ERNESTO M.

GUEVARA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
ROSARIO GUEVARA and her husband PEDRO BUISON, respondent-appellees.
 
Facts:
 
Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made various bequests
to his wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He has a legitimate
son Ernesto and a natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he acknowledged
Rosario as his natural daughter.
 
Victorino set aside 100 hectares on the northern half of the large parcel
of land to be disposed of either by him during his lifetime or by his
attorney-in-fact Ernesto M. Guevara in order to pay all his pending debts
and to degray his expenses and those of his family to the time of his
death.
 
In July 1933, the southern half of the land was conveyed to Ernesto by his
father in the sum of P1 and other valuable considerations, among which
were the payment of all his debts and obligations amounting to not less
than P16,500, his maintenance up to his death, and the expenses of his
last illness and funeral expenses. 
 
In September 1933, a final decree of registration on the 259-odd
hectares(whole parcel of lot) under Title No. 51691  was issued in the
name of Ernesto Guevara alone, because during the trial of the case,
Victorino L. Guevara withdrew as an applicant and Rosario Guevara and her
co-oppositors also withdrew their opposition. During trial, Rosario avers
that she withdrew her opposition because of his brother’s promise that
after paying all the debt of their father, he would deliver to her and to
the widow their corresponding shares. 
 
Victorino died but his last will was never presented for probate nor was
there any settlement proceeding initiated. It appeared that only his son
Ernest possessed the land which he adjudicated to 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.
 
While Rosario who had the will in her custody, did nothing to invoke the
acknowledgement, as well as the devise given to her. 
 
Four years after, (November 12, 1937)Rosario filed an action for the
recovery of her legitime from Ernesto,a portion of a large parcel of land
in Pangasinan, invoking the acknowledgment contained in the will and based
on the assumption that the decedent died intestate because his will was
not probated. She alleged that the disposition in favor of Ernesto should
be disregarded.
 
Ernesto answered the complaint contending that whatever right or
rights the plaintiff might have had, had been barred by the operation of
law.
 
The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory.
Issue: 
1. Whether or not the probate of a will can be dispensed with
2. Who owns northern half portion of land?
 
RULING
 
1.  No. Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an
attempt to circumvent the last will and testament of the decedent.
The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and
its allowance is essential and indispensable to its efficacy.
 
Suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy for without
probate, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be
rendered nugatory. The proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem,
with notice by publication to the whole world and with personal notice to
each of the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator 
 
2. The Court affirms the finding of the CA that the northern half of
the land still belongs to the estate of the deceased Victorino L.
Guevara. 
 
In the event that Ernesto has alienated any portion thereof, he is under
obligation to compensate the estate with an equivalent portion from the
southern half of said land that has not yet been sold.
 
 In other words, to the estate of Victorino L. Guevara still belongs one
half of the total area of the land described in said original certificate
of title, to be taken from such portions as have not yet been sold by the
petitioner, the other half having been lawfully acquired by the latter in
consideration of his assuming the obligation to pay all the debts of the
deceased.