Rule 76

[G.R. No. L-5405. January 31, 1956.]

ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, Petitioner, vs. ROSARIO GUEVARA and
PEDRO C. QUINTO, Respondents.
Concepcion, J:
Facts: Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made
the following disposition:
Victorino executed a will, with all formalities required by law, wherein he
made the following bequests:
 Ernesto Guevarra (son) – gold ring, furniture, pictures, statues,
religious objects
 Rosario Guevarra – a pair of earrings
 Candida Guevarra (step daughter) – a pair of earrings and gold
chain
 Pio Guevarra (step son) - ring
 Angustia Posadas (second wife) – various pieces of jewelry
He also made the following devise:
 Rosario, Ernesto, Vicencio, Eduviges, Dionisia, Candida and
Pio – 960 sq. m residential lot in Pangasinan with its
improvement
 Angustia Posadas – he confirmed the donation propter nuptias
of 25 ha. of a 259 ha.parcel of land (large parcel of land);
additional 5 ha. of the same parcel of land.
Ernesto Guevara was appointed executor without bond. On July 12, 1933,
Victorino executed a deed of sale in favor of Ernesto, whereby Victorino
conveyed to Ernesto the southern half of the large parcel of land, in
consideration of P1 and other valuable considerations (e.g payment of all
his debts and obligataions, his maintenance up to his death, and expenses
of his last illness and funeral expenses).
A title to the said lot was issued in the name of Ernesto.
September 27, 1933 – Victorino died. However, his last will and testament
was never presented to the court for probate, nor has any administration
proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate.
There was no record on whether the legatees received their respective
legacies.
But, it was known that Ernesto possessed the adjudicated land and had
disposed of portions thereof to pay off debts left by his father.
On the other hand, Rosario, who was in custody of her father’s last will and
testament, did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions
made in her favor.
However, four years after her father’s death, Rosario commenced an action
against Ernesto to recover from the latter what she claims to be her strict
legitime as an acknowledged daughter of the deceased (i.e a portion of the
large parcel of land).
It was only during the trial that she presented the will to the court, not for
the purpose of having it probated, but to prove that Victorino had
acknowledges her as his natural daughter.
In claiming her share of inheritance from Ernesto, her theory was that
Victorino died intestate. She claimed that she was acknowledged as a
natural daughter, and because Victorino’s will was not probated, the
assumption is that he died intestate. Hence, the betterment (the sale?)
made by the testator in favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.
Trial court and CA ruled in favor of Rosario.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the procedure adopted by Rosario was proper.
Held:
No – The procedure adopted by Rosario was in violation of procedural
law and an attempt to circumvent and disregard the last will and
testament of the decedent.
 Presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its
allowance by the court is essential and indispensable to its efficacy.
 Under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to Rule 76, if the decedent left
a will and no debts arid the heirs and legatees desire to make an
extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to
the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will.
 The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it,
because unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the
whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will
may be rendered nugatory.
 Absent legatees and devisees, or such of them as may have no
knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their inheritance thru the
collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the
estate among themselves to the exclusion of others.
 In other words, even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises
any question as to the authenticity and due execution of the will, none
of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with
that will without first securing its allowance or probate by the court,
first, because the law expressly provides that "no will shall pass either
real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper
court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a
proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with and substituted by any
other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against
public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of
his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of
the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means provided by law,
among which are the publication and the personal notices to each
and all of said heirs and legatees.
o Nothing shows that the legatees had received their respective
legacies or that they had knowledge of the existence and of the
provisions of the will.
o Their rights under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may
those rights be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of
the custodian (Rosario) of the will to present it to the court for
probate.
o Ernesto, who was named executor in the said will, did not take
any step to have it presented to the court for probate and did
not signify his acceptance of the trust or refusal (formerly
section 627 of the Code of Civil Procedure), because according
to him, the said will, insofar as the large parcel of land in
litigation is concerned, has been superseded by the deed of
sale.