Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2



Both two cases involved a core issue which is who can oppose the probate of the will
of the testator. In the case of NUGUID VS NUGUID, the compulsory heir in the direct
line can file an opposition to the probate of the will. If there is preterition or omission
of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the
time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the
institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious. However, in the case of SUMILANG VS RAMAGOSA, It is a well-settled
rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding
he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected
by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party has
been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one
who has a claim against the estate like a creditor.
Both two cases involved a core issue of the Probate Courts authority. In the case of
VALERA VS INSERTO, if the third person asserts a right to the property contrary to
the decedent's, the Probate Court would have no authority to resolve the issue; a
separate action must be instituted by the administrator to recover the property. As an
exception, the Probate Court have the authority to admit and take cognizance after
obtaining the consent of all interested parties to its assumption of jurisdiction over
the question of title to the fishpond, or ascertaining the absence of objection thereto.
However, in the case of TRINIDAD VS COURT OF APPEALS, inasmuch as the
owner-seller of the property was already deceased and there were proceedings in
the Probate Court, it was incumbent for the Probate Court to first give authorization
to administrator of the estate to deliver titles of lots which had previously been sold.


Both two cases involved a core issue of appointment of special administrator. In the
case of ROXAS VS PECSON, as the law does not say who shall be appointed as
special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or
court has discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion which
must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity.
However in the case of MATIAS VS GONZALES, only one special administrator may
be appointed to administrator temporarily" the estate of the deceased, must be
considered in the light of the facts obtaining in said case.
Both two cases involved a core issue whether or not the venue of the case has been
properly laid. In the case of Eusebio vs. Eusebio, Supreme Court used domicile of

the decesed at the time of his death in determining the proper venue of the
proceeding. The said case enunciated 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. Domicile
once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained. It is not changed by
presence in a place for ones own health. Having resided for over seventy years in
Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained such domicile. However, this
rule is in contrary to the rulings in the case of Fule vs. CA wherein the Supreme
Court used the residence of the deceased at the time of his death in the
determination of the venue of the proceeding. In the Fule case, it enunciated that in
the application of venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised
Rules of Court is of such nature residence rather than domicile is the significant
factor. The case further discussed that the residence simply requires bodily presence
as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that
place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. No particular length of time of
residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.