Compiled Cases for spec pro

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    1/110

    Compiled Cases (Rule 72 to 80)

    RULE 72: Subject Matter and pplicabilit! o" RulesCase no# $ % M&'C # MCCase no# 2 % atc*er # CCase no# + % ,aci-c &an.in/ # C

    FACTS:

    This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent CA.

    An open policy was issued to the Paramount Shirt Manufacturing Co. by wc privaterespondent !riental Assurance Corp. bound itself to indemnify the insured for any loss ordamage" not e#ceeding P$%"&&&" caused by 're to its property.

    Said policy was endorsed to petitioner as mortgageetrustor.

    A 're bro(e out on the sub)ect premises destroying the goods while the policy was in fullforce.

    Petitioner sent a letter of demand to private respondent for indemnity due to the loss ofproperty by 're under the endorsement of said policy.

    Private respondent informed counsel for the petitioner that it was not yet ready to accedeto the latter*s demand as the former is awaiting the 'nal report of the insurance.

    The insured under the policy had not 'led any claim w it" nor submitted proof of loss wcis a clear violation of policy.

    ISSUE : W/n the suit flled was prematurely brought because the required claim under the

    Insurance law has not been fled.RUI!" :

    #etitioner prematurely fled the ci$il case and dismissal thereo% was warranted under thecircumstances. While it is cardinal principle o% insurance law that the policy or contract o%insurance is to be construed liberally in %a$or o% the insured and strictly as against the insurercompany& the contracts o% insurance& li'e other contracts& are to be construed according to thesense and meaning o% the terms w/c the parties themsel$es ha$e used. I% such terms are clearand ambiguous& they must be ta'en asnd understood in their palin& ordinary and popular sense.

    (ontracts o% insurance are o% indemnity upon the terms and conditions specifed in thepolicy. )he parties ha$e a right to impose suche reasonable conditions at the time o% ma'ing o%the contract as they may deem wise and necessary. )he agreement has the %orce o% lawbetween the parties. )he terms o% the policy constitute the measure o% the insurer*s liability& andin order to reco$er& the insured must show himsel% w/in those terms. )he compliance o% theinsured w/ the terms o% the policy is a condition precedent to the light o% reco$ery.

    It appearing that insured has $iolated or %ailed to per%orm the conditions o% the contract&and such $iolation or want o% per%ormance has not been wai$ed by the insurer& the insuredcannot reco$er& much less the herein petitioner.

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    2/110

    Case no# % Republic # C

    1acts:Apolinaria Malinao +omoc" left by his spouse Clemente P. +omoc for nine years" see(s for

    the ,eclaration of Presumptive ,eath for the purpose of contracting a valid subse-uentmarriage. The trial court granted the petition. owever" the /epublic" through the !0ce of theSolicitor 1eneral" sought to appeal the trial court2s order by 'ling a 3otice of Appeal.

    The trial court disapproved the 3otice of Appeal being that the present case is a speciaproceeding and that there was no record of appeal that was 'led and served pursuant toSec.45a6" /ule 7% of the /ules of Civil Procedure and at the same time denied the !S12s Motionfor /econsideration. The appellate court" li(ewise" denied the !S12s petition based on proceduraland substantive grounds.

    ssues:%. 8hether or not the petition for declaration of the presumptive death of a person is in the

    nature of a special proceeding.4. 8hether or not a summary proceeding be instituted for the purpose of contracting a

    subse-uent marriage and that technical rules should be strictly applied.

    3eld:%. The Court 'nds that the instant petition is in the nature of a special proceeding and not an

    ordinary action. The petition merely see(s for a declaration by the trial court of thepresumptive death of absentee spouse. 9t does not see( the enforcement or protection ofa right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. 3either does it involve a demand of rightor a cause of action that can be enforced against any person. ence" being in the natureof a special proceeding" the !S1 should have 'led" in addition to its 3otice of Appeal" arecord on appeal in accordance to the rules.

    As provided under the Family Code" the spouses present must institute a summary proceedingfor the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for the purpose of contractingsubse-uent marriage. 9n this case" Apolinaria +omoc stated in her petition her desire to contract avalid subse-uent marriage. rgo" a summary proceeding shall be instituted. 1iven that this caseshould be in a summary proceeding" Art. 4;< of the Family Code provides that in all casesre-uiring summary court proceedings" it shall be decided in an e#peditious manner withoutregard to technical rules. 8hat the appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner tocomply with the rule and not deny the petition outright.

    Case no# 4 % S*e.er # Estate o" lice 5# S*e.er

    Facts:

    +)he holographic will o% ,lice -. She'er was admitted %or probate in the R)( o% Iligan (ity.

    )herea%ter& the R)( issued an order %or all the creditors to fle their respecti$e claims against theestate.

    + In compliance& petitioner& ,llan She'er fled a contingent claim %or agent*s commission due himamounting to approimately #01&20.00 in the e$ent o% the sale o% certain parcels o% landbelonging to the estate o% ,lice She'er& and the amount o% #32&000.00& as reimbursement %orepenses incurred and/or to be incurred by ,llan She'er in the course o% negotiating the sale o%said realties.

    +)he eecutri o% the Estate o% ,lice -. She'er 4respondent5 mo$ed %or the dismissal o% saidmoney claim against the estate on the grounds that :

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    3/110

    465 the requisite doc'et %ee had not been paid745 petitioner %ailed to attach a certifcation against non+%orum shopping7 and485 petitioner %ailed to attach a written eplanation why the money claim was not fled andser$ed personally.

    + R)( issued the assailed -rder dismissing without pre9udice the money claim based on thegrounds ad$anced by respondent. ,llan She'er fled a motion %or reconsideration but the samewas denied . ence& the petition %or re$iew on certiorari.

    +,llan She'er maintains that the R)( erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rulesrequiring a certifcation o% non+%orum shopping& a written eplanation %or non+personal fling& andthe payment o% doc'et %ees upon fling o% the claim. e insists that Section & Rule 3 o% theRules o% (ourt pro$ides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings onlyin a suppletory manner

    Issue :

    Whether or not ,llan She'er;scontention that rules in ordinary actions are only supplementaryto rules in special proceedings is entirely correct.

    Held: No.

    Section & Rule 3& #art II o% the same Rules o% (ourt pro$ides:Sec. .,pplicability o% rules o% (i$il ,ctions. + In the absence of special

    provisions& the rules pro$ided %or in ordinary actions shall be& as %ar as practicable&applicable in special proceedings.Stated di is defned as: possible to practice or per%orm7 capable o% being putinto practice& done or accomplished.6?@A

    )his means that in the absence o% special pro$isions& rules in ordinary actions may beapplied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose anobstacle to said proceedings.

    !owhere in the Rules o% (ourt does it categorically say that rules in ordinary actions areinapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.

    #ro$isions o% the Rules o% (ourt requiring a certifcation o% non+%orum shopping %orcomplaints and initiatory pleadings& a written eplanation %or non+personal ser$ice and fling& andthe payment o% fling %ees %or money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct

    probate proceedings& thus& they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement o%the estate o% a deceased person as in the present case.

    Notes:

    Certication of non forum shopping:

    )he certifcation o% non+%orum shopping is required only %or complaints and other initiatorypleadings. )he R)( erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate o% adecedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case& the whole probate proceeding wasinitiated upon the fling o% the petition %or allowance o% the decedent*s will. Under Sections 6 and2& Rule B1 o% the Rules o% (ourt& a%ter granting letters o% testamentary or o% administration& all

    persons ha$ing money claims against the decedent are mandated to fle or noti%y the court and

    %

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    4/110

    the estate administrator o% their respecti$e money claims7 otherwise& they would be barred&sub9ect to certain eceptions.Such being the case& a money claim against an estate is more a'in to a motion %or creditors*claims to be recogniCed and ta'en into consideration in the proper disposition o% the propertieso% the estate.

    , money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action %or the settlement o% thedecedent*s estate7 more so i% the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot e$en institute aseparate action %or a mere contingent claim. ence& herein petitioner*s contingent money claim&not being an initiatory pleading& does not require a certifcation against non+%orum shopping.

    Docket fees:

    the trial court has 9urisdiction to act on a money claim 4attorney*s %ees5 against an estate %orser$ices rendered by a lawyer to the administratri to assist her in %ulflling her duties to theestate e$en without payment o% separate doc'et %ees because the fling %ees shall constitute alien on the 9udgment pursuant to Section & Rule 6@6 o% the Rules o% (ourt& or the trial court mayorder the payment o% such fling %ees within a reasonable time. ,%ter all& the trial court hadalready assumed 9urisdiction o$er the action %or settlement o% the estate. (learly& there%ore&non+payment o% fling %ees %or a money claim against the estate is not one o% the grounds %ordismissing a money claim against the estate.

    Written eplanation !h" the mone" claim !as not led and served personall":

    Section 66& Rule 68 o% the 6DD3 Rules o% (i$il #rocedure& personal ser$ice and fling is thegeneral rule& and resort to other modes o% ser$ice and fling& the eception. ence%orth&whene$er personal ser$ice or fling is practicable& in the light o% the circumstances o% time& placeand person& personal ser$ice or fling is mandatory. -nly when personal ser$ice or fling is not

    practicable may resort to other modes be had& which must then be accompanied by a writteneplanation as to why personal ser$ice or fling was not practicable to begin with.

    In the present case& petitioner holds oce in Salcedo Fillage& Ga'ati (ity& while counsel %orrespondent and the R)( which rendered the assailed orders are both in Iligan (ity. )he lowercourt should ha$e ta'en 9udicial notice o% the great distance between said cities and realiCedthat it is indeed not practicable to ser$e and fle the money claim personally. )hus& %ollowingGedina $. (ourt o% ,ppeals&?6A the %ailure o% petitioner to submit a written eplanation whyser$ice has not been done personally& may be considered as superHuous and the R)( shouldha$e eercised its discretion under Section 66& Rule 68& not to dismiss the money claim o%

    petitioner& in the interest o% substantial 9ustice.

    Case no# 6 % Musa # morCase no# 7 % 'an # C

    Petitioner Annie Tan" doing business under the name and style =A+ > T Trading"= leased a portionof the ground ?oor of her building" more speci'cally described as Stall 3o. $4;" Carva)al Street"@inondo" Manila" in favor of @loomberry #port Manufacturing" 9nc. The lease was for a period of've years starting on February %" %BB and ending on February %" 4&&&" at a monthly rental ofP4&"&&& for the 'rst three years. For several alleged violations of the lease contract" petitioner'led against private respondent a complaint for e)ectment" doc(eted as Civil Case 3o. %7

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    5/110

    )he metropolitan trial court ?mtcA o% manila dismissed the case %or breach o% contract& %ailure topay rental on time& encroachment on the ad9acent premises without the consent o% petitionerbecause she %ailed to substantiate her case with that degree o% proo% required by law.

    -n appeal the rtc armed the mtc decision. the %ollowing are the incidents& as %ollows:

    o FGrom the ,ecision of the /TCG dated +uly %

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    6/110

    8e are not in the least convinced. Jirst" it is unfair to place the blame for such omission on themessenger. The burden of preparing a complete pleading falls on counsel*s shoulders" not on themessenger*s. The counsel is ultimately responsible for the acts or omissions of his agents. ence"the messenger*s conduct can neither )ustify the counsel*s mista(e nor warrant a departure fromthe mandate of the aforesaid procedural rules.

    Second" it is incredible that the fourth page containing the 3otice of earing was left behind dueto honest mista(e. 9n fact" there was no such page.

    The normal practice is to note" at the end of the pleading" that a copy was furnished to theadverse party. Thus" petitioner*s motion ended e#actly at the bottom of the third page asevidenced by the =copyDfurnished= notation. 9t is safe to conclude that there was no accidental ore#cusable neglect in not including a fourth page in this case. 9n other words" petitioner*s counselsimply failed to include a notice of hearing.

    Jinally" the fact that petitioner*s former counsel calendared the motion for hearing for August 4;"%BB$ 28belies the e#cuse that an alleged fourth page had been left behind. 9n the 'rst place" if anotice of hearing had been included in the Motion for /econsideration" there would have been noneed for petitioner to 'le the Motion to set the time and date of hearing. 8hat is clear is thatsaid counsel 'led the latter Motion" only after private respondent had submitted its Motion for

    ntry of +udgment2

    J with copy furnished petitioner*s counsel+0

    J on the ground thatpetitioner*s Motion for /econsideration was a mere scrap of paper that did not stop the period forappeal.

    Petitioner pleads for liberal construction of the rule on notice of hearing"citing )amargo" "al$eCand Kue. 9n rebuttal" we adopt by reference the CA*s e#cellentdis-uisition" cited earlier" on why these cases are inapplicable.

    Petitioner further alleges that" frst" the nonadmission of her Motion for /econsideration wouldresult in a miscarriage of )ustice" as the main case 5e)ectment6" which was tried under summaryprocedure" had been unnecessarily prolongedH and" second" the tenant lessee would beoccupying the premises without paying rentals. She also relies on #eople $. e$iste" +$in which

    the Court held:

    8hile it is true that any motion that does not comply with the re-uirements of /ule%" /ules of Court should not be accepted for 'ling and" if 'led" is not entitled to

    )udicial cogniKance" the Supreme Court has li(ewise held that where rigidapplication of the rule will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of )ustice"technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case.

    Liberal construction of this rule has been allowed by this Court in the following cases: 5%6 where arigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of )ustice" +2especially if a partysuccessfully shows that the alleged defect in the -uestioned 'nal and e#ecutory )udgment is notapparent on its face or from the recitals contained thereinH ++546 where the interest of substantial

    )ustice will be servedH +5;6 where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the soundand )udicious discretion of the courtH +4and 576 where the in)ustice to the adverse party is notcommensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedureprescribed. +6Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case at bar falls under any of thesee#ceptions.

    Finally" petitioner claims that she will be deprived of property without due process" as privaterespondent has accumulated P;7

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    7/110

    respondent from its liabilities. Petitioner is" therefore" not being deprived of her property withoutdue process.

    9ndeed" there is no miscarriage of )ustice to spea( of. aving failed to observe very elementaryrules of procedure which are mandatory" petitioner caused her own predicament. To e#culpateher from the compulsory coverage of such rules is to undermine the stability of the )udicialprocess" as the bench and bar will be confounded by such irritating uncertainties as when toobey and when to ignore the /ules. 8e have to draw the line somewhere. +7

    WEREJ-RE& the petition is hereby LE!IEL and the assailed Lecision is ,JJIRGEL. (osts againstthe petitioner.

    Case no# 8 % entura # enturaCase no# % Matute # CCase no# $0 % &un!i # 1actorCase no# $$ % Lim # C

    RULE 7+: enue and ,rocess

    Case no# $ % melia 9arcia % uia;on # &elen

    F%C#&: Garia ourdes Elise KuiaCon 4Elise5& represented by her mother& Ga. ourdes elen4ourdes5& fled a #etition %or etters o% ,dministration be%ore the R)( o% as #iMas (ity. Eliseclaims that she is the natural child o% Eliseo ha$ing been concei$ed and born at the time whenher parents were both capacitated to marry each other. Elise impugned the $alidity o% Eliseo;smarriage to ,melia KuiCaon by claiming that it was bigamous %or ha$ing been contracted duringthe subsistence o% the latter;s marriage with one Jilipito Sandico. )o pro$e her fliation to thedecedent& Elise attached to the #etition %or etters o% ,dministration her (ertifcate o% i$e irthsigned by Eliseo as her %ather. It was alleged that Eliseo le%t real properties worth #&0@0&000and personal properties worth #&600&000. In order to preser$e the estate o% Eliseo and to

    pre$ent the dissipation o% its $alue& Elise sought her appointment as administratri o% her late

    %ather;s estate.

    (laiming that the $enue o% the petition was improperly laid& ,melia& with her children& Nennethand Nenni%er& opposed the issuance o% the letters o% administration by fling an -pposition/Gotionto Lismiss. )he petitioners asserted that as shown by his Leath (ertifcate& Eliseo was aresident o% (apas& )arlac and not o% as #iMas (ity& at the time o% his death. #ursuant to Section6& Rule 38 o% the Re$ised Rules o% (ourt& the petition %or settlement o% decedent;s estate shouldha$e been fled in (apas& )arlac and not in as #iMas (ity. In addition to their claim o% improper$enue& the petitioners a$erred that there are no %actual and legal bases %or Elise to be appointedadministrati o% Eliseo;s estate.

    )he R)( directed the issuance o% etters o% ,dministration to Elise upon posting the necessary

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    8/110

    bond. )he lower court ruled that the $enue o% the petition was properly laid in as #iMas (ity&thereby discrediting the position ta'en by the petitioners that Eliseo;s last residence was in(apas& )arlac& as hearsay.

    -n appeal& the decision o% the trial court was armed in toto by the (, and held that Elise wasable to pro$e that Eliseo and ourdes li$ed together as husband and wi%e by establishing acommon residence in as #iMas (ity& %rom 6D32 up to the time o% Eliseo;s death in 6DD. Jor

    purposes o% fing the $enue o% the settlement o% Eliseo;s estate& (, upheld the conclusionreached by the R)( that the decedent was a resident o% as #iMas (ity. )he petitioners; Gotion%or Reconsideration was denied by the (,. ence& this petition.

    I&&'(&:I. Whether or not Eliseo KuiaCon was a resident o% as #iOas and there%ore& the petition %oretter*s o% ,dministration was properly fled with the R)( o% as #iOas. )*(&+7 and

    II. Whether or not Elise KuiaCon has not shown any interest in the petition %or etters o%,sministration. )N,+

    $'-IN:We fnd the petition bere%t o% merit.

    I.+Under Section 6& Rule 38 o% the Rules o% (ourt& the petition %or letters o% administration o% theestate o% a decedent should be fled in the R)( o% the pro$ince where the decedent resides atthe time o% his death:

    Sec. %. 8here estate of deceased persons settled.P I% the decedent is an inhabitant o% the#hilippines at the time o% his death& whether a citiCen or an alien& his will shall be pro$ed& orletters o% administration granted& and his estate settled& in the (ourt o% Jirst Instance nowRegional )rial (ourt in the pro$ince in which he resides at the time o% his death& and i% he isan inhabitant o% a %oreign country& the (ourt o% Jirst Instance now Regional )rial (ourt o% any

    pro$ince in which he had estate. )he court frst ta'ing cogniCance o% the settlement o% theestate o% a decedent& shall eercise 9urisdiction to the eclusion o% all other courts. )he

    9urisdiction assumed by a court& so %ar as it depends on the place o% residence o% thedecedent& or o% the location o% his estate& shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding&ecept in an appeal %rom that court& in the original case& or when the want o% 9urisdictionappears on the record. 4Emphasis supplied5.

    )he term QresidesQ connotes e $i termini Qactual residenceQ as distinguished %rom Qlegalresidence or domicile.Q )his term Qresides&Q li'e the terms QresidingQ and Qresidence&Q is elasticand should be interpreted in the light o% the ob9ect or purpose o% the statute or rule in which it isemployed. In the application o% $enue statutes and rules P Section 6& Rule 38 o% the Re$isedRules o% (ourt is o% such nature P residence rather than domicile is the signifcant %actor. E$enwhere the statute uses word QdomicileQ still it is construed as meaning residence and notdomicile in the technical sense. Some cases ma'e a distinction between the terms QresidenceQ

    and QdomicileQ but as generally used in statutes fing $enue& the terms are synonymous& andcon$ey the same meaning as the term Qinhabitant.Q In other words& QresidesQ should be $iewedor understood in its popular sense& meaning& the personal& actual or physical habitation o% a

    person& actual residence or place o% abode. It signifes physical presence in a place and actuastay thereat. Fenue %or ordinary ci$il actions and that %or special proceedings ha$e one and thesame meaning. ,s thus defned& Qresidence&Q in the contet o% $enue pro$isions& means nothingmore than a person;s actual residence or place o% abode& pro$ided he resides therein withcontinuity and consistency.

    )he (, cannot be %aulted %or arming the ruling o% the R)( that the $enue %or the settlement o%the estate o% Eliseo was properly laid in as #iMas (ity. It is e$ident %rom the records that duringhis li%etime& Eliseo resided at !o. 1 E$erlasting Road& #hase 2& #ilar Fillage& as #iMas (ity. Jor

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    9/110

    this reason& the $enue %or the settlement o% his estate may be laid in the said city.

    II.+Section 1& Rule 3B o% the Re$ised Rules o% (ourt lays down the pre%erred persons who areentitled to the issuance o% letters o% administration& thus:

    Sec. $. 8hen and to whom letters of administration granted. I% no eecutor is named inthe will& or the eecutor or eecutors are incompetent& re%use the trust& or %ail to gi$e bond&or a person dies intestate& administration shall be granted:4a5 )o the sur$i$ing husband or wi%e& as the case may be& or net o% 'in& or both& in thediscretion o% the court& or to such person as such sur$i$ing husband or wi%e& or net o% 'in&requests to ha$e appointed& i% competent and willing to ser$e74b5 I% such sur$i$ing husband or wi%e& as the case may be& or net o% 'in& or the personselected by them& be incompetent or unwilling& or i% the husband or widow& or net o% 'in&neglects %or thirty 4805 days a%ter the death o% the person to apply %or administration or torequest that administration be granted to some other person& it may be granted to one ormore o% the principal creditors& i% competent and willing to ser$e74c5 I% there is no such creditor competent and willing to ser$e& it may be granted to suchother person as the court may select.

    Upon the other hand& Section o% Rule 3D pro$ides that a petition %or etters o% ,dministrationmust be fled by an interested person& thus:

    Sec. 4. Contents of petition for letters of administration. , petition %or letters o%administration must be fled by an interested person and must show& so %ar as 'nown to the

    petitioner:4a5 )he 9urisdictional %acts74b5 )he names& ages& and residences o% the heirs& and the names and residences o% thecreditors& o% the decedent74c5 )he probable $alue and character o% the property o% the estate74d5 )he name o% the person %or whom letters o% administration are prayed.

    ut no de%ect in the petition shall render $oid the issuance o% letters o% administration.

    ,n Qinterested party&Q in estate proceedings& is one who would be benefted in the estate& suchas an heir& or one who has a claim against the estate& such as a creditor. ,lso& in estate

    proceedings& the phrase Qnet o% 'inQ re%ers to those whose relationship with the decedent Issuch that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees.

    In the instant case& Elise& as a compulsory heir who stands to be benefted by the distribution o%Eliseo;s estate& is deemed to be an interested party. With the o$erwhelming e$idence on record

    produced by Elise to pro$e her fliation to Eliseo& the petitioners; pounding on her lac' o% interestin the administration o% the decedent;s estate& is 9ust a desperate attempt to sway this (ourt tore$erse the fndings o% the (,. (ertainly& the right o% Elise to be appointed administrati o% theestate o% Eliseo is on good grounds. It is %ounded on her right as a compulsory heir& who& under

    the law& is entitled to her legitimate a%ter the debts o% the estate are satisfed. a$ing a $estedright in the distribution o% Eliseo;s estate as one o% his natural children& Elise can right%ully beconsidered as an interested party within the pur$iew o% the law.

    Case no# 2 % 3eirs o" Ma/daleno

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    10/110

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    11/110

    Case no# + % =ao # C

    F%C#&: Rodol%o and #erico Nao were the only sons o% the spouses Ignacio Nao )ayag and ,ndreaF. Nao& who died intestate in 6DBB and 6DBD& respecti$ely. )he decedents le%t real estate& cash&shares o% stoc' and other personal properties.

    -n ,pril 63& 6DD6& #erico instituted a petition %or issuance o% letters o% administration be%ore the

    Regional )rial (ourt o% KueCon (ity& ranch DD& o$er the estate o% his parents.

    Rodol%o mo$ed to dismiss the petition on the ground o% improper $enue. e argued that theirparents did not reside in KueCon (ity either during their li%etime or at the time o% theirdeaths. )heir actual residence was in ,ngeles (ity& #ampanga& and mo$ed to Rodol%o;sresidence at 16 Scout "andia Street& KueCon (ity& solely %or medical treatment andhospitaliCation purposes.

    #erico countered that their parents actually resided in Rodol%o;s house in KueCon (ity at the timeo% their deaths. ,s a matter o% %act& it was conclusi$ely declared in their death certifcates that

    their last residence be%ore they died was at 16 Scout "andia Street& KueCon (ity. Rodol%o himsel%e$en supplied the entry appearing on the death certifcate o% their mother& ,ndrea& and aedhis own signature on the said document.

    )he R)( denied Rodol%o;s motion to dismiss. )he (, armed the R)(;s order.

    I&&'(: Where should the settlement proceedings be had +++ in #ampanga& where the decedentshad their permanent residence& or in KueCon (ity& where they actually stayed be%ore theirdemiseT

    H(-D: /ue0on Cit".

    In determining residence at the time o% death& the %ollowing %actors must be considered& namely&the decedent had:

    4a5 capacity to choose and %reedom o% choice7

    4b5 physical presence at the place chosen7 and

    4c5 intention to stay therein permanently.

    )here is substantial proo% that the decedents ha$e trans%erred to petitioner;s KueCon (ityresidence. #etitioner %ailed to suciently re%ute respondent;s assertion that their elderly parentsstayed in his house %or some three to %our years be%ore they died in the late 6DB0s.

    )he decedents; respecti$e death certifcates state that they were both residents o% KueCon (ityat the time o% their demise. Signifcantly& it was petitioner himsel% who flled up his late mother;sdeath certifcate. )his unqualifedly shows that at that time& at least& petitioner recogniCed hisdeceased mother;s residence to be KueCon (ity. Goreo$er& petitioner %ailed to contest the entryin Ignacio;s death certifcate& accomplished a year earlier by respondent.

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    12/110

    In 1arciaDFule v. Court of Appeals" the (ourt clarifed that the term =resides> means =thepersonal& actual or physical habitation o% a person& actual residence or place o% abode. Itsignifes physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense& the termmeans merely residence& that is& personal residence& not legal residence or domicile.>

    In addition& there is no distinction between $enue %or ordinary ci$il actions and that %or specialproceedings. )hey ha$e one and the same meaning. ,s thus defned& =residence>& in thecontet o% $enue pro$isions& means nothing more than a person;s actual residence or place o%

    abode& pro$ided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.Case no# % Ledesma # ntestate Estate o" Cipriano ,edrosa

    F%C#&:

    #etitioner ,ngelica edesma*s marriage to (ipriano #edrosa was declared a nullity by theR)( o% !egros -ccidental. )he (ourt ordered that the properties acquired by the parties atthe time they were li$ing together as common+law husband and wi%e are owned by themas co+owners. With respect to the properties acquired by them during marriage which wassubsequently annulled by the (ourt & they will %orm part o% the con9ugal partnership o% thespouses& to be dissol$ed and liquidated in accordance with the pro$ision o% the (i$il (ode.

    #ending the order o% in$entory o% the properties& #edrosa died lea$ing a last will andtestament. , separate petition %or probate o% the said will was fled. !elson Nimena wasnamed eecutor in the said proceeding and substituted the deceased in the partition

    proceeding with regard to the annulled marriage o% the latter. Respondent Nudge atalbas+Goscardon considered the supplemental action %or partition

    4a%ter annulment o% the marriage5 )ERGI!,)EL due to the death o% one o% the spouses4#edrosa5 and the pendency o% intestate proceedings o$er his estate.

    #etitioner argues that respondent 9udge reneged in the per%ormance o% a law%ul duty whenshe re%rained %rom rendering a decision in the partition case 4RE: dissolution anddistribution o% con9ugal properties5 and considered the same closed and terminated& dueto the pendency o% intestate proceedings o$er the deceased husband*s estate.

    I&&'(:

    6. Whether or not it is proper to terminate the partition proceeding on account o% the deatho% one o% the spouses and the pendency o% intestate proceeding o% the deceased spouse;sestate. N,

    . Where will the partition o% the properties be made P in the ci$il case where the marriagewas annulledT or in the proceeding %or the settlement o% estateT Civil Case

    $'-IN:

    6. )he (ourt cited the case o% Gacadangdang $s. (ourt o% ,ppeals&where a similar issue was

    in$ol$ed the husband also died a%ter the legal separation o% the spouses had beenfnally decreed but be%ore the actual liquidation o% their community o% properties.

    In the said case& the (ourt ruled that upon the fnality o% the decree o% legal separation&the absolute con9ugal community property o% the spouses shall be dissol$ed andliquidated. Upon the liquidation and distribution con%ormably with the law go$erning thee

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    13/110

    )he Gacadangdang decision in$ol$ed legal separation but the doctrine enunciated thereinshould be applied to a marriage annulment which is the situation at bar. )he respondent

    presiding 9udge is directed to decide the partition 4liquidation5 case and determine whicho% the properties o% the con9ugal partnership should be ad9udicated to the husband andthe wi%e. ,ny properties that may be ad9udicated to the deceased husband #edrosa canthen be distributed in accordance with his last will and testament in the special

    proceedings in$ol$ing his estate.

    . )he partition shall be done in the ci$il case rather than in the settlement proceedingsbecause the law mandates the dissolution and liquidation o% the property regime o% thespouses upon fnality o% the decree annulling the marriage.

    Such dissolution and liquidation are necessary consequences o% the fnal decree o% nullity.)he legal e

    #he court !hen acting as testate or intestate court is a court of limited 1urisdiction. Itis so limited in the sense that it is onl" conned in the issue of settlement or divisionof the properties of the deceased. It cannot etend to collateral matters !hich are notrelated.

    Case no# 4 % >e &orja # >e &orja

    J,()S: Kunitin& Jrancisco& (risanta and Nuliana& are legitimate children o% Garcelo de or9a.

    Garcelo died intestate and Kuintin became the administrator o% the IntestateEstate o% Garcelo.

    Kuintin died testate and (risanto& son o% Jrancisco& was appointed as administratoro% the Estate o% Garcelo.

    Jrancisco& on the other hand& became the eecutor o% the will o% Kuintin.

    Jrancisco was later required by the (ourt to resign as such eecutor and was succeededby Rogelio& a son+in+law o% Kuintin7 while the Intestate Estate remained under theadministration o% (risanto until the the outbrea' o% the war.

    ,%ter the war& the court ordered the reconstitution o% the records o% the case& requiring theadministrator to submit his report and a copy o% the pro9ect o% partition.

    )he heirs o% Kuintin opposed the appro$al o% the statements o% accounts rendered by theadministrator o% the Intestate Estate o% Garcelo

    Subsequently& the administrator fled his amended statement o% accounts.

    )he heirs o% Kuintin again opposed the appro$al o% the statements o% accounts on theground that certain %ruits which should ha$e been accrued to the estate wereunaccounted %or.

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    14/110

    )he administrator fled a reply to said opposition containing a counterclaim %or moraldamages against all the heirs o% Kuintin which was admitted by the court.

    I: W/! a c laim %or moral damages may be entertained in a proceeding %or thesettlement o% an estate.

    :, counterclaim %or moral damages demanded by an administrator against the heirs %oralleged utterances& pleadings and actuations made in the course o% a proceeding& is anetraneous matter in a testate or intestate proceedings. )he in9ection into the action o%incidental questions entirely %oreign in probate proceedings should not be encouraged %or to dootherwise would run counter to the clear intention o% the law.

    Case no# 6 % Ledesma # ntestate Estate o" Cipriano ,edrosa

    #etitioner ,ngelica edesma;s marriage to (ipriano #edrosa was declared a nullity by theRegional )rial (ourt o% !egros 4(i$il (ase !o. 6@@15.

    )he lower court ordered that properties acquired by #edrosa and edesma at the time

    they were li$ing as common law husband and wi%e are owned by them as co+owners andshall be go$erned by the (i$il (ode. Whereas& properties acquired by the parties duringtheir marriage will %orm part o% the con9ugal partnership and upon dissolution o% themarriage to be liquidated in accordance with the pro$isions o% the (i$il (ode.

    Luring the pendency o% the order o% in$entory by the lower court& (ipriano #edrosa died. ,separate petition %or the probate o% his last will and testament was fled.

    !elson Nimena was named eecutor and substituted #edrosa in the partition proceedings4(i$il (ase !o. 6@@15.

    #etitioner argues that respondent Nudge reneged in the per%ormance o% a law%ul duty whenshe re%rained %rom rendering a decision in the partition case 4(i$il (ase !o. 6@@15 andconsidered the same and terminated due to the pendency o% intestate proceedings o$erthe deceased husband;s estate.

    Issue: Whether or not a 1udge must decide partition case despite annulment of

    marriage and death of one of the spouses.

    Ruling:

    es.)he court citing the case o% Gacadangdang $s (,& where a similar issue was in$ol$ed+ the

    husband ha$ing died a%ter the legal separation o% the spouses had been fnally decreed butbe%ore the actual liquidation o% their community properties. )hus& the rules on dissolution andliquidation o% the con9ugal partnership in accordance with the (i$il (ode shall be applied. Uponthe liquidation and distribution con%ormably with law go$erning the e

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    15/110

    )he doctrine enunciated in the Gacadangdang case should be applied to a marriage annulmentwhich is the situation at bar. )he respondent 9udge is directed to decide the partition4liquidation5 case 4(i$il (ase !o. 6@@15 within 80 days %rom receipt o% notice o% this decision todetermine which o% the properties o% the con9ugal partnership should be ad9udicated to thehusband and the wi%e. )his is but a consequence or incident o% its decision rendered in the samecase annulling the marriage.

    Case no# 7 % Limjoco # intestate Estate o" 1ra/rante

    Facts:

    )he #ublic Ser$ice (ommission rendered its decision in case !o. @23 o% #edro -.Jragante& as applicant %or a certifcate o% public con$enience to install& maintain andoperate an ice plant7

    #edro was a Jilipino (itiCen at the time o% his death7 and that his intestate estate isfnancially capable o% maintaining the proposed ser$ice.

    )he commission o$erruled the opposition fled in this case. )he commission held that the e$idence therein showed that the public interest and

    con$enience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner Qby authoriCing theoperation and maintenance o% another ice plant7

    #etitioner contends that it was error on the part o% the commission to allow thesubstitution o% the legal representati$e o% the estate o% #edro -. Jragante %or the latter as

    party applicant in the case& which is said to be in contra$ention o% law.

    Issues:

    Whether the estate o% Jragrante is a person.

    Held:

    es& the estate o% the decedent is a person in legal contemplation.

    )he Supreme (ourt cited the case o% illings $s. State as decided by the Supreme (ourt o%Indiana& to wit:

    It said in another wor' that *persons are o% two 'inds: natural and artifcial. ,natural person is a human being. ,rtifcial persons include 465 a collection orsuccession o% natural persons %orming a corporation7 45 a collection o%

    property to which the law attributes the capacity o% ha$ing rights and duties.)he latter class o% artifcial persons is recogniCed only to a limited etent inour law. QEamples are the estate o% a ban'rupt or deceased person.

    We percei$e no diculty in a$oiding such a result7 %or& to our minds& it seemsreasonable that the estate o% a decedent should be regarded as an artifcial

    person. It is the creation o% law %or the purpose o% enabling a disposition o%the assets to be properly made& and& although natural persons as heirs&de$ises& or creditors& ha$e an interest in the property& the artifcial creature isa distinct legal entity.

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    16/110

    In the instant case there would also be a %ailure o% 9ustice unless the estate o% #edro -.Jragrante is considered a QpersonQ& %or quashing o% the proceedings %or no other reasonthan his death would entail pre9udicial results to his in$estment.

    )he heirs were %ormerly considered as the continuation o% the decedent*s personalitysimply by legal fction& %or they might not ha$e been Hesh and blood the reason wasone in the nature o% a legal eigency deri$ed %rom the principle that the heirs succeededto the rights and obligations o% the decedent. Under the present legal system& such rightsand obligations as sur$i$e a%ter death ha$e to be eercised and %ulflled only by the estateo% the deceased. ,nd i% the same legal fction were not indulged& there would be no

    9uridical basis %or the estate& represented by the eecutor or administrator& to eercisethose rights and to %ulfll those obligations o% the deceased. )he reason and purpose %orindulging the fction is identical and the same in both cases. )his is why according to theSupreme (ourt o% Indiana in illings $s. State& supra& citing Rapal9e V . Lictionary& D2@&among the artifcial persons recogniCed by law fgures Qa collection o% property to whichthe law attributes the capacity o% ha$ing rights and dutiesQ& as %or instance& the estate o% aban'rupt or deceased person.

    (onclusion:

    #edro -. Jragrante was a Jilipino citiCen& and as such& i% he had li$ed& in $iew o% thee$idence o% record& he would ha$e obtained %rom the commission the certifcate %or whichhe was applying. )he situation has su

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    17/110

    was issued without )urisdiction. She prayed that she be appointed special administratri# of theestate" in lieu of Eirginia 1. Fule" and as regular administratri# after due hearing.

    !n +uly 4" %B;" +udge Malvar issued an order appointing Eirginia 1. Fule as specialadministratri#.

    !n August ;%" %B;" Preciosa @. 1arcia moved to dismiss the petition" because 5%6 )urisdictionover the petition or over the parties in interest has not been ac-uired by the courtH 546 venue was

    improperly laidH and 5;6 Eirginia 1. Fule is not a party in interest as she is not entitled to inheritfrom the deceased Amado 1. 1arcia. This was subse-uently denied on ,ecember %B" %B;.

    !n +uly 4$" %B7" Preciosa @. 1arcia and Agustina @. 1arcia commenced a special action forcertiorari andor prohibition and preliminary in)unction before the Court of Appeals" doc(eted asCAD1./. 3o. &;44%DSP. primarily to annul the proceedings before +udge Malvar in Sp. Proc. 3o. 4DC of the Court of First 9nstance of Laguna.

    !n +anuary ;&" %B" the Court of Appeals rendered )udgment annulling the proceedings before+udge Severo A. Malvar in Sp. Proc. 4DC of the Court of First 9nstance of Calamba" Laguna" forlac( of )urisdiction.

    ,enied of their motion for reconsideration on March ;%" %B" Eirginia 1. Fule forthwith elevatedthe matter to the Supreme Court on appeal by certiorari. The case was doc(eted as 1./. 3o. LD7&&4.

    owever" even before Eirginia 1. Fule could receive the decision of the Court of Appeals" Preciosa@. 1arcia had already 'led on February %" %B a petition for letters of administration before theCourt of First 9nstance of /iKal" ueKon City @ranch. +udge Eicente 1. ricta granted the motionand appointed Preciosa @. 1arcia as special administratri# upon a bond of P;&"&&&.&&. Preciosa@. 1arcia -uali'ed and assumed the o0ce.

    9ssues:

    %.6 8hether or not the instant petition should be denied for lac( of )urisdiction and improperlaying of venue.

    4.6 8hether or not Preciosa2s appointment as special administratri# is proper.

    eld:

    %. Section %" /ule ; speci'cally the clause =so far as it depends on the place of residence of thedecedent" or of the location of the estate"= is in reality a matter of venue. 9t could not have beenintended to de'ne the )urisdiction over the sub)ect matter" because such legal provision iscontained in a law of procedure dealing merely with procedural matters. Procedure is one thingH

    )urisdiction over the sub)ect matter is another. The power or authority of the court over thesub)ect matter =e#isted and was '#ed before procedure in a given cause began.= That power orauthority is not altered or changed by procedure" which simply directs the manner in which thepower or authority shall be fully and )ustly e#ercised. The appearance of this provision in theprocedural law at once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing to do with the )urisdictionof the court over the sub)ect matter. 9n plain words" it is )ust a matter of method" of convenienceto the parties.

    8hat does the term =resides= meanN 8e lay down the doctrinal rule that the term =resides=connotes e $i termini=actual residence= as distinguished from =legal residence or domicile.=

    This term =resides"= li(e" the terms =residing= and =residence"= is elastic and should beinterpreted in the light of the ob)ect or purpose of the statute or rulein which it is employed. 9n

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    18/110

    the application of venue statutes and rules J Section %" /ule ; of the /evised /ules of Court isof such nature J residence rather thandomicile is the signi'cant factor. ven where the statuteuses the word =domicile= still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in thetechnical sense. Some cases ma(e a distinction between the terms =residence= and =domicile=but as generally used in statutes '#ing venue" the terms are synonymous" and convey the samemeaning as the term =inhabitant.= 9n other words" =resides= should be viewed or understood in itspopular sense" meaning" the personal" actual or physical habitation of a person" actual residenceor place of abode. 9t signi'es physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. 9n this popularsense" the term means merely residence" that is" personal residence" not legal residence ordomicile. /esidence simply re-uires bodily presence as an inhabitantin a given place" whiledomicile re-uires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to ma(e it one*sdomicile. 3o particular length of time of residence is re-uired thoughH however" the residencemust be more than temporary.

    ,ivergent claims are maintained by Eirginia 1. Fule and Preciosa @. 1arcia on the residence ofthe deceased Amado 1. 1arcia at the time of his death. !n this issue" SC rule that the last placeof residence of the deceased Amado 1. 1arcia was at %% Carmel Avenue" Carmel Subdivision"ueKon City" and notat Calamba" Laguna. A death certi'cate is admissible to prove theresidence of the decedent at the time of his death. As it is" the death certi'cate of Amado 1.1arcia" which was presented in evidence by Eirginia 1. Fule herself and also by Preciosa @.1arcia" shows that his last place of residence was at %% Carmel Avenue" Carmel Subdivision"ueKon City. 8ithal" the conclusion becomes imperative that the venue for Eirginia C. Fule*spetition for letters of administration was improperly laid in the Court of First 9nstance of Calamba"Laguna.

    4. Section % of /ule e borja

    Facts: Petitioners Angela" Maria" Abelardo and Antonio" surnamed /odrigueK" petition this Courtfor a writ of certiorari and prohibition to the Court of First 9nstance of @ulacan" for its refusal to

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    19/110

    grant their motion to dismiss its Special Proceeding 3o. %;;%" which said Court is alleged to haveta(en cogniKance of without )urisdiction.

    A motion to dismiss was 'led by the petitioners through counsel that the Court has no )urisdictionto try the aboveDentitled case in view of the pendency of another action for the settlement of theestate of the deceased /ev. Fr. Celestino /odrigueK in the Court of First 9nstance of /iKal" namely"Sp. Proceedings 3o. ;B& entitled *9n the matter of the 9ntestate state of the deceased /ev. Fr.Celestino /odrigueK which was 'led ahead of the instant case.

    The records show that Fr. Celestino /odrigueK died on February %4" %B$; in the City of ManilaHthat on March 7" %B$;" Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida +acalan delivered to the Cler( of Courtof @ulacan a purported last will and testament of Fr. /odrigueKH that on March

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    20/110

    of priority established in /ule ; 5old /ule 6 was not designed to convert the settlement ofdecedent*s estates into a race between applicants" with the administration of the properties asthe price for the ?eetest.

    Therefore" as ruled in (astro& et al. $s. GartineC" %& Phil. ;&" =only after 'nal decision as to thenullity of testate succession could an intestate succession be instituted in the form of preDestablished action=. The institution of intestacy proceedings in /iKal may not thus proceed whilethe probate of the purported will of Father /odrigueK is pending.

    8e rule that the @ulacan Court of First 9nstance was entitled to priority in the settlement of theestate in -uestion" and that in refusing to dismiss the probate proceedings" said court did notcommit any abuse of discretion. 9t is the proceedings in the /iKal Court that should bediscontinued.

    Where%ore& the writ o% certiorari applied %or is denied. (osts against petitioners RodrigueC.

    Case no# $0 % >eo/racias &ernardo # C

    =, (ourt o% Jirst Instance 4!ow R)(5 being a probate court in a Special #roceeding has9urisdiction to determine the Falidity o% the deed o% donation in question and to pass upon the

    question o% title o% ownership o% the properties mentioned therein.>

    Jacts:

    Eusebio (apili and ermogena Reyes were husband and wi%e. )he frst died on Nuly 3& 6D2B anda testate proceeding %or the settlement o% his estate was instituted in the (ourt o% the JistInstance o% ulacan. is will was admitted to probate on -ctober D& 6D2B& disposing o% his

    properties in %a$or o% his widow7 his cousins ,rmando& Ursula& and uena$entura& all surnamed(apili7 and ,rturo& Leogracias and Eduardo& all surnamed ernardo. ermogena Reyes hersel%died on ,pril @& 6D2D. Upon petition o% Leogracias ernardo& eecutor o% the estate o% thedeceased Eusebio (apili& she was substituted by her collateral relati$es and intestate heirs&namely& Garcos& Ficente& Jrancisco and Lominga& all surnamed Reyes7 and Nose& (onstancia&Raymunda and Elena& all surnamed Isidoro.

    -n Nune 6& 6D2D& the eecutor fled a pro9ect o% partition in the testate proceeding inaccordance with the terms o% the will& ad9udicating the estate o% Eusebio (apili among thetestamentary heirs with the eception o% ermogena Reyes& whose share was alloted to hercollateral relati$es a%orementioned. -n Nune 61& 6D2D these relati$es fled an opposition to theeecutor*s pro9ect o% partition and submitted a counter+pro9ect o% partition o% their own& claiming6/ o% the properties mentioned in the will o% the deceased Eusebio (apili on the theory that theybelonged not to the latter alone but to the con9ugal partnership o% the spouses.

    )he probate court& in two orders dated Nune @& 6D2D and Jebruary 60& 6D10& respecti$ely& setthe two pro9ects o% partition %or hearing& at which e$idence was presented by the parties&%ollowed by the submission o% memoranda discussing certain legal issues. In the memorandum%or the eecutor and the instituted heirs it was contended: 465 that the properties disposed o% inthe will o% the deceased Eusebio (apili belonged to him eclusi$ely and not to the con9ugal

    partnership& because ermogena Reyes had donated to him her hal% share o% such partnership745 that the collateral heirs o% ermogena Reyes had no law%ul standing or grounds to questionthe $alidity o% the donation7 and 485 that e$en assuming that they could question the $alidity o%

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    21/110

    the donation& the same must be litigated not in the testate proceeding but in a separate ci$ilaction.

    Where%ore& the parties respect%ully pray that the %oregoing stipulation o% %acts be admitted andappro$ed by this onorable (ourt& without pre9udice to the parties adducing other e$idence to

    pro$e their case not co$ered by this stipulation o% %acts.

    )he oppositors and heirs o% ermogena Reyes& on their part& argued that the deed o% donation

    itsel% was determinati$e o% the original con9ugal character to the properties& aside %rom the legalpresumption laid down in ,rticle 610 o% the (i$il (ode& and that since the donation was null and$oid the deceased Eusebio (apili did not become owner o% the share o% his wi%e and there%orecould not $alidly dispose o% it in his will.

    -n September 6@& 6D10& the probate court& the onorable G. Ge9ia presiding& issued an orderdeclaring the donation $oid without ma'ing any specifc fnding as to its 9uridical nature& that is&whether it was inter $i$os or mortis causa& %or the reason that& considered under the frstcategory& it %alls under ,rticle 688 o% the (i$il (ode& which prohibits donations between spousesduring the marriage7 and considered under the second category& it does not comply with the

    %ormalities o% a will as required by ,rticle 3B in relation to ,rticle B02 o% the same (ode& therebeing no attestation clause. In the same order the court disappro$ed both pro9ects o% partitionand directed the eecutor to fle another&Q di$iding the property mentioned in the last will andtestament o% the deceased Eusebio (apili and the properties mentioned in the deed o% donation&Ehibit & between the instituted heirs o% the deceased Eusebio (apili and the legal heirs o% thedeceased ermogena Reyes& upon the basis that the said properties were con9ugal properties o%the deceased spouses.Q -n September 3& 6D10& the eecutor fled a motion %or new trial&reiterating and emphasiCing the contention pre$iously raised in their memorandum that the

    probate court had no 9urisdiction to ta'e cogniCance o% the claim o% the legal heirs o% ermogenaReyes in$ol$ing title to the properties mentioned in the will o% Eusebio (apili and ta'ing

    eception to the court*s declaration o% the nullity o% the donation Qwithout stating %acts orpro$ision o% law on which it was based.Q )he motion %or new trial was denied in an order dated-ctober 8& 6D10.

    -n appeal to the (ourt o% ,ppeals the order appealed %rom being armed& petitioners fled thispresent petition %or re$iew by certiorari.

    )he petitioners+appellants contend that the appellate court erred in not declaring that theprobate court& ha$ing limited and special 9urisdiction& had generally no power to ad9udicate titleand erred in applying the eception to the rule.

    Issue:

    Whether or not a probate court& ha$ing limited and special 9urisdiction& had generally no powerto ad9udicate title.

    Ruling:

    In a line o% decisions& this (ourt consistently held that as a general rule& question as to title toproperty cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings&Q ecept where one o% theparties prays merely %or the inclusion or eclusion %rom the in$entory o% the property& in whichcase the probate court may pass pro$isionally upon the question without pre9udice to its fnal

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    22/110

    determination in a separate action.owe$er& we ha$e also held that when the parties interestedare all heirs o% the deceased& it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question asto title to property& and when so submitted& said probate court may defnitely pass 9udgmentthereon 4#ascual $. #ascual& 38 #hil. 2167 Ganalac $. -campo& et al.& 38 #hil. 11657 and that withthe consent o% the parties& matters a

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    23/110

    are no third parties whose rights may be a

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    24/110

    latter was domiciled inSan 1ernando? ,ampan/a" and praying that the case be dismissedupon the ground that enue *ad been improperl! 'led.

    TC: court overruled this ob)ection and granted said petition.ence" this appeal. The appeal hinges on the situs of the residence of Andres usebio on

    3ovember 4

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    25/110

    the /ules of Court evidently refers to cases triable before two or more courtswith concurrent)urisdiction. 9t could not possibly have intended to deprive a competent court ofthe authority vested therein by law" merely because a similar case had been previously 'ledbefore a court to which 9urisdiction is denied by law" for the same would then be defeated by thewill of one of the parties. More specially" said provision refers mainly to nonDresident decedentswho have properties in several provinces in the Philippines" for the settlement of their respectiveestates may underta(en before the court of 'rst instance of either one of said provinces" not onlybecause said courts then have concurrent )urisdiction J and" hence" the one 'rst ta(ingcogniKance of the case shall e#clude the other courts J but" also" because the statement to thiseIect in said section % of /ule of the /ules of the Court immediately follows the last part ofthe ne#t preceding sentence" which deals with nonDresident decedents" whose estate may settledthe court of 'rst instance of any province in which they have properties.lawphil.net

    9n view" however" of the last sentence of said section" providing that:. . . The )urisdiction assumed by a court" so far as it depends on the place of residence of thedecedent" or of the location of his estate" shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings" e#ceptin an appeal from that court" in the original case" or when the want of )urisdiction appears on therecord.

    i" proceedin/s "or t*e settlement o" t*e estate o" a deceased resident are instituted in

    t@o or more courts? and t*e Auestion o" enue is raised be"ore t*e same? t*e court in@*ic* t*e -rst case @as -led s*all *ae eBclusie jurisdiction to decide said issueShould it be decided" in the proceedings before the said court" that venue had been improperlylaid" the case pending therein should be dismissed and the corresponding proceedings may"thereafter" be initiated in the proper court.

    9n conclusion" the court 'nd that the decedent was" at the time of his death" domiciled in SanFernando" PampangaH that the Court of First 9nstance of /iKal had no authority" therefore" toappoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased" the venue having been laid improperlyand that it should" accordingly" have sustained appellants* opposition and dismissed appellee*spetition.

    -rder appealed %rom is hereby re$ersed and appellee*s petition is dismissed.

    Case no# $2 % lde"onso Lac*enal # 3on# Emilio # SalasCase no# $+ % Lourdes L# >orot*eo # CCase no# $ % San Luis # San LuisCase no# $4 % Roberts # Leonidasiarte # C1Facts:

    dward M. 1rimman American resident of Manila" died at < in the Ma(ati Medical Centeron 3ovember4" %B. Survived by his second wife" Ma#ine Tate 1rimm and two children" dward5Pete6 and Linda" and by

    +uanita and thel 5McFadden6" his two children by a 'rst marriage whichended in divorce.e e#ecuted on+anuary 4;" %BB"

    two willsi n San Francisco" California. !ne will disposed of hisPhilippine estate which he described as con)ugalproperty of himself and his second wife. Thesecond will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.The twochildren of the'rst marriagewere given their legitimes in the will disposing of the estatesituated in this country. 9n the will dealing with hisproperty outside this country" the testator said:9 purposely have made no provision in this will for my daughter" +uanita 1rimm Morris" or mydaughter" lsa1rimm McFadden 5thel 1rimm /oberts6" because 9 have provided for eachof them in a separate will disposingof my Philippine property.

    The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by Ma#ine in Court of Tooele County" tah.Two wee(slater" Ma#ine" Linda and Pete" as the 'rst parties" and thel" +uanita and their mother+uanita egley 1rimm as

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    26/110

    the second parties" with (nowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila"entered into a compromise agreementin tah regarding the estate. 9t was signed the lawyers of theparties. 9t was stipulated that Ma#ine" Pete andthel would be designated as personalrepresentatives 5administrators6 of 1rimm*s Philippine estate.!n +anuaryB" %B

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    27/110

    Lon Nuan Uriarte y "oite died. Ficente Uriarte fled with the (JI o% !egros -ccidental a petition%or the settlement o% the estate o% the late Lon Nuan 4Special #roceeding !o. 18@@5 alleging that&as a natural son o% the latter& he was his sole heir& and that& during the li%etime o% said decedent&Ficente had instituted a ci$il case in the same (ourt %or his compulsory ac'nowledgment as suchnatural son. iginio Uriarte& nephew o% the deceased& fled an opposition to the petition allegingthat Lon Nuan had eecuted a Will in Spain. e %urther questioned Ficente*s capacity and interestto commence the intestate proceeding. Nuan Uriarte amacona& the other pri$ate respondent&

    commenced Special #roceeding !o. 268D1 in the (JI o% Ganila %or the probate o% a documentalleged to be the last will o% the deceased Nuan Uriarte y "oite& and on the same date he fled inSpecial #roceeding !o. 18@@ o% the !egros (ourt a motion to dismiss the same on the %ollowinggrounds: 465 that& as the deceased Nuan Uriarte y "oite had le%t a last will& there was no legalbasis to proceed with said intestate proceedings& and 45 that Ficente Uriarte had no legal

    personality and interest to initiate said intestate proceedings& he not being an ac'nowledgednatural son o% the decedent. Ficente Uriarte opposed the a%oresaid motion to dismiss contendingthat& as the !egros (ourt was frst to ta'e cogniCance o% the settlement o% the estate o% thedeceased Nuan Uriarte y "oite& it had acquired eclusi$e 9urisdiction o$er same pursuant to Rule32& Section 6 o% the Rules o% (ourt. )he !egros (ourt sustained Nuan Uriarte amacona*s motion

    to dismiss and dismissed the Special #roceeding !o. 18@@ pending be%ore it.

    Ficente Uriarte fled an -mnibus Gotion in Special #roceeding !o. 268D1 pending in the Ganila(ourt& as'ing %or lea$e to inter$ene therein7 %or the dismissal o% the petition and the annulmento% the proceedings had in said special proceeding. )his motion was denied by said court.

    Issues:

    6. Whether or not the !egros (ourt erred in dismissing Special #roceeding !o. 18@@.. Whether the Ganila (ourt erred in not dismissing Special #roceeding !o. 268D1

    notwithstanding prior fling o% Special #roceeding !o. 18@@ in the !egros (ourt .

    eld:

    6. !- While the 9urisdiction o% (ourts o% Jirst Instance o$er Qall matters o% probateQ is beyondquestion& the matter o% $enue& or the particular (ourt o% Jirst Instance where the special

    proceeding should be commenced& is regulated by Section 6& Rule 38 o% the Re$ised Rules o%(ourt& which pro$ides that the estate o% a decedent inhabitant o% the #hilippines at the time o%his death& whether a citiCen or an alien& shall be in the court o% frst instance in the pro$ince inwhich he resided at the time o% his death& and i% he is an inhabitant o% a %oreign country& thecourt o% frst instance o% any pro$ince in which he had estate. ,ccordingly& when the estate to besettled is that o% a nonresident alien 4li'e the deceased5 the (ourts o% Jirst Instance in pro$inces

    where the deceased le%t any property ha$e concurrent 9urisdiction to ta'e cogniCance o% theproper special proceeding %or the settlement o% his estate. In the case be%ore Us& these (ourts o%Jirst Instance are the !egros and the Ganila (ourts + pro$ince and city where the deceased le%tconsiderable properties. In accordance with settled 9urisprudence in this 9urisdiction& testate

    proceedings& %or the settlement o% the estate o% a deceased person ta'e precedence o$erintestate proceedings %or the same purpose. )hus it has been held repeatedly that& i% in thecourse o% intestate proceedings pending be%ore a court o% frst instance it is %ound it that thedecedent had le%t a last will& proceedings %or the probate o% the o% the latter should replace theintestate proceedings e$en i% at that stage an administrator had already been appointed& thelatter being required to render fnal account and turn o$er the estate in his possession to the

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    28/110

    eecutor subsequently appointed. )his& howe$er& is understood to be without pre9udice thatshould the alleged last will be re9ected or is disappro$ed& the proceeding shall continue as anintestacy. ,s already ad$erted to& this is a clear indication that proceedings %or the probate o% awill en9oy priority o$er intestate proceedings.

    . !- Wrong $enue is merely a wai$eable procedural de%ect& and& in the light o% thecircumstances obtaining in the instant case& Ficente Uriarte has wai$ed the right to raise suchob9ection or is precluded %rom doing so by laches. Ficente Uriarte 'new o% the eistence o% a will

    eecuted by Lon Nuan since 6D16 when iginio Uriarte fled his opposition to the initial petitionfled in Special #roceeding !o. 18@@7 Ficente Uriarte li'ewise was ser$edwith notice o% theeistence 4presence5 o% the alleged last will in the #hilippines and o% the fling o% the petition %orits probate with the Ganila (ourt since 6D1 when Nuan Uriarte amacona fled a motion %or thedismissal o% Special #roceeding !o. 18@@. ,ll these notwithstanding& it was only in6D18 that hefled with the Ganila (ourt in Special #roceeding !o. 268D1 an -mnibus motion as'ing %or lea$eto inter$ene and %or the dismissal and annulment o% all the proceedings had therein up to thatdate. )o allow him now to assail the eercise o% 9urisdiction o$er the probate o% the will by theGanila (ourt and the $alidity o% all the proceedings had in Special #roceeding !o. 268D1 would

    put a premium on his negligence. )his (ourt is not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had ina lower court e$en i% the latter was not the proper $enue there%or& i% the net result would be toha$e the same proceedings repeated in some other court o% similar 9urisdiction7 more so in a

    case li'e the present where the ob9ection against said proceedings is raise too late. FicenteUriarte is entitled to prosecute (i$il (ase !o. 16@ until it is fnally determined& or inter$ene inSpecial #roceeding !o. 268D1 o% the Ganila (ourt& i% it is still open& or to as' %or its reopening i% ithas already been closed& so as to be able to submit %or determination the question o% hisac'nowledgment as natural child o% the deceased testator& said court ha$ing& in its capacity as a

    probate court& 9urisdiction to declare who are the heirs o% the deceased testator and whether ornot a particular party is or should be declared his ac'nowledged natural child.

    Case no# $7 % Cuenco # C

    )he court frst ta'ing cogniCance o% the settlement o% the estate o% adecedent& shall eercise 9urisdiction to the eclusion o% all other courts

    J,()S: Senator Gariano Nesus (uenco died in Ganila. e was sur$i$ed by hiswidow and two minor sons& residing in KueCon (ity& and children o% the frst marriage& residing in(ebu. ourdes& one o% the children %rom the frst marriage& fled a #etition %or etters o%

    ,dministration with the (ourt o% Jirst Instance 4(JI5 (ebu& alleging that the senator diedintestate in Ganila but a resident o% (ebu with properties in (ebu and KueCon (ity. )he petitionstill pending with (JI (ebu& Rosa (ayetano (uenco& the second wi%e& fled a petition with (JIRiCal %or the probate o% the last will and testament& where she was named eecutri. Rosa alsofled an opposition and motion to dismiss in (JI (ebu but this court held in abeyance resolutiono$er the opposition until (JI KueCon shall ha$e acted on the probate proceedings. ourdes fledan opposition and motion to dismiss in (JI KueCon& on ground o% lac' o% 9urisdiction and/orimproper $enue& considering that (JI (ebu already acquired eclusi$e 9urisdiction o$er the case.

    )he opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon appeal (, ruled in %a$or o% ourdes andissued a writ o% prohibition to (JI KueCon.

    ISSUEs: Whether or not (, erred in issuing the writ o% prohibition.Whether or not (JI KueCon acted without 9urisdiction or gra$e abuse o% discretion in ta'ingcogniCance and assuming eclusi$e 9urisdiction o$er the probate proceedings in pursuance to (JI(ebu*s order epressly consenting in de%erence to the precedence o% probate o$er intestate

    proceedings

    EL:)he Supreme (ourt %ound that (, erred in law in issuing the writ o% prohibition against theKueCon (ity court %rom proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    29/110

    all its orders and actions& particularly its admission to probate o% the last will and testament o%the deceased and appointing petitioner+widow as eecutri thereo% without bond pursuant to thedeceased testator*s wish. -n Fenue and Nurisdiction Under Rule 38& the court frst ta'ingcogniCance o% the settlement o% the estate o% a decent& shall eercise 9urisdiction to the eclusiono% all other courts. )he residence o% the decent or the location o% his estate is not an element o%

    9urisdiction o$er the sub9ect matter but merely o% $enue. I% this were otherwise& it would a

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    30/110

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    31/110

    Case no# 20 % ,astor # CCase no# 2$ % ,eralta # C

    1acts:Andres de 1uKman Pereira" an employee of the Philippine Air Lines" passed away withouta will. e was survived by his legitimate spouse of ten months" the herein petitioner Eictoria@ringas Pereira" and his sister /ita Pereira 3agac" the herein private respondent.

    private respondent instituted an action before the /egional Trial Court of for the issuance ofletters of administration in her favor pertaining to the estate of the deceased Andres de 1uKmanPereira. 9n her veri'ed petition" private respondent alleged the following: that she and Eictoria@ringas Pereira are the only surviving heirs of the deceasedH that the deceased left no willH thatthere are no creditors of the deceasedH that the deceased left several properties" namely: deathbene'ts from the Philippine Air Lines 5PAL6" the PAL mployees Association 5PALA6" the PALmployees Savings and Loan Association" 9nc. 5PSALA6 and the Social Security System 5SSS6" aswell as savings deposits with the Philippine 3ational @an( 5P3@6 and the Philippine Commercial

    and 9ndustrial @an( 5PC9@6" and a ;&& s-uare meter lot located at @arangay Pamplona" Las Pinas"/iKal and 'nally" that the spouse of the deceased 5herein petitioner6 had been wor(ing in Londonas an au#iliary nurse and as such oneDhalf of her salary forms part of the estate of the deceased.

    Petitioner 'led her opposition and motion to dismiss the petition of private respondent allegingthat there e#ists no estate of the deceased for purposes of administration and praying in thealternative" that if an estate does e#ist" the letters of administration relating to the said estate beissued in her favor as the surviving spouse.

    The /egional Trial Court" appointed private respondent /ita Pereira 3agac administratri# of theintestate estate of Andres de 1uKman Pereira upon a bond posted by her in the amount of

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    32/110

    Pl"&&&.&&. The trial court ordered her to ta(e custody of all the real and personal properties ofthe deceased and to 'le an inventory thereof within three months after receipt of the order.

    3ot satis'ed with the resolution of the lower court" petitioner brought the case to the Court ofAppeals. The appellate court a0rmed the appointment of private respondent as administratri# inits decision dated ,ecember %" %B

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    33/110

    deceased may be properly ventilated in simple partition proceedings where the creditors" shouldthere be any" are protected in any event.

    8e" therefore" hold that the court below before which the administration proceedings arepending was not )usti'ed in issuing letters of administration" there being no good reason forburdening the estate of the deceased Andres de 1uKman Pereira with the costs and e#penses ofan administration proceeding.

    With the %oregoing ruling& it is unnecessary %or us to del$e into the issue o% who& as between thesur$i$ing spouse Fictoria ringas #ereira and the sister Rita #ereira !agac& should be pre%erredto be appointed as administratri.

    Case no# 22 % Coca # ,an/ilinanCase no# 2+ % 'rinidad # CCase no# 2 % Soliio # C

    RULE 7: Summar! Settlement o" EstatesCase no# $ % da# >e Re!es # C

    1acts:

    1avino /eyes owned a parcel of land of appro#imately & hectares at Cavite. e sought tobring said land under the operation of the Torrens System of registration of propertynfortunately" he died without the title having been issued to him. The application wasprosecuted by his son" Marcelo /eyes" the administrator.

    9n %B;$" the property was surveyed and subdivided by 1avino2s heirs" which wasevidenced by a subdivision plan. 9n %B7%" the original certi'cate of title for the whole property5!CT 3o. 46 was issued and (ept by +uan Poblete" sonDinDlaw of Marcelo /eyes. eirs of 1avinowere not aware of this fact.

    /afael /eyes Sr." one of 1avino2s children in which Lot 3o. %DAD%7 was assigned to" sold thesaid parcel of land to ,almacio 1ardiola. The deed of sale" however" did not speci'cally mentionLot 3o. %DAD%7.

    9n %B$" the heirs of 1avino /eyes e#ecuted a ,eed of #tra)udicial Settlement of state

    based on the subdivision plan. The lot intended for /afael /eyes Sr." deceased" was insteadad)udicated to his son /afael +r. As a result" !CT 3o. 4 was cancelled and in lieu thereof"several transfer certi'cates of title were issued in the name of respective ad)udicatees. !ne ofthem is TCT 3o. 44 covering Lot 3o. %DAD%7 in the name of /afael /eyes +r.

    9n %B

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    34/110

    9n the case at bar" the lot sold by /afael Sr. to private respondent ,almacio 1ardiola is his sharein the estate of his deceased father" 1avino /eyes. The sale made between /afael Sr. and1ardiola is valid. Thus" 1ardiola is then the rightful owner of the lot.

    Case no# 2 % elino # C

    Facts:

    +,ntonio ,$elino& Sr. died intestate.+)hen Garia Socorro ,$elino fled a petition %or the issuance o% letters o% administration o% theestate o% his deceased %ather.

    + ,ll the other heirs howe$er opposed the petition and they mo$ed that the petition be con$ertedinto an action %or 9udicial partition o% the said estate.

    +)he trial court granted the opposition;s motion and so Socorro;s petition was con$ertedaccordingly.

    +Socorro;s see' a motion %or reconsideration but the same was denied.

    +Socorro then fled a petition %or certiorari& prohibition& and mandamus alleging gra$e abuse o%discretion amounting to lac' or ecess o% 9urisdiction on the part o% the trial court in granting theother heirs motion.

    +)he (ourt o% ,ppeals %ound no re$ersible error. Socorro ele$ated the petition to the Supreme(ourt. She insists that a partition cannot be had because the etent o% the estate is not yetdetermined hence an administration proceeding is still needed. She also insists that the Rules o%(ourt does not pro$ide %or a con$ersion o% a petition %or administration to an action %or partition.

    Issue: Whether or not Socorro;s petition %or the issuance o% letters o% administration may becon$erted into an action %or 9udicial partition.

    H(-D: es.

    We note that the (ourt o% ,ppeals %ound that in this case Qthe decedent le%t no debts and theheirs and legatees are all o% age. With this fnding& it is court;s $iew that Section 6& Rule 3@ o% theRules o% (ourt should apply.

    QSE()I-! 6. Etra9udicial settlement by agreement between heirs. + I% the decedent le%t no willand no debts and the heirs are all o% age or the minors are represented by their 9udicial or legalrepresentati$es duly authoriCed %or the purpose& the parties may& without securing letters o%administration& di$ide the estate among themsel$es as they see ft by means o% a public

    instrument fled in the oce o% the register o% deeds& and should they disagree& they may do soin an ordinary action o% partition..

    Where the more epeditious remedy o% partition is a$ailable to the heirs& then the heirs or thema9ority o% them may not be compelled to submit to administration proceedings. In this case& allthe heirs& with the eception o% Socorro& agreed to 9udicial partition as they see it to be the morecon$enient method. )here is no merit to the contention o% Socorro that a partition cannot be hadbecause the etent o% the estate is not yet determined. )he etent o% the estate can actually bedetermined during the partition proceedings. )here%ore& the trial court made no error incon$erting Socorro;s petition to an action %or 9udicial partition.

    Case no# + % Cua # ar/as

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    35/110

    F%C#&:, DD+sq.m. residential land located in (atanduanes was le%t behind by thelate #aulina Fargas. -n Jebruary @& 6DD@& a notariCed Etra Nudicial Settlement ,mong eirs waseecuted by and among #aulina Fargas; D heirs& each getting a share o% 66 sq.m. ut o% the Dheirs& only 2 signed7 the other @ did not sign.

    -n !o$ember 62& 6DD@& an Etra Nudicial Settlement ,mong eirs with Sale was again eecutedby and among the same heirs o$er the same property and also with the same sharings. -ncemore& only Ester& Fisitacion& Nuan& enaida and Rosario signed the document and their respecti$eshares totaling 22 square meters were sold to Noseph (ua.

    "loria Fargas& the widow o% Santiago Fargas and one o% respondents herein& came to 'now o% theEtra Nudicial Settlement ,mong eirs with Sale dated !o$ember 61& 6DD@ only when theoriginal house built on the lot was being demolished sometime in Gay 6DD2. She tried to redeemthe property but %ailed.

    When her redemption o

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    36/110

    documents& ha$ing disco$ered their eistence only shortly be%ore the fling o% the presentcomplaint. Jollowing Rule 3@& these etra9udicial settlements do not bind respondents& and the

    partition made without their 'nowledge and consent is in$alid inso%ar as they are concerned.

    Case no# % ,ablo /# Utolo # Leona ,asion da# >e 9arciaCase no# 4 % =aier # Ma/tiba!

    Facts:

    Rufna Gercado died intestate& sur$i$ed by her second husband Eulogio Gagtibay& her only li$ingdaughter (atalina Na$ier and the descendants o% her two deceased daughters all threedaughters being o% the frst marriage. Shortly a%ter Rufnas* death& these heirs made anetra9udicial partition o% her properties. ,lleging that there were some properties not included inthe partition& one o% the heirs& (atalina Na$ier& petitioned the court %or letters o% administrationand the appointment o% hersel% as administratri. )he other heirs opposed the petition on theground that there was not necessity %or sub9ecting the estate to 9udicial administration since&according to them& the decedent le%t no debts& all her properties had already been partitionedand the heirs were all o% age or represented by guardian.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the court is 1ustied in issuing letters of administration.

    $uling:

    No.

    When a person dies without lea$ing pending obligations to be paid& his heirs& whether o% age ornot& are bound to submit the property to 9udicial administration& which is always long and costly&

    or to apply %or the appointment o% an administrator by the court& Q%or in such the 9udicialadministration and the appointment o% an administrator are superHuous and unnecessaryproceedings.Q

    Where administration proceeding is unnecessary because the estate has no debts and the moreepeditious remedy by partition is a$ailable the heirs or the ma9ority o% them may not becompelled to submit the estate to such proceeding. Since the property o% the deceased belongs&%rom the moment o% his death& to the heirs& Qwhat reason can there be&Q i% there are no debts&Q%or the appointment o% a 9udicial administrator to administer the estate %or them and to depri$ethe real owners o% their possession to which they are immediately entitled.Q Withholding theinheritance %rom the heirs by sub9ecting it to an administration proceeding %or no use%ul purpose&would only unnecessarily epose it to the ris' o% being wasted or squandered as not in%requentlyhappens.

    Section 6 o% Rule 3@ Qdoes not preclude the heirs %rom instituting administration proceedings&e$en i% the estate has no debts or obligation& i% they do not desire to resort %or good reasons anordinary action o% partition.Q )hat statement& it should be noted& sanctions recourse to anadministration proceeding e$en i% the estate has no debt sonly i%& as herein epressly stated& theheirs ha$e good reasons %or not resorting to an action %or partition& and is thus a re+armancerather than a repudiation o% the doctrine being in line with its policy that where partition is

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    37/110

    possible& either in or out o% court& the estate should not be burdened with an administrationproceeding without good and compelling reasons. )here appearing to be no good reason %orburdening o% the estate o% the deceased Rufna Gercado with the costs and epenses o% anadministration proceeding& the trial court was not 9ustifed in issuing letters o% administration.

    Case no# 6 % Eli/io Llaner # na lopos

    Case no# 7 % nco/ # CCase no# 8 % renas # RocesCase no# % Utulo # ,asion

    F%C#&:Nuan "arcia SancheC died intestate& and in the proceedings instituted in the (JI o% )arlac%or the administration o% his property 4special proceedings !o. 8@325& eona #asion Fda. de"arcia& the sur$i$ing spouse and the herein oppositor& was appointed 9udicial administratri. )hesaid deceased le%t legitimate children& named Nuan "arcia& 9r.& #atrocinio "arcia and uC "arciawho& with the widow& are the presumpti$e %orced heirs.

    uC "arcia married the applicant #ablo ". Utulo and during the pendency o% the administrationproceedings o% the said deceased& she died in the pro$ince without any legitimate descendants&

    her only %orced heirs being her mother and her husband. )he latter commenced in the samecourt the 9udicial administration o% the property o% his deceased wi%e 4special proceedings !o.@6BB5& stating in his petition that her only heirs were he himsel% and his mother+in+law& theoppositor& and that the only property le%t by the deceased consisted in the share due her %romthe intestate o% her %ather& Nuan "arcia SancheC& and as'ing that he be named administrator o%the property o% said deceased.

    )he oppositor ob9ected to the petition& opposing the 9udicial administration o% the property o% herdaughter and the appointment o% the applicant as administrator. She alleged that inasmuch asthe said deceased le%t no indebtedness& there was no occasion %or the said 9udiciaadministration7 but she stated that should the court grant the administration o% the property& sheshould be appointed the administratri thereo% inasmuch as she had a better right than the

    applicant. )he trial was had and the court fnally issued the appealed order to which theoppositor ecepted and therea%ter fled the record on appeal which was certifed and appro$ed.

    I&&'(&:2+ Whether upon the admitted %acts the 9udicial administration o% the property le%t by thedeceased uC "arcia lies& with the consequent appointment o% an administrator. 4!-5

    $'-IN:2.+We ha$e section 1@ o% the (ode o% (i$il #rocedure pro$iding in part that Qi% no eecutor isnamed in the will& or i% a person dies intestate& administration shall be grantedQ etc. )his

    pro$ision enunciates the general rule that when a person dies li$ing property in the #hilippineIslands& his property should be 9udicially administered and the competent court should appoint a

    qualifed administrator in case the deceased le%t no will& or in case he had le%t one should he %ailto name an eecutor therein.

    )his rule& howe$er& is sub9ect to the eceptions established by sections 2D1 and 2D3 o% the same(ode& as fnally amended. ,ccording to Section B$& when all the heirs are o% law%ul age andthere are no debts due %rom the estate& they may agree in writing to partition the propertywithout instituting the 9udicial administration or applying %or the appointment o% anadministrator. ,ccording to Section B& i% the property le%t does not eceed si thousand pesos&the heirs may apply to the competent court& a%ter the required publications& to proceed with thesummary partition and& a%ter paying all the 'nown obligations& to partition all the propertyconstituting the inheritance among themsel$es pursuant to law& without instituting the 9udicial

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    38/110

    administration and the appointment o% an administrator.

    )he (ode o% #rocedure in (i$il ,ctions pro$ides how an estate may be di$ided by a petition %orpartition in case they can not mutually agree in the di$ision. When there are no debts eistingagainst the estate& there is certainly no occasion %or the inter$ention o% an administrator in thesettlement and partition o% the estate among the heirs. When the heirs are all o% law%ul age andthere are no debts& there is no reason why the estate should be burdened with the costs andepenses o% an administrator. )he property belonging absolutely to the heirs& in the absence o%eisting debts against the estate& the administrator has no right to inter$ene in any waywhate$er in the di$ision o% the estate among the heirs. )hey are co+owners o% an undi$idedestate and the law o

  • 8/10/2019 Compiled Cases for spec pro

    39/110

    Held:

    6. ,s to the frst question& we ha$e section 1@ o% the (ode o% (i$il #rocedure pro$iding in partthat Qi% no eecutor is named in the will& or i% a person dies intestate& administration shall begrantedQ etc. )his pro$ision enunciates the general rule that when a person dies lea$ing propertyin the #hilippine Islands& his property should be 9udicially administered and the competent courtshould appoint a qualifed administrator& in the order established in the section& in case thedeceased le%t no will& or in case he had le%t one should he %ail to name an eecutor therein. )hisrule& howe$er& is s