AUSTRIA VS REYES

FACTS
Basilia filed for probate, ante mortem, of her will. It was opposed
by the petitioners, who were nephews and nieces of Basilia. The will
was allowed with the bulk of her estate designated for respondents,
who were Basilia’s adopted children. The petitioners asserted that the
respondents had not been adopted in accordance with law, thereby
making them mere strangers to the decedent without any right to
succeed as heirs. Petitioners argued that this should have opened the
whole estate of Basilia to intestacy with petitioners being the
compulsory heirs.
The petitioners further argued that the language used imply
that Basilia was deceived that she was legally bound to bequeath 1/2
of her estate to the respondents as the latter’s legitime. The
respondents would not have been instituted as heirs had the fact of
spurious adoption been known to her. The petitioners inferred that
from the terms, “sapilitang tagapagmana” (compulsory heirs) and
“sapilitang mana” (legitime), the cause for the institution of the
respondents was the testatrix’s belief that under the law she could
not do otherwise. Thus, Article 850 applies whereby, the statement
of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as
not written.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to legitime

HELD
Yes. Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under
article 850 of the Civil Code, the following requisites must concur:
First, the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will;
second, the cause must be shown to be false; and third, it must
appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made
such institution if he had known the falsity of the cause.
In this case, the decedent’s disposition of the free portion of her
estate, which largely favored the respondents, compared with the
small devise of land for her blood relatives, shows a perceptible
inclination on her part to give the respondents more than what she
thought the law enjoined her to give to them. Excluding the
respondents from the inheritance would subvert the clear wishes of
the decedent.
Moreover, intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the
testator should be allowed to prevail.
 LIM V CA
FACTS

Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving spouse of late Pastor

Y. Lim whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings in special
proceedings. Private respondents Auto Truck Corporation, Alliance
Marketing Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc., Active
Distributing, Inc. and Action Company are corporations formed,
organized and existing under Philippine laws and which owned real
properties covered under the Torrens system.
Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Herein petitioner, as surviving spouse
and duly represented by her nephew George Luy, Later a joint
petition for the administration of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim. Private
respondent corporations, whose properties were included in the
inventory of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, then filed a motion for the
lifting of lis pendens and motion7 for exclusion of certain properties
from the estate of the decedent.

RTC= granted respondents’ twin motions, but was later on set aside
reinstating the annotation of lis pendens.

The probate court= appointed Rufina Lim as special administrator

and Miguel Lim and Lawyer Donald Lee, as co-special
administrators of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, after which letters of
administration were accordingly issued.
The respondent file before the CA restraining order and
injunction. Which was granted by the said appellate court. Hence
this petition.

ISSUE

WON the certain properties in the corporation should or should not

be included in the inventory of estate of the deceased?
 HELD

In accordance to the cases decided by the SC, the question of

ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot
resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a
certain property should or should not be included in the inventory
of estate properties, the 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 to resolve title

In this case petitioner relies heavily on the principle that a

probate court may pass upon title to certain properties, albeit
provisionally, for the purpose of determining whether a certain
property should or should not be included in the inventory. The SC
found the parameters by which the court may extend its probing
arms in the determination of the question of title in probate
proceedings.

PALAGANAS VS PALAGANAS

FACTS

Ruperta, a Filipino who became a U.S. citizen, died single and

childless. In her will executed in California, she designated her
brother, Sergio as the executor of her Philippine and U.S. properties.
Ernesto, another brother, filed for the probate of the will. Manuel and
Benjamin, nephews of Ruperta, opposed on the ground that the
probate should be in the U.S. where it was executed. The RTC
admitted the will to probate. The CA affirmed and added that the
Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance of the
will in the country of its execution before it can be probated in the
Philippines.

ISSUE
Whether or not a foreign will may be probated in the Philippines

HELD
 Yes. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien
who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place
where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his
country.
Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated
and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be
given legal effects in our jurisdiction.