6. Pedrosa vs.

CA

Facts:
theApril
spouses Miguel Rodriguez and Rosalina J. de Rodriguez
by virtuePedrosa was the
of an Order adopted
of CFI Ozamizchild ofOn
City. 29, 1972, Miguel died intestate. Thereafter, petitioner
and Rosalina entered into an extrajudicial settlement of Miguels estate, adjudicating between themselves
in equal proportion the estate of Miguel.

On November 21, 1972, private respondents filed an action to annul the adoption but was denied
and upheld the validity of the adoption. Hence appeal in CA.
On with
settlement March 11, 1983, while
respondent said for
Rosalina appeal
the was pending,
partition the estate
of the Rodriguezes entered
of Miguel andinto
of an extrajudicial
another sister,
Pilar.Rosalina acted as the representative of the heirs of Miguel Rodriguez. Pilar had no heirs except his
brothers and sisters.

Armed with the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition, respondents Rodriguezes were
able to secure new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) and were able to transfer some parcels to the
other respondents herein. [2

from theThereafter,
Rodriguezes.petitioner sentrefused
The latter her daughter, Loreto
saying that Jocelyn,
Maria Elena to claim
and their
Loreto share
were notofheirs
the since
properties
they
were not their blood relatives.

Petitioner, then, filed a complaint to annul the 1983 partition. The said complaint was filed on
January 28, 1987. Said complaint was later amended on March 25, 1987 to include the allegation that
earnest efforts toward a compromise were made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but the same
failed.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Its
ruling was premised on the following grounds: [8]X
that
and the participation
since of Rosalina
she is already has italready
estopped, estopped
naturally followsherthatfrom questioning
Maria thesuccessor-in-interest,
Elena, her validity of the partition,
is
likewise estopped, applying Article 1439 of the Civil Code;
that the appeal
inconsistent claimofthat
Maria Elena and
the partition her have
would claimbeen
that alright
the partition
had sheisbeen
null given
and void is weakened
a more by her
equitable share;
the action is essentially an action for rescission and had been filed[9]late considering that it was filed
beyond the 4 year period provided for in Article 1100 of the Civil Code; X
that fraud and/or bad faith was never established.

Issue: WON 1) whether or not the complaint for annulment of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and
Partition had already prescribed; (2) whether or not said deed is valid; (3) whether or not the petitioner is
entitled to recover the lots which had already been transferred to the respondent buyers

Held:

1) No, the action has not been prescribed. Section 4, Rule 74 [18] provides for a two year prescriptive
period (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and in
addition (2) when the provisions of Section 1 [19] of Rule 74 have been
strictly complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial
settlement or are represented by themselves or through guardians .[20]X
Petitioner, as theperiod
year prescriptive records is confirm, did not
not applicable in participate
her case. in the extrajudicial partition. Patently then, the two-
The applicable
153 (1964), prescriptive
which held that:period here is four (4) years as provided in Gerona vs. De Guzman, 11 SCRA
[The
yearsaction
from to annul]
the a deedofofthe
discovery extrajudicial settlement
fraud. Such uponisthe
discovery ground to
deemed of have
fraud...may
taken be filed when
place within said
four
instrument was filed with[21]
the Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the name of
respondents exclusively. X
Considering
months after that the complaint
the questioned of the petitioner
extrajudicial was dated
settlement filed on January
March 28, 1987,
11, 1983, was or three years
executed, and that
we hold ten
her action against the respondents on the basis of fraud has not yet prescribed.
2) No. The partition is invalid. Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is the applicable rule on
publication of extrajudicial settlement. It states:
The fact ofinthe
circulation theextrajudicial
manner providedsettlement
in theor administration
next shall be but
succeeding section; published in a newspaper
no extrajudicial of shall
settlement general
be
binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof .[22X
Under
extrajudicial said provision,
settlement cannot be without theonparticipation
binding said persons. of The
all persons involved ina the
rule contemplates noticeproceedings,
which must thebe
sent out or issued before the Deed of Settlement and/or Partition is agreed upon, i.e., a notice calling all
interested parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition, not after, which
was when publication was done in the instant case. Following Rule 74 and the ruling in Beltran vs. Ayson,
since Maria Elena did not participate in the said partition, the settlement is not binding on her.
void as Itfaris as
clear
thethat Section
plaintiffs 1 of concerned.
were Rule 74 doesThe notrule
apply to theonly
covers partition
valid in questionThe
partitions. which was null
partition in and
the
present case was invalid because it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the
partitioned property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has
not participated therein or had no notice thereof. As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the
excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to[25hold that their right to challenge the partition had
prescribed after two years from its execution in 1941. X
3) Given
decide the
this circumstances
issue. in this
The properties case,towe
sought be are constrained
recovered by thetopetitioner
hold thatarethisnow
is not the properunder
all registered forumtheto
name of third parties. Well settled is the doctrine that a Torrens Title cannot be collaterally attacked. The
validity of the title can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for such purpose.

7. IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE G.R. No. 155733

ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA
DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA

(this
had tocase
put isthe
super
otherhaba.
facts Iand
think the for
issues second issue
clearer is the one connected to our topic, however I
discussion.)

Facts:
This case to
claimants concerns the settlement
the estates of Rustia
of Guillermo the intestate estates
and Josefa of Guillermo
Delgado may beRustia and
divided Josefa
into Delgado.
two groups: (1)The
the
alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings, nephews and nieces, and
grandnephews and grandnieces, and (2) the alleged heirs of GuillermoRustia, particularly, his sisters, [7]
his nephews and nieces, [8] his illegitimate child, [9] and the de facto adopted child [10] (ampun-ampunan)
of the decedents.X
THE ALLEGED HEIRS OF JOSEFA DELGADO
The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter daughter of Felisa [11] Delgado by one Lucio Campo.
Aside from Josefa, five other children were born to the couple, namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba,
and Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa
and her full-blood siblings were all natural children of Felisa Delgado. However, Lucio Campo was not
the first and only man in Felisa Delgados life. Before him was Ramon Osorio [12] with whom Felisa
had a son, Luis Delgado.X
Josefa
Rustia Delgado died
and some on 8 September
collateral relatives,1972
the without a will.
petitioners She washerein.
Guillermo survived by Guillermo
Several months
later , on 15 June 1973, Rustia executed an affidavit of self-adjudication of the remaining
properties compromising her estate.
THE ALLEGED HEIRS OF GUILLERMO RUSTIA
Guillermo
their homeRustia and Josefa Delgado never
the youngstersGuillermina hadRustia
Rustia any children. With Rustia.
and Nanie no children of their
These own, they
children, nevertook into
legally
adopted by the couple, were what was known in the local dialect asampun-ampunan.[19] During his life with
Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate child, the intervenor-
respondent GuillermaRustia, with one Amparo Sagarbarria. X

On Mayof8,administration
letters 1975, Luisa Delgado vda. deestates
of the intestate Danao,ofthethedaughter
spousesofJosefa
Luis Delgado,
Delgadofiled
andthe original Rustia
Guillermo petitionwith
for
the RTC of Manila, Branch 55. [25] This petition was opposed by the following: (1) the
sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely, Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz; [26]
(2) the heirs of GuillermoRustias late brother, Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun-ampunan
Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The opposition was grounded on the theory that Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao
and the other claimants were barred under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative
JosefaDelgado.X
she wasInthe November of 1975,
only surviving Guillerma
descendant Rustia
in the filed
direct linea of
motion to intervene
Guillermo Rustia. in the proceedings, claiming
vda. de On Marchwho
Danao, 14, had
1988, Carlota
died Delgado
on May vda. On
18, 1987 de deMay
la Rosa
11, substituted
1990, theforRTC
her sister, Luisa Delgado
appointed Carlota
Delgado vda. de de la Rosa as administratrix of both estates.
J. RustiaThe Affidavit
on June 15, of Self-Adjudication
1973 is hereby SET of the estate
ASIDE of Josefa
and declared of Delgado
no force executed
and effect.by the late Guillermo
 On appeal,
legally married; theintestate
2.) the CA ruledestate
that 1.)
of Dr. Guillermo Rustia,Jacoba
Dr. Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado Rustia
Delgado-Encinas andtothe
have been
children
of Gorgonio Delgado (Campo) entitled to partition among themselves the intestate estate of Josefa D.
Rustia in accordance with the proportion referred to in this decision; 3.) the oppositors-appellants as the
legal heirs of the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia and thereby entitled to partition his estate in accordance with
the proportion referred to herein; and 4.) the intervenor-appellee Guillerma S. Rustia as ineligible to inherit
from the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia; thus revoking her appointment as administratrix of his estate.
Issues:
who are the lawful heirs of Josefa Delgado?
WON the Affidavit of Self Adjudication of Guillermo Rustia is valid?
Who are the lawful heris of Guillermo Rustia?

Held:
1)It wasborn
children found out that
to Felisa Felisa
Delgado outDelgado and Ramon
of her relations OsorioOsorio
with Ramon was and
never married.
Lucio Campo,Hence, allLuis
namely, the
and his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all
surnamed Delgado, [51] were her natural children. [52X
Here, the above-named
her half-brother. siblings of
Nonetheless, Josefa
since Delgado
they were were related to her
all illegitimate, by full-blood,
they may inherit except
fromLuis Delgado,
each other.
Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado.
We note, however,
and grandnieces that the
of Josefa petitioners
Delgado. Underbefore
Article us
972are already
of the the Code,
new Civil nephews, nieces,
the right grandnephews
of representation in
the collateral line takes place only in favor of the children of brothers and[54] sisters (nephews and nieces).
Consequently, it cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces. Therefore, the only collateral
relatives ofJosefa Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters,
or their children who were still alive at[55]
the time of her death on September 8, 1972. They have a vested
right to participate in the inheritance. The records not being clear on this matter, it is now for the trial
court to determine who were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their children) of Josefa Delgado at
the time of her death. Together with Guillermo Rustia, [56] they are entitled to inherit from Josefa
Delgado.X

2) No. Since
validly Josefa Josefas
adjudicated Delgado estate
had all
heirs other than
to himself. Rule Guillermo Rustia,
74, Section 1 of Guillermo
the Rules of could
Courtnotis clear.
have
Adjudication by an heir of the decedents entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit is allowed only if
he is the sole heir to the estate:
SECTION
debts and the1. Extrajudicial
heirs are all settlement by minors
of age, or the agreement between heirs.
are represented If the
by their decedent
judicial left representatives
or legal no will and no
duly authorized for the 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 the office of the register
of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one
heir, he may adjudicate to himself the estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the
register of deeds.
3) Intervenor (now co-respondent) Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child [58] of Guillermo Rustia. As
such, she may be entitled tosuccessional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity. [59]
She, however, claimed the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia only after the
death of the latter on February 28, 1974 at which time it was already the new Civil Code that was in
effect.X
adoptedThe same misfortune
in accordance befalls
with law. the ampun-ampunan,
Although a petition for herGuillermina
adoption wasRustia
filedRustia, who was
by Guillermo never
Rustia, it
never came to fruition and was dismissed upon the latters death. We affirm the ruling of both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals holding her a legal stranger to the deceased spouses and therefore not
entitled to inherit from them ab intestato.

8) Marquez vs CA
Facts:
During
namely:their lifetime, the
(1) Natividad; spouses
(2) Aurea; (3)Rafael Marquez,
Herminigildo; Sr. and Felicidad
(4) Filomena; Marquez
(5) Exequel; begot twelve
(6) Salvador; children,
(7) Guadencio;
(8) Rafael, Jr.; (9) Belen; (10) Alfredo; (11) Ricardo; and (12) Antonio. Sometime in 1945, the spouses
acquired a parcel of land with a lot area of 161 square meters in San Juan Del Monte, Rizal, more
particularly described in TCT No. 47572, [1] wherein they constructed their conjugal home.X
In 1952, of
Affidavit Felicidad Marquez
Adjudication diedunto
vesting intestate.
himselfThirty
soleyears later or
ownership to in
the1982, Rafael
property Marquez,
described Sr. executed
in TCT an
No. 47572.
Consequently, TCT No. 47572 was cancelled and TCT No. 33350 [2] was issued in his name on June 16,
1982.X
[3] Thereafter, on December 29, 1983 Rafael Marquez, Jr. executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
covering the land described in TCT No. 33350 as well as the house constructed thereon to three of his
children, namely: (1) petitioner Rafael Jr.; (2) Alfredo; and (3) Belen, both private respondents herein, to
the exclusion of his other children, petitioners herein. X
Petitioners, now joined by Rafael Jr., filed a complaint on May 31, 1991 for Reconveyance and
Partition with Damages before the trial court [4] alleging that both the Affidavit of Adjudication and Deed of
Donation Inter Vivos were fraudulent since the private respondents took advantage of the advanced age
of their father in making him execute the said documents. X
In their Answer,
limitations, sinceprivate respondents
the same argued
should have beenthat petitioners
filed action
within four was
years already
from barred
the date of by the statute
discovery of
of the
alleged fraud. [5]X
[6]
After due proceedings, the trial court on April 29, 1993, rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners, in this
wise:X
Prescription cannot
prescribe. Both set in because
the Affidavit an action
of Adjudication andtothe
setDonation
aside a Inter
document
Vivos which
did notisproduce
void abany
initio does
legal not
effect
and did not confer any right whatsoever. Equally, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 33350 and 46461 issued
pursuant thereto, are likewise null and void ab initio. Therefore, the inexistence of these documents and
certificates of title is permanent and cannot be the subject of prescription.
The CA reversed the said Decision:
Such discovery iswas
self-adjudication deemed to have
filed with taken place
the Register in theand
of Deeds case at bar
new on June
certificate of 16,
title1982, when the
(No. 33350) wasaffidavit
issued of
in
the name of Rafael Marquez, Sr. (Exhibits E and 5, page 16, record). Considering that the period from
June 16, 1982, when TCT No. 33350 was issued in the name of Rafael Marquez, Sr., to May 31, 1991,
when appellees complaint was filed in court, is eight (8) years, eleven (11) months and fifteen (15) days,
appellants action to annul the deed of self-adjudication is definitely barred by the statute of limitation."
Issue: WON the action for reconveyance had prescribed.
Held:
NO.
It must be
present noted
Civil Code.that Felicidad
Under ArticleMarquez died her
887 thereof, in 1952; thus, succession
compulsory to legitimate
heirs are her her estate children,
is governed by the
petitioners
and private respondent herein, and her spouse, Rafael Marquez, Sr. Now, in 1982, Rafael Marquez, Sr.
decided to adjudicate the entire property
by executing an Affidavit of Adjudication claiming that he is the only sole and surviving heir of his
deceased wife Felicidad F. Marquez. [10]X
affidavit As
thatsuch,
he waswhentheRafael Marquez,
only heir Sr., when
of his wife for onein reason or children
fact their another, were
misrepresented in his
still alive, and unilateral
managed to
secure a transfer
[11] of certificate of title under his name, a constructive trust under Article 1456 was
established. Constructive trusts are created in equity in order to prevent unjust enrichment. They arise
contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal
right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold. X
In this regard, it is settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive
trust prescribed in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. [13] For the purpose
of this case, the prescriptive period shall start to run when TCT No. 33350 was issued which was on June
16, 1982. Thus, considering that the action for reconveyance was filed on May 31, 1991, or approximately
nine years later, it is evident that prescription had not yet barred the action. X
[14]
position, the Court of Appeal's reliance on Gerona v. de Guzman ,
To bolster the foregoing,[15] is misplaced. In
Amerol v. Bagumbaran we
[16]ruled that the doctrine laid down in the earlier Gerona case was based on the
old Code of Civil Procedure which provided that an action based on fraud prescribes within four years
from the date of discovery. However, with the effectivity of the present Civil Code on August 30, 1950, the
provisions on prescriptive period are now governed by Articles 1139 to 1155. Since implied or
constructive trust are obligations created by law, then the prescriptive period to enforce the same
prescribes in ten years.X
Moreover
respondents.Rafael Marquez
Art. 736. Sr., and
Guardian as trustee
trusteesofcannot
his wifes share,
donate cannot validly
the property donate
entrusted this portion to the
to them

9. Gerona vs De guzman
Facts:
Petitioners
alleged that herein,
they arenamely, Ignacio,children
the legitimate Maria of Concepcion, Francisco
Domingo Gerona and and Delfin,
Placida all surnamed
de Guzman; that theGerona,
latter,
who died on August 9, 1941 was a legitimate daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and his first wife, Teodora
de la Cruz; that after the death of his first wife, Marcelo de Guzman married Camila Ramos, who begot
him several children, namely, respondents Carmen, Jose, Clemente, Francisco, Rustica, Pacita and
Victoria, all surnamed De Guzman; that Marcelo de Guzman died on September 11, 1945.
deceased OnMarcelo
May 6, de1948, respondents
Guzman", executed
fraudulently a deed of "extra-judicial
misrepresenting therein thatsettlement
they wereofthe theonly
estate of the
surviving
heirs of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman, although they well knew that petitioners were, also, his forced
heirs; that respondents had thereby succeeded fraudulently in causing the transfer certificates of title to
seven (7) parcels of land, issued in the name of said deceased, to be cancelled and new transfer
certificates of title to be issued in their own name.
Accordingly,
settlement, insofar asthe petitioners
it deprives prayed
them thatparticipation
of their judgment be of rendered
1/18th of nullifying said deed
the properties of extra-judicial
in litigation; ordering
the respondents to reconvey to petitioners their aforementioned share in said properties.
marriage, The trial courtderendered
of Marcelo Guzman;a that
decision finding that
the properties petitioners'
described mother
in the was abelonged
complaint legitimate to child, by first
the conjugal
partnership of Marcelo de Guzman and his second wife, Camila Ramos; and that petitioners' action has
already prescribed, and, accordingly, dismissing the complaint without costs. On appeal taken by the
petitioners, this decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with costs against them.
Issue: WON the action has prescribed.
Held:
Yes. Although, as a general rule, an action for partition among co-heirs does not prescribe, this is true
only as long as the defendants do not hold the property in question under an adverse title (Cordova vs.
Cordova, L-9936, January 14, 1948). The statute of limitations operates as in other cases, from the
moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property.
Although,
reconveyancethereofare some
real decisions
property basedto upon
the contrary it is already
a constructive settled trust,
or implied in thisresulting
jurisdiction
fromthatfraud,
an action
may for
be
barred by the statute of limitations.
Inasmuch as petitioners
ground of fraud seek to thereof,
in the execution annul thetheaforementioned
action therefordeed
may of be "extra-judicial settlement"
filed within four (4) years upon
from the
the
discovery of the fraud (Mauricio v. Villanueva, L-11072, September 24, 1959). Such discovery is deemed
to have taken place, in the case at bar, on June 25, 1948, when said instrument was filed with the
Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the name of respondents exclusively, for the
registration of the deed of extra-judicial settlement constitute constructive notice to the whole world.
In the light
alleged of the
fraud foregoing
committed it must,
against therefore,
them be held that
by defendants plaintiffs
on 25 learned
June 1948 at least
when constructively,
the deed of the
of extra-judicial
settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman was registered in the registry of deeds of
Bulacan, Plaintiffs' complaint in this case was not filed until 4 November 1958, or more than 10 years
thereafter.

10) Nittscher vs Nittscher

Facts:
petition On January
for the 31, of
probate 1990, Dr. Werner Karl
his holographic Johann
will and Nittscher
for the issuancefiledofwith the testamentary
letters RTC of Makati City a
to herein
respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales. On September 19, 1991, after hearing and with due notice to the
compulsory heirs, the probate court issued an order allowing the said holographic will
On September
for the 26, 1994,
administration Dr. estate
of the Nittscher
of died. Hence, Atty.
the deceased. Dr. Nogales filedsurviving
Nittscher’s a petition for letters
spouse, testamentary
herein petitioner
Cynthia V. Nittscher, moved for the dismissal of the said petition. However, the court in its September 29,
1995 Order denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, and granted respondent’s petition for the issuance of
letters testamentary.
Section 4, Rule
court shall issue78 of the
letters Revised Rules
testamentary of Court,
thereon to theprovides
person "when
namedaas willexecutor
has been provedif and
therein, he isallowed, the
competent,
accepts the trust and gives a bond as required by these rules." In the case at bar, petitioner Atty. Rogelio
P. Nogales of the R.P. Nogales Law Offices has been named executor under the Holographic Will of Dr.
Werner J. Nittscher. As prayed for, let Letters Testamentary be issued to Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, the
executor named in the Will, without a bond.
The appeal was also denied by the CA.
NittscherPetitioner insists that
was allegedly not atheresident
RTC has of no
thejurisdiction overneither
Philippines; the subject
did hematter
leaveof real
this case because
properties Dr.
in the
country. Petitioner claims that the properties listed for disposition in her husband’s will actually belong to
her. She insists she was denied due process of law because she did not receive by personal service the
notices of the proceedings.
Issue: WON petitioner is denied of due process.
Held:
SECTION
Philippines1.atWhere estate
the time of death,
of his deceased persons
whether settled.
a citizen – Ifalien,
or an the his
decedent is an
will shall inhabitant
be proved, of the
or letters
of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Court) in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province in which he had
estate. …
In this case,
Piñas, Metrothe RTC at
Manila and
thethe Court
time of Appeals
of his are one
death. Such in their
factual finding
finding, that we
which Dr. Nittscher was aby
find supported resident of Las
evidence on
record, should no longer be disturbed.
Moreover
Rule 76 ofwe thenote that
Rules of Dr. Nittscher
Court states: asked for the allowance of his own will. In this connection, Section 4,
SEC. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally. – …
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
In this case,
children records
from his show
previous that petitioner,
marriage were all with whom Dr.
duly notified, by Nittscher
registeredhad
mail,noofchild, and Dr.
the probate Nittscher’s
proceedings.
Petitioner even appeared in court to oppose respondent’s petition for the issuance of letters testamentary
and she also filed a motion to dismiss the said petition. She likewise filed a motion for reconsideration of
the issuance of the letters testamentary and of the denial of her motion to dismiss. We are convinced
petitioner was accorded every opportunity to defend her cause. Therefore, petitioner’s allegation that she
was denied due process in the probate proceedings is without basis.