V D A . D E VA L E R A V.

O F I L A D A

G.R. No. L-27526 (1974)

FACTS:
 Settlement of intestate estate of Francisco Valera, wherein Virgilio Valera was the
administrator. Virgilio died and was survived by his widow Angelita and his 10 children
(petitioners). 
 Private respondent Adoracion, alleged acknowledged natural child of Francisco was
later appointed as administratrix and filed in the intestate proceeding a petition to require
“Celso Valera and family and Angelita de Valera and family to pay P100.00” as monthly rental
for the 1/3 pro-indivisoportion of Valera residence in Bangued, Abra. (residence was item 3 of
the original inventory submitted by Adoracion)
 The petition was not served to petitioners while Celso interposed an opposition on the
ground that deceased Francisco had no interest in the Valera residence, that the residence
was never leases and that the remedy of Adoracion was inappropriate. (CFI granted
Adoracion’s motion, July 1964)
 Meanwhile, CFI issued a directive to the clerk of court to serve a copy of the order to
petitioners as they were not served with the Adoracion’s petition. Petitioners then filed MR
and contended that the Valera residence should be excluded from the inventory because it
was their absolute property. (CFI denied MR after 2 years, April 1966)
 On February 1965, Adoracion filed Motion for Execution and for an Order Directing
Delivery of the Fruits of the Properties or Value and Monies of the Estate to the
Administratratix, which amounted to P100k for 20 years, plus legal interest amounting to P5k;
that the heirs be ordered to deliver the sum of P4,684.98 representing the insurance and war
damage monies collected by Virgilio; and that the Sheriff be ordered to “to seize such
properties of Virgilio and his heirs” “to be sold according to law for the payment of double the
value of the fruits and the amount of monies alienated and embezzled”. (CFI
granted, January 1967, although the April 1966 Order was not yet final)
 Petitioners filed an MR (denied). Judge Ofilada in hisorder dated February 1967 ordered
another execution. The Deputy Provincial Sheriff levied upon the properties of the deceased
Virgilio Valera and caused to be published a notice of auction sale also dated February 27,
1967. The petitioners filed a motion to quash the writ of execution and for the suspension of
the auction sale (denied). Deputy Sheriff proceeded with the auction sale and sold the estate
of Francisco, including the parcels of land allegedly  belonging to Virgilio. (petitioners then
filed petition for certiorari upon denial of CFI of their MR)

ISSUE: Whether the probate court in the intestate proceeding for the estate of Francisco Valera,
could adjudged the monetary liabilities of Virgilio to the estate of Francisco and could issue writ
of execution against Virgilio’s properties to enforce the supposed liabilities. 

HELD : The probate court cannot issue writ of execution. There is merit in the petitioners’
contention that the probate court generally cannot issue a writ of execution. It is not supposed to
issue a writ of execution because its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against
the estate which the executor or administrator may satisfy without the necessity of resorting to a
writ of execution. The probate court, as such, does not render any judgment enforceable by
execution.
Guevara v. Guevara G.R. No. L-48840, 29 December 1943, 74:479

FACTS:

It appears that on August 26, 1931, Victorino L. Guevara executed a will, apparently with all the
formalities of the law. On September 27, 1933, he died. His last will and testament, however,
was never presented to the court for probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever been
instituted for the settlement of his estate. Ever since the death of Victorino L. Guevara, his only
legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara appears to have possessed the land adjudicated to him in
the registration proceeding and to have disposed of various portions thereof for the purpose of
paying the debts left by his father.

In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father’s last will and testament
in her custody, presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of having it probated but only
to prove that the deceased Victirino L. Guevara had acknowledged her as his natural daughter.
Upon that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her share of the inheritance from him, but on
the theory or assumption that he died intestate, because the will had not been probated, for
which reason, she asserted, the betterment therein made by the testator in favor of his
legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara should be disregarded. Both the trial court and the Court of
appeals sustained that theory.

ISSUE:

Whether or not probate is necessary for Rosario to be able to claim her legitime as an
acknowledged natural daughter.

RULING:

In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other than the present litigants
had received their respective legacies or that they had knowledge of the existence and of the
provisions of the will. Their right under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be
obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of the custodian of the will to present it to the
court for probate.

Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and
due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance
with that will without first securing its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law
expressly provides that “no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and
allowed in the proper court”; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding
in rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial, without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator’s right to
dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and
legatees under the will thru the means provided by law, among which are the publication and
the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees. Nor may the court approve and
allow the will presented in evidence in such an action for partition, which is one in personam,
any more than it could decree the registration under the Torrens system of the land involved in
an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or partition.