1) Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs.

Ricaforte

Glaudioso - filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages against Ricaforte

Claims to be the sole Heir of Magdaleno- Live Birth Cert

-Certified True Copy of Passport

- 2 letters from Polytechnic School

Issue: dismissal –complainant failed to state cause of action

Held: Yes. Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are legal heirs must be made in a
special proceedings and NOT an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property

- Declaration of Heirship CAN ONLY BE MADE THROUGH SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

2) Emilio Pacioles v Emilio Pacioles v. Miguela Chuatoco-Ching

Miguelita died instestate- leaving Emilio with 3 minor children

Emilio filed a verified petition for settlement of estate

Miguelita’s mother-opposed- filed a petition for Letters of Administration-Emmanuel to be appointed

Court: appointed Emilio and Emmanuel

Made inventory NO

Declared declared Emilio and his children as the only compulsory heirs of the deceased.

petitioned the court for the payment of estate tax and the partition and
distribution of the estate. RTC denied CA affirmed

Issue: trial court acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving
properties claimed to be part of the decedents estate
Held: Gen. Rule: Jurisiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate court relates only to
matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceased persons but
does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings

Rationale: court exercises special and limited jurisdiction.

- an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to
determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory

- question of ownership is an extrataneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with
finality.

3. Neri vs. Heirs of Uy (GR No. 194366, October 10, 2012)

Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Rosa, Douglas, Eutropia, and Victoria

seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA which annulled the Decision of the RTC
of Davao del Norte, and entered a new one dismissing PETITIONERS complaint for annulment of sale
and damages against herein respondent

Anunciacion( deceased)- during lifetime-2nd husband Enrique, acquired several homestead properties

Enrique- Personal capacity as guardian of his minor children Rosa and Douglas, together with Napoleon,
Alicia, and Visminda executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale
adjudicating it among themselves

sold the properties to the late spouses Uy (80,000)

children of Enrique- filed annulment of sale-

Grounds:

1. assailing the validity of the sale for having been sold within the prohibited period

2. without the consent or approval of Eutropia, Victoria, Rosa and Douglas; thus, depriving the latter
siblings of their legitime

UY- the sale took place beyond the 5 year prohibitory period from the issuance of the homestead
patents

RTC-sale is void- Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that Enrique had no
judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.

CA-reserved set aside RTC’s decision

Issue: Enrique as guardian of his children and co-owner (with his children)may sell their co-owned
property?

Held:

NO- as shares of the minor children because as a natural guardian, he is merely clothed with powers of
administration.

- Enrique was merely clothed with POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION and bereft of any authority to dispose
of their 2/16 shares in the estate of their mother, Anunciacion

-Even the parents of their minor children are bound to post bond.* With respect to Rosa and Douglas
who were minors at the time of the execution of the settlement and sale, their NATURAL GUARDIAN and
father, Enrique, represented them in the transaction. ONLY POWER OF ADMINISTRATION

- Parents should apply for judicial guardianship in order for them to sell properties of their children.

4. Alaban vs. CA (GR No. 156021, September 23, 2005)

RESPONDENT- Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the
late Soledad Provido Elevencionado

Claims to be the heir and executor

RTC-allowed probate and issuance of testamentary

After 4 mos.-Petitioners Alaban- months filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings

1) they are the intestate heirs of the decedent.

2) RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of
the correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs.

3) will could not have been probated because:

a) the signature of the decedent was forged;

b) the will was not executed in accordance with law, that is, the witnesses failed to sign below the
attestation clause;

c) the decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute and publish a will;

d) the will was executed by force and under duress and improper pressure;

e) the decedent had no intention to make a will at the time of affixing of her signature; and

f) she did not know the properties to be disposed of, having included in the will properties which no
longer belonged to her.

RTC-denied

Petitioners- filed a petition to annul RTC’s decision-Grounds? compromise agreement between

petitioners and respondents and they learnt the probate proceeding only in July 2001

CA-dismissed

Issue: allowance of the will to probate should be annulled for failure to mention the petitioners as
parties?

Held: No . Probate of a will is considered action in rem

-any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at
any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed.

-Notice of the time and place for proving the will must be published for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, as well as furnished to the designated or other known
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator

- Petitioners became parties due to the publication of the notice of hearing .

-The ruling became final and executor because the motion was filed out of time

5. Palaganas vs. Palaganas (GR No. 169144 January 26, 2011)

- Ruperta C. Palaganas-a Filipino naturalized United States citizen, died single and childless

Last will executed in California

Brother of deceased-Sergio C. Palaganas, as the executor of her will for she had left
properties in the Philippines and in the US.

Ernesto C. Palaganas -another brother filed with the RTC Maloslos-a petition for the probate of
Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate

petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas( nephews )opposed

Grounds:

1. will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it.
2. assuming Ruperta’s will could be probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been
executed under duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences of such act.
3.Ernesto also not qualified to act as administrator of the estate.

Issue: a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been
previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed?

Held: Yes. 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

- In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have been first probated and allowed by the court of California,
petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before
admitting it here. But, reprobate or re-authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign
country is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent
court. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.

6.TESTATE ESTATE OF LATE GREGORIO VENTURA: MARIA VENTURA v. GREGORIA VENTURA, GR No. L-
26306, 1988-04-27

Maria Ventura-- the illegitimate daughter of the deceased Gregorio Ventura while Miguel Ventura and
Juana Cardona are his son and surviving spouse -also the brother and mother of Maria Ventura.

Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura - deceased's legitimate children with his former wife, the late Paulina
Simpliciano

Gregorio Ventura (deceased)-filed a petition for the probate of his will which did not include the
appellees(Mercedes,Gregoria, Miguel)

-appellant Maria Ventura, although an illegitimate child, was named and appointed by the testator to
be the executrix of his will and the administratrix of his estate

-motions were filed by Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura namely:

(1) motion to remove the executrix Maria Ventura

Grounds:

1. grossly incompetent

2. has maliciously and purposely concealed certain properties of the estate in the inventory

(3) is merely an illegitimate daughter who have no harmonious relations with the appellees
(4) that the executrix has neglected to render her accounts and failed to comply with the Order of the
Court

(5) physical defect

Issue: removal of Maria Ventura as executrix is legally justified?

Held:

- judgment is hereby rendered declaring Mercedes Venture and Gregoria Ventura to be the legitimate
daughters of Paulina Simpliciano and Gregorio Ventura; declaring that as such legitimate daughters of
Paulina Simpliciano they are entitled to 1/2 of the properties describe the complaint

- rendering the previous appointment of Maria Ventura as executrix moot and academic. This would
now necessitate the appointment of another administrator,under.the following provision:

Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court:

"When and to whom letters of administration granted. - If no executor is named in the will, or the
executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate,
administration shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the
court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve;"

7. EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III vs. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY G.R. No. 183053 ; October 10, 2012

Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died intestate and was survived by

1.spouse, Dr. Federico Suntay

2. five grandchildren (3 legitimate grandchildren, including herein respondent, Isabel and 2 illegitimate
grandchildren, including petitioner Emilio III, all by Federico’s and Cristina’s only child, Emilio A. Suntay
(Emilio I) who predeceased his parents.

respondent Isabel- filed before the RTC, Malolos-a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
over Cristina’s estate.

Federico opposed the petition- and filed a Motion to Dismiss Isabel’s petition for letters of
administration on the ground that Isabel had no right of representation to the estate being an
illegitimate grandchild
-Federico nominated Emilio III to administer the decedent’s estate on his behalf in the event letters of
administration issues to Federico

Issue: Isabel and Emilio III can be a co-administrators of the estate of Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay

HELD:

NO. Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists a sequence to be observed, an order of preference, in
the appointment of an administrator. This order of preference, which categorically seeks out the
surviving spouse, the next of kin and the creditors in the appointment of an administrator, has been
reinforced in jurisprudence.

- Given Isabel’s unassailable interest in the estate as one of the decedent’s legitimate grandchildren and
undoubted nearest "next of kin," the appointment of Emilio III as co-administrator of the same estate,
cannot be a demandable right. It is a matter left entirely to the sound discretion of the Court

8.STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC-ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION,

Respondent. G.R. No. 147561 June 22, 2006 PANGANIBAN, CJ

Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation (Asahi) entered into a contract with Jose D. Santos, Jr., the
proprietor of JDS Construction (JDS)

-construction of roadways and a drainage system in Asahi’s

compound in Pasig City.

Asahi was to pay JDS- P5,300,000.00 for the construction supposed to be completed by JDS within 240
days.

For faithful and satisfactory performance of its undertakings, JDS shall post a performance bond of
P795,000. JDS executed solidarily with Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. (Stronghold) the Performance
Bond.

- Asahi called the attention of JDS -slow pace of the construction, which resulted in the fear that the
construction will not be finished within the stipulated 240-day period but went unheeded

Dissatisfied Asahi extrajudicially rescinded the contract.

-Because of the rescission, Asahi had to hire another contractor to finish the project, incurring an
additional P3,256,874.00.
- Asahi then sent a letter to SICI filing its claim under the performance bond, but the letter went
unheeded.

-Asahi eventually filed a complaint against JDS and Stronghold for damages. However, Jose D. Santos, Jr.
had already died and JDS Construction was no longer at its registered address, with its whereabouts
unknown.

-Stronghold maintains that Asahi’s money claims against it and JDS have been extinguished by the death
of Jose D. Santos

Issue: death of Santos can be a defense of Stronghold. Otherwise stated, Whether or not Stronghold’s
liability under the performance bond was automatically extinguished by the death of Santos, the
principal.

RULING:

No. As a general rule, the death of either the creditor or the debtor does not extinguish the obligation.
Obligations are transmissible to the heirs, except when the transmission is prevented by the law, the
stipulations of the parties, or the nature of the obligation. Only obligations that are personal or are
identified with the persons themselves are extinguished by death. Hence, his death did not result in
the extinguishment of those obligations or liabilities, which merely passed on to his estate

9. Heirs of Late Spouses Magsalang vs. Manila Banking Corp.

Sps. Maglasang- obtained a credit line from MBC secured by Real Estate Mortgage

.When Flaviano Maglasang died, his son Edgar was appointed as atty-in-fact by Flaviano’s heirs.

He filed a petition for letters of administration of Flaviano’s intestate estate w/c the probate court
granted.

Court issued a Notice to Creditors for filing of money claims against the estate. MBC notified the court
of its claim. When Court terminated the proceedings and executed an extra-judicial partition over the
properties, the loan obligations owed to MBC remained unsatisfied though the court recognized the
rights of MBC to foreclose the mortgage. MBC extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage; however, after
auction sale, a deficiency remained on Maglasangs’ obligation. Thus, it filed a suit to recover the
deficiency. RTC ruled in their favor so Maglasangs appealed to CA contending that under Remedies
available to Manila Banking Corp. under Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC are alternative and exclusive, such that
the election of one operates as a waiver of the others and since MBC filed a claim in the probate court, it
has abandoned its right to foreclose the property and is barred from recovering any deficiency. CA
denied the appeal and contended that Act. 3135 applies w/c allows MBC to extrajudicially foreclose and
recover the deficiency.

Issue: WON Rule 86 sec 7 and not Art 3135 applies? BOTH applies
HELD: MBC had a right to extrajudicially foreclose the property but it cannot recover the deficiency.
Both Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC and Act. 3135 apply complementarily in the case at bar. Foreclosure under
the 3rd remedy in Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC includes extrajudicial foreclosure under Act. 3135. However,
upon choosing said remedy, creditor waives his right to recover the deficiency. When MBC sought to
extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage of the properties previously belonging to Sps. Maglasang and it
therefore, availed of the third option waiving its right to recover the deficiency