TITLE: SHEKER VS. ESTATE OF ALICE SHEKER, GR. NO.

157912,
DECEMBER 13, 2007

FACTS:

The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and thereafter
issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.
In compliance therewith, petitioner filed on October 7, 2002 a contingent claim for
agent's commission due him in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land
belonging to the estate, and as reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or to be
incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties.

The executrix of the Estate of Alice O. Sheker (respondent) moved for the dismissal
of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the requisite docket
fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid;
(2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and (3)
petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed
and served personally.

The RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing without prejudice the money claim
based on the grounds advanced by respondent. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was denied per Omnibus Order dated April 9, 2003. Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed the present petition for
review on certiorari.

Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding
the rules requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for
non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim.
Petitioner insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that rules in
ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory manner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules
requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-
personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim?

HELD: YES

RULING:

It must be emphasized that petitioner's contention that rules in ordinary actions are
only supplementary to rules in special proceedings is not entirely correct.

“Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions. - In the absence of special provisions,

the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in
special proceedings”.

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern
special proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for
in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special
proceedings, as far as practicable.

The word practicable is defined as possible to practice or perform; capable of being

put into practice, done or accomplished. This means that in the absence of special
provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much
as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings.
Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary actions
are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.

Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for

complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service
and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would
not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person.

The word "practicable" is defined as: possible to practice or perform; capable of

being put into practice, done or accomplished. This means that in the absence of
special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings
as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in
ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.
Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for
complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service
and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would
not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the
present case.

Thus, the principal question in the present case is: did the RTC err in dismissing
petitioner's contingent money claim against respondent estate for failure of
petitioner to attach to his motion a certification against non-forum shopping?

The Court rules in the affirmative.

The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other
initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against
the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole
probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the
decedent's will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting
letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims
against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be barred,
subject to certain exceptions.5

Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for
creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 disposition of the properties of the estate. A money claim is only an incidental
matter in the main action for the settlement of the decedent's estate; more so if the
claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a
mere contingent claim. Hence, herein petitioner's contingent money claim, not
being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum
shopping. The RTC should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural rule
on the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service, again in the
interest of substantial justice.

TITLE: GARCIA FULE VS CA, GR. NO. L-40502, NOVEMBER 1976

FACTS:

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule filed with the Court of First Instance of Laguna, at
Calamba, a petition for letters of administration, alleging, inter alia, "that on April
26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna, died intestate in
the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna,
and in other places, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court." At the same
time, she moved
ex parte for her appointment as special administratrix over the estate. On even
date, the Judge granted the motion.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia, contending that the
order appointing Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix was issued without
jurisdiction, since no notice of the petition for letters of administration has been
served upon all persons interested in the estate; there has been no delay or cause
for delay in the proceedings for the appointment of a regular administrator as the
surviving spouse of Amado G. Garcia, she should be preferred in the appointment of
a special administratrix; and, Virginia G. Fule is a debtor of the estate of Amado G.
Garcia. Preciosa B. Garcia, therefore, prayed that she be appointed special
administratrix of the estate, in lieu of Virginia G. Fule, and as regular administratrix
after due hearing.

While the Motion for Reconsideration was pending before the Court, Preciosa B.
Garcia filed a motion to remove Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix.

During the hearings for the case, Virginia presented that Amado resided in Quezon
City three (3) years before his death, therefore CFI Calamba has no jurisdiction over
the case.

CFI denied the two petitions of Preciosa which was reversed by the Court of Appeals
decision. It vacated the decision made by the CFI. It held that CFI Calamba, Laguna
does not have jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the venue is improperly laid – YES, SC ruled in favor of
Preciosa

Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction of all probate cases is within the Court of First Instance which is different
from the place of residence of the deceased. It cannot be changed by procedure and
be stipulated by the parties. VENUE is the place of the hearing. Since there are
many Court of First Instance, the venue can be fixed. The rules provides that the
venue is the place of residence of deceased or the province.

Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “If the decedent is an
inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien,
his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled,
in the Court of First Instance 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 of
any province in which he had estate.

SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased should be the venue of the
court. IN HERE, the decedent died in Quezon City as provided by the death

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 certificate.

“Resides” should be seen as the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person,

actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and
actual stay thereat. The term means merely residence, that is, personal residence,
not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an
inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place
and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular length of time of
residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.
The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court.
That, however, is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his
personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment.
Exercise of that discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal
principle. There is no reason why the same fundamental and legal principles
governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into account in
the appointment of a special administrator. Nothing is wrong for the judge to
consider the order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator in
appointing a special administrator. After all, the consideration that overrides all
others in this respect is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the
decedent. Under the law, the widow would have the right of succession over a
portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, besides her share in the conjugal
partnership. For such reason, she would have as such, if not more, interest in
administering the entire estate correctly than any other next of kin. The good or bad
administration of a property may affect rather the fruits than the naked ownership
of a property.

TITLE: VDA DE CHUA VS CA. GR. NO. 116835, MARCH 5, 1998

FACTS:

Roberto Chua lived out of wedlock with private respondent Vallejo and they begot
two sons. Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City. Upon the death of Roberto,

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 Vallejo filed with the RTC of Cotabato City a petition for the guardianship and
administration over the persons and properties of the two minors.

Herein petitioner Antonietta Garcia Vda. De Chua (petitioner Chua), representing to

be the surviving spouse of Roberto Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue. Petitioner Chua alleged that at the time of decedent’s death Davao
City was his last residence, hence, RTC of Davao City is the proper forum. In support
of petitioner’s allegation, petitioner presented, among others, a photocopy of the
marriage contract. Petitioner failed to submit the original copy of the marriage
contract.

Vallejo contends that Antonietta Chua is not the surviving spouse of the late Roberto
Chua but a pretender to the estate of the latter since the deceased never
contracted marriage with any woman until he died.

RTC ruled that petitioner has no personality to file the motion since she failed to
establish the validity of marriage. The Order was appealed to the CA, but it decided
in favor of herein respondents.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Chua has a legal standing to file the motion to dismiss.

HELD:

No. Section 4 of the Rules of Court provide that only an interested person may
oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration. An interested person is
one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as creditor, his interest is material and direct, and not one
that is only indirect or contingent.

In the present case, petitioner was not able to prove her status as the surviving wife
of the decedent. The best evidence of marriage is a valid marriage contract which
petitioner Chua failed to produce. The photocopy of the marriage certificate which
petitioner presented cannot be considered since this would be a violation of the
best evidence rule. Hence, petitioner Chua has no legal standing since she is not
considered an interested person for not being able to prove that she is the wife of
the decedent.

TITLE: SAMPILO VS. CA, G.R. NO. L-10474

FACTS:

Teodoro Tolete died, leaving his wife and nephews and nieces who are children of
hisdeceased brothers and sisters. His wife executed an affidavit of self-adjudicating
saying thatTeodoro had no children or dependents, neither ascendants or
acknowledged naturalchildren, neither brothers, sisters, nephews nor nieces. Then,

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 his wife sold the property toSampilo, then Sampilo sold it to Salacup. Sinopera
instituted estate proceedings asking forletters of administration. She alleged that
Teodoro’s wife, Leonicia de Leon has no right toexecute the affidavit of self-
adjudication for there are other heirs aside from her.Thepetitioners now argue that
Sinopera’s cause of action has already prescribed becauseaccording to the rules of
court, person’s deprived of their right due to the partition or self-adjudication must
bring their action within two years from the date of partition or self-adjudication.

ISSUE:

Is the rule apllicable to persons who had no knowledge or not participated in

extrajudicial settlement?

RULING:

No. The said rule applies only to persons who participated in the said
proceedingsand does not prejudice those who did not have the chance to
participate.According Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 74. in Section 1, it is required that if
there are twoor more heirs, both or all of them should take part in the extrajudicial
settlement. Therecannot be any doubt that those who took part or bad knowledge
of the extrajudicialsettlement are bound thereby. As to them the law is clear that if
they claim to have been inany manner ,deprived of their lawful right or share in the
estate by the extrajudicialsettlement, they may demand their rights or interest
within the period of two years, andboth "the distributees and estate would be liable
to them for such rights or interest.Evidently, they are the persons who, in
accordance with the provision, may seek to remedythe prejudice to their rights
within, the two-year Period. But as to those who did not take partin the settlement
or had no notice of the death of the decedent or of the setlement, there isno direct
or express provision, and it is unreasonable and unjust that they also be required
toassert their claims within the period extend the effects of the settlement to the
two years.To to them, to those who did not take part or had no knowledge thereof,
without anyexpress legal provision to that effect, would be violative of the
fundamental right to due Process law.

TITLE: ROBERTS VS. LEONIDAS, G.R. NO. L-55509, APRIL 1984

FACTS:

Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his

second wife (Maxine), their two children (Pete and Linda), and by his two children by
a first marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended by divorce.

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959. One will
disposed of his Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and his
second wife. The second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines. The two
wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Maxine on March 1978.
Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by
Ethel in January 1978. The Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil to probate
on April 1978 and was issued upon consideration of the stipulation between
the attorneys for Maxine and Ethel.

Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in
Manila, entered into a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.

As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel. On

March 1978, Maxine filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate
proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah probate proceedings. She
submitted to the court a copy of Grimm’s will. However, pursuant to the
compromise agreement, Maxine withdrew the opposition and the motion to dismiss.
The court ignored the will found in the record.The estate was partitioned.

In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills (already
probated in Utah), that the partition approved by the intestate court be set aside
and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be appointed executrix and
Ethel be ordered to account for the properties received by them and return the
same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were defrauded due to the machinations
of Ethel, that the compromise agreement was illegal and the intestate proceeding
was void because Grimm died testate so partition was contrary to the decedent’s
wills.

Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by Judge Leonidas for
lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack of jurisdiction in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.

RULING:

We hold that respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.
A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and
“no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed”
(Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).

The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who
died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate
case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to
the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.

This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
 This study source was downloaded by 100000759220242 from CourseHero.com on 02-19-2022 01:09:00 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/85983943/Case-digests-Specpro-1docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)