Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs.

PACITA DE LOS REYES


PHILLIPS, respondent.
G.R. No. 129505. January 31, 2000
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR., in his Official Capacity as
Presiding Judge of RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and PACITA PHILLIPS as
the alleged executrix of the alleged will of the late Dr. Arturo de
Santos, respondents.
G.R. No. 133359. January 31, 2000
Mendoza, J.:
Nature of the Case:
Petitions for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Thirteenth and the
Special Eighth Divisions of the Court of Appeals.
Facts:
On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati
City, filed a petition for probate of his will which was granted by Judge
Fernando V. Gorospe on February 16, 1996. Since he had no compulsory
heirs, he named Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. as the sole legatee and
devisee of all his properties amounting to not less than 2 million pesos and
named private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Philips as the executrix.

On February 26, 1996, Dr. Arturo de Santos died. On April 3, 1996, the
petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention. He claimed
that, as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testators sister) and Octavio L.
Maloles, Sr., he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr.
de Santos and also alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. He prayed
for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of
letters of administration in his name.

However, petitioners petition was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de
Santos, has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters
testamentary filed by the respondent.

Held:
No. The petitioner herein is not an heir or legatee under the will of the
decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As
the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from
the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which
has already been probated and disposes of all his properties the petitioner
can inherit only if the said will is annulled. His interest in the decedents
estate is, therefore, not direct or immediate. In Ozaeta v. Pecson:
The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, a
necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner
he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of his
confidence, one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of
his estate. The curtailment of this right may be considered a curtailment of
the right to dispose.
Only if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to
give bond may the court appoint other persons to administer the estate. None
of these circumstances is present in this case.
Thus, petition was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals was
affirmed.

Ho

Вам также может понравиться