Special Proceedings Case Digest

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (RULE 72 - RULE 90)
1.
SILVERIO VS SILVERIO Circle, Forbes Park, Makati was sold to Ocampo in 16
September 2010, which the latter sold to Zee2. Individual
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction of Probate Court titles were issued under the buyers’ names respectively;
At the outset, we emphasize that the probate court having 10. Nelia filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA with
jurisdiction over properties under administration has the prayer for injunction. A TRO was issued on 5 February 2007,
authority not only to approve any disposition or conveyance, and later, a Writ of Prelim. Injunction conditioned upon the
but also to annul an unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs posting of a bond of Php 2,000,000.00;
or administrator. x x x It being settled that property under
administration needs the approval of the probate court before 11. Nelia initially paid the said bond but failed to comply with
it can be disposed of, any unauthorized disposition does not the other requirements of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. CA Ordered
bind the estate and is null and void. Nelia to comply and increased the bond to Php 10,000,000.00
which the latter did;
FACTS:
12. However, with the issuance of the order reinstating Sr. as
1. In 7 October 1987, Sr.’s wife Beatriz died intestate and administrator (see Fact No. 5), Sr. sought for a TRO/Pre.
was survived by 6 heirs, Sr., Edmundo, Edgardo, Jr., Neilia Prohibitory Injunction v. Jr., Ocampo and Citrine and their
and Ligaya. This led the heirs to file an SP Proc. No. M-2629 successors-in-interest from committing any act that would
under Rule 74; affect the titles issued in their names. Likewise, Sr. sought the
IC to declare the DOAS executed as null and void. IC granted
2. The Intestate Court (IC) first appointed Edgardo as said motions;
administrator. The latter withdrew thru a motion in 3
November 1999 which then caused the appointment of Sr. as 13. Jr. filed a consolidated petition for certiorari before the
new administrator; CA challenging the reinstatement of Sr. as administrator, the
denial of Jr.’s motion for inhibition, and the declaration of
3. On 3 January 2005, IC replaced Sr. with Jr. as nullity of the DOAS. CA denied the first 2 but granted the
administrator and denied the MR challenging such order. latter, thereby reversing IC’s declaration of nullity. Hence, the
Thus, IC granted Jr.’s motion to take oath as administrator and instant petition (Rule 45).
expunged Sr.’s inventor report;
ISSUES: WON the CA erred in reversing the IC’s declaration
4. On 12 December 2005, IC recalled the Order granting that the DOAS and the titles issued to buyers are null and
letters of administration to Jr. upon Sr.’s motion, but the same void.
was reinstated through Jr.’s motion for partial consideration
for Sr.’s alleged gross violation of his duties and functions PROVISION: RULING + RATIO: No. The CA was correct
under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court; in reversing the IC Decision.
·
5. Sr. filed an MR while Nelia filed a Petition for Certiorari In reversing the IC, CA relied on Jr.’s arguments that the
before the CA, leading to the reinstatement of Sr. as issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction pertained only to
administrator due to the declaration of nullity of certain the portion of Sr.’s reinstatement as administrator. It ruled:
portions of the Orders, for which a writ of preliminary
injunction was issued and made the said portions permanent; x x x In reversing the intestate court’s order annulling the sale
6. Jr. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) of the subject properties, the CA noted that said ruling is
before the SC challenging the CA Order but the same was anchored on the fact that the deeds of sale were executed at
denied by SC for failure to show sufficient reversible error. the time when the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
MR for the same was likewise denied; issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 was still in effect. It then
concluded that the eventual decision in the latter case making
7. With Sr.’s urgent motion, IC reinstated Sr. as the writ of preliminary injunction permanent only with respect
administrator. This order was challenged in the first of three to the appointment of petitioner as administrator and not to
petitions (Rule 45); the grant of authority to sell mooted the issue of whether the
sale was executed at the time when the TRO and writ of
8. The second petition challenges the denial of Jr.’s motion preliminary injunction were in effect. x x x
for inhibition of Judge Guanlao (of IC) on the ground of the
latter’s partiality as he appeared once as counsel in the x x x The October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order of the testate [sic]
intestate proceedings; court in so far as it authorizes the sale of the three properties
in question was not declared by the Court of Appeals, Seventh
9. The third challenged order involves the sale made by Jr. Division as null and void. x x x
in favor of Citrine of a parcel of land in Intsia Road, Forbes
Park, Makati via a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) executed x x x While it is true that petitioner was eventually reinstated
on 16 October 2007. Another parcel of land in Cambridge as Administrator pursuant to the August 28, 2008 decision in
1
CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 (petition for certiorari filed by Nelia death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor and a resident
Silverio-Dee), we agree with the CA that the permanent of the Province of Laguna. Hence, the petition should have
injunction issued under the said decision, as explicitly stated been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and not in Makati City. It also
in its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the October 31, ruled that respondent was without legal capacity to file the
2006 Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of petition for letters of administration because her marriage with
administration to and taking of an oath of administration by Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. It found that the
respondent Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA would have decree of absolute divorce dissolving Felicisimo's marriage to
expressly set aside as well the directive in the same Omnibus Merry Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did not bind
Order allowing the sale of the subject properties. Moreover, Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that
the CA Decision attained finality only on February 11, 2011 paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be
when this Court denied with finality respondent Silverio, Jr.’s retroactively applied because it would impair the vested rights
motion for reconsideration of the February 11, 2009 of Felicisimo's legitimate children.
Resolution denying his petition for review (G.R. No. 185619).
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed
2. SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS and set aside the orders of the trial court in its assailed
Decision dated February 4, 1998
FACTS: The instant case involves the settlement of the estate
of Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former ISSUE: whether or not the venue was properly laid
governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime,
Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was RULING: Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the
with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo
six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province "in
Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. which he resides at the time of his death.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such
Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry nature - residence rather than domicile is the significant factor.
Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is
October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the
Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the
Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America (U.S.A.), terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in
which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey
Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words,
"resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense,
On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a
San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr. William person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical
Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. He had no sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal
children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply
the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,
1992. while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal an intention to make it one's domicile. No particular length of
partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo's estate. On time of residence is required though; however, the residence
December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of must be more than temporary.
administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City
There is a distinction between "residence" for purposes of
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the election laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue
children of Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a motion to of actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are
dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a treated as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent
cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the petition for letters of residence to which when absent, one has the intention of
administration should have been filed in the Province of returning. However, for purposes of fixing venue under the
Laguna because this was Felicisimo's place of residence prior Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal,
to his death. He further claimed that respondent has no legal actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of
personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or
of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
legally married to Merry Lee. On February 15, 1994; Linda consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person may have his
invoked the same grounds and joined her brother Rodolfo in residence in one place and domicile in another.
seeking the dismissal
From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of
On September 12, 1995, the trial court dismissed the petition Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue of the
for letters of administration. It held that, at the time of his settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition for
2
letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial in another court for the probate of the will of Milagros,
Court which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang, bequeathing all to Eduardo whatever shares that she would
Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on December 17, receive from Joaquin’s estate. CA also affirmed that the bulk
1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the of the realties subject of this case belong to the first marriage
branches of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital of Joaquin to Lucia, notwithstanding that the certificates of
Judicial Region which had territorial jurisdiction over title were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap casado
Muntinlupa. con ("married to") Caridad Garcia.
3. AGTARAP VS AGTARAP ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC, acting as an intestate court
with limited jurisdiction, is vested with the power and
FACTS: Joaquin Agtarap died intestate on November 21, authority to determine questions of ownership.
1964 in Pasay City without any known debts or obligations.
Joaquin contracted two marriages during his lifetime, with HELD: Yes. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the
Lucia Garcia (Lucia) and with Caridad Garcia (Caridad) trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only
respectively. Joaquin and Lucia, who died on April 24, 1924, to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or
had three children—Jesus (died without issue), Milagros, and settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not
Jose (survived by three children, namely, Gloria, Joseph, and extend to the determination of questions of ownership that
Teresa). Joaquin married Caridad on February 9, 1926 and arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule
also had three children—Eduardo, Sebastian, and Mercedes is that such court merely exercises special and limited
(survived by her daughter Cecile). At the time of his death, jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in
Joaquin left two parcels of land with improvements in Pasay charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate,
City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 873- cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be
(38254) and 874-(38255). Joseph, a grandson of Joaquin, had a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside
been leasing and improving the said realties and had been parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the
appropriating for himself P26, 000.00 per month since April deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his
1994. estate. All that the said court could do as regards said
properties is to determine whether or not they should be
Eduardo asked to be appointed administrator and was granted included in the inventory of properties to be administered by
by the probate court, issuing him with letters of administrator. the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no
Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa filed their answer/opposition. They problem, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and
alleged that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before
partnership of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucia’s a court exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination
death in April 1924, they became the pro indiviso owners of of the conflicting claims of title.
the subject properties. They said that their residence was built
with the exclusive money of their late father Jose, and the However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified
expenses of the extensions to the house were shouldered by by expediency and convenience.
Gloria and Teresa, while the restaurant (Manong’s Restaurant)
was built with the exclusive money of Joseph and his business First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
partner. intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in,
or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without
Thereafter, the RTC issued an Order of Partition, holding that prejudice to the final determination of ownership in a separate
considering that the bulk of the estate properties were acquired action. Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the
during the existence of the second marriage as shown by TCT estate, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or
No. (38254) and TCT No. (38255) which showed on its face the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
that decedent was married to Caridad Garcia, which fact probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired,
oppositors failed to contradict by evidence other than their then the probate court is competent to resolve issues on
negative allegations, the greater part of the estate is perforce ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental
accounted by the second marriage and the compulsory heirs or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate,
thereunder. It also declared that the real estate properties such as the determination of the status of each heir and
belonged to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin and Lucia. It whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive
also directed the modification of the October 23, 2000 Order property of the deceased spouse.
of Partition to reflect the correct sharing of the heirs. However,
before the RTC could issue a new order of partition, Eduardo We hold that the general rule does not apply to the instant case
and Sebastian both appealed to the CA. The CA settled, considering that the parties are all heirs of Joaquin and that no
together with the settlement of the estate of Joaquin, the rights of third parties will be impaired by the resolution of the
estates of Lucia, Jesus, Jose, Mercedes, Gloria, and Milagros. ownership issue. More importantly, the determination of
Moreover, the CA the estate of Milagros in the intestate whether the subject properties are conjugal is but collateral to
proceedings despite the fact that a proceeding was conducted the probate court’s jurisdiction to settle the estate of Joaquin.
3
4. SUNTAY III VS COJUANGCO-SUNTAY the discounting of the order of preference set forth in Section
6, Rule 78. Indeed, in the appointment of administrator of the
FACTS: Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died intestate on 4 June estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration
1990. Cristina was survived by her spouse, Federico and five reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be
grandchildren: three legitimate grandchildren, including appointed as administrator.
respondent Isabel; and two illegitimate grandchildren,
including petitioner Emilio III, all by Federico’s and Cristina’s In this case, both parties have interest to the estate and are
only child, Emilio A. Suntay (Emilio I) who predeceased. heirs of the decedent. Emilio III was reared by the decent and
was nominated by Federico as the administrator. On the other
Federico Cristina hand, Isabel grew apart from the decedent and became only
interested with the estate upon her grandmother’s death.
Emilio 1 Isabel Cojuangco
However, Emilio III showed incompetence in administering
Emilio III Nenita Emilio II Margarita Isabel the properties. He failed to provide for a complete inventory of
Illegitimate Legitimate the properties as required by the court. He likewise committed
fraud in transferring the properties to different names. With
In 1965, the marriage between Emilio I and Isabel Cojuancgo this, the court sees that Isabel Emilio III is unfit to administer
was declared null and void by a judicial decree. The the estate.
illegitimate children grew up with Grandparents Federico and
Cristina. The legitimates were raised by their mother, Isabel
Cojuangco.
In 1993, after Cristina’s death, Federico adopted his two

illegitimate grandchildren. 5. LEE VS RTC OF QC
In 1995, Isabel filed for an application for letter of FACTS:

administration. Federico opposed in that he is the nearest of
kin and the application did not include the two illegitimates as  Rafael and Jose Ortaez were appointed by the RTC of
heirs. Federico prayed that he be appointed as administrator or QS as the joint special administrators of their fathers
Emilio III in his stead. estate. As special administrators they submitted an
inventory of the estate of their father which included,
In November of 2000, Federico died. Emilio III was appointed among other properties, shares of stock in Philippine
as administrator in 2001. On appeal, the appointment was International Life Insurance Company (Philinterlife)
revoked and Isabel was appointed administrator.
 During its pendency, the decedent’s wife claiming
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Emilio III and Isabel were that she owned some shares of stock as her conjugal
appointed as co-administrators. Isabel filed for a Motion for share in the estate, sold said shares in favor of herein
Reconsideration. petitioner Filipino Loan Assistance Group (FLAG),
likewise, Special Administrator Jose Ortaez acting in
ISSUE: Who between Isabel and Emilio III is better qualified his personal capacity also sold the remaining shares
as administrator. of stocks as his inheritance share in the estate in favor
of herein petitioner FLAG.
RULING: Partially Granted. Letter of Administration is
issued solely to Isabel.  After being appointed as Special Administratix,
private respondent Enderes filed a motion to declare
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an void ab initio the deeds of sale of Philinterlife shares
administrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective of stock, which was opposed by Special
administrator’s interest in the estate. This is the same Administrator Jose Ortaez.
consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into account in
establishing the order of preference in the appointment of  Jose Ortaez filed an omnibus motion for the approval
administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is of the deeds of sale of the Philinterlife shares of stock
that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and but it was denied by the intestate court.
economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative,
suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or  Petitioners Lee and Aggabao (officers of the
mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential Philinterlife) subsequently filed before the Court of
motive to administer the estate correctly. Mere demonstration Appeals a petition for certiorari, alleging that the
of interest in the estate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle intestate court gravely abused its discretion in (1)
an interested person to co-administration thereof. Neither does declaring that the ownership of FLAG over the
squabbling among the heirs nor adverse interests necessitate
4
Philinterlife shares of stock was null and void and (2) and real properties and named Edmond Ruiz executor of his
ordering the execution of its order declaring such estate.
nullity.
ISSUE (1): WON the intestate court committed a grave abuse Hilario Ruiz died for unknown reasons, Edmond, the named
of discretion amounting to excess or want of jurisdiction in executor, did not take any action for the probate of his father's
declaring that the ownership of FLAG over the Philinterlife holographic will.
shares of stock was null and void.
Four years after the testator's death, private respondent Maria
HELD (1): NO. Pilar Ruiz Montes filed before the RTC, a petition for the
probate and approval of Hilario Ruiz's will and for the
The jurisprudence is clear that (1) any disposition of estate issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond Ruiz. Edmond
property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final opposed the petition on the ground that the will was executed
adjudication requires court approval and (2) any unauthorized under undue influence.
disposition of estate property can be annulled by the probate
court, there being no need for a separate action to annul the One of the properties of the estate — the house and lot at No.
unauthorized disposition. In a prevailing jurisprudence, an heir 2 Oliva Street, Valle Verde IV, Pasig which the testator
can only alienate such portion of the estate that may be bequeathed to Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria
allotted to him in the division of the estate by the probate or Angeline— was leased out by Edmond Ruiz to third persons.
intestate court after final adjudication, that is, after all debtors
shall have been paid or the devisees or legatees shall have The probate court ordered Edmond to deposit with the Branch
been given their shares. This means that an heir may only sell Clerk of Court the rental deposit and payments totaling P540,
his ideal or undivided share in the estate, not any specific 000.00 representing the one-year lease of the Valle Verde
property therein. In the present case, Juliana Ortaez and Jose property. In compliance, Edmond turned over the amount of
Ortaez sold specific properties of the estate in favor of P348, 583.56, representing the balance of the rent after
petitioner FLAG. This they could not lawfully do pending the deducting P191, 416.14 for repair and maintenance expenses
final adjudication of the estate by the intestate court because on the estate.
of the undue prejudice it would cause the other claimants to
the estate, as what happened in the present case. Edmond moved for the release of P50, 000.00 to pay the real
estate taxes on the real properties of the estate. The probate
ISSUE (2): WON the intestate or probate court can execute an court approved the release of P7, 722.00.
order nullifying the invalid sale?
The probate court admitted the will to probate and ordered the
HELD (2): YES issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon
The intestate court has the power to execute its order with the filing of a bond in the amount of P50, 000.00.
regard to the nullity of an unauthorized sale of estate property,
otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized or fraudulent Petitioner Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz, with Edmond Ruiz as
disposition of estate property would be meaningless. executor, filed an "Ex-Parte Motion for Release of Funds." It
Enforcement is a necessary adjunct of the intestate or probate prayed for the release of the rent payments deposited with the
courts power to annul unauthorized or fraudulent transactions Branch Clerk of Court. Respondent Montes opposed the
to prevent the dissipation of estate property before final motion. Montes prayed for the release of the said rent
adjudication. payments to Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria
In this case, the order of the intestate court nullifying the sale Angeline and for the distribution of the testator's properties,
was affirmed by the appellate courts. The finality of the specifically the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge
decision of the Supreme Court was entered in the book of apartments, in accordance with the provisions of the
entry of judgments on February 23, 1999. Considering the holographic will.
finality of the order of the intestate court nullifying the sale, as
affirmed by the appellate courts, it was correct for private The probate court ordered the release of the rent payments to
respondent-Special Administratrix Enderes to thereafter move the decedent's three granddaughters. It further ordered the
for a writ of execution and for the intestate court to grant it. delivery of the titles to and possession of the properties
bequeathed to the three granddaughters and respondent
6. HEIRS OF HILARIO RUIZ VS EDMOND RUIZ Montes upon the filing of a bond of P50, 000.00. Hence, this
petition.
FACTS: Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will naming
as his heirs his only son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted daughter, ISSUES: Whether the probate court, after admitting the will
private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and his three to probate but before payment of the estate's debts and
granddaughters, private respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice obligations, has the authority: (1) to grant an allowance from
Albertine and Maria Angeline, all children of Edmond Ruiz. the funds of the estate for the support of the testator's
The testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, personal grandchildren; (2) to order the release of the titles to certain
5
heirs; and (3) to grant possession of all properties of the estate a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the
to the executor of the will. payment of said obligations within such time as the court
HELD 1: On the matter of allowance, Section 3 of Rule 83 of directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations.
the Revised Rules of Court provides:
In the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release of the
Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and family. — The widow and titles to the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge
minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person, during apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of six
the settlement of the estate, shall receive therefrom under the months from the date of first publication of the notice to
direction of the court, such allowance as are provided by law. creditors. The questioned order speaks of "notice" to creditors,
not payment of debts and obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly
Petitioner contends that the testator's three granddaughters do left no debts when he died but the taxes on his estate had not
not qualify for an allowance because they are not incapacitated hitherto been paid, much less ascertained. The estate tax is one
and are no longer minors but of legal age, married and of those obligations that must be paid before distribution of
gainfully employed. In addition, the provision expressly states the estate. If not yet paid, the rule requires that the distributees
"children" of the deceased which excludes the latter's post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said tax
grandchildren. obligation in proportion to their respective shares in the
inheritance. Notably, at the time the order was issued the
It is settled that allowances for support under Section 3 of properties of the estate had not yet been inventoried and
Rule 83 should not be limited to the "minor or incapacitated" appraised.
children of the deceased. Article 188of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the substantive law in force at the time of the HELD 3: Still and all, petitioner cannot correctly claim that
testator's death, provides that during the liquidation of the the assailed order deprived him of his right to take possession
conjugal partnership, the deceased's legitimate spouse and of all the real and personal properties of the estate. The right
children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful of an executor or administrator to the possession and
employment, are entitled to provisional support from the funds management of the real and personal properties of the
of the estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the right and deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so long as
duty to support, especially the right to education, subsist even it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of
beyond the age of majority. administration, "Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of
Court explicitly provides:
Be that as it may, grandchildren are not entitled to provisional
support from the funds of the decedent's estate. The law Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay
clearly limits the allowance to "widow and children" and does debts and to administer estate not willed. — An executor or
not extend it to the deceased's grandchildren, regardless of administrator shall have the right to the possession and
their minority or incapacity.It was error, therefore, for the management of the real as well as the personal estate of the
appellate court to sustain the probate court's order granting an deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the
allowance to the grandchildren of the testator pending debts and expenses for administration.
settlement of his estate.
It was relevantly noted by the probate court that petitioner had
HELD 2: Respondent courts also erred when they ordered the deposited with it only a portion of the one-year rental income
release of the titles of the bequeathed properties to private from the Valle Verde property. Petitioner did not deposit its
respondents six months after the date of first publication of succeeding rents after renewal of the lease. Neither did he
notice to creditors. An order releasing titles to properties of the render an accounting of such funds.
estate amounts to an advance distribution of the estate which
is allowed only under the following conditions: Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over
the properties of his father is merely inchoate as long as the
Sec. 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. — estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. As executor,
Nothwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in he is a mere trustee of his father's estate. The funds of the
proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may, in estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties
its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem proper and and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order. He cannot
just, permit that such part of the estate as may not be affected unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents'
by the controversy or appeal be distributed among the heirs or properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting an
legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth in inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of
Rule 90 of these Rules. the deceased, rendering a true account of his administration,
the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations
In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the and estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by
estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the debts, the court as to their veracity, propriety and justness.
funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the
widow, and estate tax have been paid; or (2) before payment IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision and resolution of the Court
of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 33045 affirming the order
6
dated December 22, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch there are no factual and legal bases for Elise to be appointed
156, Pasig in SP Proc. No. 10259 are affirmed with the administratix of Eliseo’s estate.
modification that those portions of the order granting an
allowance to the testator's grandchildren and ordering the RTC rendered a decision directing the issuance of Letters of
release of the titles to the private respondents upon notice to Administration to Elise upon posting the necessary bond. On
creditors are annulled and set aside. appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by
the Court of Appeals. In validating the findings of the RTC,
7. UNION BANK VS SANTIBANEZ the Court of Appeals held that Elise was able to prove that
Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband and wife by
FACTS: The deceased, Efraim Santibañez entered into a loan establishing a common residence at No. 26 Everlasting Road,
agreement with First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City, from 1975 up to the
for the payment of Agricultural Tractors. Efraim died, time of Eliseo’s death in 1992. For purposes of fixing the
leaving a holographic will. Testate proceedings commenced venue of the settlement of Eliseo’s estate, the Court of Appeals
before the RTC of Iloilo City. Edmund was appointed as the upheld the conclusion reached by the RTC that the decedent
special administrator of the estate. In the meantime, FCCC was a resident of Las Piñas City.
assigned all its assets and liabilities to petitioner Union Bank.
Demand letters were sent by Union Bank to Edmund, but the ISSUE/S:
latter refused to pay. Thus, Union Bank filed a Complaint for
sum of money against the heirs of Efraim Santibañez, before 1. Whether or not Las Pinas City was the proper venue.
the RTC of Makati City. Union Bank asserts that the 2. Whether or not Elise is qualified to be administrator
obligation of the deceased had passed to his legitimate heirs. of the estate.
ISSUE: W/N the claim of Union Bank should have been filed HELD:
with the probate court before which the testate estate of the
late Efraim Santibañez was pending. 1. YES. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the
petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent
HELD: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that a probate court has should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent
the jurisdiction to determine all the properties of the deceased, resides at the time of his death:
to determine whether they should or should not be included in
the inventory or list of properties to be administered. The said Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. – If the
court is primarily concerned with the administration, decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his
liquidation and distribution of the estate. death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or
letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the
The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court in the
the probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he
purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First
the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus Instance now Regional Trial Court of any province in which
enabling him to examine each claim and to determine whether he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the
it is a proper one which should be allowed. The plain and settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The
affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the
the distributees, legatees, or heirs. place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his
estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in
8. GARCIA-QUIAZON VS BELEN an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the
want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
FACTS: Elise Quiazon is the daughter of Eliseo Quiazon and The term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence"
his common-law wife Ma. Lourdes Belen. When Eliseo died as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term
intestate, Elise represented by her mother, Lourdes, filed a "resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic
Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC of Las and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose
Piñas City in order to preserve the estate of Eliseo and to of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application
prevent the dissipation of its value. She likewise sought her of venue statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised
appointment as administratrix of her late father’s estate. Rules of Court is of such nature – residence rather than
domicile is the significant factor.13 Even where the statute
Amelia Quiazon, to whom Eliseo was married, together with uses word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence
her two children, filed an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss on and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a
the ground of improper venue asserting that Eliseo was a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but
resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City. In addition as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are
to their claim of improper venue, the petitioners averred that synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term
"inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or
7
understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual already under his and his wife’s administration as part of the
or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of intestate estate of Donata. Silverio’s Letters of Administration
abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay for the intestate estate of Maximino was subsequently set aside
thereat. Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special by the RTC.
proceedings have one and the same meaning. As thus defined,
"residence," in the context of venue provisions, means nothing The heirs of Maximino filed a complaint against the heirs of
more than a person’s actual residence or place of abode, Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. possession of real property. They alleged that Donata, as
administratrix of the estate of Maximino, through fraud and
Viewed in light of the foregoing principles, the Court of misrepresentation, in breach of trust, and without the
Appeals cannot be faulted for affirming the ruling of the RTC knowledge of the other heirs, succeeded in registering in her
that the venue for the settlement of the estate of Eliseo was name the real properties belonging to the intestate estate of
properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident from the records Maximino. Furthermore, the facts show that after Donata’s
that during his lifetime, Eliseo resided at No. 26 Everlasting death, Erlinda took possession of the real properties, and
Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this reason, continued to manage the same and collect the rental fees
the venue for the settlement of his estate may be laid in the thereon. Donata and, subsequently, Erlinda, were so obviously
said city. exercising rights of ownership over the real properties, in
exclusion of all others, which must have already put the heirs
2. Elise, as a compulsory heir who stands to be benefited by of Maximino on guard if they truly believed that they still had
the distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be an interested rights thereto.
party. With the overwhelming evidence on record produced by
Elise to prove her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners’ pounding The heirs of Maximino knew he died on 1 May 1952. They
on her lack of interest in the administration of the decedent’s even attended his wake. They did not offer any explanation as
estate, is just a desperate attempt to sway this Court to reverse to why they had waited 33 years from Maximino’s death
the findings of the Court of Appeals. Certainly, the right of before one of them, Silverio, filed a Petition for Letters of
Elise to be appointed administratix of the estate of Eliseo is on Administration for the intestate estate of Maximino on 21
good grounds. It is founded on her right as a compulsory heir, January 1985. After learning that the intestate estate of
who, under the law, is entitled to her legitimate after the debts Maximino was already settled in a special proceeding, they
of the estate are satisfied. Having a vested right in the waited another two years, before instituting, on 3 March 1987,
distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one of his natural children, a complaint for partition, annulment and recovery of the real
Elise can rightfully be considered as an interested party within property belonging to the estate of Maximino.
the purview of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents’ right to recover
9. PILAPIL VS HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. possession of the disputed properties, based on implied trust,
BRIONES is also barred by laches.
FACTS: Petitioners are the heirs of the late Donata Ortiz- HELD: Yes. Respondents’ right to recover possession of the
Briones, consisting of her surviving sister, Rizalina Ortiz- disputed properties, based on implied trust, is also barred by
Aguila; Rizalina’s daughter, Erlinda Pilapil; and the other laches.
nephews and nieces of Donata. Respondents are the heirs of
the late Maximino Briones, composed of his nephews and Considering the circumstances in the afore-quoted paragraphs,
nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces, in representation as well as respondents’ conduct before this Court, particularly
of the deceased siblings of Maximino. the belated submission of evidence and argument of new
issues, respondents are consistently displaying a penchant for
Maximino was married to Donata but their union did not delayed action, without any proffered reason or justification
produce any children. When Maximino died, Donata instituted for such delay.
intestate proceedings to settle her husband’s estate, which
appointed Donata as the administratrix of Maximino’s estate. It is well established that the law serves those who are vigilant
Donata died. Erlinda instituted a petition for the administration and diligent and not those who sleep when the law requires
of the intestate estate of Donata. Erlinda and her husband, them to act. The law does not encourage laches, indifference,
Gregorio, were appointed as administrators of Donata’s negligence or ignorance. On the contrary, for a party to
intestate estate. deserve the considerations of the courts, he must show that he
is not guilty of any of the aforesaid failings.
Silverio Briones, a nephew of Maximino, filed for Letters of
Administration for the intestate estate of Maximino, which 10. SABIDONG VS SOLAS
was initially granted. The trial court also issued an order,
allowing Silverio to collect rentals from Maximino’s FACTS: Trinidad Sabidong, complainant’s mother, is one of
properties. But then, Gregorio filed with the RTC a Motion to the longtime occupants of a parcel of land, designated as Lot
Set Aside the Order, claiming that the said properties were 11 originally registered in the name of C. N. Hodges and
8
situated at Barangay San Vicente, Jaro, Iloilo City. The Report and Recommendation finding respondent liable for
Sabidongs are in possession of one-half portion of Lot 11 of grave misconduct and dishonesty under or the Code of
the said Estate (Hodges Estate), as the other half-portion was Conduct for Court Personnel.
occupied by PriscilaSaplagio. Lot 11 was the subject of an The Court noted Judge Patricio’s Investigation Report and
ejectment suit filed by the Hodges Estate, docketed as Civil referred the same to the OCA for evaluation, report and
Case No. 14706 of the MTCC Iloilo City, Branch 4. On May recommendation. Then Court Administrator Jose P. Perez
31, 1983, a decision was rendered in said case ordering the found respondent liable for serious and grave misconduct and
defendant to immediately vacate the portion of Lot 11 leased dishonesty and recommended the forfeiture of respondent’s
to her and to pay the plaintiff rentals due, attorney’s fees, salary for six months, which shall be deducted from his
expenses and costs. At the time, respondent was the Clerk of retirement benefits.
Court III of MTCC, Branch 3, Iloilo City.
ISSUE: Whether Clerk of Court Solas violated the rule on
Sometime in October 1984, respondent submitted an Offer to disqualification to purchase property in litigation
Purchase on installment Lots 11 and 12. The Administratrix of
the Hodges Estate rejected respondent’s offer in view of an HELD: NO. Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code
application to purchase already filed by the actual occupant of prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring
Lot 12, "in line with the policy of the Probate Court to give property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or
priority to the actual occupants in awarding approval of territory of their courts. Said provision reads:
Offers". While the check for initial down payment tendered by
respondent was returned to him, he was nevertheless informed Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by
that he may file an offer to purchase Lot 11 and that if he purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person
could put up a sufficient down payment, the Estate could or through the mediation of another:
immediately endorse it for approval of the Probate Court so
that the property can be awarded to him "should the occupant (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior
fail to avail of the priority given to them." and inferior courts, and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of justice, the property and
The following day, respondent again submitted an Offer to rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court
Purchase Lot 11 with an area of 234 square meters for the within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
amount of P35,100. Under the Order issuedby the probate respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
court (RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27) in Special Proceedings No. acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with
1672, respondent’s Offer to Purchase Lot 11 was approved respect to the property and rights which may be the object of
upon the court’s observation that the occupants of the subject any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
lots "have not manifested their desire to purchase the lots they profession.
are occupying up to this date and considering time restraint
and considering further, that the sales in favor of the x The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy
xxofferors are most beneficial to the estate x xx". The probate disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
court issued another Order granting respondent’s motion for involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the
issuance of a writ of possession in his favor. The writ of peculiar control exercised by these persons. "In so providing,
possession over Lot 11 was eventually issued. Consequently, the Code tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to
TCT No. T-11836 in the name of C. N. Hodges was cancelled give occasion for fraud, which is what can and must be done."
and a new certificate of title, TCT No. T-107519 in the name
of respondent was issued. For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the
property must take place during the pendency of the litigation
On June 14, 1999, this Court received the sworn letter- involving the property. Where the property is acquired after
complaint asserting that as court employee respondent cannot the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5,
buy property in litigation (consequently he is not a buyer in Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
good faith), commit deception, dishonesty, oppression and
grave abuse of authority. In the case at bar, when respondent purchased Lot 11-A on
November 21, 1994, the Decision in Civil Case No. 14706
Court Administrator Benipayo issued an Evaluation and which was promulgated on May 31, 1983 had long become
Recommendation finding respondent guilty of violating final. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the property is no
Article 1491 of the Civil Code. Said rule prohibits the longer "in litigation" at that time considering that it was part of
purchase by certain court officers of property and rights in the Hodges Estate then under settlement proceedings (Sp.
litigation within their jurisdiction. Proc. No. 1672).
On September 10, 2007, respondent compulsorily retired from A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some
service. Eventually, the case was assigned to Judge Roger B. contest or litigation over it in court, but also from the moment
Patricio, the new EJ of the Iloilo City RTC for investigation, that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge. A
report and recommendation. Judge Patricio submitted his final property forming part of the estate under judicial settlement
9
continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir Realty shares of
issues an order declaring the estate proceedings closed and stock with total par value of P4,440,700.00; 5 and the
terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for the certificate of stock issued on January 30, 1979 for 300 shares
distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P30,000.00. Thelma again
probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. moved to require Teresita to be examined under oath on the
The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under inventory.
administration only after the payment of all the debts and the The RTC issued an order expressing the need for the parties to
remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the present evidence and for Teresita to be examined to enable the
same. Since there is no evidence to show that Sp. Proc. No. court to resolve the motion for approval of the inventory.
1672 in the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27, had already been closed Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and asked
and terminated at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale leave of court to examine Teresita on the inventory. The RTC
With Mortgage dated November 21, 1994, Lot 11 is still issued on March 14, 2001 an order finding and holding that
deemed to be "in litigation" subject to the operation of Article the inventory submitted by Teresita had excluded properties
1491 (5) of the Civil Code. that should be included. The RTC denied the administratrix's
motion for approval of inventory and orders the said
This notwithstanding, we hold that the sale of Lot 11 in favor administratrix to re-do the inventory of properties which are
of respondent did not violate the rule on disqualification to supposed to constitute as the estate of the late Emigdio S.
purchase property because Sp. Proc. No. 1672 was then Mercado. The RTC also directed the administratrix to render
pending before another court (RTC) and not MTCC where he an account of her administration of the estate of the late
was Clerk of Court. Emigdio S. Mercado which had come to her possession.
Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely sought the
11. ARANAS VS MERCADO reconsideration of the order of March 14, 2001 on the ground
that one of the real properties affected, Lot No. 3353 located
FACTS: Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on in Badian, Cebu, had already been sold to Mervir Realty, On
January 12, 1991, survived by his second wife, Teresita V. appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision insofar as the
Mercado (Teresita), and their five children, namely: Allan V. inclusion of the inclusion of parcels of land known as Lot No.
Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M. Sutherland, 3353 located at Badian, Cebu with an area of 53,301 square
Richard V. Mercado, and Maria Teresita M. Anderson; and his meters subject matter of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
two children by his first marriage, namely: respondent November 9, 1989 and the various parcels of land subject
Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Aranas matter of the Deeds of Assignment dated February 17, 1989
(Thelma). Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties and January 10, 1991 in the revised inventory to be submitted
during his lifetime. He owned corporate shares in Mervir by the administratrix is concerned.
Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu Emerson ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of
Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emerson). He assigned his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
real properties in exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir directing the inclusion of certain properties in the inventory
Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu (Lot 3353 notwithstanding that such properties had been either
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252) to Mervir transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate shares in
Realty. Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Mervir Realty by the decedent during his lifetime?
Cebu City a petition for the appointment of Teresita as the
administrator of Emigdio's estate. The RTC granted the RULING: No.
petition considering that there was no opposition. The letters
of administration in favor of Teresita. The CA's conclusion of grave abuse of discretion on the part
As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the of the RTC was unwarranted and erroneous. WHEREFORE,
estate of Emigdio for the consideration and approval by the the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari;
RTC. She indicated in the inventory that at the time of his REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on
death, Emigdio had "left no real properties but only personal May 15, 2002; REINSTATES the orders issued on March 14,
properties" worth P6, 675,435.25 in all, consisting of cash of 2001 and May 18, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court in Cebu;
P32, 141.20; furniture and fixtures worth P20, 000.00; pieces DIRECTS the Regional Trial Court in Cebu to proceed with
of jewelry valued at P15, 000.00; 44,806 shares of stock of dispatch in Special Proceedings No. 3094-CEB entitled
Mervir Realty worth P6,585,585.80; and 30 shares of stock of Intestate Estate of the late Emigdio Mercado, Thelma Aranas,
Cebu Emerson worth P22,708.25. Claiming that Emigdio had petitioner, and to resolve the case; and ORDERS the
owned other properties that were excluded from the inventory, respondents to pay the costs of suit.
Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the
inventory, and to be examined regarding it. Teresita filed a RATIO: The probate court is authorized to determine the
compliance with the order of January 8, 1993, 3 supporting issue of ownership of properties for purposes of their inclusion
her inventory with copies of three certificates of stocks or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by the
covering the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of stock; 4 the deed administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional
of assignment executed by Emigdio on January 10, 1991 unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the
involving real properties with the market value of question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties
10
consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court positive abuse of discretion." As long as the RTC commits no
and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction patently grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected
extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. There is
distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate
status of each heir and whether property included in the court is special and limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate
inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate but are
spouse. claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of the
decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of
Under Section 6 (a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters inheritance from the decedent. All that the trial court can do
of administration may be granted at the discretion of the court regarding said properties is to determine whether or not they
to the surviving spouse, who is competent and willing to serve should be included in the inventory of properties to be
when the person dies intestate. Upon issuing the letters of administered by the administrator. Such determination is
administration to the surviving spouse, the RTC becomes provisional and may be still revised.
duty-bound to direct the preparation and submission of the
inventory of the properties of the estate, and the surviving As the Court said in Agtarap v. Agtarap: The general rule is
spouse, as the administrator, has the duty and responsibility to that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate court
submit the inventory within three months from the issuance of or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with
letters of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of
Court, viz.: deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of
questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises
months. - Within three (3) months after his appointment every special and limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a
executor or administrator shall return to the court a true probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether
inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to
the deceased which has come into his possession or properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
knowledge. In the appraisement of such estate, the court may claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right
order one or more of the inheritance tax appraisers to give his of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of
or their assistance. the deceased and his estate. All that the said court could do as
regards said properties is to determine whether or not they
The usage of the word all in Section 1, supra, demands the should be included in the inventory of properties to be
inclusion of all the real and personal properties of the decedent administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, there
in the inventory. However, the word all is qualified by the poses no problem, but if there is, then the parties, the
phrase which has come into his possession or knowledge, administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an
which signifies that the properties must be known to the ordinary action before a court exercising general jurisdiction
administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title.
possession as the administrator. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified
by expediency and convenience. The probate court may
Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase true inventory provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding
implies that no properties appearing to belong to the decedent the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory
can be excluded from the inventory, regardless of their being of a piece of property without prejudice to final determination
in the possession of another person or entity. The objective of of ownership in a separate action.
the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or
the estate of the decedent is "to aid the court in revising the the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties
accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court
administrator, and in malting a final and equitable distribution and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the
(partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the probate court is competent to resolve issues on ownership.
administration of the estate." Hence, the RTC that presides Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or
over the administration of an estate is vested with wide collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such
discretion on the question of what properties should be as the determination of the status of each heir and whether the
included in the inventory. property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of
the deceased spouse.
According to Peralta v. Peralta, the CA cannot impose its
judgment in order to supplant that of the RTC on the issue of The inventory of the estate of Emigdio must be prepared and
which properties are to be included or excluded from the submitted for the important purpose of resolving the difficult
inventory in the absence of "positive abuse of discretion," for issues of collation and advancement to the heirs. Article 1061
in the administration of the estates of deceased persons, "the of the Civil Code required every compulsory heir and the
judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the appellate surviving spouse, herein Teresita herself, to "bring into the
courts should not interfere with or attempt to replace the mass of the estate any property or right which he (or she) may
action taken by them, unless it be shown that there has been a have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the
11
latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in Upon inquiry, the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu informed
order that it may be computed in the determination of the respondents that he has no record of any sale transaction
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition." involving the subject properties, giving them certified true
copies of the titles to the same. When respondents went to the
Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court also provided that any subject properties, they discovered that 4 out of the 8 cottages
advancement by the decedent on the legitime of an heir "may in the resort had been demolished. They were not able to enter
be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of as the premises were padlocked.
the estate proceedings, and the final order of the court thereon
shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the Respondents learned that in July 1991, a notice of an
heir." extrajudicial settlement of estate of their late father was
Rule 90 thereby expanded the special and limited jurisdiction published in a tabloid called "Balita". Because of this,
of the RTC as an intestate court about the matters relating to respondents caused the annotation of their adverse claims over
the inventory of the estate of the decedent by authorizing it to the subject properties before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu
direct the inclusion of properties donated or bestowed by and filed their complaint praying, among others, for the
gratuitous title to any compulsory heir by the decedent. The annulment of all documents conveying the subject properties
determination of which properties should be excluded from or to the petitioners and certificates of title issued to them.
included in the inventory of estate properties was well within
the authority and discretion of the RTC as an intestate court. In Petitioners denied the allegations of the complaint on the
making its determination, the RTC acted with circumspection, ground of lack of personal knowledge and good faith in
and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to acquiring the subject properties. In the course of his testimony
include all properties in the possession of the administrator or during trial, petitioner Francisco contended that what they
were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather purchased was only the resort. He also presented an
than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to be Extrajudicial Settlement with Renunciation, Repudiations and
actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC commits no Waiver of Rights and Sale which provides that respondents'
patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected co-heirs sold the family home to a certain spouses Bondoc for
as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. Grave P1M as well as a Deed of Sale whereby Benita sold the resort
abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi- to petitioners for P650K.
judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the In 2001, the trial court nullified the transfer of the subject
respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or properties to petitioners (Butiong; Villafria) and the spouses
virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in Bondoc due to irregularities in the documents of conveyance
contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or offered by petitioners; as well as the circumstances
board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a surrounding the execution of the same. The Extrajudicial
capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of Settlement was notarized by a notary public who was not duly
jurisdiction. commissioned as such on the date it was executed. The Deed
of Sale was undated, the date of the acknowledgment therein
12. BUTIONG VS PLAZO was left blank, and the typewritten name "Pedro Riñoza,
Husband" on the left side of the document was not signed.
FACTS: In 1989, Pedro Riñoza died intestate, leaving several Also, both documents were never presented to the Office of
heirs, including his children with his first wife, who are also the Register of Deeds for registration and that the titles to the
the respondents in this case; (Ma. Gracia and Ma. Fe). Pedro subject properties were still in the names of Pedro and his
also left several properties including a resort and a family second wife Benita. In addition, the supposed notaries and
home both located in Nasugbu, Batangas. buyers of the subject properties were not even presented as
witnesses who supposedly witnessed the signing and
The respondents alleged that in 1991, their co-heirs - Pedro's execution of the documents of conveyance. On the basis
second wife Benita, and other children had sold the subject thereof, the trial court ruled in favor of respondents. The CA
properties to the petitioner spouses, Francisco Villafria and affirmed the trial court’s ruling which was grounded on the
Maria Butiong without their knowledge and consent. The premise that the complaining heirs are insisting that the
spouses are now deceased and substituted by their son, Ruel. settlement of the family home and the resort deed are void as
their signatures thereon are forgeries as opposed to the
They confronted Benita about the sale, and she acknowledged Villafrias who profess the deeds' enforceability. And that after
the same, showing a document, she believed to be as a receipt the complaining heirs presented proofs in support of their
of her share in the sale. However, said document did not refer claim that their signatures were forged, the burden then fell
to any sort of sale but to a previous loan obtained by Pedro upon the Villafrias to disprove the same, or conversely, to
(decedent) and Benita from a bank. The document actually prove the authenticity and due execution of the said deeds.
evidenced receipt from Banco Silangan of the amount of P87, The Villafrias failed in this regard.
352.62 releasing Pedro and Benita's indebtedness therefrom.
The Villafrias did not present as witnesses (a) the notary
public who purportedly notarized the questioned instrument,
12
(b) the witnesses who appeared in the instruments as the civil action for annulment of title of the heirs and third
eyewitnesses to the signing, or (c) an expert to prove the persons in one proceeding
authenticity and genuineness of all the signatures appearing on
the said instruments. Verily, the rule that, proper foundation RULING: NO.
must be laid for the admission of documentary evidence; that
is, the identity and authenticity of the document must be Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents'
reasonably established as a prerequisite to its admission, was causes of action pertaining to the properties left behind by the
prudently observed by the lower court when it refused to decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and extent of
admit the settlement of the family home and the resort deeds their interests thereon, may fall under an action for settlement
as their veracity are doubtful. of estate. However, a complete reading of the complaint would
readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the
Aggrieved, Ruel then filed a Motion for Reconsideration allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is
raising the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. He alleged that clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title and
when the Complaint for Judicial Partition with Annulment of recovery of possession.
Title and Recovery of Possession was filed, there was yet no
settlement of Pedro's estate, determination as to the nature Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:
thereof, nor was there an identification of the number of
legitimate heirs. As such, the trial court ruled on the settlement RULE 74
of the intestate estate of Pedro in its ordinary jurisdiction when Summary Settlement of Estate
the action filed was for Judicial Partition. Considering that the
instant action is really one for settlement of intestate estate, the Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between
trial court, sitting merely in its probate jurisdiction, exceeded heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs
its jurisdiction when it ruled upon the issues of forgery and are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or
ownership. Thus, petitioner argued that said ruling is void and legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the
has no effect for having been rendered without jurisdiction. parties may without securing letters of administration, divide
the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a
Petitioner asserts that while the complaint filed by respondents public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds,
was captioned as "Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action
and Recovery of Possession," the allegations therein show that of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to
the cause of action is actually one for settlement of estate of himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the
decedent Pedro. Considering that settlement of estate is a office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial
special proceeding cognizable by a probate court of limited settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a
jurisdiction while judicial partition with annulment of title and pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates
recovery of possession are ordinary civil actions cognizable by the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file,
a court of general jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing
jurisdiction in entertaining the latter while it was sitting of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for
merely in its probate jurisdiction. This is in view of the partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of
prohibition found in the Rules on the joinder of special civil deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount
actions and ordinary civil actions. Thus, petitioner argued that equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as
the ruling of the trial court is void and has no effect for having certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
been rendered in without jurisdiction. conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be
filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the
Petitioner also reiterates the arguments raised before the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters
appellate court that since the finding of forgery relates only to of administration within two (2) years after the death of the
the signature of respondents and not to their co-heirs who decedent.
assented to the conveyance, the transaction should be
considered valid as to them. Petitioner also denies the findings The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall
of the courts below that his parents are builders in bad faith for be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
they only took possession of the subject properties after the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no
execution of the transfer documents and after they paid the extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who
consideration on the sale. has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
In this relation, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
The Motion for Reconsideration was, however, denied by the provides:
CA.
RULE 69
ISSUE: WON the CA committed reversible error in not ruling
that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A
special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Pedro and person having the right to compel the partition of real estate
may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
13
complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a
description of the real estate of which partition is demanded different course of action. It should be noted that recourse to
and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the an administration proceeding even if the estate has no debts is
property. sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not
resorting to an action for partition. Where' partition is possible,
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened with
allegations of respondents in their complaint are but an administration proceeding without good and compelling
customary, in fact, mandatory, to a complaint for partition of reasons.
real estate. Particularly, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro
died intestate; (2) that respondents, together with their co- Thus, it has been repeatedly held that when a person dies
heirs, are all of legal age, with the exception of one who is without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs,
represented by a judicial representative duly authorized for the whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to
purpose; (3) that the heirs enumerated are the only known a judicial administration, which is always long and costly, or
heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an account and description of to apply for the appointment of an administrator by the Court.
all real properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate has no It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial
known indebtedness; and (6) that respondents, as rightful heirs administration and the appointment of an administrator are
to the decedent's estate, pray for the partition of the same in superfluous and unnecessary proceedings.
accordance with the laws of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that
based on the allegations of the complaint, the case is one for Thus, respondents committed no error in filing an action for
judicial partition. That the complaint alleged causes of action judicial partition instead of a special proceeding for the
identifying the heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, settlement of estate as the same is expressly permitted by law.
and their rights thereto, does not perforce make it an action for That the complaint contained allegations inherent in an action
settlement of estate. for settlement of estate does not mean that there was a
prohibited joinder of causes of action for questions as to the
It must be recalled that the general rule is that when a person estate's properties as well as a determination of the heirs, their
dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an executor in his status as such, and the nature and extent of their titles to the
will or the executor so named is incompetent, or refuses the estate, may also be properly ventilated in partition proceedings
trust, or. fails to furnish the bond required by the Rules of alone.
Court, then the decedent's estate shall be judicially
administered and the competent court shall appoint a qualified
administrator in the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78 --- END OF MIDTERMS ---
of the Rules of Court. An exception to this rule, however, is
found in the aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 74 wherein the
heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no debts due from his
estate, may divide the estate either extrajudicially or in an
ordinary action for partition without submitting the same for
judicial administration nor applying for the appointment of an
administrator by the court. The reason is that where the
deceased dies without pending obligations, there is no
necessity for the appointment of an administrator to administer
the estate for them and to deprive the real owners of their
possession to which they are immediately entitled.
In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was

not disputed, that Pedro died without a will, leaving his estate
without any pending obligations. Thus, contrary to petitioner's
contention, respondents were under no legal obligation to
submit me subject properties of the estate to a special
proceeding for settlement of intestate estate, and are, in fact,
encouraged to have the same partitioned, judicially or
extrajudicially.
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court, however,

does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration
proceedings, even if the estate has no" debts or obligations, if
they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary
action for partition. While Section 1 allows the heirs to divide
the estate among themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to
an ordinary action for partition, the said provision does not
14

Special Proceedings Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceedings Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceedings Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the difference between a special proceeding for settlement of estate and an ordinary action for partition?

What are the requirements for heirs to divide an estate extrajudicially or through an ordinary action for partition according to Section 1 of Rule 74?

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (RULE 72 - RULE 90)

In 1993, after Cristina’s death, Federico adopted his two

In 1995, Isabel filed for an application for letter of FACTS:

In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was

Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court, however,

You might also like