Ignacio vs.

Gerona
G.R. NO. L-19060
May 29, 1964
Topic: Constructive notice as regards prescriptive period to commence an
action for annulment of title on the ground of fraud in the settlement of
the estate of the deceased.
A petition seeking to annul a deed of extra-judicial settlement upon the ground of
fraud in the execution thereof must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery
of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place when the instrument
was filed with the Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the
name of the party perpetuating the fraud to the exclusion of the other forced heirs.
The registration of the deed of extra-judicial settlement constituted constructive
notice to the whole world and it is upon that time when the four-year period within
which to file an action for annulment shall be commence.
Pedrosa vs. CA
G.R. No. 118680
March 5, 2001
Topic: When to apply the two-year prescriptive period to assail the
extrajudicial partition among heirs in Section 4 Rule 74 or the four-year
period to annul the partition on the ground of fraud.
The petitioner is an adopted child of the decedent and consequently the lone heir of
the deceased while the respondents are collateral relatives (brothers and sisters). It
is important to note that the presence of descendants will preclude collateral
relatives from inheriting from the deceased. The respondents contend the action for
the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition has already prescribed in
accordance with Section 4 of Rule 74 of the RoC. However, the petitioner contends
that as she was not able to participate in the settlement of the estate, she has four
years within which to file for the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition on
the ground of fraud.
The two-year prescriptive period for assailing the extrajudicial partition stated in
Section 4 Rule 74 are applicable (1) to persons who have participated or taken part
or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and (2) when the provisions of Section 1,
Rule 74 have been strictly complied.
Section 1 of Rule 74 states that The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or
administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement
shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice
thereof.
In this case, the mere publication of the extrajudicial partition did not comply with
the notice requirement in Section 1, Rule 74. Thus, it is not binding on the
petitioner. Notice must have been before the partition is agreed upon and not after.
It would have prompted the heir to come out and participate. Section 4 Rule 174 will
not apply when the deed of extrajudicial partition is sought to be annulled on the

ground of fraud. Therefore, the time for filing the action has not prescribed since the
law allows the petitioner to do so within four years after the discovery of the fraud.
Sampilo vs. CA
G.R. No. L-10474
February 28, 1958
Topic: Actions based on fraud may be filed within four (4) years after the
discovery of the fraud.
In this case, the widow of the deceased executed an affidavit of self-adjudication
covering all the properties of the deceased in her favour and to the exclusion of
several nephews and nieces of the deceased. She simultaneously sold all of the
interests therein to a third person who, in turn sold it to another. The action to annul
the affidavit was instituted almost four years after it was registered. The widow
argued that the action has prescribed applying Section 4 of Rule 74.
Section 4 which prescribes a two-year period for the filing of actions assailing the
affidavit of self-adjudication is applicable in cases wherein the aggrieved heir took
part or had knowledge of the extrajudicial settlement. If they claim to have been in
any manner deprived of their lawful right or share in the estate, they may demand
their right or interest within two years. However, as to those who did not take part
in the settlement or had no notice of the death of the decedent or of the settlement,
there is no direct or express provision is unreasonable or unjust that they also be
required to assert their claims within the period of two years.
In this case however, the action is one based on fraud, as the widow of the
deceased declared in her affidavit of partition that she was the sole heir of the
deceased. The period to file the petition has not lapsed since the law provides for a
period of four years for actions that are based on fraud.
Cua vs. Vargas
G.R. No. 156536
October 31, 2006
Topic: Publication is not constructive notice to the heirs since it is done
after the execution of the extrajudicial partition of the estate.
The procedure outlined in Section 1, Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule
plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an
extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. It contemplates a notice that has
been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is agreed
upon, and not after such an agreement has already been executed. The publication
of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no
knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of
execution. The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors
and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the
decedents estate. Since the aggrieved heirs in this case did not participate in the
settlement, they are not bound thereby and the fact of publication did not have the
effect of acquiescence.

Cruz vs. Cristobal

G.R. No. 140422
August 7, 2006
Topic: No extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who
has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
In this case, since the estate of the deceased is composed solely of a parcel of land,
the partition thereof by the respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial
settlement of the estate. The partition did not bind the petitioners since they were
excluded therefrom. The partition made by the respondents in 1948 did not affect
the rights of the petitioners to their inheritance who are deemed co-owners of the
property from the moment of the decedents death. As co-owners, their right to
partition does not prescribe. Also, the lapse of 46 years from the date of the
settlement to the date of notice did not amount to laches since the petitioners were
only made aware of the partition soon before they instituted their action. There was
no neglect or failure to exercise due diligence on their part for an unreasonable or
unexplainable amount of time.
Manahan vs. Manahan
G.R. No. 38050
September 22, 1933
Topic: Probate
The appellant raised the following issues:
First. As a party in interest, she was entitled to notice of the probate proceedings.
Second. The Court did not really probate the will but merely decreed its authenticity.
Third. The will is void on the ground that the testatrix died leaving a will in which
she has not been instituted as an heir.
Decision:
-The sister of the testatrix who is not an instituted heir in the will is not entitled to
notice of the proceedings for probate since she is not a party in interest thereto.
-The will was lawfully probated. The words authentication and probate are
synonymous in this case. All the law requires is that the competent court declared
that in the execution of the will the essential formalities have been complied with
and that the will is valid and effective in the eyes of the law.
- As to the final issue. Once a will has been authenticated and admitted to probate,
questions relative to the validity thereof can no longer be raised on appeal. The
decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof and it
cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law except with fraud.
Balanay vs. Martinez
G.R. No. L- 39247
June 27, 1975

Topic: May the probate court pass upon the intrinsic validity of wills?
Due to unusual provisions in the will which are of dubious legality and because there
was a mation to withdraw the petition for probate, the probate court may pass upon
the intrinsic validity of the will even before its formal validity is established. The
probate of a will might become an idle ceremony 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 its probated, the court should meet the
issue.
Also, the invalidity of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the
invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the testator
would not have made such other dispositions if invalid dispositions had not been
made. Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and the others invalid, the
valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid ones without
defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary
scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries (this is also consistent with the
principle that testacy is favoured over intestacy). In this case, the valid parts the will
were upheld since the preterition of the surviving spouse did not result into
intestacy.
Fernandez vs. Dimagiba
G.R. Nos. L-23638 & L-23662
October 12, 1967
Topic: Nature of an order allowing the will to probate.
It is elementary that a probate decree finally and definitively settles all questions
concerning capacity of the testator and the proper execution and witnessing of the
last will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and
enforceable or otherwise. As such, the probate order is final (not interlocutory) and
appealable; and it is so recognized by express provisions of section 1, rule 109, that
specifically prescribes that any interested person may appeal in special
proceedings from an order judgment where such order or judgment allows or
disallows a will.
Cuenco vs. CA
G.R. No. L-24742
October 26, 1973
Topic: Effect of institution of probate proceedings to a pending action for
settlement of the intestate estate of the same decedent. (actions were
filed with different courts- intestate in Cebu and testate in QC)
Testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take
precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. If in the course of the
intestate proceedings pending before a court it is found that the decedent had left a
last will, proceedings for the probate should replace the intestate proceedings even
if at that state 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. In this case, the CFI of Cebu correctly held in

abeyance the intestate proceeding filed before it and deferred the same to the
jurisdiction of the QC court, awaiting the result of the probate proceedings before it.
The residence of the deceased is not an element of jurisdiction (this is conferred by
law) but of venue. Rule 73 Section 1 provides only a rule of venue in order to
preclude different courts wich may property assume jurisdiction. Venue is waivable.
Heirs of Lasam vs. Umengan
G.R. No. 168156
December 6, 2006
Topic: A last will and testament cannot be the source of any right without
having undergone probate.
Art. 838 of the CC: No will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
In this case the heir instituted in the will initiated an action for unlawful detainer
based on the newly discovered will of the testatrix. However, such will has not
undergone probate. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the
testators death, it may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has
no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite
explicit: No will shall pass either personal or real property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.