Maloles II v. Phillips, 324 SCRA 172 (2000) Facts: On July 20, 1995 Dr.

Arturo De Santos filed for the ro!ate of his "ill. #e clai$ed he had no co$ ulsory heirs and had na$ed in his "ill as sole le%atee and de&isee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, 'nc.( that he dis osed !y his "ill his ro erties "ith an a ro)i$ate &alue of not less than *2,000,000.00( and that co ies of said "ill "ere in the custody of the na$ed e)ecutri), ri&ate res ondent *acita de los +eyes *hilli s. On Fe!. 1, 199,, -a.ati +/0 1ranch-,1 under 2ud%e 3oros e issued an order %rantin% the etition and allo"in% the "ill, the court found that the testator "as of sound $ind and freely e)ecuted said "ill. Shortly after on Fe!. 2,, 199, Dr. De Santos died *etitioner 4testator5s ne he"6 clai$in% to !e the only son of the deceased5s sister Alicia de santos, filed a $otion for inter&ention as the nearest of .in, and also as a creditor of the deceased. Defendant filed a $otion for the issuance of letters testa$entary in -a.ati 1ranch ,1, !ut then "ithdre" the sa$e. 7ater defendant then filed the $otion in -a.ati +/0 1ranch ,5. *etitoner then filed a $otion for inter&ention also "ith 1ranch ,5, statin% a%ain he "as a full !looded ne he" and that a case already related to the su!2ect $atter "as endin% in 1ranch ,1. Jud%e A!ad Santos, referred the case to 1ranch ,1. -ean"hile Jud%e 3oros e in 1ranch ,1 denied the etitioner5s $otion to inter&ene, and denied ta.in% co%ni8ance of the case for"arded !y 1ranch ,5, !ecause the case in 1ranch ,5 in&ol&ed the 9state of Decent Arturo De Santos, "hile the one in 1ranch ,1 "as filed !y Arturo de Santos #i$self "hen he "as ali&e and had already !een decided !ac. in Fe!. 1, 199,, "hen it allo"ed the "ill. 1ranch ,5 did not "ant to ta.e the case, !ut re&ersed it5s decision and a%ain too. co%ni8ance of the case to e) edite roceedin%s.

'ssues: 1. :hether or not -a.ati, 1ranch ,1 has lost 2urisdiction to roceed "ith the ro!ate roceedin%s u on its issuance of an order allo"in% the "ill of Dr. Arturo de Santos. 2. :hether or not -a.ati, 1ranch ,5 ac;uired 2urisdiction o&er the etition for issuance of letters testa$entary filed !y 4 ri&ate6 res ondent.

<. :hether or not the etitioner, !ein% a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, has a ri%ht to inter&ene and o ose the etition for issuance of letters testa$entary filed !y the res ondent. #eld: 1ranch ,5 no" has 2urisdiction. *etitioner5s contention that that the roceedin%s $ust continue until the estate is fully distri!uted to the la"ful heirs, de&isees, and le%atees of the testator, ursuant to +ule =<, >1 of the +ules of 0ourt is "ithout $erit. 'n cases for the ro!ate of "ills, it is "ell-settled that the authority of the court is li$ited to ascertainin% the e)trinsic &alidity of the "ill, i.e., "hether the testator, !ein% of sound $ind, freely e)ecuted the "ill in accordance "ith the for$alities rescri!ed !y la". /his "as already done in the ante-$orte$ ro!ate of Dr. De Santos5 "ill durin% his lifeti$e. /hus, after the allo"ance of the "ill of Dr. De Santos on Fe!ruary 1,, 199,, there "as nothin% else for 1ranch ,1 to do e)ce t to issue a certificate of allo"ance of the "ill ursuant to +ule =<, >12 of the +ules of 0ourt. *etitioner, "ho defends the order of 1ranch ,5 allo"in% hi$ to inter&ene, cites +ule =<, >1 "hich states: Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. he court first ta!ing cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall e"ercise #urisdiction to the e"clusion of all other courts$ /he a!o&e rule, ho"e&er, actually ro&ides for the &enue of actions for the settle$ent of the estate of deceased ersons. 't could not ha&e !een intended to define the 2urisdiction o&er the su!2ect $atter, !ecause such le%al ro&ision is contained in a la" of rocedure dealin% $erely "ith rocedural $atters. *rocedure is one thin%, 2urisdiction o&er the su!2ect $atter is another. 'ndeed, the 2urisdiction o&er ro!ate roceedin%s and settle$ent of estates "ith a ro)i$ate &alue of o&er *100,000.00 4outside -etro -anila6 or *200,000.00 4in -etro -anila6 !elon%s to the re%ional trial courts. /he different !ranches co$ risin% each court in one 2udicial re%ion do not ossess 2urisdictions inde endent of and inco$ ati!le "ith each other. 't is note"orthy that, althou%h +ule =<, >1 a lies insofar as the &enue of the etition for ro!ate of the "ill of Dr. De Santos is concerned, it does not !ar other !ranches of the sa$e court fro$ ta.in% co%ni8ance of the settle$ent of the estate of the testator after his death. 7astly, re%ardin% etitioner5s clai$ as heir and creditor the 0ourt said that ?/he ri&ate res ondent herein is not an heir or le%atee under the "ill of the decedent Arturo de Santos. @either is he a co$ ulsory heir of the latter. As the only

and nearest collateral relati&e of the decedent, he can inherit fro$ the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a "ill "hich has already !een ro!ated and dis oses of all his ro erties the ri&ate res ondent can inherit only if the said "ill is annulled. #is interest in the decedentAs estate is, therefore, not direct or i$$ediate. #is clai$ to !ein% a creditor of the estate is a !elated one, ha&in% !een raised for the first ti$e only in his re ly to the o osition to his $otion to inter&ene, and, as far as the records sho", not su orted !y e&idence.B /hus, the *etition "as denied.