ROBERTS V LEONIDAS URIARTE V CFI CUENCO V CA

This involves two proceedings to settle the estate of the deceased.

Mr Grimm executed two wills in California. One When Don Uriarte died he left several This involves the settlement of estate of Sen
to dispose properties in the Philippines and the properties in Manila. Petitioner, who is the Cuenco instituted in two courts. An intestate
other one to dispose properties outside alleged natural son and sole heir of Don proceeding in CFI Cebu filed by Lourdes (one
Philippines. When he died he was survived by Uriarte instituted an intestate proceeding of his children in the 1st marriage) claiming
his 2nd wife (Maxine) and their children and his before CFI Negros. However, this was that Sen Cuenco died ni Manila but have
two daughters from his 1st marriage. Ethel opposed by the nephews of Don Uriarte properties in Cebu and QC and a testate
initiated intestate proceedings in CFI Manila. claiming that the latter left a will in Spain. proceeding in CFI QC filed by his Rosa his
Two months later, Maxine presented the wills Instead of presenting the will in the intestate 2nd wife. When the latter found out that there
for probate in Utah. She received a notice that proceeding, they instituted a petition for is a pending intestate proceeding in Cebu
there is a pending intestate proceeding in probate in CFI Manila and a moved for the she moved for its dismissal but issued an
Manila. She filed an opposition and moved for dismissal of the intestate proceeding in order holding in abeyance its resolution on
the dismissal of the proceedings since there is Negros on the following grounds that: 1) Don the motion to dismiss "until after the Court of
a pending probate proceeding in Utah and Uriarte left a will, so there is no legal basis to First Instance of Quezon City shall have
presented a copy of the will. Utah Court proceed with intestate proceeding and 2) acted on the petition for probate of the will.
admitted the two wills and codicil to probate on petitioner has no legal personality and Respondents filed a motion to dismiss in QC
April 1978. Two weeks later, Maxine and Ethel interest in initiating such proceeding as he is Court contending that it is the Cebu Court
FACTS
entered into a compromise agreement in Utah not an acknowledged son of the decedent. who has acquired exclusive jurisdiction as it
regarding the estate. Because of the Petitioner opposed and argued that it was the first took cognizance of the intestate
compromise agreement, she withdraw her Negros Court who first took cognizance of the proceeding. But this was denied by the QC
opposition and motion to dismiss and the court proceeding, it had acquired exclusive original Court. On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of
ignored the will found in the record. jurisdiction. The Negros Court sustained the respondents and issued a writ of prohibition
motion to dismiss. Hence, this petition, in to QC Court.
Years later, Maxine filed a petition for which he questioned the dismissal of the
reprobate of the wills and prayed that the intestate proceeding.
partition approved by the intestate court be set
aside and the letters of administration revoked,
that Maxine be appointed executrix. Ethel
moved for the dismissal of the testamentary
proceedings or. alternatively, that the two
proceedings be consolidated and heard in
Branch 20. It was denied by the trial court.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE WON the respondent judge committed grave WON the intestate proceeding should be Whether Cebu Court or QC Court has the
 abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in denying her motion to dismiss.
No. The respondent judge did commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying her motion. The
Court ruled that, since Mr Grimm executed two
wills a testate proceeding is proper. The rule
provides that no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and
allowed, which means probate of the will is
mandatory. Thus, the intestate case should be
consolidated with the testate proceeding and
the judge assigned to the testate proceeding
should continue hearing the two cases.
RULING
dismissed.
Yes. The dismissal of the Negros Court was
proper. The Court ruled that under the Rules
on Settlement of estate, testate proceedings
enjoy priority over intestate proceeding. In
case intestate settlement was filed prior to
the finding of the will of the deceased, then
the intestate proceedings shall be dismissed
to give priority to the testate proceeding.
The Court also ruled that respondents should
have submitted said will for probate to the
Negros Court, either in a separate special
proceeding or in an appropriate motion for
said purpose filed in the already pending
special proceeding in Negros.
Nephews of Don Uriarte had knowledge prior
to the filling of testate proceeding that there is
a pending intestate proceeding.
jurisdiction.
The QC Court who has jurisdiction. The Court
held that when Cebu Court found out that a
petition for probate of the decedent's last will
has been presented in QC Court where the
decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile
and resided decline to take cognizance of the
petition and hold the petition before it in
abeyance, and instead defer to the QC Court
which has before it the petition for probate of
the decedent's alleged last will. The Court
noted that based from Cebu Court’s order of
deference that if the will was duly admitted to
probate, by the Quezon City court, then it
would definitely decline to take cognizance of
Lourdes' intestate petition which would
thereby be shown to be false and improper,
and leave the exercise of jurisdiction to the
Quezon City court, to the exclusion of all
other courts. Cebu court left it to the Quezon
City court to resolve the question between
the parties whether the decedent's residence
at the time of his death was in Quezon City
where he had his conjugal domicile rather
than in Cebu City as claimed by respondents.
Petition for probate filed by the 2 nd wife was
filed without the knowledge that there is a
pending intestate proceeding in Cebu.
 YPON V RICAFORTE
Magdaleno Ypon died intestate and childless. He left certain real
properties. Respondent Gaudioso Ricaforte claimed that he is the sole
heir of the decedent and executed an Affidavit of self-Adjudication. He
also caused the cancellation of the titles covering the decedent’s
properties. Petitioners filed a complaint for the cancellation of title and
reconveyance against respondent. The latter in his Answer alleged
that he is the only lawful son of the decedent evidenced by his birth
certi and claimed that the petitioner were not real parties in interest
since there was no evidence showing that they have been declared as
the decedent’s lawful heirs.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed the complaint. It
FACTS ruled that even if the petitioners had established their relationship with
Magdaleno in a previous spec proceeding it does not mean that they
could already be the compulsory heirs. Respondent, on the other hand
satisfactorily established by way of documentary evid that he is the
son of the decedent. Thus, he is the compulsory heir.
ISSUE WON the dismissal of the case by the RTC was proper.
TREYES V LARLAR
Rosie Treyes, who the wife of the petitioner died intestate and without
any children but she left behind 7 siblings who are the respondents in
the case. Rosie, at the time of her death, owned 14 real estate
properties with her petitioner as their conjugal properties. Petitioner
executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication (1 st Affidavit was
registered in RD of Marikina and 2nd Affidavit was registered in RD
Negros Occidental, transferring the estate of Rosie to himself and
claiming that he was the sole heir.Respondents sent letters to
petitioner requesting for a conference to discuss the settlement of the
estate but they did not hear anything from the petitioner. They
discovered that the TCTs previously in the name of Rosie and her
husband are now cancelled and a new titles were issued but only in
the name of the petitioner. Respondents filed a Complaint for
Annulment of the 2 affidavits, cancellation of the TCTs, reconveyance
of ownership and possession, partition and damages. Petitioner, on
the other hand, filed two motions to dismiss - 1) dismissal of the
complaint due to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner
but RTC ordered for the re-service of summons and was personally
served to Treyes; 2) dismissal of the complaint due to lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. The 2nd motion was denied by the
RTC. It ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the third cause of action of
Partition. Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that RTC's denial of
his second Motion to Dismiss was committed with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But it affirmed
RTC’s ruling. Hence, this petition.
1. WON the CA was erred in ruling that the RTC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
denied petitioner Treyes' second Motion to Dismiss.
2. WON a prior determination of the status as a legal or compulsory
heir in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary

Yes. As a rule, determination of who are the legal heirs of the
deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court,
and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of
property. It is clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in
a special proceeding since petitioners are seeking the establishment of
a status or right. But by way of exception, the need to institute a
separate special proceeding may be dispensed with when the parties
when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to
the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue
of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment
RULING thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had
been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
However, the present case does not fall within such exception which
means that petitioners are required to institute the proper special
proceeding in order to determine the heirship of the parties involved.
Thus, the RTC is correct in dismissing the complaint.
civil action seeking for the protection and enforcement of ownership
rights given by the law of succession.
1. No. The Court held that based from Rule 73, Sec 1, it refers
exclusively to the special proceeding of settlement of estates and
NOT to ordinary civil actions. The Complaint cannot be dismissed on
the ground of improper venue under Rule 73. The Complaint filed is
not a special proceeding but an ordinary civil action. RTC has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Compliant because based
from the allegations it was not instituted for the determination of their
status as heirs but their rights over the subject properties, by virtue of
them being siblings of the deceased.
2. No. Under the Civil Code, it provides that the rights of succession
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. The rights
of the heirs to the inheritance vest immediately at the precise moment
of the decedent's death even without judicial declaration of heirship.
The rule that requires for the prior determination of heirship in a
separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an
ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of
succession has now been abandoned.
 ARANAS V MERCADO RODRIGUEZ V RODRIGUEZ
Emigdio Mercado died intestate. He left certain properties such shares Sps. Rodriquez died leaving properties to their children (respondents).
from corporations and real properties. He was survived by his second The latter executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate.
wife, their five children and his two children by his 1st marriage. Petitioner Anita Ong who is a co-depositor of Reynaldo Rodriguez in a
Petitioner (one of his children by his 1st marriage) filed a petition for the Joint Acct with BPI received a letter from the bank informing her that
appointment of Terisita (wife) as administrator of the estate, which was the joint account would become dormant if no transaction will be
granted. In the inventory of the estate, Teresita indicated that at the made. She decided to withdraw her funds but due to the conflict of
time of death of Emigdio, he left no real property only personal claims between her and the heirs, the bank withheld the release of the
properties. But Thelma claimed the he owned properties that were not funds. Anita filed a petition for the: (a) settlement of the Intestate
included in the inventory, (she moved that the RTC direct Teresita to Estate of the late Reynaldo; and (b) issuance of letters of
FACTS amend the inventory, which was granted and complied by Teresita. administration to any competent neutral willing person, other than any
Thereafter, Thelma moved to require Teresita to be examined under of the heirs of Reynaldo. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. She
oath.) The parties agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of established by evidence that the funds used to open the BPI joint
the court on the issue of what properties should be included in or account were her exclusive funds. However, the CA reversed the
excluded from the inventory. decision. It ruled that she failed to prove that she is indeed the sole
owner of the funds therein.
RTC ruled that Teresita should have included the Badian Property in
the inventory. However, CA reversed the ruling. It held that RTC
commited grave abuse of discretion in ordering for the inclusion of
such property in the inventory.
WON the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the WON the trial court as a probate court is incompetent to rule on
ISSUE inclusion of the properties in the estate of the decedent? matters regarding inclusion or exclusion of properties in the inventory
of the estate of the decedent.
RULING No. Under Sec. 1, Rule 83, the word “all” refers to the inclusion of all No. Even if the RTC is exercising limited jurisdiction as a probate
the real and personal properties of the decedent in the inventory.22 court, it is competent to issue orders involving inclusion and exclusion
However, the word all is qualified by the phrase which has come into of certain properties in the inventory of the estate of the decedent. In
his possession or knowledge, which signifies that the properties must this case, the RTC exercised sound discretion when it ruled out the
be known to the administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her inclusion of the BPI joint account in the estate of the decedent.
possession as the administrator. As a rule, the trial court cannot
adjudicate title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate but are
claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of the
decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from
the decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is
to determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of
properties to be administered by the administrator.

As an exception to the GR that jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a

probate court or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do
with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased
persons, - the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
to final determination of ownership in a separate action.

Thus, RTC have the authority to order the inclusion of the Badian
Property.