Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

RULE 75 PRODUCTION OF WILL, ALLOWANCE OF WILL

NECESSARY

Petition for probate being opposed on the ground that petitioner is not
entitled to inherit and oppositors are the only heirs of the decedent.

1)

I: WON probate court has jurisdiction on area of inquiry.

Fernandez v. Dimagiba, 21 SCRA 428 (1967)

Trial Court allowed probate of will and overruled questions of estoppel


and implied revocation.
CA affirmed- lack of timely appeal.
Oppositors allege issues of estoppel and implied revocation be
considered and resolved trial court before appeal should be filed.
I: WON probate order final (yes) and estoppel can be raised (no).
Held: Probate order is final and appealable, and it is so recognized by
express provisions of Section 1 of Rule 109, finally and definitively
settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator and the proper
execution and witnessing of his last will and testament, irrespective of
whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise.
Estoppel cannot be raised in probate proceedings-to protect testators
wishers.
2)

Mercado v. Santos, 66 SCRA PHIL 215 (1938)

3 years after probate, oppositors moved to reopen proceedings


alleging that the will had been forged by the petitioner.
I: WON probate of will is bar to criminal prosecution for alleged forgery
of will.
H: Yes. Probate conclusive as to its due execution and validity. It
cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except
that of fraud. Criminal action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the
forger of a will which had been duly admitted to probate by a court of
competent jurisdiction since it is clear that a duly probated will cannot
be declared a forgery.
3)

Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369 (1967)

H: None. Probate of a will, the court's area of inquiry is limited to the


extrinsic validity thereof. The testator's testamentary capacity and the
compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law
are the only questions presented for the resolution of the court. Any
inquiry into the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will or
the legality of any devise or legacy is premature.
Probate is one thing the validity of the testamentary provisions is
another.The first decides the execution of the document and the
testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to descent
and distribution.
4)

Balanay v. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452 (1975)

Probate court ruled upon the intrinsic validity of the will before ruling on
allowance or formal validity of the will.
I: WON probate court may pass upon intrinsic validity of the will.
H: Yes if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
5)

Pastor Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 885 (1983)

The probate court resolved with finality the questions of ownership and
intrinsic validity of the will. Thus judge in this case is alleged to have
acted in grave abuse of discretion.
I: WON probate court can pass upon question of ownership, side
issue: no actual determination of intrinsic validity.
H: As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which
the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of
determining whether a certain property should or should not be
included in the inventory of estate properties.