SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

 Determination of ownership is merely incidental and is not conclusive. However,

it is optional to submit the questions on title:
a. All interested persons are parties to the proceedings;
b. They consent
- may also apply if it involves questions involving properties belonging to the
ACP/CPG

CHAPTER 4
Presumption of Death

Article 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee
still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. 

The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after
an absence of ten years. If he disappeared

after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that
his succession may be opened. (n) 

Article 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of
the estate among the heirs: 

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is
missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or
aeroplane; 

(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing
for four years; 

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his
existence has not been known for four years. (n) 

 There is no order of presumptive death as it will never attain finality.

 In case of the abovementioned, there is no need for a separate and

independent action to open succession and to settle the estate. Go
directly to the Rules of Court for settlement of estate of deceased persons.

REMEDY OF AN ALLEGED ABSENTEE WHO REAPPEARS

Article 392. If the absentee appears, or without appearing his existence is proved, he shall
recover his property in the condition in which it may be found, and the price of any property
that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot claim either
fruits or rents. (194)

RULE 73

 does not involve jurisdiction, as this is provided under B.P 129.

- based on the GROSS VALUE of the estate.

 Citizenship is not an issue.

- In the case of an inhabitant, he files the petition in the place where he resided
at the time of his death.

- Residence means there must be:

a. Actual

b. With continuity

c. Physical presence

CASE: EUSEBIO v EUSEBIO, G.R no. L-8409, December 28, 1956

RULING:

It being apparent from the foregoing that the domicile of origin of the decedent was
San Fernando, Pampanga, where he resided for over seventy (70) years, the
presumption is that he retained such domicile, and, hence, residence, in the absence
of satisfactory proof to the contrary, for it is well-settled that "a domicile once acquired
is retained until a new domicile is gained" (Minor, Conflict of Laws, p.70; Restatement
of the Law on Conflict of Laws, p. 47; In re Estate of Johnson, 192 Iowa, 78). Under
the circumstances surrounding the case at bar, if Andres Eusebio established another
domicile, it must have been one of choice, for which the following conditions are
essential, namely: (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (2) physical
presence at the place chosen; and (3) intention to stay therein permanently.
Admittedly, the decedent was juridically capable of choosing a domicile and had been
in Quezon City several days prior to his demise. Thus, the issue narrows down to
whether he intended to stay in that place permanently.

There is no direct evidence of such intent. Neither does the decedent appears to have
manifested his wish to live indefinitely in said city. His son, petitioner-appellee, who
took the witness stand, did not testify thereon, despite the allegation, in his answer to
the aforemention, opposition of the appellants herein, that "the deceased (had)
decided to reside . . . for the rest of his life, in Quezon City". Moreover, said appellee
did not introduce the testimony of his legitimate full brother and son of the decedent,
Dr. Jesus Eusebio, upon whose advice, presumably, the house and lot at No. 889-A
 España Extention was purchased, and who, therefore, might have cast some light on
his (decedent's) purpose in buying said property. This notwithstanding, the lower court
held that the decedent's intent to stay permanently in Quezon City is "manifest" from
the acquisition of said property and the transfer of his belonging thereto. This
conclusion is untenable. lawphil.net

The aforementioned house and lot were bought by the decedent because he had
been adviced to do so "due to his illness", in the very words of herein appellee.
It is not improbable — in fact, its is very likely — that said advice was given and
followed in order that the patient could be near his doctor and have a more effective
treatment. It is well settled that "domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a
place merely for one's own health", even if coupled with "knowledge that one will never
again be able, on account of illness, to return home."

Again, the decedent did not part with, or alienate, his house in San Fernando,
Pampanga. Moreover, some of his children, who used to live with him in San
Fernando, Pampanga, remained in that municipality. Then, again, in the deed Exhibit
2, by virtue of which said property at No. 889-A España Extention, Quezon City, was
conveyed to him, on October 29, 1952, or less than a month before his death, the
decedent gave San Fernando, Pampanga, as his residence. Similarly, the "A" and "B"
residence certificates used by the decedent in aknowledging said Exhibit 2, before a
notary public, was issued in San Fernando, Pampanga. Lastly, the marriage contract
Exhibit 1, signed by the deceased when he was married, in articulo mortis, to
Concepcion Villanueva, at the UST Hospital, on November 26, 1952, or two (2) days
prior to his demise, stated that his residence is San Fernando, Pampanga. It is worthy
of notice that Alfonso Eusebio, one of the legitimate full brothers of the herein
appellee, was a witness to said wedding, thus indicating that the children of the
deceased by his first marriage, including said appellee, were represented on that
occasion and would have objected to said statement about his residence, if it were
false. Consequently, apart from appellee's failure to prove satisfactory that the
decedent had decided to establish his home in Quezon City, the acts of the latter,
shortly and immediately before his death, prove the contrary. At any rate, the
presumption in favor of the retention of the old domicile 1— which is particularly strong
when the domicile is one of the origin 2as San Fernando, Pampanga, evidently was, as
regards said decedent — has not been offset by the evidence of record.

CASE: CAYETANO v LEONIDAS, G.r No. 54919, May 30, 1984

The third issue raised deals with the validity of the provisions of the will. As
a general rule, the probate court’s authority is limited only to the extrinsic
validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix’s testamentary
capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed
by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court
has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. However, where
practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be
passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
(Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 478).

In the case at bar, the petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge
allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Hermogenes C. Campos was
divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him.
 This contention is without merit.

Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and
thus, the respondent judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the
private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion
was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent
resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.  The law which governs
Adoracion Campo’s will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the
national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the
Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may
be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues
that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound
and established public policy and would run counter to the specific
provisions of Philippine Law.

It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of

the will, as provided for by Article 16 (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the
national law of the decedent must apply. This was squarely applied in the
case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358) wherein we ruled: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend
the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically
chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the
decedent’s national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.

Sec. 1
 Does not provide for an exclusive jurisdiction
 Testate proceedings shall be given precedence
 Intestate Succession is subordinate to testate sucession.
 Effect of improper venue: procedural rule only. It can be waived by
failure to raise it as defense.

Sec. 2
 If death terminates the marriage, ACP/CPG will be liquidated in
settlement proceedings.

Art. 103. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the community property
shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall

liquidate the community property either judicially or extra-judicially within six
months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six
months period, no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving
the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance
with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of
property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

Sec. 3

 The probate court has the power to issue processes and warrants
 Execution of final judgment can be enforced under R39. Failure of
which is punishable by contempt.

RULE 74

 Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement – by written agreement

 Affidavit of Self-Adjudication – 1 heir, no debts
a. No Will
b. No Debts
c. All heirs are all of legal age
 Partition`
- File with the Office of the Register of Deeds

 If no creditor files within 2 years, it shall be presumded that deceased left no

debts.

SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES

Sec. 4 Persons who have been unduly deprived of their lawful participation
payable in money:
- The whole settlement is not nullified. Only his share..
 The court shall issue an order that the settlement of debts and lawful
participation shall be executed against the bond.
 After the lapse of two years, these persons shall be precluded from exercising
their right.
- this rule is not absolute. In case the person is a:
Minor
Incapacitated
In prison
- they can exercise this right within 1 year after the disability is removed.
 The two year bar applies only if the partition is valid.
- contemplates that notice was sent to the heir called to participate.
- Publication is not the constructive notice contemplated. It is because it
pertains to the fact of partition which already took place.

CASE: SEGURA V SEGURA, G.R no. L-29320, September 19, 1988

 As a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell, the buyer can as a
consequence acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer. The deed of
partition being invalid as to the other heirs, the vendors could dispose only of their
respective shares in the land, or one-third only of the property and not the other two-
thirds as well which did not belong to them.

To repeat, the general rule is that no one can give what he does not have — nemo
dat quod non habet. Hence, even if it be assumed that Amojido had bought the land in
good faith from the parties to the extrajudicial partition, only so much of their share
could be validly acquired by him, with the rest of the property remaining under the
ownership of the six excluded co-heirs In other words, Amojido became pro
indiviso co-owner of the land with the other six heirs, who retained title to their
respective shares although he had possession of the entire property. The portion
pertaining to the herein appellants should be deemed held by Amojido under an
implied trust for their benefit x x x.’

RULE 75

 Probate of will is a proceeding in Rem.

 A probate of will is final and conclusive to its due execution.

Production of will – 20 days from knowledge of death / appointment as named

executor.

 Mandamus is not a remedy for the person in custody of the will to produce
the same. One of the requisite, that is, that there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy, is lacking. The court can commit him to prison under
R75, Sec. 5.

RULE 76
 “Interested person” – creditor of the estate
 Antemortem probate – is easier to prove testamentary capacity
 Jurisdictional facts: Study the contents

Do we need to attach the original copy of the will?

- NO. Attachment of the original copy is not jurisdictional. You can produce
it in trial.

PROBLEM:
A petition for intestate settlement of estate was filed in the RTC of Rizal. Then a will
was found and a probate proceeding was commenced in RTC of Bulacan. The
granting of the petition dates back to the filing of the will.
Venue: Only procedural.

PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT: brings the whole world as parties to the case.

- it is not an absolute requirement as it is not necessary in case of ante
mortem probate.
 Jurisdiction is acquired by law. It remains even if the original petitioner is
dead. It is a proceeding in rem. There is no need for republication in case of
death of petitioner.
  Personal notice is not jurisdictional.

In case of lost or destroyed will – provisions will be in writing; certified by the judge
and sealed.

 Evidence of due execution differs whether the will is contested or not.

 Expert witness – exception to the opinion rule. It is merely a permissive
evidence. The court itself is authorized to make a comparison between the will
and the specimen signature.
- opinion of an ordinary witness with personal knowledge and handwriting
and not a subscribing witness.

In case subscribing witness resides outside of the province – motion to take

deposition

CASE: SINGSON v FLORENTINO, G.r. No. L-4603, October 25, 1952

In this case Fidel Reyes was not outside the province, in fact he was then living in the
place where the case was pending trial. He, therefore, must appear in court and his
deposition cannot be taken. And so they contend that the lower court erred in admitting
his deposition instead of taking his testimony.

We believe, however, that the deposition may also be justified by interpreting section
11, Rule 77, in connection with Rule 18, section 4 (c), of the rules, relative to the taking
of the deposition of a witness in ordinary cases when he is unable to testify because of
sickness. Interpreting and harmonizing together these two provisions we may draw the
conclusion that even if an instrumental witness is within the seat of the court but
is unable to appear because of sickness, as in this case, his deposition may still
be taken, for a different interpretation would be senseless and impractical and
would defeat the very purpose which said Rule 77 intends to serve.

- in this case, apply R23 rules on deposition: “unable to testify due to

sickness…”

CASE: BALTAZAR v LAXA, G.R. NO. 1U74489, APRIL 7, 2012

Because of this the probate of Paciencia’s Will may be allowed on the basis
of Dra. Limpin’s testimony proving her sanity and the due execution of the
Will, as well as on the proof of her handwriting. It is an established rule
that “[a] testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting
witnesses declare against its due execution; neither does it have to be
necessarily allowed just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor
of its legalization; what is decisive is that the court is convinced by
evidence before it, not necessarily from the attesting witnesses,
although they must testify, that the will was or was not duly
executed in the manner required by law.”[73]

RULE 77
  The does not take judicial notice of foreign judgment.
 Reprobate – serves as re-authentication of the will. It is when the local court
will acknowledge the probate as binding.
 Our laws do not prohibit probate of wills made by foreigners abroad.

RULE 78

 Petition for issuance of letters testamentary is not an initiatory pleading.

 There is no rule as to who can be appointed as appointment is discretionary.
- it is not subject to review absent grave abuse of discretion.

Sec. 6 ORDER OF PREFERENCE

 Not absolute. Appointment is discretionary which must not, however, be
exercised arbitrarily.
 The court cannot be compelled by mandamus to appoint a particular party. It
can only be compelled to appoint an executor/administrator.

Principal Consideration:
- person’s interest on the estate: if he is benefitted by the distribution of the
estate. It should be a material and direct interest.
- Next of kin: relation with the decedent that he will be entitled to a share/
- The interest of the nominee must be clearly shown.

 Guardian and Administrator – not required to post bond.

 Letters testamentary shall only issue at the time the will has been proved.

Article 824. A mere charge on the estate of the testator for the payment of debts due at the
time of the testator's death does not prevent his creditors from being competent witnesses to
his will.

RULE 79
 “interested in the estate”
 common law spouse – is counted as an interested person as he/she is a co-
owner. (R147, FC)
- failure to indicate interest in estate is not a jurisdictional defect. However, it
may serve as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on lack of capacity
to sue.

 Did not file a motion for termination of special administrator and prayed for
appointment as regular administrator?
- it is not proper. The appointment can only be the SA as the proper
procedure was not followed.
 RULE 80

 appointed by the probate court to preserve the estate until appointment of the
regular administrator.
“For any other cause” – denial of the power to appoint regular administrator
- until the questions causing the delay are settled.

Can a debtor be appointed as a special administrator? No.

How about a common-law wife? No.

Letters of Administration – Substitution: There is no need to appoint Special

Administrator. There is no delay in the issuance of LOA. The old administrator
has right to continue duties.

 Appointment of Regular Administrator is appealable.

 Appointment of Special Administrator is not appealable.
 The appointment of a special administrator is discretionary, provided that
there is delay in the appointment.
 The order of preference is not followed in the appointment of the special
administrator.