Spec Pro Cases Part 2docx

7/25/2019 Spec Pro Cases Part 2docx

1/24

Rule 761. Sumilang vs. Ramagosa 21 SCRA 1369

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a petition for probate of the purported last will of Hilarion Ramagosa

instituting petitioner as the sole heir.

Respondents Opposed the same and questioned the due execution.

At the hearing of the petition, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for probate

B! !H" #A$" %A# &"'("&.

Respondents elevated their case to the #) where the Court pointed out that the

respondents did not attack the issue w/ respect to the finding of the lower court that they

have no relationship whatsoever within the 5thdegee as provided by law and are

totally strangers to the estate of the deceased whose will is under probate. THEY

DO NOT ATTE!T TO "HO# THAT THEY HA$E "OE %NTE&E"T %N THE E"TATE

#H%'H ("T )E !&OTE'TED.

%""(E*

#ho are allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding+

HELD:

*(t is a well+settled rule that in order that a person ma be allowed to intervene in a probate

proceeding he mus have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property

to be affected by iteither as executoror as a claimant of the estate

And an ine!ese" #a!$has been "e%ine" asone who would be benefited by theestate such as an heiro!one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor."

&The !eason %o! he !ule e'(lu"ing s!ange!s %!om (onesing he )illis thatthe

courts and the litigants should not be in-ured b the intervention in the proceedings of

persons with no interest in the estate which would entitle them to be heard with relation

thereto.*


2/24

2. *ueva!a vs. *ueva!a 9+ ,hil 2-9

FACTS:

ictorino /uevara executed a will distributing his properties among his children,

stepchildren and his second wife.

Rosario, one of his children, filed for the probate of the will.

"rnesto, his brother, filed for the dismissal of the case AR/('/, among others,

!HA! !H" PROBA!" O0 !H" %(11 HA# B""' BARR"& B2 PR"#)R(P!(O'.

SS/E:

Can a #eiion %o! #!o0ae o% a )ill 0e 0a!!e" 0$ he saue o% limiaions

#!es(!i#ion

HELD:

PROBA!" PRO)""&('/# 'O! BARR"& B2 #!A!!" O0 1($(!A!(O'#.

Reason an" #!e(e"en3cited man cases and foreign cases4!ee(he a##li(a0ili$ o%

he Saue o% Limiaions o #!o0ae #!o(ee"ings4

0e(ause the same(probate proceedings) are established not exclusively in the

interest of the heirs, but primarily for the protection of the testators expressed wishes,

)hi(h a!e enile" o !es#e( as a (onse5uen(e o% his o)ne!shi# an" !igh o%

"is#osiion.

(nasmuch as the probate of wills is required b public polic, the #tate could not

have intended to defeat the same b appling thereto the statute of limitations of action.

!herefore, prescription is not a defense in probate proceedings.


3/24

3. n he mae! o% he #eiion o a##!ove he )ill o% Ru#e!a ,alaganas4 *R

o. 1691-- an 264 2811

FACTS:

Ruperta Palaganas a naturali5ed # )iti5en executed a will in )alifornia before she

died.

(n the said will, she designated her brother 3#"R/(O4 as the executor of her will she

had left in the PH and #.

Respondent 3"R'"#!O4, another brother, filed for the probate of Rupertas will and

his appointment as special administrator.

Petitioners, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition O' !H" /RO'& !HA! !#$

%&'' #*'+ -$ -0$+%N THE !H%,%!!%NE" -* 0#$%N THE (.".

%#$$ & %0 $1$C*$+2

SS/ES:

A LL EEC/TED ;< A F=RE*ER A F=RE* C=/TR< >A< ;E

,R=;ATED THE ,HL,,ESA,THO(-H T HAS =T ;EE ,R=;ATED THE

C=/TR< HERE T AS EEC/TED.

HAT D= THE TER> /RSDCT=AL FACTS >EA AS RE?/RED T= ;E

STATED THE ,ETT= F=R ALL=ACE =F A LL@

HELD:

Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed b foreigners abroad although

the same have not as et been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.A foreign will can be given legal effects in our -urisdiction. Article 678 of the )ivil

)ode states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if madein accordance with the formalities prescribed b the law of the place where he resides, or

according to the formalities observed in his countr.

=u! !ulesrequire merel that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so

far as 9nown to the petitioner:

3a4 the -urisdictional facts;

3b4 the names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of thetestator or decedent;

3c4 the probable value and character of the propert of the estate;3d4 the name of the person for whom letters are praed; and

3e4 if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person havingcustod of it.

/RSDCT=AL FACTS!e%e!


4/24

to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in theprovince where the probate court is sitting,o!if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the

estate he left in such province.

!he rules do not require proof that the foreign will has alread been allowed and

probated in the countr of its execution.


5/24

-. Cuen(o vs. CA 3 SCRA 368

FACTS:

$ariano )uenco died and was survived b his

%idow < P"!(!(O'"R

!wo minor #ons; and

)hildren b first marriage < R"#PO'&"'!#

Respondents filed a petition for letters of administration w= the )ebu court alleging

among other things that )uenco died intestate.

On the other hand, Petitioner filed a petition for probate of the will of )uenco and for

the issuance of letters testamentar in her favor w= the >ue5on )it court.

!he issue raised in this was who between the )ebu court and >ue5on cit court

should ta9e cogni5ance of the case.

!he #) ruled that it should be the >ue5on cit court and explained in the case the

meaning of the phrase to the exclusion of other courts under Rule ?@.

One of the reasons cited b the #) upheld the >) court is that it too9 consideration

of #ection of Rule ?8 and defined the terms -urisdictional facts. !he #) had theopportunit to define such term.

3magulo to haha ewan 9o 9ung ba9it biglang nasingit an. %ala nang futher explanation

biniga lang ung definition. Based m digest sa footnotes sa boo9 nalang4

SS/E:

HAT D= THE TER> /RSDCT=AL FACTS >EA AS RE?/RED T= ;E

STATED THE ,ETT= F=R ALL=ACE =F A LL@

HAT S THE AT/RE =F A ,R=;ATE ,R=CEED*@

HELD:

%ith more reason should the >ue5on )it proceedings be upheld when it is ta9en

into consideration that Rule ?8, section requires that the petition for allowance of a willmust show: *3a4 the3urisdictionalfacts.*

#uch Bu!is"i(ional %a(s* in probate proceedings, as held b the )ourtin 4ernando vs. Crisostomo

* are the death of the decedent,

his residence at the time of his death in the province where the probate

court is sitting,o! if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, his having left his estate in suchprovince."

!his tallies with the established legal concept as restated b $oran that BTheprobateo%

a )ill is a #!o(ee"ing in re.


6/24

The noi(e 0$ #u0li(aion as a #!e!e5uisie o he allo)an(e o% a )ill4 is a

(ons!u(ive noi(e o he )hole )o!l", and when probate is granted, the -udgment of

the court is bindingupon everbod, even against the #tate. The probate of a will by a

court having /urisdiction thereof is conclusive as to its due e0ecution and validity.B


7/24

. Ala0an vs. Cou! o% A##eals *R o. 16821 Se#em0e! 234 288

FACTS:

Respondent filed a petition for the probate of the will of #oledad; alleged that he was theheir of the decedent and the executor of his will.

!he R!) allowed the probate of the will and issued the letters testamentar to therespondent.

$OR" !H" $O'!H# 1A!"R, Petitioners filed for a motion for reopening of the probateproceedings and filed and opposition to the allowance of the will.

Petitioners claimed that the R!) did not acquire -urisdiction over the petition &" !O,

among others, &"0")!(" PB1()A!(O' A'& 1A)C O0 'O!()" !O !H" O!H"R H"(R#,TH/S4 THEY D%D NOT )E'OE A !A&TY TO THE !&O)ATE !&O'EED%N-"

!he R!) denied the motion holding that !H" &")(#(O' 0OR !H" A11O%A')" O0 !H"

%(11 %A# ALREAD< FAL AD EEC/T=R< even before the otion to reopen.

!he )A affirmed.

SS/E:

THE DECS= =F THE ,R=;ATE C=/RT ALL=* THE LL S =T;D* THT= THE ,ETT=ERS ;ECA/SE THE< ERE =T ,ARTES T= THE

,R=;ATE ,R=CEED*S.

HELD:,eiione!s in his (ase a!e misaenin asserting that the are not or have not

become parties to the probate proceedings.

nder the Rules of )ourt, an executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or another person interested in the estate ma, at an time after the death of the testator,petition the court having -urisdiction to have the will allowed. 'otice of the time and place

for proving the will must be published for three 3@4 consecutive wee9s, in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the province, as well as furnished to the designated or other 9nown

heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.

Thus4 i has 0een hel" ha a #!o(ee"ing %o! he #!o0ae o% a )ill is one in

re, such that )ih he (o!!es#on"ing #u0li(aion o% he #eiion+++++the court5s3urisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of

the decedent.@D

,u0li(aion is noi(e o he )hole )o!l"that the proceeding has for its ob-ect to

bar indefinitel all who might be minded to ma9e an ob-ection of an sort against the rightsought to be established.

(t is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a part in thecase and vests the court with -urisdiction to hear and decide it.

Thus4 even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, he$evenuall$ 0e(ame #a!ies he!eo as a (onse5uen(e o% he #u0li(aion o% he

noi(e o% hea!ing.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_156021_2005.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_156021_2005.html#fnt39


8/24

6. Fleume! vs Hi' - ,hil 618

FACTS:

!he special administratior of the estate of Hix appealed the decision of the R!)

dening the probate of the will of the deceased.

!he oppositor contended THAT AS A >ERE S,ECAL AD>STRAT=RG HE S

=T A/TH=RED T= CARR< = THE A,,EAL.

SS/E:

A S,ECAL AD>STRAT=R =F A ESTATE S ,ER>TTED T= A,,EAL

THE ADIERSE DECS= =F THE ,R=;ATE C=/RT.

HELD:

The a##ellan, who appears to have been the moving part in these proceedings4 is

a B#e!son ine!ese" in he allo)an(e o! "isallo)an(e o% a )ill 0$ a Cou! o% Fi!snsan(e,* and

so shoul" 0e #e!mie" o a##eal o he Su#!eme Cou! %!om he"isallo)an(e o% he )ill.


9/24

R/LE 77Allo)an(e o% ill ,!ove" =usi"e o% he ,hili##ens an" A"minis!aion o%

Esae

7. An(hea vs. Dala$gon *R =. 139+6+ /E +4 2886. -98 SCRA 1-8

0acts: #pouses Audre and Richard /uerse, # citi5ens, but residents of Philippines for @E

ears.

!he adopted Cle /uerse Hill. Audre died in 7D?D leaving a will bequething entire estate

to Richard 3executor4. (t was admitted to probate in # court 3$arland4. Att. Ancheta

3petitioner4 was designated as ancillar administrator in Philippines. AudreFs will was also

probated in )0( Ri5al. Richard then married )andelaria &alagon 3respondent4 but died

in7D6. He left will leaving most of properties to respondent.

As ancillar administrator, Att. Ancheta filed special proceedings before R!) $a9ati to

declare Richard and Cle as AudreFs heir. !his is in contrar with AudreFs will instituting

Richard as sole heir.According to Att. Ancheta, this is to protect the interest of Cle. He

filed a pro-ect of partition giving @= of estate with Richard and 7= to Cle.

Respondent disapproved it on the ground that under the law of the #tate of $arland, *a

legac passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the propert sub-ect of the

legac* meaning she gets all RichardFs propert. !rial court ruled for respondent and this

was affirmed b )A. Petitioner comes to #) averring that he acted in good faith in

performing his duties as an ancillar administrator. He maintains that at the time of the

filing of the pro-ect of partition, he was not aware of the relevant laws of the #tate of

$arland, such that the partition was made in accordance with Philippine laws.

(ssue: &id Att. Ancheta performed his dut as ancillar administrator in good faithG

Ruling:'o. nder the Rules on #pecial Proceedings,when a will is allowed abroad, thetestatorFs estate, after the pament of -ust debts and expenses of administration, shall be

disposed of according to such will, so far as such will ma operate upon it;

%hile foreign laws do not prove themselves in our -urisdiction and our courts are not

authori5ed to ta9e -udicial notice of them, petitioner, as ancillar administrator of Audres

estate, was dut+bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the #tate of $arland.

How can petitioner honestl presume that Philippine laws appl when as earl as the

reprobate of Audres will before the trial court in 7D6, it was alread brought to fore that

Audre was a .#. citi5en, domiciled in the #tate of $arland.He had all the legal resources

to determine the applicable law. (t was incumbent upon him to exercise his functions as

ancillar administrator with reasonable diligence, and to discharge the trust reposed on himfaithfull. Because of his actions, the will of Audre was disregarded b the trial court.


10/24

R/LE 7+Lee!s Tesamena!$ an" A"minis!aionG ho an" o hom ssue"

+. Suna$ vs Couang(oSuna$ *R no. 1+383 =(o0e! 184 2812

Bac9ground: R!)+Bulacan issued letters of administration to "milio #unta ((( 3petitioner4.

)A reversed it and grants it to (sabel )o-uangco+#unta 3respondent4. On appeal to #),both are appointed as co+administrator of estate of )ristina Aguinaldo+#unta 3decedent4

considering "milioFs demonstrable interest in the sub-ect estate.

0acts: Respondent filed this $otion for Reconsideration question #)Fs decision to issue -oint

letters of administration to "milio #unta ((( and respondent over estate of decedent, their

grandmother. (sabel is legitimate while "milio is illegitimate.

#pecificall, she bewails that: 374 "milio ((( is an illegitimate grandchild and therefore, not

an heir of the decedent; 34 corollar thereto, "milio (((, not being a *next of 9in* of the

decedent, has no interest in the estate to -ustif his appointment as administrator thereof;

3@4 "milio (((s actuations since his appointment as administrator b the R!) on D 'ovember

EE7 emphaticall demonstrate the validit and wisdom of the order of preference in#ection 8, Rule ?6 of the Rules of )ourt; and 34 there is no basis for -oint administration as

there are no *opposing parties or factions to be represented.*

(ssue: %ho, as between "milio ((( and (sabel, is better qualified to act as administrator of

the decedents estateG

Held=Ruling: (sabel. !he general rule in the appointment of administrator of the estate of a

decedent is laid down in #ection 8, Rule ?6 of the Rules of )ourt:

#"). 8. %hen and to whom letters of administration granted. < (f no executor is named in

the will, or thee'e(uo! o! e'e(uo!s a!e in(om#eent, refuse the trust, or fail to give

bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

3a4 !o the surviving husband or wife, as the case ma be, or ne' o% in4 o! 0oh4 in the

discretion of the court4 or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of 9in,

!e5uess o have a##oine"4 i% (om#een an" )illing o se!veG

!extuall, the rule lists a sequence to be observed, an o!"e! o% #!e%e!en(e4 in the

appointment of an administrator. !his order of preference, which categoricall see9s out the

surviving spouse, the next of 9in and the creditors in the appointment of an administrator,

has been reinforced in -urisprudence.

!he paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the estate of a

decedent is the prospective administrators interest in the estate.

nder certain circumstances and for various reasons well+settled in Philippine and American

-urisprudence, we have upheld the appointment of co+administrators: 374 to have the

benefits of their -udgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented;

34 where -ustice and equit demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the

management of the estate of the deceased; 3@4 where the estate is large or, from an

cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle;34 to have all interested persons satisfied


11/24

and the representatives to wor9 in harmon for the best interests of the estate; and when a

person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person

associated with him in the office.

)ontrar to the assumption made in the &ecision that "milio (((s demonstrable interest in

the estate ma9es him a suitable co+administrator thereof, the evidence reveals that "milio

((( has turned out to be an unsuitable administrator of the estate. Respondent (sabel points

out that after "milio (((s appointment as administrator of the sub-ect estate in EE7, he has

not loo9ed after the welfare of the sub-ect estate and has actuall acted to the damage and

pre-udice thereof as evidenced b the following:

7. "milio (((, despite several orders from the probate court for a complete inventor,

omitted in the partial inventorieshe filed therewith properties of the estate.

. "milio ((( did not ta9e action on both occasions against 0edericos settlement of the

decedents estate which ad-udicated to himself a number of properties properl belonging to

said estate.

!he remove "milio as co+administrator because he is neglecting his duties.

9. Ienu!a vs. Ienu!a 168 SCRA +18 19++

Ce: will b decedent, pretirition 3omit compulsor heir4 so a new admin was appointed

0acts:&ecedent /regorio entura filed a petition for the probate of his will before )0( 'ueva

"ci-a in 7DI@. (n the said will, the appellant $aria entura, although an illegitimate child,

received all the inheritance and was also appointed b the testator to be the executrix of his

will and the administratrix of his estate. 'othing was left to his legitimate children $ercedes

and /regoria entura. He died in 7DI@.

$aria then was appointed executrix and the corresponding letters testamentar was issued

in her favor in 7DII and she filed her accounts of administration for the ears 7DII to

7D8E. $ercedes and /regoria entura and their respective spouses 3appellees4 opposedsaid account of administration alleging that the were declared b another civil case as the

legitimate children of decedent. (t was denied b )0(.

!he appeal in the )A, both filing -oint motions to remove the executrix $aria entura are:

374 that she is grossl incompetent; 34 that she has maliciousl and purposel concealed

certain properties of the estate in the inventor; 3@4 that she is merel an illegitimate

daughter who can have no harmonious relations with the appellees; 34 that the executrix

has neglected to render her accounts and failed to compl with the Order of the )ourt. )A

finding that the executrix $aria entura has squandered the funds, removed her as

executrix and administratrix of the estate and in her place $ercedes entura and /regoria

entura are hereb appointed -oint a tratrices.(ssue: %hether or not the removal of $aria entura as executrix is legall -ustified.

Ruling: 2es. !here is preterition in this case and this shall annul the institution of heirs and

as a result, intestac follows, thereb rendering the previous appointment of $aria entura

as executrix moot and academic. !his would now necessitate the appointment of another

administrator. nder #ection 8, Rule ?6 of the Rules of )ourt: (f .. a person dies intestate, a

petition shall be granted:


12/24

3a4 !o the surviving husband or wife, as the case ma be orne' o% in4 o! 0oh, in the

discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or both, in the

discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of 9in,

requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;*

(n the case at bar, the surviving spouse of the deceased /regorio entura is Juana )ardona

while the next of 9in are: $ercedes and /regoria entura and $aria and $iguel entura.

!he *next of 9in* has been defined as those persons who are entitled under the statute of

distribution to the decedentFs propert. (t is generall said that *the nearest of 9in, whose

interest in the estate is more preponderant, is preferred in the choice of administrator.

FAmong members of a class the strongest ground for preference is the amount or

preponderance of interest. As between next of 9in, the nearest of 9in is to be preferred.*


13/24

18. Iillamo! vs. Cou! o% A##eals 162 SCRA 7- 19++

0acts: !wo special proceedings cases were filed b heirs of Rufino and Barbara. Both of

them were children of spouses ictor )ortes and $aria )astaneda. 0or heirs of Rufino, it is

the estate of Rufino )ortes while for the heirs of Barbara, it is the estate of

Bartolome,"ustaquio and his children.

#ince both involves the same properties, the two heirs agreed to settle and ad-udicate

themselves the properties. After six months of negotiation, or on &ecember ?, 7D8, a

Pro-ect of Partition was executed b #ixta )eni5a 3daughter in law of Barbara and husband

of "ustaquio4 and 0ather )amomot, in his capacit as administrator of the "state of

Bartolome )ortes 3son of Barbara4, assisted b their counsels and (reneo and Paula )ortes

illamor 3children of Rufino4, assisted b Att. /audencio Jue5an, on the other. On April 7,

7D6, Judge #. ). $oscoso approved the pro-ect of partition, and on #eptember @E, 7D6,

the administrators delivered the seven parcels of land to (reneo and Paula illamor. #pecial

Proceedings 'os. 8 and @@ were ordered closed and terminated b Judge 0lorentino

#aguin on 'ovember I, 7DI@. "ntr of -udgment was made on $arch 76, 7DI.

3PAR!(!(O' APPRO"&4. 'icanor, son of "ustaquio and #ixta, was not given an propert in

the partition. (t was revealed in letters he had written that he might renounced his

inheritance since he being a priest, he too9 a vow of povert.

$eanwhile, upon the death of #ixta )eni5a on Jul 6, 7D6, one )ristina )eni5a, sister of

respondent &aniela )eni5a rot instituted #pecial Proceedings 'o. @8+R for the

administration of the estate of #ixta )eni5a. One "scolastico )eni5a, brother of respondent,

was appointed special administrator. !he latterFs appointment, however, was revo9ed on

0ebruar E, 7DI upon petition of 0r. 'icanor )ortes through his counsel, Att. 0ermin 2ap

on Januar 7, 7DI, and in his stead, ictorio Pere5 was appointed the special

administrator. (n this proceedings, the nephews and nieces of #ixta )eni5a, including hereinrespondent, praed that the be declared the sole and onl forced heirs of #ixta )eni5a,

although at the time, 0r. 'icanor )ortes, the onl surviving child of #ixta )eni5a, was still

alive.

On October 7, 7DI, 0r. )ortes executed a power of attorne before the ice+)onsul of the

Republic of the Philippines in $adrid, #pain, constituting and appointing 0r. &iosdado

)amomot as his attorne+in+fact and giving him the power to appear for me and in m

behalf in #pecial Proceedings 'o. @8+R

On August 76, 7DII, the court, through Judge )lementino &ie5, denied the motion of the

nephews and nieces of #ixta )eni5a to be declared her heirs and declared 0r. 'icanor )ortes

as the onl and universal heir of #ixta )eni5a. 3'O!": Parang gusto ma9isawsaw nung

relatives ni 'icanor who were not related to the )ortes4

(n the complaint, respondent alleged inter alia that upon learning of the death of 0r. 'icanor

)ortes, some of his nearest of 9in who are his surviving first cousins, the )eni5as Kall from

the side of #ixta )eni5aL initiated #pecial Proceedings 'o. @E8+R for the settlement of the

estate of the deceased mon9; that prior to and in the course of initiating said proceedings,


14/24

the surviving first cousins came upon documents showing that 0r. )ortes during his absence

from the Philippines to pursue a monastic life was deprived of his inheritance b fraud,

stealth and stratagem perpetrated b Paula and (reneo illamor.

Petitioners, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the cause of

action is barred b prior -udgment and b the statute of limitations.

On $a 7@, 7D?7, a receiver was appointed b the court in the person of Att. Andres

!aneo, Branch )ler9 of )ourt. After trial, on Januar 7, 7D?, the court rendered -udgment

against the petitioners holding that (reneo and Paula illamor too9 advantage of the

helplessness of #ixta )eni5a .#o the R!) annulled the original partition of properties ruling

fraud was used to procure it. )A uphold the R!) ruling

(ssue: #hould the original pro-ect of partition be annulled because it was attended b fraudG

Held: )ourt of Appeals, li9e the trial court, totall ignored the letters of 0r. 'icanor )ortes

disclaiming ownership and ac9nowledging the fact that petitioners and=or their

predecessors+in+interest are the owners and possessors of the lands in question, which

exhibits could have decided outright all the issues that 0r. )ortes had personal 9nowledge of

#pecial Proceedings 'os. 8+) and @@+) and that the predecessors+in+interest of

petitioners did not commit fraud against him. (n his testimon, 0r. &iosdado )amomot

declared categoricall that he informed 0r. 'icanor )ortes about #pecial Proceedings and

that he sent him a cop of the pro-ect of partition.He explained that as administrator of the

estate of 0r. Bartolome )ortes, he encountered trouble with the administrator. !he

testimon of 0r. &iosdado )amomot, however, is too detailed and straightforward to be a

mere product of concoction or fabrication or a device to cover+up the collusion imputed to

him b the trial court. 0urthermore, said testimon is corroborated b other evidence on

record that sustains its veracit. 0r. )ortesF letters and &eed of )onveance show beond

an iota of doubt that he was 9ept posted on the developments in the Philippines. He 9now

that his mother received some lands as *share* and that )andelario had acquired lands. Healso 9new the succession of ownership of the lands to which he succeeded as sole heir of his

mother in #pecial Proceedings.

R"A1 (##": )ould strangers to decedents be appointed as administrators of their estateG

Held: %e do not consider as *intriguing* the observation of the lower court and concurred in

b the )ourt of Appeals that in both #pecial Proceedings in question, the administrators

appointed were complete strangers to the decedents. !here is nothing repulsive in this nor

is this an indicium of fraud and collusion as found b the courts. #ection 8 of the )ode of

)ivil Procedure enumerates the persons who can act as executors and administrators. (t

provides that in case the persons who have the preferential right to be appointed are not

competent or are unwilling to serve, administration ma be granted to such other person asthe court ma appoint.

'ote: 'icanor )ortes could have appointed her surviving first cousins 3the petitioners in this

case4 but he chose and preferred a stranger, 0r. &iosdado )amomot as his attorne+in+fact

to ta9e charge of his and his motherFs affairs. And even more intriguing is the fact that in

the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of his mother, he too9 steps to have the

appointment of "scolastico )eni5a.


15/24

( have to admit, naggulo nga case dato. As in ( need to write all the parties famil tree to

get the picture. $ain point here is though there is an order of preference in choosing

executors, even strangers could become one.

11. Leon vs >anu%a(u!e!s Li%e nsu!an(e (o. 98 ,hil -9 191

0acts: &ecedent Basil Butler, resident of Philippines, died 7DI in the # leaving a will

probated in # court. (n the residual clause of his will, he put all his mones, securities and

valuable propert to a trust to be held b his trustee Ross. Ross then put all the mone into

an annuit he bought with $anufacturers 1ife (nsurance designating her wife $ercedes &e

1eon3petitioner4 as beneficiar. &ecedent did this since he thin9s his wife might squander

the said mone.

Petitioner, wanting to get hold all the mone invested in annuit filed the will for probate

before )0( $anila 3probate court4. #he then filed a motion to compel $anufacturers 1ife

(nsurance $anila Branch manager to render accounting of the funds. (t was denied b the

probate court.

(ssue: &oes the probate court have -urisdiction over funds in questionG

Held: 'o. !he funds in question are outside the -urisdiction of the probate court of $anila.

Having been invested in an annuit in )anada under a contract executed in that countr,

)anada is the situs of the mone. !here is no showing or allegation that the funds have

been transferred or removed to the $anila Branch. nder the Rules of )ourt , Mwhen a will is

thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentar, or letters of administration with the

will annexed, and such letters testamentar or of administration, shall extend to all the

estate of the testator in the Philippines.N Onl those properties located in the Philippines

could be disposed.

"ven if the mone were in the hands of the $anila Branch, et it no longer forms part of

Butlers estate and is beond the control of the court. (t has passed completel into the

hands of the compan in virtue of a contract of annuit.

12.Re#u0li( o% he ,hili##ines vs >a!(os *R =S. 138371 an" 138+ Augus -

2889. 683 SCRA 3-+

0acts: R!) Pasig )it, acting as a probate court, issued an Order in 7DD8, granting letters

testamentar in solidum to respondents 0erdinand R. $arcos (( and (melda !rinidad

Romualde5+$arcos as executors of the last will and testament of the late 0erdinand ".

$arcos. )ommissioner 1iwawa in5ons+)hato of the Bureau of (nternal Revenue is

authori5ed to continue her functions as #pecial Administrator of the "state of 0erdinand"dralin $arcos. !he Republic, acting for the B(R wants to revo9e the said letters

testamentar. (t anchored its opposition to the grant of letters testamentar to respondents,

on the following grounds: 374 want of integrit, and 34 conviction of an offense involving

moral turpitude. Petitioner contends that respondents have been convicted of a number of

casesand, hence, should be characteri5ed as one without integrit, or at the least, with

questionable integrit


16/24

&espite this, R!) affirmed the said order. )A affirmed the said ruling of the R!).

(ssue: %hether or not respondents are incompetent to serve as executors of the will of

0erdinand $arcosG

Ruling: 'o. Rule ?6 of the Rules of )ourt defines who are incompetent to serve as

executors, to wit:

3c4(s in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of trust b reason of

drun9enness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrit, or b reason

of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.

However, except for petitioner Republics allegation of want of integrit on the part of (melda

!rinidad Romualde5+$arcos and 0erdinand Romualde5 $arco ((, named executors in the last

will and testament, so as to render them *incompetent* to serve as executors, the )ourt

sees at this time, no evidence on record, oral or documentar, to substantiate and support

the said allegation.

!hough both were convicted b the lower court of tax evasion, the were acquitted b the

#upreme )ourt. !he filing of a *fraudulent return with intent to evade tax* is a crimeinvolving moral turpitude as it entails willfulness and fraudulent intent on the part of the

individual. !he same, however, cannot be said for *failure to file a return* where the mere

omission alread constitutes a violation. !hus, this )ourt holds that even if the conviction of

respondent $arcos (( is affirmed, the same not being a crime involving moral turpitude

cannot serve as a ground for his disqualification.

(n (n re in5on, the term *moral turpitude* is considered as encompassing *everthing

which is done contrar to -ustice, honest, or good morals.*

!he are both competent to act as executor of the will.


17/24

HERS =FF >ESA vs. HERS =F D=>*= FA

*.R. o. 281+16 A#!il +4 2813

The Fa(s

!he late spouses $esina during their lifetime, bought from the spouses 0ian two parcels ofland on installment.

pon the death of the spouses 0ian, their heirs


18/24

the motion of a part or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. (f the plaintiff refuses toimplead an indispensable part despite the order of the court, that court ma dismiss the

complaint for the plaintiffs failure to compl with the order. !he remed is to implead thenon+part claimed to be indispensable.


19/24

A>ELA *ARCA?/A= vs. >A. L=/RDES ;ELE

/.R. 'o. 76D77 Jul @7, E7@

FACTS

"liseo died intestate on 7 &ecember 7DD.

3"lise4, represented b her mother, 31ourdes4, filed a Petition for 1etters of Administrationbefore the Regional !rial )ourt 3R!)4. "lise claims that she is the natural child of "liseo

having been conceived and born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to

marr each other. !o prove her filiation to the decedent, "lise, among others, attached tothe Petition for 1etters of Administration her )ertificate of 1ive Birth signed b "liseo as her

father.

!he petitioners opposed the issuance of letters of administration. !he averred that there

are no factual and legal bases for "lise to be appointed administratix of "liseos estate.

R!) directed the issuance of 1etters of Administration to "lise upon posting the necessar

bond.

)A affirmed the decision of R!).

SS/E

%O' "1(#" >(AO' HA# A'2 ('!"R"#! (' !H" P"!(!(O' 0OR 1"!!"R# O0A&$('(#!RA!(O'.

HELD

2"#.

#ection of Rule ?D provides that a petition for 1etters of Administration must be filed b

an interested person, thus:

#ec. . )ontents of petition for letters of administration. A petition for letters of

administration must be filed b an interested person and must show, so far as 9nown to thepetitioner:

3a4 !he -urisdictional facts;

3b4 !he names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences of the

creditors, of the decedent;

3c4 !he probable value and character of the propert of the estate;

3d4 !he name of the person for whom letters of administration are praed.

But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.

An *interested part,* in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate,such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor.

(n the instant case, "lise, as a compulsor heir who stands to be benefited b the

distribution of "liseos estate, is deemed to be an interested part. %ith the overwhelming

evidence on record produced b "lise to prove her filiation to "liseo. )ertainl, the right of"lise to be appointed administratix of the estate of "liseo is on good grounds. (t is founded

on her right as a compulsor heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her legitimate after the


20/24

debts of the estate are satisfied.DHaving a vested right in the distribution of "liseos estateas one of his natural children, "lise can rightfull be considered as an interested part within

the purview of the law.


21/24

HLAD= IS CA

FACTS:!he well+9nown sugar magnate Roberto #. Benedicto died intestate on 7I $aEEE. He was survived b his wife, private respondent Julita and his onl daughter. At the

time of his death, there were two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving the

petitioners.

Julita filed with the R!) of $anila a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in

her favor. !he $anila R!) issued an order appointing private respondent as administrator ofthe estate of her deceased husband, and issuing letters of administration in her favor.

Petitioners filed with the $anila R!) a $anifestation=$otion "x Abundanti )autela,KDLpraing that the be furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the

intestate proceedings. Private respondent opposed the manifestation=motion, disputing thepersonalit of petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings of her husband.

R!) issued an order dening the manifestation=motion, on the ground that petitioners arenot interested parties within the contemplation of the Rules of )ourt to intervene in the

intestate proceedings.

!he petition argued in general that petitioners had the right to intervene in the intestate

proceedings of Roberto Benedicto, the latter being the defendant in the civil cases thelodged with the Bacolod R!).

)A affirmed the decision of R!).

SS/E:%O' petitioners are interested parties to warrant their intervention in the intestate

proceedings.

HELD: 2"# petitioners are interested parties but the dont have the general right tointervene.

Petitioners interest in the estate of Benedicto ma be inchoate interests, but the are viableinterests nonetheless. %e are mindful that the Rules of #pecial Proceedings allows not -ust

creditors, but also an person interested or persons interested in the estate variousspecified capacities to protect their respective interests in the estate. Anbod with a

contingent claim based on a pending action for quasi+delict against a decedent ma bereasonabl concerned that b the time -udgment is rendered in their favor, the estate of the

decedent would have alread been distributed, or diminished to the extent that the-udgment could no longer be enforced against it.


22/24

%hile there is no general right to intervene on the part of the petitioners, the ma beallowed to see9 certain praers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitl provided for

under the Rules, if the praer or relief sought is necessar to protect their interest in theestate, and there is no other modalit under the Rules b which such interests can be

protected.


23/24

=CTAI= S. >AL=LES 4 vs. ,ACTA DE L=S RE


24/24

)ompulsor heirs are limited to the testatorFs

374 1egitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents andascendants;

34 (n default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their

legitimate children and descendants;

3@4 !he widow or widower;

34 Ac9nowledged natural children, and natural children b legal fiction;

3I4 Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 6? of the )ivil )ode.76

Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsor heir who ma have been preteritedin the testatorFs will.

'or does he have an right to intervene in the settlement proceedings based on hisallegation that he is a creditor of the deceased. #ince the testator instituted or named an

executor in his will, it is incumbent upon the )ourt to respect the desires of the testator.

Onl if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond mathe court appoint other persons to administer the estate.E 'one of these circumstances is

present in this case.

Documents

Spec Pro Cases Part 2docx