LIMJOCO V.

INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRAGANTE

the estate of Pedro O. Fragrante should be considered an artificial
or juridical person for the purposes of the settlement and
distribution of his estate which, of course, include the exercise
during the judicial administration thereof of those rights and the
fulfillment of those obligations of his which survived after his death
Ventura vs. Hon Militante
Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party
plaintiff in a court action. A deceased person does not have
such legal entity as is necessary to bring action so much so
that a motion to substitute cannot lie and should be denied
by the court. An action begun by the decedents estate
cannot be said to have been begun by a legal person, since
an estate is not a legal entity.

Ermac, et. al. v. Medelo, et. al., 64 SCRA 358, G.R. No. L32281,
The policy of the law is to terminate proceedings for the settlement
of the estate of deceased persons with the least loss of time. it is
not proper to delay the summary settlement of a deceased
person just because an heir or a third person claims that
certain properties do not belong to the estate but to
him. Such claim must be ventilated in an independent action, and
the probate court should proceed to the distribution of the
estate, if there are no other legal obstacles to it, for after
all, such distribution must always be subject to the results
of the suit. For the protection of the claimant the appropriate step
is to have the proper annotation of lis pendens entered.

ALABAN v. CA
1. Probate of a will is considered action in rem
a. Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or
legatee named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate may, at any time after the death of the
testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have

the will allowed. Notice of the time and place for proving
the will must be published for three (3) consecutive
weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province as well as furnished to the designated or other
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
b. Petitioners became parties due to the publication of the
notice of hearing
2. Petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure
to comply with the substantive requisites,
a. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law
independent of the case where the judgment sought to
be annulled was rendered
b. PURPOSE: to have the final and executory judgment set
aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation.
DE GUZMAN v. ANGELES DOCTRINE: The requirement of a
hearing and the notification to all the known heirs and other
interested parties as to the date thereof is essential to the validity
of the proceeding for the appointment of an administrator "in order
that no person may be deprived of his right or property without due
process of law.

notice through publication of the petition for the settlement

of the estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional, the
absence of which makes court orders affecting other
persons, subsequent to the petition void and subject to
annulment.
A special administrator has been defined as the
"representative of decedent appointed by the
probate court to care for and preserve his estate
until an executor or general administrator is
appointed
Musa, et. al. v. Hon Moson, et. al., -. DOCTRINE: Pres.
Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines, explicitly provides that
exclusive original jurisdiction, in matters of settlement of the
estate of deceased Muslims, belong to Sharia District
Courts.

MONTAER v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, SC does not agree

with the contention of the petitioners that the district court does
not have jurisdiction over the case because of an allegation in their
answer with a motion to dismiss that Montaer, Sr. is not a Muslim.
All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the
estate of deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of
administration or appointment of administrators or executors
regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the property
shall be under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sharia
District Courts (Article 143(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1083,
otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines)
In the matter of the intestate estate of the late Kaw Singco,
SY OA, administratrix vs. CO HO, oppositor and appellant
RESIDENCE OF DECEASED IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS IS A MATTER
OF VENUE AND NOT OF JURISDICTION. , the place of residence of
the deceased is not an element of jurisdiction over the
subject matter but merely of venue. And it is upon this ground
that in the new Rules of Court the province where the estate of a
deceased person shall be settled is properly called "venue

presence in that place and also an intention to make it

ones domicile. Since a congressman has his residence (or
domicile) therein as the term is construed in relation to
election laws, necessarily, he is also deemed to have had
his residence therein for purposes of venue for filing
personal actions.
Fule, et al v. C.A., et al;
the place of residence of the deceased in settlement of
estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of
administration does not constitute an element of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is merely constitutive of
venue. And it is upon this reason that the Revised Rules of
Court properly considers the province where the estate of a
deceased person shall be settled as "venue."

EXCLUSIONARY RULE : The Rules of Court likewise provide that

the Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of
a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
Courts (Rule 73, sec. 1).

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE

DECEASED ANDRES EUSEBIO V. EUSEBIO
Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had always
been domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. It is well settled that
domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely
for one owns health even if coupled with knowledge that one will
never again be able, on account of illness, to return home. Having
resided for over seventy years in Pampanga, the presumption is
that Andres retained such domicile.
The requisites for a change of domicile include (1) capacity
to choose and freedom of choice, (2) physical presence at
the place chosen, (3) intention to stay therein permanently.

CAYETANO v. CA

Saludo vs Amex

IN THE MATTER FOR THE DECLARATION OF WILLIAM GUE

DOCTRINE: a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively
dead, because he had been unheard from in seven years, being a
presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot

. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an

inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily

Cebu court could not be held to have acted without jurisdiction or

with grave abuse of jurisdiction in declining to take cognizance of
the intestate petition and deferring to the Quezon City court.
Necessarily, neither could the Quezon City court be deemed to
have acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and acting
on the probate petition since under Rule 73, section 1, the Cebu
court must first take cognizance over the estate of the decedent
and must exercise jurisdiction to exclude all other courts, which the
Cebu court declined to do. Furthermore, as is undisputed, said rule
only lays down a rule of venue and the Quezon City court
undisputably had at least equal and coordinate jurisdiction over the
estate.

reach the stage of finality or become final." (prima facie

presumption only)

REP. OF THE PHIL v. CA and HON. JUDGE MADRONA There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required,
and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the Family Code,
not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal
for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a
summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from
the trial courts order sufficed.

EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA V. CAROLINA VDA. DE

FIGURACION, ET. AL.,
Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their
fathers estate to settlement because the determination of these
expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.
In estate settlement proceedings, there is a proper procedure for
the accounting of all expenses for which the estate must answer. If
it is any consolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of
the properties may take possession thereof even before the
settlement of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned
on the payment of the estates obligations.

the trial court made no error in converting

petition to an action for judicial partition.

Socorros

Petition for the presumption of death of Nicolai Szatraw.

CONSUELO SORS, petitioner-appellant.
In this case, there is no right to be enforced nor is there a
remedy prayed for by the petitioner against her absent
husband.
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs. JOSEPHINE LUCERO
A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;...
With this, it is evidently premature to presume that Lucero is
dead since the four year time has not yet expired.
Also, the Lloyds of London admittedly that their decision was
merely based on presumption since even the whereabouts
of the vessel remains unknown.
Even the Decision of the NSB ordering payment of death
benefits to the heirs of some of the crew must have been
predicated upon a presumption of death of the crew
members concerned.
Thus, He is considered to be still working entitling his
spouse to allotment until the vessel returns or until it is
officially declared totally lost, or until the presumption of
his death becomes effective the burden of proving that he is
alive is shifted to his wife for purposes of continuing her allotment.

Avelino vs. Ca
Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court which allows heirs to
divide the estate among themselves without the need of delay and
risks of being dissipated. Where the more expeditious remedy
of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs or the
majority of them may not be compelled to submit to
administration proceedings. In this case, all the heirs, with
the exception of Socorro, agreed to judicial partition as
they see it to be the more convenient method. There is no
merit to the contention of Socorro that a partition cannot
be had because the extent of the estate is not yet
determined. The extent of the estate can actually be
determined during the partition proceedings. Therefore,

FAUSTINO REYES V. ENRIQUEZ AND SPOUSES FERNANDEZ

- An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong
- A special proceeding, on the other hand, is a remedy by
which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact.
The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest
is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court.
A real party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the avails
thereof
-

, this Court has consistently ruled that a declaration

of heirship is improper in an ordinary civil action
since the matter is within the exclusive competence
of the court in a special proceeding.
As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case
for there is a lack of cause of action when a case is
instituted by parties who are not real parties in
interest.

In the Matter of the Declaration of the Civil Status of:

LOURDES G. LUKBAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee

. It is, therefore, clear that that a judicial declaration that a person

is presumptively dead, because he had been unheard from in seven
years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary
proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final.

The declaration of absence made in accordance with the

provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to
enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the
administration of the estate of the absentee. For the
celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that
the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive
years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse
present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that
each former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse
present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage

SEBIAL v. SEBIAL
Indeed, one of the lower court's omissions was its failure to
ascertain by preponderance of evidence the actual value of the
estate, if there was still an estate to be administered. The approval
of the amended inventory was not such a determination.
No useful purpose would be served by dismissing the petition
herein and ordering that a new petition for summary settlement be
filed. Inasmuch as a regular administrator had been appointed and
a notice to creditors had been issued and no claims were filed, the

probate court could still proceed summarily and expeditiously to

terminate the proceeding.

After receiving evidence, the probate court should decide whether

there are still any assets of the estate that can be partitioned and,
if so, to effect the requisite partition and distribution.

Pedrosa v. Court of Appeals (2001)

Section 4, Rule 74 provides for a two year prescriptive period
(1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of
the extrajudicial partition, and in addition (2) when the provisions of
Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with, i.e., that all
the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the
extrajudicial settlement or are represented by themselves
or through guardians. Petitioner, as the records confirm, did
not participate in the extrajudicial partition. Patently then,
the two-year prescriptive period is not applicable in her case. The
applicable prescriptive period here is four (4) years as provided in
Gerona vs. De Guzman-[The action to annul] a deed of
"extrajudicial settlement" upon the ground of fraud...may be filed
within four years from the discovery of the fraud.

GRIMM ROBERTS V. JUDGE LEONIDAS

A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died
with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed"
The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate
of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate
proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated
with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate
proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
UNION BANK v. SANTIBANEZ

there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after

the will has been probated by the probate court. This is
especially because when the joint agreement executed by
Edmund and Florence partitioning the tractors among
themselves were executed, there was already a pending
proceeding for the probate of their late fathers
holographic will covering the said tractors. Thus the
probate court had already acquired jurisdiction over the
said tractors which they cant be divested of. Any
extrajudicial agreement needs court approval.

No need to institute a special proceeding . Leonila, believing rightly

or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugals estate, executed
the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication, which is an exception to
the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it
should be judicially administered and the competent court should
appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6,
Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed
to name an executor therein.
Maloto v. Court of Appeals

PEREIRA v. CA
GENERAL RULE:
when a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially
administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified
administrator
EXCEPTION:
when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from
the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property
without instituting the judicial administration or applying for
the appointment of an administrator.

ANCOG vs. CA
Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. No
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has
not participated therein or had no notice thereof

Remedios (sister) NUGUID V. NUGUID (parents)

a case of preterition of compulsory heirs (parents) thus the will is
null and void. (only one institution was written in the will)
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the
forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not
mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are neither
instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.
Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran

No, there was no revocation. For a valid revocation to occur,

the 'corpus' and 'animus' must concur, one without the other will
not produce a valid revocation. The physical act of destruction of a
will must come with an intention to revoke (animus revocandi). In
this case, there's paucity of evidence to comply with the said
requirement. The paper burned was not established to be the will
and the burning though done under her express direction was not
done in her presence.
Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction, in this case
the burning of the will, does not constitute an effective revocation,
unless it is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the
testator. Since animus is a state of mind, it has to be accompanied
by an overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating or
cancelling done by the testator himself or by another under his
express direction and presence.
MANINANG v. CA

Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the

forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not
mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither
instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.
Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heirs of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized
by law.
SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION SIOSON v.
CA

The probation of the will is essential in order for Remedios to have a

cause of action against petitioners. Article 838 of the Civil Code
states that [N]o will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Court. Thus, until admitted to probate, a will has no effect
whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder. And since the
probate court has not admitted Catalinas last will, Remedios has
not acquired any right under the Last Will.

instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Insofar as the

widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not
ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory
heir. However, the same thing cannot be said of the legally adopted
daughter. Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the adopted person the same
rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and
makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter

ACAIN v. CA
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the
forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not
mentioned therein, or though mentioned, they are neither
Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental
Testate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. In
accordance with the settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction,
testate proceedings for the Settlement of the estate of a deceased
person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same
purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of
intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is
found that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the
probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even
if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the
latter being required to render final account and turn over the
estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed.
This, however, is understood to be without prejudice, that should
the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding
shall continue as an intestacy.

Garcia v. Vasquez

G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969

The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New
Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or
incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the contents
of the will for him to be able to have the opportunityto
object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with
his wishes.

The testimony of her opthalmologist established that

notwithstanding an operation to remove her cataract and being
fitted with the lenses, this did not improve her vision. Her vision
remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for
reading. There was no evidence that her vision improved at
the time of the execution of the 2nd will. Hence, she was
incapable of reading her own will. The admission of the will
to probate is therefor erroneous.
Teotico vs Del Val
well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to
intervene in a probate proceeding is that he must have an interest
in the estate, will or in the property to be affected by either as
executor or as a claimant of the estate and be benefited by such as
an heir or one who has a claim against it as creditor. Under the
terms of the will, defendant has no right to intervene because she
has no such interest in the estate either as heir, executor or
administrator because it did not appear therein any provision
designating her as heir/ legatee in any portion of the estate. She
could have acquired such right if she was a legal heir of the
deceased but she is not under the CIVIL CODE.

Hence, defendant has no right to intervene either as testamentary

or as legal heir in the probate proceeding.

BUENAVENTURA v .RAMOS

THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EDMOND RUIZ,

Section 714 to 722 of Act No. 190 provide when an executor

or administrator of the estate of a deceased person may sell
the property of the estate, both real and personal. Section
714, provides, among other things, that when the personal
estate of the deceased is not sufficient to pay the debts and
charges of administration without injuring the business of
those interested, and when the testator has not otherwise
made sufficient provision for the payment of debts and
charges against the estate, the court, on application of the
executor or administrator, with the consent and approbation,
in writing, of the heirs, devisees, and legatees, residing in
the Philippine Islands, may grant a license to sell, for that
purpose, in lieu of personal estate, if it clearly appears that
such sale of real estate would be beneficial to the person
interested, and will not defeat any devise of land

Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and family. The widow and minor or

incapacitated children of a deceased person, during the settlement of the
estate, shall receive therefrom under the direction of the court, such
allowance as are provided by law.

In the matter of the Estate of Charles C. Rear,

deceased. J.J. WILSON,

Luzon Surety vs. Quebar

Section 1 of Rule 81 the administrator/executor to put up a bond for
the purpose of indemnifying the creditors, heirs,legatees and the
estate. It is conditioned upon the faithfulperformance of the
administrator's trust. The surety is then liable under the
administrator's bond, for as long as the administrator has duties to
do as suchadministrator/executor. Quebrar still had something to
do asan administrator/executor even after the approval of
theamended project of partition and accounts. Liquidation
meansthe determination of all the assets of the estate and
payment of all the debts and expenses

a.

b.

The law clearly limits the allowance to "widow and

children" and does not extend it to the deceased's
grandchildren, regardless of their minority or
incapacity.

The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution and

extrinsic validity and settles only the question of whether the
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed it in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law

The law does not impose upon an administrator a high

degree of care in the administration of the estate, but it does
impose upon him ordinary and usual care, for the want of
which he is personally liable.
. Liability of Administrator. So great is it a breach of trust
for the representative to engage in business with the funds of
the estate that the law charges him with all the losses
incurred thereby without allowing him to receive the benefit
of any profit that he may make.

3. Duty of Administrator. It is the duty of an

administrator to handle land marshal the assets of the
estate in a business-like manner, and with his
bondsmen, he is liable for any unreasonable or
unnecessary delay in settling and closing the estate.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOCSON V.NAVA

The contract here in question being a mere act of

administration, could validy be entered into by the
administratrix within her powers of administration, even
without the court's previous authority. And the court had no
power to annul or invalidate the contract in the intestate
proceedings wherein it had no jurisdiction over the person of
the lessee