CYNTHIA V. NITTSCHER, PETITIONER, VS. DR.

WERNER KARL
JOHANN NITTSCHER (DECEASED), ATTY. ROGELIO P.
NOGALES AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI
(BRANCH 59), RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 160530, November 20, 2007
QUISUMBING, J.:
Nature of the case:
For review on certiorari are the Decision dated July 31, 2003 and Resolution
dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals.

Facts:

Dr. Werner Karl Johann Nittscher filed his petition for probate of his
holographic will at RTC of Makati on January 31, 1990 and for the issuance
of letters testamentary to herein respondent Atty. Rogelio Nogales. On
Sptember 19,1991, after hearing and with due notice to the compulsory
heirs, the probate court issued an order allowing the said holographic will.
But on September 26,1994, Dr. Nittscher died. Hence Atty Nogales filed a
petition for letters testamentary for the administration of the estate of the
deceased. However, Dr. Nittschers surviving spouse, herein petitioner
Cynthia Nittscher moved for the dismissal of the said petition. But the court
denied her motion to dismiss and granted the respondents petition for the
issuance of letters testamentary and been granted by the court.

Where the Court contends that under Section 4, Rule 78 of the Revised
Rules of Court, provides when a will has been proved and allowed, the
court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor
therein, if he is competent, accepts the trust and gives bond as required by
these rules. In the case at bar, petitioner Atty. Rogelio Nogales has been
named executor under Holographic Will of Dr. Werner Nittscher. But the
wife moved for reconsideration but her motion was denied for lack of merit.

And Atty. Nogales was issued letters testamentary and was sworn in as
executor. Then the wife again appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that
respondents petition for the issuance of letters testamentary should have
been dismissed outright as he RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter and that she was denied due process. The appellate court dismissed
the appeal and the assailed order is affirmed in toto. Then the wife still filed
a motion for reconsideration for the said decision with the following grounds
that his husband, Dr. Nittscher has no property in the Philippines and also he
is not a resident of the Philippines and that Atty Nogales did not secure a
certification against forum shopping which was one of the requirement. And
therefore she has all the rights to claim the properties of his husband. But the
respondent, Atty. Nogales pointed out that Dr. Nittscher did reside and own
real properties in Las Pinas, Metro Manila and the petition for the issuance
of letters of testamentary need not contain a certification against forum
shopping as it is merely a continuation of the original proceeding for the
probate of the will.

Issue:
1.)Whether or not the appointment of Dr. Nittscher to Atty. Nogales as his
executor of his estate is valid.
2.)Whether or not the petitioner, Dr. Nittschers wife, was denied of due
process in the probate proceedings.

Held:
Dr. Nittscher correctly filed in the RTC of Makati City, which then covered
Las Pias, Metro Manila, the petition for the probate of his will and for the
issuance of letters testamentary to respondent making him as his executor.
And as to the petitioners contention that she was denied of due process, the
records show that petitioner, with whom Dr. Nittscher had no child, and Dr.
Nittschers children from his previous marriage were all duly notified, by
registered mail, of the probate proceedings. Petitioner even appeared in court
to oppose respondents petition for the issuance of letters testamentary and
she also filed a motion to dismiss the said petition. She likewise filed a
motion for reconsideration of the issuance of the letters testamentary and of
the denial of her motion to dismiss. We are convinced petitioner was
accorded every opportunity to defend her cause. Therefore, petitioners
allegation that she was denied due process in the probate proceedings is
without basis.
As a final word, petitioner should realize that the allowance of her husbands
will is conclusive only as to its due execution. The authority of the probate
court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound mind,
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
Thus, petitioners claim of title to the properties forming part of her
husbands estate should be settled in an ordinary action before the regular
courts.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.