in
the
last
preceding

HELD:
 section";
 i.e.,
 that.
 "no
 such
 conveyance
 shall
 be
 authorized
 until
 notice
 of
 the


 application
 for
 that
 purpose
 has
 been
 given
 personally
 or
 by
 mail
 to
 all
 persons

130
 DE
JESUS
V.
DE
JESUS
 interested,
and
such
further
notice
has
been
given,
by
publication
or
otherwise,
as

3
SCRA
548
 the
court
deems
proper"
(sec.
8,
Rule
90).
This
rule
makes
it
mandatory
that
notice


 be
served
on
the
heirs
and
other
interested
persons
of
the
application
for
approval

FACTS:
 of
 any
 conveyance
 of
 property
 held
 in
 trust
 by
 the
 deceased,
 and
 where
 no
 such

Ines
Alejandrino,
as
administratrix
of
her
late
husband’s
estate,
filed
an
inventory
 notice
 is
 given,
 the
 order
 authorizing
 the
 conveyance,
 as
 well
 as
 the
 conveyance

which
 included
 a
 parcel
 of
 land.
 
 The
 decedent’s
 sister
 opposed
 this
 inclusion
 on
 itself,
 is
 completely
 void.
 Here,
 plaintiffs
 claim
 that
 no
 such
 notice
 was
 given
 the

the
ground
that
it
was
co‐owned
with
her
and
another
brother.

Instead
of
litigating
 heirs
 of
 the
 deceased
 Melecio
 de
 Jesus
 of
 the
 petition
 for
 the
 approval
 of
 the

the
 same,
 the
 parties
 entered
 into
 an
 agreement
 dubbed
 as
 Statement
 of
 Facts.

 stipulations
in
question,
and
it
is
quite
probable
that
the
claim
is
true,
because
said

Ines
acknowledged
that
the
land
was
co‐owned
and
that
her
late
husband
was
just
 heirs
were
all
minors
when
the
proceedings
in
question
took
place.
It
would
have

holding
 the
 same
 in
 trust.
 
 Later
 on,
 when
 Ines’
 son
 substituted
 his
 mother
 as
 been
 necessary,
 therefore,
 to
 appoint
 a
 guardian
 ad
 litem
 for
 them
 before
 they

administrator,
he
instituted
an
action
to
annul
said
agreement.


 could
 be
 validly
 served
 said
 notice,
 yet
 the
 records
 here
 do
 not
 show
 that
 such


 appointment
 of
 guardian
 was
 obtained.
 In
 fact,
 any
 such
 appointment
 appears

HELD:
 improbable,
 considering
 that
 the
 stipulations
 in
 question
 were
 approved
 the
 very

On
the
question
of
jurisdiction,
we
think
the
probate
court
had
jurisdiction
to
act
 next
 day
 following
 their
 execution
 and
 submission
 for
 approval.
 It
 must
 be

on
and
approve
of
the
stipulations
in
question,
not
only
as
an
incident
to
its
power
 observed
that
in
1948,
before
the
promulgation
of
the
Civil
Code
of
the
Philippines,

to
 exclude
 any
 property
 from
 the
 inventory
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased,
 but
 parents
 as
 such
 were
 not
 the
 legal
 representatives
 of
 their
 children
 before
 the

under
 section
 9,
 Rule
 90,
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 which
 permits
 the
 probate
 court,
 courts
and
could
not
dispose
of
their
property
without
judicial
authorization.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









93





 name
 of
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator
 against
 the
 party
 not
 paying
 the
 sum

assessed.

RULE
90



DISTRIBUTION
AND
PARTITION
OF
THE
ESTATE

Section
 4.
 Recording
 the
 order
 of
 partition
 of
 estate.
 
 Certified
 copies
 of
 final


 orders
 and
 judgments
 of
 the
 court
 relating
 to
 the
 real
 estate
 or
 the
 partition

Section
1.
When
order
for
distribution
of
residue
made.
When
the
debts,
funeral
 thereof
 shall
 be
 recorded
 in
 the
 registry
 of
 deeds
 of
 the
 province
 where
 the

charges,
 and
 expenses
 of
 administration,
 the
 allowance
 to
 the
 widow,
 and
 property
is
situated.

inheritance
 tax,
 if
 any,
 chargeable
 to
 the
 estate
 in
 accordance
 with
 law,
 have
 

been
paid,
the
court,
on
the
application
of
the
executor
or
administrator,
or
of
a
 131
 LOPEZ
V.
LOPEZ

person
 interested
 in
 the
 estate,
 and
 after
 hearing
 upon
 notice,
 shall
 assign
 the
 68
PHIL
227

residue
of
the
estate
to
the
persons
entitled
to
the
same,
naming
them
and
the
 

proportions,
 or
 parts,
 to
 which
 each
 is
 entitled,
 and
 such
 persons
 may
 demand
 FACTS:

and
 recover
 their
 respective
 shares
 from
 the
 executor
 or
 administrator,
 or
 any
 Concepcion
filed
a
petition
in
the
intestate
proceedings
of
Emeterio
Lopez
for
the

other
person
having
the
same
in
his
possession.
If
there
is
a
controversy
before
 summary
 entitlement
 to
 his
 estate,
 alleging
 therein
 that
 she
 is
 the
 acknowledged

the
 court
 as
 to
 who
 are
 the
 lawful
 heirs
 of
 the
 deceased
 person
 or
 as
 the
 natural
 child
 of
 the
 latter.
 
 Opposition
 was
 made
 by
 alleged
 nephews
 and
 nieces

distributive
 shares
 to
 which
 each
 person
 is
 entitled
 under
 the
 law,
 the
 denying
 her
 allegations.
 
 The
 petition
 was
 later
 amended
 by
 averring
 that
 the

controversy
shall
be
heard
and
decided
as
in
ordinary
cases.
 estate
value
is
bigger
than
what
was
previously
alleged
and
is
beyond
the
scope
of


 a
summary
settlement.



No
 distribution
 shall
 be
 allowed
 until
 the
 payment
 of
 the
 obligations
 above
 

mentioned
 has
 been
 made
 or
 provided
 for,
 unless
 the
 distributees,
 or
 any
 of
 HELD:

them,
give
a
bond,
in
a
sum
to
be
fixed
by
the
court,
conditioned
for
the
payment
 Appellants
claim
that
they
had
no
notice
either
of
the
petition
for
the
declaration

of
said
obligations
within
such
time
as
the
court
directs.
 of
 heirs
 or
 of
 the
 date
 set
 for
 the
 hearing
 thereof.
 We
 find
 in
 the
 record
 no


 evidence
 affirmatively
 showing
 that
 they
 had
 no
 such
 notice;
 therefore,
 the

Section
 2.
 Questions
 as
 to
 advancement
 to
 be
 determined.
 Questions
 as
 to
 presumption
 of
 regularity
 of
 proceedings
 should
 stand.
 In
 the
 motion
 for

advancement
made,
or
alleged
to
have
been
made,
by
the
deceased
to
any
heir
 reconsideration
 filed
 by
 them,
 the
 lack
 of
 notice
 is
 alleged;
 but
 the
 motion
 is
 not

may
 be
 heard
 and
 determined
 by
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 estate
 even
verified.
Besides,
according
to
the
record
Attorney
Simplicio
B.
Pe a
was
the

proceedings;
 and
 the
 final
 order
 of
 the
 court
 thereon
 shall
 be
 binding
 on
 the
 counsel
for
both
the
administrator
and
the
oppositors‐appellants.
The
petition
for

person
raising
the
questions
and
on
the
heir.
 declaration
of
heirs,
although
signed
by
Attorney
Simplicio
B.
Pe a
as
"abogado
del


 administrador",
was,
in
fact,
a
petition
filed
in
behalf
of
the
oppositors‐appellants

Section
3.
By
whom
expenses
of
partition
paid.
If
at
the
time
of
distribution
the
 as
 their
 right
 to
 succession
 is
 therein
 asserted
 and
 prayed
 for.
 Under
 this

executor
or
administrator
has
retained
sufficient
effects
in
his
hands
which
may
 circumstances,
 there
 exists
 sufficient
 ground
 for
 holding,
 as
 we
 do
 hold,
 that
 the

lawfully
 be
 applied
 for
 the
 expenses
 of
 partition
 of
 the
 properties
 distributed,
 oppositors‐appellants
had
notice
of
the
petition
as
well
as
of
the
hearing
where
the

such
expenses
of
partition
may
be
paid
by
such
executor
or
administrator
when
it
 said
attorney
was
present.

appears
 equitable
 to
 the
 court
 and
 not
 inconsistent
 with
 the
 intention
 of
 the
 

testator;
 otherwise,
 they
 shall
 be
 paid
 by
 the
 parties
 in
 proportion
 to
 their
 132
 HEIRS
OF
PERFECTO
SANTIESBAN
V.
SANTIESBAN


respective
 shares
 or
 interest
 in
 the
 premises,
 and
 the
 apportionment
 shall
 be
 68
PHIL
367

settled
 and
 allowed
 by
 the
 court,
 and,
 if
 any
 person
 interested
 in
 the
 partition
 

does
 not
 pay
 his
 proportion
 or
 share,
 the
 court
 may
 issue
 an
 execution
 in
 the
 FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









94




Ambrosio
was
appointed
as
the
administrator
of
his
late
wife’s
estate.

Since
there
 4.
 That
 ...
 prior
 to
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 they
 (petitioner
 Celedonia
 Solivio
 and

weren’t
 any
 accounts
 payable,
 the
 heirs
 extrajudicially
 partitioned
 the
 properties.

 movant
 Concordia
 Javellana)
 have
 agreed
 to
 make
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 decedent
 a

The
 properties
 having
 been
 distributed
 and
 accounted
 for,
 the
 court
 ordered
 the
 foundation,
besides
they
have
closely
known
each
other
due
to
their
filiation
to
the

proceeding’s
closure.

More
than
two
years
after,
the
father
conveyed
his
interest
 decedent
 and
 they
 have
 been
 visiting
 each
 other's
 house
 which
 are
 not
 far
 away

to
 the
 eight
 parcels
 of
 land
 he
 got
 to
 his
 daughter.
 
 This
 was
 opposed
 by
 for
(sic)
each
other.
(p.
234,
Record;
Emphasis
supplied)

Macondray
and
likewise,
it
prayed
for
the
appointment
of
a
new
administrator.
The

heirs
opposed
this.


 She
 is
 bound
 by
 that
 agreement.
 It
 is
 true
 that
 by
 that
 agreement,
 she
 did
 not


 waive
 her
 inheritance
 in
 favor
 of
 Celedonia,
 but
 she
 did
 agree
 to
 place
 all
 of

HELD:
 Esteban's
 estate
 in
 the
 "Salustia
 Solivio
 Vda.
 de
 Javellana
 Foundation"
 which

The
 appellants
 contend
 in
 their
 assigned
 error
 that
 the
 court
 exceeded
 its
 Esteban,
 Jr.,
 during
 his
 lifetime,
 planned
 to
 set
 up
 to
 honor
 his
 mother
 and
 to

jurisdiction
in
issuing
then
 order
of
December
11,
1935
which
set
aside
the
other
 finance
the
education
of
indigent
but
deserving
students
as
well.

order
of
November
12,
1934,
reopening
the
intestate
and
requiring
that
the
name

of
 the
 a
 new
 administrator
 be
 proposed.
 They
 argue
 that
 this
 last
 order,
 having
 Her
 admission
 may
 not
 be
 taken
 lightly
 as
 the
 lower
 court
 did.
 Being
 a
 judicial

become
final,
was
not
subject
to
modification
or
reversal.
We
find
no
merit
in
the
 admission,
 it
 is
 conclusive
 and
 no
 evidence
 need
 be
 presented
 to
 prove
 the

assignment
 of
 error
 because
 the
 order
 of
 November
 12,
 1934,
 did
 not
 finally
 agreement.

determine
 the
 action
 and
 was
 interlocutory
 in
 nature
 (section
 123,
 Code
 of
 Civil
 

Procedure).
 By
 said
 order
 the
 court
 did
 not
 determine
 or
 adjudicate
 any
 right
 or
 134
 SALVADOR
V.
STA.
MARIA

controversy
and
it
had
no
other
object
than
to
open
the
way
for
the
hearing
and
 20
SCRA
604

resolution
 of
 the
 rights
 to
 alleged
 damages
 which
 one
 of
 the
 parties
 claimed
 to
 

have
 suffered.
 The
 orders
 irregularly
 issued
 by
 the
 court
 were
 those
 which
 FACTS:

reopened
 the
 intestate
 and
 appointed
 a
 new
 administrator,
 because
 the
 order
 Celestino
Salvador
sold
previously
a
land
to
spouses
Halili.

Alleging
thereafter
the

closing
 the
 intestate,
 dated
 November
 29,
 1932,
 put
 an
 end
 thereto
 and
 relieved
 absence
of
consideration,
he
sought
reconveyance
of
the
land.

He
died
during
the

the
administrator
from
his
duties.
Under
section
753
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
 pendency
 of
 proceedings
 and
 his
 heirs
 were
 substituted
 to
 his
 part.
 
 In
 the

what
brings
an
intestate
proceeding
to
a
close
is
the
order
of
distribution
directing
 meanwhile,
intestate
proceedings
were
instituted.

In
the
inventory
of
the
estate,

the
 delivery
 of
 the
 residue
 to
 the
 persons
 entitled
 thereto
 after
 paying
 the
 the
 parcel
 of
 land
 was
 included.
 
 The
 land
 in
 question
 was
 later
 reconveyed.


indebtedness,
 if
 any,
 left
 by
 the
 deceased.
 This
 order
 was
 issued
 in
 the
 intestate
 However,
 the
 land
 was
 reconveyed
 to
 the
 heirs
 and
 not
 to
 the
 estate.
 
 This
 was

since
 October
 18,
 1932
 when
 the
 court
 approved
 the
 partition
 executed
 and
 questioned.

submitted
by
all
the
heirs.
 


 HELD:

133
 SOLIVIO
V.
CA
 It
is
a
settled
point
of
law
that
the
right
of
heirs
to
specific,
distributive
shares
of

Supra
 inheritance
does
not
become
finally
determinable
until
all
the
debts
of
the
estate


 are
paid.
Until
then,
in
the
face
of
said
claims,
their
rights
cannot
be
enforced,
are

HELD:
 inchoate,
and
subject
to
the
existence
of
a
residue
after
payment
of
the
debts.

However,
inasmuch
as
Concordia
had
agreed
to
deliver
the
estate
of
the
deceased
 

to
 the
 foundation
 in
 honor
 of
 his
 mother,
 Salustia
 Solivio
 Vda.
 de
 Javellana
 (from
 Petitioners
do
not
question
the
existence
of
the
debts
abovementioned.
They
only

whom
 the
 estate
 came),
 an
 agreement
 which
 she
 ratified
 and
 confirmed
 in
 her
 contend
 that
 the
 properties
 involved
 having
 been
 ordered
 by
 final
 judgment

"Motion
to
Reopen
and/or
Reconsider
Order
dated
April
3,
1978"
which
she
filed
in
 reconveyed
 to
 them,
 not
 to
 the
 estate
 the
 same
 are
 not
 properties
 of
 the
 estate

Spl.
Proceeding
No.
2540:
 but
their
own,
and
thus,
not
liable
for
debts
of
the
estate.






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









95




Said
 contention
 is
 self‐refuting.
 Petitioners
 rely
 for
 their
 rights
 on
 their
 alleged
 proceeding
 shall
 continue
 as
 an
 intestacy.
 As
 already
 adverted
 to,
 this
 is
 a
 clear

character
as
heirs
of
Celestino;
as
such,
they
were
substituted
in
the
reconveyance
 indication
 that
 proceedings
 for
 the
 probate
 of
 a
 will
 enjoy
 priority
 over
 intestate

case;
 the
 reconveyance
 to
 them
 was
 reconveyance
 to
 them
 as
 heirs
 of
 Celestino
 proceedings.


Salvador.
It
follows
that
the
properties
they
claim
are,
even
by
their
own
reasoning,
 

part
of
Celestino's
estate.
The
right
thereto
as
allegedly
his
heirs
would
arise
only
if
 Vicente
 Uriarte
 is
 entitled
 to
 prosecute
 Civil
 Case
 No.
 6142
 until
 it
 is
 finally

said
parcels
of
land
are
part
of
the
estate
of
Celestino,
not
otherwise.
Their
having
 determined,
or
intervene
in
Special
Proceeding
No.
51396
of
the
Manila
Court,
if
it

received
the
same,
therefore,
in
the
reconveyance
action,
was
perforce
in
trust
for
 is
still
open,
or
to
ask
for
its
reopening
if
it
has
already
been
closed,
so
as
to
be
able

the
estate,
subject
to
its
obligations.
They
cannot
distribute
said
properties
among
 to
submit
for
determination
the
question
of
his
acknowledgment
as
natural
child
of

themselves
as
substituted
heirs
without
the
debts
of
the
estate
being
first
satisfied.
 the
 deceased
 testator,
 said
 court
 having,
 in
 its
 capacity
 as
 a
 probate
 court,


 jurisdiction
to
declare
who
are
the
heirs
of
the
deceased
testator
and
whether
or

135
 TIMBOL
V.
CANO
 not
a
particular
party
is
or
should
be
declared
his
acknowledged
natural
child.
Supra
 



RULE
91

136
 URIARTE
V.
CFI
OF
NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL

ESCHEATS

Supra


 

FACTS:
 Section
1.
When
and
by
whom
petition
filed.
When
a
person
dies
intestate,
seized


 of
real
property
in
the
Philippines,
leaving
no
heir
or
person
by
law
entitled
to
the

HELD:
 same,
the
Solicitor
General
or
his
representative
in
behalf
of
the
Republic
of
the

When
the
estate
to
be
settled
is
that
of
a
non‐resident
alien
(like
the
deceased)
the
 Philippines,
may
file
a
petition
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province
where

Courts
 of
 First
 Instance
 in
 provinces
 where
 the
 deceased
 left
 any
 property
 have
 the
 deceased
 last
 resided
 or
 in
 which
 he
 had
 estate,
 if
 he
 resided
 out
 of
 the

concurrent
jurisdiction
to
take
cognizance
of
the
proper
special
proceeding
for
the
 Philippines,
setting
forth
the
facts,
and
praying
that
the
estate
of
the
deceased
be

settlement
 of
 his
 estate.
 In
 the
 case
 before
 Us,
 these
 Courts
 of
 First
 Instance
 are
 declared
escheated.

the
 Negros
 and
 the
 Manila
 Courts
 ‐
 province
 and
 city
 where
 the
 deceased
 left
 

considerable
properties.

 WHERE
SHOULD
A
PETITION
FOR
ESCHEAT
BE
FILED?


 • In
the
province
where
the
deceased
last
resided
or
which
he
had
estate

A
special
proceeding
intended
to
effect
the
distribution
of
the
estate
of
a
deceased
 

person,
 whether
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 law
 on
 intestate
 succession
 or
 in
 WHAT
SHOULD
THE
PETITION
CONTAIN
AS
MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS?

accordance
with
his
will,
is
a
"probate
matter"
or
a
proceeding
for
the
settlement
 • Set
forth
the
facts

of
 his
 estate.
 It
 is
 equally
 true,
 however,
 that
 in
 accordance
 with
 settled
 • Prayer
that
the
estate
be
declared
escheated

jurisprudence
 in
 this
 jurisdiction,
 testate
 proceedings,
 for
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 

estate
 of
 a
 deceased
 person
 take
 precedence
 over
 intestate
 proceedings
 for
 the
 IN
WHAT
INSTANCES
CAN
ESCHEAT
BE
FILED?

same
purpose.
Thus
it
has
been
held
repeatedly
that,
if
in
the
course
of
intestate
 • Decedent
died
intestate
with
no
heirs
and
person
entitled
to
the
same

proceedings
pending
before
a
CFI
it
is
found
it
that
the
decedent
had
left
a
last
will,
 • Actions
of
reversion

proceedings
for
the
probate
of
the
latter
should
replace
the
intestate
proceedings
 • Properties
alienated
in
violation
of
Constitution
or
statute

even
if
at
that
stage
an
administrator
had
already
been
appointed,
the
latter
being
 • Dormant
bank
accounts


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
 Decedent
dying
intestate
 

prejudice
 that
 should
 the
 alleged
 last
 will
 be
 rejected
 or
 is
 disapproved,
 the
 Resident
 Where
last
resided




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









96




Non‐resident
 Where
properties
are
located
 

Escheat
 of
 properties
 alienated
 in
 Where
properties
are
located
 Section
5.
Other
actions
for
escheat.
Until
otherwise
provided
by
law,
actions
for

violation
of
Constitution
or
statute
 reversion
or
escheat
of
properties
alienated
in
violation
of
the
Constitution
or
of

Escheat
of
dormant
bank
accounts
 Where
the
money
is
deposited
 any
 statute
 shall
 be
 governed
 by
 this
 rule,
 except
 that
 the
 action
 shall
 be

Actions
for
reversion
 Where
properties
are
located
 instituted
in
the
province
where
the
land
lies
in
whole
or
in
part.


 


Section
 2.
 Order
 for
 hearing.
 If
 the
 petition
 is
 sufficient
 in
 form
 and
 substance,
 137
 MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL
OF
LAGUNA
V.
COLEGIO
DE
SAN
JOSE

the
 court,
 by
 an
 order
 reciting
 the
 purpose
 of
 the
 petition,
 shall
 fix
 a
 date
 and
 65
PHIL

place
for
the
hearing
thereof,
which
date
shall
be
not
more
than
six
(6)
months
 

after
the
entry
of
the
order,
and
shall
direct
that
a
copy
of
the
order
be
published
 FACTS:

before
 the
 hearing
 at
 least
 once
 a
 week
 for
 six
 (6)
 successive
 weeks
 in
 some
 This
case
was
commenced
in
the
said
by
a
petition
filed
by
the
petitioners
in
behalf

newspaper
of
general
circulation
published
in
the
province,
as
the
court
shall
be
 of
 the
 municipality
 of
 San
 Pedro,
 Province
 of
 Laguna,
 wherein
 they
 claim
 the

deem
best.
 Hacienda
 de
 San
 Pedro
 Tunasa
 by
 the
 right
 of
 escheat.
 The
 Colegio
 de
 San
 Jose,


 Inc.,
appeared
specially
and
assailed
the
petition
upon
the
grounds
that
the
court

Section
 3.
 Hearing
 and
 judgment.
 Upon
 satisfactory
 proof
 in
 open
 court
 on
 the
 has
 no
 jurisdiction
 to
 take
 cognizance
 and
 decide
 the
 case
 and
 that
 the
 petition

date
fixed
in
the
order
that
such
order
has
been
published
as
directed
and
that
 does
not
allege
sufficient
facts
to
entitle
the
applicants
to
the
remedy
prayed
for;

the
person
died
intestate,
seized
of
real
or
personal
property
in
the
Philippines,
 and
asked
that
the
petition
be
finally
dismissed.
Carlos
Young
intervened
and
filed

leaving
 no
 heir
 or
 person
 entitled
 to
 the
 same,
 and
 no
 sufficient
 cause
 being
 a
motion
asking
for
the
dismissal
or
the
petition
upon
the
ground
that
the
Code
of

shown
to
the
contrary,
the
court
shall
adjudge
that
the
estate
of
the
estate
of
the
 Civil
 Procedure,
 under
 which
 the
 same
 was
 filed,
 is
 not
 applicable
 because
 it
 was

deceased
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 after
 the
 payment
 of
 just
 debts
 and
 charges,
 shall
 not
yet
in
force
when
the
original
owner
of
the
hacienda
died,
which
was
in
April,

escheat;
and
shall,
pursuant
to
law,
assign
the
personal
estate
to
the
municipality
 1596,
and
that
the
petition
was
irregularly
docketed
as
the
applicants
had
paid
at

or
 city
 where
 he
 last
 resided
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 and
 the
 real
 estate
 to
 the
 the
docket
fees
which
the
clerk
of
court
should
collect.
Subsequently
the
attorneys

municipalities
 or
 cities,
 respectively,
 in
 which
 the
 same
 is
 situated.
 If
 the
 for
 both
 parties
 filed
 another
 motions
 of
 minor
 importance,
 almost
 all
 of
 which

deceased
never
resided
in
the
Philippines,
the
whole
estate
may
be
assigned
to
 contains
the
arguments
advanced
in
support
of
their
contentions.
On
October
29,

the
respective
municipalities
or
cities
where
the
same
is
located.
Shall
estate
shall
 1936,
the
court
overruled
the
objection
to
the
appearance
and
intervention
in
the

be
for
the
benefit
of
public
schools,
and
public
charitable
institutions
and
centers
 case
by
the
Colegio
de
San
Jose
and
Carlos
Young,
entering
the
order
which
is
one

in
said
municipalities
or
cities.
 of
those
appealed
from.
And
on
the
30th
of
the
same
moth
the
court
entered
the


 resolution,
also
appealed
from,
dismissing
the
petition
for
escheat,
with
the
costs

The
court,
at
the
instance
of
an
interested
party,
or
on
its
own
motion,
may
order
 to
the
petitioners.

the
 establishment
 of
 a
 permanent
 trust,
 so
 that
 the
 only
 income
 from
 the
 

property
shall
be
used.
 HELD:


 Accordingly
 to
 the
 first
 of
 the
 said
 sections,
 the
 essential
 facts
 which
 should
 be

Section
 4.
 When
 and
 by
 whom
 claim
 to
 estate
 filed.
 If
 a
 devisee,
 legatee,
 heir,
 alleged
in
the
petition,
which
are
jurisdiction
because
they
confer
jurisdiction
upon

widow,
widower,
or
other
person
entitled
to
such
estate
appears
and
files
a
claim
 the
Court
of
First
Instance,
are:
That
a
person
has
died
intestate
or
without
leaving

thereto
with
the
court
within
five
(5)
years
from
the
date
of
such
judgment,
such
 any
will;
that
he
has
left
real
or
personal
property;
that
he
was
the
owner
thereof;

person
shall
have
possession
of
and
title
to
the
same,
or
if
sold,
the
municipality
 that
he
has
not
left
any
heir
or
person
who
is
by
law
entitled
to
the
property;
and

or
 city
 shall
 be
 accountable
 to
 him
 for
 the
 proceeds
 after
 deducting
 reasonable
 that
the
one
who
applies
for
the
escheat
is
the
municipality
where
deceased
had

charges
for
the
care
of
the
estate;
but
a
claim
not
made
within
the
said
time
shall
 his
 last
 residence,
 or
 in
 case
 should
 have
 no
 residence
 in
 the
 country,
 the

be
forever
barred.
 municipality
where
the
property
is
situated.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









97





 FACTS:

The
 following
 section
 provides
 that
 after
 the
 publications
 and
 trial,
 if
 the
 court
 The
 property
 in
 dispute
 was
 among
 the
 lands
 taken
 over
 by
 the
 United
 States

finds
that
the
deceased
is
in
fact
the
owner
of
real
and
personal
property
situated
 Government
 under
 the
 Philippine
 Property
 Act
 of
 1946
 enacted
 by
 the
 American

in
 the
 country
 and
 has
 not
 left
 any
 heirs
 or
 other
 person
 entitled
 thereto,
 it
 may
 Congress.
It
was
registered
in
1930
under
Transfer
Certificate
of
Title
No.
9509
of

order,
 after
 the
 payments
 of
 debts
 and
 other
 legal
 expenses,
 the
 escheat,
 and
 in
 the
 Register
 of
 Deeds
 of
 Zamboanga
 in
 the
 name
 of
 Kantiro
 Koyama,
 a
 Japanese

such
 case
 it
 shall
 adjudicate
 the
 personal
 property
 to
 the
 municipality
 where
 the
 national,
who
has
not
been
heard
from
since
the
end
of
World
War
II.
Under
the

deceased
had
his
last
place
of
residence
and
the
real
property
to
the
municipality
 said
 Act,
 the
 land
 was
 supposed
 to
 be
 transferred
 to
 the
 Republic
 of
 the

or
municipalities
where
they
are
situated.
 Philippines.


 

Escheat,
 under
 sections
 750
 and
 751,
 is
 a
 proceeding
 whereby
 the
 real
 and
 Republic
of
the
Philippines
had
filed
escheat
proceedings
against
the
said
property,

personal
property
of
a
deceased
person
become
the
property
of
the
State
upon
his
 claiming
 that
 the
 registered
 owner
 of
 the
 land
 "had
 been
 absent
 for
 the
 past
 ten

death
 without
 leaving
 any
 will
 or
 legal
 heirs.
 It
 is
 not
 an
 ordinary
 action
 years
 or
 more
 and
 he,
 therefore,
 may
 be
 presumed
 dead
 for
 the
 purpose
 of

contemplated
by
section
1
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
but
a
special
proceeding
 appointing
 his
 successor."
 It
 also
 alleged
 that
 since
 he
 left
 no
 heirs
 or
 persons

in
accordance
with
the
said
section
and
Chapter
XXXIX,
Part
II,
of
the
same
Code.
 entitled
 to
 the
 aforementioned
 property,
 the
 State
 should
 inherit
 the
 same
 in

The
proceeding,
as
provided
by
section
750,
should
be
commenced
by
petition
and
 accordance
with
Rule
91
of
the
Rules
of
Court.

The
court
subsequently
allowed
the

not
by
complaint.
 escheat.


 

In
a
special
proceeding
for
escheat
under
section
750
and
751
the
petitioner
is
not
 HELD:

the
sole
and
exclusive
interested
party.
Any
person
alleging
to
have
a
direct
right
or
 It
is
clear,
and
the
respondent
City
of
Zamboanga
does
not
deny
it,
that
there
was

interest
 in
 the
 property
 sought
 to
 be
 escheated
 is
 likewise
 and
 interest
 and
 mere
inadvertence
on
the
part
of
the
American
government
in
omitting
to
transfer

necessary
 party
 and
 may
 appear
 and
 oppose
 the
 petition
 for
 escheat.
 In
 the
 the
disputed
land
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines.
The
obvious
purpose
of
the
Act

present
case
the
Colegio
de
San
Jose,
Inc.,
and
Carlos
Young
appeared
alleging
to
 was
to
turn
over
to
the
Philippine
government
all
enemy
properties
situated
in
its

have
 a
 material
 interest
 in
 the
 Hacienda
 de
 San
 Pedro
 Tunasa;
 and
 the
 former
 territory
that
had
been
seized
and
were
being
held
for
the
time
being
by
the
United

because
it
claims
to
be
the
exclusive
owner
of
the
hacienda,
and
the
latter
because
 States,
which
was
then
exercising
sovereignty
over
the
Philippines.
The
transfer
of

he
claim
to
be
the
lessee
thereof
under
a
contract
legality
entered
with
the
former.
 such
enemy
properties
to
the
Philippine
Republic
was
one
of
the
acts
by
which
the

In
view
of
these
allegations
it
is
erroneous
to
hold
that
the
said
parties
are
without
 United
 States
 acknowledged
 the
 elevation
 of
 this
 country
 to
 the
 status
 of
 a

right
either
to
appear
in
case
or
to
substantiate
their
respective
alleged
right.
This
 sovereign
state
on
July
4,
1946.

unfavorably
resolves
the
petitioners'
first
assignment
of
error.
 


 While
 it
 is
 true
 that
 there
 are
 no
 records
 of
 such
 transfer,
 we
 may
 presume
 that

A
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 is
 an
 allowed
 pleading
 in
 escheat
 proceedings
 when
 on
 its
 such
 transfer
 was
 made.
 The
 lack
 of
 such
 records
 does
 not
 mean
 that
 it
 was
 not

face,
the
escheat
proceedings
should
be
dismissed.
 made
as
this
would
run
counter
to
the
mandate
of
the
Philippine
Property
Act
of


 1946,
 which,
 to
 repeat,
 intended
 to
 vest
 title
 in
 the
 Philippines
 enemy
 properties

An
escheat
proceeding
is
improper
when
the
property
is
subject
to
the
ownership
 found
in
its
territory.
It
would
be
more
reasonable
to
suppose
that
the
President
of

of
the
state
already.
 the
United
States,
or
the
person
acting
under
his
authority,
complied
with,
rather

than
 neglected
 (and
 so
 violated)
 this
 requirement
 of
 Section
 3
 of
 the
 said
 Act,
 if



only
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 the
 presumption
 of
 the
 regularity
 of
 official
 functions.
 In
 the

138
 REPUBLIC
V.
IAC

extreme,
 we
 can
 even
 say
 that
 this
 section
 legally
 effected
 the
 transfer,
 to
 be

148
SCRA
271

evidenced
 later
 by
 the
 formality
 of
 the
 corresponding
 deed,
 and
 that
 the
 lack
 of



such
deed
does
not
mean
that
no
transfer
was
made.
Otherwise,
we
would
have
to




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









98




face
the
dubious
conclusion
that
the
said
property
is
still
owned
and
so
still
subject
 resided
out
of
the
Philippines,
may
file
a
petition
in
the
court
of
first
instance
of
the

to
disposition
by
the
United
States.
 province
 setting
 forth
 the
 facts,
 and
 praying
 that
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased
 be


 declared
escheated.


We
hold
that
where
it
comes
to
ordinary
real
properties
the
owners
of
which
may
 

be
presumed
dead
and
left
no
heirs,
the
same
may
be
escheated,
conformably
to
 Rule
91
of
the
Revised
rules
of
Court,
which
provides
that
only
the
Republic
of
the

Rule
91
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
in
favor
of
the
political
subdivisions
in
which
they
are
 Philippines,
through
the
Solicitor
General,
may
commence
escheat
proceedings,
did

located.
 The
 said
 Rule,
 however,
 does
 not
 cover
 properties
 taken
 from
 enemy
 not
take
effect
until
January
1,
1964.
Although
the
escheat
proceedings
were
still

nationals
as
a
result
of
World
War
II
and
required
to
be
transferred
to
the
Republic
 pending
 then,
 the
 Revised
 Rules
 of
 Court
 could
 not
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 petition

of
 the
 Philippines
 by
 the
 United
 States
 in
 accordance
 with
 its
 own
 enactment
 because
to
do
so
would
work
injustice
to
the
City
of
Davao.

commonly
known
as
the
Philippine
Property
Act
of
1946.
Such
properties,
including
 

the
 land
 in
 dispute,
 belong
 to
 the
 Philippine
 government
 not
 by
 virtue
 of
 the
 The
Court
of
Appeals
should
have
dismissed
the
appeal
of
Vicenta
Tan
and
Ramon

escheat
proceedings
but
on
the
strength
of
the
transfer
authorized
and
required
by
 Pizarro
 earlier
 because
 the
 records
 show
 that
 Vicenta
 was
 never
 a
 party
 in
 the

the
said
Act.
 escheat
 proceedings.
 The
 trial
 court's
 order
 dated
 February
 4,
 1972
 ordering
 that


 she
 be
 substituted
 for
 Ramon
 Pizarro
 as
 oppositor
 (p.
 16,
 Record
 on
 Appeal)
 was

139
 VICENTE
TAN
V.
CITY
OF
DAVAO
 set
 aside
 by
 the
 same
 court
 in
 its
 Order
 of
 March
 23,
 1972
 (p.
 178,
 Record
 on

166
SCRA
73
 Appeal)
which
was
not
appealed.


 Vicenta
 Tan,
 if
 she
 still
 exists,
 was
 never
 served
 with
 summons
 extra‐territorially

FACTS:
 under
 Section
 17,
 Rule
 14
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court.
 She
 never
 appeared
 in
 the
 trial

The
 spouses
 Cornelia
 Pizarro
 and
 Baltazar
 Garcia,
 during
 their
 lifetime,
 were
 court
 by
 herself,
 or
 counsel
 and
 never
 filed
 a
 pleading
 therein,
 hence,
 she
 never

residents
of
Davao
City.
As
they
were
childless,
they
adopted
a
three‐year
old
girl
 submitted
to
the
court's
jurisdiction.

whom
 they
 named
 Dominga
 Garcia
 and
 brought
 up
 as
 their
 own.
 At
 the
 age
 of
 

nineteen
years,
Dominga
Garcia
married
a
Chinaman,
Tan
Seng
alias
Seng
Yap,
with
 140
 BERMUDO
V.
CA


whom
 she
 had
 three
 children,
 named
 Vicente,
 who
 was
 born
 in
 1916.
 
 Dominga
 55
SCRA
8

Garcia
and
her
three
children
emigrated
to
Canton,
China.
In
less
than
a
year,
Tan
 

Seng
followed
his
family
to
his
country
of
origin.

They
left
a
parcel
of
land
in
Davao
 FACTS:

which
was
subject
of
escheat
proceedings.
 Case
regarding
a
parcel
of
land
being
disputed
among
three
parties—Chinese
men


 and
the
Chinese
Communist
Party.

HELD:
 

With
 respect
 to
 the
 argument
 that
 only
 the
 Republic
 of
 the
 Philippines,
 HELD:

represented
by
the
Solicitor‐General,
may
file
the
escheat
petition
under
Section
1,
 Since
there
is
dispute
on
who
owns
truly
the
parcel
of
land,
the
state
should
have

Rule
 91
 of
 the
 Revised
 (1964)
 Rules
 of
 Court,
 the
 Appellate
 Court
 correctly
 ruled
 instituted
escheat
proceedings.

that
 the
 case
 did
 not
 come
 under
 Rule
 91
 because
 the
 petition
 was
 filed
 on
 

September
12,1962,
when
the
applicable
rule
was
still
Rule
92
of
the
1940
Rules
of
 141
 REPUBLIC
V.
CFI
OF
MANILA

Court
which
provided:
 165
SCRA
11


 

Sec.
1.
When
and
by
whom,petition
filed. When
a
person
dies
intestate,
seized
of
 FACTS:

real
 or
 personal
 property
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 leaving
 no
 heirs
 or
 person
 by
 law
 Pursuant
 to
 the
 Unclaimed
 Balance
 Law,
 some
 31
 banks
 including
 herein
 private

entitled
to
the
same,
the
municipality
or
city
where
the
deceased
last
resided,
if
he
 respondent
 Pres.
 Roxas
 Rural
 Bank
 forwarded
 to
 the
 Treasurer
 of
 the
 Philippines

resided
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 or
 the
 municipality
 or
 city
 in
 which
 he
 had
 estate
 if
 he
 separate
 statements
 under
 oath
 by
 their
 respective
 managing
 officers
 of
 all




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









99




deposits
and
credits
held
by
them
in
favor,
or
in
the
names
of
such
depositors
or
 concerned
 is
 located
 may
 be
 made
 parties
 defendant
 "in
 one
 action"
 was
 clearly

creditors
 known
 to
 be
 dead,
 or
 who
 have
 not
 been
 heard
 from,
 or
 who
 have
 not
 intended
 to
 save
 on
 litigation
 and
 publication
 expenses,
 but
 certainly
 not
 as

made
 further
 deposits
 or
 withdrawals
 during
 the
 preceding
 ten
 years
 or
 more.
 In
 authority
for
the
lumping
together
of
all
banks
wherever
found
in
the
Philippines
in

the
 sworn
 statement
 submitted
 by
 private
 respondent
 Bank,
 only
 two
 (2)
 names
 one
single
escheat
proceedings.


appeared:
Jesus
Ydirin
and
Leonora
Trumpeta.
 



GENERAL
GUARDIANS
AND
GUARDIANSHIP

The
 aforementioned
 statements
 were
 published
 in
 two
 newspapers,
 one
 was
 in

English
 while
 the
 other
 was
 in
 Spanish.
 
 Both
 are
 of
 general
 circulation
 in
 the
 

Philippines.
 
 This
 consequently
 led
 to
 a
 complaint
 for
 escheat
 lodged
 by
 the

RULE
92

government
 against
 the
 31
 banks.
 
 The
 private
 respondent
 bank
 sought
 the

VENUE

dismissal
of
the
same
on
the
ground
of
improper
venue.

In
opposing
the
dismissal

of
 the
 case,
 petitioner
 maintained
 that
 private
 respondent
 bank
 is
 just
 a
 nominal
 

party
 and
 the
 proper
 parties
 to
 lodge
 the
 motion
 to
 dismiss
 are
 the
 depositors
 Section
1.
Where
to
institute
proceedings.
Guardianship
of
a
person
or
estate
of
a

themselves.
 minor
 or
 incompetent
 may
 be
 instituted
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 of
 the


 province,
 or
 in
 the
 justice
 of
 the
 peace
 court
 of
 the
 municipality,
 or
 in
 the

HELD:
 municipal
court
chartered
city
where
the
minor
or
incompetent
persons
resides,

Issue
of
real
party
in
interest
 and
if
he
resides
in
a
foreign
country,
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province


 wherein
 his
 property
 or
 the
 party
 thereof
 is
 situated;
 provided,
 however,
 that

A
"real
party
in
interest"
has
been
defined
as
the
party
who
would
be
benefitted
or
 where
 the
 value
 of
 the
 property
 of
 such
 minor
 or
 incompetent
 exceeds
 that

injured
by
the
judgment
of
the
suit
or
the
party
entitled
to
avail
of
the
suit.
There
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 justice
 of
 the
 peace
 or
 municipal
 court,
 the
 proceedings
 shall

can
 be
 no
 doubt
 that
 private
 respondent
 bank
 falls
 under
 this
 definition
 for
 the
 be
instituted
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance.

escheat
 of
 the
 dormant
 deposits
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 government
 would
 necessarily
 

deprive
said
bank
of
the
use
of
such
deposits.
It
is
in
this
sense
that
it
stands
to
be
 In
 the
 City
 of
 Manila
 the
 proceedings
 shall
 be
 instituted
 in
 the
 Juvenile
 and

"injured
by
the
judgment
of
the
suit;"
and
it
is
for
this
reason
that
Section
3
of
Act
 Domestic
Relations
Court.

No.
3936
specifically
provides
that
the
bank
shall
be
joined
as
a
party
in
the
action
 

for
escheat.
 THREE
KINDS
OF
GUARDIAN


 1. Legal
 guardian—who
 is
 such
 by
 provision
 of
 law
 without
 the
 need
 of

Question
of
improper
venue
 judicial
 appointment,
 as
 in
 the
 case
 of
 the
 parents
 over
 the
 person
 of


 their
minor
children,
etc.

The
first
sentence
of
Section
3
of
Act
No.
3936
directs
the
Attorney
General,
now
 2. Judicial
 guardian—who
 is
 a
 competent
 person
 appointed
 by
 the
 court

Solicitor
General,
to
commence
an
action
or
actions
in
the
name
of
the
People
of
 over
the
person
and/or
property
of
the
ward
to
represent
the
latter
in
all

the
 Philippines
 in
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 of
 the
 province
 where
 the
 bank
 is
 his
 civil
 acts
 and
 transactions,
 and
 is
 the
 one
 contemplated
 in
 the

located.
 The
 phrase
 "or
 actions"
 in
 this
 section
 is
 very
 significant.
 It
 manifests
 aforementioned
rules

awareness
 on
 the
 part
 of
 the
 legislators
 that
 a
 single
 action
 to
 cover
 all
 banks
 3. Guardian
 ad
 litem—who
 may
 be
 a
 competent
 person
 appointed
 by
 the

wherever
 located
 in
 the
 Philippines
 would
 not
 be
 legally
 feasible
 in
 view
 of
 the
 court
for
purposes
of
a
particular
action
or
proceeding
involving
a
minor

venue
prescribed
for
such
action
under
the
same
section,
i.e.,
the
province
where
 

the
bank
is
located.
Thus,
the
addition
of
the
last
sentence,
which
the
lower
court
 TO
WHICH
JUDICIAL
GUARDIANSHIP
PERTAINS

had
correctly
interpreted
to
mean
"that
for
escheat
of
unclaimed
bank
balances
all
 • With
respect
to
the
person
of
the
ward,
his
property
or
both

banks
 located
 in
 one
 and
 the
 same
 province
 where
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









100




• Where
 the
 person
 has
 no
 property,
 guardianship
 may
 only
 with
 his
 

person
 HELD:

• With
respect
to
a
non‐resident
ward,
with
respect
to
his
property

 Petitioner
is
the
duly
appointed
guardian
of
the
incompetent
Estefania
San
Pedro
in


 Special
Proceedings
No.
532
of
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Bulacan
presided
over

Section
 2.
 Meaning
 of
 word
 "incompetent."
 Under
 this
 rule,
 the
 word
 by
 respondent
 Judge.
 On
 August
 30,
 1974
 respondent
 Pelagio
 Francisco,
 claiming

"incompetent"
includes
persons
suffering
the
penalty
of
civil
interdiction
or
who
 to
 be
 a
 first
 cousin
 of
 Estefania
 San
 Pedro,
 together
 with
 two
 others,
 said
 to
 be

are
 hospitalized
 lepers,
 prodigals,
 deaf
 and
 dumb
 who
 are
 unable
 to
 read
 and
 nieces
of
the
incompetent,
petitioned
the
court
for
the
removal
of
petitioner
and

write,
 those
 who
 are
 of
 unsound
 mind,
 even
 though
 they
 have
 lucid
 intervals,
 for
 the
 appointment
 in
 his
 stead
 of
 respondent
 Pelagio
 Francisco.
 Among
 other

and
 persons
 not
 being
 of
 unsound
 mind,
 but
 by
 reason
 of
 age,
 disease,
 weak
 grounds,
 the
 petition
 was
 based
 on
 the
 failure
 of
 the
 guardian
 to
 submit
 an

mind,
 and
 other
 similar
 causes,
 cannot,
 without
 outside
 aid,
 take
 care
 of
 inventory
of
the
estate
of
his
ward
and
to
render
an
accounting.

themselves
and
manage
their
property,
becoming
thereby
an
easy
prey
for
deceit
 

and
exploitation.
 It
 would
 seem
 that
 petitioner
 subsequently
 rendered
 an
 accounting
 but
 failed
 to


 submit
an
inventory,
for
which
reason
the
court
on
March
20,
1975
gave
petitioner

WHO
IS
AN
INCOMPETENT?
 ten
 (10)
 days
 within
 which
 to
 do
 so,
 otherwise
 he
 would
 be
 removed
 from

• Includes
 persons
 suffering
 the
 penalty
 of
 civil
 interdiction
 or
 who
 are
 guardianship
 Petitioner
 thereafter
 submitted
 an
 inventory
 to
 which
 respondent

hospitalized
lepers,
prodigals,
deaf
and
dumb
who
are
unable
to
read
and
 Pelagio
Francisco
filed
an
objection
on
the
ground
that
petitioner
actually
received

write,
 those
 who
 are
 of
 unsound
 mind,
 even
 though
 they
 have
 lucid
 P14,000.00
 for
 the
 sale
 of
 a
 residential
 land
 and
 not
 P12,000.00
 only
 as
 stated
 in

intervals,
and
persons
not
being
of
unsound
mind,
but
by
reason
of
age,
 the
deed
of
sale
and
reported
by
him
in
his
inventory.
The
respondent
Judge
found

disease,
 weak
 mind,
 and
 other
 similar
 causes,
 cannot,
 without
 outside
 the
claim
to
be
true,
and,
in
his
order
of
April
17,
1980
relieved
the
petitioner
as

aid,
 take
 care
 of
 themselves
 and
 manage
 their
 property,
 becoming
 guardian.

thereby
an
easy
prey
for
deceit
and
exploitation.
 


 On
motion
of
petitioner,
however,
the
respondent
Judge
reconsidered
his
finding,

Section
 3.
 Transfer
 of
 venue.
 
 The
 court
 taking
 cognizance
 of
 a
 guardianship
 relying
on
the
deed
of
sale
as
the
best
evidence
of
the
price
paid
for
the
sale
of
the

proceeding,
 may
 transfer
 the
 same
 to
 the
 court
 of
 another
 province
 or
 land.
in
his
order
dated
September
12,
1980,
respondent
judge
acknowledged
that

municipality
 wherein
 the
 ward
 has
 acquired
 real
 property,
 if
 he
 has
 transferred
 his
 finding
 was
 "rather
 harsh
 and
 somewhat
 unfair
 to
 the
 said
 guardian."

thereto
his
bona‐fide
residence,
and
the
latter
court
shall
have
full
jurisdiction
to
 Nevertheless,
 respondent
 Judge
 ordered
 the
 retirement
 of
 petitioner
 on
 the

continue
the
proceedings,
without
requiring
payment
of
additional
court
fees.
 ground
of
old
age.


 

142
 FRANCISCO
V.
CA

 143
 LAVIDES
V.
CITY
COURT
OF
LUCENA

127
SCRA
371
 114
SCRA
187


 

FACTS:
 FACTS:

Petitioner
is
the
guardian
of
the
incompetent
San
Pedro.

Parties
alleging
to
be
the
 Upon
 the
 death
 of
 his
 wife,
 petitioner
 Alberto
 Lavides
 instituted
 a
 guardianship

incompetent’s
relatives
sought
his
removal
for
allegedly
failing
to
file
an
inventory.

 proceeding
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 person
 and
 property
 of
 their
 seven
 (7)
 minor

He
 actually
 did
 render
 an
 accounting
 and
 later
 on,
 an
 inventory
 but
 his
 accounts
 children.
 Said
 petition
 alleged
 that
 the
 estate
 left
 by
 the
 deceased
 wife
 of
 herein

were
 questioned
 on
 the
 ground
 it
 didn’t
 coincide
 on
 what
 he
 truly
 received
 as
 petitioner,
 mother
 of
 the
 above‐
 named
 minors,
 has
 a
 total
 value
 of
 thirty‐five

guardian.

The
judge
ordered
him
remove
and
for
him
to
pay
for
his
payables.

On
 thousand
pesos
(P35,000.00)
or
an
amount
of
P5,000.00
pertaining
to
each
minor.

reconsideration,
the
judge
reversed
its
order
of
payment
but
still,
removed
him
on
 Although
 there
 had
 been
 no
 previous
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 deceased,

the
ground
of
old
age—even
if
he
was
72
and
still
able
to
fulfill
his
duties.
 petitioner
was
appointed
and
qualified
as
judicial
guardian.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









101





 

The
 City
 Court,
 upon
 motion,
 authorized
 petitioner
 to
 settle
 the
 estate
 144
 PARCO
V.
CA

extrajudicially
and
to
sell
a
portion
thereof
consisting
of
shares
of
stocks.
Pursuant
 111
SCRA
262

to
 said
 authority,
 petitioner
 extrajudicially
 settled
 the
 estate,
 and
 on
 August
 28,
 

1971,
sold
the
said
shares
of
stocks
for
the
sum
of
P64,512.00
 FACTS:


 Francisco
 Rodriguez
 is
 the
 guardian
 of
 the
 Soledad
 Rodriguez
 (ward).
 With
 the

Petitioner
 filed
 a
 motion
 for
 confirmation
 and
 approval
 of
 a
 Deed
 of
 Exchange
 authority
and
approval
of
CFI
Judge
(who
took
cognizance
of
the
proceedings
upon

Agreement.
 
 While
 this
 latter
 motion
 was
 still
 pending
 consideration,
 the
 authorization
from
the
Secretary
of
Justice),
Rodriguez
sold
3
parcels
of
land
to
Luis

respondent
court,
reviewed
the
records
of
the
case
and
finding
that
the
undivided
 Parco
 and
 Virginia
 Bautista
 (“Petitioners”).
 The
 sale
 was
 made
 for
 the
 support,

estate
left
by
the
deceased
was
worth
at
least
P35,000.00,
dismissed
the
case
for
 maintenance
and
medical
treatment
of
the
ward.
Titles
over
said
parcels
of
lands

lack
 of
 jurisdiction,
 revoked
 the
 appointment
 of
 petitioner
 as
 guardian
 and
 were
issued
in
favor
of
the
PETITIONERS.

annulled
all
proceedings
taken
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
said
order
of
December
 

5,
1978.
 More
 than
 a
 year
 after
 the
 sale,
 RODRIGUEZ
 sought
 an
 order
 requiring


 PETITIONERS
 to
 appear
 before
 the
 court
 for
 examination
 on
 the
 basis
 that
 the
 3

HELD:
 parcels
of
land
were
allegedly
in
danger
of
being
lost,
squandered,
concealed
and

The
above
section,
in
clear
terms,
grants
concurrent
jurisdiction
between
municipal
 embezzled.

and
city
court
and
Courts
of
First
Instance
in
the
appointment
of
guardians
either
 

with
 respect
 to
 the
 person
 or
 property
 of
 the
 minor
 or
 incompetent,
 except
 that
 HELD:

where
 the
 value
 of
 the
 property
 of
 such
 minor
 or
 incompetent
 exceeds
 the
 As
 held
 in
 the
 case
 of
 Cui
 v.
 Piccio,
 where
 title
 to
 any
 property
 said
 to
 be

jurisdiction
 of
 the
 municipal
 or
 city
 courts,
 the
 guardianship
 proceedings
 shall
 be
 embezzled,
concealed
or
conveyed
is
in
dispute,
the
determination
of
said
title
or

instituted
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance.
It
is
clear,
therefore,
that
the
value
of
the
 right
 whether
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 person
 said
 to
 have
 embezzled,
 concealed
 or

property
 of
 the
 minor
 or
 incompetent
 sought
 to
 be
 placed
 in
 guardianship
 conveyed
the
property
must
be
determined
in
a
separate
ordinary
action
and
not

determines
 which
 court
 has
 jurisdiction.
 And
 that
 property
 referred
 to
 is
 the
 in
guardianship
proceedings.

individual
 estate
 of
 the
 minor
 so
 much
 so
 that
 when
 there
 are
 more
 than
 one
 

minor
or
in
competent
sought
to
be
placed
under
guardianship,
what
determines
 In
this
case,
there
is
definitely
a
cloud
of
doubt
as
to
who
has
a
better
right
or
title

which
court
has
jurisdiction
is
the
value
of
the
individual
property
of
each
minor
or
 to
the
disputed
properties.
Thus,
this
situation
requires
the
determination
of
title

incompetent.
 or
 ownership
 of
 the
 3
 parcels
 of
 land
 which
 is
 beyond
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the

In
the
case
at
bar,
it
appears
that
respondent
city
court
dismissed
the
petition
for
 guardianship
court
and
should
be
threshed
out
in
a
separate
ordinary
action.

guardianship
 on
 ground
 of
 lack
 of
 jurisdiction
 because
 a
 perusal
 of
 the
 record
 of
 

the
 case
 shows
 that
 the
 undivided
 estate
 left
 by
 the
 deceased
 mother
 is
 worth
 In
this
case,
two
branches
of
the
CFI
of
Quezon
concurrently
assumed
jurisdiction

P35,000.00
which
amount
is
clearly
outside
its
jurisdiction.
This
reasoning
must
be
 over
 the
 proceedings.
 Branch
 I
 assumed
 original
 jurisdiction
 which
 was
 later
 on

rejected
for
it
overlooks
the
fact
that
the
petition
for
guardianship
filed
by
herein
 assigned
 to
 Branch
 IV
 (by
 virtue
 of
 the
 order
 of
 the
 Sec.
 of
 Justice
 to
 unclog
 the

petitioner
 before
 the
 respondent
 city
 court
 clearly
 alleged
 that
 the
 individual
 dockets).
 When
 Branch
 I
 issued
 an
 order
 re‐assuming
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 case,

estate
 or
 share
 of
 each
 of
 the
 seven
 minor
 children
 sought
 to
 be
 placed
 under
 Branch
 IV
 actually
 ordered
 that
 the
 records
 be
 forwarded
 and
 returned
 to
 the

guardianship
 is
 P5,000.00,
 which
 amount
 is
 well
 within
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 former.
 However,
 it
 subsequently
 threshed
 out
 the
 issue
 of
 ownership
 of
 the

respondent
 city
 court
 (Section
 88,
 Judiciary
 Act
 of
 1948,
 as
 amended
 by
 R.A.
 No.
 parcels
 of
 land,
 which
 decision
 is
 the
 subject
 of
 the
 present
 appeal.
 This
 only

3828).
 That
 the
 respondent
 city
 court
 has
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 case
 cannot
 be
 bolsters
that
the
court
no
longer
had
jurisdiction
over
the
proceedings
of
the
case.

denied,
 for
 the
 rule
 is
 well‐settled
 that
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 court
 over
 the
 subject



matter
is
determined
by
the
allegations
of
the
complaint
and/or
petition.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









102




145
 OFFICE
OF
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR
V.
GINES
 Bonifacia
Vancil,
is
the
mother
of
Reeder
C.
Vancil,
a
Navy
serviceman
of
the
United


224
SCRA
261
 States
of
America
who
died
in
the
said
country.

During
his
lifetime,
he
had
2
minor


 children.

Petitioner
filed
a
petition
to
be
appointed
as
guardian
of
the
two
minor

FACTS:
 children.
 
 She
 alleged
 that
 the
 minor
 children
 were
 residents
 of
 Cebu
 City.
 
 After

Gines
was
accosted
for
grave
ignorance
of
law
and
procedure…

 being
 appointed,
 opposition
 was
 entered
 by
 the
 mother
 of
 the
 children,
 alleging


 that
she
has
previously
filed
a
petition
with
the
RTC
of
Pagadian
City.

HELD:
 

1.
 “Branch
 26”
 was
 originally
 typewritten
 as
 part
 of
 the
 caption.
 Further,
 HELD:

Flores’
name
(Court
Interpreter)
was
already
indicated
in
the
petition.
 Petitioner,
as
the
surviving
grandparent,
can
exercise
substitute
parental
authority


 only
 in
 case
 of
 death,
 absence
 or
 unsuitability
 of
 respondent.
 Considering
 that

2.
 Regina
VALDEZ
(claiming
to
be
the
niece
of
LAGMAY)
filed
the
petition
for
 respondent
 is
 very
 much
 alive
 and
 has
 exercised
 continuously
 parental
 authority

guardianship,
alleging
that
she
is
a
resident
of
San
Fernando,
La
Union.

She
alleged
 over
 Vincent,
 petitioner
 has
 to
 prove,
 in
 asserting
 her
 right
 to
 be
 the
 minor s

however,
 that
 LAGMAY
 (ward)
 was
 presently
 residing
 in
 Mabalacat,
 Pampanga.
 It
 guardian,
 respondent s
 unsuitability.
 Petitioner,
 however,
 has
 not
 proffered

was
also
alleged
that
LAGMAY
is
an
American
citizen,
single,
childless
and
a
retired
 convincing
 evidence
 showing
 that
 respondent
 is
 not
 suited
 to
 be
 the
 guardian
 of

seaman
receiving
pension
from
the
US.

 Vincent.
 Petitioner
 merely
 insists
 that
 respondent
 is
 morally
 unfit
 as
 guardian
 of


 Valerie
 considering
 that
 her
 (respondent s)
 live‐in
 partner
 raped
 Valerie
 several

Despite
this
fact
(under
the
Rules,
jurisdiction
lies
in
the
court
where
the
minor
or
 times.
 But
 Valerie,
 being
 now
 of
 major
 age,
 is
 no
 longer
 a
 subject
 of
 this

incompetent
 person
 resides,
 see
 Sec
 1,
 Rule
 92),
 GINES
 immediately
 gave
 due
 guardianship
proceeding.

course
 to
the
 petition
 and
 directed
 that
 notices
 be
 served,
and
granted
letters
of
 

guardianship
in
favor
of
VALDEZ.
(*Note:
VALDEZ
is
also
the
aunt
of
GINES)

 Even
assuming
that
respondent
is
unfit
as
guardian
of
minor
Vincent,
still
petitioner


 cannot
qualify
as
a
substitute
guardian.
It
bears
stressing
that
she
is
an
American

3.
 Further,
 there
 was
 no
 order
 setting
 the
 case
 for
 hearing,
 at
 a
 particular
 citizen
and
a
resident
of
Colorado.
Obviously,
she
will
not
be
able
to
perform
the

date
 time
 and
 place.
 No
 notices
 were
 sent
 to
 any
 of
 the
 “kin”
 or
 even
 to
 Juan
 responsibilities
and
obligations
required
of
a
guardian.
In
fact,
in
her
petition,
she

Lagmay
himself.
 admitted
the
difficulty
of
discharging
the
duties
of
a
guardian
by
an
expatriate,
like


 her.
 To
 be
 sure,
 she
 will
 merely
 delegate
 those
 duties
 to
 someone
 else
 who
 may

4.
 The
 bond
 supposedly
 required
 from
 Valdez
 was
 not
 yet
 filed,
 but
 still,
 not
also
qualify
as
a
guardian.

Flores
administered
oath
to
the
former.
 


 Moreover,
 we
 observe
 that
 respondent s
 allegation
 that
 petitioner
 has
 not
 set

5.
 Judge
Gines
also
directed
that
the
person
having
custody
of
Juan
Lagmay
 foot
 in
 the
 Philippines
 since
 1987
 has
 not
 been
 controverted
 by
 her.
 Besides,

be
 ordered
 to
 release
 the
 latter
 and
 turn
 him
 over
 to
 the
 special
 sheriffs,
 under
 petitioner s
old
age
and
her
conviction
of
libel
by
the
Regional
Trial
Court,
Branch

6
pain
of
contempt.
When
this
person
refused
to
turn
over
custody
over
Lagmay,
the
 6,
Cebu
City
in
Criminal
Case
No.
CBU‐16884 
filed
by
one
Danilo
R.
Deen,
will
give

judge
ordered
his
arrest
(The
remedy
in
this
case
should
have
been
a
petition
for
 her
a
second
thought
of
staying
here.
Indeed,
her
coming
back
to
this
country
just

habeas
 corpus,
 and
 not
 to
 have
 the
 person
 having
 custody
 cited
 for
 contempt,
 to
fulfill
the
duties
of
a
guardian
to
Vincent
for
only
two
years
is
not
certain.

much
less
arrested).
 


 147
 KATIPUNAN
V.
KATIPUNAN

146
 VANCIL
V.
BELMES
 375
SCRA
200

358
SCRA
707
 


 FACTS:

FACTS:




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









103




Braulio
Katipunan,
assisted
by
his
brother
Miguel,
sold
a
lot/apartment
building
to
 The
 word
 “incompetent”
 includes
 persons
 suffering
 the
 penalty
 of
 civil

the
Balguma
brothers.
Braulio's
title
was
cancelled
and
a
new
one
was
issued
to
the
 interdiction
or
who
are
hospitalized
lepers,
prodigals,
deaf
and
dumb
who
are

Balgumas.

In
a
later
date,
Braulio
filed
a
complaint
for
annulment
of
the
Deed
of
 unable
 to
 read
 and
 write,
 those
 who
 are
 of
 unsound
 mind,
 even
 though
 they

Absolute
Sale.

 have
lucid
intervals,
and
persons
not
being
of
unsound
mind,
but
by
reason
of


 age,
disease,
weak
mind,
and
other
similar
causes,
can
not,
without
outside
aid,

He
averred
that
his
brother
Miguel,
Atty.
Balguma
and
Inocencio
Valdez
convinced
 take
care
of
themselves
and
manage
their
property,
becoming
thereby
an
easy

him
 to
 work
 abroad.
 They
 made
 him
 sign
 a
 document
 purportedly
 a
 contract
 of
 prey
for
deceit
and
exploitation.

employment,
which
document
turned
out
to
be
a
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale.
He
further
 

alleged
 that
 he
 did
 not
 receive
 the
 consideration
 stated
 in
 the
 contract.
 
 He
 was
 The
 circumstances
 surrounding
 the
 execution
 of
 the
 contract
 manifest
 a
 vitiated

shocked
when
his
sister
Agueda
told
him
that
the
Balguma
brothers
sent
a
letter
to
 consent
 on
 the
 part
 of
 Braulio.
 Undue
 influence
 was
 exerted
 upon
 him
 by
 his

the
 lessees
 of
 the
 apartment
 informing
 them
 that
 they
 are
 the
 new
 owners.
 He
 brother
 Miguel
 and
 Inocencio
 Valdez
 and
 Atty.
 Balguma.
 They
 did
 not
 explain
 to

claimed
that
the
three,
with
evident
bad
faith,
conspired
with
one
another
in
taking
 him
 the
 nature
 and
 contents
 of
 the
 document.
 Worse,
 they
 deprived
 him
 of
 a

advantage
of
his
ignorance,
he
being
only
a
third
grader.

 reasonable
freedom
of
choice.
It
bears
stressing
that
he
reached
only
grade
three.


 Thus,
it
was
impossible
for
him
to
understand
the
contents
of
the
contract
written

Twice
Braulio
moved
to
dismiss
his
complaint,
which
were
granted.
In
granting
his
 in
 English
 and
 embellished
 in
 legal
 jargon.
 The
 trial
 court
 took
 cognizance
 of
 the

motions
 for
 reconsideration
 (to
 pursue
 the
 case
 again),
 the
 trial
 court
 was
 medical
finding
of
Dr.
Revilla
(as
an
expert
witness)
who
testified
that,
based
on
the

convinced
that
respondent
did
not
sign
the
motions
to
dismiss
voluntarily
because
 tests
she
conducted,
she
found
that
Braulio
has
a
very
low
IQ
and
a
mind
of
a
six‐
of
his
poor
comprehension,
as
shown
by
the
medical
report
of
Dr.
Annette
Revilla,
 year
old
child.
In
fact,
the
trial
court
had
to
clarify
certain
matters
because
Braulio

a
Resident
Psychiatrist
at
the
PGH.
Besides,
the
trial
court
noted
that
Braulio
was
 was
 either
 confused,
 forgetful
 or
 could
 not
 comprehend.
 Thus,
 his
 lack
 of

not
 assisted
 by
 counsel
 in
 signing
 the
 said
 motions,
 thus
 it
 is
 possible
 that
 he
 did
 education,
coupled
 with
his
 mental
affliction,
placed
 him
not
 only
at
a
hopelessly

not
understand
the
consequences
of
his
action.

 disadvantageous
position
vis‐à‐vis
petitioners
to
enter
into
a
contract,
but
virtually


 rendered
 him
 incapable
 of
 giving
 rational
 consent.
 To
 be
 sure,
 his
 ignorance
 and

The
trial
court
set
the
case
for
pre‐trial.
The
court
likewise
granted
Braulio's
motion
 weakness
 made
 him
 most
 vulnerable
 to
 the
 deceitful
 cajoling
 and
 intimidation
 of

to
appoint
Agueda
as
his
guardian
ad
litem.

 petitioners.


 

The
trial
court
dismissed
the
complaint,
holding
that
respondent
failed
to
prove
his
 My
 case
 digests
 unfortunately
 end
 here.
 
 Though
 assignments
 were
 given
 up
 to

causes
of
action
since
he
admitted
that:
(1)
he
obtained
loans
from
the
Balgumas;
 TRUSTEES,
 I
 unfortunately
 was
 not
 able
 to
 make
 them.
 
 For
 cross‐reference

(2)
 he
 signed
 the
 Deed
 of
 Absolute
 Sale;
 and
 (3)
 he
 acknowledged
 selling
 the
 however,
please
refer
to
the
case
digests
compendium
made
by
my
block
for
the

property
and
that
he
stopped
collecting
the
rentals.
 rest
of
the
rules
concerned.
=)



HELD:
 

The
 title
 of
 the
 Balgumas
 should
 be
 annulled.
 It
 is
 apparent
 that
 the
 contract
 RULE
93

entered
 into
 by
 Braulio
 and
 Atty.
 Balguma
 is
 voidable
 because
 Braulio
 is
 an
 APPOINTMENT
OF
GUARDIANS

incompetent.





Section
 1.
 Who
 may
 petition
 for
 appointment
 of
 guardian
 for
 resident.
 
 Any

Since
Braulio
has
a
mental
state
of
a
six
year
old
child,
he
can
not
be
considered
as

relative,
 friend,
 or
 other
 person
 on
 behalf
 of
 a
 resident
 minor
 or
 incompetent

fully
 capacitated.
 He
 falls
 under
 the
 category
 of
 “incompetent”
 as
 defined
 in

who
has
no
parent
or
lawful
guardian,
or
the
minor
himself
if
fourteen
years
of

Section
2,
Rule
92
of
the
Rules
of
Court:

age
or
over,
may
petition
the
court
having
jurisdiction
for
the
appointment
of
a






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









104




general
guardian
for
the
person
or
estate,
or
both,
of
such
minor
or
incompetent.
 guardian
of
his
person
or
estate,
or
both,
with
the
powers
and
duties
hereinafter

An
 officer
 of
 the
 Federal
 Administration
 of
 the
 United
 States
 in
 the
 Philippines
 specified.

may
also
file
a
petition
in
favor
of
a
ward
thereof,
and
the
Director
of
Health,
in
 

favor
of
an
insane
person
who
should
be
hospitalized,
or
in
favor
of
an
isolated
 Section
 6.
 When
 and
 how
 guardian
 for
 non‐resident
 appointed.
 Notice.
 When
 a

leper.
 person
 liable
 to
 be
 put
 under
 guardianship
 resides
 without
 the
 Philippines
 but


 the
estate
therein,
any
relative
or
friend
of
such
person,
or
any
one
interested
in

Section
 2.
 Contents
 of
 petition.
 A
 petition
 for
 the
 appointment
 of
 a
 general
 his
estate,
in
expectancy
or
otherwise,
may
petition
a
court
having
jurisdiction
for

guardian
must
show,
so
far
as
known
to
the
petitioner:
 the
 appointment
 of
 a
 guardian
 for
 the
 estate,
 and
 if,
 after
 notice
 given
 to
 such

(a)
The
jurisdiction
facts;
 person
 and
 in
 such
 manner
 as
 the
 court
 deems
 proper,
 by
 publication
 or

(b)
 The
 minority
 or
 incompetency
 rendering
 the
 appointment
 necessary
 or
 otherwise,
and
hearing,
the
court
is
satisfied
that
such
non‐resident
is
a
minor
or

convenient;
 incompetent
 rendering
 a
 guardian
 necessary
 or
 convenient,
 it
 may
 appoint
 a

(c)
The
names,
ages,
and
residence
of
the
relatives
of
the
minor
or
incompetent,
 guardian
for
such
estate.

and
of
the
person
having
him
in
their
care;
 

(d)
The
probable
value
and
character
of
his
estate;
 Section
 7.
 Parents
 as
 guardians.
 When
 the
 property
 of
 the
 child
 under
 parental

(e)
The
name
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
of
guardianship.
 authority
is
worth
two
thousand
pesos
or
less,
the
father
of
the
mother,
without


 the
 necessity
 of
 court
 appointment,
 shall
 be
 his
 legal
 guardian.
 When
 the

The
 petition
 shall
 be
 verified;
 but
 no
 defect
 in
 the
 petition
 or
 verification
 shall
 property
of
the
child
is
worth
more
than
two
thousand
pesos,
the
father
or
the

render
void
the
issuance
of
letters
of
guardianship.
 mother
shall
be
considered
guardian
of
the
child's
property,
with
the
duties
and


 obligations
 of
 guardians
 under
 this
 rules,
 and
 shall
 file
 the
 petition
 required
 by

Section
3.
Court
to
set
time
for
hearing.
Notice
thereof.
When
a
petition
for
the
 section
 2
 hereof.
 For
 good
 reasons
 the
 court
 may,
 however,
 appoint
 another

appointment
of
a
general
guardian
is
filed,
the
court
shall
fix
a
time
and
place
for
 suitable
person.

hearing
 the
 same,
 and
 shall
 cause
 reasonable
 notice
 thereof
 to
 be
 given
 to
 the
 

persons
mentioned
in
the
petition
residing
in
the
province,
including
the
minor
if
 Section
8.
Service
of
judgment.
Final
orders
or
judgments
under
this
rule
shall
be

above
14
years
of
age
or
the
incompetent
himself,
and
may
direct
other
general
 served
 upon
 the
 civil
 registrar
 of
 the
 municipality
 or
 city
 where
 the
 minor
 or

or
special
notice
thereof
to
be
given.
 incompetent
person
resides
or
where
his
property
or
part
thereof
is
situated.


 

Section
4.
Opposition
to
petition.
Any
interested
person
may,
by
filing
a
written

RULE
94

opposition,
contest
the
petition
on
the
ground
of
majority
of
the
alleged
minor,

BONDS
OF
GUARDIANS

competency
 of
 the
 alleged
 incompetent,
 or
 the
 insuitability
 of
 the
 person
 for

whom
 letters
 are
 prayed,
 and
 may
 pray
 that
 the
 petition
 be
 dismissed,
 or
 that
 

letters
 of
 guardianship
 issue
 to
 himself,
 or
 to
 any
 suitable
 person
 named
 in
 the
 Section
 1.
 Bond
 to
 be
 given
 before
 issuance
 of
 letters.
 Amount.
 Condition.
 

opposition.
 Before
a
guardian
appointed
enters
upon
the
execution
of
his
trust,
or
letters
of


 guardianship
 issue,
 he
 shall
 give
 a
 bond,
 in
 such
 sum
 as
 the
 court
 directs,

Section
5.
Hearing
and
order
for
letters
to
issue.
At
the
hearing
of
the
petition
the
 conditioned
as
follows:

alleged
 in
 competent
 must
 be
 present
 if
 able
 to
 attend,
 and
 it
 must
 be
 shown
 

that
 the
 required
 notice
 has
 been
 given.
 Thereupon
 the
 courts
 shall
 hear
 the
 (a)
To
make
and
return
to
the
court,
within
three
(3)
months,
a
true
and
complete

evidence
 of
 the
 parties
 in
 support
 of
 their
 respective
 allegations,
 and,
 if
 the
 inventory
of
all
the
estate,
real
and
personal,
of
his
ward
which
shall
come
to
his

person
 in
 question
 is
 a
 minor,
 or
 incompetent
 it
 shall
 be
 appoint
 a
 suitable
 possession
or
knowledge
of
any
other
person
for
him;






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









105




(b)
 To
 faithfully
 execute
 the
 duties
 of
 his
 trust,
 to
 manage
 and
 dispose
 of
 the
 

estate
according
to
these
rules
for
the
best
interests
of
the
ward,
and
to
provide
 DOES
 THE
 GUARDIAN
 NEED
 TO
 SECURE
 COURT
 APPROVAL
 FOR
 SALE
 OF

for
the
proper
care,
custody,
and
education
of
the
ward;
 PERISHABLE
GOODS
OWNED
BY
THE
WARD?


 • The
rules
doesn’t
distinguish
on
the
type
of
goods

(c)
 To
 render
 a
 true
 and
 just
 account
 of
 all
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 ward
 in
 his
 hands,
 • The
 guardian
 needs
 to
 always
 secure
 court
 approval
 before
 sale
 or

and
 of
 all
 proceeds
 or
 interest
 derived
 therefrom,
 and
 of
 the
 management
 and
 encumbrance
of
the
properties
of
the
ward

disposition
 of
 the
 same,
 at
 the
 time
 designated
 by
 these
 rules
 and
 such
 other
 

times
as
the
courts
directs,
and
at
the
expiration
of
his
trust
to
settle
his
accounts
 Section
2.
Order
to
show
cause
thereupon.
 
If
it
seems
probable
that
such
sale

with
 the
 court
 and
 deliver
 and
 pay
 over
 all
 the
 estate,
 effects,
 and
 moneys
 or
encumbrance
is
necessary,
or
would
be
beneficial
to
the
ward,
the
court
shall

remaining
 in
 his
 hands,
 or
 due
 from
 him
 on
 such
 settlement,
 to
 the
 person
 make
an
order
directing
the
next
of
kin
of
the
ward,
and
all
persons
interested
in

lawfully
entitled
thereto;
 the
 estate,
 to
 appear
 at
 a
 reasonable
 time
 and
 place
 therein
 specified
 to
 show


 cause
why
the
prayer
of
the
petition
should
not
be
granted.

(d)
To
perform
all
orders
of
the
court
by
him
to
be
performed.
 


 Section
3.
Hearing
on
return
of
order.
Costs.
 
At
the
time
and
place
designated

Section
 2.
 When
 new
 bond
 may
 be
 required
 and
 old
 sureties
 discharged.
 
 in
the
order
to
show
cause,
the
court
shall
hear
the
proofs
and
allegations
of
the

Whenever
it
is
deemed
necessary,
the
court
may
require
a
new
bond
to
be
given
 petitioner
 and
 next
 of
 kin,
 and
 other
 persons
 interested,
 together
 with
 their

by
 the
 guardian,
 and
 may
 discharge
 the
 sureties
 on
 the
 old
 bond
 from
 further
 witnesses,
and
grant
and
refuse
the
prayer
of
the
petition
as
the
best
interest
of

liability,
 after
 due
 notice
 to
 interested
 persons,
 when
 no
 injury
 can
 result
 the
 ward
 require.
 The
 court
 shall
 make
 such
 order
 as
 to
 cost
 of
 the
 hearing
 as

therefrom
to
those
interested
in
the
estate.
 may
be
just.


 

Section
3.
Bonds
to
be
filed.
Actions
thereon.
 
Every
bond
given
by
a
guardian
 Section
 4.
 Contents
 of
 order
 for
 sale
 or
 encumbrance,
 and
 how
 long
 effective.

shall
be
filed
in
the
office
of
the
clerk
of
the
court,
and,
in
case
of
the
breach
of
a
 Bond.
 
 If,
 after
 full
 examination,
 it
 appears
 that
 it
 is
 necessary,
 or
 would
 be

condition
 thereof,
 may
 be
 prosecuted
 in
 the
 same
 proceeding
 or
 in
 a
 separate
 beneficial
to
the
ward,
to
sell
or
encumber
the
estate,
or
some
portion
of
it,
the

action
 for
 the
 use
 and
 benefit
 of
 the
 ward
 or
 of
 any
 other
 person
 legally
 court
 shall
 order
 such
 sale
 or
 encumbrance
 and
 that
 the
 proceeds
 thereof
 be

interested
in
the
estate.
 expended
for
the
maintenance
of
the
ward
and
his
family,
or
the
education
of
the


 ward,
if
a
minor,
or
for
the
putting
of
the
same
interest,
or
the
investment
of
the

same
 as
 the
 circumstances
 may
 require.
 The
 order
 shall
 specify
 the
 causes
 why

RULE
95

the
 sale
 or
 encumbrance
 is
 necessary
 or
 beneficial,
 and
 may
 direct
 that
 estate

SELLING
AND
ENCUMBERING
PROPERTY
OF
WARD

ordered
 sold
 be
 disposed
 of
 at
 either
 public
 or
 private
 sale,
 subject
 to
 such


 conditions
as
to
the
time
and
manner
of
payment,
and
security
where
a
part
of

Section
1.
Petition
of
guardian
for
leave
to
sell
or
encumber
estate.
 
When
the
 the
 payment
 is
 deferred
 as
 in
 the
 discretion
 of
 the
 court
 are
 deemed
 most

income
of
the
estate
under
guardianship
is
insufficient
to
maintain
the
ward
and
 beneficial
to
the
ward.
The
original
bond
of
the
guardian
shall
stand
as
security

his
 family,
 or
 to
 maintain
 and
 educate
 the
 ward
 when
 a
 minor,
 or
 when
 it
 for
 the
 proper
 appropriation
 of
 the
 proceeds
 of
 the
 sale,
 but
 the
 judge
 may,
 if

appears
 that
 it
 is
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 the
 ward
 that
 his
 real
 estate
 or
 some
 part
 deemed
expedient,
require
an
additional
bond
as
a
condition
for
the
granting
of

thereof
 be
 sold,
 or
 mortgaged
 or
 otherwise
 encumbered,
 and
 the
 proceeds
 the
 order
 of
 sale.
 No
 order
 of
 sale
 granted
 in
 pursuance
 of
 this
 section
 shall

thereof
 put
 out
 at
 interest,
 or
 invested
 in
 some
 productive
 security,
 or
 in
 the
 continue
in
force
more
than
one
(1)
year
after
granting
the
same,
without
a
sale

improvement
 or
 security
 or
 other
 real
 estate
 of
 the
 ward,
 the
 guardian
 may
 being
had.

present
a
verified
petition
to
the
court
by
which
he
was
appointed
setting
forth
 

such
facts,
and
praying
that
an
order
issue
authorizing
the
sale
or
encumbrance.
 WHAT
SHALL
THE
ORDER
STATE?




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









106




1. Specify
the
causes
why
the
sale
or
encumbrance
is
necessary
or
beneficial
 in
 all
 actions
 and
 special
 proceedings,
 unless
 another
 person
 be
 appointed
 for

2. It
may
direct
that
estate
ordered
sold
be
disposed
of
at
either
public
or
 that
purpose.

private
 sale,
 subject
 to
 such
 conditions
 as
 to
 the
 time
 and
 manner
 of
 

payment,
and
security
where
a
part
of
the
payment
is
deferred
as
in
the
 Section
4.
Estate
to
be
managed
frugally,
and
proceeds
applied
to
maintenance
of

discretion
of
the
court
are
deemed
most
beneficial
to
the
 ward.
 
A
guardian
must
manage
the
estate
of
his
ward
frugally
and
without
the


 waste,
and
apply
the
income
and
profits
thereof,
so
far
as
may
be
necessary,
to

Section
 5.
 Court
 may
 order
 investment
 of
 proceeds
 and
 direct
 management
 of
 the
comfortable
and
suitable
maintenance
of
the
ward
and
his
family,
if
there
be

estate.
 
 The
 court
 may
 authorize
 and
 require
 the
 guardian
 to
 invest
 the
 any;
and
if
such
income
and
profits
be
insufficient
for
that
purpose,
the
guardian

proceeds
 of
 sales
 or
 encumbrances,
 and
 any
 other
 of
 his
 ward's
 money
 in
 his
 may
sell
or
encumber
the
 real
estate,
upon
 being
authorized
by
order
so
 to
 do,

hands,
 in
 real
 estate
 or
 otherwise,
 as
 shall
 be
 for
 the
 best
 interest
 of
 all
 and
apply
to
such
of
the
proceeds
as
may
be
necessary
to
such
maintenance.

concerned,
 and
 may
 make
 such
 other
 orders
 for
 the
 management,
 investment,
 

and
disposition
of
the
estate
and
effects,
as
circumstances
may
require.
 Section
 5.
 Guardian
 may
 be
 authorized
 to
 join
 in
 partition
 proceedings
 after


 hearing.
 
 The
 court
 may
 authorized
 the
 guardian
 to
 join
 in
 an
 assent
 to
 a

partition
 of
 real
 or
 personal
 estate
 held
 by
 the
 ward
 jointly
 or
 in
 common
 with

RULE
96

others,
but
such
authority
shall
only
be
granted
after
hearing,
upon
such
notice
to

GENERAL
POWERS
AND
DUTIES
OF
GUARDIANS

relatives
of
the
ward
as
the
court
may
direct,
and
a
careful
investigation
as
to
the


 necessity
and
propriety
of
the
proposed
action.

Section
1.
To
what
guardianship
shall
extend.
 
A
guardian
appointed
shall
have
 

the
 care
 and
 custody
 of
 the
 person
 of
 his
 ward,
 and
 the
 management
 of
 his
 Section
 6.
 Proceedings
 when
 the
 person
 suspected
 of
 embezzling
 or
 concealing

estate,
or
the
management
of
the
estate
only,
as
the
case
may
be.
The
guardian
 property
 of
 ward.
 
 Upon
 complaint
 of
 the
 guardian
 or
 ward,
 or
 of
 any
 person

of
the
estate
of
a
non‐resident
shall
have
the
management
of
all
the
estate
of
the
 having
actual
or
prospective
interest
in
the
estate
of
the
ward
as
creditor,
heir,
or

ward
within
the
Philippines,
and
no
court
other
than
that
in
which
such
guardian
 otherwise,
that
anyone
is
suspected
of
having
embezzled,
concealed,
or
conveyed

was
appointed
shall
have
jurisdiction
over
the
guardianship.
 away
 any
 money,
 goods,
 or
 interest,
 or
 a
 written
 instrument,
 belonging
 to
 the


 ward
 or
 his
 estate,
 the
 court
 may
 cite
 the
 suspected
 person
 to
 appear
 for

WHY
IS
GUARDIANSHIP
FOR
MANAGEMENT
OF
ESTATE
ONLY
ALLOWED?
 examination
touching
such
money,
goods,
interest,
or
instrument,
and
make
such

• Management
of
estate
doesn’t
necessarily
need
the
care
and
custody
of
 orders
 as
 will
 secure
 the
 estate
 against
 such
 embezzlement,
 concealment
 or

the
person
 conveyance.


 

Section
2.
Guardian
to
pay
debts
of
ward.
 
Every
guardian
must
pay
the
ward's
 Section
7.
Inventories
and
accounts
of
guardians,
and
appraisement
of
estates.
 

just
 debts
 out
 of
 his
 personal
 estate
 and
 the
 income
 of
 his
 real
 estate,
 if
 A
guardian
must
render
to
the
court
an
inventory
of
the
estate
of
his
ward
within

sufficient;
if
not,
then
out
of
his
real
estate
upon
obtaining
an
order
for
the
sale
 three
(3)
months
after
his
appointment,
and
annually
after
such
appointment
an

or
encumbrance
thereof.
 inventory
and
account,
the
rendition
of
any
of
which
may
be
compelled
upon
the


 application
of
an
interested
person.
Such
inventories
and
accounts
shall
be
sworn

Section
 3.
 Guardian
 to
 settle
 accounts,
 collect
 debts,
 and
 appear
 in
 actions
 for
 to
by
the
guardian.
All
the
estate
of
the
ward
described
in
the
first
inventory
shall

ward.
 
 A
 guardian
 must
 settle
 all
 accounts
 of
 his
 ward,
 and
 demand,
 sue
 for,
 be
appraised.
In
the
appraisement
the
court
may
request
the
assistance
of
one
or

and
receive
all
debts
due
him,
or
may,
with
the
approval
of
the
court,
compound
 more
of
the
inheritance
tax
appraisers.
And
whenever
any
property
of
the
ward

for
 the
 same
 and
 give
 discharges
 to
 the
 debtor,
 on
 receiving
 a
 fair
 and
 just
 not
 included
 in
 an
 inventory
 already
 rendered
 is
 discovered,
 or
 suceeded
 to,
 or

dividend
of
the
estate
and
effects;
and
he
shall
appear
for
and
represent
his
ward
 acquired
by
the
ward,
like
proceedings
shall
be
had
for
securing
an
inventory
and




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









107




appraisement
thereof
within
three
(3)
months
after
such
discovery,
succession,
or
 GROUNDS
FOR
TERMINATION
OF
GUARDIANSHIP

acquisition.
 1. Competency
of
ward


 2. Insanity
and
incompetency
of
the
guardian
himself

Section
 8.
 When
 guardian's
 accounts
 presented
 for
 settlement.
 Expenses
 and
 3. Death
of
the
ward
or
guardian
himself


compensation
 allowed.
 
 Upon
 the
 expiration
 of
 a
 year
 from
 the
 time
 of
 his
 4. Resignation
of
the
guardian

appointment,
 and
 as
 often
 thereafter
 as
 may
 be
 required,
 a
 guardian
 must
 5. Guardian
incapable
of
discharging
his
trust

present
his
account
to
the
court
for
settlement
and
allowance.
In
the
settlement
 6. Guardian
mismanaged
or
wasted
the
estate

of
the
account,
the
guardian,
other
than
a
parent,
shall
be
allowed
the
amount
of
 7. Conflict
of
interest

his
 reasonable
 expenses
 incurred
 in
 the
 execution
 of
 his
 trust
 and
 also
 such
 8. Guardian
 failed
 to
 render
 accounting
 and
 inventory
 for
 30
 days
 after

compensation
for
his
services
as
the
court
deems
just,
not
exceeding
fifteen
per
 court
order

centum
of
the
net
income
of
the
ward.
 


 Section
2.
When
the
guardian
removed
or
allowed
to
resign.
New
appointment.
 

WHAT
ARE
THE
GENERAL
POWERS
OF
A
GUARDIAN?
 When
a
guardian
becomes
insane
or
otherwise
incapable
of
discharging
his
trust

1. Care
and
custody
of
the
ward,
and/or
management
of
his
estate
 or
 unsuitable
 therefor,
 or
 has
 wasted
 or
 mismanaged
 the
 estate,
 or
 failed
 for

2. Pay
the
debts
of
his
ward
 thirty
 (30)
 days
 after
 it
 is
 due
 to
 render
 an
 account
 or
 make
 a
 return,
 the
 court

3. To
settle
accounts,
collect
debts,
and
appear
in
actions
for
ward
 may,
 upon
 reasonable
 notice
 to
 the
 guardian,
 remove
 him,
 and
 compel
 him
 to

4. Manage
the
estate
frugally
 surrender
 the
 estate
 of
 the
 ward
 to
 the
 person
 found
 to
 be
 lawfully
 entitled

5. May
be
authorized
to
join
in
partition
proceedings
after
hearing
 thereto.
 A
 guardian
 may
 resign
 when
 it
 appears
 proper
 to
 allow
 the
 same;
 and

6. To
 institute
 proceedings
 where
 the
 person
 is
 suspected
 of
 embezzling,
 upon
his
resignation
or
removal
the
court
may
appoint
another
in
his
place.

concealing
property
of
ward
 

7. Inventories
and
accounts
of
guardians,
and
appraisement
of
estate
 Section
 3.
 Other
 termination
 of
 guardianship.
 
 The
 marriage
 or
 voluntary


 emancipation
 of
 a
 minor
 ward
 terminates
 the
 guardianship
 of
 the
 peson
 of
 the

ward,
and
shall
enable
the
minor
to
administer
his
property
as
though
he
were
of

RULE
97

age,
 but
 he
 cannot
 borrow
 the
 money
 or
 alienate
 or
 encumber
 real
 property

TERMINATION
OF
GUARDIANSHIP

without
the
consent
of
his
father
or
mother,
or
guardian.
He
can
sue
and
be
sued


 in
court
only
with
the
assistance
of
his
father,
mother
or
guardian.
The
guardian

Section
 1.
 Petition
 that
 competency
 of
 ward
 be
 adjudged,
 and
 proceedings
 of
 any
 person
 may
 be
 discharged
 by
 the
 court
 when
 it
 appears,
 upon
 the

thereupon.
 
A
person
who
has
been
declared
incompetent
for
any
reason,
or
his
 application
 of
 the
 ward
 or
 otherwise,
 that
 the
 guardianship
 is
 no
 longer

guardian,
 relative,
 or
 friend,
 may
 petition
 the
 court
 to
 have
 his
 present
 necessary.

competency
 judicially
 determined.
 The
 petition
 shall
 be
 verified
 by
 oath,
 and
 

shall
state
that
such
person
is
then
competent.
Upon
receiving
the
petition,
the
 Section
 4.
 Record
 to
 be
 kept
 by
 the
 justice
 of
 the
 peace
 or
 municipal
 judge.
 

court
 shall
 fix
 a
 time
 for
 hearing
 the
 questions
 raised
 thereby,
 and
 cause
 When
 a
 justice
 of
 the
 peace
 or
 municipal
 court
 takes
 cognizance
 of
 the

reasonable
notice
thereof
to
be
given
to
the
guardian
of
the
person
so
declared
 proceedings
 in
 pursuance
 of
 the
 provisions
 of
 these
 rules,
 the
 record
 of
 the

incompetent,
and
to
the
ward.
On
the
trial,
the
guardian
or
relatives
of
the
ward,
 proceedings
shall
be
kept
as
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance.

and,
in
the
discretion
of
the
court,
any
other
person,
may
contest
the
right
to
the
 

relief
demanded,
and
witnesses
may
be
called
and
examined
by
the
parties
or
by
 Section
5.
Service
of
judgment.
 
Final
orders
of
judgments
under
this
rule
shall

the
 court
 on
 its
 own
 motion.
 If
 it
 be
 found
 that
 the
 person
 is
 no
 longer
 be
served
upon
the
civil
registrar
of
the
municipality
or
city
where
the
minor
or

incompetent,
his
competency
shall
be
adjudged
and
the
guardianship
shall
cease.
 incompetent
person
resides
or
where
his
property
or
part
thereof
is
situated.


 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









108




Sec.
 5.
 Qualifications
 of
 guardians.
 –
 In
 appointing
 a
 guardian,
 the
 court
 shall

A.M.
No.
03‐02‐05‐SC
2003‐05‐01

consider
the
guardian’s:

RULE
ON
GUARDIANSHIP
OF
MINORS




 (a)
moral
character;

Section
 1.
 Applicability
 of
 the
 Rule.
 –
 This
 Rule
 shall
 apply
 to
 petitions
 for
 

guardianship
over
the
person
or
property,
or
both,
of
a
minor.
 (b)
physical,
mental
and
psychological
condition;


 

The
 father
 and
 the
 mother
 shall
 jointly
 exercise
 legal
 guardianship
 over
 the
 (c)
financial
status;

person
and
property
of
their
unemancipated
common
child
without
the
necessity
 

of
 a
 court
 appointment.
 In
 such
 case,
 this
 Rule
 shall
 be
 suppletory
 to
 the
 (d)
relationship
of
trust
with
the
minor;

provisions
of
the
Family
Code
on
guardianship.
 


 (e)
availability
to
exercise
the
powers
and
duties
of
a
guardian
for
the
full
period

Sec.
2.
Who
may
petition
for
appointment
of
guardian.
–
On
grounds
authorized
 of
the
guardianship;

by
law,
any
relative
or
other
person
on
behalf
of
a
minor,
or
the
minor
himself
if
 

fourteen
years
of
age
or
over,
may
petition
the
Family
Court
for
the
appointment
 (f)
lack
of
conflict
of
interest
with
the
minor;
and

of
 a
 general
 guardian
 over
 the
 person
 or
 property,
 or
 both,
 of
 such
 minor.
 The
 

petition
 may
 also
 be
 filed
 by
 the
 Secretary
 of
 Social
 Welfare
 and
 Development
 (g)
ability
to
manage
the
property
of
the
minor.

and
 by
 the
 Secretary
 of
 Health
 in
 the
 case
 of
 an
 insane
 minor
 who
 needs
 to
 be
 

hospitalized.
 Sec.
6.
Who
may
be
appointed
guardian
of
the
person
or
property,
or
both,
of
a


 minor.
 –
 In
 default
 of
 parents
 or
 a
 court‐appointed
 guardian,
 the
 court
 may

Sec.
 3.
 Where
 to
 file
 petition.
 –
 A
 petition
 for
 guardianship
 over
 the
 person
 or
 appoint
 a
 guardian
 of
 the
 person
 or
 property,
 or
 both,
 of
 a
 minor,
 observing
 as

property,
or
both,
of
a
minor
may
be
filed
in
the
Family
Court
of
the
province
or
 far
as
practicable,
the
following
order
of
preference:

city
 where
 the
 minor
 actually
 resides.
 If
 he
 resides
 in
 a
 foreign
 country,
 the
 

petition
 shall
 be
 flied
 with
 the
 Family
 Court
 of
 the
 province
 or
 city
 where
 his
 (a)
the
surviving
grandparent
and
In
case
several
grandparents
survive,
the
court

property
or
any
part
thereof
is
situated.
 shall
select
any
of
them
taking
Into
account
all
relevant
considerations;


 

Sec.
4.
Grounds
of
petition.‐The
grounds
for
the
appointment
of
a
guardian
over
 (b)
the
oldest
brother
or
sister
of
the
minor
over
twenty‐one
years
of
age,
unless

the
person
or
property,
or
both,
of
a
minor
are
the
following:
 unfit
or
disqualified;


 

(a)
death,
continued
absence,
or
incapacity
of
his
parents;
 (c)
the
actual
custodian
of
the
minor
over
twenty‐one
years
of
age,
unless
unfit
or


 disqualified;
and

(b)
suspension,
deprivation
or
termination
of
parental
authority;
 


 (d)
any
other
person,
who
in
the
sound
discretion
of
the
court,
would
serve
the

(c)
remarriage
of
his
surviving
parent,
if
the
latter
Is
found
unsuitable
to
exercise
 best
interests
of
the
minor.

parental
authority;
or
 


 Sec.
 7.
 Contents
 of
 petition.
 –
 A
 petition
 for
 the
 appointment
 of
 a
 general

(d)
when
the
best
interests
of
the
minor
so
require.
 guardian
must
allege
the
following:


 

(a)
The
jurisdictional
facts;




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









109





 

(b)
The
name,
age
and
residence
of
the
prospective
ward;
 Sec.
11.
Hearing
and
order
for
letters
to
issue.
–
At
the
hearing
of
the
petition,
it


 must
 be
 shown
 that
 the
 requirement
 of
 notice
 has
 been
 complied
 with.
 The

(c)
The
ground
rendering
the
appointment
necessary
or
convenient;
 prospective
 ward
 shall
 be
 presented
 to
 the
 court.
 The
 court
 shall
 hear
 the


 evidence
 of
 the
 parties
 in
 support
 of
 their
 respective
 allegations.
 If
 warranted,

(d)
 The
 death
 of
 the
 parents
 of
 the
 minor
 or
 the
 termination,
 deprivation
 or
 the
court
shall
appoint
a
suitable
guardian
of
the
person
or
property,
or
both,
of

suspension
of
their
parental
authority;
 the
minor.


 

(e)
The
remarriage
of
the
minor’s
surviving
parent;
 At
the
discretion
of
the
court,
the
hearing
on
guardianship
may
be
closed
to
the


 public
and
the
records
of
the
case
shall
not
be
released
without
its
approval.

(f)
The
names,
ages,
and
residences
of
relatives
within
the
4th
civil
degree
of
the
 

minor,
and
of
persons
having
him
in
their
care
and
custody;
 Sec.
 12.
 When
 and
 how
 a
 guardian
 of
 the
 property
 for
 non‐resident
 minor
 is


 appointed;
 notice.
 –
 When
 the
 minor
 resides
 outside
 the
 Philippines
 but
 has

(g)
The
probable
value,
character
and
location
of
the
property
of
the
minor;
and
 property
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 any
 relative
 or
 friend
 of
 such
 minor,
 or
 any
 one


 interested
 in
 his
 property,
 in
 expectancy
 or
 otherwise,
 may
 petition
 the
 Family

(h)
The
name,
age
and
residence
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
of
guardianship
 Court
for
the
appointment
of
a
guardian
over
the
property.

are
prayed.
 


 Notice
of
hearing
of
the
petition
shall
be
given
to
the
minor
by
publication
or
any

The
 petition
 shall
 be
 verified
 and
 accompanied
 by
 a
 certification
 against
 forum
 other
 means
 as
 the
 court
 may
 deem
 proper.
 The
 court
 may
 dispense
 with
 the

shopping.
However,
no
defect
in
the
petition
or
verification
shall
render
void
the
 presence
of
the
non‐resident
minor.

issuance
of
letters
of
guardianship.
 


 If
 after
 hearing
 the
 court
 is
 satisfied
 that
 such
 non‐resident
 is
 a
 minor
 and
 a

Sec.
 8.
 Time
 and
 notice
 of
 hearing.
 –
 When
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 appointment
 of
 a
 guardian
is
necessary
or
convenient,
it
may
appoint
a
guardian
over
his
property.

general
guardian
is
filed,
the
court
shall
fix
a
time
and
place
for
its
hearing,
and
 

shall
 cause
 reasonable
 notice
 to
 be
 given
 to
 the
 persons
 mentioned
 in
 the
 Sec.
 13.
 Service
 of
 final
 and
 executory
 judgment
 or
 order.
 –
 The
 final
 and

petition,
including
the
minor
if
he
is
fourteen
years
of
age
or
over,
and
may
direct
 executory
judgment
or
order
shall
be
served
upon
the
Local
Civil
Registrar
of
the

other
general
or
special
notice
to
be
given.
 municipality
 or
 city
 where
 the
 minor
 resides
 and
 the
 Register
 of
 Deeds
 of
 the


 place
 where
 his
 property
 or
 part
 thereof
 is
 situated
 shall
 annotate
 the
 same
 in

Sec.
9.
Case
study
report.
–
The
court
shall
order
a
social
worker
to
conduct
a
case
 the
corresponding
title,
and
report
to
the
court
his
compliance
within
fifteen
days

study
 of
 the
 minor
 and
 all
 the
 prospective
 guardians
 and
 submit
 his
 report
 and
 from
receipt
of
the
order.

recommendation
to
the
court
for
its
guidance
before
the
scheduled
hearing.
The
 

social
worker
may
intervene
on
behalf
of
the
minor
if
he
finds
that
the
petition
 Sec.
 14.
 Bond
 of
 guardian;
 amount;
 conditions.‐Before
 he
 enters
 upon
 the

for
guardianship
should
be
denied.
 execution
 of
 his
 trust,
 or
 letters
 of
 guardianship
 issue,
 an
 appointed
 guardian


 may
 be
 required
 to
 post
 a
 bond
 in
 such
 sum
 as
 the
 court
 shall
 determine
 and

Sec.
10.
Opposition
to
petition.
–
Any
interested
person
may
contest
the
petition
 conditioned
as
follows:

by
filing
a
written
opposition
based
on
such
grounds
as
the
majority
of
the
minor
 

or
the
unsuitability
of
the
person
for
whom
letters
are
prayed,
and
pray
that
the
 (a)
To
make
and
return
to
the
court,
within
three
months
after
the
issuance
of
his

petition
 be
 denied,
 or
 that
 letters
 of
 guardianship
 issue
 to
 himself,
 or
 to
 any
 letters
 of
 guardianship,
 a
 true
 and
 complete
 Inventory
 of
 all
 the
 property,
 real

suitable
person
named
in
the
opposition.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









110




and
personal,
of
his
ward
which
shall
come
to
his
possession
or
knowledge
or
to
 The
 petition
 shall
 be
 docketed
 as
 a
 summary
 special
 proceeding
 In
 which
 all

the
possession
or
knowledge
of
any
other
person
in
his
behalf;
 incidents
 and
 issues
 regarding
 the
 performance
 of
 the
 obligations
 of
 a
 general


 guardian
shall
be
heard
and
resolved.

(b)
 To
 faithfully
 execute
 the
 duties
 of
 his
 trust,
 to
 manage
 and
 dispose
 of
 the
 

property
according
to
this
rule
for
the
best
interests
of
the
ward,
and
to
provide
 Sec.
17.
General
duties
of
guardian.
–
A
guardian
shall
have
the
care
and
custody

for
his
proper
care,
custody
and
education;
 of
 the
 person
 of
 his
 ward
 and
 the
 management
 of
 his
 property,
 or
 only
 the


 management
 of
 his
 property.
 The
 guardian
 of
 the
 property
 of
 a
 nonresident

(c)
To
render
a
true
and
Just
account
of
all
the
property
of
the
ward
in
his
hands,
 minor
shall
have
the
management
of
all
his
property
within
the
Philippines.

and
 of
 all
 proceeds
 or
 interest
 derived
 therefrom,
 and
 of
 the
 management
 and
 

disposition
of
the
same,
at
the
time
designated
by
this
rule
and
such
other
times
 A
guardian
shall
perform
the
following
duties:

as
the
court
directs;
and
at
the
expiration
of
his
trust,
to
settle
his
accounts
with
 

the
 court
 and
 deliver
 and
 pay
 over
 all
 the
 property,
 effects,
 and
 monies
 (a)
To
pay
the
just
debts
of
the
ward
out
of
the
personal
property
and
the
income

remaining
 in
 his
 hands,
 or
 due
 from
 him
 on
 such
 settlement,
 to
 the
 person
 of
the
real
property
of
the
ward,
If
 the
same
is
 sufficient;
otherwise,
out
 of
 the

lawfully
entitled
thereto;
and
 real
property
of
the
ward
upon
obtaining
an
order
for
its
sale
or
encumbrance;


 

(d)
To
perform
all
orders
of
the
court
and
such
other
duties
as
may
be
required
by
 (b)
To
settle
all
accounts
of
his
ward,
and
demand,
sue
for,
receive
all
debts
due

law.
 him,
 or
 may,
 with
 the
 approval
 of
 the
 court,
 compound
 for
 the
 same
 and
 give


 discharges
to
the
debtor
on
receiving
a
fair
and
just
dividend
of
the
property
and

Sec.
15.
Where
to
file
the
bond;
action
thereon.
–
The
bond
posted
by
a
guardian
 effects;
 and
 to
 appear
 for
 and
 represent
 the
 ward
 in
 all
 actions
 and
 special

shall
be
filed
in
the
Family
Court
and,
In
case
of
breach
of
any
of
its
conditions,
 proceedings,
unless
another
person
is
appointed
for
that
purpose;

the
 guardian
 may
 be
 prosecuted
 in
 the
 same
 proceeding
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 the
 

ward
or
of
any
other
person
legally
interested
in
the
property.
 (c)
To
manage
the
property
of
the
ward
frugally
and
without
waste,
and
apply
the


 income
and
profits
thereon,
insofar
as
may
be
necessary,
to
the
comfortable
and

Whenever
necessary,
the
court
may
require
the
guardian
to
post
a
new
bond
and
 suitable
maintenance
of
the
ward;
and
if
such
income
and
profits
be
insufficient

may
discharge
from
further
liability
the
sureties
on
the
old
bond
after
due
notice
 for
 that
 purpose,
 to
 sell
 or
 encumber
 the
 real
 or
 personal
 property,
 upon
 being

to
interested
persons,
if
no
injury
may
result
therefrom
to
those
interested
in
the
 authorized
by
the
court
to
do
so;

property.
 


 (d)
 To
 consent
 to
 a
 partition
 of
 real
 or
 personal
 property
 owned
 by
 the
 ward

Sec.
16.
Bond
of
parents
as
guardians
of
property
of
minor.
–
lf
the
market
value
 jointly
 or
 in
 common
 with
 others
 upon
 authority
 granted
 by
 the
 court
 after

of
the
property
or
the
annual
Income
of
the
child
exceeds
P50,000.00,
the
parent
 hearing,
 notice
 to
 relatives
 of
 the
 ward,
 and
 a
 careful
 investigation
 as
 to
 the

concerned
shall
furnish
a
bond
In
such
amount
as
the
court
may
determine,
but
 necessity
and
propriety
of
the
proposed
action;

in
 no
 case
 less
 than
 ten
 per
 centurn
 of
 the
 value
 of
 such
 property
 or
 annual
 

income,
 to
 guarantee
 the
 performance
 of
 the
 obligations
 prescribed
 for
 general
 (e)
To
submit
to
the
court
a
verified
inventory
of
the
property
of
his
ward
within

guardians.
 three
 months
 after
 his
 appointment,
 and
 annually
 thereafter,
 the
 rendition
 of


 which
may
be
required
upon
the
application
of
an
interested
person;

A
verified
petition
for
approval
of
the
bond
shall
be
flied
in
the
Family
Court
of
 

the
 place
 where
 the
 child
 resides
 or,
 if
 the
 child
 resides
 in
 a
 foreign
 country,
 in
 (f)
To
report
to
the
court
any
property
of
the
ward
not
included
in
the
inventory

the
Family
Court
of
the
place
where
the
property
or
any
part
thereof
is
situated.
 which
 is
 discovered,
 or
 succeeded
 to,
 or
 acquired
 by
 the
 ward
 within
 three


 months
after
such
discovery,
succession,
or
acquisition;
and




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









111





 witnesses,
and
grant
or
deny
the
petition
as
the
best
interests
of
the
ward
may

(g)
To
render
to
the
court
for
its
approval
an
accounting
of
the
property
one
year
 require.

from
his
appointment,
and
every
year
thereafter
or
as
often
as
may
be
required.
 


 Sec.
 22.
 Contents
 of
 order
 for
 sale
 or
 encumbrance
 and
 its
 duration;
 bond.
 –
 If,

Sec.
18.
Power
and
duty
of
the
court
–
The
court
may:
 after
full
examination,
it
is
necessary,
or
would
be
beneficial
to
the
ward,
to
sell


 or
encumber
the
property,
or
some
portion
of
it,
the
court
shall
order
such
sale
or

(a)
Request
the
assistance
of
one
or
more
commissioners
in
the
appraisal
of
the
 encumbrance
 the
 proceeds
 of
 which
 shall
 be
 expended
 for
 the
 maintenance
 or

property
of
the
ward
reported
in
the
initial
and
subsequent
inventories;
 the
 education
 of
 the
 ward,
 or
 invested
 as
 the
 circumstances
 may
 require.
 The


 order
shall
specify
the
grounds
for
the
sale
or
encumbrance
and
may
direct
that

(b)
Authorize
reimbursement
to
the
guardian,
other
than
a
parent,
of
reasonable
 the
property
ordered
sold
be
disposed
of
at
public
sale,
subject
to
such
conditions

expenses
 incurred
 in
 the
 execution
 of
 his
 trust,
 and
 allow
 payment
 of
 as
to
the
time
and
manner
of
payment,
and
security
where
a
part
of
the
payment

compensation
for
his
services
as
the
court
may
deem
just,
not
exceeding
ten
per
 is
 deferred.
 The
 original
 bond
 of
 the
 guardian
 shall
 stand
 as
 security
 for
 the

centum
 of
 the
 net
 income
 of
 the
 ward,
 if
 any;
 otherwise,
 in
 such
 amount
 the
 proper
appropriation
of
the
proceeds
of
the
sale
or
encumbrance,
but
the
court

court
determines
to
be
a
reasonable
compensation
for
his
services;
and
 may,
if
deemed
expedient,
require
an
additional
bond
as
a
condition
for
the
sale


 or
encumbrance.
The
authority
to
sell
or
encumber
shall
not
extend
beyond
one

(c)
 Upon
 complaint
 of
 the
 guardian
 or
 ward,
 or
 of
 any
 person
 having
 actual
 or
 year,
unless
renewed
by
the
court.

prospective
interest
in
the
property
at
the
ward,
require
any
person
suspected
of
 

having
embezzled,
concealed,
or
disposed
of
any
money,
goods
or
interest,
or
a
 Sec.
 23.
 Court
 may
 order
 investment
 of
 proceeds
 and
 direct
 management
 of

written
 instrument
 belonging
 to
 the
 ward
 or
 his
 property
 to
 appear
 for
 property.
 –
 The
 court
 may
 authorize
 and
 require
 the
 guardian
 to
 invest
 the

examination
 concerning
 any
 thereof
 and
 issue
 such
 orders
 as
 would
 secure
 the
 proceeds
 of
 sales
 or
 encumbrances,
 and
 any
 other
 money
 of
 his
 ward
 in
 his

property
against
such
embezzlement,
concealment
or
conveyance.
 hands,
in
real
or
personal
property,
for
the
best
interests
of
the
ward,
and
may


 make
such
other
orders
for
the
management,
investment,
and
disposition
of
the

Sec.
 19.
 Petition
 to
 sell
 or
 encumber
 property.‐When
 the
 income
 of
 a
 property
 property
and
effects,
as
circumstances
may
warrant.

under
guardianship
is
insufficient
to
maintain
and
educate
the
ward,
or
when
it
is
 

for
 his
 benefit
 that
 his
 personal
 or
 real
 property
 or
 any
 part
 thereof
 be
 sold,
 Sec.
 24.
 Grounds
 for
 removal
 or
 resignation
 of
 guardian.
 –
 When
 a
 guardian

mortgaged
 or
 otherwise
 encumbered,
 and
 the
 proceeds
 invested
 in
 safe
 and
 becomes
 insane
 or
 otherwise
 incapable
 of
 discharging
 his
 trust
 or
 is
 found

productive
security,
or
in
the
improvement
or
security
of
other
real
property,
the
 thereafter
 to
 be
 unsuitable,
 or
 has
 wasted
 or
 mismanaged
 the
 property
 of
 the

guardian
may
file
a
verified
petition
setting
forth
such
facts,
and
praying
that
an
 ward,
or
has
failed
to
render
an
account
or
make
a
return
for
thirty
days
after
it
is

order
issue
authorizing
the
sale
or
encumbrance
of
the
property.
 due,
the
court
may,
upon
reasonable
notice
to
the
guardian,
remove
him
as
such


 and
require
him
to
surrender
the
property
of
the
ward
to
the
person
found
to
be

Sec.
20.
Order
to
show
cause.
–
If
the
sale
or
encumbrance
is
necessary
or
would
 lawfully
entitled
thereto.

be
 beneficial
 to
 the
 ward,
 the
 court
 shall
 order
 his
 next
 of
 kin
 and
 all
 person/s
 

interested
 in
 the
 property
 to
 appear
 at
 a
 reasonable
 time
 and
 place
 therein
 The
court
may
allow
the
guardian
to
resign
for
justifiable
causes.

specified
and
show
cause
why
the
petition
should
not
be
granted.
 


 Upon
the
removal
or
resignation
of
the
guardian,
the
court
shall
appoint
a
new

Sec.
21.
Hearing
on
return
of
order;
costs.
–
At
the
time
and
place
designated
in
 one.

the
order
to
show
cause,
the
court
shall
hear
the
allegations
and
evidence
of
the
 

petitioner
 and
 next
 of
 kin,
 and
 other
 persons
 interested,
 together
 with
 their




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









112




No
 motion
 for
 removal
 or
 resignation
 shall
 be
 granted
 unless
 the
 guardian
 has
 

submitted
the
proper
accounting
of
the
property
of
the
ward
and
the
court
has
 PARTIES
INVOLVED
IN
AN
EXPRESS
TRUST

approved
the
same.
 1. Trustor


 2. Trustee

Sec.
 25.
 Ground
 for
 termination
 of
 guardianship.
 –
 The
 court
 motu
 proprio
 or
 3. Beneficiary

upon
 verified
 motion
 of
 any
 person
 allowed
 to
 file
 a
 petition
 for
 guardianship
 

may
terminate
the
guardianship
on
the
ground
that
the
ward
has
come
of
age
or
 FILING
OF
PETITION
MAY
BE
DONE
IN
TESTATE
ESTATE
PROCEEDINGS

has
 died.
 The
 guardian
 shall
 notify
 the
 court
 of
 such
 fact
 within
 ten
 days
 of
 its
 • Where
the
appointment
of
a
trustee
is
necessary
to
carry
into
effect
the

occurrence.
 provisions
of
the
will,
as
where
the
testator
provided
therein
that
certain


 portions
of
his
property
be
placed
in
trust

Sec.
 26.
 Service
 of
 final
 and
 executory
 judgment
 or
 order.
 –
 The
 final
 and
 

executory
judgment
or
order
shall
be
served
upon
the
Local
Civil
Registrar
of
the
 Section
 2.
 Appointment
 and
 powers
 of
 trustees
 under
 will.
 Executor
 of
 former

municipality
 or
 city
 where
 the
 minor
 resides
 and
 the
 Register
 of
 Deeds
 of
 the
 trustee
need
not
administer
trust.
 
If
a
testator
has
omitted
in
his
will
to
appoint

province
or
city
where
his
property
or
any
part
thereof
is
situated.
Both
the
Local
 a
 trustee
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 and
 if
 such
 appointment
 is
 necessary
 to
 carry
 into

Civil
 Registrar
 and’
 the
 Register
 of
 Deeds
 shall
 enter
 the
 final
 and
 executory
 effect
 the
 provisions
 of
 the
 will,
 the
 proper
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 may,
 after

judgment
or
order
in
the
appropriate
books
in
their
offices.
 notice
to
all
persons
interested,
appoint
a
trustee
who
shall
have
the
same
rights,


 powers,
 and
 duties,
 and
 in
 whom
 the
 estate
 shall
 vest,
 as
 if
 he
 had
 been

Sec.
27.
Effect
of
the
rule.
–
This
Rule
amends
Rules
92
to
97
inclusive
of
the
Rules
 appointed
 by
 the
 testator.
 No
 person
 succeeding
 to
 a
 trust
 as
 executor
 or

of
 Court
 on
 guardianship
 of
 minors.
 Guardianship
 of
 incompetents
 who
 are
 not
 administrator
of
a
former
trustee
shall
be
required
to
accept
such
trust.

minors
 shall
 continue
 to
 be
 under
 the
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 regular
 courts
 and
 

governed
by
the
Rules
of
Court.
 Section
3.
Appointment
and
powers
of
new
trustee
under
written
instrument.
 


 When
 a
 trustee
 under
 a
 written
 instrument
 declines,
 resigns,
 dies
 or
 removed

Sec.
 28.
 Effectivity.
 ‐
 This
 Rule
 shall
 take
 effect
 on
 May
 1,
 2003
 following
 its
 before
 the
 objects
 of
 the
 trust
 are
 accomplished,
 and
 no
 adequate
 provision
 is

publication
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
not
later
than
April
15,
2003.
 made
 in
 such
 instrument
 for
 supplying
 the
 vacancy,
 the
 proper
 Court
 of
 First


 Instance
may,
after
due
notice
to
all
persons
interested,
appoint
a
new
trustee
to

act
 alone
 or
 jointly
 with
 the
 others,
 as
 the
 case
 may
 be.
 Such
 new
 trustee
 shall

RULE
98

have
and
exercise
the
same
powers,
right,
and
duties
as
if
he
had
been
originally

TRUSTEES

appointed,
and
the
trust
estate
shall
vest
in
him
in
like
manner
as
it
had
vested
or


 would
have
vested,
in
the
trustee
in
whose
place
he
is
substituted
and
the
court

Section
1.
Where
trustee
appointed.
 
A
trustee
necessary
to
carry
into
effect
the
 may
 order
 such
 conveyance
 to
 be
 made
 by
 the
 former
 trustee
 or
 his

provisions
of
a
will
on
written
instrument
shall
be
appointed
by
the
Court
of
First
 representatives,
 or
 by
 the
 other
 remaining
 trustees,
 as
 may
 be
 necessary
 or

Instance
in
which
the
will
was
allowed,
if
it
be
a
will
allowed
in
the
Philippines,
 proper
 to
 vest
 the
 trust
 estate
 in
 the
 new
 trustee,
 either
 or
 jointly
 with
 the

otherwise
by
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province
in
which
the
property,
or
 others.

some
portion
thereof,
affected
by
the
trust
is
situated.
 


 Section
 4.
 Proceedings
 where
 trustee
 appointed
 abroad.
 
 When
 land
 in
 the

APPLICABILITY
OF
RULES
 Philippines
is
held
in
trust
for
persons
resident
here
by
a
trustee
who
derives
his

• This
 rule
 applies
 only
 to
 express
 trusts
 as
 these
 are
 understood
 in
 the
 authority
from
without
the
Philippines,
such
trustee
shall,
on
petition
filed
in
the

Civil
Code
provisions
and
doesn’t
apply
to
implied
trusts
which
arise
from
 Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province
where
the
land
is
situated,
and
after
due

operation
of
law
 notice
to
all
persons
interested,
be
ordered
to
apply
to
the
court
for
appointment




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









113




as
trustee;
and
upon
his
neglect
or
refusal
to
comply
with
such
order,
the
court
 to
be
returned
by
a
trustee,
the
estate
and
effects
belonging
to
the
trust
shall
be

shall
declare
such
trust
vacant,
and
shall
appoint
a
new
trustee
in
whom
the
trust
 appraised
 and
 the
 court
 may
 order
 one
 or
 more
 inheritance
 tax
 appraisers
 to

estate
 shall
 vest
 in
 like
 manner
 as
 if
 he
 had
 been
 originally
 appointed
 by
 such
 assist
in
the
appraisement.
The
compensation
of
the
trustee
shall
be
fixed
by
the

court.
 court,
if
it
be
not
determined
in
the
instrument
creating
the
trust.


 

Section
5.
Trustee
must
file
bond.
 
Before
entering
on
the
duties
of
his
trust,
a
 Section
8.
Removal
or
resignation
of
trustee.
 
The
proper
Court
of
First
Instance

trustee
shall
file
with
the
clerk
of
the
court
having
jurisdiction
of
the
trust
a
bond
 may,
upon
petition
of
the
parties
beneficially
interested
and
after
due
notice
to

in
the
amount
fixed
by
the
judge
of
said
court,
payable
to
the
Government
of
the
 the
trustee
and
hearing,
remove
a
trustee
if
such
removal
appears
essential
in
the

Philippines
and
sufficient
and
available
for
the
protection
of
any
party
in
interest,
 interest
 of
 the
 petitioner.
 The
 court
 may
 also,
 after
 due
 notice
 to
 all
 persons

and
a
trustee
who
neglects
to
file
such
bond
shall
be
considered
to
have
declined
 interested,
remove
a
trustee
who
is
insane
or
otherwise
incapable
of
discharging

or
 resigned
 the
 trust;
 but
 the
 court
 may
 until
 further
 order
 exempt
 a
 trustee
 his
 trust
 or
 evidently
 unsuitable
 therefor.
 A
 trustee,
 whether
 appointed
 by
 the

under
a
will
from
giving
a
bond
when
the
testator
has
directed
or
requested
such
 court
or
under
a
written
instrument,
may
resign
his
trust
if
it
appears
to
the
court

exemption
 and
 may
 so
 exempt
 any
 trustee
 when
 all
 persons
 beneficially
 proper
to
allow
such
resignation.

interested
in
the
trust,
being
of
full
age,
request
the
exemption.
Such
exemption
 

may
be
cancelled
by
the
court
at
any
time
and
the
trustee
required
to
forthwith
 Section
9.
Proceedings
for
sale
or
encumbrance
of
trust
estate.
 
When
the
sale

file
a
bond.
 or
 encumbrance
 of
 any
 real
 or
 personal
 estate
 held
 in
 trust
 is
 necessary
 or


 expedient,
 the
 court
 having
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 trust
 may,
 on
 petition
 and
 after

Section
 6.
 Conditions
 included
 in
 bond.
 
 The
 following
 conditions
 shall
 be
 due
notice
and
hearing,
order
such
sale
or
encumbrance
to
be
made,
and
the
re‐
deemed
to
be
part
of
the
bond
whether
written
therein
or
not;
 investment
 and
 application
 of
 the
 proceeds
 thereof
 in
 such
 manner
 as
 will
 best

(a)
 That
 the
 trustee
 will
 make
 and
 return
 to
 the
 court,
 at
 such
 time
 as
 it
 may
 effect
 the
 objects
 of
 the
 trust.
 The
 petition,
 notice,
 hearing,
 order
 of
 sale
 or

order,
 a
 true
 inventory
 of
 all
 the
 real
 and
 personal
 estate
 belonging
 to
 him
 as
 encumbrance,
 and
 record
 of
 proceedings,
 shall
 conform
 as
 nearly
 as
 may
 be
 to

trustee,
which
at
the
time
of
the
making
of
such
inventory
shall
have
come
to
his
 the
provisions
concerning
the
sale
or
imcumbrance
by
guardians
of
the
property

possession
or
knowledge;
 of
minors
or
other
wards.

(b)
That
he
will
manage
and
dispose
of
all
such
estate,
and
faithfully
discharge
his
 

trust
 in
 relation
 thereto,
 according
 to
 law
 and
 the
 will
 of
 the
 testator
 or
 the
 EXEMPTION
OF
TRUSTEE
FROM
POSTING
BOND

provisions
of
the
instrument
or
order
under
which
he
is
appointed;
 • Unlike
 an
 executor
 who
 must
 still
 post
 a
 bond
 notwithstanding

(c)
 That
 he
 will
 render
 upon
 oath
 at
 least
 once
 a
 year
 until
 his
 trust
 is
 fulfilled,
 exemption
stated
in
will,
the
trustee
is
not
mandated
to
post
a
bond
if
he

unless
 he
 is
 excused
 therefrom
 in
 any
 year
 by
 the
 court,
 a
 true
 account
 of
 the
 was
exempted
under
the
will

property
 in
 his
 hands
 and
 the
 management
 and
 disposition
 thereof,
 and
 will
 

render
such
other
accounts
as
the
court
may
order;

RULE
102

(d)
That
at
the
expiration
of
his
trust
he
will
settle
his
account
in
court
and
pay

HABEAS
CORPUS

over
and
deliver
all
the
estate
remaining
in
his
hands,
or
due
from
him
on
such

settlement,
to
the
person
or
persons
entitled
to
thereto.
 

But
when
the
trustee
is
appointed
as
a
successor
to
a
prior
trustee,
the
court
may
 Section
 1.
 To
 what
 habeas
 corpus
 extends.
 
 Except
 as
 otherwise
 expressly

dispense
 with
 the
 making
 and
 return
 of
 an
 inventory,
 if
 one
 has
 already
 been
 provided
 by
 law,
 the
 writ
 of
 habeas
 corpus
 shall
 extend
 to
 all
 cases
 of
 illegal

filed,
 and
 in
 such
 case
 the
 condition
 of
 the
 bond
 shall
 be
 deemed
 to
 be
 altered
 confinement
 or
 detention
 by
 which
 any
 person
 is
 deprived
 of
 his
 liberty,
 or
 by

accordingly.
 which
 the
 rightful
 custody
 of
 any
 person
 is
 withheld
 from
 the
 person
 entitled


 thereto.

Section
7.
Appraisal.
Compensation
of
trustee.
 
When
an
inventory
is
required
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









114




WRIT
OF
HABEAS
CORPUS
 by
some
person
on
his
behalf,
and
shall
set
forth:

• Writ
 directed
 to
 the
 person
 detaining
 another
 and
 commanding
 him
 to
 (a)
 That
 the
 person
 in
 whose
 behalf
 the
 application
 is
 made
 is
 imprisoned
 or

produce
 the
 body
 of
 the
 prisoner
 at
 a
 certain
 time
 and
 place,
 with
 the
 restrained
on
his
liberty;

day
 and
 the
 cause
 of
 his
 caption
 and
 detention,
 to
 do,
 submit
 to,
 and
 (b)
The
officer
or
name
of
the
person
by
whom
he
is
so
imprisoned
or
restrained;

receive
whatsoever
the
court
or
judge
awarding
the
writ
shall
consider
in
 or,
if
both
are
unknown
or
uncertain,
such
officer
or
person
may
be
described
by

that
behalf
 an
 assumed
 appellation,
 and
 the
 person
 who
 is
 served
 with
 the
 writ
 shall
 be


 deemed
the
person
intended;

HABEAS
CORPUS
AS
A
REMEDY
UNDER
THE
RULES
 (c)
The
place
where
he
is
so
imprisoned
or
restrained,
if
known;

• Remedy
 in
 all
 cases
 of
 illegal
 confinement
 or
 detention
 or
 where
 the
 (d)
A
copy
of
the
commitment
or
cause
of
detention
of
such
person,
if
it
can
be

rightful
custody
of
a
person
is
withheld
from
one
entitled
to
such
custody
 procured
without
impairing
the
efficiency
of
the
remedy;
or,
if
the
imprisonment

• Actual
or
effective,
not
merely
nominal
or
moral,
restraint
is
required
 or
restraint
is
without
any
legal
authority,
such
fact
shall
appear.

• However,
actual
physical
restrained
is
not
always
required,
any
restraint
 

that
will
prejudice
freedom
of
action
is
sufficient
 Section
4.
When
writ
not
allowed
or
discharge
authorized.
 
If
it
appears
that
the


 person
alleged
to
be
restrained
of
his
liberty
is
in
the
custody
of
an
officer
under

INSTANCES
WHEN
THE
WRIT
MAY
LIKEWISE
BE
AVAILED
OF
 process
issued
by
a
court
or
judge
or
by
virtue
of
a
judgment
or
order
of
a
court

1. There
 has
 been
 deprivation
 of
 a
 constitutional
 right
 resulting
 in
 a
 of
record,
and
that
the
court
or
judge
had
jurisdiction
to
issue
the
process,
render

restraint
of
a
person
 the
 judgment,
 or
 make
 the
 order,
 the
 writ
 shall
 not
 be
 allowed;
 or
 if
 the

2. The
court
had
no
jurisdiction
to
impose
the
sentence
 jurisdiction
appears
after
the
writ
is
allowed,
the
person
shall
not
be
discharged

3. An
 excessive
 penalty
 has
 been
 imposed,
 such
 sentence
 being
 void
 as
 to
 by
 reason
 of
 any
 informality
 or
 defect
 in
 the
 process,
 judgment,
 or
 order.
 Not

such
excess
 shall
anything
in
this
rule
be
held
to
authorize
the
discharge
of
a
person
charged


 with
 or
 convicted
 of
 an
 offense
 in
 the
 Philippines,
 or
 of
 a
 person
 suffering

WHAT
 IS
 NECESSARY
 FOR
 WRIT
 TO
 BE
 ISSUED
 IN
 CASE
 OF
 COURT
 JUDGMENT
 imprisonment
under
lawful
judgment.

RESULTING
TO
ILLEGAL
DEPRIVATION
OF
LIBERTY?
 

• Judgment
no
longer
appealable,
in
which
case
the
writ
is
in
the
nature
of
 Section
 5.
 When
 the
 writ
 must
 be
 granted
 and
 issued.
 
 A
 court
 or
 judge

a
collateral
attack
against
a
final
and
void
judgment
 authorized
 to
 grant
 the
 writ
 must,
 when
 a
 petition
 therefor
 is
 presented
 and
 it

• If
 the
 judgment
 is
 still
 appealable
 then
 the
 remedy
 of
 the
 person
 is
 to
 appears
that
the
writ
ought
to
issue,
grant
the
same
forthwith,
and
immediately

duly
appeal
therefrom
 thereupon
the
clerk
of
the
court
shall
issue
the
writ
under
the
seal
of
the
court;


 or
in
case
of
emergency,
the
judge
may
issue
the
writ
under
his
own
hand,
and

Section
2.
Who
may
grant
the
writ.
 
The
writ
of
habeas
corpus
may
be
granted
 may
depute
any
officer
or
person
to
serve
it.

by
the
Supreme
Court,
or
any
member
thereof
in
the
instances
authorized
by
law,
 

and
if
so
granted
it
shall
be
enforceable
anywhere
in
the
Philippines,
and
may
be
 Section
6.
To
whom
writ
directed,
and
what
to
require.
 
In
case
of
imprisonment

made
 returnable
 before
 the
 court
 or
 any
 member
 thereof,
 or
 before
 a
 Court
 of
 or
 restraint
 by
 an
 officer,
 the
 writ
 shall
 be
 directed
 to
 him,
 and
 shall
 command

First
Instance,
or
any
judge
thereof
for
the
hearing
and
decision
on
the
merits.
It
 him
to
have
the
body
of
the
person
restrained
of
his
liberty
before
the
court
or

may
also
be
granted
by
a
Court
of
First
Instance,
or
a
judge
thereof,
on
any
day
 judge
 designated
 in
 the
 writ
 at
 the
 time
 and
 place
 therein
 specified.
 In
 case
 of

and
 at
 any
 time,
 and
 returnable
 before
 himself,
 enforceable
 only
 within
 his
 imprisonment
or
restraint
by
a
person
not
an
officer,
the
writ
shall
be
directed
to

judicial
district.
 an
 officer,
 and
 shall
 command
 him
 to
 take
 and
 have
 the
 body
 of
 the
 person


 restrained
 of
 his
 liberty
 before
 the
 court
 or
 judge
 designated
 in
 the
 writ
 at
 the

Section
3.
Requisites
of
application
therefor.
 
Application
for
the
writ
shall
be
by
 time
 and
 place
 therein
 specified,
 and
 to
 summon
 the
 person
 by
 whom
 he
 is

petition
signed
and
verified
either
by
the
party
for
whose
relief
it
is
intended,
or
 restrained
then
and
there
to
appear
before
said
court
or
judge
to
show
the
cause




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









115




of
the
imprisonment
or
restraint.
 or
judge;


 (d)
 If
 he
 has
 had
 the
 party
 in
 his
 custody
 or
 power,
 or
 under
 restraint,
 and
 has

Section
 7.
 How
 prisoner
 designated
 and
 writ
 served.
 
 The
 person
 to
 be
 transferred
 such
 custody
 or
 restraint
 to
 another,
 particularly
 to
 whom,
 at
 what

produced
should
be
designated
in
the
writ
by
his
name,
if
known,
but
if
his
name
 time,
for
what
cause,
and
by
what
authority
such
transfer
was
made.

is
 not
 known
 he
 may
 be
 otherwise
 described
 or
 identified.
 The
 writ
 may
 be
 

served
 in
 any
 province
 by
 the
 sheriff
 or
 other
 proper
 officer,
 or
 by
 a
 person
 Section
11.
Return
to
be
signed
and
sworn
to.
 
The
return
or
statement
shall
be

deputed
 by
 the
 court
 or
 judge.
 Service
 of
 the
 writ
 shall
 be
 made
 by
 leaving
 the
 signed
by
the
person
who
makes
it;
and
shall
also
be
sworn
by
him
if
the
prisoner

original
with
the
person
to
whom
it
is
directed
and
preserving
a
copy
on
which
to
 is
not
produced,
and
in
all
other
cases
unless
the
return
is
made
and
signed
by
a

make
return
or
service.
If
that
person
cannot
be
found,
or
has
not
the
prisoner
in
 sworn
public
officer
in
his
official
capacity.

his
 custody,
 then
 the
 service
 shall
 be
 made
 on
 any
 other
 person
 having
 or
 

exercising
such
custody.
 Section
12.
Hearing
on
return.
Adjournments.
 
When
the
writ
is
returned
before


 one
judge,
at
a
time
when
the
court
is
in
session,
he
may
forthwith
adjourn
the

Section
 8.
 How
 writ
 executed
 and
 returned.
 
 The
 officer
 to
 whom
 the
 writ
 is
 case
into
the
court,
there
to
be
heard
and
determined.
The
court
or
judge
before

directed
shall
convey
the
person
so
imprisoned
or
restrained,
and
named
in
the
 whom
the
writ
is
returned
or
adjourned
must
immediately
proceed
to
hear
and

writ,
 before
 the
 judge
 allowing
 the
 writ,
 or
 in
 case
 of
 his
 absence
 or
 disability,
 examine
 the
 return,
 and
 such
 other
 matters
 as
 are
 properly
 submitted
 for

before
 some
 other
 judge
 of
 the
 same
 court,
 on
 the
 day
 specified
 in
 the
 writ,
 consideration,
 unless
 for
 good
 cause
 shown
 the
 hearing
 is
 adjourned,
 in
 which

unless,
 from
 sickness
 or
 infirmity
 of
 the
 person
 directed
 to
 be
 produced,
 such
 event
the
court
or
judge
shall
make
such
order
for
the
safekeeping
of
the
person

person
 cannot,
 without
 danger,
 be
 bought
 before
 the
 court
 or
 judge;
 and
 the
 imprisoned
 or
 restrained
 as
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 case
 requires.
 If
 the
 person

officer
shall
make
due
return
of
the
writ,
together
with
the
day
and
the
cause
of
 imprisoned
 or
 restrained
 is
 not
 produced
 because
 of
 his
 alleged
 sickness
 or

the
caption
and
restraint
of
such
person
according
to
the
command
thereof.
 infirmity,
the
court
or
judge
must
be
satisfied
that
it
is
so
grave
that
such
person


 cannot
 be
 produced
 without
 danger,
 before
 proceeding
 to
 hear
 and
 dispose
 of

Section
9.
Defect
of
form.
 
No
writ
of
habeas
corpus
can
be
disobeyed
for
defect
 the
matter.
On
the
hearing
the
court
or
judge
shall
disregard
matters
of
form
and

of
 form,
 if
 it
 sufficiently
 appears
 therefrom
 in
 whose
 custody
 or
 under
 whose
 technicalities
 in
 respect
 to
 any
 warrant
 or
 order
 of
 commitment
 of
 a
 court
 or

restraint
the
party
imprisoned
or
restrained
is
held
and
the
court
or
judge
before
 officer
authorized
to
commit
by
law.

whom
he
is
to
be
bought.
 


 Section
13.
When
the
return
evidence,
and
when
only
a
plea.
 
If
it
appears
that

Section
10.
Contents
of
return.
 
When
the
person
to
be
produced
is
imprisoned
 the
 prisoner
 is
 in
 custody
 under
 a
 warrant
 of
 commitment
 in
 pursuance
 of
 law,

or
restrained
by
an
officer,
the
person
who
makes
the
return
shall
state
therein,
 the
return
shall
be
considered
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
cause
of
restraint,
but

and
in
other
cases
the
person
in
whose
custody
the
prisoner
is
found
shall
state,
 if
he
is
restrained
of
his
liberty
by
any
alleged
private
authority,
the
return
shall

in
writing
to
the
court
or
 judge
before
whom
the
writ
is
returnable,
plainly
and
 be
considered
only
as
a
plea
of
the
facts
therein
set
forth,
and
the
party
claiming

unequivocably:
 the
custody
must
prove
such
facts.

(a)
 Whether
 he
 has
 or
 has
 not
 the
 party
 in
 his
 custody
 or
 power,
 or
 under
 

restraint;
 Section
14.
When
person
lawfully
imprisoned
recommitted,
and
when
let
to
bail.

(b)
If
he
has
the
party
in
his
custody
or
power,
or
under
restraint,
the
authority
 
 If
 it
 appears
 that
 the
 prisoner
 was
 lawfully
 committed,
 and
 is
 plainly
 and

and
the
true
and
whole
cause
thereof,
set
forth
at
large,
with
a
copy
of
the
writ,
 specifically
charged
in
the
warrant
of
commitment
with
an
offense
punishable
by

order
execution,
or
other
process,
if
any,
upon
which
the
party
is
held;
 death,
he
shall
not
be
released,
discharged,
or
bailed.
If
he
is
lawfully
imprisoned

(c)
 If
 the
 party
 is
 in
 his
 custody
 or
 power
 or
 is
 restrained
 by
 him,
 and
 is
 not
 or
restrained
on
a
charge
of
having
committed
an
offense
not
so
punishable,
he

produced,
particularly
the
nature
and
gravity
of
the
sickness
or
infirmity
of
such
 may
be
recommitted
to
imprisonment
or
admitted
to
bail
in
the
discretion
of
the

party
by
reason
of
which
he
cannot,
without
danger,
be
bought
before
the
court
 court
or
judge.
If
he
be
admitted
to
bail,
he
shall
forthwith
file
a
bond
in
such
sum




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









116




as
 the
 court
 or
 judge
 deems
 reasonable,
 considering
 the
 circumstances
 of
 the
 process,
or
the
prisoner
be
delivered
to
an
inferior
officer
to
carry
to
jail,
or,
by

prisoner
 and
 the
 nature
 of
 the
 offense
 charged,
 conditioned
 for
 his
 appearance
 order
of
the
proper
court
or
judge,
be
removed
from
one
place
to
another
within

before
 the
 court
 where
 the
 offense
 is
 properly
 cognizable
 to
 abide
 its
 order
 of
 the
 Philippines
 for
 trial,
 or
 in
 case
 of
 fire
 epidemic,
 insurrection,
 or
 other

judgment;
and
the
court
or
judge
shall
certify
the
proceedings,
together
with
the
 necessity
 or
 public
 calamity;
 and
 a
 person
 who,
 after
 such
 commitment,
 makes

bond,
forthwith
to
the
proper
court.
If
such
bond
is
not
so
filed,
the
prisoner
shall
 signs,
or
counter‐signs
any
order
for
such
removal
contrary
to
this
section,
shall

be
recommitted
to
confinement.
 forfeit
to
the
party
aggrieved
the
sum
of
one
thousand
pesos,
to
be
recovered
in


 a
proper
action.

Section
 15.
 When
 prisoner
 discharged
 if
 no
 appeal.
 
 When
 the
 court
 or
 judge
 

has
 examined
 into
 the
 cause
 of
 caption
 and
 restraint
 of
 the
 prisoner,
 and
 is
 Section
 19.
 Record
 of
 writ,
 fees
 and
 costs.
 
 The
 proceedings
 upon
 a
 writ
 of

satisfied
that
he
is
unlawfully
imprisoned
or
restrained,
he
shall
forthwith
order
 habeas
 corpus
 shall
 be
 recorded
 by
 the
 clerk
 of
 the
 court,
 and
 upon
 the
 final

his
discharge
from
confinement,
but
such
discharge
shall
not
be
effective
until
a
 disposition
 of
 such
 proceedings
 the
 court
 or
 judge
 shall
 make
 such
 order
 as
 to

copy
of
the
order
has
been
served
on
the
officer
or
person
detaining
the
prisoner.
 costs
as
the
case
requires.
The
fees
of
officers
and
witnesses
shall
be
included
in

If
 the
 officer
 or
 person
 detaining
 the
 prisoner
 does
 not
 desire
 to
 appeal,
 the
 the
costs
taxed,
but
no
officer
or
person
shall
have
the
right
to
demand
payment

prisoner
shall
be
forthwith
released.
 in
advance
of
any
fees
to
which
he
is
entitled
by
virtue
of
the
proceedings.
When


 a
person
confined
under
color
of
proceedings
in
a
criminal
case
is
discharged,
the

Section
 16.
 Penalty
 for
 refusing
 to
 issue
 writ,
 or
 for
 disobeying
 the
 same.
 
 A
 costs
 shall
 be
 taxed
 against
 the
 Republic
 of
 the
 Philippines,
 and
 paid
 out
 of
 its

clerk
of
a
court
who
refuses
to
issue
the
writ
after
allowance
thereof
and
demand
 Treasury;
when
a
person
in
custody
by
virtue
or
under
color
of
proceedings
in
a

therefor,
or
a
person
to
whom
a
writ
is
directed,
who
neglects
or
refuses
to
obey
 civil
case
is
discharged,
the
costs
shall
be
taxed
against
him,
or
against
the
person

or
 make
 return
 of
 the
 same
 according
 to
 the
 command
 thereof,
 or
 makes
 false
 who
signed
the
application
for
the
writ,
or
both,
as
the
court
shall
direct.

return
 thereof,
 or
 who,
 upon
 demand
 made
 by
 or
 on
 behalf
 of
 the
 prisoner,
 

refuses
to
deliver
to
the
person
demanding,
within
six
(6)
hours
after
the
demand

A.M.
No.
07‐9‐12‐SC






therefor,
a
true
copy
of
the
warrant
or
order
of
commitment,
shall
forfeit
to
the

WRIT
OF
AMPARO

party
 aggrieved
 the
 sum
 of
 one
 thousand
 pesos,
 to
 be
 recorded
 in
 a
 proper

action,
and
may
also
be
punished
by
the
court
or
judge
as
for
contempt.
 


 SECTION
 1.
 Petition.
 The
 petition
 for
 a
 writ
 of
 amparo
 is
 a
 remedy
 available
 to

Section
17.
Person
discharged
not
to
be
again
imprisoned.
 
A
person
who
is
set
 any
person
whose
right
to
life,
liberty
and
security
is
violated
or
threatened
with

at
 liberty
 upon
 a
 writ
 of
 habeas
 corpus
 shall
 not
 be
 again
 imprisoned
 for
 the
 violation
by
an
unlawful
act
or
omission
of
a
public
official
or
employee,
or
of
a

same
offense
unless
by
the
lawful
order
or
process
of
a
court
having
jurisdiction
 private
individual
or
entity.

of
the
cause
or
offense;
and
a
person
who
knowingly,
contrary
to
the
provisions
 

of
 this
 rule,
 recommits
 or
 imprisons,
 or
 causes
 to
 be
 committed
 or
 imprisoned,
 The
 writ
 shall
 cover
 extralegal
 killings
 and
 enforced
 disappearances
 or
 threats

for
 the
 same
 offense,
 or
 pretended
 offense,
 any
 person
 so
 set
 at
 liberty,
 or
 thereof.

knowingly
aids
or
assists
therein,
shall
forfeit
to
the
party
aggrieved
the
sum
of
 

one
 thousand
 pesos,
 to
 be
 recovered
 in
 a
 proper
 action,
 notwithstanding
 any
 SEC.
2.
Who
May
File.
The
petition
may
be
filed
by
the
aggrieved
party
or
by
any

colorable
pretense
or
variation
in
the
warrant
of
commitment,
and
may
also
be
 qualified
person
or
entity
in
the
following
order:

punished
by
the
court
or
judge
granting
the
writ
as
for
contempt.
 1. Any
member
of
the
immediate
family,
namely:
the
spouse,
children
and


 parents
of
the
aggrieved
party;


Section
 18.
 When
 prisoner
 may
 be
 removed
 from
 one
 custody
 to
 another.
 
 A
 2. Any
ascendant,
descendant
or
collateral
relative
of
the
aggrieved
party

person
committed
to
prison,
or
in
custody
of
an
officer,
for
any
criminal
matter,
 within
the
fourth
civil
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity,
in
default
of

shall
 not
 be
 removed
 therefrom
 into
 the
 custody
 of
 another
 unless
 by
 legal
 those
mentioned
in
the
preceding
paragraph;
or





MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









117




3. Any
concerned
citizen,
organization,
association
or
institution,
if
there
is
 3. The
right
to
life,
liberty
and
security
of
the
aggrieved
party
violated
or

no
known
member
of
the
immediate
family
or
relative
of
the
aggrieved
 threatened
 with
 violation
 by
 an
 unlawful
 act
 or
 omission
 of
 the

party.

 respondent,
 and
 how
 such
 threat
 or
 violation
 is
 committed
 with
 the


 attendant
circumstances
detailed
in
supporting
affidavits;


The
 filing
 of
 a
 petition
 by
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 suspends
 the
 right
 of
 all
 other
 4. The
 investigation
 conducted,
 if
 any,
 specifying
 the
 names,
 personal

authorized
 parties
 to
 file
 similar
 petitions.
 Likewise,
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 by
 circumstances,
and
addresses
of
the
investigating
authority
or
individuals,

an
 authorized
 party
 on
 behalf
 of
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 suspends
 the
 right
 of
 all
 as
well
as
the
manner
and
conduct
of
the
investigation,
together
with
any

others,
observing
the
order
established
herein.
 report;



 5. The
actions
and
recourses
taken
by
the
petitioner
to
determine
the
fate

SEC.
3.
Where
to
File.

The
petition
may
be
filed
on
any
day
and
at
any
time
with
 or
 whereabouts
 of
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 and
 the
 identity
 of
 the
 person

the
 Regional
 Trial
 Court
 of
 the
 place
 where
 the
 threat,
 act
 or
 omission
 was
 responsible
for
the
threat,
act
or
omission;
and


committed
or
any
of
its
elements
occurred,
or
with
the
Sandiganbayan,
the
Court
 6. The
relief
prayed
for.

of
 Appeals,
 the
 Supreme
 Court,
 or
 any
 justice
 of
 such
 courts.
 The
 writ
 shall
 be
 

enforceable
anywhere
in
the
Philippines.
 The
petition
may
include
a
general
prayer
for
other
just
and
equitable
reliefs.


 

When
 issued
 by
 a
 Regional
 Trial
 Court
 or
 any
 judge
 thereof,
 the
 writ
 shall
 be
 SEC.
6.
Issuance
of
the
Writ.

Upon
the
filing
of
the
petition,
the
court,
justice
or

returnable
before
such
court
or
judge.
 judge
 shall
 immediately
 order
 the
 issuance
 of
 the
 writ
 if
 on
 its
 face
 it
 ought
 to


 issue.
The
clerk
of
court
shall
issue
the
writ
under
the
seal
of
the
court;
or
in
case

When
 issued
 by
 the
 Sandiganbayan
 or
 the
 Court
 of
 Appeals
 or
 any
 of
 their
 of
urgent
necessity,
the
justice
or
the
judge
may
issue
the
writ
under
his
or
her

justices,
it
may
be
returnable
before
such
court
or
any
justice
thereof,
or
to
any
 own
hand,
and
may
deputize
any
officer
or
person
to
serve
it.

Regional
 Trial
 Court
 of
 the
 place
 where
 the
 threat,
 act
 or
 omission
 was
 

committed
or
any
of
its
elements
occurred.
 The
 writ
 shall
 also
 set
 the
 date
 and
 time
 for
 summary
 hearing
 of
 the
 petition


 which
shall
not
be
later
than
seven
(7)
days
from
the
date
of
its
issuance.

When
 issued
 by
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 or
 any
 of
 its
 justices,
 it
 may
 be
 returnable
 

before
 such
 Court
 or
 any
 justice
 thereof,
 or
 before
 the
 Sandiganbayan
 or
 the
 SEC.
 7.
 Penalty
 for
 Refusing
 to
 Issue
 or
 Serve
 the
 Writ.
 
 A
 clerk
 of
 court
 who

Court
 of
 Appeals
 or
 any
 of
 their
 justices,
 or
 to
 any
 Regional
 Trial
 Court
 of
 the
 refuses
to
issue
the
writ
after
its
allowance,
or
a
deputized
person
who
refuses
to

place
 where
 the
 threat,
 act
 or
 omission
 was
 committed
 or
 any
 of
 its
 elements
 serve
 the
 same,
 shall
 be
 punished
 by
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 for
 contempt

occurred.
 without
prejudice
to
other
disciplinary
actions.


 

SEC.
4.
No
Docket
Fees.

The
petitioner
shall
be
exempted
from
the
payment
of
 SEC.
8.
How
the
Writ
is
Served.

The
writ
shall
be
served
upon
the
respondent
by
a

the
 docket
 and
 other
 lawful
 fees
 when
 filing
 the
 petition.
 The
 court,
 justice
 or
 judicial
officer
or
by
a
person
deputized
by
the
court,
justice
or
judge
who
shall

judge
shall
docket
the
petition
and
act
upon
it
immediately.
 retain
 a
 copy
 on
 which
 to
 make
 a
 return
 of
 service.
 In
 case
 the
 writ
 cannot
 be


 served
personally
on
the
respondent,
the
rules
on
substituted
service
shall
apply.

SEC.
 5.
 Contents
 of
 Petition.
 
 The
 petition
 shall
 be
 signed
 and
 verified
 and
 shall
 

allege
the
following:
 SEC.
9.
Return;
Contents.

Within
seventy‐two
(72)
hours
after
service
of
the
writ,

1. The
personal
circumstances
of
the
petitioner;

 the
 respondent
 shall
 file
 a
 verified
 written
 return
 together
 with
 supporting

2. The
 name
 and
 personal
 circumstances
 of
 the
 respondent
 responsible
 affidavits
which
shall,
among
other
things,
contain
the
following:

for
the
threat,
act
or
omission,
or,
if
the
name
is
unknown
or
uncertain,
 1. The
 lawful
 defenses
 to
 show
 that
 the
 respondent
 did
 not
 violate
 or

the
respondent
may
be
described
by
an
assumed
appellation;
 threaten
 with
 violation
 the
 right
 to
 life,
 liberty
 and
 security
 of
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









118




aggrieved
party,
through
any
act
or
omission;

 7. Reply;


2. The
steps
or
actions
taken
by
the
respondent
to
determine
the
fate
or
 8. Motion
to
declare
respondent
in
default;


whereabouts
 of
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 and
 the
 person
 or
 persons
 9. Intervention;


responsible
for
the
threat,
act
or
omission;

 10. Memorandum;


3. All
relevant
information
in
the
possession
of
the
respondent
pertaining
 11. Motion
 for
 reconsideration
 of
 interlocutory
 orders
 or
 interim
 relief

to
the
threat,
act
or
omission
against
the
aggrieved
party;
and

 orders;
and


4. If
 the
 respondent
 is
 a
 public
 official
 or
 employee,
 the
 return
 shall
 12. Petition
 for
 certiorari,
 mandamus
 or
 prohibition
 against
 any

further
state
the
actions
that
have
been
or
will
still
be
taken:

 interlocutory
order.


a. To
verify
the
identity
of
the
aggrieved
party;

 

b. To
 recover
 and
 preserve
 evidence
 related
 to
 the
 death
 or
 SEC.
 12.
 Effect
 of
 Failure
 to
 File
 Return.
 
 In
 case
 the
 respondent
 fails
 to
 file
 a

disappearance
 of
 the
 person
 identified
 in
 the
 petition
 which
 return,
the
court,
justice
or
judge
shall
proceed
to
hear
the
petition
ex
parte.

may
 aid
 in
 the
 prosecution
 of
 the
 person
 or
 persons
 

responsible;

 SEC.
 13.
 Summary
 Hearing.
 
 The
 hearing
 on
 the
 petition
 shall
 be
 summary.

c. To
 identify
 witnesses
 and
 obtain
 statements
 from
 them
 However,
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 call
 for
 a
 preliminary
 conference
 to

concerning
the
death
or
disappearance;

 simplify
 the
 issues
 and
 determine
 the
 possibility
 of
 obtaining
 stipulations
 and

d. To
determine
the
cause,
manner,
location
and
time
of
death
or
 admissions
from
the
parties.

disappearance
as
well
as
any
pattern
or
practice
that
may
have
 

brought
about
the
death
or
disappearance;

 The
hearing
shall
be
from
day
to
day
until
completed
and
given
the
same
priority

e. To
identify
and
apprehend
the
person
or
persons
involved
in
the
 as
petitions
for
habeas
corpus.

death
or
disappearance;
and

 

f. To
bring
the
suspected
offenders
before
a
competent
court.

 SEC.
 14.
 Interim
 Reliefs.
 
 Upon
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 or
 at
 anytime
 before
 final


 judgment,
the
court,
justice
or
judge
may
grant
any
of
the
following
reliefs:

The
 return
 shall
 also
 state
 other
 matters
 relevant
 to
 the
 investigation,
 its
 

resolution
and
the
prosecution
of
the
case.
 (a)
 Temporary
 Protection
 Order.
 
 The
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge,
 upon
 motion
 or


 motu
 proprio,
 may
 order
 that
 the
 petitioner
 or
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 and
 any

A
general
denial
of
the
allegations
in
the
petition
shall
not
be
allowed.
 member
of
the
immediate
family
be
protected
in
a
government
agency
or
by
an


 accredited
 person
 or
 private
 institution
 capable
 of
 keeping
 and
 securing
 their

SEC.
 10.
 Defenses
 not
 Pleaded
 Deemed
 Waived.
 
 All
 defenses
 shall
 be
 raised
 in
 safety.
If
the
petitioner
is
an
organization,
association
or
institution
referred
to
in

the
return,
otherwise,
they
shall
be
deemed
waived.
 Section
3(c)
of
this
Rule,
the
protection
may
be
extended
to
the
officers
involved.


 

SEC.
11.
Prohibited
Pleadings
and
Motions.

The
following
pleadings
and
motions
 The
 Supreme
 Court
 shall
 accredit
 the
 persons
 and
 private
 institutions
 that
 shall

are
prohibited:
 extend
 temporary
 protection
 to
 the
 petitioner
 or
 the
 aggrieved
 party
 and
 any

1. Motion
to
dismiss;

 member
 of
 the
 immediate
 family,
 in
 accordance
 with
 guidelines
 which
 it
 shall

2. Motion
 for
 extension
 of
 time
 to
 file
 return,
 opposition,
 affidavit,
 issue.

position
paper
and
other
pleadings;

 

3. Dilatory
motion
for
postponement;
 The
 accredited
 persons
 and
 private
 institutions
 shall
 comply
 with
 the
 rules
 and

4. Motion
for
a
bill
of
particulars;

 conditions
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
court,
justice
or
judge.

5. Counterclaim
or
cross‐claim;

 

6. Third‐party
complaint;

 (b)
Inspection
Order.

The
court,
justice
or
judge,
upon
verified
motion
and
after




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









119




due
hearing,
may
order
any
person
in
possession
or
control
of
a
designated
land
 

or
 other
 property,
 to
 permit
 entry
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 inspecting,
 measuring,
 The
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 also
 refer
 the
 witnesses
 to
 other
 government

surveying,
 or
 photographing
 the
 property
 or
 any
 relevant
 object
 or
 operation
 agencies,
or
to
accredited
persons
or
private
institutions
capable
of
keeping
and

thereon.
 securing
their
safety.


 

The
 motion
 shall
 state
 in
 detail
 the
 place
 or
 places
 to
 be
 inspected.
 It
 shall
 be
 SEC.
 15.
 Availability
 of
 Interim
 Reliefs
 to
 Respondent.
 
 Upon
 verified
 motion
 of

supported
by
affidavits
or
testimonies
of
witnesses
having
personal
knowledge
of
 the
 respondent
 and
 after
 due
 hearing,
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 issue
 an

the
enforced
disappearance
or
whereabouts
of
the
aggrieved
party.
 inspection
 order
 or
 production
 order
 under
 paragraphs
 (b)
 and
 (c)
 of
 the


 preceding
section.

If
 the
 motion
 is
 opposed
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 national
 security
 or
 of
 the
 privileged
 

nature
 of
 the
 information,
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 conduct
 a
 hearing
 in
 A
motion
for
inspection
order
under
this
section
shall
be
supported
by
affidavits

chambers
to
determine
the
merit
of
the
opposition.
 or
 testimonies
 of
 witnesses
 having
 personal
 knowledge
 of
 the
 defenses
 of
 the


 respondent.

The
 movant
 must
 show
 that
 the
 inspection
 order
 is
 necessary
 to
 establish
 the
 

right
of
the
aggrieved
party
alleged
to
be
threatened
or
violated.
 SEC.
 16.
 Contempt.
 
 The
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 order
 the
 respondent
 who


 refuses
 to
 make
 a
 return,
 or
 who
 makes
 a
 false
 return,
 or
 any
 person
 who

The
inspection
order
shall
specify
the
person
or
persons
authorized
to
make
the
 otherwise
 disobeys
 or
 resists
 a
 lawful
 process
 or
 order
 of
 the
 court
 to
 be

inspection
 and
 the
 date,
 time,
 place
 and
 manner
 of
 making
 the
 inspection
 and
 punished
for
contempt.
The
contemnor
may
be
imprisoned
or
imposed
a
fine.

may
prescribe
other
conditions
to
protect
the
constitutional
rights
of
all
parties.
 

The
order
shall
expire
five
(5)
days
after
the
date
of
its
issuance,
unless
extended
 SEC.
 17.
 Burden
 of
 Proof
 and
 Standard
 of
 Diligence
 Required.
 
 The
 parties
 shall

for
justifiable
reasons.
 establish
their
claims
by
substantial
evidence.


 

(c)
Production
Order.

The
court,
justice
or
judge,
upon
verified
motion
and
after
 The
 respondent
 who
 is
 a
 private
 individual
 or
 entity
 must
 prove
 that
 ordinary

due
 hearing,
 may
 order
 any
 person
 in
 possession,
 custody
 or
 control
 of
 any
 diligence
 as
 required
 by
 applicable
 laws,
 rules
 and
 regulations
 was
 observed
 in

designated
documents,
papers,
books,
accounts,
letters,
photographs,
objects
or
 the
performance
of
duty.

tangible
 things,
 or
 objects
 in
 digitized
 or
 electronic
 form,
 which
 constitute
 or
 The
 respondent
 who
 is
 a
 public
 official
 or
 employee
 must
 prove
 that

contain
 evidence
 relevant
 to
 the
 petition
 or
 the
 return,
 to
 produce
 and
 permit
 extraordinary
diligence
as
required
by
applicable
laws,
rules
and
regulations
was

their
inspection,
copying
or
photographing
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
movant.
 observed
in
the
performance
of
duty.


 

The
 motion
 may
 be
 opposed
 on
 the
 ground
 of
 national
 security
 or
 of
 the
 The
respondent
public
official
 or
 employee
cannot
invoke
the
 presumption
that

privileged
nature
of
the
information,
in
which
case
the
court,
justice
or
judge
may
 official
duty
has
been
regularly
performed
to
evade
responsibility
or
liability.

conduct
a
hearing
in
chambers
to
determine
the
merit
of
the
opposition.
 

The
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 shall
 prescribe
 other
 conditions
 to
 protect
 the
 SEC.
18.
Judgment.

The
court
shall
render
judgment
within
ten
(10)
days
from
the

constitutional
rights
of
all
the
parties.
 time
 the
 petition
 is
 submitted
 for
 decision.
 If
 the
 allegations
 in
 the
 petition
 are


 proven
by
substantial
evidence,
the
court
shall
grant
the
privilege
of
the
writ
and

(d)
Witness
Protection
Order.

The
court,
justice
or
judge,
upon
motion
or
motu
 such
reliefs
as
may
be
proper
and
 appropriate;
 otherwise,
the
 privilege
 shall
 be

proprio,
 may
 refer
 the
 witnesses
 to
 the
 Department
 of
 Justice
 for
 admission
 to
 denied.

the
 Witness
 Protection,
 Security
 and
 Benefit
 Program,
 pursuant
 to
 Republic
 Act
 

No.
6981.
 SEC.
19.
Appeal.

Any
party
may
appeal
from
the
final
judgment
or
order
to
the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









120




Supreme
 Court
 under
 Rule
 45.
 The
 appeal
 may
 raise
 questions
 of
 fact
 or
 law
 or
 

both.
 After
consolidation,
the
procedure
under
this
Rule
shall
continue
to
apply
to
the


 disposition
of
the
reliefs
in
the
petition.

The
period
of
appeal
shall
be
five
(5)
working
days
from
the
date
of
notice
of
the
 

adverse
judgment.
 SEC.
 24.
 Substantive
 Rights.
 
 This
 Rule
 shall
 not
 diminish,
 increase
 or
 modify


 substantive
rights
recognized
and
protected
by
the
Constitution.

The
appeal
shall
be
given
the
same
priority
as
in
habeas
corpus
cases.
 


 SEC.
 25.
 Suppletory
 Application
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court.
 
 The
 Rules
 of
 Court
 shall

SEC.
20.
Archiving
and
Revival
of
Cases.

The
court
shall
not
dismiss
the
petition,
 apply
suppletorily
insofar
as
it
is
not
inconsistent
with
this
Rule.

but
shall
archive
it,
if
upon
its
determination
it
cannot
proceed
for
a
valid
cause
 

such
 as
 the
 failure
 of
 petitioner
 or
 witnesses
 to
 appear
 due
 to
 threats
 on
 their
 SEC.
 26.
 Applicability
 to
 Pending
 Cases.
 
 This
 Rule
 shall
 govern
 cases
 involving

lives.
 extralegal
killings
and
enforced
disappearances
or
threats
thereof
pending
in
the


 trial
and
appellate
courts.

A
periodic
review
of
the
archived
cases
shall
be
made
by
the
amparo
court
that
 

shall,
motu
proprio
or
upon
motion
by
any
party,
order
their
revival
when
ready
 
 CERTIORARI,
 HABEAS
 AMPARO
 HABEAS
DATA

for
 further
 proceedings.
 The
 petition
 shall
 be
 dismissed
 with
 prejudice
 upon
 PROHIBITION,
 CORPUS

failure
to
prosecute
the
case
after
the
lapse
of
two
(2)
years
from
notice
to
the
 MANDAMUS

petitioner
of
the
order
archiving
the
case.
 WEIGHT
 OF
 Preponderanc Preponderanc Substantial
 Preponderanc

 EVIDENCE
 e
of
evidence
 e
of
evidence
 evidence
 e
of
evidence

The
 clerks
 of
 court
 shall
 submit
 to
 the
 Office
 of
 the
 Court
 Administrator
 a
 BURDEN
 OF
 Petitioner
 Petitioner
 Petitioner
 Petitioner
 and

consolidated
list
of
archived
cases
under
this
Rule
not
later
than
the
first
week
of
 PROOF
 and
 respondent

January
of
every
year.
 respondent


 DISMISSAL
 OF
 If
 failed
 If
 failed
 Not
 If
 failed

SEC.
21.
Institution
of
Separate
Actions.

This
Rule
shall
not
preclude
the
filing
of
 PETITION
 burden
 of
 burden
 of
 dismissed,
 burden
 of

separate
criminal,
civil
or
administrative
actions.
 proof
 proof
 archived
 proof


 DILIGENCE
 Ordinary

 Ordinary
 If
 public
 Ordinary

SEC.
 22.
 Effect
 of
 Filing
 of
 a
 Criminal
 Action.
 
 When
 a
 criminal
 action
 has
 been
 REQUIRED
 respondent,

commenced,
no
separate
petition
for
the
writ
shall
be
filed.
The
reliefs
under
the
 extraordinar
writ
shall
be
available
by
motion
in
the
criminal
case.
 y


 GENERAL
 OK
 OK
 Not
allowed
 Not
allowed

The
procedure
under
this
Rule
shall
govern
the
disposition
of
the
reliefs
available
 DENIAL

under
the
writ
of
amparo.
 PRESUMPTIO Yes
 Yes
 No
 Yes


 N
 OF

SEC.
23.
Consolidation.

When
a
criminal
action
is
filed
subsequent
to
the
filing
of
 REGULARITY

a
petition
for
the
writ,
the
latter
shall
be
consolidated
with
the
criminal
action.
 RIGHTS
 Constitutional
 Right
 to
 Right
 to
 life,
 Right
 to


 PROTECTED
 and
 statutory
 liberty
 liberty,
 and
 privacy
 in
 life,

When
 a
 criminal
 action
 and
 a
 separate
 civil
 action
 are
 filed
 subsequent
 to
 a
 rights
 security
 liberty,
 and

petition
 for
 a
 writ
 of
 amparo,
 the
 latter
 shall
 be
 consolidated
 with
 the
 criminal
 security

action.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









121




DOCKET
FEES
 Yes
 Yes
 No
 Yes

 2. Any
ascendant,
descendant
or
collateral
relative
of
the
aggrieved
party



 within
the
fourth
civil
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity,
in
default
of

those
mentioned
in
the
preceding
paragraph.

A.
M.
No.
08‐1‐16‐SC



THE
RULE
ON
THE
WRIT
OF
HABEAS
DATA

SEC.
 3.
 Where
 to
 File.
 The
 petition
 may
 be
 filed
 with
 the
 Regional
 Trial
 Court


 where
 the
 petitioner
 or
 respondent
 resides,
 or
 that
 which
 has
 jurisdiction
 over

SECTION
 1.
 Habeas
 Data.
 The
 writ
 of
 habeas
 data
 is
 a
 remedy
 available
 to
 any
 the
 place
 where
 the
 data
 or
 information
 is
 gathered,
 collected
 or
 stored,
 at
 the

person
whose
right
to
privacy
in
life,
liberty
or
security
is
violated
or
threatened
 option
of
the
petitioner.

by
 an
 unlawful
 act
 or
 omission
 of
 a
 public
 official
 or
 employee,
 or
 of
 a
 private
 

individual
 or
 entity
 engaged
 in
 the
 gathering,
 collecting
 or
 storing
 of
 data
 or
 The
petition
may
also
be
filed
with
the
Supreme
Court
or
the
Court
of
Appeals
or

information
 regarding
 the
 person,
 family,
 home
 and
 correspondence
 of
 the
 the
 Sandiganbayan
 when
 the
 action
 concerns
 public
 data
 files
 of
 government

aggrieved
party.
 offices.


 

WHAT
IS
THE
WRIT
FOR
HABEAS
DATA?
 SEC.
 4.
 Where
 Returnable;
 Enforceable.
 When
 the
 writ
 is
 issued
 by
 a
 Regional

• Remedy
available
to
any
person
whose
right
to
privacy
in
life,
liberty
or
 Trial
Court
or
any
judge
thereof,
it
shall
be
returnable
before
such
court
or
judge.

security
 is
 violated
 or
 threatened
 by
 an
 unlawful
 act
 or
 omission
 of
 a
 

public
official
or
employee,
or
of
a
private
individual
or
entity
engaged
in
 When
issued
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
or
the
Sandiganbayan
or
any
of
its
justices,

the
 gathering,
 collecting
 or
 storing
 of
 data
 or
 information
 regarding
 the
 it
may
be
returnable
before
such
court
or
any
justice
thereof,
or
to
any
Regional

person,
family,
home
and
correspondence
of
the
aggrieved
party
 Trial
Court
of
the
place
where
the
petitioner
or
respondent
resides,
or
that
which


 has
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 place
 where
 the
 data
 or
 information
 is
 gathered,

WHAT
RIGHTS
ARE
PROTECTED
BY
THIS
WRIT?
 collected
or
stored.

• Right
to
privacy
in
life,
liberty,
or
security
 


 When
 issued
 by
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 or
 any
 of
 its
 justices,
 it
 may
 be
 returnable

ILLUSTRATION:
MAY
A
PETITION
FOR
WRIT
OF
HABEAS
DATA
BE
FILED
AGAINST
 before
 such
 Court
 or
 any
 justice
 thereof,
 or
 before
 the
 Court
 of
 Appeals
 or
 the

SWS?
 Sandiganbayan
 or
 any
 of
 its
 justices,
 or
 to
 any
 Regional
 Trial
 Court
 of
 the
 place

• With
 respect
 to
 being
 a
 respondent,
 SWS
 as
 an
 entity
 may
 be
 a
 where
 the
 petitioner
 or
 respondent
 resides,
 or
 that
 which
 has
 jurisdiction
 over

respondent—it
is
engaged
in
the
gathering,
collecting
and
storing
of
data
 the
place
where
the
data
or
information
is
gathered,
collected
or
stored.

or
information
regarding
the
person,
family,
home
and
correspondence

 

• With
 respect
 to
 the
 acts
 conducted
 of
 SWS,
 if
 the
 same
 are
 unlawful
 in
 The
writ
of
habeas
data
shall
be
enforceable
anywhere
in
the
Philippines.

nature,
 then
 it
 may
 be
 made
 a
 respondent
 to
 the
 petition
 for
 the
 

issuance
of
writ
of
habeas
data
 Sec.
 5.
 Docket
 Fees.
 No
 docket
 and
 other
 lawful
 fees
 shall
 be
 required
 from
 an


 indigent
petitioner.
The
petition
of
the
indigent
shall
be
docked
and
acted
upon

SEC.
 2.
 Who
 May
 File.
 Any
 aggrieved
 party
 may
 file
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 writ
 of
 immediately,
 without
 prejudice
 to
 subsequent
 submission
 of
 proof
 of
 indigency

habeas
 data.
 However,
 in
 cases
 of
 extralegal
 killings
 and
 enforced
 not
later
than
fifteen
(15)
days
from
the
filing
of
the
petition.

disappearances,
the
petition
may
be
filed
by:
 

1. Any
 member
 of
 the
 immediate
 family
 of
 the
 aggrieved
 party,
 namely:
 SEC.
 6.
 Petition.
 A
 verified
 written
 petition
 for
 a
 writ
 of
 habeas
 data
 should

the
spouse,
children
and
parents;
or
 contain:

(a) The
personal
circumstances
of
the
petitioner
and
the
respondent;




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









122




(b) The
 manner
 the
 right
 to
 privacy
 is
 violated
 or
 threatened
 and
 how
 it
 (a) The
 lawful
 defenses
 such
 as
 national
 security,
 state
 secrets,
 privileged

affects
the
right
to
life,
liberty
or
security
of
the
aggrieved
party;
 communications,
 confidentiality
of
 the
 source
of
 information
 of
media

(c) The
actions
and
recourses
taken
by
the
petitioner
to
secure
the
data
or
 and
others;

information;
 (b) In
case
of
respondent
in
charge,
in
possession
or
in
control
of
the
data

(d) The
location
of
the
files,
registers
or
databases,
the
government
office,
 or
information
subject
of
the
petition;

and
 the
 person
 in
 charge,
 in
 possession
 or
 in
 control
 of
 the
 data
 or
 (i) A
 disclosure
 of
 the
 data
 or
 information
 about
 the
 petitioner,

information,
if
known;
 the
nature
of
such
data
or
information,
and
the
purpose

(e) The
 reliefs
 prayed
 for,
 which
 may
 include
 the
 updating,
 rectification,
 for
its
collection;

suppression
or
destruction
of
the
database
or
information
or
files
kept
 (ii) The
 steps
 or
 actions
 taken
 by
 the
 respondent
 to
 ensure
 the

by
the
respondent.
 security
 and
 confidentiality
 of
 the
 data
 or
 information;


 and,

In
case
of
threats,
the
relief
may
include
a
prayer
for
an
order
enjoining
 (iii) The
 currency
 and
 accuracy
 of
 the
 data
 or
 information
 held;

the
act
complained
of;
and
 and,


 (c) Other
allegations
relevant
to
the
resolution
of
the
proceeding.

(f) Such
other
relevant
reliefs
as
are
just
and
equitable.
 


 A
general
denial
of
the
allegations
in
the
petition
shall
not
be
allowed.

SEC.
7.
Issuance
of
the
Writ.

Upon
the
filing
of
the
petition,
the
court,
justice
or
 

judge
 shall
 immediately
 order
 the
 issuance
 of
 the
 writ
 if
 on
 its
 face
 it
 ought
 to
 SEC.
11.
Contempt.
The
court,
justice
or
judge
may
punish
with
imprisonment
or

issue.
The
clerk
of
court
shall
issue
the
writ
under
the
seal
of
the
court
and
cause
 fine
a
respondent
who
commits
contempt
by
making
a
false
return,
or
refusing
to

it
 to
 be
 served
 within
 three
 (3)
 days
 from
 the
 issuance;
 or,
 in
 case
 of
 urgent
 make
a
return;
or
any
person
who
otherwise
disobeys
or
resist
a
lawful
process

necessity,
the
justice
or
judge
may
issue
the
writ
under
his
or
her
own
hand,
and
 or
order
of
the
court.

may
deputize
any
officer
or
person
serve
it.
 

The
 writ
 shall
 also
 set
 the
 date
 and
 time
 for
 summary
 hearing
 of
 the
 petition
 SEC.
12.
When
Defenses
May
be
Heard
in
Chambers.
A
hearing
in
chambers
may

which
shall
not
be
later
than
ten
(10)
work
days
from
the
date
of
its
issuance.
 be
conducted
where
the
respondent
invokes
the
defense
that
the
release
of
the


 data
 or
 information
 in
 question
 shall
 compromise
 national
 security
 or
 state

SEC.
 8.
 Penalty
 for
 Refusing
 to
 Issue
 or
 Serve
 the
 Writ.
 
 A
 clerk
 of
 court
 who
 secrets,
or
when
the
data
or
information
cannot
be
divulged
to
the
public
due
to

refuses
to
issue
the
writ
after
its
allowance,
or
a
deputized
person
who
refuses
to
 its
nature
or
privileged
character.

serve
 the
 same,
 shall
 be
 punished
 by
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 for
 contempt
 

without
prejudice
to
other
disciplinary
actions.
 Sec.
13.
Prohibited
Pleadings
and
Motions.
The
following
pleadings
and
motions


 are
prohibited:

SEC.
9.
How
the
Writ
is
Served.

The
writ
shall
be
served
upon
the
respondent
by
a
 1. Motion
to
dismiss;

judicial
officer
or
by
a
person
deputized
by
the
court,
justice
or
judge
who
shall
 2. Motion
 for
 extension
 of
 time
 to
 file
 return,
 opposition,
 affidavit,

retain
 a
 copy
 on
 which
 to
 make
 a
 return
 of
 service.
 In
 case
 the
 writ
 cannot
 be
 position
paper
and
other
pleadings;

served
personally
on
the
respondent,
the
rules
on
substituted
service
shall
apply.
 3. Dilatory
motion
for
postponement;


 4. Motion
for
a
bill
of
particulars;

SEC.
 10.
 Return;
 Contents.
 The
 respondent
 shall
 file
 a
 verified
 written
 return
 5. Counterclaim
or
cross‐claim;

together
 with
 supporting
 affidavits
 within
 five
 (5)
 working
 days
 from
 service
 of
 6. Third‐party
complaint;

the
 writ,
 which
 period
 may
 be
 reasonably
 extended
 by
 the
 Court
 for
 justifiable
 7. Reply;

reasons.
The
return
shall,
among
other
things,
contain
the
following:
 8. Motion
to
declare
respondent
in
default;




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









123




9. Intervention;
 SEC.
 18.
 Hearing
 on
 Officer?s
 Return.
 The
 court
 shall
 set
 the
 return
 for
 hearing

10. Memorandum;
 with
due
notice
to
the
parties
and
act
accordingly.

11. Motion
 for
 reconsideration
 of
 interlocutory
 orders
 or
 interim
 relief
 

orders;
and
 SEC.
 19.
 Appeal.
 Any
 party
 may
 appeal
 from
 the
 final
 judgment
 or
 order
 to
 the

12. Petition
 for
 certiorari,
 mandamus
 or
 prohibition
 against
 any
 Supreme
 Court
 under
 Rule
 45.
 The
 appeal
 may
 raise
 questions
 of
 fact
 or
 law
 or

interlocutory
order.
 both.


 

SEC.
 14.
 Return;
 Filing.
 In
 case
 the
 respondent
 fails
 to
 file
 a
 return,
 the
 court,
 The
period
of
appeal
shall
be
five
(5)
working
days
from
the
date
of
notice
of
the

justice
 or
 judge
 shall
 proceed
 to
 hear
 the
 petition
 ex
 parte,
 granting
 the
 judgment
or
final
order.

petitioner
such
relief
as
the
petition
may
warrant
unless
the
court
in
its
discretion
 

requires
the
petitioner
to
submit
evidence.
 The
 appeal
 shall
 be
 given
 the
 same
 priority
 as
 in
 habeas
 corpus
 and
 amparo


 cases.

SEC.
 15.
 Summary
 Hearing.
 The
 hearing
 on
 the
 petition
 shall
 be
 summary.
 

However,
 the
 court,
 justice
 or
 judge
 may
 call
 for
 a
 preliminary
 conference
 to
 SEC.
 20.
 Institution
 of
 Separate
 Actions.
 The
 filing
 of
 a
 petition
 for
 the
 writ
 of

simplify
 the
 issues
 and
 determine
 the
 possibility
 of
 obtaining
 stipulations
 and
 habeas
 data
 shall
 not
 preclude
 the
 filing
 of
 separate
 criminal,
 civil
 or

admissions
from
the
parties.
 administrative
actions.


 

SEC.
 16.
 Judgment.
 ‐
 The
 court
 shall
 render
 judgment
 within
 ten
 (10)
 days
 from
 SEC.
21.
Consolidation.
When
a
criminal
action
is
filed
subsequent
to
the
filing
of

the
 time
 the
 petition
 is
 submitted
 for
 decision.
 If
 the
 allegations
 in
 the
 petition
 a
petition
for
the
writ,
the
latter
shall
be
consolidated
with
the
criminal
action.

are
proven
by
substantial
evidence,
the
court
shall
enjoin
the
act
complained
of,
 

or
 order
 the
 deletion,
 destruction,
 or
 rectification
 of
 the
 erroneous
 data
 or
 When
 a
 criminal
 action
 and
 a
 separate
 civil
 action
 are
 filed
 subsequent
 to
 a

information
 and
 grant
 other
 relevant
 reliefs
 as
 may
 be
 just
 and
 equitable;
 petition
 for
 a
 writ
 of
 habeas
 data,
 the
 petition
 shall
 be
 consolidated
 with
 the

otherwise,
the
privilege
of
the
writ
shall
be
denied.
 criminal
action.


 

Upon
 its
 finality,
 the
 judgment
 shall
 be
 enforced
 by
 the
 sheriff
 or
 any
 lawful
 After
 consolidation,
 the
 procedure
 under
 this
 Rule
 shall
 continue
 to
 govern
 the

officers
as
may
be
designated
by
the
court,
justice
or
judge
within
five
(5)
working
 disposition
of
the
reliefs
in
the
petition.

days.
 


 SEC.
 22.
 Effect
 of
 Filing
 of
 a
 Criminal
 Action.
 When
 a
 criminal
 action
 has
 been

SEC.
 17.
 Return
 of
 Service.
 The
 officer
 who
 executed
 the
 final
 judgment
 shall,
 commenced,
no
separate
petition
for
the
writ
shall
be
filed.
The
relief
under
the

within
three
(3)
days
from
its
enforcement,
make
a
verified
return
to
the
court.
 writ
shall
be
available
to
an
aggrieved
party
by
motion
in
the
criminal
case.

The
return
shall
contain
a
full
statement
of
the
proceedings
under
the
writ
and
a
 

complete
 inventory
 of
 the
 database
 or
 information,
 or
 documents
 and
 articles
 The
procedure
under
this
Rule
shall
govern
the
disposition
of
the
reliefs
available

inspected,
 updated,
 rectified,
 or
 deleted,
 with
 copies
 served
 on
 the
 petitioner
 under
the
writ
of
habeas
data.

and
the
respondent.
 


 SEC.
 23.
 Substantive
 Rights.
 ‐
 This
 Rule
 shall
 not
 diminish,
 increase
 or
 modify

The
officer
shall
state
in
the
return
how
the
judgment
was
enforced
and
complied
 substantive
rights.

with
 by
 the
 respondent,
 as
 well
 as
 all
 objections
 of
 the
 parties
 regarding
 the
 

manner
and
regularity
of
the
service
of
the
writ.
 SEC.
 24.
 Suppletory
 Application
 of
 the
 Rules
 of
 Court.
 The
 Rules
 of
 Court
 shall


 apply
suppletorily
insofar
as
it
is
not
inconsistent
with
this
Rule.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









124





 3. The
name
asked
for.

SEC.
 25.
 Effectivity.
This
 Rule
 shall
take
 effect
 on
 February
2,
2008,
following
its
 

publication
in
three
(3)
newspapers
of
general
circulation.
 POSSIBLE
CAUSES
FOR
CHANGE
OF
NAME


 1. When
the
name
is
ridiculous,
dishonorable,
or
extremely
difficult
to
write

or
pronounce

RULE
103

2. When
the
change
results
as
a
legal
consequence,
as
in
legitimation

CHANGE
OF
NAME

3. When
the
change
will
avoid
confusion


 4. Having
 continuously
 used
 and
 been
 known
 since
 childhood
 by
 a
 Filipino

Section
1.
Venue.
A
person
desiring
to
change
his
name
shall
present
the
petition
 name,
unaware
of
alien
parentage

to
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province
in
which
he
resides,
or,
in
the
City
of
 5. A
sincere
desire
to
adopt
a
Filipino
to
erase
signs
of
foreign
alienage,
all

Manila,
to
the
Juvenile
and
Domestic
Relations
Court.
 in
good
faith
and
without
prejudicing
anybody


 

RULE
103
AND
108
DIFFERENT
FROM
ONE
ANOTHER
 CHANGE
OF
NAME
SHOULD
NOT
BE
PERMITTED

• Rule
 103
 and
 108
 differ
 from
 one
 another—they
 involve
 different
 • Would
 not
 be
 permitted
 if
 it
 would
 give
 a
 false
 impression
 of
 family

allegations,
issues
to
be
threshed
out,
and
the
reliefs
being
asked
of
 relationship
to
another

• If
 the
 reliefs
 of
 both
 the
 rules
 are
 prayed
 for,
 then
 the
 requirements
 of
 • It
 will
 be
 allowed
 however
 if
 it
 wouldn’t
 cause
 prejudice
 to
 the
 family

both
should
be
satisfied
before
such
shall
be
granted
 whose
surname
it
is


 

CHANGE
OF
NAME
CANNOT
BE
SUMMARILY
DECIDED
ON
 Section
 3.
 Order
 for
 hearing.
 If
 the
 petition
 filed
 is
 sufficient
 in
 form
 and

• The
 change
 of
 name
 of
 a
 person
 as
 recorded
 in
 the
 registry
 cannot
 be
 substance,
the
court,
by
an
order
reciting
the
purpose
of
the
petition,
shall
fix
a

effected
 through
 summary
 proceedings
 as
 provided
 for
 in
 Article
 412,
 date
and
place
for
the
hearing
thereof,
and
shall
direct
that
a
copy
of
the
order

which
refers
only
to
the
correction
of
clerical
errors
and
not
those
which
 be
 published
 before
 the
 hearing
 at
 least
 once
 a
 week
 for
 three
 (3)
 successive

will
involve
substantial
change
 weeks
in
some
newspaper
of
general
circulation
published
in
the
province,
as
the


 court
shall
deem
best.
The
date
set
for
the
hearing
shall
not
be
within
thirty
(30)

ALIEN
MAY
PETITION
FOR
CHANGE
OF
NAME
 days
 prior
 to
 an
 election
 nor
 within
 four
 (4)
 month
 after
 the
 last
 publication
 of

• He
may
if
he
is
domiciled
in
the
Philippines
 the
notice.


 

NAME
THAT
APPEARS
IN
THE
BIRTH
CERTIFICATE
 PETITION
FOR
CHANGE
OF
NAME
IS
A
PROCEEDING
IN
REM

• The
name
that
can
be
changed
under
this
rule
 • The
publication
requirement
is
a
jurisdictional
requirement


• Not
the
name
reflected
in
the
baptismal
certificate
or
that
by
which
the
 • To
 be
 valid
 and
 to
 confer
 jurisdiction
 upon
 the
 court,
 such
 publication

person
is
known
in
the
community
 must
give
the
proper
information


 

Section
2.
Contents
of
petition.
A
petition
for
change
of
name
shall
be
signed
and
 Section
4.
Hearing.
Any
interested
person
may
appear
at
the
hearing
and
oppose

verified
 by
 the
 person
 desiring
 his
 name
 changed,
 or
 some
 other
 person
 on
 his
 the
 petition.
 The
 Solicitor
 General
 or
 the
 proper
 provincial
 or
 city
 fiscal
 shall

behalf,
and
shall
set
forth:
 appear
on
behalf
of
the
Government
of
the
Republic.

1. That
the
petitioner
has
been
a
bona
fide
resident
of
the
province
where
 

the
petition
is
filed
for
at
least
three
(3)
years
prior
to
the
date
of
such
 Section
5.
Judgment.
Upon
satisfactory
proof
in
open
court
on
the
date
fixed
in

filing;
 the
order
that
such
order
has
been
published
as
directed
and
that
the
allegations

2. The
cause
for
which
the
change
of
the
petitioner's
name
is
sought;
 of
the
petition
are
true,
the
court
shall,
if
proper
and
reasonable
cause
appears




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









125




for
changing
the
name
of
the
petitioner,
adjudge
that
such
name
be
changed
in
 

accordance
with
the
prayer
of
the
petition.
 SUMMARY
OR
ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDING


 • Even
substantial
errors
in
a
civil
register
may
be
corrected
provided
that

Section
6.
Service
of
judgment.
Judgments
or
orders
rendered
in
connection
with
 the
 aggrieved
 parties
 avail
 themselves
 of
 the
 appropriate
 adversary

this
rule
shall
be
furnished
the
civil
registrar
of
the
municipality
or
city
where
the
 proceeding;
 and
 that
 the
 proceeding
 under
 Rule
 108
 ceases
 to
 be

court
issuing
the
same
is
situated,
who
shall
forthwith
enter
the
same
in
the
civil
 summary
in
nature
and
takes
the
character
of
an
appropriate
adversary

register.
 proceeding
 when
 all
 the
 procedural
 requirements
 therein
 are
 complied


 with

• If
 the
 petition
 filed
 under
 Rule
 108
 is
 merely
 to
 correct
 obvious
 clerical

RULE
108

errors
the
court
may
conduct
a
summary
proceeding
and
issue
an
order

CANCELLATION
OR
CORRECTION
OF
ENTRIES
IN
THE
CIVIL
REGISTRY

for
the
correction
of
that
mistake


 

Section
1.
Who
may
file
petition.
 
Any
person
interested
in
any
act,
event,
order
 Section
 3.
 Parties.
 
 When
 cancellation
 or
 correction
 of
 an
 entry
 in
 the
 civil

or
decree
concerning
the
civil
status
of
persons
which
has
been
recorded
in
the
 register
 is
 sought,
 the
 civil
 registrar
 and
 all
 persons
 who
 have
 or
 claim
 any

civil
register,
may
file
a
verified
petition
for
the
cancellation
or
correction
of
any
 interest
 which
 would
 be
 affected
 thereby
 shall
 be
 made
 parties
 to
 the

entry
relating
thereto,
with
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
the
province
where
the
 proceeding.

corresponding
civil
registry
is
located.
 


 Section
4.
Notice
and
publication.
 
Upon
the
filing
of
the
petition,
the
court
shall,

Section
 2.
 Entries
 subject
 to
 cancellation
 or
 correction.
 
 Upon
 good
 and
 valid
 by
 an
 order,
 fix
 the
 time
 and
 place
 for
 the
 hearing
 of
 the
 same,
 and
 cause

grounds,
the
following
entries
in
the
civil
register
may
be
cancelled
or
corrected:
 reasonable
notice
thereof
to
be
given
to
the
persons
named
in
the
petition.
The

(a)
 births:
 (b)
 marriage;
 (c)
 deaths;
 (d)
 legal
 separations;
 (e)
 judgments
 of
 court
 shall
 also
 cause
 the
 order
 to
 be
 published
 once
 a
 week
 for
 three
 (3)

annulments
 of
 marriage;
 (f)
 judgments
 declaring
 marriages
 void
 from
 the
 consecutive
weeks
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
in
the
province.

beginning;
 (g)
 legitimations;
 (h)
 adoptions;
 (i)
 acknowledgments
 of
 natural
 

children;
 (j)
 naturalization;
 (k)
 election,
 loss
 or
 recovery
 of
 citizenship;
 (l)
 civil
 Section
5.
Opposition.
 
The
civil
registrar
and
any
person
having
or
claiming
any

interdiction;
(m)
judicial
determination
of
filiation;
(n)
voluntary
emancipation
of
 interest
 under
 the
 entry
 whose
 cancellation
 or
 correction
 is
 sought
 may,
 within

a
minor;
and
(o)
changes
of
name.
 fifteen
(15)
days
from
notice
of
the
petition,
or
from
the
last
date
of
publication


 of
such
notice,
file
his
opposition
thereto.

CHANGES
IN
DETAILS
OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND
NATIONALITY
NOT
ALLOWED
 Section
6.
Expediting
proceedings.
 
The
court
in
which
the
proceeding
is
brought

• While
birth
is
mentioned
as
one
of
the
entries
that
may
be
corrected,
this
 may
 make
 orders
 expediting
 the
 proceedings,
 and
 may
 also
 grant
 preliminary

referred
 only
 to
 such
 particulars
 as
 are
 attendant
 to
 birth
 excluding
 injunction
 for
 the
 preservation
 of
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 parties
 pending
 such

citizenship
and
nationality
 proceedings.

• Citizenship
details
that
may
be
changed—election,
loss
or
recovery
 


 Section
 7.
 Order.
 
 After
 hearing,
 the
 court
 may
 either
 dismiss
 the
 petition
 or

ILLEGITIMATE
CHILDREN
MAY
USE
THEIR
FATHER’S
SURNAME
 issue
an
order
granting
the
cancellation
or
correction
prayed
for.
In
either
case,
a

• RA
9255
allows
illegitimate
children
to
use
the
surname
of
their
fathers
if
 certified
copy
of
the
judgment
shall
be
served
upon
the
civil
registrar
concerned

their
filiation
has
been
expressly
recognized
by
him
through
the
record
of
 who
shall
annotated
the
same
in
his
record.

birth
 in
 the
 civil
 register,
 or
 by
 an
 admission
 in
 the
 public
 instrument
 

made
by
the
father,
provided
that
he
had
the
right
to
institute
an
action

REPUBLIC
ACT
No.
6085

in
court
to
prove
non‐filiation
during
his
lifetime




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









126




private
 document
 without
 stating
 or
 affixing
 his
 real
 or
 original
 name
 and
 all

AN
ACT
AMENDING
COMMONWEALTH
ACT
NUMBERED
ONE
HUNDRED
FORTY‐
names
or
aliases
or
pseudonym
he
is
or
may
have
been
authorized
to
use."

TWO
REGULATING
THE
USE
OF
ALIASES



Section
1.
Section
one
of
Commonwealth
Act
Numbered
One
hundred
forty‐two
 Section
 4.
 Commonwealth
 Act
 Numbered
 One
 hundred
 forty‐two
 is
 hereby

is
hereby
amended
to
read
as
follows:
 amended
by
the
insertion
of
the
following
new
section
to
be
designated
Section

"Sec.
 1.
 Except
 as
 a
 pseudonym
 solely
 for
 literary,
 cinema,
 television,
 radio
 or
 four
to
read
as
follows:

other
 entertainment
 purposes
 and
 in
 athletic
 events
 where
 the
 use
 of
 "Sec.
4.
Six
months
from
the
approval
of
this
act
and
subject
to
the
provisions
of

pseudonym
 is
 a
 normally
 accepted
 practice,
 no
 person
 shall
 use
 any
 name
 section
1
hereof,
all
persons
who
have
used
any
name
and/or
names
and
alias
or

different
from
the
one
with
which
he
was
registered
at
birth
in
the
office
of
the
 aliases
 different
 from
 those
 authorized
 in
 section
 one
 of
 this
 act
 and
 duly

local
civil
registry,
or
with
which
he
was
baptized
for
the
first
time,
or,
in
case
of
 recorded
in
the
local
civil
registry,
shall
be
prohibited
to
use
such
other
name
or

an
alien,
with
which
he
was
registered
in
the
bureau
of
immigration
upon
entry;
 names
and/or
alias
or
aliases."

or
 such
 substitute
 name
 as
 may
 have
 been
 authorized
 by
 a
 competent
 court:
 

Provided,
 That
 persons,
 whose
 births
 have
 not
 been
 registered
 in
 any
 local
 civil
 Section
5.
Section
four
of
Commonwealth
Act
Numbered
One
hundred
forty‐two

registry
and
who
have
not
been
baptized,
have
one
year
from
the
approval
of
this
 is
hereby
amended
to
read
as
Section
five,
as
follows:

act
within
which
to
register
their
names
in
the
civil
registry
of
their
residence.
The
 "Sec.
 5.
 Any
 violation
 of
 this
 Act
 shall
 be
 punished
 with
 imprisonment
 of
 from

name
shall
comprise
the
patronymic
name
and
one
or
two
surnames."
 one
year
to
five
years
and
a
fine
of
P5,000
to
P10,000."


 

Section
2.
Section
Two
of
Commonwealth
Act
Numbered
One
hundred
forty‐two
 Section
 6.
 This
 Act
 shall
 take
 effect
 upon
 its
 approval,
 and
 all
 Acts,
 rules
 or

is
hereby
amended
to
read
as
follows:
 regulations
of
laws
inconsistent
herewith
are
hereby
repealed.

"Sec.
 2.
 Any
 person
 desiring
 to
 use
 an
 alias
 shall
 apply
 for
 authority
 therefor
 in
 

proceedings
like
those
legally
provided
to
obtain
judicial
authority
for
a
change
of
 DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
RA
9048
AND
RULE
108

name,
and
no
person
shall
be
allowed
to
secure
such
judicial
authority
for
more
 RA
9048
 RULE
108

than
one
alias.
The
petition
for
an
alias
shall
set
forth
the
person's
baptismal
and
 Administrative
proceeding
 Summary
proceeding

family
 name
 and
 the
 name
 recorded
 in
 the
 civil
 registry,
 if
 different,
 his
 

immigrant's
 name,
 if
 an
 alien,
 and
 his
 pseudonym,
 if
 he
 has
 such
 names
 other
 Affidavit
is
filed
 Petition
is
filed

than
his
original
or
real
name,
specifying
the
reason
or
reasons
for
the
use
of
the
 

desired
alias.
The
judicial
authority
for
the
use
of
alias
the
Christian
name
and
the
 Penalty
clause
 No
penalty
clause

alien
immigrant's
name
shall
be
recorded
in
the
proper
local
civil
registry,
and
no
 

person
shall
use
any
name
or
names
other,
than
his
original
or
real
name
unless
 Publication
 requirement:
 once
 a
 week
 Publication
 requirement:
 once
 a
 week

the
same
is
or
are
duly
recorded
in
the
proper
local
civil
registry."
 for
2
consecutive
weeks
 for
three
consecutive
weeks


 

Section
 3.
 Section
 three
 of
 Commonwealth
 Act
 Numbered
 One
 hundred
 forty‐ Posting
in
conspicuous
place
 No
posting

two,
is
hereby
amended
to
read
as
Follows:
 

"Sec.
 3.
 No
 person
 having
 been
 baptized
 with
 a
 name
 different
 from
 that
 with
 Change
 of
 name
 is
 based
 on
 3
 Change
 of
 name
 is
 to
 correct
 clerical

which
he
was
registered
at
birth
in
the
local
civil
registry,
or
in
case
of
an
alien,
 enumerated
ground
 and/or
innocuous
errors

registered
in
the
bureau
of
immigration
upon
entry,
or
any
person
who
obtained



judicial
 authority
 to
 use
 an
 alias,
 or
 who
 uses
 a
 pseudonym,
 shall
 represent

himself
in
any
public
or
private
transaction
or
shall
sign
or
execute
any
public
or
 RULE
101




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









127




file
 the
 proper
 petition
 with
 the
 Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 which
 ordered
 the

PROCEEDINGS
FOR
HOSPITALIZATION
OF
INSANE
PERSONS

commitment.


 

Section
1.
Venue,
Petition
for
commitment.
 A
petition
for
the
commitment
of
a
 Section
 5.
 Assistance
 of
 fiscal
 in
 the
 proceeding.
 It
 shall
 be
 the
 duty
 of
 the

person
to
a
hospital
or
other
place
for
the
insane
may
be
filed
with
the
Court
of
 provincial
 fiscal
 or
 in
 the
 City
 of
 Manila
 the
 fiscal
 of
 the
 city,
 to
 prepare
 the

First
Instance
of
the
province
where
the
person
alleged
to
be
insane
is
found.
The
 petition
for
the
Director
of
Health
and
represent
him
in
court
in
all
proceedings

petition
shall
be
filed
by
the
Director
of
Health
in
all
cases
where,
in
his
opinion,
 arising
under
the
provisions
of
this
rule.

such
commitment
is
for
the
public
welfare,
or
for
the
welfare
of
said
person
who,
 

in
 his
 judgment,
 is
 insane
 and
 such
 person
 or
 the
 one
 having
 charge
 of
 him
 is
 NOTES:

opposed
to
his
being
taken
to
a
hospital
or
other
place
for
the
insane.
 1. Where
 the
 insane
 person
 was
 judicially
 commited
 to
 the
 hospital
 or


 asylum,
 the
 Director
 of
 Health
 may
 not
 order
 his
 release
 without
 prior

WHO
MAY
FILE
PETITION?
 court
approval

• May
 be
 filed
 by
 the
 person
 who
 has
 custody
 or
 having
 charge
 of
 said
 2. Likewise,
 the
 court
 may
 not
 order
 his
 release
 without
 the

insane
person
 recommendation
of
the
Director

• If
 he
 refuses
 to
 do
 so
 and
 where
 it
 is
 required
 for
 the
 welfare
 of
 the
 

insane
person

or
the
public,
the
petition
shall
be
filed
by
the
Director
of

RULE
ON
ADOPTION

Health
or
the
present
authorized
officer


 

Section
 2.
 Order
 for
 hearing.
 
 If
 the
 petition
 filed
 is
 sufficient
 in
 form
 and
 A.
DOMESTIC
ADOPTION

substance,
the
court,
by
an
order
reciting
the
purpose
of
the
petition,
shall
fix
a
 

date
for
the
hearing
thereof,
and
copy
of
such
order
shall
be
served
on
the
person
 Section
1.
Applicability
of
the
Rule.
 
This
Rule
covers
the
domestic
adoption
of

alleged
to
be
insane,
and
to
the
one
having
charge
him,
or
on
such
of
his
relatives
 Filipino
children.

residing
 in
 the
 province
 or
 city
 as
 the
 judge
 may
 deem
 proper.
 The
 court
 shall
 

furthermore
 order
 the
 sheriff
 to
 produce
 the
 alleged
 insane
 person,
 if
 possible,
 Section
2.
Objectives.
 
(a)
The
best
interests
of
the
child
shall
be
the
paramount

on
the
date
of
the
hearing.
 consideration
 in
 all
 matters
 relating
 to
 his
 care,
 custody
 and
 adoption,
 in


 accordance
 with
 Philippine
 laws,
 the
 United
 Nations
 (UN)
 Convention
 on
 the

Section
3.
Hearing
and
judgment.
Upon
satisfactory
proof,
in
open
court
on
the
 Rights
of
the
Child,
UN
Declaration
on
Social
and
Legal
Principles
Relating
to
the

date
fixed
in
the
order,
that
the
commitment
applied
for
is
for
the
public
welfare
 Protection
 and
 Welfare
 of
 Children
 with
 Special
 Reference
 to
 Foster
 Placement

or
for
the
welfare
of
the
insane
person,
and
that
his
relatives
are
unable
for
any
 and
Adoption,
Nationally
and
Internationally,
and
the
Hague
Convention
on
the

reason
 to
 take
 proper
 custody
 and
 care
 of
 him,
 the
 court
 shall
 order
 his
 Protection
of
Children
and
Cooperation
in
Respect
of
Inter‐country
Adoption.

commitment
 to
 such
 hospital
 or
 other
 place
 for
 the
 insane
 as
 may
 be
 

recommended
by
the
Director
of
Health.
The
court
shall
make
proper
provisions
 (b)
 The
 State
 shall
 provide
 alternative
 protection
 and
 assistance
 through
 foster

for
the
custody
of
property
or
money
belonging
to
the
insane
until
a
guardian
be
 care
 or
 adoption
 for
 every
 child
 who
 is
 a
 foundling,
 neglected,
 orphaned,
 or

properly
appointed.
 abandoned.
To
this
end,
the
State
shall:


 

Section
4.
Discharge
of
insane.
When,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Director
of
Health,
the
 1. Ensure
 that
 every
 child
 remains
 under
 the
 care
 and
 custody
 of
 his

person
 ordered
 to
 be
 committed
 to
 a
 hospital
 or
 other
 place
 for
 the
 insane
 is
 parents
and
is
provided
with
love,
care,
understanding
and
security
for

temporarily
 or
 permanently
 cured,
 or
 may
 be
 released
 without
 danger
 he
 may
 the
 full
 and
 harmonious
 development
 of
 his
 personality.
 Only
 when

such
 efforts
 prove
 insufficient
 and
 no
 appropriate
 placement
 or




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









128




adoption
within
the
child s
extended
family
is
available
shall
adoption
 at
least
three
(3)
continuous
years
prior
to
the
filing
of
the
petition
for


by
an
unrelated
person
be
considered.
 adoption
 and
 maintains
 such
 residence
 until
 the
 adoption
 decree
 is

2. Safeguard
 the
 biological
 parents
 from
 making
 hasty
 decisions
 in
 entered,
that
he
has
been
certified
by
his
diplomatic
or
consular
office

relinquishing
their
parental
authority
over
their
child;
 or
 any
 appropriate
 government
 agency
 to
 have
 the
 legal
 capacity
 to

3. Prevent
 the
 child
 from
 unnecessary
 separation
 from
 his
 biological
 adopt
 in
 his
 country,
 and
 that
 his
 government
 allows
 the
 adoptee
 to

parents;
 enter
 his
 country
 as
 his
 adopted
 child.
 Provided,
 further,
 That
 the

4. Conduct
 public
 information
 and
 educational
 campaigns
 to
 promote
 a
 requirements
on
residency
and
certification
of
the
alien s
qualification

positive
environment
for
adoption;
 to
adopt
in
his
country
may
be
waived
for
the
following:

5. Ensure
 that
 government
 and
 private
 sector
 agencies
 have
 the
 capacity
 

to
 handle
 adoption
 inquiries,
 process
 domestic
 adoption
 applications
 (i) a
former
Filipino
citizen
who
seeks
to
adopt
a
relative
within

and
offer
adoption‐related
services
including,
but
not
limited
to,
parent
 the
fourth
(4th)
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity;
or

preparation
and
post‐adoption
education
and
counseling;
 (ii) one
 who
 seeks
 to
 adopt
 the
 legitimate
 child
 of
 his
 Filipino

6. Encourage
domestic
adoption
so
as
to
preserve
the
child’s
identity
and
 spouse;
or

culture
in
his
native
land,
and
only
when
this
is
not
available
shall
inter‐ (iii) one
 who
 is
 married
 to
 a
 Filipino
 citizen
 and
 seeks
 to
 adopt

country
adoption
be
considered
as
a
last
resort;
and
 jointly
 with
 his
 spouse
 a
 relative
 within
 the
 fourth
 (4th)

7. Protect
 adoptive
 parents
 from
 attempts
 to
 disturb
 their
 parental
 degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity
of
the
Filipino
spouse.

authority
and
custody
over
their
adopted
child.
 


 (3)
 The
 guardian
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 ward
 after
 the
 termination
 of
 the

Any
 voluntary
 or
 involuntary
 termination
 of
 parental
 authority
 shall
 be
 guardianship
and
clearance
of
his
financial
accountabilities.

administratively
or
judicially
declared
so
as
to
establish
the
status
of
the
child
as
 

legally
available
for
adoption 
and
his
custody
transferred
to
the
Department
of
 Husband
and
wife
shall
jointly
adopt,
except
in
the
following
cases:

Social
 Welfare
 and
 Development
 or
 to
 any
 duly
 licensed
 and
 accredited
 child‐ 1. if
one
spouse
seeks
to
adopt
the
legitimate
child
of
one
spouse
by
the

placing
or
child‐caring
agency,
which
entity
shall
be
authorized
to
take
steps
for
 other
spouse;
or

the
permanent
placement
of
the
child.
 2. if
 one
 spouse
 seeks
 to
 adopt
 his
 own
 illegitimate
 child:
 Provided,


 however,
That
the
other
spouse
has
signified
his
consent
thereto;
or

Section
4.
Who
may
adopt.
 
The
following
may
adopt:
 3. if
the
spouses
are
legally
separated
from
each
other.

(1) Any
 Filipino
 citizen
 of
 legal
 age,
 in
 possession
 of
 full
 civil
 capacity
 and
 

legal
 rights,
 of
 good
 moral
 character,
 has
 not
 been
 convicted
 of
 any
 In
case
husband
and
wife
jointly
adopt
or
one
spouse
adopts
the
illegitimate
child

crime
involving
moral
turpitude;
who
is
emotionally
and
psychologically
 of
the
other,
joint
parental
authority
shall
be
exercised
by
the
spouses.

capable
of
caring
for
children,
at
least
sixteen
(16)
years
older
than
the
 

adoptee,
and
who
is
in
a
position
to
support
and
care
for
his
children
in
 Section
5.
Who
may
be
adopted.
 
The
following
may
be
adopted:

keeping
 with
 the
 means
 of
 the
 family.
 The
 requirement
 of
 a
 16‐year
 1. Any
person
below
eighteen
(18)
years
of
age
who
has
been
voluntarily

difference
between
the
age
of
the
adopter
and
adoptee
may
be
waived
 committed
 to
 the
 Department
 under
 Articles
 154,
 155
 and
 156
 of
 P.D.

when
 the
 adopter
 is
 the
 biological
 parent
 of
 the
 adoptee
 or
 is
 the
 No.
603
or
judicially
declared
available
for
adoption;

spouse
of
the
adoptee s
parent;
 2. The
legitimate
child
of
one
spouse,
by
the
other
spouse;


 3. An
 illegitimate
 child,
 by
 a
 qualified
 adopter
 to
 raise
 the
 status
 of
 the

(2) Any
alien
possessing
the
same
qualifications
as
above‐stated
for
Filipino
 former
to
that
of
legitimacy;

nationals:
Provided,
That
his
country
has
diplomatic
relations
with
the
 4. A
person
of
legal
age
regardless
of
civil
status,
if,
prior
to
the
adoption,

Republic
of
the
Philippines,
that
he
has
been
living
in
the
Philippines
for
 said
 person
 has
 been
 consistently
 considered
 and
 treated
 by
 the




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









129




adopters
as
their
own
child
since
minority;
 The
 requirements
 of
 certification
 of
 the
 alien s
 qualification
 to
 adopt
 in
 his

5. A
child
whose
adoption
has
been
previously
rescinded;
or
 country
and
of
residency
may
be
waived
if
the
alien:

6. A
child
whose
biological
or
adoptive
parents
have
died:
Provided,
That
 (i)
 is
 a
 former
 Filipino
 citizen
 who
 seeks
 to
 adopt
 a
 relative
 within
 the
 fourth

no
proceedings
shall
be
initiated
within
six
(6)
months
from
the
time
of
 degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity;
or

death
of
said
parents.
 (ii)
seeks
to
adopt
the
legitimate
child
of
his
Filipino
spouse;
or

7. A
child
not
otherwise
disqualified
by
law
or
these
rules.
 (iii)
 is
 married
 to
 a
 Filipino
 citizen
 and
 seeks
 to
 adopt
 jointly
 with
 his
 spouse
 a


 relative
 within
 the
 fourth
 degree
 of
 consanguinity
 or
 affinity
 of
 the
 Filipino

Section
6.
Venue.
 
The
petition
for
adoption
shall
be
filed
with
the
Family
Court
 spouse.

of
the
province
or
city
where
the
prospective
adoptive
parents
reside.
 


 3)
If
the
adopter
is
the
legal
guardian
of
the
adoptee,
the
petition
shall
allege
that

Section
 7.
 Contents
 of
 the
 Petition.
 
 The
 petition
 shall
 be
 verified
 and
 guardianship
 had
 been
 terminated
 and
 the
 guardian
 had
 cleared
 his
 financial

specifically
 state
 at
 the
 heading
 of
 the
 initiatory
 pleading
 whether
 the
 petition
 accountabilities.

contains
 an
 application
 for
 change
 of
 name,
 rectification
 of
 simulated
 birth,
 

voluntary
 or
 involuntary
 commitment
 of
 children,
 or
 declaration
 of
 child
 as
 4)
If
the
adopter
is
married,
the
spouse
shall
be
a
co‐petitioner
for
joint
adoption

abandoned,
dependent
or
neglected.
 except
if:


 (a)
one
spouse
seeks
to
adopt
the
legitimate
child
of
the
other,
or

1)
If
the
adopter
is
a
Filipino
citizen,
the
petition
shall
allege
the
following:
 (b)
if
one
spouse
seeks
to
adopt
his
own
illegitimate
child
and
the
other
spouse

(a)
The
jurisdictional
facts;
 signified
written
consent
thereto,
or

(b)
That
the
petitioner
is
of
legal
age,
in
possession
of
full
civil
capacity
and
legal
 (c)
if
the
spouses
are
legally
separated
from
each
other.

rights;
is
of
good
moral
character;
has
not
been
convicted
of
any
crime
involving
 

moral
turpitude;
is
emotionally
and
psychologically
capable
of
caring
for
children;
 5)
If
the
adoptee
is
a
foundling,
the
petition
shall
allege
the
entries
which
should

is
 at
 least
 sixteen
 (16)
 years
 older
 than
 the
 adoptee,
 unless
 the
 adopter
 is
 the
 appear
in
his
birth
certificate,
such
as
name
of
child,
date
of
birth,
place
of
birth,

biological
parent
of
the
adoptee
or
is
the
spouse
of
the
adoptee s
parent;
and
is
 if
known;
sex,
name
and
citizenship
of
adoptive
mother
and
father,
and
the
date

in
a
position
to
support
and
care
for
his
children
in
keeping
with
the
means
of
the
 and
place
of
their
marriage.

family
 and
 has
 undergone
 pre‐adoption
 services
 as
 required
 by
 Section
 4
 of
 

Republic
Act
No.
8552.
 6)
 If
 the
 petition
 prays
 for
 a
 change
 of
 name,
 it
 shall
 also
 state
 the
 cause
 or


 reason
for
the
change
of
name.

2)
If
the
adopter
is
an
alien,
the
petition
shall
allege
the
following:
 

(a)
The
jurisdictional
facts;
 In
all
petitions,
it
shall
be
alleged:

(b)
Sub‐paragraph
1(b)
above;
 (a)
 The
 first
 name,
 surname
 or
 names,
 age
 and
 residence
 of
 the
 adoptee
 as

(c)
That
his
country
has
diplomatic
relations
with
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines;
 shown
 by
 his
 record
 of
 birth,
 baptismal
 or
 foundling
 certificate
 and
 school

(d)
 That
 he
 has
 been
 certified
 by
 his
 diplomatic
 or
 consular
 office
 or
 any
 records.

appropriate
government
agency
to
have
the
legal
capacity
to
adopt
in
his
country
 (b)
That
the
adoptee
is
not
disqualified
by
law
to
be
adopted.

and
his
government
allows
the
adoptee
to
enter
his
country
as
his
adopted
child
 (c)
The
probable
value
and
character
of
the
estate
of
the
adoptee.

and
reside
there
permanently
as
an
adopted
child;
and
 (d)
The
first
name,
surname
or
names
by
which
the
adoptee
is
to
be
known
and

(e)
 That
 he
 has
 been
 living
 in
 the
 Philippines
 for
 at
 least
 three
 (3)
 continuous
 registered
in
the
Civil
Registry.

years
prior
to
the
filing
of
the
petition
and
he
maintains
such
residence
until
the
 

adoption
decree
is
entered.
 A
 certification
 of
 non‐forum
 shopping
 shall
 be
 included
 pursuant
 to
 Section
 5,


 Rule
7
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









130





 3.
The
legitimate
and
adopted
children
of
the
adopter
and
of
the
adoptee,
if
any,

Section
 8.
 Rectification
 of
 Simulated
 Birth.
 
 In
 case
 the
 petition
 also
 seeks
 who
are
ten
(10)
years
of
age
or
over;

rectification
of
a
simulated
of
birth,
it
shall
allege
that:
 4.
The
illegitimate
children
of
the
adopter
living
with
him
who
are
ten
(10)
years

(a)
Petitioner
is
applying
for
rectification
of
a
simulated
birth;
 of
age
or
over;
and

(b)
The
simulation
of
birth
was
made
prior
to
the
date
of
effectivity
of
Republic
 5.
The
spouse,
if
any,
of
the
adopter
or
adoptee.

Act
No.
8552
and
the
application
for
rectification
of
the
birth
registration
and
the
 

petition
for
adoption
were
filed
within
five
years
from
said
date;
 C.
Child
study
report
on
the
adoptee
and
his
biological
parents;

(c)
 The
 petitioner
 made
 the
 simulation
 of
 birth
 for
 the
 best
 interests
 of
 the
 

adoptee;
and
 D.
If
the
petitioner
is
an
alien,
certification
by
his
diplomatic
or
consular
office
or

(d)
The
adoptee
has
been
consistently
considered
and
treated
by
petitioner
as
his
 any
appropriate
government
agency
that
he
has
the
legal
capacity
to
adopt
in
his

own
child.
 country
and
that
his
government
allows
the
adoptee
to
enter
his
country
as
his


 own
adopted
child
unless
exempted
under
Section
4(2);

Section
9.
Adoption
of
a
foundling,
an
abandoned,
dependent
or
neglected
child.
 


 In
 case
 the
 adoptee
 is
 a
 foundling,
 an
 abandoned,
 dependent
 or
 neglected
 E.
 Home
 study
 report
 on
 the
 adopters.
 If
 the
 adopter
 is
 an
 alien
 or
 residing

child,
the
petition
shall
allege:
 abroad
 but
 qualified
 to
 adopt,
 the
 home
 study
 report
 by
 a
 foreign
 adoption

(a)
 The
 facts
 showing
 that
 the
 child
 is
 a
 foundling,
 abandoned,
 dependent
 or
 agency
duly
accredited
by
the
Inter‐Country
Adoption
Board;
and

neglected;
 

(b)
 The
 names
 of
 the
 parents,
 if
 known,
 and
 their
 residence.
 If
 the
 child
 has
 no
 F.
Decree
of
annulment,
nullity
or
legal
separation
of
the
adopter
as
well
as
that

known
or
living
parents,
then
the
name
and
residence
of
the
guardian,
if
any;
 of
the
biological
parents
of
the
adoptee,
if
any.

(c)
 The
 name
 of
 the
 duly
 licensed
 child‐placement
 agency
 or
 individual
 under
 

whose
care
the
child
is
in
custody;
and
 Section
12.
Order
of
Hearing.
 
If
the
petition
and
attachments
are
sufficient
in

(d)
That
the
Department,
child‐placement
or
child‐caring
agency
is
authorized
to
 form
 and
 substance,
 the
 court
 shall
 issue
 an
 order
 which
 shall
 contain
 the

give
its
consent.
 following:


 1. The
 registered
 name
 of
 the
 adoptee
 in
 the
 birth
 certificate
 and
 the

Section
10.
Change
of
name.
 
In
case
the
petition
also
prays
for
change
of
name,
 names
by
which
the
adoptee
has
been
known
which
shall
be
stated
in

the
title
or
caption
must
contain:
 the
caption;

(a)
The
registered
name
of
the
child;
 2. The
purpose
of
the
petition;

(b)
Aliases
or
other
names
by
which
the
child
has
been
known;
and
 3. The
 complete
 name
 which
 the
 adoptee
 will
 use
 if
 the
 petition
 is

(c)
The
full
name
by
which
the
child
is
to
be
known.
 granted;


 4. The
date
and
place
of
hearing
which
shall
be
set
within
six
(6)
months

Section
11.
Annexes
to
the
Petition.
 
The
following
documents
shall
be
attached
 from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
the
order
and
shall
direct
that
a
copy

to
the
petition:
 thereof
be
published
before
the
date
of
hearing
at
least
once
a
week
for

A.
 Birth,
 baptismal
 or
 foundling
 certificate,
 as
 the
 case
 may
 be,
 and
 school
 three
 successive
 weeks
 in
 a
 newspaper
 of
 general
 circulation
 in
 the

records
showing
the
name,
age
and
residence
of
the
adoptee;
 province
 or
 city
 where
 the
 court
 is
 situated;
 provided,
 that
 in
 case
 of

B.
Affidavit
of
consent
of
the
following:
 application
 for
 change
 of
 name,
 the
 date
 set
 for
 hearing
 shall
 not
 be

1.
The
adoptee,
if
ten
(10)
years
of
age
or
over;
 within
four
(4)
months
after
the
last
publication
of
the
notice
nor
within

2.
The
biological
parents
of
the
child,
if
known,
or
the
legal
guardian,
or
the
child‐ thirty
(30)
days
prior
to
an
election.

placement
agency,
child‐caring
agency,
or
the
proper
government
instrumentality
 

which
has
legal
custody
of
the
child;
 The
newspaper
shall
be
selected
by
raffle
under
the
supervision
of
the
Executive




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









131




Judge.
 


 Section
14.
Hearing.
 
Upon
satisfactory
proof
that
the
order
of
hearing
has
been

5. A
directive
to
the
social
worker
of
the
court,
the
social
service
office
of
 published
 and
 jurisdictional
 requirements
 have
 been
 complied
 with,
 the
 court

the
local
government
unit
or
any
child‐placing
or
child‐caring
agency,
or
 shall
 proceed
 to
 hear
 the
 petition.
 The
 petitioner
 and
 the
 adoptee
 must

the
 Department
 to
 prepare
 and
 submit
 child
 and
 home
 study
 reports
 personally
appear
and
the
former
must
testify
before
the
presiding
judge
of
the

before
the
hearing
if
such
reports
had
not
been
attached
to
the
petition
 court
on
the
date
set
for
hearing.

due
to
unavailability
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
latter;
and
 


 The
 court
 shall
 verify
 from
 the
 social
 worker
 and
 determine
 whether
 the

6. A
 directive
 to
 the
 social
 worker
 of
 the
 court
 to
 conduct
 counseling
 biological
 parent
 has
 been
 properly
 counseled
 against
 making
 hasty
 decisions

sessions
 with
 the
 biological
 parents
 on
 the
 matter
 of
 adoption
 of
 the
 caused
 by
 strain
 or
 anxiety
 to
 give
 up
 the
 child;
 ensure
 that
 all
 measures
 to

adoptee
and
submit
her
report
before
the
date
of
hearing.
 strengthen
the
family
have
been
exhausted;
and
ascertain
if
any
prolonged
stay


 of
the
child
in
his
own
home
will
be
inimical
to
his
welfare
and
interest.

At
 the
 discretion
 of
 the
 court,
 copies
 of
 the
 order
 of
 hearing
 shall
 also
 be
 

furnished
 the
 Office
 of
 the
 Solicitor
 General
 through
 the
 provincial
 or
 city
 Section
15.
Supervised
Trial
Custody.
 
Before
issuance
of
the
decree
of
adoption,

prosecutor,
the
Department
and
the
biological
parents
of
the
adoptee,
if
known.
 the
 court
 shall
 give
 the
 adopter
 trial
 custody
 of
 the
 adoptee
 for
 a
 period
 of
 at


 least
 six
 (6)
 months
 within
 which
 the
 parties
 are
 expected
 to
 adjust

If
a
change
in
the
name
of
the
adoptee
is
prayed
for
in
the
petition,
notice
to
the
 psychologically
 and
 emotionally
 to
 each
 other
 and
 establish
 a
 bonding

Solicitor
General
shall
be
mandatory.
 relationship.
 The
 trial
 custody
 shall
 be
 monitored
 by
 the
 social
 worker
 of
 the


 court,
the
Department,
or
the
social
service
of
the
local
government
unit,
or
the

Section
13.
Child
and
Home
Study
Reports.
 
In
preparing
the
child
study
report
 child‐placement
 or
 child‐caring
 agency
 which
 submitted
 and
 prepared
 the
 case

on
 the
 adoptee,
 the
 concerned
 social
 worker
 shall
 verify
 with
 the
 Civil
 Registry
 studies.
 During
 said
 period,
 temporary
 parental
 authority
 shall
 be
 vested
 in
 the

the
real
identity
and
registered
name
of
the
adoptee.
If
the
birth
of
the
adoptee
 adopter.

was
 not
 registered
 with
 the
 Civil
 Registry,
 it
 shall
 be
 the
 responsibility
 of
 the
 

social
worker
to
register
the
adoptee
and
secure
a
certificate
of
foundling
or
late
 The
court
may,
motu
proprio
or
upon
motion
of
any
party,
reduce
the
period
or

registration,
as
the
case
may
be.
 exempt
the
parties
if
it
finds
that
the
same
shall
be
for
the
best
interests
of
the


 adoptee,
stating
the
reasons
therefor.

The
 social
 worker
 shall
 establish
 that
 the
 child
 is
 legally
 available
 for
 adoption
 

and
the
documents
in
support
thereof
are
valid
and
authentic,
that
the
adopter
 An
 alien
 adopter
 however
 must
 complete
 the
 6‐month
 trial
 custody
 except
 the

has
 sincere
 intentions
 and
 that
 the
 adoption
 shall
 inure
 to
 the
 best
 interests
 of
 following:

the
child.
 1. A
former
Filipino
citizen
who
seeks
to
adopt
a
relative
within
the
fourth


 (4th)
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity;
or

In
 case
 the
 adopter
 is
 an
 alien,
 the
 home
 study
 report
 must
 show
 the
 legal
 2. One
who
seeks
to
adopt
the
legitimate
child
of
his
Filipino
spouse;
or

capacity
 to
 adopt
 and
 that
 his
 government
 allows
 the
 adoptee
 to
 enter
 his
 3. One
who
is
married
to
a
Filipino
citizen
and
seeks
to
adopt
jointly
with

country
 as
 his
 adopted
 child
 in
 the
 absence
 of
 the
 certification
 required
 under
 his
or
her
spouse
the
latter s
relative
within
the
fourth
(4th)
degree
of

Section
7(b)
of
Republic
Act
No.
8552.
 consanguinity
or
affinity.


 

If
 after
 the
 conduct
 of
 the
 case
 studies,
 the
 social
 worker
 finds
 that
 there
 are
 If
 the
 child
 is
 below
 seven
 (7)
 years
 of
 age
 and
 is
 placed
 with
 the
 prospective

grounds
to
deny
the
petition,
he
shall
make
the
proper
recommendation
to
the
 adopter
through
a
pre‐adoption
placement
authority
issued
by
the
Department,

court,
furnishing
a
copy
thereof
to
the
petitioner.
 the
court
shall
order
that
the
prospective
adopter
shall
enjoy
all
the
benefits
to




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









132




which
the
biological
parent
is
entitled
from
the
date
the
adoptee
is
placed
with
 

him.
 If
 the
 adoptee
 is
 a
 foundling,
 the
 court
 shall
 order
 the
 Civil
 Registrar
 where
 the


 foundling
 was
 registered,
 to
 annotate
 the
 decree
 of
 adoption
 on
 the
 foundling

The
 social
 worker
 shall
 submit
 to
 the
 court
 a
 report
 on
 the
 result
 of
 the
 trial
 certificate
 and
 a
 new
 birth
 certificate
 shall
 be
 ordered
 prepared
 by
 the
 Civil

custody
within
two
weeks
after
its
termination.
 Registrar
in
accordance
with
the
decree.


 

Section
16.
Decree
of
Adoption.
 
If
the
supervised
trial
custody
is
satisfactory
to
 Section
 17.
 Book
 of
 Adoptions.
 
 The
 Clerk
 of
 Court
 shall
 keep
 a
 book
 of

the
 parties
 and
 the
 court
 is
 convinced
 from
 the
 trial
 custody
 report
 and
 the
 adoptions
showing
the
date
of
issuance
of
the
decree
in
each
case,
compliance
by

evidence
 adduced
 that
 the
 adoption
 shall
 redound
 to
 the
 best
 interests
 of
 the
 the
Civil
Registrar
with
Section
16(B)(3)
and
all
incidents
arising
after
the
issuance

adoptee,
 a
 decree
 of
 adoption
 shall
 be
 issued
 which
 shall
 take
 effect
 as
 of
 the
 of
the
decree.

date
the
original
petition
was
filed
even
if
the
petitioners
die
before
its
issuance.
 


 Section
 18.
 Confidential
 Nature
 of
 Proceedings
 and
 Records.
 
 All
 hearings
 in

The
decree
shall:
 adoption
 cases,
 after
 compliance
 with
 the
 jurisdictional
 requirements
 shall
 be

A.
State
the
name
by
which
the
child
is
to
be
known
and
registered;
 confidential
 and
 shall
 not
 be
 open
 to
 the
 public.
 All
 records,
 books
 and
 papers

B.
Order:
 relating
 to
 the
 adoption
 cases
 in
 the
 files
 of
 the
 court,
 the
 Department,
 or
 any

1. The
Clerk
of
Court
to
issue
to
the
adopter
a
certificate
of
finality
upon
 other
agency
or
institution
participating
in
the
adoption
proceedings
shall
be
kept

expiration
of
the
15‐day
reglementary
period
within
which
to
appeal;
 strictly
confidential.

2. The
 adopter
 to
 submit
 a
 certified
 true
 copy
 of
 the
 decree
 of
 adoption
 

and
the
certificate
of
finality
to
the
Civil
Registrar
where
the
child
was
 If
 the
 court
 finds
 that
 the
 disclosure
 of
 the
 information
 to
 a
 third
 person
 is

originally
 registered
 within
 thirty
 (30)
 days
 from
 receipt
 of
 the
 necessary
 for
 security
 reasons
 or
 for
 purposes
 connected
 with
 or
 arising
 out
 of

certificate
 of
 finality.
 In
 case
 of
 change
 of
 name,
 the
 decree
 shall
 be
 the
 adoption
 and
 will
 be
 for
 the
 best
 interests
 of
 the
 adoptee,
 the
 court
 may,

submitted
 to
 the
 Civil
 Registrar
 where
 the
 court
 issuing
 the
 same
 is
 upon
proper
motion,
order
the
necessary
information
to
be
released,
restricting

situated.
 the
purposes
for
which
it
may
be
used.

3. The
Civil
Registrar
of
the
place
where
the
adoptee
was
registered:
 

a. To
annotate
on
the
adoptee s
original
certificate
of
birth
the
 Section
19.
Rescission
of
Adoption
of
the
Adoptee.
 
The
petition
shall
be
verified

decree
of
adoption
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
receipt
of
the
 and
 filed
 by
 the
 adoptee
 who
 is
 over
 eighteen
 (18)
 years
 of
 age,
 or
 with
 the

certificate
of
finality;
 assistance
of
the
Department,
if
he
is
a
minor,
or
if
he
is
over
eighteen
(18)
years

b. To
issue
a
certificate
of
birth
which
shall
not
bear
any
notation
 of
age
but
is
incapacitated,
by
his
guardian
or
counsel.

that
it
is
a
new
or
amended
certificate
and
which
shall
show,
 

among
 others,
 the
 following:
 registry
 number,
 date
 of
 The
adoption
may
be
rescinded
based
on
any
of
the
following
grounds
committed

registration,
 name
 of
 child,
 sex,
 date
 of
 birth,
 place
 of
 birth,
 by
the
adopter:

name
and
citizenship
of
adoptive
mother
and
father,
and
the
 1. Repeated
 physical
 and
 verbal
 maltreatment
 by
 the
 adopter
 despite

date
and
place
of
their
marriage,
when
applicable;
 having
undergone
counseling;

c. To
 seal
 the
 original
 certificate
 of
 birth
 in
 the
 civil
 registry
 2. Attempt
on
the
life
of
the
adoptee;

records
 which
 can
 be
 opened
 only
 upon
 order
 of
 the
 court
 3. Sexual
assault
or
violence;
or

which
issued
the
decree
of
adoption;
and
 4. Abandonment
or
failure
to
comply
with
parental
obligations.

d. To
submit
to
the
court
issuing
the
decree
of
adoption
proof
of
 

compliance
 with
 all
 the
 foregoing
 within
 thirty
 days
 from
 Adoption,
being
in
the
best
interests
of
the
child,
shall
not
be
subject
to
rescission

receipt
of
the
decree.
 by
 the
 adopter.
 However,
 the
 adopter
 may
 disinherit
 the
 adoptee
 for
 causes




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









133




provided
in
Article
919
of
the
Civil
Code.
 



 Section
24.
Service
of
Judgment.
 
A
certified
true
copy
of
the
judgment
together

MAY
THE
ADOPTER
RESCIND
THE
ADOPTION?
 with
 a
 certificate
 of
 finality
 issued
 by
 the
 Branch
 Clerk
 of
 the
 Court
 which

• No
 rendered
 the
 decision
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 preceding
 Section
 shall
 be
 served

• But
 he
 may
 disinherit
 the
 adoptee
 for
 causes
 provided
 for
 by
 the
 Civil
 by
the
petitioner
upon
the
Civil
Registrar
concerned
within
thirty
(30)
days
from

Code
 receipt
 of
 the
 certificate
 of
 finality.
 The
 Civil
 Registrar
 shall
 forthwith
 enter
 the


 rescission
 decree
 in
 the
 register
 and
 submit
 proof
 of
 compliance
 to
 the
 court

Section
20.
Venue.
The
petition
shall
be
filed
with
the
Family
Court
of
the
city
or
 issuing
the
decree
and
the
Clerk
of
Court
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
receipt
of

province
where
the
adoptee
resides.
 the
decree.


 

Section
21.
Time
within
which
to
file
petition.
The
adoptee,
if
incapacitated,
must
 The
 Clerk
 of
 Court
 shall
 enter
 the
 compliance
 in
 accordance
 with
 Section
 17

file
the
petition
for
rescission
or
revocation
of
adoption
within
five
(5)
years
after
 hereof.

he
 reaches
 the
 age
 of
 majority,
 or
 if
 he
 was
 incompetent
 at
 the
 time
 of
 the
 

adoption,
within
five
(5)
years
after
recovery
from
such
incompetency.
 Section
 25.
 Repeal.
 ‐
 This
 supersedes
 Rule
 99
 on
 Adoption
 and
 Rule
 100
 of
 the


 Rules
of
Court.

Section
22.
Order
to
Answer.
The
court
shall
issue
an
order
requiring
the
adverse
 

party
 to
 answer
 the
 petition
 within
 fifteen
 (15)
 days
 from
 receipt
 of
 a
 copy
 EFFECTS
OF
ADOPTION

thereof.
The
order
and
copy
of
the
petition
shall
be
served
on
the
adverse
party
 1. The
adopter
shall
have
parental
authority
over
the
adopted
child

in
such
manner
as
the
court
may
direct.
 2. Adopted
shall
be
considered
as
legitimate
child
of
the
adopter
and
shall


 be
only
considered
directly
related
to
the
adopted


Section
23.
Judgment.
 
If
the
court
finds
that
the
allegations
of
the
petition
are
 



true,
it
shall
render
judgment
ordering
the
rescission
of
adoption,
with
or
without
 B.
INTER‐COUNTRY
ADOPTION

costs,
as
justice
requires.
 



 Section
 26.
 Applicability.
 
 The
 following
 sections
 apply
 to
 inter‐country

The
 court
 shall
 order
 that
 the
 parental
 authority
 of
 the
 biological
 parent
 of
 the
 adoption
 of
 Filipino
 children
 by
 foreign
 nationals
 and
 Filipino
 citizens

adoptee,
if
known,
or
the
legal
custody
of
the
Department
shall
be
restored
if
the
 permanently
residing
abroad.

adoptee
is
still
a
minor
or
incapacitated
and
declare
that
the
reciprocal
rights
and
 

obligations
of
the
adopter
and
the
adoptee
to
each
other
shall
be
extinguished.
 Section
27.
Objectives.
 
The
State
shall:


 a. Consider
inter‐country
adoption
as
an
alternative
means
of
child
care,
if

The
 court
 shall
 further
 declare
 that
 successional
 rights
 shall
 revert
 to
 its
 status
 the
child
cannot
be
placed
in
a
foster
or
an
adoptive
family
or
cannot,
in

prior
to
adoption,
as
of
the
date
of
judgment
of
judicial
rescission.
Vested
rights
 any
suitable
manner,
be
cared
for
in
the
Philippines;

acquired
prior
to
judicial
rescission
shall
be
respected.
 b. Ensure
that
the
child
subject
of
inter‐country
adoption
enjoys
the
same


 protection
accorded
to
children
in
domestic
adoption;
and

It
 shall
 also
 order
 the
 adoptee
 to
 use
 the
 name
 stated
 in
 his
 original
 birth
 or
 c. Take
all
measures
to
ensure
that
the
placement
arising
therefrom
does

foundling
certificate.
 not
result
in
improper
financial
gain
for
those
involved.


 

The
 court
 shall
 further
 order
 the
 Civil
 Registrar
 where
 the
 adoption
 decree
 was
 Section
28.
Where
to
File
Petition.
 
A
verified
petition
to
adopt
a
Filipino
child

registered
 to
 cancel
 the
 new
 birth
 certificate
 of
 the
 adoptee
 and
 reinstate
 his
 may
be
filed
by
a
foreign
national
or
Filipino
citizen
permanently
residing
abroad

original
birth
or
foundling
certificate.
 with
the
Family
Court
having
jurisdiction
over
the
place
where
the
child
resides
or




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









134




may
be
found.
 Section
 31.
 Annexes.
 ‐
 The
 petition
 for
 adoption
 shall
 contain
 the
 following


 annexes
written
and
officially
translated
in
English:

It
may
be
filed
directly
with
the
Inter‐Country
Adoption
Board.
 1. Birth
certificate
of
petitioner;


 2. Marriage
contract,
if
married,
and,
if
applicable,
the
divorce
decree,
or

Section
 29.
 Who
 may
 be
 adopted.
 
 Only
 a
 child
 legally
 available
 for
 domestic
 judgment
dissolving
the
marriage;

adoption
may
be
the
subject
of
inter‐country
adoption.
 3. Sworn
 statement
 of
 consent
 of
 petitioner s
 biological
 or
 adopted


 children
above
ten
(10)
years
of
age;

Section
30.
Contents
of
Petition.
 
The
petitioner
must
allege:
 4. Physical,
 medical
 and
 psychological
 evaluation
 of
 the
 petitioner

a. His
 age
 and
 the
 age
 of
 the
 child
 to
 be
 adopted,
 showing
 that
 he
 is
 at
 certified
by
a
duly
licensed
physician
and
psychologist;

least
twenty‐seven
(27)
years
of
age
and
at
least
sixteen
(16)
years
older
 5. Income
 tax
 returns
 or
 any
 authentic
 document
 showing
 the
 current

than
 the
 child
 to
 be
 adopted
 at
 the
 time
 of
 application,
 unless
 the
 financial
capability
of
the
petitioner;

petitioner
 is
 the
 parent
 by
 nature
 of
 the
 child
 to
 be
 adopted
 or
 the
 6. Police
 clearance
 of
 petitioner
 issued
 within
 six
 (6)
 months
 before
 the

spouse
of
such
parent,
in
which
case
the
age
difference
does
not
apply;
 filing
of
the
petitioner;

b. If
married,
the
name
of
the
spouse
who
must
be
joined
as
co‐petitioner
 7. Character
 reference
 from
 the
 local
 church/minister,
 the
 petitioner s

except
when
the
adoptee
is
a
legitimate
child
of
his
spouse;
 employer
and
a
member
of
the
immediate
community
who
have
known

c. That
he
has
the
capacity
to
act
and
assume
all
rights
and
responsibilities
 the
petitioner
for
at
least
five
(5)
years;

of
 parental
 authority
 under
 his
 national
 laws,
 and
 has
 undergone
 the
 8. Full
 body
 postcard‐size
 pictures
 of
 the
 petitioner
 and
 his
 immediate

appropriate
counseling
from
an
accredited
counselor
in
his
country;
 family
taken
at
least
six
(6)
months
before
the
filing
of
the
petition.

d. That
he
has
not
been
convicted
of
a
crime
involving
moral
turpitude;
 

e. That
he
is
eligible
to
adopt
under
his
national
law;
 Section
32.
Duty
of
Court.
 
The
court,
after
finding
that
the
petition
is
sufficient

f. That
 he
 can
 provide
 the
 proper
 care
 and
 support
 and
 instill
 the
 in
 form
 and
 substance
 and
 a
 proper
 case
 for
 inter‐country
 adoption,
 shall

necessary
 moral
 values
 and
 example
 to
 all
 his
 children,
 including
 the
 immediately
 transmit
 the
 petition
 to
 the
 Inter‐Country
 Adoption
 Board
 for

child
to
be
adopted;
 appropriate
action.

g. That
 he
 agrees
 to
 uphold
 the
 basic
 rights
 of
 the
 child,
 as
 embodied
 

under
 Philippine
 laws
 and
 the
 U.
 N.
 Convention
 on
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 Section
33.
Effectivity.
‐
This
Rule
shall
take
effect
on
August
22,
2002
following

child,
and
to
abide
by
the
rules
and
regulations
issued
to
implement
the
 its
publication
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation.

provisions
of
Republic
Act
no.
8043;
 

h. That
he
comes
from
a
country
with
which
the
Philippines
has
diplomatic
 WHAT
IF
THE
CHILD
IS
ALLOWED
TO
ENTER
COUNTRY
OF
ADOPTER
BUT
HE
IS
NOT

relations
 and
 whose
 government
 maintains
 a
 similarly
 authorized
 and
 GRANTED
CITIZENSHIP?

accredited
agency
and
that
adoption
of
a
filipino
child
is
allowed
under
 • Law
 only
 provides
 that
 entry
 and
 residence
 should
 be
 allowed
 but
 it

his
national
laws;
and
 didn’t
provide
that
the
foreign
country
should
grant
citizenship

i. That
he
possesses
all
the
qualifications
and
none
of
the
disqualifications
 

provided
in
this
rule,
in
Republic
Act
no.
8043
and
in
all
other
applicable
 

Philippine
laws.
 


 

DOMESTIC
ADOPTION
 INTER‐COUNTRY
ADOPTION



RA
8552
 RA
8043

DEFINITION
 Defined
as
a
socio‐legal
process
of
providing
a
permanent
family
 Inter‐country
 adoption
 refers
 to
 the
 socio‐legal
 process
 of




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









135




to
 a
 child
 whose
 parents
 have
 voluntarily
 or
 involuntarily
 adopting
 a
 Filipino
 child
 by
 a
 foreigner
 or
 a
 Filipino
 citizen

relinquished
parental
authority
over
the
child
 permanently
 residing
 abroad
 where
 the
 petition
 is
 filed,
 the

supervised
 trial
 custody
 is
 undertaken,
 and
 the
 decree
 of

adoption
is
issued
outside
the
Philippines.



Sec.
 7.
Inter‐Country
 Adoption
 as
 the
 Last
 Resort.
 —
 The
 Board

shall
ensure
that
all
possibilities
for
adoption
of
the
child
under

the
 Family
 Code
 have
 been
 exhausted
 and
 that
 inter‐country

adoption
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
Towards
this
end,
the

Board
 shall
 set
 up
 the
 guidelines
 to
 ensure
 that
 steps
 will
 be

PROCEDURE
 

taken
 to
 place
 the
 child
 in
 the
 Philippines
 before
 the
 child
 is

placed
 for
 inter‐country
 adoption:
 Provided,
 however,
 That
 the

maximum
number
that
may
be
allowed
for
foreign
adoption
shall

not
exceed
six
hundred
(600)
a
year
for
the
first
five
(5)
years.



A
 verified
 petition
 to
 adopt
 a
 Filipino
 child
 may
 be
 filed
 by
 a

foreign
 national
 or
 Filipino
 citizen
 permanently
 residing
 abroad

with
 the
 Family
 Court
 having
 jurisdiction
 over
 the
 place
 where

the
child
resides
or
may
be
found.


It
may
be
filed
directly
with
the
Inter‐Country
Adoption
Board.


It
shall
be
supported
by
the
following—

1. Birth
certificate
of
petitioner;

2. Marriage
 contract,
 if
 married,
 and,
 if
 applicable,
 the

The
application
for
the
adoption
of
a
child
shall
be
filed
with
the
 divorce
decree,
or
judgment
dissolving
the
marriage;

DSWD
 3. Sworn
statement
of
consent
of
petitioner s
biological

WHERE
TO
FILE


 or
adopted
children
above
ten
(10)
years
of
age;


 4. Physical,
 medical
 and
 psychological
 evaluation
 of
 the

petitioner
 certified
 by
 a
 duly
 licensed
 physician
 and

psychologist;

5. Income
tax
returns
or
any
authentic
document
showing

the
current
financial
capability
of
the
petitioner;

6. Police
 clearance
 of
 petitioner
 issued
 within
 six
 (6)

months
before
the
filing
of
the
petitioner;

7. Character
 reference
 from
 the
 local
 church/minister,

the
 petitioner s
 employer
 and
 a
 member
 of
 the

immediate
community
who
have
known
the
petitioner

for
at
least
five
(5)
years;




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









136




8. Full
 body
 postcard‐size
 pictures
 of
 the
 petitioner
 and


his
 immediate
 family
 taken
 at
 least
 six
 (6)
 months

before
the
filing
of
the
petition.



(1)
 Any
 Filipino
 citizen
 of
 legal
 age,
 in
 possession
 of
 full
 An
alien
or
a
Filipino
citizen
permanently
residing
abroad
may
file

civil
 capacity
 and
 legal
 rights,
 of
 good
 moral
 character,
 has
 not
 an
 application
 for
 inter‐country
 adoption
 of
 a
 Filipino
 child
 if

been
 convicted
 of
 any
 crime
 involving
 moral
 turpitude;
 who
 is
 he/she:

emotionally
and
psychologically
capable
of
caring
for
children,
at

1. Is
 at
 least
 twenty‐seven
 (27)
 years
 of
 age
 and
 at
 least

least
sixteen
(16)
years
older
than
the
adoptee,
and
who
is
in
a

sixteen
 (16)
 years
 older
 than
 the
 child
 to
 be
 adopted,

position
to
support
and
care
for
his
children
in
keeping
with
the

at
 the
 time
 of
 application
 unless
 the
 adopter
 is
 the

means
 of
 the
 family.
 The
 requirement
 of
 a
 16‐year
 difference

parent
 by
 nature
 of
 the
 child
 to
 be
 adopted
 or
 the

between
 the
 age
 of
 the
 adopter
 and
 adoptee
 may
 be
 waived

spouse
of
such
parent:

when
the
adopter
is
the
biological
parent
of
the
adoptee
or
is
the

spouse
of
the
adoptee s
parent;

2. If
 married,
 his/her
 spouse
 must
 jointly
 file
 for
 the



adoption;

(2)
 Any
alien
possessing
the
same
qualifications
as
above‐
stated
 for
 Filipino
 nationals:
 Provided,
 That
 his
 country
 has
 3. Has
 the
 capacity
 to
 act
 and
 assume
 all
 rights
 and

diplomatic
relations
with
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines,
that
he
 responsibilities
of
parental
authority
under
his
national

has
been
living
in
the
Philippines
for
at
least
three
(3)
continuous
 laws,
 and
 has
 undergone
 the
 appropriate
 counseling

years
 prior
 to
 the
 filing
 of
 the
 petition
 for
 adoption
 and
 from
an
accredited
counselor
in
his/her
country;


maintains
 such
 residence
 until
 the
 adoption
 decree
 is
 entered,
 

WHO
MAY
ADOPT

that
he
has
been
certified
by
his
diplomatic
or
consular
office
or
 4. Has
 not
 been
 convicted
 of
 a
 crime
 involving
 moral

any
appropriate
government
agency
to
have
the
legal
capacity
to
 turpitude;



adopt
in
his
country,
and
that
his
government
allows
the
adoptee
 

to
enter
his
country
as
his
adopted
child.
Provided,
further,
That
 

the
 requirements
 on
 residency
 and
 certification
 of
 the
 alien s
 5. Is
eligible
to
adopt
under
his/her
national
law;

qualification
 to
 adopt
 in
 his
 country
 may
 be
 waived
 for
 the
 


following:
 6. Is
in
a
position
to
provide
the
proper
care
and
support


 and
to
give
the
necessary
moral
values
and
example
to

(i)
 a
former
Filipino
citizen
who
seeks
to
 adopt
a
relative
 all
his
children,
including
the
child
to
be
adopted;


within
the
fourth
(4th)
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity;
or
 

(ii)
 one
 who
 seeks
 to
 adopt
 the
 legitimate
 child
 of
 his
 7. Agrees
 to
 uphold
 the
 basic
 rights
 of
 the
 child
 as

Filipino
spouse;
or
 embodied
 under
 Philippine
 laws,
 the
 U.N.

(iii)
 one
 who
 is
 married
 to
 a
 Filipino
 citizen
 and
 seeks
 to
 CONVENTION
 ON
 THE
 RIGHTS
 OF
 THE
 CHILD,
 and
 to

adopt
 jointly
 with
 his
 spouse
 a
 relative
 within
 the
 fourth
 (4th)
 abide
by
the
rules
and
regulations
issued
to
implement

degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity
of
the
Filipino
spouse.
 the
provisions
of
this
act;


 


(3)
The
guardian
with
respect
to
the
ward
after
the
termination
 8. Comes
 from
 a
 country
 with
 whom
 the
 Philippines
 has




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









137




of
 the
 guardianship
 and
 clearance
 of
 his
 financial
 diplomatic
relations
and
whose
government
maintains


accountabilities.
 a
 similarly
 authorized
 and
 accredited
 agency
 and
 that


 adoption
is
allowed
under
his/her
national
laws;
and


Husband
 and
 wife
 shall
 jointly
 adopt,
 except
 in
 the
 following
 

cases:
 9. Possesses
 all
 the
 qualifications
 and
 none
 of
 the

1.
 if
one
spouse
seeks
to
adopt
the
legitimate
child
of
one
 disqualifications
 provided
 herein
 and
 in
 other

spouse
by
the
other
spouse;
or
 applicable
Philippine
laws.

2.
 if
one
spouse
seeks
to
adopt
his
own
illegitimate
child:
 

Provided,
 however,
 That
 the
 other
 spouse
 has
 signified
 his

consent
thereto;
or

3.
 if
the
spouses
are
legally
separated
from
each
other.



In
case
husband
and
wife
jointly
adopt
or
one
spouse
adopts
the

illegitimate
 child
 of
 the
 other,
 joint
 parental
 authority
 shall
 be

exercised
by
the
spouses.

1. Any
 person
 below
 eighteen
 (18)
 years
 of
 age
 who
 has

been
 voluntarily
 committed
 to
 the
 Department
 under

Articles
 154,
 155
 and
 156
 of
 P.D.
 No.
 603
 or
 judicially

declared
available
for
adoption;

2. The
 legitimate
 child
 of
 one
 spouse,
 by
 the
 other

spouse;

3. An
illegitimate
child,
by
a
qualified
adopter
to
raise
the

status
of
the
former
to
that
of
legitimacy;
 Child
 means
 a
 person
 below
 fifteen
 (15)
 years
 of
 age
 unless

4. A
person
of
legal
age
regardless
of
civil
status,
if,
prior
 sooner
emancipated
by
law.

WHO
MAY
BE
ADOPTED
 to
 the
 adoption,
 said
 person
 has
 been
 consistently
 

considered
 and
 treated
 by
 the
 adopters
 as
 their
 own
 

child
since
minority;

5. A
child
whose
adoption
has
been
previously
rescinded;

or

6. A
child
whose
biological
or
adoptive
parents
have
died:

Provided,
That
no
proceedings
shall
be
initiated
within

six
(6)
months
from
the
time
of
death
of
said
parents.

7. A
child
not
otherwise
disqualified
by
law
or
these
rules.



1. Hurried
Decisions.
 1. Family
Selection/Matching.


 

STEP
BY
STEP
PROCEDURE

In
all
proceedings
for
adoption,
the
court
shall
require
proof
that
 No
child
shall
be
matched
to
a
foreign
adoptive
family
unless
it
is

the
 biological
parent(s)
has
been
properly
counseled
to
prevent
 satisfactorily
shown
that
the
child
cannot
be
adopted
locally.
The




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









138




him/her
 from
 making
 hurried
 decisions
 caused
 by
 strain
 or
 clearance,
as
issued
by
the
Board,
with
the
copy
of
the
minutes

anxiety
 to
give
up
 the
child,
and
to
sustain
that
all
measures
to
 of
the
meetings,
shall
form
part
of
the
records
of
the
child
to
be

strengthen
 the
 family
 have
 been
 exhausted
 and
 that
 any
 adopted.
 When
 the
 Board
 is
 ready
 to
 transmit
 the
 Placement

prolonged
stay
of
the
child
in
his/her
own
home
will
be
inimical
 Authority
 to
 the
 authorized
 and
 accredited
 inter‐country

to
his/her
welfare
and
interest.
 adoption
 agency
 and
 all
 the
 travel
 documents
 of
 the
 child
 are


 ready,
the
adoptive
parents,
or
any
one
of
them,
shall
personally

2. Case
Study.

 fetch
the
child
in
the
Philippines.


 

No
petition
for
adoption
shall
be
set
for
hearing
unless
a
licensed
 2. Pre‐adoptive
Placement
Costs.

social
worker
of
the
Department,
the
social
service
office
of
the
 

local
government
unit,
or
any
child‐placing
or
child‐caring
agency
 The
 applicant(s)
 shall
 bear
 the
 following
 costs
 incidental
 to
 the

has
 made
 a
 case
 study
 of
 the
 adoptee,
 his/her
 biological
 placement
of
the
child;

parent(s),
as
well
as
the
adopter(s),
and
has
submitted
the
report
 

and
 recommendations
 on
 the
 matter
 to
 the
 court
 hearing
 such
 (a)
 The
 cost
 of
 bringing
 the
 child
 from
 the
 Philippines
 to
 the

petition.
 residence
of
the
applicant(s)
abroad,
including
all
travel
expenses


 within
the
Philippines
and
abroad;



The
 case
 study
 on
 the
 adoptee
 shall
 establish
 that
 he/she
 is
 (b)
 The
 cost
 of
 passport,
 visa,
 medical
 examination
 and

legally
available
for
adoption
and
that
the
documents
to
support
 psychological
evaluation
required,
and
other
related
expenses.

this
 fact
 are
 valid
 and
 authentic.
 Further,
 the
 case
 study
 of
 the
 3. Fees,
Charges
and
Assessments.


adopter(s)
shall
ascertain
his/her
genuine
intentions
and
that
the
 

adoption
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
 Fees,
 charges,
 and
 assessments
 collected
 by
 the
 Board
 in
 the


 exercise
 of
 its
 functions
 shall
 be
 used
 solely
 to
 process

The
 Department
 shall
 intervene
 on
 behalf
 of
 the
 adoptee
 if
 it
 applications
 for
 inter‐country
 adoption
 and
 to
 support
 the

finds,
 after
 the
 conduct
 of
 the
 case
 studies,
 that
 the
 petition
 activities
of
the
Board.

should
 be
 denied.
 The
 case
 studies
 and
 other
 relevant
 

documents
 and
 records
 pertaining
 to
 the
 adoptee
 and
 the
 4. Supervision
of
Trial
Custody.

adoption
shall
be
preserved
by
the
Department.
 


 The
 governmental
 agency
 or
 the
 authorized
 and
 accredited

3. Supervised
Trial
Custody.

 agency
 in
 the
 country
 of
 the
 adoptive
 parents
 which
 filed
 the


 application
 for
 inter‐country
 adoption
 shall
 be
 responsible
 for

No
 petition
 for
 adoption
 shall
 be
 finally
 granted
 until
 the
 the
 trial
 custody
 and
 the
 care
 of
 the
 child.
 It
 shall
 also
 provide

adopter(s)
has
been
given
by
the
court
a
supervised
trial
custody
 family
 counseling
 and
 other
 related
 services.
 The
 trial
 custody

period
 for
 at
 least
 six
 (6)
 months
 within
 which
 the
 parties
 are
 shall
 be
 for
 a
 period
 of
 six
 (6)
 months
 from
 the
 time
 of

expected
to
adjust
psychologically
and
emotionally
to
each
other
 placement.
 Only
 after
 the
 lapse
 of
 the
 period
 of
 trial
 custody

and
 establish
 a
 bonding
 relationship.
 During
 said
 period,
 shall
a
decree
of
adoption
be
issued
in
the
said
country
a
copy
of

temporary
parental
authority
shall
be
vested
in
the
adopter(s).
 which
 shall
 be
 sent
 to
 the
 Board
 to
 form
 part
 of
 the
 records
 of


 the
child.

The
court
may
motu
proprio
or
upon
motion
of
any
party
reduce
 




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









139




the
 trial
 period
 if
 it
 finds
 the
 same
 to
 be
 in
 the
 best
 interest
 of
 During
 the
 trial
 custody,
 the
 adopting
 parent(s)
 shall
 submit
 to

the
adoptee,
stating
the
reasons
for
the
reduction
of
the
period.
 the
 governmental
 agency
 or
 the
 authorized
 and
 accredited

However,
for
alien
adopter(s),
he/she
must
complete
the
six
(6)‐ agency,
 which
 shall
 in
 turn
 transmit
 a
 copy
 to
 the
 Board,
 a

month
trial
custody
except
for
those
enumerated
in
Sec.
7
(b)
(i)
 progress
 report
 of
 the
 child's
 adjustment.
 The
 progress
 report

(ii)
(iii).
 shall
 be
 taken
 into
 consideration
 in
 deciding
 whether
 or
 not
 to


 issue
the
decree
of
adoption.

If
the
child
is
below
seven
(7)
years
of
age
and
is
placed
with
the
 

prospective
 adopter(s)
 through
 a
 pre‐adoption
 placement
 The
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs
shall
set
up
a
system
by
which

authority
 issued
 by
 the
 Department,
 the
 prospective
 adopter(s)
 Filipino
children
sent
abroad
for
trial
custody
are
monitored
and

shall
 enjoy
 all
 the
 benefits
 to
 which
 biological
 parent(s)
 is
 checked
 as
 reported
 by
 the
 authorized
 and
 accredited
 inter‐
entitled
from
the
date
the
adoptee
is
placed
with
the
prospective
 country
 adoption
 agency
 as
 well
 as
 the
 repatriation
 to
 the

adopter(s).
 Philippines
 of
 a
 Filipino
 child
 whose
 adoption
 has
 not
 been


 approved.

4. Decree
of
Adoption.

 


 5. Executive
Agreements.


If,
 after
 the
 publication
 of
 the
 order
 of
 hearing
 has
 been
 

complied
 with,
 and
 no
 opposition
 has
 been
 interposed
 to
 the
 The
 Department
 of
 Foreign
 Affairs,
 upon
 representation
 of
 the

petition,
 and
 after
 consideration
 of
 the
 case
 studies,
 the
 Board,
shall
cause
the
preparation
of
Executive
Agreements
with

qualifications
 of
 the
 adopter(s),
 trial
 custody
 report
 and
 the
 countries
 of
 the
 foreign
 adoption
 agencies
 to
 ensure
 the

evidence
 submitted,
 the
 court
 is
 convinced
 that
 the
 petitioners
 legitimate
 concurrence
 of
 said
 countries
 in
 upholding
 the

are
qualified
to
adopt,
and
that
the
adoption
would
redound
to
 safeguards
provided
by
this
Act.

the
 best
 interest
 of
 the
 adoptee,
 a
 decree
 of
 adoption
 shall
 be

entered
 which
 shall
 be
 effective
 as
 of
 the
 date
 the
 original

petition
 was
 filed.
 This
 provision
 shall
 also
 apply
 in
 case
 the

petitioner(s)
dies
before
the
issuance
of
the
decree
of
adoption

to
protect
the
interest
of
the
adoptee.
The
decree
shall
state
the

name
by
which
the
child
is
to
be
known.



5. Civil
Registry
Record.




An
 amended
 certificate
 of
 birth
 shall
 be
 issued
 by
 the
 Civil

Registry,
as
required
by
the
Rules
of
Court,
attesting
to
the
fact

that
 the
 adoptee
 is
 the
 child
 of
 the
 adopter(s)
 by
 being

registered
with
his/her
surname.
The
original
certificate
of
birth

shall
be
stamped
"cancelled"
with
the
annotation
of
the
issuance

of
an
amended
birth
certificate
in
its
place
and
shall
be
sealed
in

the
civil
registry
records.
The
new
birth
certificate
to
be
issued
to

the
 adoptee
 shall
 not
 bear
 any
 notation
 that
 it
 is
 an
 amended




MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010

SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
(REGALADO
TEXT;
CHUA)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









140




issue.



Parental
Authority.


Except
 in
 cases
 where
 the
 biological
 parent
 is
 the
 spouse
 of
 the
 adopter,
 all
 legal
 ties
 between
 the
 biological
 parent(s)
 and
 the

adoptee
shall
be
severed
and
the
same
shall
then
be
vested
on
the
adopter(s).




Legitimacy.

The
adoptee
shall
be
considered
the
legitimate
son/daughter
of
the
adopter(s)
for
all
intents
and
purposes
and
as
such
is
entitled
to

all
the
rights
and
obligations
provided
by
law
to
legitimate
sons/daughters
born
to
them
without
discrimination
of
any
kind.
To
this

EFFECTS

end,
the
adoptee
is
entitled
to
love,
guidance,
and
support
in
keeping
with
the
means
of
the
family.




Succession.

In
legal
and
intestate
succession,
the
adopter(s)
and
the
adoptee
shall
have
reciprocal
rights
of
succession
without
distinction
from

legitimate
filiation.
However,
if
the
adoptee
and
his/her
biological
parent(s)
had
left
a
will,
the
law
on
testamentary
succession
shall

govern.





 f) Is
 the
 final
 order
 or
 judgment
 rendered
 in
 the
 case,
 and
 affects
 the

substantial
rights
of
the
person
appealing
unless
it
be
an
order
granting

RULE
109

or
denying
a
motion
for
a
new
trial
or
for
reconsideration.

APPEALS
IN
SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS




 Section
2.
Advance
distribution
in
special
proceedings.
 
Notwithstanding
a
pending

Section
1.
Orders
or
judgments
from
which
appeals
may
be
taken.
 
An
interested
 controversy
or
appeal
in
proceedings
to
settle
the
estate
of
a
decedent,
the
court

person
may
appeal
in
special
proceedings
from
an
order
or
judgment
rendered
by
a
 may,
in
its
discretion
and
upon
such
terms
as
it
may
deem
proper
and
just,
permit

Court
 of
 First
 Instance
 or
 a
 Juvenile
 and
 Domestic
 Relations
 Court,
 where
 such
 that
such
part
of
the
estate
may
not
be
affected
by
the
controversy
or
appeal
be

order
or
judgment:
 distributed
among
the
heirs
or
legatees,
upon
compliance
with
the
conditions
set

a) Allows
or
disallows
a
will;
 forth
in
Rule
90
of
this
rules.

b) Determines
 who
 are
 the
 lawful
 heirs
 of
 a
 deceased
 person,
 or
 the
 

distributive
share
of
the
estate
to
which
such
person
is
entitled;
 
 APPEAL
IN
ORDINARY
 APPEAL
IN
SPECIAL

c) Allows
or
disallows,
in
whole
or
in
part,
any
claim
against
the
estate
of
a
 CIVIL
ACTION
 PROCEEDINGS

deceased
person,
or
any
claim
presented
on
behalf
of
the
estate
in
offset
 NUMBER
OF
DAYS
 15
days
 30
days

to
a
claim
against
it;
 

d) Settles
the
account
of
an
executor,
administrator,
trustee
or
guardian;
 NOTICE
 OR
 RECORD
 OF
 Notice
 of
 appeal
 and
 Record
 of
 appeal
 and

e) Constitutes,
 in
 proceedings
 relating
 to
 the
 settlement
 of
 the
 estate
 of
 a
 APPEAL?
 payment
of
docket
fees
 payment
of
docket
fees

deceased
 person,
 or
 the
 administration
 of
 a
 trustee
 or
 guardian,
 a
 final
 

determination
 in
 the
 lower
 court
 of
 the
 rights
 of
 the
 party
 appealing,
 GRANT
OF
EXTENSION
 None
 May
 extend
 on

except
that
no
appeal
shall
be
allowed
from
the
appointment
of
a
special
 meritorious
grounds

administrator;
and






MA.
ANGELA
AGUINALDO
 
 
 
 
 

















ATENEO
LAW
2010