Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 140

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 1

only law which could possibly sanction the appointment of assessors is Act 190,
PRELIMINARIES
which provided that when the parties request for the appointment of an assessor,
the judge would consequently provide the same.
ACTION SPECIAL PROCEEDING
An action by which a party sues another An application to establish the status or The trial court judge would be sustained if it is found that the provision also
for the enforcement or protection of a right of a party or a particular fact, or contemplated “special proceedings” when it mentioned “action”.
right, or the prevention or redress of a any remedy other than an ordinary suit
wrong in a court of justice HELD:
There is a marked distinction between an "action" and a "special proceeding. "An
It is a formal demand of one’s legal Generally commenced through action is a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in the manner
rights in a court of justice in the manner application, petition, or special form of prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies
prescribed by the court of by the law pleading according to definite established rules. The term "special proceeding" may be
defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or
It is absolute rule that there is an Publication usually necessary to acquire a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required,
adversarial party jurisdiction unless the statute expressly so provides. The remedy in special proceedings is
generally granted upon an application or motion. Illustrations of special
General jurisdiction It is a general rule that there is no proceedings, in contradistinction to actions, may be given: Proceedings for the
adverse party (exception: in cases of appointment of an administrator, guardians, tutors; contest of wills; to perpetuate
Usually constitute actions in personam, habeas corpus proceedings) testimony; to change the name of persons; application for admission to the bar,
wherein the decision of the court would etc.
only bind the parties in the case Constitute actions in rem—wherein
these proceedings bind the whole world From all of the foregoing, in the present proceeding, the judge of the Court of First
Issues determined by the pleadings once they are concluded Instance is without authority to appoint assessors. Therefore, the demurrer is
hereby overruled and the prayer of the petition is hereby granted, and it is hereby
There is a prescriptive period involved Issues determined by law ordered and decreed that the order of the respondent judge appointing the
assessors described in the petition be and the same is hereby annulled and set
There can be an award for damages There is no prescriptive period involved aside; and, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

No award of damages 2 NATCHER V. COURT OF APPEALS


366 SCRA 380
Generally, no default in special
proceedings FACTS:
Spouses del Rosario were the owners of a parcel of land. When the wife died, the
1 HAGANS V. WISLEZENUS husband and the children extrajudicially partitioned the property. Graciano
42 PHIL 880 likewise donated part of his share in the land to his children and consequently
divided his share into two—selling one lot to a third person and the other lot, he
FACTS: retained as his own. He later contracted a second marriage to petitioner. Before
A petition for certiorari was filed against a judge who ordered the appointment of his death, he sold the second lot to petitioner. Upon his death, the children filed
assessors in a special proceeding. Of all the laws existing during the period, the an action for annulment of title, alleging that before their father’s death, through

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 2

fraud and forgery, petitioner unlawfully transferred the land to her. The trial court advancement made by the decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein
ruled that the deed of sale was void and against the law. nonetheless, the petitioner Natcher.
conveyance can be considered as an advance inheritance. This was reversed by the
Court of Appeals however on appeal—ruling that the trial court shouldn't rule on 3 VDA. DE MANALO V. COURT OF APPEALS
matters which the probate court has proper jurisdiction over. 349 SCRA 135

HELD: FACTS:
As could be gleaned from the foregoing, there lies a marked distinction between an Troadio Manalo died intestate, leaving his spouse and children as heirs. Eight of
action and a special proceeding. An action is a formal demand of one's right in a these children filed for the settlement of the estate of their father. The trial court
court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the issued an order setting a date for hearing as well as publication of the same in
method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term newspapers. Petitioners opposed and sought that they be heard on their
"special proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish affirmative defenses regarding the case’s dismissal as well as that the court hasn't
the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no acquired jurisdiction over them. The trial court issued an order overruling the
formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special petitioner’s contention. It was sustained by the appellate court despite allegations
proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion." of the petitioners that the special proceedings applied for by respondents was
actually in the nature of an ordinary civil action filed against them.
Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a HELD:
deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or
of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief sought 16 in the
of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful srutiny of
the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the of Estatein SP. PROC. No. 92‐63626 belies herein petitioners' claim that the same is
decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition contains sufficient
its limited jurisdiction. jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased
person such as the fact of death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992,
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, questions as to advancement as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. The fact
made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and of death of the decedent and of his residence within he country are foundation
determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate
order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and rest. The petition is SP.PROC No. 92‐63626 also contains an enumeration of the
on the heir. names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the
deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. In addition,
Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in its general the relief's prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the
jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue intention of the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) to seek judicial
of advancement of the real property in favor of herein petitioner Natcher, settlement of the estate of their deceased father, Troadio Manalo.
inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471075 for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to thresh out said question. JURISDICTION
Moreover, under the present circumstances, the RTC of Manila, Branch 55 was not
properly constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass upon the question of EXTENT OF JURISDICTION

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 3

1. Concurrent jurisdiction over guardianship and adoption cases is now to her of her share in the Hacienda Evangelista upon the ground that the same was
eliminated and exclusive jurisdiction is now vested with the RTC acquired by respondent through fraud or misrepresentation cannot be obtained by
2. Municipal trial courts can likewise appoint guardians ad litem in proper a mere petition in the probate proceedings. The court of first instance, acting as a
cases and where said incompetent is not represented by his parents or probate court, has limited jurisdiction and can take cognizance only of "matters of
judicial guardian probate, both testate and intestate estates, ... and all such special cases and
3. Municipal trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over probate cases proceedings as are not otherwise provided for " The jurisdiction of a probate court
involving a gross value of the estate not exceeding P20,000—later is limited and special, and this should be understood to comprehend only cases
amended by increasing it to P300,000 and P400,000 in Metro Manila related to those powers specified in the law, and can not extend to the adjucation
4. The writ of habeas corpus may be issued by the Supreme Court, Court of of collateral matters.
Appeals, and RTC
5. Special jurisdiction is conferred to municipal court judges in the absence The petition filed by petitioner before the probate court which seemingly seeks
of any RTC judge merely the reconveyance to her of her undivided share in a parcel of land which
6. Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for originally formed part of the estate of her father in fact calls for the nullification, of
guardianship, custody, habeas corpus in relation to the latter, and the order of execution issued by the probate court which is already final, and of the
adoption of children and revocation thereof subsequent sale of a property to respondent, upon the alleged ground of fraud.
7. Publication of judicial orders and notices is often required in special The defense interposed by respondent is that petitioner's action to recover the
proceedings for jurisdictional purposes property is already barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata. The petition for
reconveyance has given rise to a controversy involving rights over a real property
4 MANGALIMAN V. GONZALES which would require the presentation of evidence and the determination of legal
36 SCRA 462 questions that should be ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction.

FACTS: 5 BAYBAYAN V. AQUINO


Petitioner was the illegitimate daughter of the decedent and was given a legacy of 149 SCRA 185
1/8 undivided portion in Hacienda Evangelista. Since she was still a minor during
this time, she was placed under guardianship. One of the legitimate children was FACTS:
the administrator of the estate. On allegations that his fees weren’t paid yet, he Private respondents, alleging themselves to be the nephews and nieces of a
filed for a writ of execution. The whole Hacienda Evangelista was sold in public decedent, sought the summary settlement of the same’s estate. The probate court
auction to respondent‐administrator, including that share of petitioner. When she ordered the submission of a project of partition together with the accounting and
came of age, she tried to annul the sale to her half‐brother but she was overruled inventory of the properties. The property was then distributed and writs of
on the ground that the guardian knew of the sale and should have filed the action possession were issued to the private respondents. Consequently, motions to cite
to annul long before. She then discovered that the fees were actually paid and petitioners in contempt of court were filed, who allegedly interrupted private
through fraud and machinations, brother‐administrator was able to sell the respondents in taking possession of the land. The petitioners on the other hand,
Hacienda to himself. She sought then the annulment of the sale again, in the filed for quieting of title against the sheriff and other private respondents. Later,
probate court, alleging anew the fraud employed. Her complaint was again the probate court found out that the land specified in the application was
dismissed. registered in the names of petitioners. It then issued an order denying the motion
for contempt of court and likewise ordered the petitioners to amend their
HELD: complaint against private respondents.
The probate court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for
reconveyance, in question. The remedy sought by petitioner for the reconveyance HELD:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 4

The contention, in our opinion, is not meritorious. While it may be true that the decedent. They likewise prayed for the appointment of their brother as special
order to amend the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 231‐R was issued in Spec. Proc. administrator in lieu of the husband to protect their interest and also due to the
No. 24‐R, so that it cannot ordinarily bind the herein petitioners who are not failure to file an inventory. The probate of the will in the meantime was denied
parties in said special proceedings, it appears, however, that the petitioners and to this, the husband appealed. Consequently, the brother was appointed as
voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the probate court, when administrator. The husband filed a petition for certiorari and for preliminary
they filed an Omnibus Motion in Civil Case No. 231‐R, wherein they prayed for injunction, praying therein the annulment of the brother as co‐administrator and
leave to amend their complaint in accordance with the order of the probate court the prohibition of the probate court from proceeding in his removal as
of 30 October 1975. They cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an administrator. The petitioners moved for the certification of the same to the SC as
inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the respondent trial Judge to the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction of the CA. Nevertheless, the CA
whom they submitted their cause voluntarily. decided in favor of the husband.

We find, however, that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of HELD:
discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in dismissing the complaint filed by the Under Section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, the property to be administered
petitioners, for their alleged failure to amend their complaint to exclude therefrom and liquidated in testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse is, not
Lot E which the respondent Judge found, in his order of 30 October 1975, issued in only that part of the conjugal estate pertaining to the deceased spouse, but the
the probate court, to be owned by the petitioners Cipriano Evangelista and entire conjugal estate. This Court has already held that even if the deceased had
Consuelo Baybayan. The findings of the respondent Judge as to the ownership of left no debts, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the husband or
Lot E after the hearing conducted in Spec. Proc. No. 24‐R do not justify the order to wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated in
amend the complaint since the determination of the ownership of the said lot by the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. In a number of cases
the respondent Judge presiding over a court exercising probate jurisdiction is not where appeal was taken from an order of a probate court disallowing a will, this
final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested Court, in effect, recognized that the amount or value involved or in controversy
party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action. therein is that of the entire estate. Not having appellate jurisdiction over the
proceedings in probate (CA‐G.R. No. 27478‐R), considering that the amount
It is a well‐settled rule in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated in a long fine of involved therein is more than P200,000.00, the Court of Appeals cannot also have
decisions, that "when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a original jurisdiction to grant the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for by
part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be respondent in the instant case, which are merely incidental thereto.
his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by
title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be Note also that the present proceedings under review were for the annulment of
determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance, the appointment of Eliezar Lopez as special co‐administrator and to restrain the
acting, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which probate court from removing respondent as special administrator. It is therefore, a
must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general contest for the administration of the estate and, consequently, the amount or
jurisdiction as a court of first instance." value of the assets of the whole estate is the value in controversy (4 C.J.S. 204). It
appearing that the value of the estate in dispute is much more than P200,000.00,
6 FERNANDEZ V. MARAVILLA the Court of Appeals clearly had no original jurisdiction to issue the writs in
10 SCRA 589 question.

FACTS: 7 MANALO V. PAREDES


Maravilla sought the probate of his late wife’s will. The siblings sought denial of 47 PHIL 938
probate on the ground that it wasn't signed on each and every page by the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 5

FACTS: his ministerial duty imposed by section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure; because
Hidalgo filed with the court her letters of administration of the estate left by her this remedy, being extraordinary, cannot be used in lieu of appeal, or writ of error
deceased husband. In the same proceedings, the illegitimate children together (26 Cyc., 177; 18 R.C.L., par. 443); especially when the parties interested have
with the common‐law wife of the decedent, asked for the probate of the supposed agreed to disregard the testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they
will of the decedent. Publication of the application was properly made as well as a pleased, each of them taking what pertained to him (25 R.C.L., 359).
guardian for the minoir children was appointed. When asked by the court to
produce the will, the common‐law wife admitted to have coerced the husband to
RULE 72
sign the will to secure that the children would be left something out of his estate.
SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES
The parties then subsequently entered into an agreement wherein the application
for probate was withdrawn and consequently, the court denied the probate of the
will. Thereafter, using the same will, a cousin of the decedent filed another Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of special proceedings are
application for probate. And upon denial of the judge to public the application or provided for in the following cases:
give due course to the same, he filed for mandamus.
(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
HELD:
The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem (40 Cyc., p. 1265), (b) Escheat;
and the court acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested through the
publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (c) Guardianship and custody of children;
and any order that may be entered is binding against all of them. Through the
publication ordered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the application for (d) Trustees;
the probate of the supposed will of Francisco Villegas, filed by Justina Mendieta
and her minor children Lazaro and Daria Mendieta and Melecio Fule, testamentary (e) Adoption;
executor, through their attorney, Mr. Eusebio Lopez, said court acquired
jurisdiction over all such persons as were interested in the supposed will, including (f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
Gelacio Malihan. The court having tried said application for probate, hearing all the
testimony of the attesting witnesses of the said supposed will, the applicant Justina (g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
Mendieta for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor children, represented
by their attorneys, Messrs. Marcelino Lontok and Marcial Azada, on the one hand, (h) Habeas corpus;
and Laureana Hidalgo, widow of Francisco Villegas, represented by her attorney,
Jesus. E. Blanco, on the other, having submitted a stipulation wherein the former (i) Change of name;
withdrew her application and the latter reserved certain rights over the estate left
by Francisco Villegas in favor of Justina Mendieta and her minor children; and the (j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
court having approved said stipulation and declared that Francisco Villegas died
intestate according to said agreement, all the parties became bound by said (k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
judgment; and if any of them or other persons interested were not satisfied with
the court's decision, they had the remedy of appeal to correct any injustice that (l) Constitution of family home;
might have been committed, and cannot now through the special remedy of
mandamus, obtain a review of the proceeding upon a new application for the (m) Declaration of absence and death;
probate of the same will in order to compel the respondent judge to comply with

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 6

(n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry. of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court, which shall hear the same as if it had
originally been brought before it".
Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. In the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as On the question of the appointment of petitioner Eliezar Lopez as special
practicable, applicable in special proceedings. administrator, we agree with respondent that there was no need for it. Note that
the Rules of Court contain no provision on special co‐administrator, the reason
RELATION TO PROVISIONS IN THE RULES OF COURT being, that the appointment of such special administrator is merely temporary and
 Distinction between final and interlocutory orders in civil actions for subsists only until a regular executor or administrator is duly appointed. Thus, it
determining the issue of appealability is not strictly applicable to orders would not only be unnecessary but also impractical, if for the temporary duration
issued in special proceedings of the need for a special administrator, another one is appointed aside from the
 Rule 33 on judgment on demurrer to evidence is applicable to special husband, in this case, upon whom the duty to liquidate the community property
proceedings devolves merely to protect the interests of petitioners who, in the event that the
disputed will is allowed to probate, would even have no right to participate in the
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES ON SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS proceedings at all.
 Liberal construction as long as no substantive rights will be prejudiced or
violated
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
8 FERNANDEZ V. MARAVILLA
Supra
RULE 73
VENUE AND
HELD:
The cases cited by respondent where this Court ruled that the separate total claim PROCESS
of the parties and not the combined claims against each other determine the Section 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is an
appellate jurisdictional amount, are not applicable to, the instant case, because inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an
Section 2, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court is explicit that the amount or value involved alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate
or in controversy in probate proceedings is that of the entire estate. Assuming, settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the
arguendo, that the rule in the cases cited by respondent is here applicable, it time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First
should be noted that respondent claims the whole estate of at least more than 3/4 Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance
thereof. Said claim, reduced to a pecuniary standard, on the basis of the inventory, of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
would amount to more than P200,000.00 and, consequently, within the exclusive exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his
estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from
While it is true that questions of fact have been raised in the probate proceedings that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the
(Spec. Proc. No. 4977, CFI of Negros Occidental) which was appealed by respondent record.
to the Court of Appeals, it becomes immaterial, in view of Sections 17 and 31 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, providing that the Supreme Court shall have Section 2. Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. When the marriage
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over "all cases in which the value in controversy is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be
exceeds two hundred thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs", and that inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the
"all cases which may be erroneously brought to the Supreme Court, or to the Court testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 7

died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate 1. The interested parties who are all heirs of the deceased consent thereto
proceedings of either. and the interests of third parties aren’t prejudiced
2. Provisional manner only
RESIDENCE, ACCORDING TO FULE CASE
 Means his personal, actual, or physical habitation, his actual residence, or AT WHAT INSTANCES MAY THE PROBATE COURT ONLY ISSUE WRITS OF
place of abode EXECUTION?
1. To satisfy the contributive shares of the devisees, legatees and heirs in
WHAT IS DETERMINED BY THE QUESTION OF RESIDENCE IN SETTLEMENT OF possession of the decedent’s assets
ESTATES? 2. To enforce payment of partition expenses
 Determinative of venue and doesn’t affect the question of jurisdiction of 3. To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate
the court proceedings
 As venue may be waived, the submission of all affected parties to said 4. To execute against the bond executed by the administrator/executor
proceeding is a waiver of objection to this error 5. To satisfy administration fees pursuant to agreement (if we follow the
 However, where the proceeding was commenced in the improper venue case of Mangaliman)
and it was questioned seasonably, the petition should be dismissed and
should be instituted in the proper court Section 3. Process. In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Courts of First Instance
may issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses
WHICH COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF or to carry into effect theirs orders and judgments, and all other powers granted
IMPROPER VENUE? them by law. If a person does not perform an order or judgment rendered by a
 The court in which the proceedings were first filed has the exclusive court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the
jurisdiction to settle the question of improper venue apprehension and imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or
 It acquires exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all questions concerning the judgment, or is released.
settlement of the estate to the exclusion of the other courts
Section 4. Presumption of death. For purposes of settlement of his estate, a
CAN A COURT BE DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION UPON FILING OF PETITION? person shall be presumed dead if absent and unheard from for the periods fixed
 No, the court acquires jurisdiction upon the filing of the petition and it in the Civil Code. But if such person proves to be alive, he shall be entitled to the
cannot be divested of the same through subsequent acts of the parties or balance of his estate after payment of all his debts. The balance may be
through filing another petition for settlement in another court recovered by motion in the same proceeding.

HOW SHOULD THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BE LIQUIDATED UPON DEATH OF 9 SALAZAR V. CFI
EITHER OR BOTH SPOUSES? 64 PHIL 78
 It shall be liquidated in the proceedings for the estate of the deceased
spouse and if both died, in the proceedings of either estate FACTS:
 If separate proceedings have been instituted for each estate, both Salazar filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will of his deceased mother.
proceedings may be consolidated if they were filed in the same court In opposition thereto, the respondent Rivera filed her counter‐petition, wherein
she alleged that the will she has in possession is the true will of the deceased. She
WHEN MAY A PROBATE COURT PASS UPON QUESTIONS OF OWNERSHIP OF prayed that the second will be admitted to probate instead. At first order, she was
PROPERTY? denied by the court but on a motion for reconsideration, she was allowed to do so,
with the proper publications, etc. accordingly made. This was opposed to by

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 8

Salazar on the ground that Rivera was not able to pay accordingly the court fees FACTS:
and thus, the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the case. When his daughter died, the father executed an affidavit executing in his favor the
estate. Later on, one of the decedent’s sisters submitted for probate the alleged
HELD: will of the decedent. It was shown that the decedent was a citizen of the US and
Under the foregoing provisions, a Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction to that she died while temporarily residing with her sister. The father opposed this at
probate a will when it is shown by evidence before it: (1) That a person has died first but later on withdrew the opposition which was affirmed by his manifestation.
leaving a will; (2) in the case of a resident of this country, that he died in the When the order admitting for probate was given by the court, the father alleged
province where the court exercises territorial jurisdiction; (3) in the case of a that he withdrew the opposition erroneously through fraud employed against him.
nonresident, that he has left a estate in the province where the court is situated, This was however unsubstantiated. The father consequently died and leaving
and (4) that the testament or last will of the deceased has been delivered to the petitioner to substitute him.
court and is in the possession thereof.
HELD:
The law is silent as to the specific manner of bringing the jurisdictional allegations Finally, we find the contention of the petition as to the issue of jurisdiction utterly
before the court but practice and jurisprudence have established that they should devoid of merit. Under Rule 73, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, it is provided that:
be made in the form of an application and filed with the original of the will
attached thereto. It has been the practice in some courts to permit attachment of a SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. □ If the decedent is an
mere copy of the will to the application, without prejudice to producing the original inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien,
thereof at the hearing or when the court so requires. This precaution has been his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled,
adapted by some attorneys to forestall its disappearance, which has taken place in in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his
certain cases. death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of
any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the
According to the facts alleged and admitted by the parties, it is evident that the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion
court has acquired jurisdiction to probate the second will, in view of the presence of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the
of all the jurisdictional facts above‐stated. The respondent's counter‐petition place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be
should, in this case, be considered as a petition for the probate of the second will, contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the
the original of which was filed by her on July 20, 1937. original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

The payment of the fees of the clerk of court for all services to be rendered by him Therefore, the settlement of the estate of Adoracion Campos was correctly filed
in connection with the probate of the second will and for the successive with the Court of First Instance of Manila where she had an estate since it was
proceedings to be conducted and others to be issued, in accordance with section alleged and proven that Adoracion at the time of her death was a citizen and
788, as amended, is not jurisdiction in the sense that its omission does not deprive permanent resident of Pennsylvania, United States of America and not a "usual
the court of its authority to proceed with the probate of a will, as expressly resident of Cavite" as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is now
provided for by section 630. It is the inevitable duty of the court, when a will is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the probate court in the petition for
presented to it, to appoint hearing for its allowance and to cause notice thereof to relief. It is a settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
be given by publication. secure affirmative relief, against his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
10 CAYETANO V. LEONIDAS
129 SCRA 522 11 IN RE KAW SINGCO
74 PHIL 239

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 9

the right of the person who seeks administration, as next of kin, creditor, or
FACTS: otherwise, to be appointed. The fact of death of the intestate and his last residence
A resolution was issued by the court certifying the case to the /CA for further within the country are foundation facts upon which all subsequent proceedings in
proceedings, wherein a question of fact as to where the decedent died was to be the administration of the estate rest, and that if the intestate was not an inhabitant
inquired into. This was questioned by the petitioner. of the state at the time of his death, and left no assets in the state, no jurisdiction is
conferred on the court to grant letters of administration.
HELD:
The law which provides that the estate of the deceased shall be settled in the The aforequoted Section 1, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75, Section 1), specifically the
province where he last resided couldn't have been intended to have meant as clause "so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the
jurisdiction of the probate court over the subject matter. such provision is location of the estate," is in reality a matter of venue, as the caption of the Rule
contained in a law of procedure and deals mainly with procedural matters. indicates: "Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons. Venue and Processes. It
could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject matter,
12 GARCIA FULE V. COURT OF APPEALS because such legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merely with
74 SCRA 189 procedural matters. Procedure is one thing; jurisdiction over the subject matter is
another. The power or authority of the court over the subject matter "existed and
FACTS: was fixed before procedure in a given cause began." That power or authority is not
Garcia Fule filed letters for administration of the decedent. She alleged that the altered or changed by procedure, which simply directs the manner in which the
deceased last resided in Calamba. This was opposed by the respondent on the power or authority shall be fully and justly exercised. There are cases though that if
ground that the venue was improperly laid and that jurisdiction over subject matter the power is not exercised conformably with the provisions of the procedural law,
wasn't acquired. She questioned the appointment of petitioner as well as special purely, the court attempting to exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally.
administratix since the latter has allegedly adverse interest over the estate. However, this does not amount to a loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Rather, it means that the court may thereby lose jurisdiction over the person or
HELD: that the judgment may thereby be rendered defective for lack of something
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "If the decedent is an essential to sustain it. The appearance of this provision in the procedural law at
inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of
his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, the court over the subject matter. In plain words, it is just a matter of method, of
in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his convenience to the parties.
death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of
any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the Divergent claims are maintained by Virginia G. Fule and Preciosa B. Garcia on the
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion residence of the deceased Amado G. Garcia at the time of his death. One alleges
of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the that he died in Calamba while the other alleges that it was in Quezon City as
place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be evinced by the death certificate.
contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the
original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record." With On this issue, it is ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased Amado G.
particular regard to letters of administration, Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Garcia was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City, and not at
Rules of Court demands that the petition therefor should affirmatively show the Calamba, Laguna. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the
existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought, and should allege all the decedent at the time of his death. And more importantly…
necessary facts, such as death, the name and last residence of the decedent, the
existence, and situs if need be, of assets, intestacy, where this is relied upon, and

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 10

“Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the A fair reading of the Rule □ since it deals with venue and comity between courts of
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual knowledge or place of equal and co‐ordinate jurisdiction □ indicates that the court with whom the
abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this petition is first filed, must also first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate
popular sense, the term merely means residence, that is, personal residence, and in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.
not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence in that
particular place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular Conversely, such court, may upon learning that a petition for probate of the
length of time of residence is required though. However it should be more than decedent's last will has been presented in another court where the decedent
obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving widow and their
temporary.
minor children, and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating
that the decedent died intestate may be actually false, may decline to take
13 CUENCO V. COURT OF APPEALS
cognizance of the petition and hold the petition before it in abeyance, and instead
53 SCRA 360
defer to the second court which has before it the petition for probate of the
decedent's alleged last will.
FACTS:
Upon the death of Senator Cuenco, leaving his widow and 2 minor children, letters
This exactly what the Cebu court did. Upon petitioner‐widow's filing with it a
for administration of the estate was filed by respondent in Cebu City, alleging
motion to dismiss Lourdes' intestate petition, it issued its order holding in
therein that the deceased died intestate and that his last known residence was in
abeyance its action on the dismissal motion and deferred to the Quezon City court,
Cebu City. In the meantime, the widow filed in Quezon City, wherein the deceased
awaiting its action on the petition for probate before that court. Implicit in the
has died, petition to admit into probate the last will and testament of the
Cebu court's order was that if the will was duly admitted to probate, by the Quezon
decedent. Upon learning of the pending petition in Cebu City, she filed her
City court, then it would definitely decline to take cognizance of Lourdes' intestate
opposition and motion to dismiss the petition by respondent.
petition which would thereby be shown to be false and improper, and leave the
exercise of jurisdiction to the Quezon City court, to the exclusion of all other courts.
HELD:
Likewise by its act of deference, the Cebu court left it to the Quezon City court to
The Judiciary Act concededly confers original jurisdiction upon all Courts of First
resolve the question between the parties whether the decedent's residence at the
Instance over "all matter of probate, both of testate and intestate estates." On the
time of his death was in Quezon City where he had his conjugal domicile rather
other hand, Rule 73, section of the Rules of Court lays down the rule of venue, as
than in Cebu City as claimed by respondents. The Cebu court thus indicated that it
the very caption of the Rule indicates, and in order to prevent conflict among the
would decline to take cognizance of the intestate petition before it and instead
different courts which otherwise may properly assume jurisdiction from doing so,
defer to the Quezon City court, unless the latter would make a negative finding as
the Rule specifies that "the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
to the probate petition and the residence of the decedent within its territory and
estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts."
venue.
It should be noted that the Rule on venue does not state that the court with whom
It can not be denied that a special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of
the estate or intestate petition is first filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction.
the estate of a deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate
succession or in accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for
The Rule precisely and deliberately provides that "the court first taking cognizance
the settlement of his estate. It is equally true, however, that in accordance with
of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate proceedings for the settlement of
exclusion of all other courts."
the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for
the same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of
intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found that the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 11

decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should It is not disputed that Andres Eusebio was, and had always been, domiciled in San
replace the intestate proceedings even if at that state an administrator had already Fernando, Pampanga, where he had his home, as well as some other properties.
been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the Inasmuch as his heart was in bad condition and his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who
estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. This however, is treated him, resided in Quezon City, Andres Eusebio bought a house and lot in said
understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or City. While transferring his belongings to this house, soon thereafter, the decedent
is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. As already adverted suffered a stroke (probably heart failure), for which reason Dr. Eusebio took him to
to, this is a clear indication that proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority his (Dr. Eusebio's) aforementioned residence, where the decedent remained until
over intestate proceedings. he was brought to the UST Hospital, in the City of Manila. On this date, he
contracted marriage in articulo mortis with his common law wife, Concepcion
14 ONGSINGCO V. TAN Villanueva, in said hospital. Two (2) days later, he died therein of "acute left
97 PHIL 330 ventricular failure secondary to hypertensive heart disease". Consequently, he
never stayed or even slept in said house at España Extention.
FACTS:
Ongsingco was appointed as judicial guardian of her husband who was declared HELD:
incompetent in an earlier proceeding. She took outright possession of two parcels In view, however, of the last sentence of said section, providing that:
of land which purportedly was owned by her husband. In the ongoing estate
proceedings of Francisco’s first wife, Tangco, the administrator therein prayed that . . . The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of
Ongsingco be disallowed from harvesting the palay from the two parcels of land. residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in
The probate court ordered accordingly. a suit or proceedings, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or
when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
HELD:
The dispute between petitioner and respondent administrator involving, as it does, If proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased resident are instituted
the ownership of two parcels of land situated in Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, and this in two or more courts, and the question of venue is raised before the same, the
question having been squarely raised in an action pending in the court of first court in which the first case was filed shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide said
instance of said province, which was instituted by petitioner against respondent issue, and we so held in the case of Taciana Vda. De Borja vs. Tan, L‐7792 (July 27,
administrator precisely because of the dispute that had arisen between them over 1955). Should it be decided, in the proceedings before the said court, that venue
said property, it is the sense of this Tribunal that respondent court exceeded its had been improperly laid, the case pending therein should be dismissed and the
jurisdiction in acting upon the said question in its capacity as probate court. On the corresponding proceedings may, thereafter, be initiated in the proper court.
face of such issue which necessarily involves the ownership of the properties, we
consider of no consequence the claim that what respondent court merely did was In conclusion, we find that the decedent was, at the time of his death, domiciled in
to look into the identity of said properties. This question is necessarily imbibed in San Fernando, Pampanga; that the Court of First Instance of Rizal had no authority,
the greater issue of ownership and being interwoven one can hardly draw the line therefore, to appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased, the venue
of demarcation that would separate one from the other. having been laid improperly; and that it should, accordingly, have sustained
appellants' opposition and dismissed appellee's petition.
15 EUSEBIO V. EUSEBIO
100 PHIL 593 16 SANDOVAL V. SANTIAGO
83 PHIL 784
FACTS:
FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 12

Sandoval petitioned the admission to probate of the will of Marquez. She was From the pleadings before us, which are copies of their originals attached to the
accordingly appointed as the executrix of the estate. Pending the probate record in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, the want of jurisdiction of said
proceedings, the heirs extrajudicially partitioned the estate among themselves and court does not clearly appear. The communication of the municipal treasurer of
took possession of the respective properties. This was made without authority of Tabaco, Albay, stating that the deceased Esteban M. Manzanero appears in the list
the court. When the judge ordered Sandoval to file a bond, petitioner averred of registered voters, and the affidavit of the municipal president thereof stating
there was no need to do so as the heirs already took possession and partitioned that the deceased resided before his death in Tabaco, Albay, do not form part of
the properties. the record of the lower court. It not appearing from the orders of the lower court,
as disclosed by the copies thereof attached to the record of these certiorari
HELD: proceedings, that said court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application
We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the respondent, Judge or Court of First for summary settlement by reason of the legal residence of the deceased, Esteban
Instance of Quezon Province, wherein the deceased was residing at the time of his M. Manzanero, certiorari does not lie, an appeal being specially provided in such
death, has acquired exclusive jurisdiction to settle the testate estate of the case by section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
deceased Daniel Marquez and over the heirs and other person interested in the
estate of the deceased from the moment the application for the probate of the REMEMBER CIVIL PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO LOUIE (94 SA CIVPRO FINALS ):
decedent's will was filed with the said court and the publication required by law Jurisdiction is determined from the allegations in the pleadings, in this case, the
were made; and the heirs of the deceased Marquez could not divest the Court of allegations of the petitioner in his petition. If there is opposition, then there
First Instance of its already acquired jurisdiction by the mere fact of dividing
couldn't be any question if it appears in the record or not.
extrajudicially the estate of the deceased among themselves.
18 BENEDICTO V. JAVELLANA
17 VDA. DE MANZANERO V. CFI
10 PHIL 197
61 PHIL 850
FACTS:
FACTS:
Maximo made a claim against the administrator of the estate of his brother
While working as an assistant city engineer in Albay, Esteban died. his brother in
respecting payment of a sum of money creditable for him in relation to a legacy
Batangas, filed for the settlement of his estate, alleging therein that the deceased
given to him by the latter. The administrator questions the claim filed, averring
resided in Batangas prior to his death. Upon publication of the application and
that the claim should be filed against all the legatees and parties to the estate and
setting the proceedings for hearing, no opposition was made by petitioner. And
not to administrator alone. It would be seen from the will by the way that the
when the proceedings have ended, wherein the insurance company was ordered to
estate was distributed by legacies.
pay proceeds to the heirs of the insured, it was only then she surfaced and tried to
file a petition for certiorari.
HELD:
As to specific devices, section 729 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
HELD:
exemption from the payment of debts and expenses if there is sufficient other
According to the above cited legal provision, the jurisdiction assumed by a Court of
property and if it appears to the court necessary to carry into effect the intention
First Instance, for the settlement of an estate, so far as it depends on the place of
of the testator; and, as the legacies stated in the aforesaid will consist of specific
residence of a person, or of the location of his estate, cannot be contested in a suit
property, less the annuity provided for by clause 6, which is made a special lien
or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when
upon the property for by clause 6, which is made a special lien upon the property
the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
bequeathed to Francisco and Sofia Jalandoni, it is unquestionable that in this case
the debts and expenses of the estate must be paid pro rata by the legatees in the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 13

manner provided in the will, or in accordance with the provisions of sections 753
and 754 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20 CUIZON V. RAMOLETE
129 SCRA 495
On the other hand, and for such effects as may be proper, it should be stated
herein that any challenge to the validity of a will, any objection to the FACTS:
authentication thereof, and every demand or claim which any heir, legatee, or Marciano owned two parcels of land and adjudicated the same in favor of his two
party in interest in a testate or intestate succession may make, must be acted upon daughters—Rufina and Irene. The lot of Irene was subsequently sold to
and decided within the same special proceedings not in a separate action and the petitioners. The TCT however wasn't cancelled given that they thought they need
same judge having jurisdiction in the administration of the estate shall take not to because of the lifetime usufruct rights of Irene. Irene died later on and
cognizance of the question raised, inasmuch as when the day comes he will be Rufina adjudicated to herself the property in question in favor of all petitioners.
called upon to make distribution and adjudication of the property to the interested Respondents then filed in another court for letters of administration. In the
parties, as may be seen in part II of the Code of Civil Procedure, from section 551 inventory for the same, they included the disputed property notwithstanding that
forward. the ownership thereof is of petitioner’s. The probate court then ordered that the
land be sold in public auction and consistently, the respondents tried to force
19 CASIANO V. MALOTO themselves in the land.
70 SCRA 232
HELD:
FACTS: Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the
The nephews and nieces of the decedent, believing that no will was left, filed for possession of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate of
the intestate proceedings. The will of the decedent was later found, on which it title issued in the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have
was indicated that two would get bigger shares. These two sought the annulment denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property in
of the intestate proceedings and the probate of the will. They were denied by the question from the inventory of the property of the estate. It had no authority to
court. They then instituted a new proceeding for the admission to probate of the deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property.
alleged will. Respondent court was clearly without jurisdiction to issue the order of June 27,
1979. Thus, it was unnecessary for the petitioners to first apply for relief with the
HELD: intestate court.
The probate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of
the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in Special Proceeding No. 1736. Indeed, the Even assuming the truth of the private respondents' allegations that the sale of
motion to reopen the proceedings was denied because the same was filed out of December 29, 1971 was effected under suspicious circumstances and tainted with
time. Moreover, it is not proper to make a finding in an intestate estate proceeding fraud and that the right of Rufina as alleged half‐sister and sole heir of Irene
that the discovered will has been revoked. As a matter of fact, the probate court in remains open to question, these issues may only be threshed out in a separate civil
Special Proceeding No. 1736 stated in the order of November 16, 1968 that action filed by the respondent administrator against the petitioners and not in the
"Movants should have filed a separate action for the probate of the Will." 13 And intestate proceedings.
this court stated in its resolution of May 14, 1969 that "The more appropriate
remedy of the petitioners in the premises stated in the petition is for petitioners to 21 BERNARDO V. COURT OF APPEALS
initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged with in question." 7 SCRA 367

You cannot convert an intestate proceeding into a testate proceeding. FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 14

Spouses Capili were the owners of parcels of land. The husband died first and It can not be denied that a special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of
testate proceedings were held wherein his wife, as well brothers and sisters were the estate of a deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate
instituted as heirs. The wife also died later on and was substituted by her collateral succession or in accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for
relatives. In the project of partition submitted by the executor, there was the settlement of his estate. It is equally true, however, that in accordance with
opposition on the ground that some properties were conjugal properties and thus settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate proceedings, for the settlement of
part should not be included in the inventory. Consequently, two projects for the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for
partition was submitted for hearing and the other party contends that the the same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of
properties in dispute were indeed exclusive property. intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found it hat the
decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should
HELD: replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is the question of ownership been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the
of certain of the properties involved whether they belong to the conjugal estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is
partnership or to the husband exclusively. This is a matter properly within the understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or
jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. As already adverted
partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be to, this is a clear indication that proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority
distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, of over intestate proceedings.
course, the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who have
been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who have appeared Zamacona should have submitted for probate the will he has on hand with the
voluntarily. There are no third parties whose rights may be affected. It is true that Negros court.
the heirs of the deceased widow are not heirs of the testator‐husband, but the
widow is, in addition to her own right to the conjugal property. And it is this right In the first place, it is not in accord with public policy and the orderly and
that is being sought to be enforced by her substitutes. Therefore, the claim that is inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation, especially
being asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, consequently, it if several courts would be involved. This, in effect, was the result of the submission
complies with the requirement of the exception that the parties interested (the of the will aforesaid to the Manila Court. In the second place, when respondent
petitioners and the widow, represented by dents) are all heirs claiming title under Higinio Uriarte filed an opposition to Vicente Uriarte's petition for the issuance of
the testator. letters of administration, he had already informed the Negros Court that the
deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a will in Spain, of which a copy had been
22 URIARTE V. CFI requested for submission to said court; and when the other respondent, Juan
33 SCRA 252 Uriarte Zamacona, filed his motion to dismiss Special Proceeding No. 6344, he had
submitted to the Negros Court a copy of the alleged will of the decedent, from
FACTS: which fact it may be inferred that, like Higinio Uriarte, he knew before filing the
Upon the death of Don Juan Uriarte, his alleged natural son filed for intestate petition for probate with the Manila Court that there was already a special
proceedings in the Negros Court. This was opposed to by one of the nephews, proceeding pending in the Negros Court for the settlement of the estate of the
alleging that a will was indeed executed in Spain and asked for the submission of same deceased person. As far as Higinio Uriarte is concerned, it seems quite clear
the said will. Meanwhile, one of the nephews, who was in possession of the that in his opposition to petitioner's petition in Special Proceeding No. 6344, he
alleged will, instituted in the Manila Copurt petition for probate of the will. He also had expressly promised to submit said will for probate to the Negros Court.
sought to intervene in the instestate proceedings in Negros Court.
But the fact is that instead of the aforesaid will being presented for probate to the
HELD: Negros Court, Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed the petition for the purpose with the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 15

Manila Court. We can not accept petitioner's contention in this regard that the
latter court had no jurisdiction to consider said petition, albeit we say that it was HELD:
not the proper venue therefor. We are not unmindful of the fact that under Section 2 of Rule 73, "When the
marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in
procedural defect, and, in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the instant the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have
case, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that petitioner has waived the right to died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate
raise such objection or is precluded from doing so by laches. It is enough to proceedings of either." Indeed, it is true that the last sentence of this provision
consider in this connection that petitioner knew of the existence of a will executed allows or permits the conjugal partnership of spouses who are both deceased to be
by Juan Uriarte y Goite since December 19, 1961 when Higinio Uriarte filed his settled or liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either, but precisely
opposition to the initial petition filed in Special Proceeding No. 6344; that because said sentence allows or permits that the liquidation be made in either
petitioner likewise was served with notice of the existence (presence) of the proceeding, it is a matter of sound judicial discretion in which one it should be
alleged last will in the Philippines and of the filing of the petition for its probate made. After all, the former rule referring to the administrator of the husband's
with the Manila Court since August 28, 1962 when Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed a estate in respect to such liquidation was done away with by Act 3176, the pertinent
motion for the dismissal of Special Proceeding No. 6344. All these notwithstanding, provisions of which are now embodied in the rule just cited.
it was only on April 15, 1963 that he filed with the Manila Court in Special
Proceeding No. 51396 an Omnibus motion asking for leave to intervene and for the Thus, it can be seen that at the time of the death of Hodges, there was already the
dismissal and annulment of all the proceedings had therein up to that date; thus pending judicial settlement proceeding of the estate of Mrs. Hodges, and, more
enabling the Manila Court not only to appoint an administrator with the will importantly, that the former was the executor of the latter's will who had, as such,
annexed but also to admit said will to probate more than five months earlier, or failed for more than five years to see to it that the same was terminated earliest,
more specifically, on October 31, 1962. To allow him now to assail the exercise of which was not difficult to do, since from ought that appears in the record, there
jurisdiction over the probate of the will by the Manila Court and the validity of all were no serious obstacles on the way, the estate not being indebted and there
the proceedings had in Special Proceeding No. 51396 would put a premium on his being no immediate heirs other than Hodges himself. Such dilatory or indifferent
negligence. attitude could only spell possible prejudice of his co‐heirs, whose rights to
inheritance depend entirely on the existence of any remainder of Mrs. Hodges'
23 PCIB V. ESCOLIN share in the community properties, and who are now faced with the pose of PCIB
56 SCRA 266 that there is no such remainder. Had Hodges secured as early as possible the
settlement of his wife's estate, this problem would not arisen. All things
FACTS: considered, We are fully convinced that the interests of justice will be better served
Spouses Hodges made similar wills, wherein on each will it was provided that if one by not permitting or allowing PCIB or any administrator of the estate of Hodges
predeceases the other, the other spouse would get the estate’s properties and can exclusive administration of all the properties in question. We are of the considered
use it in his/her liking. And in case the widow/er dies as well, the property will go opinion and so hold that what would be just and proper is for both administrators
to the siblings of the spouse who predeceased. Linnie died ahead of Charles and of the two estates to act conjointly until after said estates have been segregated
the latter administered the estate of his wife. However, he wasn't able to from each other.
completely settle the estate when he died. Linnie’s sister took over in
administration of both estates in different proceedings and this in turn, began the 24 DEL ROSARIO V. DEL ROSARIO
long cycle of changes in administrators until the administration of both estates 67 PHIL 652
ended up with PCIB. Consequently, problems ensued in the administration of the
estates. FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 16

Spouses Del Rosario were the owners of properties. The husband died first and no conjugal properties of the second marriage shall be liquidated, so as to determine
intestate proceedings were held to settle his estate until the time that the wife also the half corresponding to the widow Teopista Dolar and the] other half
died. corresponding to the deceased (article 1426 of the Civil Code). The properties
corresponding to the deceased, acquired during his first and second marriages,
HELD: constitute his estate, which should be partitioned among his widow Teopista Dolar
Act No. 3176 only amends the former law in the sense that upon the death of any (articles 931 and 834 of the Civil Code).
of the spouses the community property shall be liquidated in the testamentary or
intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. But whatever law might be There being forced heirs, the legacy of P8,000 should be taken from the free third
applicable, and even assuming that it was that prior to Act No. 3176, the intestate only, without touching the obligatory legitime, and the other the free third, so as to
of Ramon del Rosario not having been commenced upon his death in 1895 until his determine the properties from which the legacy being by way of usufruct, the heirs
widow Florencia Arcega also died in 1933, and the testamentary proceedings of may comply therewith or deliver to the legatee properties equivalent to the free
Florencia Arcega having been subsequently initiated, wherein, among other things, third (article 820, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code). The fruits of the properties
the liquidation of her conjugal properties with the deceased Ramon del Rosario already received or to be received shall answer for the legacy with respect to one‐
should be made, the pendency of these testamentary proceedings of the deceased third thereof only, the remaining two‐thirds being those of the heirs (article 813 of
wife excludes any other proceeding aimed at the same purpose (Zaide vs. the Civil Code). The legal usufruct of the widow should be taken from the third
Concepcion and Quintana, 32 Phil., 403). At the rate, the plaintiffs have a right to available for betterment (article 835 of the Civil Code).
intervene in these proceedings as parties interested in the liquidation and partition
of the conjugal properties of the deceased spouses Ramon del Rosario and 26 ALFONSO V. NATIVIDAD
Florencia Arcega among their heirs. 6 PHIL 240

25 DOLAR V. ROMAN CATHOLIC FACTS:


68 PHIL 727 Alfonso in his capacity as administrator of the estate, brought an action against
respondents for the return of the land they were allegedly wrongfully possessing.
FACTS:
Paulino contracted two marriages during his lifetime, leaving children behind in HELD:
both marriages. The widow was appointed as the administratix of the estate. The By the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure in the settlement of estates of
first project of partition wasn't approved due to the opposition of the heirs and deceased persons it is necessary to appoint commissioners, before whom the
legacies. She again submitted a second project which wasn't also approved but creditors of the deceased must present their claims within a time fixed by the
consequently, the court allowed her to take possession of the estate’s properties. court. The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. (Art. 1412.) His
debts contracted during the marriage are its debts. (Art. 1418.) When a conjugal
HELD: partnership is dissolved by the death of the husband it would be extremely difficult
Unless the widow Teopista Dolar, the heirs of the deceased by his two marriages, to settle his estate in accordance with the provisions of the present Code of
the representative of the legacy for P8,00, and the creditors of the estate, Procedure without settling the partnership affairs. It is difficult to harmonize the
otherwise come to an agreement, the partition should be made with the new system with the part of the old which remains, but we conclude that when the
intervention of all the interested parties according to law. All the debts and partnership is dissolved by the death of the husband the inventory which is
administration expenses shall first be paid. (Section 753 of the Code of Civil mentioned in article 1418 should be made, and the partnership affairs settled in
Procedure). The conjugal properties of the first marriage shall be liquidated so as to the Court of First Instance which takes jurisdiction of the settlement of his estate,
determine those corresponding to the children had with the deceased Margarita and in the same proceeding. This view being adopted, it follows as a necessary
Doctura, as her heirs, and those corresponding to the deceased. Likewise, the consequence that the executor or administrator appointed in that proceeding must

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 17

be the person who is entitled to the custody of the property of the conjugal
partnership while the settlement is being made. Since the complaint for partition alleges that there are no debts to pay, and as it
does not appear that there are any, said action will lie, for while it is true that it
This construction of the law does not deprive the wife, the surviving partner, of all prays for a liquidation of the property of the conjugal partnership dissolved by the
intervention in the settlement of the affairs of the partnership, for in intestate death of Juliana Nabong, said liquidation is implied in the action for partition
estates she is entitled to be appointed administratrix of her husband's estate, (Remolino and Bautista vs. Peralta, G. R. No. 10834).1
unless some good reason for not appointing her is shown.
For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and hold, that in
Applying these principles to the present case it appears that the partnership was accordance with section 685 of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 3176, when
dissolved by the death of the husband; that its affairs should be settled in the there are no debts to pay, the liquidation and partition of the property of the
proceedings for the settlement of his estate; that the plaintiff is the administrator conjugal partnership, dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, may be made in
appointed in that proceeding; that the property in question belonged to the an ordinary action instituted for that purpose.
partnership, and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action. In
the settlement of the affairs of the partnership hereafter, this, with all other 28 DE LA RAMA V. DE LA RAMA
property of the partnership, including the debt of Pedro Natividad. 7 PHIL 745

27 CRUZ V. DE JESUS FACTS:


52 PHIL 870 The trial court found in favor of plaintiff in the divorce proceedings against her
husband. She alleged adultery and thereafter, she was granted by the court, part
FACTS: of the conjugal property, together with alimony, etc. The husband sought the
Plaintiffs sought the amendment of their complaint to liquidation and partition, reversal of the decision on which he was granted reconsideration. The wife
wherein they alleged that the decedent died without any debts on hand and thus, appealed the same to the Supreme Court of the US.
they should be allowed to liquidate in the same partition proceedings. This was
denied by the court. The court ordered that the liquidation of conjugal property HELD:
should be made in the estate proceedings before any partition may be made. There could be liquidation of conjugal partnership in the same divorce proceedings
if the decree of divorce is granted.
HELD:
It is to be noted that this legal provision establishes two methods of liquidating the 29 VILLCORTE V. MARIANO
property of a conjugal partnership, if the marriage is dissolved by the death of one 89 PHIL 342
of the spouses: the first by a testate or intestate proceeding according to whether
the deceased died with or without a will; and the other by an ordinary proceeding FACTS:
for liquidation and partition. Calimon contracted three marriages, the latest with respondent Mariano. He had
children during his first and second marriages. Petitioners, as widow and children
According to the legal provision quoted above, when the marriage is dissolved by of Calimon, filed for the recovery of parcels of land against the children of the first
the death of the wife, the legal power of management of the husband ceases, children and Mariano. Mariano alleged that the properties were exclusive
passing to the administrator appointed by the court in the testate or intestate properties of Calimon and/or acquired during their co‐venture together. She also
proceedings instituted to that end if there be any debts to be paid, and when there filed a cross‐claim against Canuta and the latter’s siblings for defrauding her
is no debt pending, the liquidation and partition may be made in an ordinary allegedly into signing a compromise agreement. The trial court found in favor of
proceeding for that purpose.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 18

Canuta and her siblings, giving merit to the compromise agreement and it was Ocampo sold a house and lot to spouses Potenciano under a pacto de recto sale.
unnecessary to undertake liquidation and partition proceedings. Upon death of one of the spouses, Paz still wanted to repurchase the house and
lot. The children left by the spouses averred that it only would pertain to the share
HELD: of their father since they already inherited that of those of their mother’s. CA ruled
It was unnecessary to prepare the inventory and make the liquidation because the in favor of Ocampo and ruled that it was indeed a mortgage with a caveat that the
parties interested, i.e., the heirs of Leon Calimon and his widow had already option agreement novated the mortgage agreement. The Potenciano children
reached a compromise by means of Exhibit 1‐Mariano. And supposing that all those alleged that the father had no authority to enter into the option agreement and
lots were community property, still the said exhibit governs the rights of the they were sustained by the SC.
parties. A similar documents of renunciation was held valid and binding in Antonio
vs. Aloc, 25 Phil. 147. And under the provision of article 1418 of the Civil Code, HELD:
inventory shall not be required if, after the partnership has been dissolved, one of The Court of Appeals erred in supposing that the surviving spouse had such
the spouses of his or her successors shall have renounced its effects. authority as de facto administrator of the conjugal estate. As pointed out by
appellants, the decisions relied on by that court in support of its view are now
30 CALMA V. TANEDO obsolete. Those decisions laid down the rule that, upon the dissolution of the
66 PHIL 594 marriage by the death of the wife, the husband must liquidate the partnership
affairs. But the procedure has been changed by Act No. 3176 (approved on
FACTS: November 24, 1924), now section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, which provides
Esperanza brought suit against Eulalio for debts payable by the conjugal that when the marriage is dissolved by the death of either husband or wife, the
partnership, when the wife died. The debts payable was incurred during the partnership affairs must be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
existence of the conjugal partnership and was chargeable to the same. The wife deceased spouse (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed., Vol. II, p. 324).
died with a will and appointed her daughter as administratix of the estate.
32 PRADO V. NATIVIDAD
HELD: 47 PHIL 776
From the foregoing it follows that when Esperanza Tanedo brought suit against
Eulalio Calma for the payment of the sums of P948.34 and P247, which were debts FACTS:
chargeable against the conjugal property, the power of Eulalio Calma as legal Casimiro and Maria married, and upon marriage, it was Casimiro who brought
administrator of the conjugal property while Fausta Macasaquit was living, had property inside the conjugal property. Maria brought none. Thereafter, Maria died
ceased and passed to the administratrix Maria Calma appointed in the out of pulmonary complications. Jose, the administrator appointed for the estate
testamentary proceedings of Fausta Macasaquit. Hence, this being an indebtedness of Maria brought an action against Casimiro on the ground that he refused to
chargeable against conjugal property, no complaint for its payment can be brought liquidate the conjugal partnership.
against Eulalio Calma, who had already ceased as administrator of the conjugal
property; the claim for this amount had to be filed in the testamentary proceedings HELD:
of Fausta Macasaquit. At the trial of the case, evidence was introduced tending to show the existence of
said properties with their prices and fruits. Also evidence was introduced in an
31 OCAMPO V. POTENCIANO attempt to show the true expenses incurred during the administration of the
89 PHIL 160 conjugal partnership. With that evidence in the record, it is not necessary to order
the defendant, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of said partnership, to
FACTS: make a formal liquidation thereof; because what was done during the trial of the
case amounts to a liquidation, and to make another one would be to do double

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 19

work, and would give rise to new controversies when the liquidation is submitted with Benita, he took with him to the conjugal partnership a certain sum of money
for the contesting thereof by the adverse party. The trial court has not, therefore, in Mexican pesos. In the inventory made by Josefa of the properties, she excluded
committed any error in not ordering a formal liquidation. therein the sum of money and consequently made the demand for the return of
the properties held by the defendants.
33 DE LA RAMA V. DE LA RAMA
25 SCRA 437 HELD:
It is fact, proved by the record, that the conjugal partnership formed between
FACTS: Dionisio Fulgencio, during his lifetime, and Benita Gatchalian and dissolved by the
Same facts basically from the earlier De La Rama case. husband's death, owed several large debts and the testamentary executrix, in the
fulfillment of her duty, has a right to claim the possession of all the property
HELD: belonging to the estate of which she is the judicial administratrix, in order that,
As pointed out by the trial judge, this inventory appears to have been prepared by pursuant law, she may make the required inventory and proceed, with the
or for the defendant for the purposes of this action; and in any event it was authorization of the court, to pay the debts duly presented to the commissioners of
prepared after this action was originally instituted and under conditions which appraisal appointed in the special proceedings. It is an incontrovertible principle of
justified the trial judge in believing that the defendant had every opportunity to law that, before proceeding with the division among the heirs, of the property left
intervene in its preparation and to use his personal influence to have the document to them by the deceased predecessor in interest, without prejudice to the rights of
speak favorably to his contentions. Granting that it is true, as contended by the surviving widow, in relation to her own property which does not form a part of
defendant, that this document was admitted in evidence without objection, it by the conjugal partnership property nor is liable for the payment of the obligations
no means follows that the trial judge was bound to accept its contents as true existing against the conjugal partnership.
where other evidence of record disclosed its inaccuracies and its failure correctly to
list the properties in question. It was admitted for what it was worth as evidence, Evidence was introduced to prove that the widow, Benita Gatchalian, on
but in very nature of things, it should not be held as conclusive of the truth of its contracting marriage with the now deceased Dionisio Fulgencio, brought to the
contents. We think that the trial judge is fully sustained by the evidence of record conjugal partnership, property worth about twelve thousand pesos, being
in his findings that this inventory failed to set forth the true status of the affairs of paraphernalia of the wife's exclusive ownership; but once included among the
the company, and we are of opinion, and so hold, that there was no error in his property of the conjugal partnership, a demand for its exclusion on the part of its
findings as to the true value of the property in question. legitimate owner could properly be made only after the formation of the inventory
of the property that constitutes the estate of her deceased husband.
What has been said sufficiency disposes of all the errors assigned. We are of
opinion, therefore, that there is nothing in the record which would justify us in 35 LUKBAN V. REPUBLIC
sustaining the contentions of the defendant‐appellant as to error in the findings of 98 PHIL 574
fact or in the conclusions drawn therefrom in the opinion filed by the trial judge.
FACTS:
34 FULGENCIO V. GATCHALIAN Lourdes married Francisco and after a big quarrel, Francisco left and was never
21 PHIL 252 heard of again. Lourdes also inquired with his friends and family but to no avail.
He was nowhere to be found. And now, she files a petition to declare the
FACTS: presumption of death of her husband for the purpose of securing a second
Upon the appointment as administratix of Josefa, she brought a complaint against marriage.
the defendants to take possession of alleged properties of Dionisio, which were
allegedly withheld by defendants. Evidence shows that during Dionisio’s marriage HELD:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 20

While it is true that a special proceeding is an application to establish a status or 6. Execution of affidavit adjudicating to himself if he is the sole heir
right of a party, or a particular fact, that remedy can be invoked if the purpose is to
seek the declaration of death of the husband but not to establish a presumption of GENERAL RULE: JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION; EXCEPTION: SUMMARY
death. SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE
 When a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially
administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified
RULE 74: SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE administrator
 Exception: Section 1, Rule 74—when all the heirs are of legal age and
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. If the decedent there are no debts due from the estate, they may agree in writing to
left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or
represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the applying for the appointment of an administrator
purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration, divide the
estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT: REQUIREMENTS
the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an 1. The decedent left no will
ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself 2. The decedent left no debts
the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the office of the register of 3. Heirs are of legal age or if there are minors, they are duly represented by
deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument their guardians authorized for that purpose
or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who 4. Through a public instrument, they extrajudicially partition the estate
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, 5. Bond shall be filed equivalent to the value of the personal property under
simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public oath
instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the 6. Publication requirements—published once a week for three consecutive
office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an weeks in newspaper of general circulation in the province
amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to
under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any SOLE ADJUDICATION: REQUIREMENTS
just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that 1. There is only one heir
the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of 2. He may execute an affidavit filed with the register of deeds
administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent. 3. Bond shall be filed equivalent to the value of the personal property of the
decedent under oath
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a 4. Publication requirements—published once a week for three consecutive
newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the nest succeeding weeks in newspaper of general circulation in the province
section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has
not participated therein or had no notice thereof. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT: REQUIREMENTS
1. Gross value of the estate doesn’t exceed P10,000
MODES OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE 2. The decedent may have or have not left a will
1. Testate 3. The aforementioned fact should be made to the court through petition
2. Partition not less than one month nor more than 3 months from the date of last
3. Extrajudicial settlement publication
4. Summary settlement 4. No administrator or executor need be appointed
5. Intestate proceedings wherein administrator is appointed 5. Publication and notice requirements

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 21

that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful
Section 2. Summary settlement of estate of small value. Whenever the gross participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall
value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or intestate, contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances
does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Court require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real
of First Instance having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall
person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full
more than three (3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of
which shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a real estate that may have been made.
newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice to
interest persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, Section 5. Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person. □ If on the date of
without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without delay, to the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section
grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in
persons legally entitled to participate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year
among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then after such disability is removed.
find to be due; and such persons, in their own right, if they are of lawful age and
legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified, if 36 UTULO V. VDA. DE GARCIA
otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of 66 Phil 302 (1938)
the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. The court shall make
such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings, and all orders FACTS:
and judgments made or rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the Juan Garcia died intestate leaving his children, one of whom is Luz Garcia, and his
office of the clerk, and the order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, wife as heirs. During the pendency of the intestate proceedings, Luz died and she
shall be recorded in the proper register's office. left no legitimate descendants. Her only heirs were her mother and husband. Her
husband then applied for judicial administration of the property, absent any will
Section 3. Bond to be filed by distributees. The court, before allowing a partition from his late wife. This was opposed to by the mother however she was overruled
in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, my require the and the court decided in the husband’s favor.
distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a bond in an
amount to be fixed by court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which HELD:
may be filed under the next succeeding section. As to the first question, we have section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure
providing in part that "if no executor is named in the will, or if a person dies
Section 4. Liability of distributees and estate. If it shall appear at any time within intestate, administration shall be granted" etc. This provision enunciates the
two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance general rule that when a person dies living property in the Philippine Islands, his
with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or property should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint
other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, a qualified administrator, in the order established in the section, in case the
such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one should he fail to name an executor
courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such therein. This rule, however, is subject to the exceptions established by sections 596
lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear and 597 of the same Code, as finally amended. According to the first, when all the
that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate, they may agree
that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or
payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for applying for the appointment of an administrator. According to the second, if the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 22

property left does not exceed six thousand pesos, the heirs may apply to the of no legal effect, but only makes ineffective the action for specific performance. In
competent court, after the required publications, to proceed with the summary the United States, even in those states where the affirmative view of the question
partition and, after paying all the known obligations, to partition all the property has been followed, "the weight of authority upholds the rule that an oral partition
constituting the inheritance among themselves pursuant to law, without instituting is effective when several possession is taken under it by the respective parties to
the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator. the agreement."

Construing the scope of section 596, this court repeatedly held that when a person On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of
dies without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly
not, are not bound to submit the property to a judicial administration and the performed.
appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings
As a general proposition, transactions, so far as they affect the parties, are required
37 HERNANDEZ V. ANDAL to be reduced to writing either as a condition of jural validity or as a means of
78 Phil 196 (1947) providing evidence to prove the transactions. Written form exacted by the statute
of frauds, for example, "is for evidential purposes only." The decisions of this Court
FACTS: which we have noticed were predicated on this assumption. The Civil Code, too,
The Hernandez siblings sold a part of a parcel of land they inherited from their late requires the accomplishment of acts or contracts in a public instrument, not in
father. The share they sold to the Andals allegedly were co‐owned by the order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy so that after the
intervenors based on an oral partition agreement made amongst them. Here existence of the acts or contracts has been admitted, the party bound may be
comes petititoner who wanted to repurchase the parcel of land from the Andals compelled to execute the document.
but it was disputed that the Andals didn't want to sell the same to her at her
offered price. Then, it so happened that allegedly the Andals sold the same land to Is section 1 of Rule 74 constitutive and not merely evidential of partition? In other
the intervenors instead. The intervenors then allege that Hernandez was acting in words, is writing the act that confers legal validity upon the agreement? There
bad faith since it was her delaying tactics that resulted to the delayed sale to the are no indications in the phraseology of this rule which justify an affirmative
Andals and the permission to undergo the same transaction. answer to these questions. It must be noted that where the law intends a writing
or other formality to be the essential requisite to the validity of the transactions it
HELD: says so in clear and unequivocal terms. Thus, the statute of frauds as originally
There is a conflict of authority as to whether an agreement of partition is such a enacted in England and as enacted in some of the states, uses the words "utterly
contract as is required to be in writing under the statute of frauds. One line of void" with statute transactions required to be in writing are absolutely void and
authorities holds the affirmative view; other authorities say no. The reason for the not merely voidable if not made in the manner indicated. Again article 633 of the
rule that excludes partition from the operation of the statute of frauds is that Civil Code says that donation may be valid only when made in a public document.
partition is not a conveyance but simply a separation and designation of that part Article 146 of the Mortgage Law makes known its intention to have the execution
of the land which belongs to each tenant in common. The differences in the of a public instrument and its registration in the registry indispensable to the
conclusions reached are "due perhaps to varied phraseology of the statutes" in the validity of the contract by using this phrase: "in order that voluntary mortgages
several states. However the case may be, as enacted in the Philippines, first in may be legally created in a valid manner." Article 1765 of the Civil Code also
section 335 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, and now in Rule 123, section 21, employs for the same purpose similar expression with reference to the execution
of the Rules of Court, the law has been uniformly interpreted in a long line of cases of a public document: "in order that mortgage may be validly constituted." And
to be applicable to executory and not to completed or executed contracts. In this with respect to the formalities of last wills and testaments, section 618 of Act No.
jurisdiction performance of the contract takes it out of the operation of the statute. 190 makes this emphatic statement: "No will shall be valid to pass upon any
The statute of frauds does not declare the contracts therein enumerated void and

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 23

estate real or personal nor change or affect the same, unless it be written etc." arise as to them, viz, the title there and their partition, if proven to belong to the
Other examples might be mentioned. intestate, can be properly and expeditiously litigated in an ordinary action of
partition.
Section 1 of Rule 74 contains no such express or clear declaration that the
required public instruments is to be constitutive of a contract of partition or an 39 ARCILLAS V. MONTEJO
inherent element of its effectiveness as between the parties. And this Court had 26 SCRA 197 (1968)
no apparent reason, in adopting this rule, to make the efficacy of a partition as
between the parties dependent on the execution of a public instrument and its FACTS:
registration. On the other hand, the opposite theory is not without reasonable Geronimo Arcillas filed a petition for the cancellation of title in the name of his late
support. We can think of possible factors against the proposition that a public father. He asked in the same petition that the title to the property reflect the
document and its registration were contemplated as necessary ingredients to give shares of each sibling laid down in the petition. He alleged that portions of the
life to a contract of partition so that without them no oral partition can bind the land were sold to Vicente Arcillas, also an heir. Petitioner on the other hand filed a
parties. petition for the issuance of letters of administration for the estate, including as one
of the properties the land in question. Respondents opposed this on the ground
38 TORRES V. TORRES that it was unnecessary to undertake administrative proceedings as there was only
10 SCRA 185 (1964) one property involved and that there was no debts payable.

FACTS: HELD:
One of the children of the decedent prayed for the letters of administration for the Having decided to institute administration proceedings instead of resorting to the
estate of his parent. This was opposed to by another heir on the ground that it was less expensive modes of settlement of the estate, i.e. extrajudicial settlement or
unnecessary to undergo judivcial administration since there was a previously ordinary action for partition, the heirs may not then be rebuffed in the exercise of
concluded extrajudicial partition amongst them. Petitioner doesn't deny the their discretion granted under section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court merely on
existence of this partition however, he alleges that the same didn't took into the ground that the expenses usually common in administration proceedings may
consideration some valuable properties of the decedent as well as the existing deplete the funds of the estate. The resultant delay and necessary expenses
obligation left by the same. incurred thereafter are consequences which must be deemed to have been
voluntarily assumed by the heirs themselves so that they may not in the future be
HELD: heard to complain of these matters. Besides, the truth or veracity of petitioner's
This is not to overlook the allegation that the estate has an outstanding obligation claim as to the alleged existence of other properties of the deceased aside from the
of P50,000.00. It is to be noted, however, that appellant, as heretofore observed, lot in question can be more adequately ascertained in administration proceedings
did not specify from whom and in what manner the said debt was contracted. rather than in any other action.
Indeed, the bare allegation that, "the estate has an existing debt of P50,000.00
from third persons" cannot be considered as concise statement to constitute a Understandably the allowance of the hearing of the "cadastral" motion, supposedly
cause of action. It must be for this reason that the lower court, notwithstanding the brought under the authority of section 112 of Act 496, cannot be sustained. While
existence of such averment in appellant's supplemental answer to the opposition, this section authorizes, among others, a person in interest to ask the court for any
dismissed the petition filed by said appellant. erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title "upon the ground that
registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or
Nor does the unverified statement that there are other properties not included in inchoate have terminated and ceased," and apparently the November 12 petition
the deed of extrajudicial partition in the possession of one of the heirs, justify the comes within its scope, such relief can only be granted if there is unanimity among
institution of an administration proceeding because the same questions that may the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 24

party in interest; otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed 41 CARREON V. AGCAOILI
out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs (see 1 SCRA 521 (1961)
Puguid v. Reyes, L‐21311, August 10, 1967 and the cases cited therein). In the
instant case the obvious lack of unanimity among the parties in interest, manifestly FACTS:
demonstrated by petitioners' express objection to the cancellation of TCT No. RT‐ When Bonifacio Carreon died, his widow adjudicated to herself the parcel of land
244, sufficiently removes the November 12 petition from the scope of section 112 which they acquired during his lifetime. She didn't disclose that she had children
of Act 496. Besides, the proceedings provided in the Land Registration Act are with Bonifacio. She was granted, subject to the annotation in the title of Section 4,
summary in nature and hence inadequate for the litigation of issues which properly Rule 74. Thereafter, she obtained a loan from the bank and as security, mortgaged
pertain to the case where the incident belongs. ½ of the land. She was not able to pay the loan on time and looked for a buyer for
the land. There came Agcaoili who bought the same. The loan was paid., the
40 ERM8C V. MEDELO mortgage subsequently released.
64 SCRA 359 (1975)
Consequently, the children of Celerina sought the annulment of the sale to Agcaoili
FACTS: on the ground of fraud employed by their mother in adjudicating the land to
One of the grandchildren of the deceased spouses filed for summary settlement of herself notwithstanding that she had children who were also heirs to the deceased
the estate. There being no opposition thereto, he was ordered to make a project Bonficacio.
of partition. The court approved the same. However, a motion for reconsideration
was filed by one of the children of the deceased spouses, alleging that the lot in HELD:
issue shouldn't be included in the inventory as the same was owned by him. The On the transfer certificate of title issued to Agcaoili there was annotated a
trial court overruled his motion and decided in favor of the summary settlement. statement that it was subject to Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. This was
an annotation carried over from Celerina's transfer certificate. Section 4, Rule 74,
HELD: provides the following:
The policy of the law is to terminate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons with the least loss of time. This is specially true with small SEC. 4. Liability of distributees and estate. □ If it shall appear at any time within
estates for which the rules provide precisely a summary procedure dispensing with two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the
the appointment of an administrator together with the other involved and provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other
cumbersome steps ordinarily required in the determination of the assets of the person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir
deceased and the persons entitled to inhirit therefrom and the payment of his or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the
obligations. Definitely, the probate court is not the best forum for the resolution of manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation.
adverse claims of ownership of any property ostensibly belonging to the decedent's And if within the same time of two years, it shall appear that there are debts
estate. While there are settled exceptions to this rule as applied to regular outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other
administration proceedings, it is not proper to delay the summary settlement of a person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the
deceased person just because an heir or a third person claims that certain court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing,
properties do not belong to the estate but to him. Such claim must be ventilated in settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in
an independent action, and the probate court should proceed to the distribution of what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may
the estate, if there are no other legal obstacles to it, for after all, such distribution issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the
must always be subject to the results of the suit. For the protection of the claimant preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both.
the appropriate step is to have the proper annotation of lis pendens entered. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors,

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 25

heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, the law is that "there are no debts . . . or all the debts have been paid by the heirs."
notwithstanding any transfers of the real estate that may have been made. When the condition is fulfilled the partition can take place, no matter what stage
the administration may have reached. By this it is, of course, not meant that the
The above lien is effective only for a period of two years. From September 28, partition after the appointment of an administrator will interfere with the rights
1946, when a transfer certificate of title was issued to Celerina, to September 8, acquired by third person dealing with said administrator within the limits of his
1949 when the deed of sale in favor of Agcaoili was issued and registered, more authority and prior to the partition; nor that the administrator can be deprived of
than two years had elapsed We sustain the lower court's opinion that thenceforth the property of which he is legally in possession without proper proceedings and
the right to have such lien cancelled became vested on appellee Agcaoili and that the consent of the court.
the same had become functus oficio. And there being no fraud in the transaction
on the part of appellee, nor proof that he knew of any legal infirmity in the title of As we have already indicated, the basis of the liability of a surety on an
his vendor, we find no reason to apply the proposition that he is deemed to be administrators' bond is the fault or failure of the principal. The liability of the
holding the land in trust for the children of Celerina Dauag. principal precedes that of the surety. If Velasco incurred no liability, then his surety
incurred none. The question that naturally suggests itself is, then, In what was
42 MCMICKING V. SY CONBIENG Velasco at fault or in what did he fail? When the persons interested in the estate of
21 Phil 211 (1912) Mariano Ocampo agreed voluntarily upon a partition and division of the property
of said estate and the actual partition followed, the matter passed out of the hands
FACTS: of Velasco as administrator. The parties to the partition stood invoking their rights
Margarita Jose died intestate and left properties here and abroad. Palanca under section 596 and 597. Velasco was helpless. He was powerless to prevent the
qualified as administrator of the estate and took possession of all the properties of parties from taking the property to which they were entitled under the agreement,
the decedent. Ocampo and another served as sureties of Palanca. When Ocampo it being conceded that they were actually entitled thereto in law. Those sections
died, Palanca was ordered to file an additional bond in replacement of the surety were applicable to the situation and there was nothing that Velasco could do to
given by Ocampo. Ocampo’s estate was in turn administered by Velasco, with prevent the estate from being divided according to their provisions. In giving his
several persons serving as his sureties. The estate was extrajudicially partitioned consent to the partition and in assisting the parties to obtain the approval of the
by the heirs and they undertook to pay any debts of the estate. Later on, Palarca court thereto he did no wrong.
was removed from office for his refusal to render accounting of the properties he
took in administration. McMicking took his stead and consequently filed a claim Moreover, the sureties of an administrator so appointed can not be held liable for
against the estate of Ocampo, arising allegedly from the surety it undertook for property which by force of law has been taken from the principal and its ownership
Palarca. and control turned over to others. Their obligation is that their principal shall obey
the law in the handling and distribution of the estate. Their obligation is discharged
HELD: when the estate is legally turned over to those entitled thereto. The law requires
In the case at the bar we are of the opinion that, under the broad and liberal policy the principal to turn it over to those who bring themselves within the provisions of
which we must adopt in the interpretation and application of the provisions section 596. Having turned over the whole estate under the compelling power of
referred to, the decision of the property of Mariano Ocampo, deceased, in the the law, his obligation ceased. The responsibility of the sureties ceased at the same
form, in the manner and for the purposes expressed, falls within the provisions of time. Without their consent another obligation could not be imposed upon them in
said sections and may be termed, therefore, and we hold it to be, a partition of the relation to the same principal, and the same property, or apart thereof, especially
property of a decedent without legal proceedings within the meaning of those after the lapse of two years. Their undertaking was that their principal should
sections. The fact of the prior appointment of an administrator and the filing of an discharge one obligation, not two.
inventory before such partition is of no consequence so far as the right of the
owners to partition is concerned. The only requisite for such petition prescribed by

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 26

We have not overlooked the contention that at the time this partition took place 174 SCRA 154 (1939)
there was a contingent claim against the estate partitioned, namely, the claim
which would arise on the contingency that the administrator for whom Mariano FACTS:
Ocampo was surety might default or otherwise fail to perform his duties thus Pereira was an employee of PAL until he died. he was survived by his widow and
rendering Mariano Ocampo liable on his bond; and that contingent claim, being sister. His sister then filed a petition for letters of administration of his estate.
one expressly recognized by sections 746 to 749 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a Notwithstanding opposition from the widow, she was appointed as administratix.
claim entirely proper to present, no partition of this estate under section 596 and It was the petitioner’s contention that judicial administration is unnecessary given
597 was legally possible until such claim was provided for by the petitioning there was no estate left by the husband and that no debts are payable.
parties. This contention goes upon the assumption that a partition under the
sections of the Code of Civil Procedure so often referred to is void unless every HELD:
debt is paid or provided for by the petitioning parties, and may therefore be The general rule is that when a person dies leaving property, the same should be
entirely disregarded by the creditor holding a claim either unpaid or provided for. judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified
We do not believe that this assumption is warranted. In the first place, we must administrator, in the order established in Section 6, Rule 78, in case the deceased
remember that the partition proceedings in question are proceedings out of court. left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor therein.
Consequently there is no prescribed method of ascertaining and settling claims. An exception to this rule is established in Section 1 of Rule 74. Under this
The appointment of commissioners, the publication of notice to creditors, and all exception, when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the
the other proceedings necessary in cases of administration in court are not estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the
required in partition out of court. The law is silent as to how the claims are to be judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator.
ascertained, presented and determined. We must assume, therefore, that the
method of ascertaining them and determining their validity was left to the good Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court, however, does not preclude the
sense and sound judgment of the persons concerned. heirs from instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate has no debts or
obligations, if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary action
In the second place, it must be on served that express provisions is made by for partition. While Section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among
sections 596 and 597 for the payment of a claim discovered by them or presented themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action for partition, the
after the partition. That is one of the main provisions. It is a necessary deduction, said provision does not compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a
therefore, that it was not the intention of the law to pronounce the partition void different course of action. It should be noted that recourse to an administration
of no effect simply because not all of the debts were paid before the partition was proceeding even if the estate has no debts is sanctioned only if the heirs have good
made. The fact of non payment cannot, then, because by the creditor as a reason reasons for not resorting to an action for partition. Where partition is possible,
for attacking the partition directly; that is, by asserting that, inasmuch as a either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened with an administration
payment of all the debts is a condition precedent to the right of partition, such proceeding without good and compelling reasons.
partition cannot legally and validly take place while a debt is outstanding. While a
partition manifestly fraudulent in inception and result might possibly be attacked Thus, it has been repeatedly held that when a person dies without leaving pending
directly by an action to set aside, a question which we do not discuss or decide, the obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the
manner of attacking the partition prescribed by the law is the one, generally property to a judicial administration, which is always long and costly, or to apply for
speaking, preferably to be followed; and that is to throw into administration so the appointment of an administrator by the Court. It has been uniformly held that
much of the estate as is necessary to pay the outstanding claim. The method, in such case the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator
though indirect, accomplishes a better result than a direct attack. are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings.

43 PEREIRA V. COURT OF APPEALS

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 27

Now, what constitutes "good reason" to warrant a judicial administration of the Respondent Judge acted too soon. The verified motion on the part of private
estate of a deceased when the heirs are all of legal age and there are no creditors respondents did not suffice to call into play the power of respondent Judge to
will depend on the circumstances of each case. allow intervention. There must be proof beyond allegations in such motion to show
the interest of the private movants. In the absence thereof, the action taken by
44 JEREZ V. NIETES respondent Judge could be considered premature.
30 SCRA 905 (1969)
RULE 75
FACTS:
PRODUCTION OF WILL. ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY
When Nietes died, his widow was appointed as administratix of his estate. She
submitted duly a project of partition and accounting and was duly approved by the
order of the court. upon closing of the intestate proceedings, here came the Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. No will shall pass
illegitimate children of the deceased alleging that the partition was contrary to law either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.
as they were deprived of their respective shares. Upon this mere unsubstantiated Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to
motion, the trial court judge reopened the proceedings hastily. its due execution.

HELD: WILL, DEFINED.


We do so now and definitely hold that rather than require any party who can allege  An act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by
a grievance that his interest was not recognized in a testate or intestate proceeding law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take
to file a separate and independent action, he may within the reglementary period effect after his death.
secure the relief that is his due by a reopening of the case even after a project of
partition and final accounting had been approved. Section 2. Custodian of will to deliver. The person who has custody of a will shall,
within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the
It is indisputable that after the project of partition and final accounting was will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will.
submitted by the counsel for petitioner Lucrecia Jerez, as administratrix, on June
14, 1966, respondent Judge approved the same and declared closed and Section 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust. A person named as
terminated the intestacy the next day, June 15, 1966. Subsequently, on a verified executor in a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of
petition by private respondents, filed on June 29, 1966, based on the assertion the testate, or within twenty (20) days after he knows that he is named executor
made that they should have had a share in the estate as illegitimate children but if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator, present such will
that they were omitted in the aforesaid project of partition, they sought to be to the court having jurisdiction, unless the will has reached the court in any other
allowed to intervene and "to have the project of partition rejected for being manner, and shall, within such period, signify to the court in writing his
contrary to law." Such a pleading, without more, resulted in the questioned order acceptance of the trust or his refusal to accept it.
of July 30, 1966, reopening the proceedings and reconsidering the approval of the
project of partition and final accounting, to enable the private respondents "to Section 4. Custodian and executor subject to fine for neglect. A person who
present whatever evidence they may have to show their right to participate in the neglects any of the duties required in the two last preceding sections without
estate of the deceased." Although the recognition of their right to intervene excused satisfactory to the court shall be fined not exceeding two thousand
appeared to be tentative and conditional, it cannot be denied that they were given pesos.
a standing sufficient to set aside the project of partition.
Section 5. Person retaining will may be committed. A person having custody of a
will after the death of the testator who neglects without reasonable cause to

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 28

deliver the same, when ordered so to do, to the court having jurisdiction, may be NATURE OF A PROBATE PROCEEDING
committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will.  Kind of special proceeding sanctioned under the Rules of Court
 It is a proceeding in rem, it is binding on all persons in interest whether
they appear to contest the probate or not
RULE 76
 The admission of will to probate has all the effects of a judgment, and is
ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL
entitled to good faith and credit in other courts

DEFINITION OF PROBATE NATURE OF PROBATE ORDERS


 Probate is a special proceeding for establishing the validity of a will  When a probate order has been issued and no timely appeal was filed,
 It seeks to prove that instrument submitted is the will of the testator, the order becomes final and binding upon the whole world
that it was executed according to the formalities required by law, and  Upon such finality, the case can no longer be opened for petition for
that the testator had the testamentary capacity at the time of execution annulment of the will

KINDS OF PROBATE PROCEEDINGS PURPOSE OF PROBATE PROCEEDINGS


1. Post‐mortem where the proceedings are held after the death of the  Probate courts have limited jurisdiction
testator  Main purpose of the proceedings is to determine the following—
2. Ante‐mortem where the testator tests the validity of his will before the o Identity of the will
probate court during his lifetime o Testamentary capacity of the testator
o Compliance of the will itself with the formalities required by
ADVANTAGES OF ANTE‐MORTEM PROCEEDINGS law
1. Fraud, intimidation, and undue influence are minimized because the  Once these three things have been established, then the court issues a
courts will have an easier time determining the mental condition of a live probate order
testator than a dead one  The probate order then has limited jurisdiction to determine what may or
2. If the will doesn't comply with the requirements of law, it can be may not be included in the inventory of the testator’s estate
corrected immediately  The issue of ownership is determined provisionally by the probate court
3. If probated during the lifetime of the testator, the only question left after in order to give effect to the will
the testator’s death would be the intrinsic validity of the dispositions
WHEN JURISDICTION VEST
QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PROBATE COURT  Upon filing of petition for probate
1. Question of identity of the will
2. Question of the due execution of the will in accordance with formalities
required by law
3. Question of testamentary capacity

NECESSITY FOR PROBATE


 Certain safeguards must be in place to prevent forgery and other acts of
unscrupulous individuals and at the same time, to insure that the testator
understood and meant what he placed in the will

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 29

Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. Any executor, devisee, or
legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any
time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have
the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or
destroyed.

The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court for the allowance
of his will.

WHO MAY FILE A PETITION FOR PROBATE OF A WILL


1. Testator during an ante‐mortem probate
2. Legatees or devisees
3. Heirs
4. Any other person interested in the estate

ANY DEFECT IN THE PETITION SHALL NOT RENDER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE
WILL
 The rules provide that no defect in the petition shall render void the
allowance of the will, or the issuance of letters testamentary or of
administration with the will annexed
 If there is any defect, then the court would just order the parties to make
the necessary amendments

Section 2. Contents of petition. A petition for the allowance of a will must show,
so far as known to the petitioner:

(a) The jurisdictional facts;

(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator or decedent;

(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;

(d) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;

(e) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having
custody of it.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 30

But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will, or the Section 5. Proof at hearing. What sufficient in absence of contest. At the hearing
issuance of letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed. compliance with the provisions of the last two preceding sections must be shown
before the introduction of testimony in support of the will. All such testimony
PETITION FOR PROBATE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING shall be taken under oath and reduced to writing. It no person appears to contest
1. The jurisdictional facts; the allowance of the will, the court may grant allowance thereof on the
2. The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the
the testator or decedent; will was executed as is required by law.
3. The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
4. The name of the person for whom letters are prayed; In the case of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness
5. If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that
having custody of it. the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of
any such competent witness, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
Section 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. may be resorted to.
When a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in, the
court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for proving the will IF THE NOTARIAL WILL IS UNCONTESTED, HOW MANY SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES
when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and shall cause ARE NEEDED TO TESTIFY?
notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively,  Only one subscribing witness may testify if the will is uncontested
previous to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general circulation in the  If the will is contested, all subscribing witnesses must testify
province.
WITH RESPECT TO HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS, HOW MANY WITNESSES MUST TESTIFY?
But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for probate has  At least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the
been filed by the testator himself. testator explicitly declaring that the will and signature are in the
handwriting of the testator
Section 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or  In the absence of such competent witness and/or if the court deems it
personally. The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to
fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of Section 6. Proof of lost or destroyed will. Certificate thereupon. No will shall be
residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the execution and validity of the same
least twenty (20) days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. A be established, and the will is proved to have been in existence at the time of the
copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally
executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to any person named as coexecutor not destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its
petitioning, if their places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
the notice at lest (10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and
mailing. certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the certificate must be
filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded.
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to
his compulsory heirs. Section 7. Proof when witnesses do not reside in province. If it appears at the
time fixed for the hearing that none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the
province, but that the deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere,

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 31

the court may, on motion, direct it to be taken, and may authorize a GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCE
photographic copy of the will to be made and to be presented to the witness on 1. Non‐compliance
his examination, who may be asked the same questions with respect to it, and to 2. Insanity or mentally incapable
the handwriting of the testator and others, as would be pertinent and competent 3. Duress or fear
if the original will were present. 4. Undue influence
5. Fraud
Section 8. Proof when witnesses dead or insane or do not reside in the Philippines.
If the appears at the time fixed for the hearing that the subscribing witnesses are Section 10. Contestant to file grounds of contest. Anyone appearing to contest
dead or insane, or thatnone of them resides in the Philippines, the court may the will must state in writing his grounds for opposing its allowance, and serve a
admit the testimony of other witnesses to prove the sanity of the testator, and copy thereof on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate.
the due execution of the will; and as evidence of the execution of the will, it may
admit proof of the handwriting of the testator and of the subscribing witnesses, Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will
or of any of them. contested. If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in
the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the
STAGES OF A PROBATE PROCEEDING Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death,
1. Probate proper where the court determines the existence of absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If
testamentary capacity, due execution and identity of the will all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the
2. The court shall then issue an order allowing the will province where the will has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any or
3. Second stage is the distribution, where for the purposes of judicial all of them testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember
orderliness, the will must be enforced in accordance with the provisions having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may
of the will so long as the will doesn't violate the law, especially the nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other
provisions on legitime and the qualifications of the beneficiary to succeed witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and
attested in the manner required by law.
Section 9. Grounds for disallowing will. The will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases: If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3)
witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the
(a) If not executed and attested as required by law; will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of
any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at may be resorted to.
the time of its execution;
Section 12. Proof where testator petitions for allowance of holographic will.
(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will and
no contest is filed, the fact that the affirms that the holographic will and the
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part signature are in his own handwriting, shall be sufficient evidence of the
of the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit; genuineness and due execution thereof. If the holographic will is contested, the
burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution thereof shall be on the
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not contestant. The testator to rebut the evidence for the contestant.
intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature
thereto.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 32

Section 13. Certificate of allowance attached to prove will. To be recorded in the


Office of Register of Deeds. If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed, FACTS:
that the will was duly executed, and that the testator at the time of its execution Mercado sought the probate of the will of his late wife. The will was duly probated
was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace, and and five years after said proceedings, the five intervenors filed for the reopening of
undue influence, or fraud, a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge, and the proceedings. Their motion was denied. Thereafter, they filed on four different
attested by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and the will and instances the same complaint for alleged forgery and falsification employed by
certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real Mercado. This prompted Mercado to be imprisoned and had to file for bail several
estate and of certificate of allowance thereof, shall be recorded in the register of times. He then filed for injunction with the appellate court.
deeds of the province in which the lands lie.
HELD:
45 FERNANDEZ V. DIMAGIBA The probate of a will by the probate court having jurisdiction thereof is usually
21 SCRA 428 considered as conclusive as to its due execution and validity, and is also conclusive
that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time when he executed
FACTS: the will, and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, and
Dimagiba submitted a petition for probate of the will of the late delos Reyes, that the will is genuine and not a forgery.
instituting the former as the sole heir. Opposition was later entered by Fernandez
and others. They alleged themselves to be intestate heirs and they oppose the The probate of a will in this jurisdiction is a proceeding in rem. The provision of
probate on grounds of forgery amongst others. They were overruled and the notice by Publication as a prerequisite to the allowance of a will is constructive
probate was allowed. They later introduce evidence that the will was revoked by notice to the whole world, and when probate is granted, the judgment of the court
alleged deeds of sale executed allegedly by the testatrix but again, the probate was is binding upon everybody, even against the State.
upheld. They tried to appeal the decision of the trial court but the appellate court
held that the probate had become final due to lack of opportune appeal from the 47 SUMILANG V. RAMAGOSA
oppositors. 21 SCRA 1369

HELD: FACTS:
As to the first point, oppositors‐appellants contend that the order allowing the will Sumilang filed a petition for the probate of the decedent Ramagosa, wherein the
to probate should be considered interlocutory, because it fails to resolve the issues former was the sole heir to the estate. The probate was opposed by the
of estoppel and revocation propounded in their opposition. The appellant's stand is respondents alleging that the will was made under duress and not intended to be
untenable. It is elementary that a probate decree finally and definitively settles all the decedent’s last will and testament. When the petitioner finished adducing
questions concerning capacity of the testator and the proper execution and evidence on his behalf, the oppositors didn’t adduce their own but instead, they
witnessing of his last will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings, alleging that the court didn’t
valid and enforceable or otherwise. As such, the probate order is final and have jurisdiction as the will was allegedly revoked by law when the decedent sold
appealable; and it is so recognized by express provisions of Section 1 of Rule 109, the parcels of land, subject of the will, to petitioners. The motion was denied on
that specifically prescribes that "any interested person may appeal in special the ground that it goes into the intrinsic value of the will, which the probate court
proceedings from an order or judgment . . . where such order or judgment: (a) doesn’t have jurisdiction to settle.
allows or disallows a will."
HELD:
46 MERCADO V. SANTOS The petition below being for the probate of a will, the court's area of inquiry is
66 SCRA 215 limited to the extrinsic validity thereof. The testator's testamentary capacity and

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 33

the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal
only questions presented for the resolution of the court. Any inquiry into the validity had been established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony
intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will or the legality of any devise if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations
or legacy is premature. demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the court should meet the issue.
Oppositors would want the court a quo to dismiss petition for probate on the
ground that the testator had impliedly revoked his will by selling, prior to his death, It was wrong however for the probate court to convert the proceedings into an
the lands disposed of therein. intestate one. The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions
contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions, unless
True or not, the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions
probate. Probate is one thing the validity of the testamentary provisions is another. if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. 792, Civil Code). "Where
The first decides the execution of the document and the testamentary capacity of some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid parts will be
the testator; the second relates to descent and distribution. upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of
the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme, or doing injustice
48 BALANAY V. MARTINEZ to the beneficiaries"
64 SCRA 452
49 PASTOR V. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: 122 SCRA 885
Balanay Jr. filed a petition for the probate of the will of his late mother, which was
opposed by his father and siblings. The father claims to have been preterited and FACTS:
that there was an illegal partition of the conjugal properties. Balanay Jr. then Pastor Sr. died and was survived by his wife, who later also died, 2 legitimate
presented documents allegedly executed by the father withdrawing any opposition children—Pastor Jr., and Sofia, and one illegitimate child Quemada Pastor Jr.
to the probate proceedings as well as the renunciation of whatever share in the Quemada Pastor Jr. sought the probate of the alleged holographic will of his father.
estate of his late wife. The opposition was then overruled by the court and The will contained only one testamentary disposition: a legacy in favor of
proceedings continued. However, during the proceedings, one who was allegedly QUEMADA consisting of 30% of PASTOR, SR.'s 42% share in the operation by Atlas
Balanay’s new counsel filed a motion for the dismissal of the probate proceedings Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) of some mining claims
on the ground that the will is void for illegally partitioning the conjugal assets and in Cebu. He was subsequently appointed as the special administrator of the estate
constituted a compromise on future legitime. The motion included that the testate and by purview of this authority, he instituted actions against Pastor Jr. for the
proceedings should be dismissed and replaced with an intestate one. The court reconveyance of some properties of the estate, which covers the legacy
sustained the motion and dismissed the proceedings. Balanay Jr. then averred that bequeathed to Quemada. This was opposed by Pastor Jr. and his wife but was
he didn’t authorized Montinolla to file the same motion and that the court overruled. Probate proceedings commenced and Quemada kept on asking for the
shouldn’t dismiss the proceedings. The trial court held that it didn’t decide solely payment of his legacies.
on the basis of the motion filed but due to the reading of the provisions of the will
itself. While the reconveyance suit was still pending, the PROBATE COURT issued the now
assailed Order of Execution and Garnishment, resolving the question of ownership
HELD: of the royalties payable by ATLAS and ruling in effect that the legacy to QUEMADA
In view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, and was not inofficious.
because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court
assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization), the trial court

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 34

The order found that as per the holographic will and a written acknowledgment of estate of the testator," which clearly implies that the issue of impairment of
Pastor, Jr. of the above 60% interest in the mining claims belonging to the Pastor legitime (an aspect of intrinsic validity) was in fact not resolved. Finally, the Probate
Group, 42% belonged to Pastor, Sr. and only 33% belonged to Pastor, Jr. The Order did not rule on the propriety of allowing Quemada to remain as special
remaining 25% belonged to E. Pelaez, also of the Pastor Group. The probate court administrator of estate properties not covered by the holographic will, "considering
thus directed ATLAS to remit directly to Quemada the 42% royalties due decedent's that this (Probate) Order should have been properly issued solely as a resolution on
estate, of which Quemada was authorized to retain 75% for himself as legatee and the issue of whether or not to allow and approve the aforestated will. "
to deposit 25% with a reputable banking institution for payment of the estate taxes
and other obligations of the estate. The 33% share of PASTOR, JR. and/or his It was, therefore, error for the assailed implementing Orders to conclude that the
assignees was ordered garnished to answer for the accumulated legacy of Probate Order adjudged with finality the question of ownership of the mining
Quemada from the time of Pastor, Sr.'s death, which amounted to over two million properties and royalties, and that, premised on this conclusion, the dispositive
pesos. portion of the said Probate Order directed the special administrator to pay the
legacy in dispute.
The order being "immediately executory", Quemada succeeded in obtaining a Writ
of Execution and Garnishment. Pastor Jr. sought reconsideration. With respect to the intrinsic validity of the will, there was no appropriate
determination, much less payment, of the debts of the decedent and his estate.
HELD: Nor had the estate tax been determined and paid, or at least provided for, as of
In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted December 5, 1972. The net assets of the estate not having been determined,
to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, therefore, the legitime of the forced heirs in concrete figures could not be
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. As a ascertained. All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not possible to
rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court determine whether the legacy of Quemada ‐ a fixed share in a specific property
cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain rather than an aliquot part of the entire net estate of the deceased ‐ would
property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the produce an impairment of the legitime of the compulsory heirs.
Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is
provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action Finally, there actually was no determination of the intrinsic validity of the will in
to resolve title. other respects. It was obviously for this reason that as late as March 5, 1980 ‐ more
than 7 years after the Probate Order was issued the Probate Court scheduled on
Nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of ownership of specific March 25, 1980 a hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will.
properties. On the contrary, it is manifest therein that ownership was not resolved.
For it confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the win, and the need 50 US V. CHIU GUIMOO
for and propriety of appointing a special administrator. Thus it allowed and 36 PHIL 917
approved the holographic win "with respect to its extrinsic validity, the same
having been duly authenticated pursuant to the requisites or solemnities FACTS:
prescribed by law." It declared that the intestate estate administration aspect must Joaquin Cruz was a wealthy Chinese merchant who resided permanently in a
proceed " subject to the outcome of the suit for reconveyance of ownership and certain municipality. When he visited China, he married Uy Chuan and had a child
possession of real and personal properties in Civil Case 274‐T before Branch IX of with her. When he returned, he then met Maria who he also married. He then
the CFI of Cebu." Then again, the Probate Order (while indeed it does not direct the decided to return to China but he wasn’t able to come back as he died. Before his
implementation of the legacy) conditionally stated that the intestate death, he executed a will which named his brother, defendant in this case, and
administration aspect must proceed "unless . . . it is proven . . . that the legacy to another person as heir. The brother filed a petition for the probate but didn’t
be given and delivered to the petitioner does not exceed the free portion of the produce the will. He then negotiated with Maria for the renunciation of her share

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 35

in the estate in exchange for money. Thereafter, criminal action was filed against
defendant for refusing to produce the will of his deceased brother as well as to From what has been said it follows that the order of commitment made by the
distribute the estate. lower court remanding the accused to jail should be vacated and if subsidiary
imprisonment should be imposed for insolvency the defendant shall, under the
HELD: provisions of Act No. 2557, be credited with the time during which he was confined
The judge of first instance believed that he had authority to give the notice and in pursuance of the order of the lower court, With this modification the judgment
make the order in question under section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure which of the court below should be affirmed with costs against the appellant.
provides the testator neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the same to the
court having jurisdiction, after notice by the course so to do, he may be committed 51 RODRIGUEZ V. DE BORJA
to the prison of the province by a warrant issued by the court and there kept in 17 SCRA 418
close confinement until he delivers the will.
FACTS:
It is our opinion that this provision can only be applied when a court is acting in the After the death of Fr. Rodriguez, a purported will of his was submitted for probate.
exercise of its jurisdiction over the administration of the estates of deceased Maria and Angela Rodriguez sought the examination of the will but later on
persons; and where administration proceedings are not already pending, the court, withdrawn the same. Instead, they filed for the settlement of the intestate estate
before taking action under this section, should require that there be before it some of Fr. Rodriguez, alleging therein that the decedent didn't leave any will. One of
petition, information, or affidavit of such character as to make action by the court their allegations is that their action precluded the probate proceedings in the other
under this section appropriate. court. The same parties, petitioners herein, sought the dismissal of the probate
proceedings, but was denied.
The proceedings in this case, under section 628 of the Code of the Civil Procedure,
is an ordinary criminal prosecution. The act penalized in that section (628) is a HELD:
special statutory offense and is properly prosecuted upon complaint or information Intestate succession is only subordinate or subsidiary to the testate, since intestacy
as other criminal offenses created by law. The fact that this penal provision is only takes place in the absence of a valid operative will. Thus, following the same
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure does not make the proceeding to enforce principle, it is only when the testate succession is invalidated could an intestate
the penalty a civil proceeding in any sense. The remedy provided in section 629 of succession be instituted in the form of pre‐established action.
the Code of Procedure is evidently a totally different remedy, having no relation
with that provided in section 628; and it is in our opinion not permissible in a 52 TEOTICO V. DEL VAL
prosecution under the last mentioned section to superimpose upon the penalty of 13 SCRA 406
fine therein prescribed the additional penalty of imprisonment prescribed in
section 629. FACTS:
Aguirre died and left a will, which provided among others a legacy in favor of Rene
I may further be observed that one grace difficulty in applying the remedy provided Teotico, the husband of her niece. The will was submitted for probate by Vicente
in section 629 in a prosecution under section 628 is that to enforce the production Teotico but was opposed against by the adopted child of Aguirre’s sister. One of
of the will b the accused at such trial would virtually compel him to convict himself, the allegations was that the legacy to Teotico was void on the ground that Teotico
since the mere production of the will by him would be conclusive that he had was the physician who administered medical attention to Aguirre before her death.
possession of it as charged in the criminal complaint; and it seems probable that Vicente in turn filed a motion to dismiss the opposition on the ground that she
this would constitute an infringement of that provision of law which says that in a doesn’t have any legal personality to intervene. In the end of the proceedings, the
criminal action the defendant shall be exempt from testifying against himself. (See will’s validity was sustained by the probate court but the legacy was held void. The
Gen. Orders No. 58, sec. 15.) petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision to nullify the legacy.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 36

Crisostomo. A corresponding prayer for the appointment of an additional


HELD: administrator of the estate. This was opposed by the Fernando and instead moved
Question on the legal personality of oppositor to intervene… for the dismissal of the intestate proceedings on the ground that he already had
possession of the property in favor of the children.
Before a person may intervene in estate proceedings, he should have an interest in
the estate, or in his will, or in the property to be affected by it either as an executor HELD:
or as a claimant of the estate, and an interested party has been defined as one who It will be seen from the above that the principal issue in this case as to whether the
would be benefited by the estate like a creditor. intestate proceedings should be dismissed has already been decided by this Court
in the certiorari proceedings as far back as July 2, 1948, with the exception that if
Where under the will’s terms, an oppositor has no interest in the estate either as there had been errors committed in the appointment of the guardian (not in the
an heir, executor or administrator, nor does she have any claim to any property institution of the intestate proceedings, which had been declared within the
affected by the will, nor would she acquire any interest in any portion of the estate jurisdiction of the court) those errors in the appointment may be corrected in an
as a legal heir if the will were denied probate, it is held that said oppositor cannot appeal. After examining the record, we do not see any error in the appointment of
intervene. German Crisostomo and Pacita Fernando as co‐administrators as they were the
brother and sister, respectively, of the deceased, no evidence having been
Question on intrinsic validity of the will… presented by the appellant why those persons should not be appointed, either on
account of their incompetency or lack of moral qualifications. We, therefore, affirm
Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be the order of the court appointing them.
entertained in Probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely to determine
if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the law." It should be borne in mind that the above resolutions of this Court constitute res
judicata and "the law of the case" with regard to this appeal and they can no longer
Pursuant to the foregoing precedents the pronouncement made by the court a quo be questioned or put in issue in the present case. It results then, that the claim of
declaring invalid the legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico in the will Exhibit A must be the appellant that the intestate proceedings should be dismissed has to be denied
set aside as having been made in excess of its jurisdiction. Another reason why said and, as all the other questions are dependent on said issue, they should also be
pronouncement should be set aside is that the legatee was not given an decided adversely to the appellant.
opportunity to defend the validity of the legacy for he was not allowed to intervene
in this proceeding. As a corollary, the other pronouncements touching on the 54 ARAUJO V. CELIS
disposition of the estate in favor of some relatives of the deceased should also be 6 PHIL 459
set aside for the same reason.
FACTS:
53 FERNANDO V. CRISOSTOMO Rosario Araujo owned property inherited from her late mother. She wed the
90 SCRA 585 defendant’s son. She died with no descendants and ascendants but only collateral
relatives. These relatives wanted the properties in question be delivered by the
FACTS: father of Rosario’s husband as they were allegedly the surviving heirs of Rosario.
Fernando was the guardian of Rufino Sr. and his children. When the father died, he Gregorio Celis as a matter of defense didn’t deny the possession of the properties
became the guardian of the children. He then filed a motion for the approval of but alleged that he was entitled to the same. He allegedly inherited the same from
the extrajudicial partition of the estate of spouses Rufino Crisostomo and Petra his late son who in turn inherited the property from Rosario.
Fernando. The guardian ad litem opposed this and was sustained by the trial court.
A petition was then filed for the reopening of the intestate proceedings by German HELD:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 37

As the court below properly found, the only important and decisive question in this with Go Toh and Manuel Lopez, and that this will was placed in an envelope which
case is whether or not Rosario Darwin executed a legal and valid will in the form was signed by the deceased and by the instrumental witnesses. In court there was
and manner alleged by the defendant. If so the defendant's right to the property presented and attached to the case an open and empty envelope signed by Jose B.
would be unquestionable. If not so the contrary would necessarily be the result. Suntay, Alberto Barretto, Go Toh and Manuel Lopez. It is thus undeniable that this
envelope Exhibit A is the same one that contained the will executed by the
This point as to the will, however, was not as clearly established as it should have deceased drafted by Barretto and with the latter, Go Toh and Manuel Lopez as
been. The defendant introduced no will in evidence, offered secondary parol attesting witnesses. These tokens sufficiently point to the loss of the will of the
evidence as to its contents under the claim that the original will had been lost. The deceased., a circumstance justifying the presentation of secondary evidence of its
court allowed this evidence over the objection of the plaintiffs, and this is one of contents and of whether it was executed with all the essential and necessary legal
the errors assigned by them on this appeal. The plaintiffs' objection to the formalities.
admission of such evidence was well taken and that it could therefore have been
sustained. The trial of this case was limited to the proof of loss of the will, and from what has
taken place we deduce that it was not petitioner's intention to raise, upon the
The loss of the alleged original will has not been sufficiently established. evidence adduced by her, the other points involved herein, namely, as we have
Further, the witness testified that the will, a copy of which he saw and had in his heretofore indicated, whether Exhibit B is a true copy of the will and whether the
possession, was signed by two witnesses only. A will signed by two witnesses only latter was executed with all the formalities required by law for its probate. The
could not under any circumstances be valid under the law in force at the time testimony of Alberto Barretto bears importantly in this connection.
referred to by the witness, and legally speaking such will could not then have been
probated or recorded. Wherefore, the loss of the will executed by the deceased having been sufficiently
established, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the court of origin for
The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. further proceedings in obedience to this decision, without any pronouncement as
to the costs. So ordered
55 LIM BILLIAN V. SUNTAY
63 PHIL 793 56 BASA V. MERCADO
61 PHIL 632
FACTS:
Jose Suntay died in China. He married twice, having many children during his first FACTS:
marriage and a son during his second. When he died, one of the children from the The judge allowed the probate of the will of Ines Basa. The administrator’s
first marriage instituted intestate proceedings. On the same proceedings, the inventory was then duly approved and he was held to be the sole heir of the
second wife instituted for probate of the will of Jose. She alleged that before testatrix. The petitioners thereafter came forth and prayed for the reopening of
leaving for China, she was handed a sealed envelope purporting to be the will of the proceedings on the ground that the court didn’t have jurisdiction due to non‐
the testator. It was snatched allegedly by the children of the first marriage. This compliance with publication requirements.
was of course denied by the children. Witnesses however attested to the fact of
the will. HELD:
It is held that the language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure does
HELD: not mean that the notice, referred to therein, should be published for three full
In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to establish the loss of the document weeks before the date set for the hearing on the will. In other words the first
contained in the envelope. Oppositors' answer admits that, according to Barretto publication of the notice need not be made twenty‐one days before the day
he prepared a will of the deceased to which he later became a witness together appointed for the hearing.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 38

section 618. However, a petition was presented in the Court of First Instance of
57 DE ARANZ V. GALANG the city of Manila for the probate of this will, on the ground that Johnson was at
161 SCRA 628 the time of his death a citizen of the State of Illinois, United States of America; that
the will was duly executed in accordance with the laws of that State; and hence
FACTS: could properly be probated here pursuant to section 636 of the Code of Civil
Joaquin Infante filed a petition for the probate of the will of Montserrat Infante and Procedure. This section reads as follows:
he likewise named the legatees and devisees and their corresponding addresses.
The court ordered for the publication of notice of the hearing in newspapers of Will made here by alien. A will made within the Philippine Islands by a citizen or
general circulation once a week, for three consecutive weeks. It however didn’t subject of another state or country, which is executed in accordance with the law
send personal notices to the devisees and legatees. No opposition was filed during of the state or country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be
the reglamentary period and thus, the court accepted evidence ex parte from proved and allowed by the law of his own state or country, may be proved,
private respondent. The petitioners then moved for reconsideration on the ground allowed, and recorded in the Philippine Islands, and shall have the same effect as if
of jurisdictional issues. executed according to the laws of these Islands.

HELD: The grounds upon which the petitioner seeks to avoid the probate are four in
It is clear from the aforecited rule that notice of the time and place of the hearing number and may be stated, in the same sequence in which they are set forth in the
for the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known petition, as follows:
heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence,
if such places of residence be known. There is no question that the residences of (1) Emil H. Johnson was a resident of the city of Manila and not a resident of
herein petitioners legatees and devisees were known to the probate court. The the State of Illinois at the time the will in question was executed;
petition for the allowance of the wig itself indicated the names and addresses of
the legatees and devisees of the testator. But despite such knowledge, the probate (2) The will is invalid and inadequate to pass real and personal property in the
court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to petitioners. The requirement State of Illinois;
of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the
notice of hearing for three (3) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the (3) The order admitting the will to probate was made without notice to the
province. petitioner; and

58 IN RE ESTATE OF JOHNSON (4) The order in question was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
39 PHIL 156
HELD:
FACTS: Principally, the issue being raised by petitioner is the citizenship of the testator.
Emil H. Johnson, a native of Sweden and a naturalized citizen of the United States, Assuming that he became a US citizen, he apparently lost the same when he
died in the city of Manila, leaving a will, by which he disposed of an estate, the resided in the Philippines. However, there was no law in force by virtue of which
value of which, as estimated by him, was P231,800. This document is an any person of foreign nativity can become a naturalized citizen of the Philippine
holographic instrument, being written in the testator's own handwriting, and is Islands; and it was, therefore, impossible for the testator, even if he had so desired,
signed by himself and two witnesses only, instead of three witnesses required by to expatriate himself from the United States and change his political status from a
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This will, therefore, was not executed in citizen of the United States to a citizen of these Islands. This being true, it is to be
conformity with the provisions of law generally applicable to wills executed by presumed that he retained his citizenship in the State of Illinois along with his
inhabitants of the Philippines, and hence could not have been proved under status as a citizen of the United States. It would be novel doctrine to Americans

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 39

living in the Philippine Islands to be told that by living here they lose their the legitime to which she is entitled under the law governing testamentary
citizenship in the State of their naturalization or nativity. successions in these Islands. Upon this point it is sufficient to say that the probate
of the will does not affect the intrinsic validity of its provisions, the decree of
The court wasn't unmindful of the fact that when a citizen of one State leaves it probate being conclusive only as regards the due execution of the will.
and takes up his abode in another State with no intention of returning, he
immediately acquires citizenship in the State of his new domicile. This is in 59 ABUT V. ABUT
accordance with that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 45 SCRA 326
of the United States which says that every citizen of the United States is a citizen of
the State where in he resides. The effect of this provision necessarily is that a FACTS:
person transferring his domicile from one State to another loses his citizenship in Gavina sought to substitute her deceased brother as a party to the probate
the State of his original above upon acquiring citizenship in the State of his new proceedings of the will of their late father. Originally, Generoso filed a petition for
abode. The acquisition of the new State citizenship extinguishes the old. That probate of the will of his father. He was a child from the second marriage.
situation however has no analogy to that which arises when a citizen of an Opposition was entered by the children of the first marriage but they were
American State comes to reside in the Philippine Islands. Here he cannot acquire a overruled and Generoso was appointed executor. When he died, Gavina sought to
new citizenship; nor by the mere change of domicile does he lose that which he substitute but the court instead consequently dismissed the proceedings as no new
brought with him. publication was allegedly made.

With respect to the issue of compliance with the rules pertaining to execution of HELD:
wills in Illinois, the lower court may have erred when it took judicial notice of the We find the dismissal of the original petition for probate and the refusal of the
state laws of Illinois but even so, the remedy isn’t available to the petitioner any probate court to admit the amended petition without a new publication thereof to
longer. First, because the petition does not state any fact from which it would be untenable. The jurisdiction of the court became vested upon the filing of the
appear that the law of Illinois is different from what the court found, and, secondly, original petition and upon compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.
because the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises
no question based on such supposed error. Though the trial court may have acted A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the
upon pure conjecture as to the law prevailing in the State of Illinois, its judgment corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all
could not be set aside, even upon application made within six months under persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
section 113 of the Code of Civil procedure, unless it should be made to appear The fact that the amended petition named additional heirs not included in the
affirmatively that the conjecture was wrong. The petitioner, it is true, states in original petition did not require that notice of the amended petition be published
general terms that the will in question is invalid and inadequate to pass real and anew.
personal property in the State of Illinois, but this is merely a conclusion of law. The
affidavits by which the petition is accompanied contain no reference to the subject, Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination of the case,
and we are cited to no authority in the appellant's brief which might tent to raise a and remains unaffected by subsequent events. The court below erred in holding
doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion of the trial court. It is very clear, that it was divested of jurisdiction just because the original petitioner died before
therefore, that this point cannot be urged as of serious moment. the petition could be formally heard. Parties who could have come in and opposed
the original petition, as herein appellees did, could still come in and oppose the
But it is insisted in the brief for the appellant that the will in question was not amended petition, having already been notified of the pendency of the proceeding
properly admissible to probate because it contains provisions which cannot be by the publication of the notice thereof.
given effect consistently with the laws of the Philippine Islands; and it is suggested
that as the petitioner is a legitimate heir of the testator she cannot be deprived of

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 40

The admission of the amended petition, of course, does not mean that Gavina court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed
Abut's prayer that she be appointed administratrix with the will annexed is holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting
necessarily meritorious. It simply recognizes that since the lower court has of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.
acquired jurisdiction over the res, such jurisdiction continues until the termination
of the case. The first question that the lower court should hear and decide is the 61 GAN V. YAP
probate of the will; and the question of whether or not Gavina Abut should be 104 PHIL 509
appointed administratrix must be decided on the basis of the facts to be presented
and after the will is proved and allowed, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 78. FACTS:
Felicidad Yap died from a heart attack. Days after her death, Fausto Gan petitioned
60 RODELAS V. ARANZA that her alleged holographic will be admitted to probate. The husband opposed
119 SCRA 16 the existence of said will, maintaining his wife didn't left any will.

FACTS: During the court proceedings, the will wasn't really presented as evidence but
Rodelas sought the probate of the will of Ricardo Bonilla. This was opposed on the instead, witnesses who allegedly saw the will were presented to testify. Allegedly,
ground that what was presented was the photostatic copy of the holographic will since the testatrix was suffering from a long‐time heart ailment, she expressed her
and not the original. The opposition maintained that first, the copy wasn't the true intent to execute a will to her cousin. She allegedly didn't want her husband to
copy of the holographic will and that its existence may not be proved by secondary know about it. Asking the help of her nephew, she drew a holographic will. But
evidence. after he death, this was allegedly lost.

HELD: HELD:
Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the In the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are
allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. The demanded, since as stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they
probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one Identifying witness are "entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself." The
is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, law, it is reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as material proof of
at least three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the holographic will authenticity, and as its own safeguard, since it could at any time, be demonstrated
has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be to be or not to be in the hands of the testator himself. "In the probate of a
probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in holographic will" says the New Civil Code, "it shall be necessary that at least one
said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare
statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of any
made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 such witnesses, (familiar with decedent's handwriting) and if the court deem it
PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of a lost or necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to."
destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, The witnesses so presented do not need to have seen the execution of the
it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of holographic will. They may be mistaken in their opinion of the handwriting, or they
authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be may deliberately lie in affirming it is in the testator's hand. However, the oppositor
proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon may present other witnesses who also know the testator's handwriting, or some
copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the expert witnesses, who after comparing the will with other writings or letters of the
handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate deceased, have come to the conclusion that such will has not been written by the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 41

hand of the deceased. (Sec. 50, Rule 123). And the court, in view of such have purposely destroyed it in an "accident" the oppositors have no way to expose
contradictory testimony may use its own visual sense, and decide in the face of the the trick and the error, because the document itself is not at hand. And considering
document, whether the will submitted to it has indeed been written by the that the holographic will may consist of two or three pages, and only one of them
testator. need be signed, the substitution of the unsigned pages, which may be the most
important ones, may go undetected.
Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of
assessing the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity If testimonial evidence of holographic wills be permitted, one more objectionable
the testator's handwriting has disappeared. feature feasibility of forgery would be added to the several objections to this kind
of wills.
Normally, the relatives of the decedent are allowed to inspect the document to
testify as to whether the will was executed by the testator. They are given the Furthermore, in the case of a lost will, the three subscribing witnesses would be
opportunity to oppose or abide by the will. But this is frustrated, when the testifying to a fact which they saw, namely the act of the testator of subscribing the
document itself is not presented to them as evidence. Furthermore, it is notable will; whereas in the case of a lost holographic will, the witnesses would testify as to
that commentators have the common submission that before the court allows their opinion of the handwriting which they allegedly saw, an opinion which can
distribution of property in accordance with a holographic will, the testator’s not be tested in court, nor directly contradicted by the oppositors, because the
handwriting and signature must be presented. handwriting itself is not at hand.

Taking all the above circumstances together, the court reached the conclusion that Given this, the Court finally agreed with the trial judge in disbelieving the dubious
the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be testimonies. First, why would the testatrix show the will precisely to relatives who
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. didn't even had a share in the inheritance. Second, if she truly wanted to conceal
the will from her husband, why not just entrust it with her beneficiaries.
The above could easily been adopted as a rule for holographic wills by the Court
but in this case, it hesitated to apply the rule and tackled further on the sufficiency 62 GAGO V. MAMUYAC
of the evidence presented by Gan and the others. 49 PHIL 902

In the case of ordinary wills, it is quite hard to convince three witnesses (four with FACTS:
the notary) deliberately to lie. And then their lies could be checked and exposed, Gago filed a petition for the probate of the will of Miguel Mamuyac. This was
their whereabouts and acts on the particular day, the likelihood that they would be opposed on the ground that the testator executed a new will and testament. Gago,
called by the testator, their intimacy with the testator, etc. And if they were on a second time, petitioned the probate of the later will of Miguel. This again was
intimates or trusted friends of the testator they are not likely to end themselves to opposed by the same oppositors on the ground that what was presented was just a
any fraudulent scheme to distort his wishes. Last but not least, they cannot receive carbon copy of the original 2nd will and that the same was revoked by the testator
anything on account of the will. during his lifetime.

Whereas in the case of holographic wills, if oral testimony were admissible only HELD:
one man could engineer the fraud this way: after making a clever or passable With reference to the said cancellation, it may be stated that there is positive
imitation of the handwriting and signature of the deceased, he may contrive to let proof, not denied, which was accepted by the lower court, that will in question had
three honest and credible witnesses see and read the forgery; and the latter, been cancelled in 1920. The law does not require any evidence of the revocation
having no interest, could easily fall for it, and in court they would in all good faith or cancellation of a will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult at times to
affirm its genuineness and authenticity. The will having been lost the forger may prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. The fact that such cancellation or

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 42

revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be inferred from presence in the court room. As far as we can see, there is nothing in the leading
evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. Where a case, Cabang vs. Delfinado (34 Phil., 291), cited by the appellees, to justify a
will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator, different conclusion; in that case no effect was made to produce the testimony of
when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, the two subscribing witnesses though their abode was known to the proponent of
that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is the will.
shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after
his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other In the present case, the will was presented for probate in Cebu; the attesting
person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. The force of the witnesses were living in Manila and were beyond the process of the court for
presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator, while varying greatly, compulsory attendance. They were called to testify and produced before an officer
being weak or strong according to the circumstances, is never conclusive, but may legally authorized to take their testimony in the form of depositions. The notice
be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to required by section 361, supra, was duly given and the opponents given the
revoke it. opportunity to be present and to cross‐examine the witnesses. In the
circumstances, this must certainly be considered a sufficient "calling" of the
In view of the fact that the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death witnesses and satisfies the law.
of the testator Miguel Mamuyac and in view of the positive proof that the same
had been cancelled, it is concluded that the conclusions of the lower court are in The depositions in question appear to be in due form and would ordinarily be
accordance with the weight of the evidence. In a proceeding to probate a will the admissible, but the record indicates that the failure of the opponents to be
burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its execution presented at the examination of the witnesses was due to the fact that they were
but its existence. Having proved its execution by the proponents, the burden is on misled by the petitioner's action in seeking special authorization from the court for
the contestant to show that it has been revoked. the taking of the depositions. In the interest of justice we therefore think that the
depositions should be retaken and the opponents given another opportunity to
63 ALDANESE V. SALUTILLO examine the witnesses.
47 PHIL 548
64 CABANG V. DELFINADO
FACTS: 34 PHIL 291
Aldanese filed a petition for the probate of the will of Avila. After due publication,
Salutillo and others opposed the probate. During the proceedings, Aldanese FACTS:
moved for the taking of depositions of witnesses to the will. This was opposed by Cabang sought the probate of the will of Celestino Delfinado. This was opposed by
the respondents on the ground that the witnesses should be physicially present respondent Delfinado. During the proceedings, the petitioner failed to present two
during the witnesses to give their testimonies. The probate court sustained the of the subscribing witnesses of the will and based on the orders of the court and
respondents. records, no reason was adduced for failing to present the witnesses. The question
then arises on whether the same should be sustained and the will be allowed to be
HELD: probated.
In our opinion the court below erred in holding that the depositions in question
were inadmissible in evidence in the probate proceedings. It is true that the rule HELD:
prevailing in this jurisdiction is that when a will is contested the attesting witnesses The rule that no will shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, unless
must be called to prove the will or a showing must be made that they cannot be "attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses," is a matter of
had, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be brought bodily before substantive law and an element of the will's validity. The rule that the attesting
the court. It is their testimony which is needed and not their actual personal witnesses must be called to prove a will for probate is one of preference made so

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 43

by statute. This rule of evidence is not to be confused with rules of quantity. There instituted, all of the attesting witnesses must be examined, if alive and within reach
have been several reasons given for this rule of preference for the attesting of the process of the court.
witnesses, one reason being that the party opposing the claim of proper execution
of the will has a right to the benefit of cross‐examining the attesting witnesses as to In the present case no explanation was made at the trial as to why all three of the
fraud, duress, or other matters of defense. The law places these witnesses "around attesting witnesses were not produced, but the probable reason is found in the fact
the testator to ascertain and judge of his capacity" for the purpose of preventing that, although the petition for the probate of this will had been pending until the
frauds. The soundness of the rule is well illustrated in the case under consideration. date set for the hearing, no formal contest was entered until the very day set for
Here the attesting clause was omitted and the testator signed by mark. The the hearing; and it is probable that the attorney for the proponent, believing in
petitioner produced only one of the attesting witnesses. Had there not been a good faith the probate would not be contested, repaired to the court with only one
contest, this would have probably been sufficient under section 631. While there is of the three attesting witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was
no testimony in the record to the effect that the testator could neither read nor contested, incautiously permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a
write, there is conclusive evidence that he could sign his name. This fact is postponement of the trial in order that he might produce all the attesting
established by the production of Exhibit 1, which all agree the testator did sign. The witnesses.
testator's signature to the document shows that he could write, at least his name,
in a plain, clear manner, indicating a fairly good knowledge of writing. Had the Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not
proponent shown that the other two subscribing witnesses were not within the produced, it does not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule expounded in
jurisdiction of the court and could not, therefore, be called, the due execution of the case above referred to; and were it not for a fact now to be mentioned, this
the will would still be very doubtful. Believing, as we do, that it was the intention of court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the
the Legislature that the subscribing witnesses must be called or good and sufficient execution of the will had not been proved by a sufficient number of attesting
reason shown why they could not be had, and being supported by the authorities witnesses.
above cited and quoted, we must conclude that the proponent did not comply with
the provisions of the law in the presentation of her case. 66 SOLIVIO V. CA
182 SCRA 119
65 AVERA V. GARCIA
42 PHIL 145 FACTS:
This case is regards the estate of the late author Esteban Javellana Jr. When he
FACTS: died, he was survived by only his maternal aunt, petitioner Solivio and paternal
Avera petitioned for the probate of the will of Eusebio Garcia. This was opposed aunt, respondent Villanueva. Wishing to fulfill the decedent’s wish to place his
against by the respondents. Avera presented only one of the subscribing witnesses properties into a foundation, Solivio filed a petition for the letters of administration
and adduced no reason why the other two weren’t presented. A caveat though to of the estate be issued to her and consequently be appointed as a special
this case was that from the time petition was filed by Avera till the time of the administrator. The petition was later amended to declare her as sole heir of the
hearing, no opposition was made. It was only during the same day as of the decedent. The court ruled in Solivio’s favor and she explained that she did this to
hearing wherein opposition was entered. facilitate the formation of the foundation among other reasons. Subsequently,
Villanueva belatedly sought the reconsideration of the order of the court, averring
HELD: that Solivio wasn’t the only heir of the decedent but to this, she was overruled.
Upon the first point, while it is undoubtedly true that an uncontested will bay be She then filed a case for reconveyance and possession of property, which the trial
proved by the testimony of only one of the three attesting witnesses, nevertheless court decided in her favor.
in Cabang vs. Delfinado (34 Phil., 291), this court declared after an elaborate
examination of the American and English authorities that when a contest is HELD:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 44

After a careful review of the records, we find merit in the petitioner's contention judgment; and if any of them or other persons interested were not satisfied with
that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to entertain Concordia Villanueva's action for the court's decision, they had the remedy of appeal to correct any injustice that
partition and recovery of her share of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. while the might have been committed, and cannot now through the special remedy of
probate proceedings for the settlement of said estate are still pending in Branch 23 mandamus, obtain a review of the proceeding upon a new application for the
of the same court, there being as yet no orders for the submission and approval of probate of the same will in order to compel the respondent judge to comply with
the administratix's inventory and accounting, distributing the residue of the estate his ministerial duty imposed by section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure; because
to the heir, and terminating the proceedings. this remedy, being extraordinary, cannot be used in lieu of appeal, or writ of error
(26 Cyc., 177; 18 R.C.L., par. 443); especially when the parties interested have
It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the residue of the estate to agreed to disregard the testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they
the persons entitled thereto that brings to a close the intestate proceedings, puts pleased, each of them taking what pertained to him (25 R.C.L., 359).
an end to the administration and thus far relieves the administrator from his
duties. The assailed order declaring Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate of 68 RIERA V. PALMAROLI
Esteban Javellana, Jr. did not toll the end of the proceedings. As a matter of fact, 40 PHIL 105
the last paragraph of the order directed the administratrix to "hurry up the
settlement of the estate." FACTS:
Pons was a Spanish resident who died in the Philippines. Subsequently, the Consul
67 MANALO V. PAREDES General submitted for probate his purported will. The will was admitted to
Supra probate. This was later on opposed by the widow of the decedent, alleging that
due to uncontrollable circumstances, she wasn’t able to outright enter her
HELD: opposition. She petitioned the SC, through section 513, to reconsider the decision
The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem (40 Cyc., p. 1265), of the lower court, averring regularities in the formalities of executing the will.
and the court acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested through the Section 513 provides—“SEC. 513. When a judgment is rendered by a Court of First
publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Instance upon default, and a party thereto is unjustly deprived of a hearing by
and any order that may be entered is binding against all of them. Through the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and the Court of First Instance
publication ordered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the application for which rendered the judgment has finally adjourned so that no adequate remedy
the probate of the supposed will of Francisco Villegas, filed by Justina Mendieta exists in that court, the party so deprived of a hearing may present his petition to
and her minor children Lazaro and Daria Mendieta and Melecio Fule, testamentary the Supreme Court within sixty days after he first learns of the rendition of such
executor, through their attorney, Mr. Eusebio Lopez, said court acquired judgment, and not thereafter, setting forth the facts and praying to have such
jurisdiction over all such persons as were interested in the supposed will, including judgment set aside. . . “
Gelacio Malihan. The court having tried said application for probate, hearing all the
testimony of the attesting witnesses of the said supposed will, the applicant Justina HELD:
Mendieta for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor children, represented From what has been said it will be seen that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
by their attorneys, Messrs. Marcelino Lontok and Marcial Azada, on the one hand, to entertain a petition of the character of that now before us begins in point of
and Laureana Hidalgo, widow of Francisco Villegas, represented by her attorney, time when the period has passed within which it was competent for the Court of
Jesus. E. Blanco, on the other, having submitted a stipulation wherein the former First Instance to entertain an application under section 113; and apart from the
withdrew her application and the latter reserved certain rights over the estate left requirement that the application must be made to the Supreme Court within two
by Francisco Villegas in favor of Justina Mendieta and her minor children; and the months after the petitioner first learns of the rendition of judgment against which
court having approved said stipulation and declared that Francisco Villegas died relief is sought, there is no absolute limit to the period within which the application
intestate according to said agreement, all the parties became bound by said may be made. But of course if relief from a judgment is sought by timely

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 45

application in the Court of First Instance, and the application is there denied, no the facts before us, this is her only recourse. But if the will in question was in fact
petition based on the same ground will thereafter be entertained in the Supreme proved as the will of a Spanish subject under section 636 of the Code of Civil
Court under section 513, as the proper remedy in that case would be to appeal Procedure, the intrinsic validity of its provisions must be determined under the
from the action of the Court of First Instance. Spanish law applicable to this testator.

It is manifest from this that the remedy given in section 513 can have no 69 MANAHAN V. MANAHAN
application to the order of May 20, 1918, legalizing the will of Juan Pons y Coll; and 58 PHIL 448
this is necessarily fatal to the petition before us. This consequence follows
regardless of any irregularities that may have occurred in the Court of First Instance FACTS:
in admitting the will to probate and regardless of any error which that court may The niece of the deceased Manahan petitioned for the probate of her will. Since
have committed in the action taken upon the proof submitted at the hearing. It is no opposition was entered and evidence was received, the will was probated.
not alleged that any fraud has been attempted or committed, or that the After more than a year, respondent Manahan filed a motion for reconsideration
document probated is any other than a testamentary memorial in which the and new trial but was denied. She alleged among others that she is the sister of
decedent actually gave expression to his desires with regard to the disposition of the testatrix and that she was entitled to notice, etc.
his property. But if fraud had been charged as, for instance, if it were alleged that
the purported will is forged document the remedy, if any exists, would not be HELD:
found in a proceeding under section 513, but in an original action in the Court of First, respondent was not entitled to notification of the probate of the will and
First Instance. It thus becomes unneccessary to inquire whether the will in question neither had she the right to expect it, inasmuch as she was not an interested party,
was in fact executed in conformity with the requirements of law either of these not having filed an opposition to the petition for the probate thereof. Her
Islands or of Spain. allegation that she had the status of an heir, being the deceased's sister, did not
confer on her the right to be notified on the ground that the testatrix died leaving a
As a result of this decision it cannot be denied that, without any fault on the part of will in which the appellant has not been instituted heir. Furthermore, not being a
the petitioner or her attorneys, she has been deprived not only of the opportunity forced heir, she did not acquire any successional right.
of opposing the will and appealing from the order of probate but also of the
opportunity of applying to the Court of First Instance for relief under section 113. Second, the court really decreed the authentication and probate of the will in
Even assuming that she could have procured the disallowance of the will by either question, which is the only pronouncement required of the trial court by the law in
of those methods □ a point upon which no pronouncement can here be made □ it order that the will may be considered valid and duly executed in accordance with
is obvious that the impossibility of her thus obtaining relief was due to the law. In the phraseology of the procedural law, there is no essential difference
circumstances peculiar to this case; and the possibility of occassional hardship between the authentication of a will and the probate thereof. The words
cannot affect the validity of our procedure for the probate of wills. 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
As has been repeatedly stated in the decisions of this court, the probate of a will, external formalities have been complied with and that, in view thereof, the
while conclusive as to its due execution, in no wise involves the intrinsic validity of document, as a will, is valid and effective in the eyes of the law.
its provisions. If, therefore, upon the distribution of the estate of Juan Pons y Coll,
it should appear that any provision of his will is contrary to the law applicable to his Lastly, once a will has been authenticated and admitted to probate, questions
case, the will must necessarily yield upon that point and the disposition made by relative to the validity thereof can no more be raised on appeal. The decree of
law must prevail. The petitioner is therefore free to appear in the Court of First probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof and it cannot
Instance at the proper juncture and discuss the questions of the validity of such impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of fraud, in any
provisions of the will as affect her interests adversely; and so far as we can see, on separate or independent action or proceedings

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 46

Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides,
RULE 77
or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with
ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES
those which this Code prescribes. (n)

Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here. Wills proved and Art. 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country,
allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a
allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the citizen or subject, and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own
Philippines. country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the
Philippines. (n)
Section 2. Notice of hearing for allowance. When a copy of such will and of the
order or decree of the allowance thereof, both duly authenticated, are filed with
a petition for allowance in the Philippines, by the executor or other person
interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place
for the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will
presented for allowance.

Section 3. When will allowed, and effect thereof. If it appears at the hearing that
the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the shall so allow it, and a
certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge, and attested by the seal of the
court, to which shall be attached a copy of the will, shall be filed and recorded by
the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proves and
allowed in such court.

Section 4. Estate, how administered. When a will is thus allowed, the court shall
grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and
such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of
the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and
expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as
such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any shall be disposed of as is
provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who
are inhabitants of another state or country.

Art. 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in


any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such
will may be probated in the Philippines. (n)

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 47

HOW CAN A WILL PROVED ABROAD PRODUCE EFFECT IN THE PHILIPPINES? in this proceedings which is concerned only with the probate of the will and
1. Petition for allowance of will testament executed in the Philippines or of the foreign will allegedly executed in
2. Duly authenticated copy of the will Amoy and claimed to have been probated in the municipal district court of Amoy,
3. Duly authenticated order or decree of the allowance Fookien province, Republic of China.
4. The will should be the following—
a. If accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of As to the will claimed to have been executed on 4 January 1931 in Amoy, China, the
place in which he resides, or law on the point in Rule 78. Section 1 of the rule provides:
b. In accordance with formalities observed in his country, or Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such
c. In accordance with formalities observed in the Philippines country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance
5. In accordance to Suntay v. Suntay, it must be proved that the foreign in the Philippines.
court ordering the allowance is a probate court
6. In accordance to Fluemer v. Hix, if the will was made in a foreign country, Section 2 provides:
it must be shown that the will was made in accordance to the laws of the When a copy of such will and the allowance thereof, duly authenticated, is filed
same, and necessarily, a copy of the law(s) must be produced or proved with a petition for allowance in the Philippines, by the executor or other person
in court interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for
7. In case there is failure to prove the laws and procedure of the foreign the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will
country, then it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law presented for allowance.

70 SUNTAY V. SUNTAY Section 3 provides:


95 PHIL 500 If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the
court shall so allow it, and a certificate of its allowance, signed by the Judge, and
FACTS: attested by the seal of the courts, to which shall be attached a copy of the will,
Suntay was a Filipino citizen who died in Amoy, China. He had properties in both shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as if
the Philippines and China, and was survived by his children from the first and originally proved and allowed in such court.
second marriages as well as by his second wife. After his death, petition for
intestate proceedings and consequently, for letters for administration of his estate The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China, is a probate court must
was filed by one of his sons from his first marriage and was duly allowed the same be proved. The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must
by the court. Another petition was filed consequently, this time by the widow, for also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a valid will in China in
the probate of the alleged will of the testator. But the probate proceeding was 1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is no proof on these
dismissed, for the alleged loss of the will and failure to adduce evidence on its points. Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district
execution. Subsequently, the son from the second marriage filed a motion in the court of Amoy were for the purpose of taking the testimony of two attesting
intestate proceeding to admit the alleged will he found of his father in China, but witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy
was denied by the court. does not purport to probate the will. In the absence of proof that the municipal
district court of Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law of procedure in
HELD: probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of
There is no merit in the contention that the petitioner Silvino Suntay and his probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts are the a deposition or to a
mother are estopped from asking for the probate of the lost will or of the foreign perpetuation of testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure same as
will because of the transfer or assignment of their share right, title and interest in those provided for in our laws on the subject. It is a proceedings in rem and for the
the estate for the validity and legality of such assignments cannot be threshed out validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 48

interested parties must be made. The interested parties in the case were known to presence of two competent witnesses, of that these witnesses subscribed the will
reside in the Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice was received by in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems
the interested parties residing in the Philippines. The proceedings had in the to require. On the supposition that the witnesses to the will reside without the
municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be likened toe or come up to the Philippine Islands, it would then the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by
standard of such proceedings in the Philippines for lack of notice to all interested some other means.
parties and the proceedings were held at the back of such interested parties. In
view thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been It was also necessary for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile
done in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and in West Virginia and not establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the will and
principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills. Consequently, the the testimony of the petitioner. Also in beginning administration proceedings
authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of originally in the Philippines, the petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to
Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the have the principal administration in the Philippines.
probate or allowance of a will and, therefore, the will referred to therein cannot be
allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country. While the appeal pending submission in this court, petitioner presented an
unverified petition asking the court to accept as part of the evidence the
71 FLUEMER V. HIX documents attached to the petition. One of these documents discloses that a paper
54 PHIL 610 writing purporting to be the will was presented for probate in West Virginia, and
ordered to be recorded and filed. In this connection, it is to be noted that the
FACTS: application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was filed earlier than that
Edward Hix allegedly executed a will in West Virginia where he was allegedly in West Virginia. These facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the
residing. When he died, the special administrator of his estate petitioned the Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary
probate of the will but was denied by the court. He alleged among others that the administration. However this may be, no attempt has been made to comply with
will was executed in West Virginia and in accordance with the rules provided in the Civil Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to
said jurisdiction. have been proved and allowed in West Virginia has been requested. There is no
showing that the deceased left any property at any place other than the Philippines
HELD: and no contention that he left any in West Virginia.
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The
courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take American Union. Such 72 MICIANO V. BRIMO
laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of the law were not met. 50 PHIL 867
There was no was printed or published under the authority of the State of West
Virginia, as provided in section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the FACTS:
extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the The judicial administrator of Brimo’s estate submitted a plan of partition, which
original, under the sale of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 301 of was opposed by the decedent’s brother. He alleged that the same was in
the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract accordance with the denied will of his brother, for not complying with laws of his
from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was Turkish nationality.
executed.
HELD:
In addition, the due execution of the will was not established. The only evidence on The brother is overruled. He failed to state what Turkish laws have been violated
this point is to be found in the testimony of the petitioner. Aside from this, there by the will in question. He himself acknowledged this fact when he desires to be
was nothing to indicate that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 49

given the opportunity to prove his point. As such, the Turkish laws are presumed annuitant, the residuary legatee may claim the remainder, if there be any. Neither
to be the same as Philippine laws. the domiciliary or ancillary executor of Butler's will, nor the trustee, nor the
annuitant has disposition of any of these funds beyond the amounts and except
73 LEON AND GHEZZI V. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE upon the conditions agreed upon in the contract for annuity.
90 PHIL 459
RULE 78
FACTS:
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND TO WHOM
Butler was a former Philippine resident who died in the state of New York. His will
was probated and it contained a residuary clause, which provided that after ISSUED
legacies have been distributed and just debts paid, the residual estate shall be paid
to Mercedes de Leon in annuity. In compliance with the will, Ross (administrator in Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators. No
New York) bought an annuity in her favor with the insurance company. Mercedes, person in competent to serve as executor or administrator who:
probably wanting to take the money in whole, filed a petition for probate of the (a) Is a minor;
same will with the Manila court. She prayed that the court ordered the insurance (b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
company bring forth the money due allegedly to her. (c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason
of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or by
HELD: reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
The important thing to inquire into is the Manila court's authority with respect to
the assets herein involved. The general rule universally recognized is that WHO DETERMINES WHETHER A PERSON IS UNFIT TO BE AN
administration extends only to the assets of a decedent found within the state or ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR?
country where it was granted, so that an administrator appointed in one state or  The court has the discretion to decide whether one is unfit or not
country has no power over property in another state or country.
CAN THE COURT NOT APPOINT THE NAMED EXECUTOR IN THE WILL?
It is manifest from the facts before set out that the funds in question are outside  Yes if the executor fails to comply with his duties as an executor
the jurisdiction of the probate court of Manila. Having been invested in an annuity
in Canada under a contract executed in the country, Canada is the suits of the
money. The party whose appearance the appellant seeks is only a branch or agency EXECUTOR ADMINISTRATOR
of the company which holds the funds in its possession, the agency's intervention
being limited to delivering to the annuitant the checks made out and issued from Person named in the will to administer the Person appointed by the court to administer
the home office. There is no showing or allegation that the funds have been decedent’s estate and carry out the the estate where the decedent died
provisions thereof intestate or where the will was void and not
transferred or removed to the Manila Branch.
allowed to probate, or where no executor
was named in the will, or the executor was
Even if the money were in the hands of the Manila Branch, yet it no longer forms named in the will, or the executor named
part of Butler's estate and is beyond the control of the court. It has passed therein is incompetent or refuses to serve
completely into the hands of the company in virtue of a contract duly authorized as such
and validly executed. Whether considered as a trust or as simple consideration for
the company's assumed obligation, which it has been religiously performing, of Section 2. Executor of executor not to administer estate. The executor of an
paying periodical allowances to the annuitant, the proceeds of the sale can not be executor shall not, as such, administer the estate of the first testator.
withdrawn without the consent of the company, except, upon the death of the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 50

Section 3. Married women may serve. A married woman may serve as executrix 3. Where the estate is large, or from any cause, an intricate and perplexing
or administratrix, and the marriage of a single woman shall not affect her one to settle
authority so to serve under a previous appointment. 4. To have all interested parties satisfied and the representation to work in
harmony for the best interests of the estate
Section 4. Letters testamentary issued when will allowed. When a will has been 5. When a person is entitled to the administration of an estate desires
proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the another competent associated with him in office
person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trust, and gives
bond as required by these rules. 74 GUERRERO V. TERAN
13 PHIL 212
Section 5. Where some coexecutors disqualified others may act. When all of the
executors named in a will can not act because of incompetency, refusal to accept FACTS:
the trust, or failure to give bond, on the part of one or more of them, letters Teran was preliminarily the administrator of the estate of Antonio Munoz. He only
testamentary may issue to such of them as are competent, accept and give bond, served as administrator of the estate for a period and was subsequently changed
and they may perform the duties and discharge the trust required by the will. when Maria Munoz was appointed as guardian of the properties of the heirs in the
estate of Antonio. Maria was however changed as guardian/administrator when it
Section 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is was shown she wasn’t a resident of the Philippines. Subsequently, Guerrero filed a
named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, case against Teran for differences in account of the properties of the wards the
or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted: former represents. Teran counterclaimed that it was the other way around—
Guerrero was the one who owed him. The trial court held that Teran was
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, accountable for an n amount of money.
in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife,
or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve; HELD:
The administrators of an estate belonging to minors is liable to them for the
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the management of their interests therein from the time of his acceptance of the
person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or appointment until his removal or release. If such administrator has in the
widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person meantime, permitted other persons to intervene in the management, the
to apply for administration or to request that administration be granted to some responsibility for their acts falls upon him. The administrator however may have a
other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if may right of action against such persons for any loss occasioned by their negligence or
be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to corruption. In the case at bar, Teran would be held liable for accounts during the
serve; period he was the administrator of the estate. The records failed to adduce that
losses were incurred during the said period. However, Teran acknowledges that he
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted owed a minimal amount of money to Guerrero.
to such other person as the court may select.
With respect to the issue of the removal of Munoz as administrator by virtue of her
AT WHAT INSTANCES MAY CO‐ADMINISTRATORS BE APPOINTED BY THE COURT? non‐residence status, there is nothing in law which requires the courts to appoint
1. To have the benefit of judgment and perhaps, at all times, to have residents only as administrators or executors. However, notwithstanding lack of
different interests represented statutory requirements, the courts will find difficulty in safeguarding the interests
2. Where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be of the wards by appointing administrators and guardians who are not personally
represented in the management of the estate subject to their jurisdiction.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 51

HELD:
75 SIOCA NAVAS V. GARCIA The reasons advanced by the appellants do not seem to carry sufficient weight to
44 PHIL 711 warrant the reversal of the appealed orders. When the retired bishop Monsignor
Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo chose Father Emiliano Mercado as executor and
FACTS: administrator of his estate after his death, he must have had good and sufficient
Sioca is the widow of the decedent. She questioned the court for not appointing reasons therefore, and his will must be respected. The evidence shows that when
her as administrator of her late husband’s estate but instead, appointed another. the deceased bishop made his will naming said priest in preference to anybody
else, he was in the full enjoyment of his intellectual faculties. Under the
HELD: circumstances, it is not only just but also right to fully comply with his last will; and
It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient this is precisely what the lower court did in confirming the appointment of Father
reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the Mercado as executor herein. As a matter of fact, section 641 of Act No. 190
administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying provides that when a will has been probed and allowed, the court is bound to issue
such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. The letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein provided he
determination of a person's suitability for the office of administrator rests, to a accepts the trust and gives the bond as required by law, which Father Emiliano
great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of Mercado certainly did willingly before assuming his trust. While it is true, as the
appointment and such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appellants contend, that this provision of the law should not be strictly interpreted
appears affirmatively that the court below was in error. because the court would be deprived of its power not to appoint, in certain cases,
one who is unworthy of the trust, notwithstanding the fact that he was named as
In the present case the court based its ruling on the fact that it appeared from the such by the testator (sec. 653, Act No. 190); it is also true that in order to do this,
record in Civil Case No. 1041 of the same court, that the appellant had adverse the unworthiness, incapacity, ineptitude and unfitness of such person must be
interest in the estate of such a character as to render him unsuitable as manifest and real and not merely imaginary.
administrator. Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or
hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. (18 Cyc., 93, 94.) The court 77 OZAETA V. PECSON
below therefore stated facts which may constitute sufficient grounds for setting 93 PHIL 416
aside the appellant's preferential rights and which, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, must be presumed sufficient. FACTS:
Carlos Palanca was able to leave a will before he died. He named therein Ozaeta as
76 MERCADO V. VDA. DE JAEN executor of the will in case of unavailability of General Roxas. When Palanca died,
64 PHIL 75 Roxas died after and Ozaeta was prompted to file a petition for the probate of
Palanca’s will, with the prayer of being appointed as a special administrator. The
FACTS: heirs opposed the appointment. The bank previously appointed as administrator
Monsignor Gorordo left a will when he died. In the said will, he instituted his sister resigned on grounds of conflict of interest.
as sole heir and in case of her death, his nieces. He likewise instituted Mercado as
the executor of the estate and in his absence, Espina. Mercado was duly appointed HELD:
as executor and the heirs opposed this on several grounds. They alleged that It should be noted at the outset that Rule 81 of the Rules of Court, under the
Mercado was unfit and incapable of furthering his duties as executor. It is alleged provisions of which the order appealed from was made, grants discretion to the
that he would be bias as a legacy was provided for his parish. The motion of the probate court to appoint or not to appoint a special administrator. It is silent as to
heirs was denied by the court. the person that may be appointed as special administrator, unlike section 6 of Rule
79, which expressly gives the order of preference of the persons that may be

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 52

appointed regular administrator. The appointment of special administrators is not


governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular administrators. 78 DE GUZMAN V. LIMCOLIOC
However, that while the choice of the person lies within the court's discretion, such 68 PHIL 673
discretion should not be a whimsical one, but one that is reasonable and logical
and in accord with fundamental legal principles and justice. The fact that a judge is FACTS:
granted discretion does not authorize him to become partial, or to make his Limcolioc opposed the appointment of Apolinario de Guzman as co‐administrator
personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. Such of the estate of the deceased. It turns out that Apolinario is the brother of the
discretion must be based on reason and legal principle, and it must be exercised present administrator, Nicolasa. The estate is that of their father’s and is
within the limits thereof. And there is no reason why the same fundamental and composed of many fisheries and other properties.
legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken
into account in the appointment of the special administrator. HELD:
As held in the case involving the same parties, the principal consideration reckoned
The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, a necessary with in the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person is
concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner he wishes. It is the interest in said estate of the one be appointed as such administrator. This is the
natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence, one who same consideration which the law takes into account in establishing the preference
can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of the estate. The curtailment of the widow to administer the estate of her husband, upon the latter's death,
of this right may be considered as a curtailment of the right to dispose. And as the because she is supposed to have an interest therein as a partner in the conjugal
rights granted by will take effect from the time of death, the management of his partnership. But this preference established by law is not absolute, if there are
estate by the administrator of his choice should be made as soon as practicable, other reasons justifying the appointment of an administrator other than the
when no reasonable objection to his assumption of the trust can be interposed any surviving spouse. If the interest in the estate is what principally determines the
longer. It has been held that when a will has been admitted to probate, it is the preference in the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased
duty of the court to issue letters testamentary to the person named as executor person, and if, under the circumstances of each case, it develops that there is
upon his application. It is the testator that appoints his executor, as the question another who has more interest therein than the surviving spouse, the preference
as to his peculiar fitness for such a position or his want of ability to manage the established in the latter's favor falls to the ground.
estate can not be addressed to the discretion of the county judge.
The same reasons are applicable to the case under consideration, inasmuch as the
In the case at bar, the will has already been admitted to probate, and respondent appointed co‐administrator, Apolinario de Guzman □ as brother of Nicolasa de
judge himself has expressly appointed petitioner as administrator. The only reason Guzman whom the latter needs to help her in the administration of the properties
or ground, therefore, for suspending his appointment, and for the appointment of left by their deceased father, many of which consist in fisheries situated in the
a special administrator, who is not the petitioner himself, is a very technical one. It provinces □ is as interested as his sister in that said properties be duly
also appears that the Philippine Trust Company, which had acted as special administered and conserved for the benefit of the heirs. It is true that Apolinario de
administrator for a period of only a few months, has submitted a bill for P90,000. Guzman's father, Proceso de Guzman, in life, filed a complaint against his son on
This would cut deep into the income of the estate, and if the new special the ground that the latter, as administrator of his father's estate, misappropriated
administrator appointed by the respondent judge takes office, it is not improbable cash, but said complaint was dismissed at the instance of the father himself. In the
that the estate may again be subjected to the same expensive cost of present case, aside from the fact that Apolinario de Guzman, as co‐administrator,
administration. Under these circumstances, it would seem unreasonable to refuse will administer properties in which he has a greater share than that of the
to appoint the petitioner as special administrator. To do so would be delaying the oppositor, the childless widow of the deceased by a second marriage, and will act
fulfillment of the wishes of the testator and subjecting the estate to unnecessary merely as a helper of his sister, there is no ground to believe that he would
expense. // squander said properties and the products thereof.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 53

each other. Nonetheless, but mere disagreements without misconduct doesn’t


79 GONZALES V. AGUINALDO justify removal.
190 SCRA 112
RULE 79
FACTS:
OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR
In the estate proceedings of Ramona Gonzales, two of her four children were
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
appointed as co‐administratix. While one was in the US to accompany her sick
husband to treatment, the other filed a motion in court for her removal. It was
alleged that there is conflict between the two co‐administratrices as well as Section 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition
continued misunderstandings. Without really hearing the side of the administratrix for administration. Any person interested in a will may state in writing the
sought to be removed, the court issued an order for her removal. grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons named therein
as executors, or any of them, and the court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass
HELD: upon the sufficiency of such grounds. A petition may, at the time, be filed for
In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the letters of administration with the will annexed.
principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be
appointed as administrator. This is the same consideration which Section 6 of Rule Section 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. A petition for letters
78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, so far as
administrators for the estate. The underlying assumption behind this rule is that known to the petitioner:
those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of the (a) The jurisdictional facts;
estate, or, on the other hand, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or (b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences
mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to of the creditors, of the decedent;
administer the estate correctly. (c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed.
Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their trust as entitle them But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of
to protection from removal without just cause. Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the administration.
Rules of Court provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to
remove an administrator. Section 3. Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof. When a petition for
letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall
While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause notice thereof to be
of an administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent, and to any other persons
justify a removal. There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the believed to have an interest in the estate, in the manner provided in sections 3
administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the and 4 of Rule 76.
court, which it deems sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the
administrator. In making such a determination, the court must exercise good Section 4. Opposition to petition for administration. Any interested person may,
judgment, guided by law and precedents. by filing a written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of the
incompetency of the person for whom letters are prayed therein, or on the
In the present case, the court relied not on the facts alleged by the motions filed by ground of the contestant's own right to the administration, and may pray that
the parties but on the alleged conflicts and misunderstandings between the co‐ letters issue to himself, or to any competent person or person named in the
administrators. Yes, co‐administrators must have harmonious relationships with opposition.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 54

Philippine Islands is an ancillary administration subsidiary to the domiciliary


Section 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. At the hearing of the petition, it administration, conformable to the provisions of sections 601, 602, and 603 of the
must first be shown that notice has been given as hereinabove required, and Code of Civil Procedure. The proper course of procedure would be for the ancillary
thereafter the court shall hear the proofs of the parties in support of their administrator to pay the claims of creditors, if there be any, settle the accounts,
respective allegations, and if satisfied that the decedent left no will, or that there and remit the surplus to the domiciliary jurisdiction, for distribution among the
is no competent and willing executor, it shall order the issuance of letters of next of kin. Such administration appears to be required in this jurisdiction since the
administration to the party best entitled thereto. provisions of section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permit of the
settlement of certain estates without legal proceedings, have not been met.
Section 6. When letters of administration granted to any applicant. Letters of
administration may be granted to any qualified applicant, though it appears that 81 GUTIERREZ DE OCAMPO V. CALDERON
there are other competent persons having better right to the administration, if 59 PHIL 631
such persons fail to appear when notified and claim the issuance of letters to
themselves. FACTS:
The decedent was a bachelor and left no ascendants. He was survived by his
80 JOHANNES V. HARVEY brother and sister, as well as his illegitimate children. There being no forced heirs,
43 PHIL 175 he instituted his illegitimate children as his beneficiaries upon his death. His
brother and sister opposed this.
FACTS:
Carmen died while residing in Singapore. She was survived by her husband and HELD:
brothers and sisters. Estate proceedings were held in Singapore. Her husband was As stated above the appellants in this case are not forced heirs of the deceased and
appointed as the administrator. Thereafter, estate proceedings was instituted by therefore have no right to any part of the property left by the testator, once he had
one of the deceased’s brother in the Philippines. The husband opposed this. disposed of the same by will. If any of them were forced heirs they would be
entitled to intervene in this case and protect their interest in so far as they may
HELD: have been prejudiced by the will. It is evident therefore that they have not been
It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a injured or prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Only forced heirs whose rights
person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a have been prejudiced have a right to intervene in a case of this character.
foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in
the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, 82 TRILLANA V. CRISOSTOMO
while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The reason 89 PHIL 710
for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore have
any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an FACTS:
administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the United States. Crisostomo and others appealed the denial of their petition for relief of judgment
The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country of the probate of the will of the deceased. They alleged that the judgment allowing
other than that of his las domicile, property to be administered in the nature of the probate of the later will was procured by fraud, that the court erred when it
assets of the decedent, liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his didn’t set a date for proving the probate of the August 1948 will and the failure to
heirs. prove was due to the court’s own fault and negligence.

The principal administration in this instance is that at the domicile of the late HELD:
Carmen Theodora Johannes in Singapore, Straits Settlements. What is sought in the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 55

The petitioners‐appellants having failed to show that the judgment of the lower then filed a motion to transfer the special proceedings in the same branch where a
court of January 5, 1948, probating the will of testatrix of October 19, was obtained case for the nullity of deed of assignment was filed. This motion was denied. Adela
through fraud, the lower court did not commit any error in denying the appellant's then sought that the administrator be ordered to furnish her all records of the
petition for relief under sec. 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and therefore it is not proceedings. The administrator opposed this on the ground of the earlier filed
necessary for us to discuss and pass upon the other propositions of the appellant. manifestation. The court ordered in favor of the administrator.

Besides, even assuming without deciding, that under sec. 3 of Rule 77, the court HELD:
shall set aside a date for proving a will even without petition when it is delivered to It cannot be successfully denied that Adela Santos Gutierrez is an indispensable
the, court having jurisdiction, as contended by the appellants, the lower court was party to the proceedings in question. Her interest in the estate is not inchoate, it
right in not setting a date for proving the will of August 16, 1948, because this will was established at the time of death of Irene Santos. While it is true that she
was expressly and absolutely revoked by the will of October 19, 1948, executed by executed a deed of assignment, it is also a fact that she asked the same to be
the same executrix or deceased, which was filed for allowance on November 1, annulled, which action is now pending. Although Adela had filed a manifestation
1948, with the same court. According to the attorneys for the appellant, the will dropping herself from the proceedings and presenting therewith the supposed
dated August 16, 1948, was sent together with a writing called "Manifestation" by Deed of Assignment, the record, nevertheless fails to show that action thereon had
registered mail on October 30, 1948, from Manila to the Court of First Instance of been taken by the probate Court. Every act intended to put an end to indivision
Bulacan, by Attorney Mr. Tomas V. Barnes, and said will must have been received among co‐heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it
by the Clerk of Said Court on or after November 1, 1948, the date when the should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction
subsequent will of October 19, was filed for probate. It stands to reason that if two (Art. 1082, NCC). No serious argument can be offered to deny the co‐heirship of
wills are presented for allowance but one of them revoked will cannot be included appellee in the estate under probate. It appearing (if We assume the due execution
in the probate of the latter subsequent will, because it would be a waste of time to of the Deed of Assignment), that the transaction is in the nature of extrajudicial
allow the revoked will if the subsequent revoking will is allowed. The revoked will partition, court approval is imperative, and the heirs cannot just divest the court of
may be probated and allowed only if the subsequent revoking will is disallowed. its jurisdiction over the estate and over their persons, by the mere act of
assignment and desistance.
83 GUTIERREZ V. VILLEGAS
5 SCRA 313 The motion in question is not one of intervention, but solely a plea to enforce a
right and that is to receive pleadings and orders related to the case. Evidently, the
FACTS: use of the word "intervention" in the manifestation and pleadings presented by
Irene Santos died and was survived by her husband and two nieces, daughters of Adela was resorted to for want of another appropriate word. In effect, all she
her deceased brother. Her husband filed a petition for the issuance of letters of wanted to convey was that she should participate or continue taking part in the
administration, naming himself and the two nieces as the surviving heirs of the case for being an original party therein. It was her belief that in filing the
decedent. He was later named by the court as administrator. Thereafter, an manifestation dropping herself from the proceedings (but which she later informed
unverified manifestation was filed by Adela Gutierrez, one of the nieces, in court, the court to have been secured thru fraud), her standing might have been affected.
attesting to a deed of assignment conveying all her interest in participating in the Intervention as contemplated by the Rules is a proceeding in a suit or action by
proceedings to her sister. On a later date however, another manifestation was which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either
filed by Adela, alleging that the deed of assignment mentioned in the earlier filed joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with
manifestation was procured by the administrator by fraud and that she signed the defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to
same by mistake. She alleged that she was misled by the husband in signing said both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a
manifestation in exchange for money loaned to her by her sister, and that she suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an
continuously seeks to participate in the intestate proceedings of her aunt. She original party to pending legal proceedings, which such person becomes a party

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 56

thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by deemed a partition as between the assignor and assignee, the same does not need
such proceedings. The aforementioned circumstances do not fit Adela as she was court approval to be effective as between the parties. An extrajudicial partition is
not a third party to the proceedings but rather, an original party therein. valid as between the participants even if the requisites of Sec. 1, Rule 74 for
extrajudicial partition are not followed, since said requisites are for purposes of
84 DURAN V. DURAN binding creditors and non‐participating heirs only.
20 SCRA 379
RULE 80
FACTS:
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
Pio Duran died intestate and was survived by his surviving spouse Josephine, his
brothers and sisters, together with his nephews and nieces. At the onset, one of
his brothers, Cipriano, for a consideration, signed a deed of conveyance, Section 1. Appointment of special administrator. When there is delay in granting
bequeathing all is his interest in the estate of his deceased brother. After, he filed letters testamentary or of administration by any cause including an appeal from
a petition for the letters of administration of his brother’s estate, and for him to be the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a special
named as the administrator. The widow opposed this on the ground of lack of administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of the deceased until
interest in the estate by virtue of the deed of conveyance signed by Cipriano. The the questions causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators
court ruled in favor of the opposition and dismissed the petition. appointed.

HELD: Section 2. Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. Such special administrator
The Rules of Court provides that a petition for administration and settlement of an shall take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate
estate must be filed by an "interested person" (See. 2, Rule 79). Appellants contend of the deceased and preserve the same for the executors or administrator
that the deed of assignment executed by Cipriano did not operate to render him a afterwards appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits as
person without interest in the estate. Relying on In re Irene Santos, L‐11848, May administrator. He may sell only such perishable and other property as the court
31, 1962, they argue that an assignment by one heir of his share in the estate to a orders sold. A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the
co‐heir amounts to a partition needing approval by the settlement court to be deceased unless so ordered by the court.
effective; and that the assigning heir does not lose his status as a person interested
in the estate, even after said assignment is approved by the court. Section 3. When powers of special administrator cease. Transfer of effects.
Pending suits. When letters testamentary or of administration are granted on the
The situation in the Santos case involves an assignment between co‐heirs pendente estate of the deceased, the powers of the special administrator shall cease, and
lite, during the course of settlement proceedings, properly and validly commenced. he shall forthwith deliver to the executor or administrator the goods, chattels,
At the time of said assignment, therefore, the settlement court had already money, and estate of the deceased in his hands. The executor or administrator
acquired jurisdiction over the properties of estate. As a result, any assignment may prosecute to final judgment suits commenced by such special administrator.
regarding the same had to be approved by said court. And since the approval the
court is not deemed final until the estate is closed the assigning heir remains an 85 DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES
interested person in proceedings even after said approval, which can be vacated is 162 SCRA 347
given.
FACTS:
In the present case, however, the assignment took place when no settlement Elaine de Guzman filed a petition for the intestate proceedings of her late husband.
proceeding was pending. The properties subject matter of the assignment was not After, she filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession of vehicles allegedly
under the jurisdiction of a settlement court. Allowing that the assignment must be owned by the conjugal partnership which were currently in the possession of the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 57

petitioner, her father‐in‐law. She followed this up by filing an ex‐parte motion for motions of the private respondent to be appointed as special administratrix, to
the appointment as special administrator of the estate of her late husband. The issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of the deceased person in the
court ordered notice to be made to all interested parties but no notice was ever widow's favor, and to grant her motion for assistance to preserve the estate of
received by the petitioner. The court then appointed Elaine as special Manolito de Guzman.
administratrix. Another order was issued by the court for the taking into
possession of the vehicles in petitioner’s possession. This order had difficulty being 86 GARCIA FULE V. CA
executed. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the court’s orders on the Supra
ground that it had not acquired jurisdiction due to lack of publication and notice, as
required by the rules. HELD:

HELD: 87 ROXAS V. PECSON


In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent court acquired 82 PHIL 407
jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the filing of a petition for the settlement of
an intestate estate by the private respondent since the petition had alleged all the FACTS:
jurisdictional facts, the residence of the deceased person, the possible heirs and Pablo Roxas was survived by his widow, adulterous child, and brother and sister.
creditors and the probable value of the estate of the deceased Manolito de The siblings instituted intestate proceedings, praying that Maria be appointed as
Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court. special administratrix. This proceeding was however dismissed at the instance of
the filing of petition by the widow for the probate of her husband’s alleged will.
Differentiation must be made however between the jurisdiction of the probate Correspondingly to this was the prayer to be appointed as the special
court over the proceedings for the administration of an estate and its jurisdiction administratrix. The probate was consequently denied for the failure of the
over the persons who are interested in the settlement of the estate of the witnesses to sign in the presence of the testator. However, the widow was still
deceased person. The court may also have jurisdiction over the "estate" of the appointed as administratrix. This was appealed by the siblings who wanted
deceased person but the determination of the properties comprising that estate themselves to be administrators. The court subsequently ordered the widow to be
must follow established rules. The probate court must cause notice through special administratrix with respect to conjugal properties and the sister as special
publication of the petition after it receives the same. The purpose of this notice is administratrix with respect to the capital properties of the deceased.
to bring all the interested persons within the court's jurisdiction so that the
judgment therein becomes binding on all the world. Where no notice as required HELD:
by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been given to persons believed to There is nothing wrong in that the respondent judge, in exercising his discretion
have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the proceeding for the and appointing the petitioner as special administratrix, had taken into
settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled. The requirement as to consideration the beneficial interest of the petitioner in the estate of the decedent
notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding in that no person may be and her being designated in the will as executrix thereof. But the respondent's
deprived of his right to property without due process of law. subsequent act of appointing her as special administratrix only of the conjugal or
community property, and Maria Roxas as special administratrix of the capital or
Verily, notice through publication of the petition for the settlement of the estate of exclusive property of the decedent, does not seem to be in conformity with logic or
a deceased person is jurisdictional, the absence of which makes court orders reason. The petitioner has or claims to have the same beneficial interest after the
affecting other persons, subsequent to the petition void and subject to annulment. decision of the court disapproving the will, which is now pending on appeal, as she
had prior to it, because the decision is not yet final and may be reversed by the
In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised appellate court.
Rules of Court was caused to be given by the probate court before it acted on the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 58

Besides, even if the will is not probated, the widow in the present case would have, and preserve the same for the executor or administrator afterwards appointed,
under the law, the right of usufruct over one‐half of the exclusive property of the and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits as administrator, and may
decedent, besides her share in the conjugal partnership. The beneficial interest sell such perishable and other property as the court orders sold. A special
required as a qualification for appointment as administrator of the estate of a administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased."
decedent is the interest in the whole estate and not only in some part thereof. The
petitioner being entitled to one‐half in usufruct of all the exclusive properties of In view of all the foregoing, we hold that the court below has no power to appoint
the decedent, she would have as much if not more interest in administering the two special administratices of the estate of a deceased husband or wife, one of the
entire estate correctly, in order to reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical community property and another of the exclusive property of the decedent, and
administration of the state, and not suffer the consequences of the waste, therefore the respondent judge acted in excess of the court's jurisdiction in
improvidence or mismanagement thereof. The good or bad administration of the rendering or issuing the order complained of, and therefore said order is hereby set
property may affect rather the fruits than the naked ownership of a property. aside, with costs against the respondents.

There is absolutely no reason for appointing two separate administrators, specially 88 PIJUAN V. VDA. DE GURREA
if the estate to be settled is that of a deceased husband as in the present case, for 18 SCRA 898
according to articles 1422 and 1423 of the Civil Code, only after the dowry and
parapherna of the wife and the debts, charges, and obligations of the conjugal FACTS:
partnership have been paid, the capital or exclusive property of the husband may Manuela Ruiz was the surviving legitimate spouse of Carlos Gurrea. They were
be liquidated and paid in so far as the inventoried estate may reach; and if the previously living in Spain when the husband subsequently left her, lived in the
estate inventoried should not be sufficient to pay the dowry and the parapherna of Philippines with their son. He also lived with a common‐law wife while being in the
the wife and the debts, charges and obligations of the partnership, the provision country. When Manuela followed him in the country, she filed for support and the
relating to concurrence and preference of credits shall be observed. If two separate court ruled in her favor. Carlos later on died and allegedly left a will disinheriting
administrators are appointed as done in the present case, in every action which Manuela and their son, as well as instituting Pijuan as executor. The will was
one of them may institute to recover properties or credit of the deceased, the submitted for probate and pending proceedings, Manuela not only prayed for
defendant may raise the question or set up the defense that the plaintiff has no support pendente lite but likewise, for appointment as administrator.
cause of action, because the property or credit in issue belongs to the class which is
being administered by the other administrator, which can not be done if the HELD:
administrator of the entire estate is only one. Upon the other hand, the lower court denied support to Mrs. Gurrea because of
absence of proof as regards the status, nature or character of the property now
As under the law only one general administrator may be appointed to administer, under the custody of the Special Administrator. Precisely, however, on account of
liquidate and distribute the estate of a deceased spouse, it clearly follows that only such lack of proof thereon, we are bound by law to assume that the estate of the
one special administrator may be appointed to administer temporarily said estate, deceased consists of property belonging to the conjugal partnership, one‐half of
because a special administrator is but a temporary administrator who is appointed which belongs presumptively to Mrs. Gurrea, aside from such part of the share of
to act in lieu of the general administrator. "When there is delay in granting letters the deceased in said partnership as may belong to her as one of the compulsory
testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or heirs, if his alleged will were not allowed to probate, or, even if probated, if the
disallowance of will, or from any other cause, the court may appoint a special provision therein disinheriting her were nullified. Inasmuch as the aforementioned
administrator to collect and take charge of the estate of the deceased until the estate is worth P205,397.64, according to the inventory submitted by the special
questions causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators thereupon administrator, it is clear to us that the continuation of the monthly alimony,
appointed," (sec. 1, Rule 81). Although his powers and duties are limited to "collect pendente lite, of P1,000, authorized in said Civil Case No. 5820, is fairly justified.
and take charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 59

It is next urged by Mrs. Gurrea that the lower court erred in denying her petition merely for an infinitesimal moment of time on May 25, 1920, between the precise
for appointment as administratrix, for, as widow of the deceased, she claims a right moment when Go Chiong Lee acted under it as special administrator, and the
of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the succeeding moment when he became the administrator. The only reasonable
language of this provision, said preference exists "if no executor is named in the will deduction is that the powers of the special administrator having ceased, and that at
or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, the same time that they ceased permission was given to operate the stores, this
or a person dies intestate." None of these conditions obtains, however, in the case authority was intended for the administrator, or if intended for the special
at bar. The deceased Carlos Gurrea has left a document purporting to be his will, administrator, was transmitted to the general administrator as soon as he was
seemingly, is still pending probate. So, it cannot be said, as yet, that he has died appointed.
intestate. Again, said document names Marcelo Pijuan as executor thereof, and it is That the attorney of the defendant Go Chiong Lee had knowledge of the addition
not claimed that he is incompetent therefor. What is more, he has not only not to the order of the court naming Go Chiong Lee administrator, by which the latter
refused the trust, but, has, also, expressly accepted it, by applying for his was bound to render written monthly reports of his administration, is established,
appointment as executor, and, upon his appointment as special administrator, has but that subsequently the court tacitly modified its order, is likewise disclosed by
assumed the duties thereof. It may not be amiss to note that the preference the record. The administrator was repeatedly enjoined to submit accounts without
accorded by the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court to the surviving specifying monthly accounts. On three occasions the administrator rendered his
spouse refers to the appoint of a regular administrator or administratrix, not to accounts without protest from any source.
that of a special administrator, and that the order appointing the latter lies within
the discretion of the probate court, and is not appealable. That monthly reports would have possessed any particular virtue over the reports
actually submitted, to place the court on its guard and thus to protect the estate
89 TAN V. GO CHIONG LEE from losses, is hardly plausible. On the contrary, that the losses sustained by the
46 PHIL 200 estate resulted from the risk necessarily attending the operation of the two stores,
is a much more reasonable assumption. At least the only testimony refuting that of
FACTS: the former administrator comes from one Vidal Reynes, a tailor by profession, and
During the lifetime of the deceased, Go was the encargado. When he died, Go was is not at all impressive.
appointed preliminarily as the special administrator of the estate. He did his duties
without opposition from anyone. Later, his appointment as special administrator The standard of responsibility of the administrator is best measured as in essence
ceased and he began acting as the general administrator. He then asked the responsibility of a bailee. Like any bailee, he must pursue his discretion
permission for the continuous operation of the two stores owned by the estate, for honestly and in good faith, or he will become personally liable, to those who are
which the court granted him to do so. He religiously submitted reports and interested in the estate, for waste, conversion, or embezzlement. But where an
accounts for the estate, without again any opposition. He then ceased from being administrator, entrusted with the carrying on of an estate, acts in good faith and in
administrator and he was replaced by Tan. He was thereafter ordered by the court accordance with the usual rules and methods obtaining in such business, he will
to pay certain accounts, to which he denied for allegedly already having paid for not be held liable for losses incurred.
the same.
RULE 81
HELD:
The permission to operate the stores was granted to Go Chiong Lee on the same BOND OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
date when he was relieved as special administrator and appointed "administrador
definitivo" of the estate. He proceeded to act under such authority for over a year Section 1. Bond to be given issuance of letters. Amount. Conditions. Before an
without being challenged by anyone. It would now be preposterous to suppose executor or administrator enters upon the execution of his trust, and letters
that the power to run the stores actually granted by the trial judge continued

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 60

testamentary or administration issue, he shall give a bond, in such sum as the


REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH, RESIGNATION, AND REMOVAL OF
court directs, conditioned as follows:
EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS
(a) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a true and complete
inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which Section 1. Administration revoked if will discovered. Proceedings thereupon. If
shall come to his possession or knowledge or to the possession of any other after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent as if
person for him; he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the court, the letters of
(b) To administer according to these rules, and, if an executor, according to the administration shall be revoked and all powers thereunder cease, and the
will of the testator, all goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate which shall at administrator shall forthwith surrender the letters to the court, and render his
any time come to his possession or to the possession of any other person for him, account with such time as the court directs. Proceeding for the issuance of letters
and from the proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges on testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore
the same, or such dividends thereon as shall be decreed by the court; provided.
(c) To render a true and just account of his administration to the court within one
(1) years, and at any other time when required by the court; Section 2. Court may be remove or accept resignation of executor or
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed. administrator. Proceeding upon death, resignation, or removal. If an executor or
administrator neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to
Section 2. Bond of executor where directed in will. When further bond required. If law, or to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly
the testator in his will directs that the executors serve without bond, or with only provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable
his individual bond, he may be allowed by the court to give bond in such sum and or insuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or in its
with such surety as the court approves conditioned only to pay the debts of the discretion, may permit him to resign. When an executor or administrator dies,
testator; but the court may require of the executor a further bond in case of a resign, or is removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer
change in his circumstance, or for other sufficient case, with the conditions the the trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If
named in the last preceding section. there is no remaining executor or administrator, administration may be to any
suitable person.
Section 3. Bonds of joint executors and administrators. When two or more
persons are appointed executors or administrators the court may take a separate Section 3. Acts before revocation, resignation, or removal to be valid. The lawful
bond from each, or a joint bond from all. acts of an executor or administrator before the revocation of his letters
testamentary or of administration, or before his resignation or removal, shall
Section 4. Bond of special administrator. A special administrator before entering have the like validity as if there had been no such revocation, resignation, or
upon the duties of his trust shall give a bond, in such sum as the court directs, removal.
conditioned that he will make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels,
rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or Section 4. Powers of new executor or administrator. Renewal of license to sell
knowledge, and that he will truly account for such as are received by him when real estate. The person to whom letters testamentary or of administration are
required by the court, and will deliver the same to the person appointed executor granted after the revocation of former letters, or the death, resignation, or
or administrator, or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them. removal of a former executor or administrator, shall have the like powers to
collect and settle the estate not administered that the former executor or
administrator had, and may prosecute or defend actions commenced by or
RULE 82
against the former executor or administrator, and have execution on judgments
recovered in the name of such former executor or administrator. An authority

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 61

granted by the court to the former executor or administrator for the sale or HELD:
mortgage of real estate may be renewed in favor of such person without further The law declares that commissioners shall pass upon all claims against the estate.
notice or hearing. They had done so in this case. The law fixed the limit of the estate's liability. The
court could not charge it with debts that were never owed by it. The administratrix
90 SOCIEDAD DE LIZZARGA HERMANOS V. ABADA could only charge the estate with the reasonable and proper expenses of
40 PHIL 124 administration.

FACTS: The estate owed plaintiffs less than P13,000 when the commissioners passed on
1. Caponong died with debts payable to the Sociedad. Caponong’s widow their claim. Part of this has been paid, and there was a balance due plaintiffs of
was duly appointed as administratrix, together with the appointment of P8,555.78 at the time of the trial, plus interest. The plaintiffs, after their claim had
commissioners to appraise the estate as well as to facilitate payment of been presented and allowed by the commissioners, made advances to the
accounts left by the decedent. administratrix till their claim was more than P68,000.
2. In the meanwhile, the widow leased the Hacienda Coronacion to a
certain Zayco and when she married her co‐defendant Alvarez, Zayco It is urged that the major part of this debt of P68,000 is administration expenses,
transferred the lease to Alvarez. and as such is chargeable against the assets of the estate. No reason is given why
3. The plaintiffs after 7 years from the death of Caponong then sued the the expense of administration should be so great, and the evidence fails to sustain
widow in her own personal capacity and as administratrix. They alleged this position.
that the widow owed them money, which she used in exploiting the
Hacienda. The administration expense would be the necessary expenses of handling the
4. The widow in turn admitted to her debt payable. The guardian of the property, of protecting it against destruction or deterioration, and possibly
minor children of Caponong then sought to intervene, and was allowed producing a crop, but if plaintiffs, holding a claim originally for less than P13,000
to do so, and averred that the estate didn’t owe anything to the plaintiffs. against the estate, let the administratrix have money and effects till their claim
5. Thereafter, the parties alleged that they had all reached an amicable grow to P68,000 they can not be permitted to charge this amount as expense of
settlement and sought the dismissal of the proceedings. The court duly administration. They might be allowed to charge it against the current revenue
dismissed the complaint. At this point in time, the intestate proceeding from the hacienda or the net proceeds of the "exploitation of the hacienda" for
was still pending. which it was obtained and used, as plaintiffs allege, but it cannot relate back to the
6. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought attachment of properties for presenting of their claim to the commissioners, and be a charge against the
satisfaction of the debt notwithstanding the compromise agreement. inheritance of the heirs, or even a claim to prorate with other creditors' claims
They averred that the defendants were not complying with the allowed by the commissioners. By expense of administration we understand to be
agreement and sought satisfaction of the debt. the reasonable and necessary expense of caring for the property and managing it
7. Prior to attaching, the defendants filed an amended answer, where they till the debts are paid, as provided by law, and of dividing it, if necessary, so as to
averred that the commissioners only allowed n amount of money to be partition it and deliver to the heirs.
paid, that the properties sought to be attached were owned by the
children and that the interest of the widow was limited to usufructuary The court could not approve a settlement saddling upon the estate debts it never
rights. owed, and if it did, its approval would be a nullity.
8. Defendants were in turn sustained by the court and consequently, the
claims against the minor children were dropped and the court held the To give effect to the compromise as written would result in great wrong, and
widow liable for n amount of money. To this, she appealed. destroy every chance the minor children had to participate in the inheritance of
their father.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 62

business‐like manner, marshal its assets, and close the estate without any
91 WARNER BARNES V. LUZON SURETY unreasonable or unnecessary delay. He was not appointed to act for or on behalf of
95 PHIL 924 the creditors, or to represent the interests of the heirs only. He should have
administered the affairs of the estate for the use and benefit alike of all interested
FACTS: persons, as any prudent business man would handle his own personal business.
Warner Barnes filed a case for recovery of sum of money from Luzon Surety. This is When appointed, it is the legal duty of the administrator to administer, settle, and
premised on the failure of the deceased administratrix of the estate of Gonzaga to close the administration in the ordinary course of business, without any
comply with the conditions of her bond, and to pay the alleged claims of Warner unnecessary delay. Neither does an administrator, in particular, without a specific
from the estate. Luzon Surety alleged that until the time that the administratrix showing or an order of the court, have any legal right to continue the operation of
died, the court didn’t allow her yet to pay Warner’s claims. Luzon also alleged that the business in which the deceased was engaged, or to eat up and absorb the
were it not for her untimely death, the administratrix could have complied assets of the estate in the payment of operating expenses. Yet, in the instant case,
faithfully with her obligations as well as the conditions imposed by the bond. The the administrator on his own volition and without any authority or process of court
trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered defendant to pay. continued the operation of the plantation, and in the end, as shown by his own
report, the estate was diminished and lost.
HELD:
It was proper for the court to decide on the claim against the surety bond. While 93 LUZON SURETY V. QUEBRAL
the probate court has jurisdiction over the forfeiture and enforcement of an 127 SCRA 295
administrator’s bond, it doesn’t mean that the same may not be litigated in an
ordinary civil action brought before the court of first instance. Moreover, where FACTS:
there are no proceedings for the administration of the estate of the deceased Luzon Surety issued administrator bonds in favor of administrator Quebral with
administrator, the creditor may enforce then his bond against the surety which respect to two estate proceedings. Indemnity agreements were entered into for
bound itself jointly and severally in the case where the bond was filed. the payment of the premiums due. Because the premiums were not yet paid in
full, Luzon Surety sought payment. In the meanwhile, Quebral filed a motion in
92 WILSON V. REAR court for the cancellation of the bonds by virtue of the approval of the project of
55 PHIL 44 partition and liquidation.

FACTS: HELD:
Charles Rear was murdered while being in his plantation in Cotabato. Wilson was Section 1 of Rule 81 of the Rules of Court requires the administrator/executor to
appointed as administrator. The commissioners were able to make the inventory put up a bond for the purpose of indemnifying the creditors, heirs, legatees and the
of the properties of the estate and likewise, the claims against it. The estate. It is conditioned upon the faithful performance of the administrator's trust.
administrator was then allowed, with the approval of the heirs, to sell all the
properties, due to the fact that there wasn’t sufficient money to settle the claims. Having in mind the purpose and intent of the law, the surety is then liable under
After the sale and payment, the administrator filed its final report and accounting. the administrator's bond, for as long as the administrator has duties to do as such
This was approved by the court notwithstanding numerous objections on the part administrator/executor. Since the liability of the sureties is co‐extensive with that
of the heirs. of the administrator and embraces the performance of every duty he is called upon
to perform in the course of administration, it follows that the administrator is still
HELD: duty bound to respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him in
Wilson was appointed and qualified as administrator, and the law imposed upon consideration of the suretyship.
him legal duties and obligations, among which was to handle the estate in a

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 63

It is shown that the defendant‐appellant Pastor T. Quebrar, still had something to cannot be devoid of legal authority to execute and make that bond answerable for
do as an administrator/executor even after the approval of the amended project of the very purpose for which it was filed. It is true that the law does not say expressly
partition and accounts. or in so many words that such court has power to execute the bond of an
administrator, but by necessary and logical implication, the power is there as
The contention of the defendants‐appellants that the administrator's bond ceased eloquently as if it were phrased in unequivocal term. When the accountability of an
to be of legal force and effect with the approval of the project of partition and administrator's bond is spoken of in the very provisions dealing with and bearing
statement of accounts on June 6, 1957 is without merit. The defendant‐appellant directly on administration proceedings, it would involve a strained construction to
Pastor T. Quebrar did not cease as administrator after June 6, 1957, for hold, as appellants would have us do, that where an administrator is held liable for
administration is for the purpose of liquidation of the estate and distribution of the a devastravit for having squandered and misapplied property which he was in duty
residue among the heirs and legatees. And liquidation means the determination of bound to marshal and conserve, the estate is without a remedy to go against the
all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses. It appears administrator's bond in the same probate proceedings, but in an action outside of
that there were still debts and expenses to be paid. To allow the defendants‐ and separate from it. In this connection, it should be observed that section 683 of
appellants to evade their liability under the Indemnity Agreements by non‐ the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "Upon the settlement of the account of
payment of the premiums would ultimately lead to giving the administrator the an executor or administrator, trustee, or guardians, a person liable as surety in
power to diminish or reduce and altogether nullify his liability under the respect to such amount may, upon application, be admitted as a party to such
Administrator's Bonds. As already stated, this is contrary to the intent and purpose accounting, and may have the right to appeal as hereinafter provided." There is
of the law in providing for the administrator's bonds for the protection of the here afforded to a person who may be held liable as surety in respect to an
creditors, heirs, legatees, and the estate. administrator's account the right, upon application, to be admitted as a party to
their accounting, from which we may not unreasonably infer that a surety, like the
94 COSME DE MENDOZA V. PACHECO appellants in the case before us, may be charged with liability upon the bond
64 PHIL 134 during the process of accounting, that is, within the recognized confines of probate
proceedings, and not in an action apart and distinct from such proceedings.
FACTS:
Soriano was the former administrator of the estate. To ensure compliance with his 95 GUSTILO V. SIAN
duties, he was made to issue a bond, wherein defendants acted as sureties. When 53 PHIL 155
the new administratrix was appointed, the former administrator had accounts
payable to the estate. And since he had insufficient funds, the bond was made FACTS:
answerable. However, having real properties to satisfy partially the payables, only Agripino was appointed as the administrator of his late father’s estate. His own
a small balance was left to be paid. The sureties sought to be excused from mother and fellow heirs moved for his removal, for allegedly being negligent in his
payment but was overruled. On appeal, the case was remanded to the lower duties as well as for incurring exorbitant and illegal accounts. Agripino in the
court. And on the second time it reached the appellate court, the sureties meanwhile submitted reports which didn’t coincide with each other and he even
questioned the jurisdiction of the probate court to order execution of the bond. prayed that he be allowed a monthly salary that creditors of the estate opposed to.
The court consequently ordered his removal as well as the execution of the bond
HELD: he filed.
It is clear that a Court of First Instance, exercising probate jurisdiction, is
empowered to require the filing of the administrator's bond, to fix the amount HELD:
thereof, and to hold it accountable for any breach of the administrator's duty. A careful examination of the facts revealed in this record concerning the activities
Possessed, as it is, with an all‐embracing power over the administrator's bond and of Agripino S. Gustilo, as administrator of Angel Gustilo, convinces this court that
over administration proceedings, a Court of First Instance in a probate proceeding he is not a fit person to be administrator of this estate and that he has not in fact

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 64

administered it so far with due regard to the rights of other persons in interest. It is the way, is not alone in the trust, it appearing that his counsel has been appointed
the opinion of the court, therefore, that he should be removed and required to special co‐administrator.
render his accounts as administrator, in accordance with the second assignment of
error.
RULE 83
INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL. PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF FAMILY
The third assignment of error, taking exception to the refusal of the trial court to
order the forfeiture of the bond of the administrator, in our opinion contemplates
an order that would be premature. Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three months. Within
three (3) months after his appointment every executor or administrator shall
96 DEGALA V. CENIZA AND UMIPIG return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all real and personal estate
78 PHIL 791 of the deceased which has come into his possession or knowledge. In the
appraisement of such estate, the court may order one or more of the inheritance
FACTS: tax appraisers to give his or their assistance.
Umipig was appointed as administrator of the estate of Mina. Petitioner Degala
sought his removal and upon being denied by the court, filed a petition for WHAT PROPERTIES SHOULD BE INVENTORIED AND APPRAISED BY THE
certiorari. Among others, he alleged that Umipig is a stranger to the estate and ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR?
that he has an adverse interest to the estate, and as such, should be removed as  Real or personal estate of the decedent
soon as possible.
ARE ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH IS IN HIS POSSESSION THAT SHOULD BE
HELD: INVENTORIED AND APPRAISED?
Under the very rule invoked by the petitioner, the removal of an administrator lies  No
within the discretion of the court appointing him. The sufficiency of any ground for  In possession or has come into his knowledge
removal should thus be determined by said court, whose sensibilities are, in first
place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not Section 2. Certain article not to be inventoried. The wearing apparel of the
conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court. We cannot surviving husband or wife and minor children., the marriage bed and bedding,
merely substitute our way of thinking for that of a lower court in matters under its and such provisions and other articles as will necessarily be consumed in the
discretionary power. And in the case at bar, we cannot hold that the respondent substinence of the family of the deceased, under the direction of the court, shall
Judge gravely abused his discretion, particularly in view of the circumstance that not be considered as assets, nor administered as such, and shall not be included
the alleged grounds for removal are not in fact weighty. in the inventory.

First, the fact that the former administrator is his counsel doesn’t automatically Section 3. Allowance to widow and family. The widow and minor or
mean that he has an adverse interest in the estate. Second, it doesn’t incapacitated children of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate,
automatically mean that when he has failed to pay some taxes, it was done shall receive therefrom, under the direction of the court, such allowance as are
willfully. It might be the case that there was lack of funds to sustain payment. provided by law.
Third, whether the statement of accounts was filed on time and whether the same
is complete and correct, are matters addressed to the judgment and discretion of 97 CHUA TAN V. DEL ROSARIO
the respondent Judge. It may not be amiss to add that the latter will of course 57 PHIL 411
know when to resort to the bond filed by the respondent administrator who, by
FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 65

Santa Juana was the administratrix of the estate of Chua Piaco. She filed a case the defendant administratrix, constitutes res judicata in another case where the
against del Rosario, the administratrix of the estate of Chua Toco, Piaco’s adopted heirs of the alleged donor are plaintiffs and the administratrix of the supposed
son. Santa Juana demanded del Rosario to render an accounting on allegedly trustee is defendant, and in which the partition of the same funds and the products
delivered funds in trust by the Chua Piaco to Chua Toco, which del Rosario allegedly thereof is sought between the heirs of both, under the same allegation of trust, the
refused to do. Judgment on this case was rendered against Santa Juana however. alleged trustee being the adopted child of the donor.
And in the present case, plaintiffs are the presumptive heirs of Chua Piaco who
sought partition of funds. The lower court sustained the defense of res judicata. 98 ADAPON V. MARALIT
69 PHIL 411
HELD:
It is the duty of the administrator of the testate or intestate estate of a deceased to FACTS:
present an inventory of the real estate and all goods, chattels, rights, and credits of Pedro Adapon petitioned the probate of his late father’s will and it was duly
the deceased which have come into his possession or knowledge, in accordance probated. He was appointed as the administrator of the estate and duly filed the
with the provisions of section 668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to manage inventory of properties. The second wife of his late father opposed. She alleged
them according to section 643 of the same Code; and in order that he may have in that the administrator failed to account for certain properties owned by the
his power and under his custody all such property, section 702 of the aforesaid testator. He is also demanded to pay monthly allowance to the widow. Adapon on
Code authorizes him to bring such actions for the purpose as he may deem the other hand alleged that he owned the properties in dispute and shouldn’t be
necessary. Section 642 in providing for the appointment of an administrator where included in the inventory. The probate court decided in favor of Adapon.
there is no will or the will does not name an executor, seeks to protect not only the
estate of the deceased but also the rights of the creditors in order that they may be HELD:
able to collect their credits, and of the heirs and legatees in order that they may Under section 599 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the probate jurisdiction of the
receive the portion of the inheritance or legacy appertaining to them after all the Court of First Instance relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of
debts and expenses chargeable against the deceased's estate have been paid. estates and probate of wills of deceased persons, the appointment and removal of
Under the provisions of the law, therefore, the judicial administrator is the legal guardians and trustees, and the powers, duties, and rights of guardians and wards,
representative not only of the testate or intestate estate, but also of the creditors, trustees, and cestuis que trust." As may be seen, the law does not extend the
and heirs and legatees, inasmuch as he represents their interest in the estate of jurisdiction of a probate court to the determination of questions of ownership that
the deceased. arise during the proceeding.

Santa Juana, as administratrix of the intestate estate of the late Chua Piaco, was In the case of Bauermann vs. Casas (10 Phil., 392‐393) this court, in passing upon
the legal representative not only of said estate but also of its creditors and heirs. In the same question now raised observed that "the mere fact that one of the parties
view of this relation of agent and principal between her and the plaintiffs in the is an executor or administrator of a certain estate does not give exclusive
present case, the decision rendered against Benedicta Santa Juana, as such jurisdiction to the probate court wherein the estate is being settled, of questions
administratrix, in the former case is conclusive and binding upon said plaintiffs in arising between such the executors or administrators and third persons, as to the
the present case.. ownership of specific property. Of course when it is once determined that certain
property is the property of the estate is being settled, but until this question is
A final judgment upon the merits rendered against the judicial administratrix of an decided the mere allegation that certain property is the property of an estate in
intestate estate, as such, in a case where she is plaintiff and the administratrix of course of jurisdiction over questions touching the ownership of such property and
another intestate estate, as such is the defendant, in which she seeks to secure an rights based on the right of ownership." In Devesa vs. Arbes (13 Phil., 281), the
accounting of funds alleged to have been delivered in trust by the deceased, same doctrine was reiterated with greater force and emphasis, the court there
represented by the plaintiff administratrix, to the other deceased, represented by holding that a contested claim of an administrator that certain rights of possession

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 66

and ownership are the property, of the estate which he represent must be 1430, when the same is requested, and if the creditors believe that they are
determined in a separate action, and not in the administration proceedings." Again, prejudiced by such an action, by separating from the estate a part of its income,
this Court in Guzman vs. Anog and Anog (37 Phil., 62‐63),decided that "when they can appeal to the court therefrom, by satisfactorily proving that there is no
questions arise as to the ownership of property, alleged to be a part of the estate property or asset that may, in any case, be allotted to the interested parties. It
of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by having proven that no property, eitherprivate or conjugal, pertains to the surviving
virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of spouse or the heirs of the deceased, the support cannot be granted, because this,
the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in that course of in effect, according to article 1430, is only an advance payment on accoount of the
administration proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting as a probate court, respective share of each partner.
has no jurisdiction to, adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the
court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a Court of First Instance to try and Such is the case now before us. It appears from the record that the liabilities
determine the ordinary actions mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure." Finally, exceed the assets of the estate of Samuel William Allen and that his widow, by her
in the case of Lunsod vs. Ortega (46 Phil., 676) where the same question like as own admission, had not contributed any property to the marriage. Wherefore, it is
presented, the Court reaffirmed the principle enunciated in the foregoing cases unlawful, in the present case, to grant the support, having the character of an
stating that "it is an established doctrine of this court that the mere fact that one of advance payment to be deducted from the respective share of each partner, when
the parties is the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person does there is no property to be partitioned, lacks the legal basis provided by article 1430.
not confer upon the probate court, in which the proceeding for the distribution and
settlement of said estate are pending, exclusive jurisdiction to decide all question 100 SANTERO V. CFI
that may arise between the said executor or administrator and third persons as to 153 SCRA 728
the title of a specific property."
FACTS:
99 MOORE AND SONS MERCANTILE CO. V. WAGNER Pablo Santero died, begotting children from two women. On the settlement of his
50 PHIL 128 estate, on behalf of her children, Diaz filed for the grant of allowance. She
provided in her motion, the need to sustain daily schooling and other expenses of
FACTS: the children. Petitioners argue that private respondents are not entitled to any
In the settlement of the intestate estate of Samuel Allen, his widow prayed that the allowance since they have already attained majority age, two are gainfully
court orders the administrator to give her and her children allowance. The court employed and one is married as provided for under Sec. 3 Rule 83, of the Rules of
ordered for the same, despite opposition on the ground that the estate is insolvent. Court. Petitioners also allege that there was misrepresentation on the part of the
guardian in asking for allowance for tuition fees, books and other school materials
HELD: and other miscellaneous expenses for school term 1982‐83 because these wards
That the support does not encumber the property of the deceased spouse, but the have already attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship.
general estate, and that by the general estate or the inventoried estate is meant They further allege that the administrator of the estate of Pablo Santero does not
the dowry or capital of the wife; wherefore, even if the indebtedness exceed the have sufficient funds to cover said allowance because whatever funds are in the
residue of the estate, the wife can always be allowed support as part payment of hands of the administrator constitute funds held in trust for the benefit of whoever
the income of her property. In any case, the support is given prior to the will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit properties from where these funds now
termination of the liquidation of the partnership, and it does not seem logical to held by the administrator are derived.
deny the same before knowing exactly the result of the liquidation, just because of
the fear that the liabilities will exceed the estate, or on the ground of estimates HELD:
more or less uncertain, and without any sufficient proof of its reality. The judge or The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of
the administrator, as the case may be, must grant the support referred to in article no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their right to

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 67

allowance under Art. 188. While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow WHAT ARE THE GENERAL POWERS OF AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR?
and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the New Civil Code gives the 1. Have access to partnership books and accounts, in the case of
surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. Hence, the private partnership
respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero are 2. To keep buildings and other properties in repair
entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their 3. To retain whole estate to pay debts
father Pablo Santero. Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives 4. To administer properties not mentioned in the will
the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive support during the 5. To bring and defend suits which survived upon death of the decedent
liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 (Rule 87)
Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule. Be it noted however that
with respect to "spouse," the same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common‐ 101 CONCEPCION JOCSON DE HILADO V. NAVA
law spouses who are the mothers of the children here). 69 PHIL 1

FACTS:
RULE 84
The administratrix entered into a contract of lease of one of the properties of the
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
estate. This was entered into without the intervention of the court. Opposition
was then entered, for the annulment of such contract.
Section 1. Executor or administrator to have access to partnership books and
property. How right enforced. The executor or administrator of the estate of a HELD:
deceased partner shall at all times have access to, and may examine and take The contract here in question being a mere act of administration, could validy be
copies of, books and papers relating to the partnership business, and make entered into by the administratrix within her powers of administration, even
examine and make invoices of the property belonging to such partnership; and without the court's previous authority. And the court had no power to annul or
the surviving partner or partners, on request, shall exhibit to him all such books, invalidate the contract in the intestate proceedings wherein it had no jurisdiction
papers, and property in their hands or control. On the written application of such over the person of the lessee.
executor or administrator, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may order
any such surviving partner or partners to freely permit the exercise of the rights, 102 SAN DIEGO V. NOMBRE
and to exhibit the books, papers, and property, as in this section provided, and 11 SCRA 165
may punish any partner failing to do so for contempt.
FACTS:
Section 2. Executor or administrator to keep buildings in repair. An executor or Nombre was initially the appointed administrator of the estate. He entered into a
administrator shall maintain in tenable repair the houses and other structures lease contract with Escaler for a period of 3 years. This was done without
and fences belonging to the estate, and deliver the same in such repair to the authorization of the court. Nombre was removed as an administrator and was
heirs or devisees when directed so to do by the court. replaced. The court then sought the annulment of the contract, for lack of
authorization.
Section 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay debts, and to
administer estate not willed. An executor or administrator shall have the right to HELD:
the possession and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the The Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining the validity of the contract of lease
deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses in favor of Escanlar, notwithstanding the lack of prior authority and approval. The
of administration. law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter militates in favor of this view. While
it may be admitted that the duties of a judicial administrator and an agent

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 68

(petitioner alleges that both act in representative capacity), are in some respects, waiver by the special administrator of a prima facie exclusive right of the intestate
identical, the provisions on agency (Art. 1878, C.C.), should not apply to a judicial estate to the bank deposits in favor of the co‐owners of the Juna Subdivision, who
administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the Court. He is not only the were allegedly claiming the same as alleged by the administrator in his motion.
representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate (Chua The bank deposits were in the name of the deceased; they, therefore, belong prima
Tan v. Del Rosario, 57 Phil. 411). A judicial administrator before entering into his facie to his estate after his death. And until the contrary is shown by proper
duties, is required to file a bond. These circumstances are not true in case of evidence at the proper stage, when money claims may be filed in the intestate
agency. The agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which the law proceedings, the special administrator is without power to make the waiver or to
gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the hand over part of the estate, or what appears to be a prima facie part of the estate,
fact that control by the principal can only be thru agreements, whereas the acts of to other persons on the ground that the estate is not the owner thereof. If even to
a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the sell for valuable consideration property of the estate requires prior written notice
appointing court. of the application to the heirs, legatees, or devisees under Rule 89 of the Rules of
Court, such notice is equally, if not more, indispensable for disposing gratuitously
103 JARODA V. CUSI of assets of the decedent in favor of strangers. Admittedly, no such notice was
28 SCRA 1008 given, and without it the court's authority is invalid and improper.

FACTS: Secondly, the order approving the power of attorney executed by administrator
Tan filed a petition for the estate proceedings of Villa Abrille. He was duly Tan and appointing himself as attorney‐in‐fact to sell the subdivision lots for a price
appointed as regular administrator. During the proceedings, he first sought at his discretion is, likewise, void for want of notice and for approving an improper
permission to withdraw money from the bank account of the deceased. The court contract or transaction.
found the motion meritorious. Next, alleging that the deceased was the manager
and co‐owner of a subdivision, he sought authorization to sell the same. He was The rule requires "written notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees who are
likewise authorized. Jaroda then entered his opposition but the court overruled his interested in the estate to be sold" and, admittedly, administrator Tan did not
opposition. furnish such notice. Without such notice, the order of the court authorizing the sale
is void.
HELD:
The order allowing the special administrator to withdraw the bank deposits
RULE 85
standing in the name of the decedent is in abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPENSATION OF EXECUTORS AND
jurisdiction. In the first place, said withdrawal is foreign to the powers and duties of
ADMINISTRATORS
a special administrator, which, are to take possession and charge of the goods,
chattels, rights, credits and estate of the decease and preserve the same for the Section 1. Executor or administrator chargeable with all estate and income.
executor or administrator afterwards appointed, and for that purpose may Except as otherwise expressly provided in the following sections, every executor
commence and maintain suits as administrator. He may sell only such perishable or administrator is chargeable in his account with the whole of the estate of the
and other property as the court orders sold. A special administrator shall not be deceased which has come into his possession, at the value of the appraisement
liable to pay any debts of the deceased unless so ordered by the court. contained in the inventory; with all the interest, profit, and income of such
estate; and with the proceeds of so much of the estate as is sold by him, at the
In the second place, the order was issued without notice to, and hearing of, the price at which it was sold.
heirs of the deceased. The withdrawal of the bank deposits may be viewed as a
taking of possession and charge of the credits of the estate, and apparently within TO WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR ACCOUNTABLE FOR?
the powers and duties of a special administrator; but actually, said withdrawal is a

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 69

 With the whole of the estate of the deceased which has come into his
possession, at the value of the appraisement contained in the inventory; Section 6. When allowed money paid as cost. The amount paid by an executor or
with all the interest, profit, and income of such estate; and with the administrator for costs awarded against him shall be allowed in his
proceeds of so much of the estate as is sold by him, at the price at which administration account, unless it appears that the action or proceeding in which
it was sold. the costs are taxed was prosecuted or resisted without just cause, and not in
good faith.
Section 2. Not to profit by increase or lose by decrease in value. No executor or
administrator shall profit by the increase, or suffer loss by the decrease or MAY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR BE
destruction, without his fault, of any part of the estate. He must account for the ALLOWED IN HIS ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT?
excess when he sells any part of the estate for more than the appraisement, and  Generally yes, he may charge it in his administration account
if any is sold for the less than the appraisement, he is not responsible for the loss,  Exceptions to the rule—
if the sale has justly made. If he settles any claim against the estate for less than o The action or proceeding involved was prosecuted or resisted
its nominal value, he is entitled to charge in his account only the amount he without just cause, and not in good faith
actually paid on the settlement.
Section 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not to
Section 3. When not accountable for debts due estate. No executor or charge for services as attorney. Compensation provided by will controls unless
administrator shall be accountable for debts due the deceased which remain renounced. An executor or administrator shall be allowed the necessary expenses
uncollected without his fault. the care, management, and settlement of the estate, and for his services, four
pesos per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or a commission
Section 4. Accountable for income from realty used by him. If the executor or upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and is
administrator uses or occupies any part of the real estate himself, he shall finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses, legacies, or
account for it as may be agreed upon between him and the parties interested, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees, of two per centum of the
adjusted by the court with their assent; and if the parties do not agree upon the first five thousand pesos of such value, one per centum of so much of such value
sum to be allowed, the same may be ascertained by the court, whose as exceeds five thousand pesos and does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, one‐
determination in this respect shall be final. half per centum of so much of such value as exceed one hundred thousand pesos.
But in any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been
Section 5. Accountable if he neglects or delays to raise or pay money. When an attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the
executor or administrator neglects or unreasonably delays to raise money, by part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed. If objection
collecting the debts or selling the real or personal estate of the deceased, or to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be re‐examined on appeal.
neglects to pay over the money he has in his hands, and the value of the estate is
thereby lessened or unnecessary cost or interest accrues, or the persons If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be
interested suffer loss, the same shall be deemed waste and the damage sustained apportioned among them by the court according to the services actually rendered
may be charged and allowed against him in his account, and he shall be liable by them respectively.
therefor on his bond.
When the executors or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against
WHEN MAY UNCOLLECTED DEBTS BE CHARGEABLE TO THE the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him.
EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR’S ACCOUNT?
 If there is negligence, fault or unreasonable delay on the part of the When the deceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of
executor or administrator his executor, that provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services unless by a

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 70

written instrument filed in the court he renounces all claim to the compensation  Exception: when the court directs otherwise because of extensions of
provided by the will. time for presentation of claims against the estate, paying debts of estate,
or for disposing the estate
HOW CAN THE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR BE COMPENSATED?
 For necessary expenses for the care, management and settlement of the Section 9. Examinations on oath with respect to account. The court may examine
estate the executor or administrator upon oath with respect to every matter relating to
 For his services any account rendered by him, and shall so examine him as to the correctness of
his account before the same is allowed, except when no objection is made to the
HOW CAN AN ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR BE COMPENSATED FOR HIS allowance of the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by
SERVICES? competent proof. The heirs, legatees, distributees, and creditors of the estate
 It depends if it is time‐based or commission‐based shall have the same privilege as the executor or administrator of being examined
 If time‐based, P4/day actually and necessarily employed on oath on any matter relating to an administration account.
 If commission‐based—
o 2% for first P5000 MAY THE RENDITION OF ACCOUNT BE FORGONE IF THERE IS A PARTITION
o 1% for P5000‐30000 AGREEMENT?
o 0.5% for exceeding P100,000  No (Joson v. Joson)
 For the heirs to know the state of the estate and this has been mandated
WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON COMPENSATION? by the rules
1. When the decedent makes provision in his will for compensation
2. In any special case, upon discretion of the court, the settlement of the Section 10. Account to be settled on notice. Before the account of an executor or
estate is attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of administrator is allowed, notice shall be given to persons interested of the time
capacity on the part of the administrator or executor and place of examining and allowing the same; and such notice may be given
personally to such persons interested or by advertisement in a newspaper or
WHO IS PRIMARY LIABLE FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES? newspapers, or both, as the court directs.
 The administrator or executor, subject to reimbursement
MAY A COURT AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE AN ACCOUNT?
Section 8. When executor or administrator to render account. Every executor or  No
administrator shall render an account of his administration within one (1) year  There must be the following—
from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless the o Notice to all interested parties of the estate—heirs, legatees,
court otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims devisees, creditors, distributees
against, or paying the debts of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he o Notice may be made personally or by publication, or by both
shall render such further accounts as the court may require until the estate is
wholly settled. Section 11. Surety on bond may be party to accounting. Upon the settlement of
the account of an executor or administrator, a person liable as surety in respect
WHEN SHALL AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR RENDER AN ACCOUNT? to such account may, upon application, be admitted as party to such accounting.
 General rule: within 1 year since issuance of letters of administration or
testamentary DOES A SURETY AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A PARTY TO ACCOUNTING?
 No
 He must file an application to that effect

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 71

appellant, dated August 14, 1933, and March 15, 1934, respectively, which
104 GARCIA V. ESCUDERO accounts appear in the record on appeal, as amended by order of the court.
43 PHIL 437
The court a quo, therefore, committed no error in ordering the elimination from
FACTS: the record on appeal of the other pleadings, decrees, orders and judgments not
Plaintiff’s as the testator’s sisters were the testamentary heirs. Escudero and appealed from, which, according to the appellant himself, are nothing more than
another were appointed as administrators of the estate. Plaintiffs subsequently evidence of the services rendered by him and his attorney.
prayed for the delivery of properties to them as well as the accounting for the
same. Escudero assailed such motion by alleging that the plaintiffs don’t have any With respect to the other expenses and fees which the ex‐administrator‐appellant
standing in court, the properties in dispute not having been administered in seeks to collect and which the lower court, rejected, the law only authorizes the
accordance with the rules. administrator to collect for his services as such the sum of P4 for every day actually
and necessarily spent by him in the administration and care of the estate of a
HELD: deceased person, not for every act or task he might perform, even if it were to take
The administrator isn’t responsible for the loss, by a fortuitous event, of the only a few minutes to do so, as indicated by the nature of the great majority of the
personal properties under administration in the absence of proof that said loss was task performed by him, for each and every one of which he seeks to collect P4.
due to his negligence. Nor does the fact that no written evidence was introduced Therefore this court is of the opinion that the 18 days granted by the lower court to
to prove that the animals under administration died of rinderpest render him liable the ex‐administrator‐appellant as actually and necessarily spent by him in the
for the value of the animals. performance of his duties, at P4 a day, are reasonable.

105 NICOLAS V. NICOLAS 106 UY TIOCO V. IMPERIAL


63 PHIL 332 53 PHIL 802

FACTS: FACTS:
Domingo Nicolas is the ex‐administrator of the estate. He appealed the order of Panis was formerly the counsel for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
the court, allowing the 2 accounts he submitted but lesser than what he prayed for. Uy Tioco was the administrator. Upon cessation of services, Panis submitted an
Among others, he alleged not being given the opportunity to be heard on the account for the payment of his attorney’s fees. Despite opposition by the guardian
accounts he submitted. He likewise contested the fact of disapproving certain ad litem of the minor children of deceased, the court granted the request of the
payments he made and the exclusion of some pleadings and orders he submitted lawyer and ordered consequently the administrator to pay the former out of the
to support his claim. estate’s funds.

HELD: HELD:
What section 779 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires to be transmitted to this The arguments submitted indicate a misconception of the character of the liability
court in case of an appeal from a decree or order approving or disapproving the for the attorney's fees are claimed are supposed to have been rendered to the
accounts of an administrator, in accordance with the provisions of section 778, is a executor or administrator to assist him in the execution of his trust. The attorney
certified transcript of the appeal, order, decree or judgment appealed from and of can therefore not hold the estate directly liable for his fees; such fees are allowed
the accounts embraced in the order, the inclusion of any other order, decree or to the executor or administrator and not to the attorney. The liability for the
judgment from which no appeal has been taken being unnecessary and payment rests on the executor or administrator, but if the fees paid are beneficial
superfluous. The appealed order is the one dated June 20, 1934, and accounts to the estate and reasonable, he is entitled to the reimbursement from the estate.
partially disapproved therein are those submitted by the ex‐administrator‐

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 72

Such payment should be included in his accounts and the reimbursement therefore Serquina submitted for probate the will of deceased Farlin. There being no
settled upon the notice prescribed in section 682 of the Code of Civil Procedure. opposition, the will was duly admitted to probate. Thereafter, the counsel
Serquina submitted a motion for payment of attorney’s fees. This was opposed by
107 DACANAY V. GERNANDEZ the heirs of Farlin, nonetheless, the court favored the payment and ordered that
53 PHIL 824 the same would constitute a lien over the distribution of the estate.

FACTS: HELD:
Justiniano Dacanay died and was originally survived by his legitimate daughter and An administrator or executor may be allowed fees for the necessary expenses he
natural children. The legitimate daughter eventually died and was survived by her has incurred as such, but he may not recover attorney's fees from the estate. His
spouse Hernandez and children. The deceased Dacanay in this case was able to compensation is fixed by the rule but such a compensation is in the nature of
leave a will. The legitimate daughter was deprived of her rightful share due to her executor's or administrator's commissions, and never as attorney's fees. In one
alleged disobedience. And despite opposition from Hernandez, the will was case, "a greater sum [other than that established by the rule] may be allowed 'in
admitted to probate. On the accounting of expenses, Tirso indicated therein as any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended
account the payment of attorney’s fees. This was one of the things contested, on with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the
the ground that the fees should be shouldered by the administrator himself. executor or administrator.'" It is also left to the sound discretion of the court. With
respect to attorney's fees, the rule, disallows them. Accordingly, to the extent that
HELD: the trial court set aside the sum of P65,000.00 as and for Mr. Serquina's attorney's
As will be seen, all of the fees relate to services rendered for the benefit of the fees, to operate as a "lien on the subject properties," the trial judge must be said to
administrator himself and for that of the other natural children of Justiniano have gravely abused its discretion (apart from the fact that it never acquired
Dacanay and not for the benefit of the estate. jurisdiction, in the first place, to act on said Mr. Serquina's "motion for attorney's
fees").
"The estate cannot be held liable for the costs of counsel fees arising out of
litigation between the beneficiaries thereof among themselves, or in the protection The next question is quite obvious: Who shoulders attorney's fees? We have held
of the interest of a particular persons" (Woerner on Administration, 2d ed., sec. that a lawyer of an administrator or executor may not charge the estate for his
516, and authorities there cited). It is true that an administrator may employ fees, but rather, his client. Mutatis mutandis, where the administrator is himself
competent counsel on questions which affects his duties as administrator and on the counsel for the heirs, it is the latter who must pay therefor.
which he is in reasonable doubt and that reasonable expenses for such services
may be charged against the estate subject to the approval of the court. But such is In that connection, attorney's fees are in the nature of actual damages, which must
not the case here. In this case the administrator deliberately and knowingly be duly proved. They are also subject to certain standards, to wit: (1) they must be
resorted to falsified documents for the purpose of defrauding the legitimate heirs reasonable, that is to say, they must have a bearing on the importance of the
of the deceased and through his own breach of trust, brought on the litigation for subject matter in controversy; (2) the extent of the services rendered; and (3) the
which he now demands reimbursement for counsel fees. We know of no legal professional standing of the lawyer. In all cases, they must be addressed in a full‐
authority for such reimbursement in these circumstances. The claim for P6,175 is blown trial and not on the bare word of the parties. And always, they are subject to
therefore disallowed. the moderating hand of the courts.

108 LACSON V. REYES 109 ROSENSTOCK V. ELSER


182 SCRA 729 48 PHIL 708

FACTS: FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 73

Rosenstock petitioned the will of deceased Elser to be admitted to probate. It was before an account of the administrator is allowed notice shall be given to all
duly admitted and consequently, Rosenstock was appointed as the executor. On a persons interested of the time and place of examining and allowing the same. And
later date, he filed a motion for payment of additional compensation and finally Section 9 expressly directs that the court shall examine the administrator
allowance. This was approved by the court. The widow of the deceased moved for upon oath with respect to every matter relating to his account except when no
reconsideration but was denied. objection is made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is
satisfactorily established by competent testimony.
HELD:
During that period all of the assets and liabilities of the estate should have been It thus appears that the duty of an administrator to render an account is not a mere
legally ascertained and determined. In other words the character and class of the incident of an administration proceeding which ran be waived or disregarded when
work which devolves upon the executor is of a very different type and nature now the same is terminated, but that it is a duty that has to be performed and duly
than at the time of his appointment. Although by mutual consent his compensation acted upon by the court before the administration is finally ordered closed and
was fixed at P1,0000 per month at the time of his appointment that was not valid terminated. Here the administrator has submitted his accounts for several years
or binding contract continuous throughout the whole administration of the estate. not only motu proprio but upon requirement of the court, to which accounts the
It was always subject to change and the approval of the court and to either an heirs have seasonably submitted their opposition. And when the administrator
increase or decrease as conditions might warrant. At all times the compensation of moved the court to close the proceedings and relieve him of his administration and
the probate court. of his accounts, the heirs who objected thereto objected likewise to the closing of
the proceedings invoking their right to be heard but the court ignored their
110 JOSON V. JOSON opposition and granted the motion setting forth as reasons therefor what we
2 SCRA 83 quoted in the early part of this decision. Verily, the trial court erred in acceding to
the motion for in doing so it disregarded the express provisions of our rules relative
FACTS: to the settlement of accounts of a judicial administrator.
Joson (father) died and left a will. He was survived by many children, as he married
thrice during his lifetime. The will was admitted for probate and one of the sons The fact that all the heirs of the estate have entered into an extrajudicial
was appointed as an administrator. He filed accounting reports in different dates settlement and partition in order to put an end to their differences cannot in any
and this was opposed by some of the heirs, on the ground that the share of each way be interpreted as a waiver of the objections of the heirs to the accounts
heir in the yearly produce was allegedly being diminished. Thereafter, an submitted by the administrator not only because to so hold would be a derogation
extrajudicial partition an compromise agreement was entered into by all heirs. This of the pertinent provisions of our rules but also because there is nothing provided
was approved. Despite lack of hearing for the accounts, the administrator moved in said partition that the aforesaid accounts shall be deemed waived or condoned.
for the closure of proceedings, which the court duly sustained. Thus, this appeal. While the attitude of the heirs in concluding said extrajudicial settlement is
plausible and has contributed to the early settlement of the estate, the same
HELD: cannot however be considered as release of the obligation of the administrator to
Section 1 of Rule 86 categorically charges an administrator "with the whole of the prove his accounts. This is more so when, according to the oppositors, the
estate of the deceased which has come into his possession at the value of administrator has committed in his accounts a shortage in the amount of
appraisement contained in the inventory; with all the interest, profit, and income P132,600.00 which certainly cannot just be brushed aside by a mere technicality.
of such an estate; and with the proceeds of so much of the estate as is hold by him,
at the price at which sold." Section 8 of the same rule imposes upon him the duty 111 PHIL. TRUST COMPANY V. LUZON SURETY
to render an account of his administration within one year from his appointment, 2 SCRA 122
unless the court otherwise directs, as well as to render such further accounts as the
court may require until the estate is fully settled. Section 10 likewise provides that FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 74

Picard was on the onset appointed as the administrator of the intestate esatate of the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at any time before an
Burt. He accordingly filed a bond, with Luzon Surety as his surety. Thereafter, due order of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file
to failure to do his duties as administrator properly, he was replaced by PTC. PTC his claim within the previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on
reported that it only had in its possession a small amount of money but if the such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not
accounts previously submitted by Picard is referred to, it would show that Picard is exceeding one (1) month.
accountable for a bigger amount of money. As such, the court ordered him to WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PERIOD WHEN A COURT CAN ALLOW THE FILING OF
deliver the same. Failing to really account for his duties and accounting, the bond CLAIMS?
was made liable and consequently revoked by the court.  12 months
 Time period: 6 months to 12 months
HELD:  The court can set a period less than 12 months but not less than 6
Appellant's contention that the probate court, ex proprio motu, cannot order the months
confiscation or forfeiture of an administrator's bond, is clearly without merit.
Whatever may be the rule prevailing in other jurisdictions, in ours probate court is WHEN DOES THE 1‐MONTH PERIOD COMMENCE?
possessed with an all‐embracing power not only in requiring but also in fixing the  From approval of the court
amount, and executing or forfeiting an administrator's bond. The execution or
forfeiture of an administrator's bond, is deemed be a necessary part and incident CAN THE COURT SET A LESSER TIME PERIOD?
of the administration proceedings as much as its filing and the fixing of its amount.  Yes, the 1‐month is the maximum period
The rule, therefore, is that the probate court may have said bond executed in the
same probate proceeding. Section 3. Publication of notice to creditors. Every executor or administrator shall,
immediately after the notice to creditors is issued, cause the same to be
Moreover, the condition of the administrator's bond in question is that Francis L. published three (3) weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation in
Picard shall faithfully execute the orders and decrees of the court; that if he did so, the province, and to be posted for the same period in four public places in the
the obligation shall become void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. province and in two public places in the municipality where the decedent last
In having been established that Picard disbursed funds of the estate without resided.
authority, the conclusion follows that he had and his surety became bound upon
the terms of their bond. WHAT ARE THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS?
1. Publication in newspapers of general circulation once a week for three
consecutive weeks
RULE 86
2. Posting of notice for same period in four public places in the province
CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE
3. Posting of notice for same period in two public places in the municipality
where decedent last resided
Section 1. Notice to creditors to be issued by court. Immediately after granting
letters testamentary or of administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring Section 4. Filing of copy of printed notice. Within ten (10) days after the notice
all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of has been published and posted in accordance with the preceding section, the
the clerk of said court. executor or administrator shall file or cause to be filed in the court a printed copy
of the notice accompanied with an affidavit setting forth the dates of the first and
Section 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. In the notice provided in the last publication thereof and the name of the newspaper in which the same is
preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the printed.
estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) not less than six (6) months after

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 75

WHAT SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR DO WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM WHERE MUST A CLAIM BASED ON A SOLIDARY OBLIGATION OF THE DECEDENT BE
POSTING AND PUBLICATION? FILED?
1. Execute an affidavit  It must be claimed from the estate as if the decedent is the sole debtor
a. All details of posting and publication  Without prejudice to reimbursement from the other solidary debtor
b. Dates of first and last publication  Caveat—the creditor however is not precluded from filing claim against
c. Name of newspaper in which it was published the other solidary debtor
2. Printed copy of the notice
Section 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. A creditor holding a claim against the
Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the
exceptions. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule, and share in
express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his
for funeral expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and mortgage or realize upon his security, by action in court, making the executor or
judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after
in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure
forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency
against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section or he may rely upon
or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclosure the same at any time within
debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted
of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of
claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator
rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be from redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for
considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been which it is held as security, under the direction of the court, if the court shall
presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be
yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their present value. made.

WHAT CLAIMS ARE BARRED IF NOT CLAIMED WITHIN THE PERIOD SET BY THE Section 8. Claim of executor or administrator against an estate. If the executor or
RULES? administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he shall give notice
1. Claims for money arising from contract thereof, in writing, to the court, and the court shall appoint a special
2. Contingent claims for money arising from contract administrator, who shall, in the adjustment of such claim, have the same power
3. Funeral expenses and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator or executor in
4. Expenses for last sickness of decedent the settlement of other claims. The court may order the executor or
5. Judgment of money against decedent administrator to pay to the special administrator necessary funds to defend such
claim.
Section 6. Solidary obligation of decedent. Where the obligation of the decedent
is solidary with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if AT WHAT INSTANCES MAY A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR BE APPOINTED?
he were the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover 1. When there is delay in the appointment of administrator or executor
contribution from the debtor. In a joint obligation of the decedent, the claim shall 2. When there is claims by the administrator or executor himself
be confined to the portion belonging to him. 3. When the proceedings have ended and there are claims against the
estate filed within the reglementary period

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 76

claim, the court may, in its discretion, allow him fifteen (15) days to file an
Section 9. How to file a claim. Contents thereof. Notice to executor or answer to the claim in the manner prescribed in the preceding section.
administrator. A claim may be filed by delivering the same with the necessary
vouchers to the clerk of court and by serving a copy thereof on the executor or Section 12. Trial of contested claim. Upon the filing of an answer to a claim, or
administrator. If the claim be founded on a bond, bill, note, or any other upon the expiration of the time for such filing, the clerk of court shall set the
instrument, the original need not be filed, but a copy thereof with all claim for trial with notice to both parties. The court may refer the claim to a
indorsements shall be attached to the claim and filed therewith. On demand, commissioner.
however, of the executor or administrator, or by order of the court or judge, the
original shall be exhibited, unless it be list or destroyed, in which case the Section 13. Judgment appealable. The judgment of the court approving or
claimant must accompany his claim with affidavit or affidavits containing a copy disapproving a claim, shall be filed with the record of the administration
or particular description of the instrument and stating its loss or destruction. proceedings with notice to both parties, and is appealable as in ordinary cases. A
When the claim is due, it must be supported by affidavit stating the amount justly judgment against the executor or administrator shall be that he pay, in due
due, that no payments have been made thereon which are not credited, and that course of administration, the amount ascertained to be due, and it shall not
there are no offsets to the same, to the knowledge of the affiant. If the claim is create any lien upon the property of the estate, or give to the judgment creditor
not due, or is contingent, when filed, it must also be supported by affidavits any priority of payment.
stating the particulars thereof. When the affidavit is made by a person other than
the claimant, he must set forth therein the reason why it is not made by the Section 14. Costs. When the executor or administrator, in his answer, admits and
claimant. The claim once filed shall be attached to the record of the case in which offers to pay part of a claim, and the claimant refuses to accept the amount
the letters testamentary or of administration were issued, although the court, in offered in satisfaction of his claim, if he fails to obtain a more favorable
its discretion, and as a matter of convenience, may order all the claims to be judgment, he cannot recover costs, but must pay to the executor or administrator
collected in a separate folder. costs from the time of the offer. Where an action commenced against the
deceased for money has been discontinued and the claim embraced therein
Section 10. Answer of executor or administrator. Offsets. Within fifteen (15) days presented as in this rule provided, the prevailing party shall be allowed the costs
after service of a copy of the claim on the executor or administrator, he shall file of his action up to the time of its discontinuance.
his answer admitting or denying the claim specifically, and setting forth the
admission or denial. If he has no knowledge sufficient to enable him to admit or
RULE 87
deny specifically, he shall state such want of knowledge. The executor or
ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
administrator in his answer shall allege in offset any claim which the decedent
before death had against the claimant, and his failure to do so shall bar the claim
forever. A copy of the answer shall be served by the executor or administrator on Section 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or
the claimant. The court in its discretion may extend the time for filing such administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or
answer. interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but
to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to
Section 11. Disposition of admitted claim. Any claim admitted entirely by the enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
executor or administrator shall immediately be submitted by the clerk to the property, real or personal, may be commenced against him.
court who may approve the same without hearing; but the court, in its discretion,
before approving the claim, may order that known heirs, legatees, or devisees be WHAT ACTIONS MAY BE FILED AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR?
notified and heard. If upon hearing, an heir, legatees, or devisee opposes the 1. Recovery of real or personal property, or an interest therein
2. To enforce lien against any real or personal property

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 77

3. Actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property deed, conveyance, bond, contract, or other writing which contains evidence of or
tends or discloses the right, title, interest, or claim of the deceased, the court may
WHAT ACTIONS MAY NOT BE FILED? cite such suspected person to appear before it any may examine him on oath on
 Claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon the matter of such complaint; and if the person so cited refuses to appear, or to
answer on such examination or such interrogatories as are put to him, the court
Section 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which survive. may punish him for contempt, and may commit him to prison until he submits to
For the recovery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased, an the order of the court. The interrogatories put any such person, and his answers
executor or administrator may bring or defend, in the right of deceased, actions thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in the clerk's office.
for causes which survive.
Section 7. Person entrusted with estate compelled to render account. The court,
Section 3. Heir may not sue until shall assigned. When an executor or on complaint of an executor or administrator, may cite a person entrusted by an
administrator is appointed and assumes the trust, no action to recover the title or executor or administrator with any part of the estate of the deceased to appear
possession of lands or for damages done to such lands shall be maintained before it, and may require such person to render a full account, on oath, of the
against him by an heir or devisee until there is an order of the court assigning money, goods, chattels, bonds, account, or other papers belonging to such estate
such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time allowed for paying debts has as came to his possession in trust for such executor or administrator, and of his
expired. proceedings thereon; and if the person so cited refuses to appear to render such
account, the court may punish him for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful
Section 4. Executor or administrator may compound with debtor. Within the order of the court.
approval of the court, an executor or administrator may compound with the
debtor of the deceased for a debt due, and may give a discharge of such debt on WHO MAY BE COMPELLED OTHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR, TO
receiving a just dividend of the estate of the debtor. RENDER AN ACCOUNT?
 A person entrusted by an executor or administrator with any part of the
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR TO COMPOUND estate of the deceased
WITH THE DEBTOR?
 It means to enter into a compromise agreement with the deceased’s Section 8. Embezzlement before letters issued. If a person, before the granting of
debtor letters testamentary or of administration on the estate of the deceased,
 He may do so, with the approval of the court embezzles or alienates any of the money, goods, chattels, or effects of such
 He shall account for the amount recovered on the debt due deceased, such person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or
administrator of the estate for double the value of the property sold, embezzled,
Section 5. Mortgage due estate may be foreclosed. A mortgage belonging to the or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of such estate.
estate of a deceased person, as mortgagee or assignee of the right or a mortgage,
may be foreclosed by the executor or administrator. Section 9. Property fraudulently conveyed by deceased may be recovered. When
executor or administrator must bring action. When there is a deficiency of assets
Section 6. Proceedings when property concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently in the hands of an executor or administrator for the payment of debts and
conveyed. If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee, creditor or other expenses of administration, and the deceased in his lifetime had conveyed real or
individual interested in the estate of the deceased, complains to the court having personal property, or a right or interest therein, or an debt or credit, with intent
jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having concealed, to defraud his creditors or to avoid any right, debt, or duty; or had so conveyed
embezzled, or conveyed away any of the money, goods, or chattels of the such property, right, interest, debt or credit that by law the conveyance would be
deceased, or that such person has in his possession or has knowledge of any void as against his creditors, and the subject of the attempted conveyance would

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 78

be liable to attachment by any of them in his lifetime, the executor or Here, the court sits as a probate court. Said court is primarily concerned with the
administrator may commence and prosecute to final judgment an action for the administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate. For these purposes,
recovery of such property, right, interest, debt, or credit for the benefit of the property in the hands of the estate's administrator comes within the power of the
creditors; but he shall not be bound to commence the action unless on probate court.
application of the creditors of the deceased, not unless the creditors making the
application pay such part of the costs and expenses, or give security therefor to With the foregoing as parting point, let us look at the administrator's claim for
the executor or administrator, as the court deems equitable. rentals allegedly due. The amount demanded is not, by any means, liquidated.
Conceivably, the lessee may interpose defenses. Compromise, payment, statute of
Section 10. When creditor may bring action. Lien for costs. When there is such a limitations, lack of cause of action and the like, may be urged to defeat the
deficiency of assets, and the deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted such administrator's case. Here, appellee's opposition to the motion served a warning
a conveyance, as is stated in the last preceding section, and the executor or that at the proper time he will set up the defense that the administrator, as
administrator has not commenced the action therein provided for, any creditor of attorney‐in‐fact of the declared heirs, had theretofore sold the estate's two‐fourths
the estate may, with the permission of the court, commence and prosecute to share in Hacienda Rosario together with "all the rights, title and interest (including
final judgment, in the name of the executor or administrator, a like action for the all accrued rents) that said heirs had inherited from the said deceased." Appellant
recovery of the subject of the conveyance or attempted conveyance for the administrator in his reply to the opposition admits the fact of sale of the land, but
benefit of the creditors. But the action shall not be commenced until the creditor not of the rentals due. Accordingly, the right to collect the rentals is still in a fluid
has filed in a court a bond executed to the executor or administrator, in an state. That right remains to be threshed out upon a full‐dress trial on the merits.
amount approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify the executor or Because of all of these, the money (rentals) allegedly due is not property in the
administrator against the costs and expenses incurred by reason of such action. hands of the administrator; it is not thus within the effective control of the probate
Such creditor shall have a lien upon any judgment recovered by him in the action court. Neither does it come within the concept of money of the deceased
for such costs and other expenses incurred therein as the court deems equitable. "concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away", which would confer upon the court
Where the conveyance or attempted conveyance had been made by the incidental prerogative to reach out its arms to get it back and, if necessary, to cite
deceased in his lifetime in favor of the executor or administrator, the action the possessor thereof in contempt.
which a credit may bring shall be in the name of all the creditors, and permission
of the court and filing of bond as above prescribed, are not necessary. 113 QUIRINO V. GOROSPE
169 SCRA 702
112 DELA CRUZ V. CAMON
16 SCRA 886 FACTS:
This involves the settlement of issues claimed by different parties to the intestate
FACTS: proceedings of Don Alfonso. Mostly are claims for attorney’s fees as well as
The estate of Fallon and Murphy owned a 2/4 prodiviso share in Hacienda Rosario. different expenses incurred with respect to acts of administration of the estate.
Camon was the lessee of the said land long before intestate proceedings have The court decided the issues by piecemeal.
commenced. Dela Cruz as administrator of the estate, filed a motion in the
probate court to order Camon to pay the estate its share in the rentals for a certain HELD:
span of years over the rice and agricultural lands. Camon alleged on the other On the issue of claims against the estate for attorney’s fees and for transportation
hand that the probate court doesn’t have jurisdiction over his person. and representation expenses…the term "claims" required to be presented against a
decedent's estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary
HELD: nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime or
liability contracted by the deceased before his death. It is important to note that

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 79

movants claims for attorney's fees and transportation as wen as representation Upon the other hand, Rule 88, section 1, enumerates actions that survive against a
expenses are for services rendered to the alleged substituted heirs of Don Juan decedent's executors or administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real
Castellvi and such services did not inure to the benefit of Don Alfonso Castellvi or and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon; and
his estate. The court charged with the settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property. The present suit
Castellvi is bound to protect the estate from any disbursements based on claims is one for damages under the last class, it having been held that "injury to
not chargeable to the estate. property" is not limited to injuries to specific property, but extends to other wrongs
by which personal estate is injured or diminished. To maliciously cause a party to
With respect to the issue of expenses related to acts of administration…With regard incur unnecessary expenses, as charged in this case, is certainly injurious to that
to Floro's claim for payment for services rendered to the estate of Don Alfonso party's property.
Castellvi, the rule is that where the monetary claim against the administrator has a
relation to his acts of administration in the ordinary course thereof, such claims can 115 MELGAR V. BUENVIAJE
be presented for payment with the court where a special proceeding for the 179 SCRA 196
settlement of the estate is pending, although said claims were not incurred by the
deceased during his lifetime and collectible after his death. This is so, because the FACTS:
administration is under the direct supervision of the court and the administrator is A vehicular collision happened among 2 passenger buses and a Ford Fiera. The bus
subject to its authority. owned by Bella suddenly swerved to the left lane and collided head‐on with the
Fiera. It further swerved to the left lane and collided again with the other bus. This
114 AGUAS V. LILEMOS caused the injuries and deaths of many. The victims in this case then consequently
5 SCRA 959 filed a case against the heirs of Bella—the latter having been killed in the accident.

FACTS: HELD:
Hermogenes Llemos on the relevant date, mailed a copy of a petition for the Under Section 5 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, actions that are abated by death are:
issuance of a writ of possession to Aguas and others. He likewise indicated that he (1) All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or
will file the same. This prompted Aguas and others to travel all the way to Samar implied, whether the same be due, not due or contingent; (2) All claims for funeral
with their lawyers, only to find out that no petition has been filed. This expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; and (3) Judgments for
consequently led to a case filed against Llemos but the latter died eventually. money against the decedent. It is evident that the case at bar is not among those
Aguas and others then modified their complaint, including therein the heirs of enumerated. Otherwise stated, actions for damages caused by the tortious conduct
Llemos. They alleged among others that the death of the defendant doesn’t abate of the defendant survive the death of the latter.
the cause of action for tort.
The action can therefore be properly brought under Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules
HELD: of Court, against an executor or administrator.
Under Rule 87, section 5, the actions that are abated by death are: (1) claims for
funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent; (2) judgments for The point of controversy is however on the fact that no estate proceedings exist for
money; and (3) "all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract the reason that her children had not filed any proceedings for the settlement of her
express or implied". None of these includes that of the plaintiffs‐appellants; for it is estate, claiming that Balla left no properties.
not enough that the claim against the deceased party be for money, but it must Thus, while petitioners may have correctly moved for the dismissal of the case and
arise from "contract express or implied". private respondents have forthwith corrected the deficiency by filing an amended
complaint, even before the lower court could act on petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss, the action under Section

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 80

17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which allows the suit against the legal 8. Juana and Claudio subsequently died. Salud now came forth and filed for
representative of the deceased, that is, the executor or administrator of his estate, reconveyance of the land, on the ground that the deed of sale was null
would still be futile, for the same reason that there appears to be no steps taken and void and was procured through fraud.
towards the settlement of the estate of the late Felicidad Balla, nor has an executor
or administrator of the estate been appointed. From the statement made by the HELD:
petitioners that "many persons die without leaving any asset at all" which The petitioners would also fault the private respondents for laches and argue that
insinuates that the deceased left no assets, it is reasonable to believe that the Salud's inaction in protection of her rights should bar her from asserting them at
petitioners will not take any step to expedite the early settlement of the estate, this late hour. Specifically, it is pointed out that she failed to register the deed of
judicially or extra‐judicially if only to defeat the damage suit against the estate. donation and its acceptance; did not oppose the inclusion of the subject land in the
inventory of Perfecta's properties submitted in the intestate proceedings; did not
116 PAJARILLO V. IAC object to the adjudication of the land to Juana in the project of partition; did not
176 SCRA 340 protest the sale of the land to Claudio Suterio; and did not question its registration
in his name. It is contended that all these acts constitute laches, which has been
FACTS: described by this Court thus:
1. The mother was Juana Balane de Suterio, who had a brother named
Felipe Balane and a sister named Perfecta Balane de Cordero. An estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right
2. Perfecta died in 1945 leaving a tract of land. Juana and Felipe executed a within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
public instrument entitled "Extra‐judicial Settlement of the Estate of the assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Deceased Perfecta Balane de Cordero." These instruments were never
registered nor was title transferred in Salud's name although she says she The problem with the petitioners' theory is that it would regard Juana and Salud as
immediately took possession of the land. strangers when they are in fact mother and daughter. One may expect a person to
3. Meantime, intestate proceedings were instituted on the estate of be vigilant of his rights when dealing with an acquaintance or associate, or even
Perfecta and the said land was among those included in the inventory of with a friend, but not when the other person is a close relative, as in the case at
the properties belonging to the decedent. bar. To begin with, the land came from Juana herself. Secondly, she requested her
4. Salud interposed no objection to its inclusion nor did she oppose its daughter not to register the land as long as she was still alive so she could enjoy its
subsequent adjudication to her mother Juana in the project of partition. fruits until her death. To Salud, it was not difficult to comply with this request,
5. It is not clear if the land was ever registered in Juana's name. However, coming as it did from her own mother. There was no reason to disobey her. She did
there is evidence that Juana confirmed the earlier donation of the land to not have to protect herself against her own mother. Indeed, what would have been
Salud but requested that she be allowed to possess the same and enjoy unseemly was her registering the land against her mother's request as if she had no
its fruits, until her death. confidence in her. Salud did no less than what any dutiful daughter would have
6. Salud says that sometime in 1951, acceding to this request, she done under the circumstances.
transferred the possession of the land to her mother, who was then
staying with Claudio and his family. During the period they were If Salud did not protest the inclusion of the land in the inventory of Perfecta's
occupying the land, Claudio paid the realty taxes thereon. properties and its subsequent adjudication to Juana in the intestate proceedings, it
7. A deed of sale was executed by Juana in favor of Claudio for a was because she did not feel threatened by these acts. She did not distrust her
consideration of P12,000. Years later, Claudio registered the land in his mother. Moreover, Juana had herself acknowledged the donation when she was
name. asked in whose name the property would be registered following the intestate
proceedings. Salud felt safe because she had the extrajudicial settlement to rely on
to prove that her mother and her uncle had donated the subject land to her.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 81

the heirs of the deceased widow are not heirs of the testator‐husband, but the
117 BERNARDO V. CA widow is, in addition to her own right to the conjugal property. And it is this right
7 SCRA 367 that is being sought to be enforced by her substitutes. Therefore, the claim that is
being asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, consequently, it
FACTS: complies with the requirement of the exception that the parties interested (the
Capili and Reyes were husband and wife. When Capili died, testate proceedings petitioners and the widow, represented by dents) are all heirs claiming title under
were instituted. His will was duly probated and the heirs were determined to be the testator.
his widow and cousins. Thereafter, Reyes died and was substituted by her own
collateral relatives. A project of partition was submitted by the administrator and 118 GUANCO V. NATIONAL BANK
this was opposed by the wife’s collateral relatives. They averred that some of the 54 PHIL 244
properties of the husband weren’t his exclusively but of the conjugal partnership.
On the one hand, the other parties averred that it is exclusive property by virtue of FACTS:
the deed of donation executed by the wife during her lifetime, donating her share The now deceased Guanco during his lifetime obtained a loan from PNB. He
in the conjugal property to her husband. The court found the deed of donation furnished the bank with his shares in different corporations as security for the loan.
void and that the properties in dispute were conjugal in nature. When he died, one of the corporations, for which he has shares of stock, issued to
the bank a promissory note with an amount covering the debt of Guanco. It
HELD: likewise furnished the bank with additional security to cover any additional loan it
In a line of decisions, this Court consistently held that as a general rule, question as would like to take from the bank. In the meantime, the administrator in the estate
to title to property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings, proceedings moved that the bank manager present himself in court with respect to
except where one of the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the shares of stock being held by him. The bank manager didn’t appear but
the inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may pass instead, the counsel of the bank filed a motion, alleging therein that the shares in
provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final determination in a question were still in its possession as security for the outstanding debt of Guanco.
separate action. However, we have also held that when the parties interested are Thereafter, the administrator prayed that the shares be brought in court. The
all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a court ordered for the same and the bank sought reconsideration on the ground
question as to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court may that the court exceeded its jurisdiction.
definitely pass judgment thereon; and that with the consent of the parties, matters
affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the HELD:
court in the course of intestate proceeding, provided interests of third persons are Upon appeal to this court, counsel for the bank maintains that the court below
not prejudiced. exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the delivery of the shares to the administrator
in a proceeding under section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention is
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is the question of ownership entirely correct.
of certain of the properties involved □ whether they belong to the conjugal
partnership or to the husband exclusively. This is a matter properly within the As will be seen, the section quoted only provides a proceeding for examining
jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal persons suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away property of
partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be the deceased or withholds information of documentary evidence tending to
distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, of disclose rights or claims of the deceased to such property or to disclose the
course, the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who have possession of his last will and testament. The purpose of the proceeding is to elicit
been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who have appeared evidence, and the section does not, in terms, authorize the court to enforce
voluntarily. There are no third parties whose rights may be affected. It is true that

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 82

delivery of possession of the things involved. To obtain the possession, recourse


must therefore generally be had to an ordinary action. HELD:
In support of the first assignment of error, the appellant contends that there is no
In issuing the order from which the appeal has been taken, the court below relied law justifying the order made by the lower court, citing her to appear and to
largely on a dictum in the Alafriz case that "there may be cases, where papers and declare concerning the question whether she had property belonging to the estate.
documentary evidence of ownership of property are held by a third person She also contends that the administrator should have proceeded by an ordinary
belonging to the estate of a deceased person, in which it would be perfectly proper action, if he believed that she had in her possession property of the estate. Section
to the court to order the same turned over to the court." That may be true; it 709 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions (Act No. 190) expressly authorizes the
might, for instance, apply to the possession of a will. But in the same case, the order of which complaint is made.
court also said that "the court had no right to deprive her (the appellant) of her
evidence relating to the property, until the question of ownership had been On the second and third assignments of error, it is to be noted that the pawn ticket
settled." showed that it had been issued to the deceased Navarro. That fact, perhaps,
constituted prima facie proof of ownership, but it certainly was not absolute proof
That is practically this case. The bank maintains that the pledge of the 250 shares is of ownership. The lower court not only ordered the appellant to turn the pawn
still in force. It may have documentary evidence to that effect, and it was not under ticket over to the clerk, but also ordered the administrator to pay to the clerk with
obligation to turn such evidence over to the court or to a third party, on the which to redeem said jewels. In accordance with the order of the court, the clerk
strength of a citation under section 709. The possession of the certificates of the did actually redeem said jewels and now has them in his possession. All this was
shares in question is a part of that evidence and it is obvious that if they are done without permitting the appellant to be jewels did, in fact, belong to the
surrendered to the administrator of the estate and possibly disposed of by him, the appellant then, of course, the court had no right to deprive her of the pawn ticket,
bank will lose its day in court, and its rights can only be determined in a nor to use the funds of the estate in redeeming them. There is nothing in section
corresponding action. 709 which justifies the orders complained of in the second and third assignments of
error. Said section (709) simply provides that "the court may cite such suspected
119 ALAFRIZ V. MINA person to appear before it and may examine him on oath on the matter of such
28 PHIL 137 complaint." There is nothing in the section which authorizes the court to take
possession of the property, if any should be found in the possession of the
FACTS: defendant or of the person cited. If, upon the hearing, there was good reason for
Alafriz was the administrator of the estate of Navarro. He filed a motion for the believing that the person cited had property in his or her possession belonging to
court to order Mina to produce a document evincing the deposit made by Navarro the estate, then it was the duty of the administrator to proceed by an ordinary
to secure a loan he earlier obtained. Mina complied with the subsequent order of action to recover possession of the same. There may be cases, where papers and
the court by surrendering the pawn ticket to the clerk and at the same time, prayed documentary evidence of ownership of property are held by a third person
to be exempted from the same by averring that she and her mother were the real belonging to the estate of a deceased person, in which it would be perfectly proper
owners of the jewelry. The jewelry in question was later included in the inventory for the court to order the same turned over to the court. We do not now, however,
of properties of the estate, to which Mina prayed that it be rather excluded. She attempt in any way to indicate what would be such a condition nor even to finally
also prayed to be further heard so that she could prove her ownership over the decide that such a condition might exist. In the present case the defendant was
properties. However, she was overruled and the property in question was still entitled to retain possession of the pawn ticket, until the question of the ownership
included in the inventory. She appealed this on several grounds—among others, of the jewels should be determined in the proper way. The court had no right to
that there is no legal basis to order her to produce the pawn ticket; that the court deprive her of her evidence relating to the property, until the question of
was wrong to order Alafriz to institute adequate actions against Mina as may be ownership had been settled.
necessary in furtherance of his duties as administrator.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 83

Regarding the court ordering Alafriz to institute actions against Mina as may be bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify
necessary in furtherance of his claims, this order, it would seem, was not the executor or administrator against the costs of such action. Such creditor shall
authorized in the proceedings then pending, neither was the order directing the have a lien upon the judgment by him so recovered for the costs incurred and such
administrator to pay, out of the funds of the estate, the amount necessary to other expenses as the court deems equitable.
redeem the jewels, until the question of ownership had been settled. No
complaint, however, is here made by any one, relating to that order. That part of The remedy of the appellants is, therefore, to indemnify the administrator against
the order may properly be considered when the administrator renders his account. costs and, by leave of court, to institute an action in the name of the administrator
If, however, the estate or Pia Mina has been damaged by said order, such damages to set aside the assignment or other conveyance believed to have been made in
may, perhaps, be settled in an action brought for the purpose of determining the fraud of creditors.
ownership of the jewels. For the present we are not inclined to revoke said order. It
may finally appear that the jewels actually belonged to the estate and not to Pia 121 VELASQUEZ V. GEORGE
Mina. In that case the jewels will then be where they can be turned over to the 125 SCRA 456
administrator without further delay.
FACTS:
120 HEIRS OF GREGORIE V. BAKER Defendants‐mortgagors are officers of the Island Associates Inc. Andres Muñoz,
51 PHIL 75 aside from being the treasurer‐director of said corporation, was also appointed and
qualified as administrator of the estate of Benjamin George in the above special
FACTS: proceedings. In life, the latter owned 64.8 percent or 636 shares out of the
Baker was the appointed administrator of the estate of Ankrom. When he outstanding 980 shares of stock in the corporation. Without the proper approval
prepared the inventory of the estate, he mistakenly included a tract of land. The from the probate court and without notice to the heirs and their counsel, the
heirs of Gregorie during the proceeding filed their claim against the estate, based defendants‐mortgagors executed a Deed of First Real Estate Mortgage in favor of
on a foreign judgment, which was duly accepted by the court. The assets of the the defendant‐mortgagee Erlinda Villanueva, covering three parcels of land owned
estate seemed sufficient to cover all debts. However, on a subsequent date, Baker by Island Associates. In said Deed, the defendants‐mortgagors also expressly
discovered that during Ankrom’s lifetime, he obtained a loan from PTC secured by waived their right to redeem the said parcels. Subsequently, a power of attorney
the land in dispute. And that a few days after the loan and mortgage, he conveyed was executed by the defendants‐mortgagors in favor of Villanueva whereby the
the land to a certain person in Ohio for a consideration of P1 and other valuable latter was given the full power and authority to cede, transfer, and convey the
consideration. As such, Baker filed an amended inventory and was approved by parcels of land within the reglementary period provided by law for redemption. A
the court. certificate of sale was consequently issued to Villanueva. The plaintiffs then filed a
complaint for the annulment of the same but was overruled by the court. The
HELD: court held that the SEC is the proper forum for their complaint.
When there is a deficiency of assets in the hands of an executor or administrator to
pay debts and expenses, and when the deceased person made in his life‐time such HELD:
fraudulent conveyance of such real or personal estate or of a right or interest Whether or not the mortgage contract, with an unusual provision whereby the
therein, as is stated in the preceding section, any creditor of the estate may, by mortgagors waived their right to redeem the mortgaged property, could be
license of the court, if the executor or administrator has not commenced such executed without proper approval of the probate court and without notice to the
action, commence and prosecute to final judgment, in the name of the executor or widow and legitimate children of the deceased is a matter clearly within the
administrator, an action for the recovery of the same and may recover for the authority of a trial court to decide. If in the course of trial, the court believes that
benefit of the creditors, such real or personal estate, or interest therein so the validity of the composition of the board of directors is absolutely necessary for
conveyed. But such action shall not be commenced until the creditor files in court a resolution of the issues before it, the remedy is, at most, to require that one issue

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 84

to be threshed out before the Securities and Exchange Commission and to hold in the hands of the executor or administrator sufficient assets to pay the claim
abeyance, the trial on the merits of the principal issues in the meantime. Certainly, disputed and appealed. When a disputed claim is finally settled the court having
the solution is not for the lower court to surrender its judicial questions to an jurisdiction of the estate shall order the same to be paid out of the assets
administrative agency for resolution. retained to the same extent and in the same proportion with the claims of other
creditors.
The administrator is not the proper party to institute the action. The administrator,
Andres Muñoz, is the same person charged by the plaintiffs‐appellants to have Section 13. When subsequent distribution of assets ordered. □ If the whole of the
voted in the board of directors without securing the proper authority from the debts are not paid on the first distribution, and if the whole assets are not
probate court to which he is accountable as administrator. In Ramirez v. Baltazar distributed, or other assets afterwards come to the hands of the executor or
(24 SCRA 918), we ruled that "since the ground for the present action to annul the administrator, the court may from time to time make further orders for the
aforesaid foreclosure proceedings is the fraud resulting from such insidious distributions of assets.
machinations and collusion in which the administrator has allegedly participated, it
would be far fetched to expect the said administrator himself to file the action in Section 14. Creditors to be paid in accordance with terms of order. □ When an
behalf of the estate. And who else but the heirs, who have an interest to assert and order is made for the distribution of assets among the creditors, the executor or
to protect, would bring the action? Inevitably, this case should fall under the administration shall, as soon as the time of payment arrives, pay the creditors the
exception, rather than the general rule that pending proceedings for the amounts of their claims, or the dividend thereon, in accordance with the terms of
settlement of the estate, the heirs have no right to commence an action arising out such order.
of the rights belonging to the deceased." The case at bar falls under such an
exception. Section 15. Time for paying debts and legacies fixed, or extended after notice,
within what periods. □ On granting letters testamentary or administration the
court shall allow to the executor or administrator a time for disposing of the
RULE 88
estate and paying the debts and legacies of the deceased, which shall not, in the
PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE ESTATE first instance, exceed one (1) year; but the court may, on application of the
executor or administrator and after hearing on such notice of the time and place
Section 1. Debts paid in full if estate sufficient. If, after hearing all the money therefor given to all persons interested as it shall direct, extend the time as the
claims against the estate, and after ascertaining the amount of such claims, it circumstances of the estate require not exceeding six (6) months for a single
appears that there are sufficient assets to pay the debts, the executor or extension not so that the whole period allowed to the original executor or
administrator pay the same within the time limited for that purpose. administrator shall exceed two (2) years.

Section 11. Order for payment of debts. □ Before the expiration of the time Section 2. Part of estate from which debt paid when provision made by will. If
limited for the payment of the debts, the court shall order the payment thereof, the testator makes provision by his will, or designates the estate to be
and the distribution of the assets received by the executor or administrator for appropriated for the payment of his debts, the expenses of administration, or the
that purpose among the creditors, as the circumstances of the estate require and family expenses, they shall be paid according to the provisions of the will; but if
in accordance with the provisions of this rule. the provision made by the will or the estate appropriated, is not sufficient for
that purpose, such part of the estate of the testator, real or personal, as is not
Section 12. Orders relating to payment of debts where appeal is taken. □ If an disposed of by will, if any shall be appropriated for that purpose.
appeal has been taken from a decision of the court concerning a claim, the court
may suspend the order for the payment of the debts or may order the Section 3. Personalty first chargeable for debts, then realty. The personal estate
distributions among the creditors whose claims are definitely allowed, leaving in of the deceased not disposed of by will shall be first chargeable with the payment

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 85

of debts and expenses; and if said personal estate is not sufficient for that executor or administrator is sufficient. But if the claim is not so presented, after
purpose, or its sale would redound to the detriment of the participants for the having become absolute, within said two (2) years, and allowed, the assets
estate, the whole of the real estate not dispose of by will, or so much thereof as retained in the hands of the executor or administrator, not exhausted in the
is necessary, may be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered for that purpose payment of claims, shall be disturbed by the order of the court to the persons
by the executor or administrator, after obtaining the authority of the court entitled to the same; but the assets so distributed may still be applied to the
therefor. Any deficiency shall be met by contributions in accordance with the payment of the claim when established, and the creditor may maintain an action
provisions of section 6 of this rule. against the distributees to recover the debt, and such distributees and their
estates shall be liable for the debt in proportion to the estate they have
Section 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees, legalitees, or heirs have respectively received from the property of the deceased.
been possession. □ Where devisees, legalitees, or heirs have entered into
possession of portions of the estate before the debts and expenses have been PAYMENT OF CONTINGENT CLAIMS
settled and paid, and have become liable to contribute for the payment of such  If the contingent claim becomes absolute and is presented to the court as
debts and expenses, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for an absolute claim within 2 years from the time allowed for the
that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and presentation of claims, it will be paid in the same manner as the other
order how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue absolute claims
execution as circumstances require.  After said period, the creditor may proceed against the distributees,
provided said contingent claims had been seasonably filed in and allowed
PAYMENT OF DEBTS MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING, IN THIS ORDER— by the probate court
1. From the portion or property designated in the will  The property reserved for payment of such contingent claims may
2. From the personal property and therefore be retained only within the two‐year period as thereafter, the
3. From the real property same shall be included among assets for distribution to the heirs

MAY THE COURT ISSUE A WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF LEGACY? Section 7. Order of payment if estate insolvent □ If the assets which can be
 No since the legacy is not a debt of the estate appropriated for the payment of debts are not sufficient for that purpose, the
executor or administrator shall pay the debts against the estate, observing the
Section 4. Estate to be retained to meet contingent claims. If the court is satisfied provisions of Articles 1059 and 2239 to 2251 of the Civil Code.
that a contingent claim duly filed is valid, it may order the executor or
administrator to retain in his hands sufficient estate to pay such contingent claim Section 8. Dividends to be paid in proportion to claims. □ If there are no assets
when the same becomes absolute, or if the estate is insolvent, sufficient to pay a sufficient to pay the credits of any once class of creditors after paying the credits
portion equal to the dividend of the other creditors. entitled to preference over it, each creditor within such class shall be paid a
dividend in proportion to his claim. No creditor of any one class shall receive any
Section 5. How contingent claim becoming absolute in two years allowed and payment until those of the preceding class are paid.
paid. Action against distributees later. If such contingent claim becomes absolute
and is presented to the court, or to the executor or administrator, within two (2) Section 9. Estate of insolvent non‐resident, how disposed of. □ In case
years from the time limited for other creditors to present their claims, it may be administration is taken in the Philippine of the estate of a person who was at the
allowed by the court if not disputed by the executor or administrator and, if time of his death an inhabitant of another country, and who died insolvent, his
disputed, it may be proved and allowed or disallowed by the court as the facts estate found in the Philippines shall, as far as practicable, be so disposed of that
may warrant. If the contingent claim is allowed, the creditor shall receive his creditors here and elsewhere may receive each an equal share, in proportion
payment to the same extent as the other creditors if the estate retained by the to their respective credits.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 86

the ground of prejudice on its part with respect to the portion of land he was
Section 10. When and how claim proved outside the Philippines against insolvent leasing, among other objections. The motion however was still granted.
resident's estate paid. □ If it appears to the court having jurisdiction that claims
have been duly proven in another country against the estate of an insolvent who HELD:
was at the time of his death an inhabitant of the Philippines, and that the In the second and third assignments of error appellant argues that the court below,
executor or administrator in the Philippines had knowledge of the presentation as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to deprive the appellant of his rights under
of such claims in such country and an opportunity to contest their allowance, the the lease, because these rights may be annulled or modified only by a court of
court shall receive a certified list of such claims, when perfected in such country, general jurisdiction. The above arguments are without merit. In probate
and add the same to the list of claims proved against the deceased person in the proceedings the court orders the probate of the will of the decedent (Rule 80, See.
Philippines so that a just distribution of the whole estate may be made equally 5); grants letters of administration to the party best entitled thereto or to any
among all its creditors according to their respective claims; but the benefit of this qualified applicant (Id., Sec. 6); supervises and controls all acts of administration;
and the preceding sections shall not be extended to the creditors in another hears and approves claims against the estate of the deceased (Rule 87, See. 13);
country if the property of such deceased person there found is not equally orders payment of lawful debts (Rule 89, Sec. 14); authorizes sale, mortgage or any
apportioned to the creditors residing in the Philippines and the other creditor, encumbrance of real estate (Rule 90, Sec. 2); directs the delivery of the estate to
according to their respective claims. those entitled thereto (Rule 91, See. 1). It has been held that the court acts as a
trustee, and as such trustee, should jealously guard the estate and see that it is
Section 16. Successor of dead executor or administrator may have time extended wisely and economically administered, not dissipated.
on notice within certain period. □ When an executor or administrator dies, and a
new administrator of the same estate is appointed, the court may extend the Even the contract of lease under which the appellant holds the agricultural lands of
time allowed for the payment of the debts or legacies beyond the time allowed the intestate and which he now seeks to protect, was obtained with the court's
to the original executor or administrator, not exceeding six (6) months at a time approval. If the probate court has the right to approve the lease, so may it order its
and not exceeding six (6) months beyond the time which the court might have revocation, or the reduction of the subject of the lease. The matter of giving the
allowed to such original executor or administrator; and notice shall be given of property to a lessee is an act of administration, also subject to the approval of the
the time and place for hearing such application, as required in the last preceding court. Of course, if the court abuses its discretion in the approval of the contracts
section. or acts of the administrator, its orders may be subject to appeal and may be
reversed on appeal; but not because the court may make an error may it be said
122 TIMBOL V. CANO that it lacks jurisdiction to control acts of administration of the administrator.
1 SCRA 1271
123 JAUCIAN V. QEUROL
FACTS: 38 PHIL
Intestate Cano died leaving his only son Timbol as sole heir. Timbol at the time of
death of his father was still a minor. His uncle Jose was appointed in the meantime FACTS:
as the administrator of the estate. Jose petitioned that he be allowed to lease the Rogero and Dayandante signed a document acknowledging their debt to Jaucian. It
land owned by Cano and he would accordingly pay for its rental. This was allowed seemed that Rogero signed the document in the capacity of surety but nowhere in
by the court together with the approval to convert a portion of the land into a the document is this apparent. A reading of the document would show that they
subdivision. Plans of partition were as well apprvoved. Later on, when Timbol was were binding themselves jointly and severally. On a relevant date, Rogero sought
appointed as the administrator in Jose’s stead, he petitioned that the land area the annulment of the document on the ground that his signature was procured
allotted for subdivision development be increased. This was opposed by Jose on from fraud. As a matter of cross‐claim, Jaucian interposed the payment of debt to
him. During the pendency of this case however, Rogero died and his estate was

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 87

substituted as party. Later on, Jaucian won the case. In the meanwhile, estate submitted and duly approved, the final project of partition took a later time to do.
proceedings were instituted for Rogero. On the basis of judgment, Jaucian claims In the meanwhile, Cu Unjiengs had a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The issue in
payment but was denied by the court for many reasons. Among others, is the non‐ this case revolves around the nature of the counterclaim as a contingent claim and
submission with the commission on claims within the required period. whether the same should have been relayed to the probate court.

HELD: HELD:
An examination of the order in question, however, leads us to conclude that it was From the definitions just quoted, it is evident that the counterclaim of the
not a final order, and therefore it was not appealable. In effect, it held that defendants‐appellants is not a contingent claim because the obligation sought to
whatever rights Jaucian might have against the estate of Rogero were subject to be enforced against the deceased or his legal representatives, the administrators,
the performance of a condition precedent, namely, that he should first exhaust this does not depend on an uncertain or future event. According to the allegations of
remedy against Dayandante. The court regarded Dayandante. The court regarded the counterclaim contained in the amended answer, the obligation contradicted by
Dayandante as the principal debtor, and the deceased as a surety only liable for the deceased arose from the time the conspiracy was carried out and from the
such deficiency as might result after the exhaustion of the assets of the principal time the preliminary attachment was obtained illegally and without any just cause.
co‐obligor. The pivotal fact upon which the order was based was the failure of However, the administrators contend in their brief that the counterclaim is of the
appellant to show that he had exhausted his remedy against Dayandante, and this nature of a contingent claim because it can not be realized until final judgment has
failure the court regarded as a complete bar to the granting of the petition at that been rendered by the court. This contention is sufficiently refuted by reproducing
time. The court made no order requiring the appellee to make any payment what has been stated in the case of E. Gaskell & Co. vs. Tan Sit, supra, to the effect
whatever, and that part of the opinion, upon which the order was based, which that "the term contigent has reference to the uncertainty of the liability and not to
contained statements of what the court intended to do when the petition should the uncertainty in which the realization or collection of the claim may be involved."
be renewed, was not binding upon him or any other judge by whom he might be
succeeded. Regardless of what may be our views with respect to the jurisdiction of Referring now to the contention of the defendants‐appellants that they were not in
the court to have granted the relief demanded by appellant in any event, it is quite duty bound to inform the probate court that they had filed a counterclaim against
clear from what we have stated that the order of April 13, 1914, required no action the deceased, it is true that the Code of Civil Procedure contains nor provision
by the administrator at that time, was not final, and therefore was not appealable. directly imposing such duty on them. However, if under section 602 of the same
We therefore conclude that no rights were conferred by the said order of April 13, Code the probate court alone had acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the
1914, and that it did not preclude the administrator from making opposition to the settlement, payment of debts and distribution of the estate of the deceased, to the
petition of the appellant when it was renewed. exclusion of all other courts, it cannot be denied that if the defendants‐appellants
wanted some remedy from said court for the protection of their rights, they should
124 CU UNJIENG V. TIAOQUI timely apply to it and ask for the retention of properties sufficient to pay for the
64 PHIL counterclaim in case it should prosper. This court is not unmindful of the fact that
in this case the administrators were also in duty bound to inform the probate court
FACTS: of the existence of the counterclaim, which duty was partly complied with by them
Tiaoqui filed a case for collection of money from the Cu Unjiengs. In the said case when they reiteratedly informed the court that it was not possible to present a
initially instituted, properties of the Cu Unjiengs were preliminarily attached upon final account or project of partition on the ground that there were pending
filing of bond by Tiaoqui during his lifetime. During the pendency of the litigations, among them that brought against the defendants Cu Unjiengs, and
proceedings, Tiaoqui died and was substituted later on by the administrators of his when they applied for the reopening of the intestate proceedings and for authority
estate. When he died, estate proceedings were commenced and when asked to to continue the suit against said defendants. Such duty, however, was coextensive
file accounts and project of partition, the administrators found difficulty in the with that of the defendants‐appellants and that latter were not relieved thereof by
same due to the pending litigation with the Cu Unjiengs. When the accounting was the conduct that might have been observed by the administrators, which conduct,

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 88

on the other hand, can not be considered improper taking into consideration all the Upon his death, he was substituted by PCIB as administrator of his estate. Being a
circumstances hereinbefore stated. money claim, said civil case should have been dismissed and instituted as a money
claim in the intestate estate of C. N. Hodges.
125 INTESTATE OF JANUARIA GONZALES
72 PHIL 245 However, this is not to suggest that because the claim of petitioner was pursued to
its conclusion in Civil Case No. 6682 instead of being dismissed and filed as a money
FACTS: claim in Special Proceedings No. 1672, the judgment rendered therein is null and
In the summary settlement of the estate of Gonzales, the court ordered the void.
payment to creditor Abarro. No payment being made, the only property left by the
deceased was sold in public auction and proceeds were used to pay the debt. Moreover, when PCIB as administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges was ordered to
However, the court ordered the same to be subject to legal redemption. One year be substituted as defendant, it registered no objection to the order. Thus, even if
has passed and since then, no redemption was made. Thereafter, Abarro sought We admit for the sake of argument that the trial court, after the death of C. N.
the finality of the sale. Tomasa as one of the heirs opposed the same on the Hodges has no jurisdiction to render a judgment therein, the argument must fail.
ground she has tendered the money already to the sheriff to redeem the property. PCIB, participated actively in the said case. It did not appeal the decision rendered
therein, neither did it raise the issue of jurisdiction ion at any stage. It has been
HELD: consistently held by this court that while lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any
Tomasa de Guia has no right to redeem and that the sale made in favor of stage, a party's active participation in the proceedings before the court without
Sisenando Abarro is final. In the administration and liquidation of the estate of a jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
deceased person, sales ordered by the probate court for payment of debts are final
and are not subject to legal redemption. Unlike in ordinary execution sales, there is The Rules of Court allows a creditor to file his claim after the period set by the
no legal provision allowing redemption in the sale of property for payment of debts court in the notice to creditors, provided the conditions stated in the rules are
of a deceased person present. The period prescribed for creditors isn’t exclusive and may be made
before the order of distribution, subject to the discretion of the court and under
126 ECHAUS V. BLANCO equitable terms.
179 SCRA 704
RULE 89
FACTS:
SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF PROPERTY OF
Eschaus filed a claim in her capacity as administratrix of her late father’s estate DECEDENT
against Hodges for allegedly profits from a business endeavor. During the
pendency of the case, Hodges died. However, the case proceeded and PCIB was Section 1. Order of sale of personalty. Upon the application of the executor or
even substituted as a party to the case with no objection. When judgment was administrator, and on written notice to the heirs and other persons interested,
rendered in favor of Eschaus, instead of a writ of execution, a motion for payment the court may order the whole or a part of the personal estate to be sold, if it
pursuant to judgment was filed in the special proceedings. The widow opposed the appears necessary for the purpose of paying debts, expenses of administration,
same. or legacies, or for the preservation of the property.

HELD: Section 2. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of
It must be noted that Civil Case No. 6628 which is a money claim, was Instituted realty to pay debts and legacies though personalty not exhausted. When the
during the lifetime of C. N. Hodges. During its pendency and before a decision personal estate of the deceased is not sufficient to pay the debts, expenses of
could be rendered by the Regional Trial Court hearing the case, C. N. Hodges died. administration, and legacies, or where the sale of such personal estate may injure

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 89

the business or other interests of those interested in the estate, and where a sufficient to pay the debts, expenses of administration, and legacies there, the
testator has not otherwise made sufficient provision for the payment of such court here may authorize the executor or administrator to sell the personal
debts, expenses, and legacies, the court, on the application of the executor or estate or to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber the real estate for the
administrator and on written notice of the heirs, devisees, and legatees residing payment of debts or legacies in the other country, in same manner as for the
in the Philippines, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, payment of debts or legacies in the Philippines.
or otherwise encumber so much as may be necessary of the real estate, in lieu of
personal estate, for the purpose of paying such debts, expenses, and legacies, if it Section 6. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of
clearly appears that such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance would be beneficial to realty acquired on execution or foreclosure. The court may authorize an executor
the persons interested; and if a part cannot be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise or administrator to sell mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate acquired by
encumbered without injury to those interested in the remainder, the authority him on execution or foreclosure sale, under the same circumstances and under
may be for the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of the whole of such real the same regulations as prescribed in this rule for the sale, mortgage, or other
estate, or so much thereof as is necessary or beneficial under the circumstances. encumbrance of other real estate.

Section 3. Persons interested may prevent such sale, etc., by giving bond. No such WHEN PERSONAL PROPERTY MAY BE SOLD, OR THE REAL PROPERTY BE SOLD,
authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real or personal estate shall MORTGAGED, OR OTHERWISE BE ENCUMBERED—
be granted if any person interested in the estate gives a bond, in a sum to be 1. For the payment of debts, expenses of administration, and legacies in the
fixed by the court, conditioned to pay the debts, expenses of administration, and Philippines
legacies within such time as the court directs; and such bond shall be for the 2. When such sale would be beneficial to the persons interested in the
security of the creditors, as well as of the executor or administrator, and may be estate
prosecuted for the benefit of either. 3. For the payment of debts, expenses of administration and legacies
involved in the settlement of the estate of a decedent in a foreign
Section 4. When court may authorize sale of estate as beneficial to interested country
persons. Disposal of proceeds. When it appears that the sale of the whole or a
part of the real or personal estate, will be beneficial to the heirs, devisees, Section 7. Regulation for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise
legatees, and other interested persons, the court may, upon application of the encumber estate. □ The court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased
executor or administrator and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and may authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell,
legatees who are interested in the estate to be sold, authorize the executor or mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these rules
administrator to sell the whole or a part of said estate, although not necessary to and when it appears necessary or beneficial under the following regulations.
pay debts, legacies, or expenses of administration; but such authority shall not be
granted if inconsistent with the provisions of a will. In case of such sale, the (a) The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the
proceeds shall be assigned to the persons entitled to the estate in the proper debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the
proportions. value of the personal estate, the situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged, or
otherwise encumbered, and such other facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or
Section 5. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of other encumbrance is necessary or beneficial.
estate to pay debts and legacies in other countries. When the sale of personal
estate, or the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of real estate is not (b) The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and
necessary to pay the debts, expenses of administration, or legacies in the cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reasons for the same, and the
Philippines, but it appears from records and proceedings of a probate court in time and place of hearing, to be given personally or by mail to the persons
another country that the estate of the deceased in such other country is not

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 90

interested, and may cause such further notice to be given, by publication or 3. If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an
otherwise, as it shall deem proper; additional bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such
executor or administrator will account for the proceeds of the sale,
(c) If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional mortgage, or other encumbrance;
bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such executor or 4. If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have
administrator will account for the proceeds of the sale, mortgage, or other been complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may
encumbrance; authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise
encumber, in proper cases, such part of the estate as is deemed
(d) If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been necessary, and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be public or
complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the private, as would be most beneficial to all parties concerned. The
executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper executor or administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such
cases, such part of the estate as is deemed necessary, and in case of sale the order;
court may authorize it to be public or private, as would be most beneficial to all 5. If the estate is to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time
parties concerned. The executor or administrator shall be furnished with a and place of the sale shall be governed by the provisions concerning
certified copy of such order; notice of execution sale;
6. There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province in which
(e) If the estate is to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time and the real estate thus sold, mortgage, or otherwise encumbered is situated,
place of the sale shall be governed by the provisions concerning notice of a certified copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the
execution sale; executor or administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if
the deed had been executed by the deceased in his lifetime.
(f) There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province in which the
real estate thus sold, mortgage, or otherwise encumbered is situated, a certified TWO GROUNDS TO GRANT THE SALE, ENCUMBERANCE, MORTGAGE…
copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the executor or 1. To settle existing debts
administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if the deed had been 2. For the benefit of the heirs and legatees
executed by the deceased in his lifetime.
Section 8. When court may authorize conveyance of realty which deceased
PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN AUTHORITY FROM COURT TO SELL, ENCUMBER, OR contracted to convey. Notice. Effect of deed. □ Where the deceased was in his
MORTGAGE PROPERTY— lifetime under contract, binding in law, to deed real property, or an interest
1. The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the therein, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, on application for that
debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the purpose, authorize the executor or administrator to convey such property
legacies, the value of the personal estate, the situation of the estate to be according to such contract, or with such modifications as are agreed upon by the
sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, and such other facts as show parties and approved by the court; and if the contract is to convey real property
that the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance is necessary or beneficial. to the executor or administrator, the clerk of court shall execute the deed. The
2. The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, deed executed by such executor, administrator, or clerk of court shall be as
and cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reasons for the affectual to convey the property as if executed by the deceased in his lifetime;
same, and the time and place of hearing, to be given personally or by but no such conveyance shall be authorized until notice of the application for that
mail to the persons interested, and may cause such further notice to be purpose has been given personally or by mail to all persons interested, and such
given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem proper; further notice has been given, by publication or otherwise, as the court deems
proper; nor if the assets in the hands of the executor or administrator will

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 91

thereby be reduced so as to prevent a creditor from receiving his full debt or 2 SCRA 755
diminish his dividend.
FACTS:
Section 9. When court may authorize conveyance of lands which deceased held in In the settlement of estate of spouses Ros, the administrator then was allowed to
trust. □ Where the deceased in his lifetime held real property in trust for another sell parcels of land to Soler, to raise money to settle debts. On a relevant date, the
person, the court may after notice given as required in the last preceding section, records of the special proceedings were burned. Records were reinstituted and
authorize the executor or administrator to deed such property to the person, or Bonaga was issued letters of administration. He then filed an action to annul the
his executor or administrator, for whose use and benefit it was so held; and the deeds of sale to Soler. The latter sought the dismissal of the same due to lack of
court may order the execution of such trust, whether created by deed or by law. capacity to sue and the finality attained by the orders. Without any hearing, the
court dismissed the action.
127 ESTATE OF GAMBOA V. FLORENZA
12 PHIL. 191 HELD:
The sale on August 30, 1944 appears to be of 21 parcels of abaca, coconut, forest
FACTS: and pasture lands, covering an aggregate area of more than 1,001 hectares for the
The administrator filed in the special proceedings a motion praying for a hearing lump sum of P142,800, Japanese currency. Plaintiff‐appellant alleges (and the
for preference of credits as some credits were secured by mortgages while some record nowhere indicates the contrary), that these lands comprised almost the
were not. In the whole course of the proceedings, the court allowed the sale of a entire estate. Nothing in the record would show whether, as required by Rule 90,
property for the payment of a specific debt. The rules however provide that the sections 4 and 7, the application for authority to sell was set for hearing, or that the
sale can be allowed to satisfy the debts. court ever caused notice thereof to be issued to the heirs of Alejandro Ros
Incidentally, these heirs seem not to have gotten any part of the purchase price
HELD: since they were then allegedly in Spain. Yet, in the order of declaration of heirs of
There is nothing in any one of these sections nor in any other sections of the code the wife and approving the sale to Soler (Annex "B"), the declaration of the heirs of
which indicates that the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its probate the husband Alejandro Ros was expressly held in abeyance, indicating a recognition
jurisdiction, has any power to order the sale of a specific piece of real estate for the of their existence. Appellees maintain that the sale was made for the purpose of
purpose of paying a mortgage debt which is a lien thereon. It may be that the court paying debts, but this, at lease, is controversial. Appellant asserts that the total
would have authority to sell the property, subject to the mortgage lien, for the outstanding debts of the estate at the time of the sale amounted to only P4,641.48,
purpose of paying other debts of the estate, but there is nothing giving the court a relatively meager sum compared to the large tracts of land sold.
authority to sell it for the purpose of paying that specific debt.
The lower court erred in dismissing the action without a hearing on the merits. A
Another fatal objection to the order of the 12th of November, directing the sale, is sale of properties of an estate as beneficial to the interested parties, under
that the court entirely failed to comply with the provisions of section 722 of the Sections 4 and 7, Rule 90, must comply with the requisites therein provided, which
Code of Civil Procedure. That section requires the administrator to present a are mandatory. Among these requisites, the fixing of the time and place of hearing
petition asking for the sale of the real estate. It also distinctly provides that, when for an application to sell, and the notice thereof to the heirs, are essential; and
such petition is made, the court shall appoint a time and place for hearing it and without them, the authority to sell, the sale itself, and the order approving it,
shall require notice of the petition and of the time and place of such hearing to be would be null and void ab initio. Rule 90, Section 4, does not distinguish between
given in a newspaper of general circulation, and that the court may order such heirs residing in and those residing outside the Philippines. Therefore, its
further notice given as it deems proper. requirements should apply regardless of the place of residence of those required to
be notified under said rule.
128 BOÑAGA V. SOLER

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 92

The contention that the sale was made under Section 2, Rule 90 (wherein notice is whenever the deceased in his lifetime held real property in trust for another
required only to those heirs, etc., residing in the Philippines), is not substantiated person, to authorize the executor or administrator to deed such property to the
by the record. Neither the deed of sale, nor the orders issued by the probate court person or persons for whose use and benefit it was so held. There being no
in connection there with, show whether, as required by said Section 2, the personal controversy between the former administratrix and the defendants that the latter
properties were insufficient to pay the debts and expenses of administration. There and the deceased Melecio de Jesus own the lot in question in common and that it
is not even a showing, to start with, that the sale was made for the purpose of was registered in the deceased's name only in trust for all the co‐owners, there was
paying debts or expenses of administration (or legacies), a condition which no need to file a separate action to an ordinary court to establish the common
circumscribes the applicability of that section. On the face of the reamended ownership of the parties over said property; and the probate court could approve,
complaint at any rate, it does not appear that the contested sale was one under as it did approve, the agreement wherein the parties expressly recognized their
section 2 of Rule 90; and the same can not be invoked to sustain the motion to common ownership of the property in question and the trust character of the
dismiss. Without reception of further evidence to determine whether the exclusive title held by the deceased over the same, especially since the parties
requisites of the applicable provisions of the Rules had been followed, the dismissal themselves state that such agreement was entered into in order to forestall future
of the action was erroneous and improvident. Plaintiff should at least have been litigation between them and to foster family relations, and in addition, the
given a chance to prove his case. defendant Eusebia de Jesus had agreed, in consideration of the court's approval of
said agreement, to waive a money claim against the estate, so that court approval
129 VDA. DE CELIS V VDA. DE LA SANTA of said agreement would really redound to the benefit of the estate and the heirs.
93 PHIL 909
Section 9, Rule 90, however, provides that authority can be given by the probate
FACTS: court to the administrator to convey property held in trust by the deceased to the
beneficiaries of the trust only "after notice given as required in the last preceding
HELD: section"; i.e., that. "no such conveyance shall be authorized until notice of the
application for that purpose has been given personally or by mail to all persons
130 DE JESUS V. DE JESUS interested, and such further notice has been given, by publication or otherwise, as
3 SCRA 548 the court deems proper" (sec. 8, Rule 90). This rule makes it mandatory that notice
be served on the heirs and other interested persons of the application for approval
FACTS: of any conveyance of property held in trust by the deceased, and where no such
Ines Alejandrino, as administratrix of her late husband’s estate, filed an inventory notice is given, the order authorizing the conveyance, as well as the conveyance
which included a parcel of land. The decedent’s sister opposed this inclusion on itself, is completely void. Here, plaintiffs claim that no such notice was given the
the ground that it was co‐owned with her and another brother. Instead of litigating heirs of the deceased Melecio de Jesus of the petition for the approval of the
the same, the parties entered into an agreement dubbed as Statement of Facts. stipulations in question, and it is quite probable that the claim is true, because said
Ines acknowledged that the land was co‐owned and that her late husband was just heirs were all minors when the proceedings in question took place. It would have
holding the same in trust. Later on, when Ines’ son substituted his mother as been necessary, therefore, to appoint a guardian ad litem for them before they
administrator, he instituted an action to annul said agreement. could be validly served said notice, yet the records here do not show that such
appointment of guardian was obtained. In fact, any such appointment appears
HELD: improbable, considering that the stipulations in question were approved the very
On the question of jurisdiction, we think the probate court had jurisdiction to act next day following their execution and submission for approval. It must be
on and approve of the stipulations in question, not only as an incident to its power observed that in 1948, before the promulgation of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
to exclude any property from the inventory of the estate of the deceased, but parents as such were not the legal representatives of their children before the
under section 9, Rule 90, Rules of Court, which permits the probate court, courts and could not dispose of their property without judicial authorization.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 93

name of the executor or administrator against the party not paying the sum
assessed.
RULE 90
DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION OF THE ESTATE
Section 4. Recording the order of partition of estate. □ Certified copies of final
orders and judgments of the court relating to the real estate or the partition
Section 1. When order for distribution of residue made. When the debts, funeral thereof shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province where the
charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and property is situated.
inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have
been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a 131 LOPEZ V. LOPEZ
person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the 68 PHIL 227
residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the
proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand FACTS:
and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any Concepcion filed a petition in the intestate proceedings of Emeterio Lopez for the
other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controversy before summary entitlement to his estate, alleging therein that she is the acknowledged
the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as the natural child of the latter. Opposition was made by alleged nephews and nieces
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the denying her allegations. The petition was later amended by averring that the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. estate value is bigger than what was previously alleged and is beyond the scope of
a summary settlement.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above
mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of HELD:
them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment Appellants claim that they had no notice either of the petition for the declaration
of said obligations within such time as the court directs. of heirs or of the date set for the hearing thereof. We find in the record no
evidence affirmatively showing that they had no such notice; therefore, the
Section 2. Questions as to advancement to be determined. Questions as to presumption of regularity of proceedings should stand. In the motion for
advancement made, or alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir reconsideration filed by them, the lack of notice is alleged; but the motion is not
may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate even verified. Besides, according to the record Attorney Simplicio B. Pe□a was the
proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the counsel for both the administrator and the oppositors‐appellants. The petition for
person raising the questions and on the heir. declaration of heirs, although signed by Attorney Simplicio B. Pe□a as "abogado del
administrador", was, in fact, a petition filed in behalf of the oppositors‐appellants
Section 3. By whom expenses of partition paid. If at the time of distribution the as their right to succession is therein asserted and prayed for. Under this
executor or administrator has retained sufficient effects in his hands which may circumstances, there exists sufficient ground for holding, as we do hold, that the
lawfully be applied for the expenses of partition of the properties distributed, oppositors‐appellants had notice of the petition as well as of the hearing where the
such expenses of partition may be paid by such executor or administrator when it said attorney was present.
appears equitable to the court and not inconsistent with the intention of the
testator; otherwise, they shall be paid by the parties in proportion to their 132 HEIRS OF PERFECTO SANTIESBAN V. SANTIESBAN
respective shares or interest in the premises, and the apportionment shall be 68 PHIL 367
settled and allowed by the court, and, if any person interested in the partition
does not pay his proportion or share, the court may issue an execution in the FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 94

Ambrosio was appointed as the administrator of his late wife’s estate. Since there 4. That ... prior to the filing of the petition they (petitioner Celedonia Solivio and
weren’t any accounts payable, the heirs extrajudicially partitioned the properties. movant Concordia Javellana) have agreed to make the estate of the decedent a
The properties having been distributed and accounted for, the court ordered the foundation, besides they have closely known each other due to their filiation to the
proceeding’s closure. More than two years after, the father conveyed his interest decedent and they have been visiting each other's house which are not far away
to the eight parcels of land he got to his daughter. This was opposed by for (sic) each other. (p. 234, Record; Emphasis supplied)
Macondray and likewise, it prayed for the appointment of a new administrator. The
heirs opposed this. She is bound by that agreement. It is true that by that agreement, she did not
waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia, but she did agree to place all of
HELD: Esteban's estate in the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation" which
The appellants contend in their assigned error that the court exceeded its Esteban, Jr., during his lifetime, planned to set up to honor his mother and to
jurisdiction in issuing then order of December 11, 1935 which set aside the other finance the education of indigent but deserving students as well.
order of November 12, 1934, reopening the intestate and requiring that the name
of the a new administrator be proposed. They argue that this last order, having Her admission may not be taken lightly as the lower court did. Being a judicial
become final, was not subject to modification or reversal. We find no merit in the admission, it is conclusive and no evidence need be presented to prove the
assignment of error because the order of November 12, 1934, did not finally agreement.
determine the action and was interlocutory in nature (section 123, Code of Civil
Procedure). By said order the court did not determine or adjudicate any right or 134 SALVADOR V. STA. MARIA
controversy and it had no other object than to open the way for the hearing and 20 SCRA 604
resolution of the rights to alleged damages which one of the parties claimed to
have suffered. The orders irregularly issued by the court were those which FACTS:
reopened the intestate and appointed a new administrator, because the order Celestino Salvador sold previously a land to spouses Halili. Alleging thereafter the
closing the intestate, dated November 29, 1932, put an end thereto and relieved absence of consideration, he sought reconveyance of the land. He died during the
the administrator from his duties. Under section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pendency of proceedings and his heirs were substituted to his part. In the
what brings an intestate proceeding to a close is the order of distribution directing meanwhile, intestate proceedings were instituted. In the inventory of the estate,
the delivery of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after paying the the parcel of land was included. The land in question was later reconveyed.
indebtedness, if any, left by the deceased. This order was issued in the intestate However, the land was reconveyed to the heirs and not to the estate. This was
since October 18, 1932 when the court approved the partition executed and questioned.
submitted by all the heirs.
HELD:
133 SOLIVIO V. CA It is a settled point of law that the right of heirs to specific, distributive shares of
Supra inheritance does not become finally determinable until all the debts of the estate
are paid. Until then, in the face of said claims, their rights cannot be enforced, are
HELD: inchoate, and subject to the existence of a residue after payment of the debts.
However, inasmuch as Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased
to the foundation in honor of his mother, Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana (from Petitioners do not question the existence of the debts abovementioned. They only
whom the estate came), an agreement which she ratified and confirmed in her contend that the properties involved having been ordered by final judgment
"Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider Order dated April 3, 1978" which she filed in reconveyed to them, not to the estate the same are not properties of the estate
Spl. Proceeding No. 2540: but their own, and thus, not liable for debts of the estate.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 95

Said contention is self‐refuting. Petitioners rely for their rights on their alleged proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. As already adverted to, this is a clear
character as heirs of Celestino; as such, they were substituted in the reconveyance indication that proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority over intestate
case; the reconveyance to them was reconveyance to them as heirs of Celestino proceedings.
Salvador. It follows that the properties they claim are, even by their own reasoning,
part of Celestino's estate. The right thereto as allegedly his heirs would arise only if Vicente Uriarte is entitled to prosecute Civil Case No. 6142 until it is finally
said parcels of land are part of the estate of Celestino, not otherwise. Their having determined, or intervene in Special Proceeding No. 51396 of the Manila Court, if it
received the same, therefore, in the reconveyance action, was perforce in trust for is still open, or to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed, so as to be able
the estate, subject to its obligations. They cannot distribute said properties among to submit for determination the question of his acknowledgment as natural child of
themselves as substituted heirs without the debts of the estate being first satisfied. the deceased testator, said court having, in its capacity as a probate court,
jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of the deceased testator and whether or
135 TIMBOL V. CANO not a particular party is or should be declared his acknowledged natural child.
Supra
RULE 91
136 URIARTE V. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
ESCHEATS
Supra

FACTS: Section 1. When and by whom petition filed. When a person dies intestate, seized
of real property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the
HELD: same, the Solicitor General or his representative in behalf of the Republic of the
When the estate to be settled is that of a non‐resident alien (like the deceased) the Philippines, may file a petition in the Court of First Instance of the province where
Courts of First Instance in provinces where the deceased left any property have the deceased last resided or in which he had estate, if he resided out of the
concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper special proceeding for the Philippines, setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be
settlement of his estate. In the case before Us, these Courts of First Instance are declared escheated.
the Negros and the Manila Courts ‐ province and city where the deceased left
considerable properties. WHERE SHOULD A PETITION FOR ESCHEAT BE FILED?
 In the province where the deceased last resided or which he had estate
A special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased
person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in WHAT SHOULD THE PETITION CONTAIN AS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS?
accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement  Set forth the facts
of his estate. It is equally true, however, that in accordance with settled  Prayer that the estate be declared escheated
jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate proceedings, for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the IN WHAT INSTANCES CAN ESCHEAT BE FILED?
same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of intestate  Decedent died intestate with no heirs and person entitled to the same
proceedings pending before a CFI it is found it that the decedent had left a last will,  Actions of reversion
proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings  Properties alienated in violation of Constitution or statute
even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being  Dormant bank accounts
required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the
executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood to be without Decedent dying intestate
prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the Resident Where last resided

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 96

Non‐resident Where properties are located


Escheat of properties alienated in Where properties are located Section 5. Other actions for escheat. Until otherwise provided by law, actions for
violation of Constitution or statute reversion or escheat of properties alienated in violation of the Constitution or of
Escheat of dormant bank accounts Where the money is deposited any statute shall be governed by this rule, except that the action shall be
Actions for reversion Where properties are located instituted in the province where the land lies in whole or in part.

Section 2. Order for hearing. If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, 137 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LAGUNA V. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE
the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and 65 PHIL
place for the hearing thereof, which date shall be not more than six (6) months
after the entry of the order, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published FACTS:
before the hearing at least once a week for six (6) successive weeks in some This case was commenced in the said by a petition filed by the petitioners in behalf
newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall be of the municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, wherein they claim the
deem best. Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasa by the right of escheat. The Colegio de San Jose,
Inc., appeared specially and assailed the petition upon the grounds that the court
Section 3. Hearing and judgment. Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and decide the case and that the petition
date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the remedy prayed for;
the person died intestate, seized of real or personal property in the Philippines, and asked that the petition be finally dismissed. Carlos Young intervened and filed
leaving no heir or person entitled to the same, and no sufficient cause being a motion asking for the dismissal or the petition upon the ground that the Code of
shown to the contrary, the court shall adjudge that the estate of the estate of the Civil Procedure, under which the same was filed, is not applicable because it was
deceased in the Philippines, after the payment of just debts and charges, shall not yet in force when the original owner of the hacienda died, which was in April,
escheat; and shall, pursuant to law, assign the personal estate to the municipality 1596, and that the petition was irregularly docketed as the applicants had paid at
or city where he last resided in the Philippines, and the real estate to the the docket fees which the clerk of court should collect. Subsequently the attorneys
municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated. If the for both parties filed another motions of minor importance, almost all of which
deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole estate may be assigned to contains the arguments advanced in support of their contentions. On October 29,
the respective municipalities or cities where the same is located. Shall estate shall 1936, the court overruled the objection to the appearance and intervention in the
be for the benefit of public schools, and public charitable institutions and centers case by the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young, entering the order which is one
in said municipalities or cities. of those appealed from. And on the 30th of the same moth the court entered the
resolution, also appealed from, dismissing the petition for escheat, with the costs
The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own motion, may order to the petitioners.
the establishment of a permanent trust, so that the only income from the
property shall be used. HELD:
Accordingly to the first of the said sections, the essential facts which should be
Section 4. When and by whom claim to estate filed. If a devisee, legatee, heir, alleged in the petition, which are jurisdiction because they confer jurisdiction upon
widow, widower, or other person entitled to such estate appears and files a claim the Court of First Instance, are: That a person has died intestate or without leaving
thereto with the court within five (5) years from the date of such judgment, such any will; that he has left real or personal property; that he was the owner thereof;
person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality that he has not left any heir or person who is by law entitled to the property; and
or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds after deducting reasonable that the one who applies for the escheat is the municipality where deceased had
charges for the care of the estate; but a claim not made within the said time shall his last residence, or in case should have no residence in the country, the
be forever barred. municipality where the property is situated.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 97

FACTS:
The following section provides that after the publications and trial, if the court The property in dispute was among the lands taken over by the United States
finds that the deceased is in fact the owner of real and personal property situated Government under the Philippine Property Act of 1946 enacted by the American
in the country and has not left any heirs or other person entitled thereto, it may Congress. It was registered in 1930 under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9509 of
order, after the payments of debts and other legal expenses, the escheat, and in the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga in the name of Kantiro Koyama, a Japanese
such case it shall adjudicate the personal property to the municipality where the national, who has not been heard from since the end of World War II. Under the
deceased had his last place of residence and the real property to the municipality said Act, the land was supposed to be transferred to the Republic of the
or municipalities where they are situated. Philippines.

Escheat, under sections 750 and 751, is a proceeding whereby the real and Republic of the Philippines had filed escheat proceedings against the said property,
personal property of a deceased person become the property of the State upon his claiming that the registered owner of the land "had been absent for the past ten
death without leaving any will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action years or more and he, therefore, may be presumed dead for the purpose of
contemplated by section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but a special proceeding appointing his successor." It also alleged that since he left no heirs or persons
in accordance with the said section and Chapter XXXIX, Part II, of the same Code. entitled to the aforementioned property, the State should inherit the same in
The proceeding, as provided by section 750, should be commenced by petition and accordance with Rule 91 of the Rules of Court. The court subsequently allowed the
not by complaint. escheat.

In a special proceeding for escheat under section 750 and 751 the petitioner is not HELD:
the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or It is clear, and the respondent City of Zamboanga does not deny it, that there was
interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise and interest and mere inadvertence on the part of the American government in omitting to transfer
necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. In the the disputed land to the Republic of the Philippines. The obvious purpose of the Act
present case the Colegio de San Jose, Inc., and Carlos Young appeared alleging to was to turn over to the Philippine government all enemy properties situated in its
have a material interest in the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasa; and the former territory that had been seized and were being held for the time being by the United
because it claims to be the exclusive owner of the hacienda, and the latter because States, which was then exercising sovereignty over the Philippines. The transfer of
he claim to be the lessee thereof under a contract legality entered with the former. such enemy properties to the Philippine Republic was one of the acts by which the
In view of these allegations it is erroneous to hold that the said parties are without United States acknowledged the elevation of this country to the status of a
right either to appear in case or to substantiate their respective alleged right. This sovereign state on July 4, 1946.
unfavorably resolves the petitioners' first assignment of error.
While it is true that there are no records of such transfer, we may presume that
A motion to dismiss is an allowed pleading in escheat proceedings when on its such transfer was made. The lack of such records does not mean that it was not
face, the escheat proceedings should be dismissed. made as this would run counter to the mandate of the Philippine Property Act of
1946, which, to repeat, intended to vest title in the Philippines enemy properties
An escheat proceeding is improper when the property is subject to the ownership found in its territory. It would be more reasonable to suppose that the President of
the United States, or the person acting under his authority, complied with, rather
of the state already.
than neglected (and so violated) this requirement of Section 3 of the said Act, if
only on the basis of the presumption of the regularity of official functions. In the
138 REPUBLIC V. IAC
extreme, we can even say that this section legally effected the transfer, to be
148 SCRA 271
evidenced later by the formality of the corresponding deed, and that the lack of
such deed does not mean that no transfer was made. Otherwise, we would have to

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 98

face the dubious conclusion that the said property is still owned and so still subject resided out of the Philippines, may file a petition in the court of first instance of the
to disposition by the United States. province setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be
declared escheated.
We hold that where it comes to ordinary real properties the owners of which may
be presumed dead and left no heirs, the same may be escheated, conformably to Rule 91 of the Revised rules of Court, which provides that only the Republic of the
Rule 91 of the Rules of Court, in favor of the political subdivisions in which they are Philippines, through the Solicitor General, may commence escheat proceedings, did
located. The said Rule, however, does not cover properties taken from enemy not take effect until January 1, 1964. Although the escheat proceedings were still
nationals as a result of World War II and required to be transferred to the Republic pending then, the Revised Rules of Court could not be applied to the petition
of the Philippines by the United States in accordance with its own enactment because to do so would work injustice to the City of Davao.
commonly known as the Philippine Property Act of 1946. Such properties, including
the land in dispute, belong to the Philippine government not by virtue of the The Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal of Vicenta Tan and Ramon
escheat proceedings but on the strength of the transfer authorized and required by Pizarro earlier because the records show that Vicenta was never a party in the
the said Act. escheat proceedings. The trial court's order dated February 4, 1972 ordering that
she be substituted for Ramon Pizarro as oppositor (p. 16, Record on Appeal) was
139 VICENTE TAN V. CITY OF DAVAO set aside by the same court in its Order of March 23, 1972 (p. 178, Record on
166 SCRA 73 Appeal) which was not appealed.
Vicenta Tan, if she still exists, was never served with summons extra‐territorially
FACTS: under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. She never appeared in the trial
The spouses Cornelia Pizarro and Baltazar Garcia, during their lifetime, were court by herself, or counsel and never filed a pleading therein, hence, she never
residents of Davao City. As they were childless, they adopted a three‐year old girl submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
whom they named Dominga Garcia and brought up as their own. At the age of
nineteen years, Dominga Garcia married a Chinaman, Tan Seng alias Seng Yap, with 140 BERMUDO V. CA
whom she had three children, named Vicente, who was born in 1916. Dominga 55 SCRA 8
Garcia and her three children emigrated to Canton, China. In less than a year, Tan
Seng followed his family to his country of origin. They left a parcel of land in Davao FACTS:
which was subject of escheat proceedings. Case regarding a parcel of land being disputed among three parties—Chinese men
and the Chinese Communist Party.
HELD:
With respect to the argument that only the Republic of the Philippines, HELD:
represented by the Solicitor‐General, may file the escheat petition under Section 1, Since there is dispute on who owns truly the parcel of land, the state should have
Rule 91 of the Revised (1964) Rules of Court, the Appellate Court correctly ruled instituted escheat proceedings.
that the case did not come under Rule 91 because the petition was filed on
September 12,1962, when the applicable rule was still Rule 92 of the 1940 Rules of 141 REPUBLIC V. CFI OF MANILA
Court which provided: 165 SCRA 11

Sec. 1. When and by whom,petition filed. When a person dies intestate, seized of FACTS:
real or personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heirs or person by law Pursuant to the Unclaimed Balance Law, some 31 banks including herein private
entitled to the same, the municipality or city where the deceased last resided, if he respondent Pres. Roxas Rural Bank forwarded to the Treasurer of the Philippines
resided in the Philippines, or the municipality or city in which he had estate if he separate statements under oath by their respective managing officers of all

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 99

deposits and credits held by them in favor, or in the names of such depositors or concerned is located may be made parties defendant "in one action" was clearly
creditors known to be dead, or who have not been heard from, or who have not intended to save on litigation and publication expenses, but certainly not as
made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more. In authority for the lumping together of all banks wherever found in the Philippines in
the sworn statement submitted by private respondent Bank, only two (2) names one single escheat proceedings.
appeared: Jesus Ydirin and Leonora Trumpeta.

The aforementioned statements were published in two newspapers, one was in GENERAL GUARDIANS AND GUARDIANSHIP
English while the other was in Spanish. Both are of general circulation in the
Philippines. This consequently led to a complaint for escheat lodged by the
RULE
government against the 31 banks. The private respondent bank sought the
92
dismissal of the same on the ground of improper venue. In opposing the dismissal
VENUE
of the case, petitioner maintained that private respondent bank is just a nominal
party and the proper parties to lodge the motion to dismiss are the depositors Section 1. Where to institute proceedings. Guardianship of a person or estate of a
themselves. minor or incompetent may be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the
province, or in the justice of the peace court of the municipality, or in the
HELD: municipal court chartered city where the minor or incompetent persons resides,
Issue of real party in interest and if he resides in a foreign country, in the Court of First Instance of the province
wherein his property or the party thereof is situated; provided, however, that
A "real party in interest" has been defined as the party who would be benefitted or where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent exceeds that
injured by the judgment of the suit or the party entitled to avail of the suit. There jurisdiction of the justice of the peace or municipal court, the proceedings shall
can be no doubt that private respondent bank falls under this definition for the be instituted in the Court of First Instance.
escheat of the dormant deposits in favor of the government would necessarily
deprive said bank of the use of such deposits. It is in this sense that it stands to be In the City of Manila the proceedings shall be instituted in the Juvenile and
"injured by the judgment of the suit;" and it is for this reason that Section 3 of Act Domestic Relations Court.
No. 3936 specifically provides that the bank shall be joined as a party in the action
for escheat. THREE KINDS OF GUARDIAN
1. Legal guardian—who is such by provision of law without the need of
Question of improper venue judicial appointment, as in the case of the parents over the person of
their minor children, etc.
The first sentence of Section 3 of Act No. 3936 directs the Attorney General, now 2. Judicial guardian—who is a competent person appointed by the court
Solicitor General, to commence an action or actions in the name of the People of over the person and/or property of the ward to represent the latter in all
the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of the province where the bank is his civil acts and transactions, and is the one contemplated in the
located. The phrase "or actions" in this section is very significant. It manifests aforementioned rules
awareness on the part of the legislators that a single action to cover all banks 3. Guardian ad litem—who may be a competent person appointed by the
wherever located in the Philippines would not be legally feasible in view of the court for purposes of a particular action or proceeding involving a minor
venue prescribed for such action under the same section, i.e., the province where
the bank is located. Thus, the addition of the last sentence, which the lower court TO WHICH JUDICIAL GUARDIANSHIP PERTAINS
had correctly interpreted to mean "that for escheat of unclaimed bank balances all  With respect to the person of the ward, his property or both
banks located in one and the same province where the Court of First Instance

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 100

 Where the person has no property, guardianship may only with his
person HELD:
 With respect to a non‐resident ward, with respect to his property Petitioner is the duly appointed guardian of the incompetent Estefania San Pedro in
Special Proceedings No. 532 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan presided over
Section 2. Meaning of word "incompetent." Under this rule, the word by respondent Judge. On August 30, 1974 respondent Pelagio Francisco, claiming
"incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who to be a first cousin of Estefania San Pedro, together with two others, said to be
are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and nieces of the incompetent, petitioned the court for the removal of petitioner and
write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, for the appointment in his stead of respondent Pelagio Francisco. Among other
and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak grounds, the petition was based on the failure of the guardian to submit an
mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of inventory of the estate of his ward and to render an accounting.
themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit
and exploitation. It would seem that petitioner subsequently rendered an accounting but failed to
submit an inventory, for which reason the court on March 20, 1975 gave petitioner
WHO IS AN INCOMPETENT? ten (10) days within which to do so, otherwise he would be removed from
 Includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are guardianship Petitioner thereafter submitted an inventory to which respondent
hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and Pelagio Francisco filed an objection on the ground that petitioner actually received
write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid P14,000.00 for the sale of a residential land and not P12,000.00 only as stated in
intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, the deed of sale and reported by him in his inventory. The respondent Judge found
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside the claim to be true, and, in his order of April 17, 1980 relieved the petitioner as
aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming guardian.
thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
On motion of petitioner, however, the respondent Judge reconsidered his finding,
Section 3. Transfer of venue. □ The court taking cognizance of a guardianship relying on the deed of sale as the best evidence of the price paid for the sale of the
proceeding, may transfer the same to the court of another province or land. in his order dated September 12, 1980, respondent judge acknowledged that
municipality wherein the ward has acquired real property, if he has transferred his finding was "rather harsh and somewhat unfair to the said guardian."
thereto his bona‐fide residence, and the latter court shall have full jurisdiction to Nevertheless, respondent Judge ordered the retirement of petitioner on the
continue the proceedings, without requiring payment of additional court fees. ground of old age.

142 FRANCISCO V. CA 143 LAVIDES V. CITY COURT OF LUCENA


127 SCRA 371 114 SCRA 187

FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner is the guardian of the incompetent San Pedro. Parties alleging to be the Upon the death of his wife, petitioner Alberto Lavides instituted a guardianship
incompetent’s relatives sought his removal for allegedly failing to file an inventory. proceeding with respect to the person and property of their seven (7) minor
He actually did render an accounting and later on, an inventory but his accounts children. Said petition alleged that the estate left by the deceased wife of herein
were questioned on the ground it didn’t coincide on what he truly received as petitioner, mother of the above‐ named minors, has a total value of thirty‐five
guardian. The judge ordered him remove and for him to pay for his payables. On thousand pesos (P35,000.00) or an amount of P5,000.00 pertaining to each minor.
reconsideration, the judge reversed its order of payment but still, removed him on Although there had been no previous settlement of the estate of the deceased,
the ground of old age—even if he was 72 and still able to fulfill his duties. petitioner was appointed and qualified as judicial guardian.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 101

The City Court, upon motion, authorized petitioner to settle the estate 144 PARCO V. CA
extrajudicially and to sell a portion thereof consisting of shares of stocks. Pursuant 111 SCRA 262
to said authority, petitioner extrajudicially settled the estate, and on August 28,
1971, sold the said shares of stocks for the sum of P64,512.00 FACTS:
Francisco Rodriguez is the guardian of the Soledad Rodriguez (ward). With the
Petitioner filed a motion for confirmation and approval of a Deed of Exchange authority and approval of CFI Judge (who took cognizance of the proceedings upon
Agreement. While this latter motion was still pending consideration, the authorization from the Secretary of Justice), Rodriguez sold 3 parcels of land to Luis
respondent court, reviewed the records of the case and finding that the undivided Parco and Virginia Bautista (“Petitioners”). The sale was made for the support,
estate left by the deceased was worth at least P35,000.00, dismissed the case for maintenance and medical treatment of the ward. Titles over said parcels of lands
lack of jurisdiction, revoked the appointment of petitioner as guardian and were issued in favor of the PETITIONERS.
annulled all proceedings taken prior to the issuance of the said order of December
5, 1978. More than a year after the sale, RODRIGUEZ sought an order requiring
PETITIONERS to appear before the court for examination on the basis that the 3
HELD: parcels of land were allegedly in danger of being lost, squandered, concealed and
The above section, in clear terms, grants concurrent jurisdiction between municipal embezzled.
and city court and Courts of First Instance in the appointment of guardians either
with respect to the person or property of the minor or incompetent, except that HELD:
where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent exceeds the As held in the case of Cui v. Piccio, where title to any property said to be
jurisdiction of the municipal or city courts, the guardianship proceedings shall be embezzled, concealed or conveyed is in dispute, the determination of said title or
instituted in the Court of First Instance. It is clear, therefore, that the value of the right whether in favor of the person said to have embezzled, concealed or
property of the minor or incompetent sought to be placed in guardianship conveyed the property must be determined in a separate ordinary action and not
determines which court has jurisdiction. And that property referred to is the in guardianship proceedings.
individual estate of the minor so much so that when there are more than one
minor or in competent sought to be placed under guardianship, what determines In this case, there is definitely a cloud of doubt as to who has a better right or title
which court has jurisdiction is the value of the individual property of each minor or to the disputed properties. Thus, this situation requires the determination of title
incompetent. or ownership of the 3 parcels of land which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
In the case at bar, it appears that respondent city court dismissed the petition for guardianship court and should be threshed out in a separate ordinary action.
guardianship on ground of lack of jurisdiction because a perusal of the record of
the case shows that the undivided estate left by the deceased mother is worth In this case, two branches of the CFI of Quezon concurrently assumed jurisdiction
P35,000.00 which amount is clearly outside its jurisdiction. This reasoning must be over the proceedings. Branch I assumed original jurisdiction which was later on
rejected for it overlooks the fact that the petition for guardianship filed by herein assigned to Branch IV (by virtue of the order of the Sec. of Justice to unclog the
petitioner before the respondent city court clearly alleged that the individual dockets). When Branch I issued an order re‐assuming jurisdiction over the case,
estate or share of each of the seven minor children sought to be placed under Branch IV actually ordered that the records be forwarded and returned to the
guardianship is P5,000.00, which amount is well within the jurisdiction of the former. However, it subsequently threshed out the issue of ownership of the
respondent city court (Section 88, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. parcels of land, which decision is the subject of the present appeal. This only
3828). That the respondent city court has jurisdiction over the case cannot be
bolsters that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the proceedings of the case.
denied, for the rule is well‐settled that jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint and/or petition.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 102

145 OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. GINES Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the United
224 SCRA 261 States of America who died in the said country. During his lifetime, he had 2 minor
children. Petitioner filed a petition to be appointed as guardian of the two minor
FACTS: children. She alleged that the minor children were residents of Cebu City. After
Gines was accosted for grave ignorance of law and procedure… being appointed, opposition was entered by the mother of the children, alleging
that she has previously filed a petition with the RTC of Pagadian City.
HELD:
1. “Branch 26” was originally typewritten as part of the caption. Further, HELD:
Flores’ name (Court Interpreter) was already indicated in the petition. Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental authority
only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of respondent. Considering that
2. Regina VALDEZ (claiming to be the niece of LAGMAY) filed the petition for respondent is very much alive and has exercised continuously parental authority
guardianship, alleging that she is a resident of San Fernando, La Union. She alleged over Vincent, petitioner has to prove, in asserting her right to be the minor□s
however, that LAGMAY (ward) was presently residing in Mabalacat, Pampanga. It guardian, respondent□s unsuitability. Petitioner, however, has not proffered
was also alleged that LAGMAY is an American citizen, single, childless and a retired convincing evidence showing that respondent is not suited to be the guardian of
seaman receiving pension from the US. Vincent. Petitioner merely insists that respondent is morally unfit as guardian of
Valerie considering that her (respondent□s) live‐in partner raped Valerie several
Despite this fact (under the Rules, jurisdiction lies in the court where the minor or times. But Valerie, being now of major age, is no longer a subject of this
incompetent person resides, see Sec 1, Rule 92), GINES immediately gave due guardianship proceeding.
course to the petition and directed that notices be served, and granted letters of
guardianship in favor of VALDEZ. (*Note: VALDEZ is also the aunt of GINES) Even assuming that respondent is unfit as guardian of minor Vincent, still petitioner
cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. It bears stressing that she is an American
3. Further, there was no order setting the case for hearing, at a particular citizen and a resident of Colorado. Obviously, she will not be able to perform the
date time and place. No notices were sent to any of the “kin” or even to Juan responsibilities and obligations required of a guardian. In fact, in her petition, she
Lagmay himself. admitted the difficulty of discharging the duties of a guardian by an expatriate, like
her. To be sure, she will merely delegate those duties to someone else who may
4. The bond supposedly required from Valdez was not yet filed, but still, not also qualify as a guardian.
Flores administered oath to the former.
Moreover, we observe that respondent□s allegation that petitioner has not set
5. Judge Gines also directed that the person having custody of Juan Lagmay foot in the Philippines since 1987 has not been controverted by her. Besides,
be ordered to release the latter and turn him over to the special sheriffs, under petitioner□s old age and her conviction of libel by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
pain of contempt. When this person refused to turn over custody over Lagmay, the 6, Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU‐168846 filed by one Danilo R. Deen, will give
judge ordered his arrest (The remedy in this case should have been a petition for her a second thought of staying here. Indeed, her coming back to this country just
habeas corpus, and not to have the person having custody cited for contempt, to fulfill the duties of a guardian to Vincent for only two years is not certain.
much less arrested).
147 KATIPUNAN V. KATIPUNAN
146 VANCIL V. BELMES 375 SCRA 200
358 SCRA 707
FACTS:
FACTS:

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 103

Braulio Katipunan, assisted by his brother Miguel, sold a lot/apartment building to The word “incompetent” includes persons suffering the penalty of civil
the Balguma brothers. Braulio's title was cancelled and a new one was issued to the interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are
Balgumas. In a later date, Braulio filed a complaint for annulment of the Deed of unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they
Absolute Sale. have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of
age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, can not, without outside aid,
He averred that his brother Miguel, Atty. Balguma and Inocencio Valdez convinced take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy
him to work abroad. They made him sign a document purportedly a contract of prey for deceit and exploitation.
employment, which document turned out to be a Deed of Absolute Sale. He further
alleged that he did not receive the consideration stated in the contract. He was The circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract manifest a vitiated
shocked when his sister Agueda told him that the Balguma brothers sent a letter to consent on the part of Braulio. Undue influence was exerted upon him by his
the lessees of the apartment informing them that they are the new owners. He brother Miguel and Inocencio Valdez and Atty. Balguma. They did not explain to
claimed that the three, with evident bad faith, conspired with one another in taking him the nature and contents of the document. Worse, they deprived him of a
advantage of his ignorance, he being only a third grader. reasonable freedom of choice. It bears stressing that he reached only grade three.
Thus, it was impossible for him to understand the contents of the contract written
Twice Braulio moved to dismiss his complaint, which were granted. In granting his in English and embellished in legal jargon. The trial court took cognizance of the
motions for reconsideration (to pursue the case again), the trial court was medical finding of Dr. Revilla (as an expert witness) who testified that, based on the
convinced that respondent did not sign the motions to dismiss voluntarily because tests she conducted, she found that Braulio has a very low IQ and a mind of a six‐
of his poor comprehension, as shown by the medical report of Dr. Annette Revilla, year old child. In fact, the trial court had to clarify certain matters because Braulio
a Resident Psychiatrist at the PGH. Besides, the trial court noted that Braulio was was either confused, forgetful or could not comprehend. Thus, his lack of
not assisted by counsel in signing the said motions, thus it is possible that he did education, coupled with his mental affliction, placed him not only at a hopelessly
not understand the consequences of his action. disadvantageous position vis‐à‐vis petitioners to enter into a contract, but virtually
rendered him incapable of giving rational consent. To be sure, his ignorance and
The trial court set the case for pre‐trial. The court likewise granted Braulio's motion weakness made him most vulnerable to the deceitful cajoling and intimidation of
to appoint Agueda as his guardian ad litem. petitioners.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that respondent failed to prove his My case digests unfortunately end here. Though assignments were given up to
causes of action since he admitted that: (1) he obtained loans from the Balgumas; TRUSTEES, I unfortunately was not able to make them. For cross‐reference
(2) he signed the Deed of Absolute Sale; and (3) he acknowledged selling the however, please refer to the case digests compendium made by my block for the
property and that he stopped collecting the rentals.
rest of the rules concerned. =)

HELD:
The title of the Balgumas should be annulled. It is apparent that the contract RULE 93
entered into by Braulio and Atty. Balguma is voidable because Braulio is an APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS
incompetent.
Section 1. Who may petition for appointment of guardian for resident. □ Any
Since Braulio has a mental state of a six year old child, he can not be considered as relative, friend, or other person on behalf of a resident minor or incompetent
fully capacitated. He falls under the category of “incompetent” as defined in who has no parent or lawful guardian, or the minor himself if fourteen years of
Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court: age or over, may petition the court having jurisdiction for the appointment of a

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 104

general guardian for the person or estate, or both, of such minor or incompetent. guardian of his person or estate, or both, with the powers and duties hereinafter
An officer of the Federal Administration of the United States in the Philippines specified.
may also file a petition in favor of a ward thereof, and the Director of Health, in
favor of an insane person who should be hospitalized, or in favor of an isolated Section 6. When and how guardian for non‐resident appointed. Notice. When a
leper. person liable to be put under guardianship resides without the Philippines but
the estate therein, any relative or friend of such person, or any one interested in
Section 2. Contents of petition. A petition for the appointment of a general his estate, in expectancy or otherwise, may petition a court having jurisdiction for
guardian must show, so far as known to the petitioner: the appointment of a guardian for the estate, and if, after notice given to such
(a) The jurisdiction facts; person and in such manner as the court deems proper, by publication or
(b) The minority or incompetency rendering the appointment necessary or otherwise, and hearing, the court is satisfied that such non‐resident is a minor or
convenient; incompetent rendering a guardian necessary or convenient, it may appoint a
(c) The names, ages, and residence of the relatives of the minor or incompetent, guardian for such estate.
and of the person having him in their care;
(d) The probable value and character of his estate; Section 7. Parents as guardians. When the property of the child under parental
(e) The name of the person for whom letters of guardianship. authority is worth two thousand pesos or less, the father of the mother, without
the necessity of court appointment, shall be his legal guardian. When the
The petition shall be verified; but no defect in the petition or verification shall property of the child is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or the
render void the issuance of letters of guardianship. mother shall be considered guardian of the child's property, with the duties and
obligations of guardians under this rules, and shall file the petition required by
Section 3. Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof. When a petition for the section 2 hereof. For good reasons the court may, however, appoint another
appointment of a general guardian is filed, the court shall fix a time and place for suitable person.
hearing the same, and shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the
persons mentioned in the petition residing in the province, including the minor if Section 8. Service of judgment. Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be
above 14 years of age or the incompetent himself, and may direct other general served upon the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or
or special notice thereof to be given. incompetent person resides or where his property or part thereof is situated.

Section 4. Opposition to petition. Any interested person may, by filing a written


RULE 94 BONDS
opposition, contest the petition on the ground of majority of the alleged minor,
OF GUARDIANS
competency of the alleged incompetent, or the insuitability of the person for
whom letters are prayed, and may pray that the petition be dismissed, or that
letters of guardianship issue to himself, or to any suitable person named in the Section 1. Bond to be given before issuance of letters. Amount. Condition. □
opposition. Before a guardian appointed enters upon the execution of his trust, or letters of
guardianship issue, he shall give a bond, in such sum as the court directs,
Section 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. At the hearing of the petition the conditioned as follows:
alleged in competent must be present if able to attend, and it must be shown
that the required notice has been given. Thereupon the courts shall hear the (a) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a true and complete
evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegations, and, if the inventory of all the estate, real and personal, of his ward which shall come to his
person in question is a minor, or incompetent it shall be appoint a suitable possession or knowledge of any other person for him;

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 105

(b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the
estate according to these rules for the best interests of the ward, and to provide DOES THE GUARDIAN NEED TO SECURE COURT APPROVAL FOR SALE OF
for the proper care, custody, and education of the ward; PERISHABLE GOODS OWNED BY THE WARD?
 The rules doesn’t distinguish on the type of goods
(c) To render a true and just account of all the estate of the ward in his hands,  The guardian needs to always secure court approval before sale or
and of all proceeds or interest derived therefrom, and of the management and encumbrance of the properties of the ward
disposition of the same, at the time designated by these rules and such other
times as the courts directs, and at the expiration of his trust to settle his accounts Section 2. Order to show cause thereupon. □ If it seems probable that such sale
with the court and deliver and pay over all the estate, effects, and moneys or encumbrance is necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, the court shall
remaining in his hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person make an order directing the next of kin of the ward, and all persons interested in
lawfully entitled thereto; the estate, to appear at a reasonable time and place therein specified to show
cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted.
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.
Section 3. Hearing on return of order. Costs. □ At the time and place designated
Section 2. When new bond may be required and old sureties discharged. □ in the order to show cause, the court shall hear the proofs and allegations of the
Whenever it is deemed necessary, the court may require a new bond to be given petitioner and next of kin, and other persons interested, together with their
by the guardian, and may discharge the sureties on the old bond from further witnesses, and grant and refuse the prayer of the petition as the best interest of
liability, after due notice to interested persons, when no injury can result the ward require. The court shall make such order as to cost of the hearing as
therefrom to those interested in the estate. may be just.

Section 3. Bonds to be filed. Actions thereon. □ Every bond given by a guardian Section 4. Contents of order for sale or encumbrance, and how long effective.
shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court, and, in case of the breach of a Bond. □ If, after full examination, it appears that it is necessary, or would be
condition thereof, may be prosecuted in the same proceeding or in a separate beneficial to the ward, to sell or encumber the estate, or some portion of it, the
action for the use and benefit of the ward or of any other person legally court shall order such sale or encumbrance and that the proceeds thereof be
interested in the estate. expended for the maintenance of the ward and his family, or the education of the
ward, if a minor, or for the putting of the same interest, or the investment of the
same as the circumstances may require. The order shall specify the causes why
RULE 95
the sale or encumbrance is necessary or beneficial, and may direct that estate
SELLING AND ENCUMBERING PROPERTY OF WARD
ordered sold be disposed of at either public or private sale, subject to such
conditions as to the time and manner of payment, and security where a part of
Section 1. Petition of guardian for leave to sell or encumber estate. □ When the the payment is deferred as in the discretion of the court are deemed most
income of the estate under guardianship is insufficient to maintain the ward and beneficial to the ward. The original bond of the guardian shall stand as security
his family, or to maintain and educate the ward when a minor, or when it for the proper appropriation of the proceeds of the sale, but the judge may, if
appears that it is for the benefit of the ward that his real estate or some part deemed expedient, require an additional bond as a condition for the granting of
thereof be sold, or mortgaged or otherwise encumbered, and the proceeds the order of sale. No order of sale granted in pursuance of this section shall
thereof put out at interest, or invested in some productive security, or in the continue in force more than one (1) year after granting the same, without a sale
improvement or security or other real estate of the ward, the guardian may being had.
present a verified petition to the court by which he was appointed setting forth
such facts, and praying that an order issue authorizing the sale or encumbrance. WHAT SHALL THE ORDER STATE?

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 106

1. Specify the causes why the sale or encumbrance is necessary or beneficial in all actions and special proceedings, unless another person be appointed for
2. It may direct that estate ordered sold be disposed of at either public or that purpose.
private sale, subject to such conditions as to the time and manner of
payment, and security where a part of the payment is deferred as in the Section 4. Estate to be managed frugally, and proceeds applied to maintenance of
discretion of the court are deemed most beneficial to the ward. □ A guardian must manage the estate of his ward frugally and without the
waste, and apply the income and profits thereof, so far as may be necessary, to
Section 5. Court may order investment of proceeds and direct management of the comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward and his family, if there be
estate. □ The court may authorize and require the guardian to invest the any; and if such income and profits be insufficient for that purpose, the guardian
proceeds of sales or encumbrances, and any other of his ward's money in his may sell or encumber the real estate, upon being authorized by order so to do,
hands, in real estate or otherwise, as shall be for the best interest of all and apply to such of the proceeds as may be necessary to such maintenance.
concerned, and may make such other orders for the management, investment,
and disposition of the estate and effects, as circumstances may require. Section 5. Guardian may be authorized to join in partition proceedings after
hearing. □ The court may authorized the guardian to join in an assent to a
partition of real or personal estate held by the ward jointly or in common with
RULE 96
others, but such authority shall only be granted after hearing, upon such notice to
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS
relatives of the ward as the court may direct, and a careful investigation as to the
necessity and propriety of the proposed action.
Section 1. To what guardianship shall extend. □ A guardian appointed shall have
the care and custody of the person of his ward, and the management of his Section 6. Proceedings when the person suspected of embezzling or concealing
estate, or the management of the estate only, as the case may be. The guardian property of ward. □ Upon complaint of the guardian or ward, or of any person
of the estate of a non‐resident shall have the management of all the estate of the having actual or prospective interest in the estate of the ward as creditor, heir, or
ward within the Philippines, and no court other than that in which such guardian otherwise, that anyone is suspected of having embezzled, concealed, or conveyed
was appointed shall have jurisdiction over the guardianship. away any money, goods, or interest, or a written instrument, belonging to the
ward or his estate, the court may cite the suspected person to appear for
WHY IS GUARDIANSHIP FOR MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE ONLY ALLOWED? examination touching such money, goods, interest, or instrument, and make such
 Management of estate doesn’t necessarily need the care and custody of orders as will secure the estate against such embezzlement, concealment or
the person conveyance.

Section 2. Guardian to pay debts of ward. □ Every guardian must pay the ward's Section 7. Inventories and accounts of guardians, and appraisement of estates. □
just debts out of his personal estate and the income of his real estate, if A guardian must render to the court an inventory of the estate of his ward within
sufficient; if not, then out of his real estate upon obtaining an order for the sale three (3) months after his appointment, and annually after such appointment an
or encumbrance thereof. inventory and account, the rendition of any of which may be compelled upon the
application of an interested person. Such inventories and accounts shall be sworn
Section 3. Guardian to settle accounts, collect debts, and appear in actions for to by the guardian. All the estate of the ward described in the first inventory shall
ward. □ A guardian must settle all accounts of his ward, and demand, sue for, be appraised. In the appraisement the court may request the assistance of one or
and receive all debts due him, or may, with the approval of the court, compound more of the inheritance tax appraisers. And whenever any property of the ward
for the same and give discharges to the debtor, on receiving a fair and just not included in an inventory already rendered is discovered, or suceeded to, or
dividend of the estate and effects; and he shall appear for and represent his ward acquired by the ward, like proceedings shall be had for securing an inventory and

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 107

appraisement thereof within three (3) months after such discovery, succession, or GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
acquisition. 1. Competency of ward
2. Insanity and incompetency of the guardian himself
Section 8. When guardian's accounts presented for settlement. Expenses and 3. Death of the ward or guardian himself
compensation allowed. □ Upon the expiration of a year from the time of his 4. Resignation of the guardian
appointment, and as often thereafter as may be required, a guardian must 5. Guardian incapable of discharging his trust
present his account to the court for settlement and allowance. In the settlement 6. Guardian mismanaged or wasted the estate
of the account, the guardian, other than a parent, shall be allowed the amount of 7. Conflict of interest
his reasonable expenses incurred in the execution of his trust and also such 8. Guardian failed to render accounting and inventory for 30 days after
compensation for his services as the court deems just, not exceeding fifteen per court order
centum of the net income of the ward.
Section 2. When the guardian removed or allowed to resign. New appointment. □
WHAT ARE THE GENERAL POWERS OF A GUARDIAN? When a guardian becomes insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust
1. Care and custody of the ward, and/or management of his estate or unsuitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, or failed for
2. Pay the debts of his ward thirty (30) days after it is due to render an account or make a return, the court
3. To settle accounts, collect debts, and appear in actions for ward may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him, and compel him to
4. Manage the estate frugally surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled
5. May be authorized to join in partition proceedings after hearing thereto. A guardian may resign when it appears proper to allow the same; and
6. To institute proceedings where the person is suspected of embezzling, upon his resignation or removal the court may appoint another in his place.
concealing property of ward
7. Inventories and accounts of guardians, and appraisement of estate Section 3. Other termination of guardianship. □ The marriage or voluntary
emancipation of a minor ward terminates the guardianship of the peson of the
ward, and shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of
RULE 97
age, but he cannot borrow the money or alienate or encumber real property
TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued
in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. The guardian
Section 1. Petition that competency of ward be adjudged, and proceedings of any person may be discharged by the court when it appears, upon the
thereupon. □ A person who has been declared incompetent for any reason, or his application of the ward or otherwise, that the guardianship is no longer
guardian, relative, or friend, may petition the court to have his present necessary.
competency judicially determined. The petition shall be verified by oath, and
shall state that such person is then competent. Upon receiving the petition, the Section 4. Record to be kept by the justice of the peace or municipal judge. □
court shall fix a time for hearing the questions raised thereby, and cause When a justice of the peace or municipal court takes cognizance of the
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the guardian of the person so declared proceedings in pursuance of the provisions of these rules, the record of the
incompetent, and to the ward. On the trial, the guardian or relatives of the ward, proceedings shall be kept as in the Court of First Instance.
and, in the discretion of the court, any other person, may contest the right to the
relief demanded, and witnesses may be called and examined by the parties or by Section 5. Service of judgment. □ Final orders of judgments under this rule shall
the court on its own motion. If it be found that the person is no longer be served upon the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or
incompetent, his competency shall be adjudged and the guardianship shall cease. incompetent person resides or where his property or part thereof is situated.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 108

Sec. 5. Qualifications of guardians. – In appointing a guardian, the court shall


A.M. No. 03‐02‐05‐SC
consider the guardian’s:
2003‐05‐01 RULE ON
GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS
(a) moral character;
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. – This Rule shall apply to petitions for
guardianship over the person or property, or both, of a minor. (b) physical, mental and psychological condition;

The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the (c) financial status;
person and property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity
of a court appointment. In such case, this Rule shall be suppletory to the (d) relationship of trust with the minor;
provisions of the Family Code on guardianship.
(e) availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian for the full period
Sec. 2. Who may petition for appointment of guardian. – On grounds authorized of the guardianship;
by law, any relative or other person on behalf of a minor, or the minor himself if
fourteen years of age or over, may petition the Family Court for the appointment (f) lack of conflict of interest with the minor; and
of a general guardian over the person or property, or both, of such minor. The
petition may also be filed by the Secretary of Social Welfare and Development (g) ability to manage the property of the minor.
and by the Secretary of Health in the case of an insane minor who needs to be
hospitalized. Sec. 6. Who may be appointed guardian of the person or property, or both, of a
minor. – In default of parents or a court‐appointed guardian, the court may
Sec. 3. Where to file petition. – A petition for guardianship over the person or appoint a guardian of the person or property, or both, of a minor, observing as
property, or both, of a minor may be filed in the Family Court of the province or far as practicable, the following order of preference:
city where the minor actually resides. If he resides in a foreign country, the
petition shall be flied with the Family Court of the province or city where his (a) the surviving grandparent and In case several grandparents survive, the court
property or any part thereof is situated. shall select any of them taking Into account all relevant considerations;

Sec. 4. Grounds of petition.‐The grounds for the appointment of a guardian over (b) the oldest brother or sister of the minor over twenty‐one years of age, unless
the person or property, or both, of a minor are the following: unfit or disqualified;

(a) death, continued absence, or incapacity of his parents; (c) the actual custodian of the minor over twenty‐one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and
(b) suspension, deprivation or termination of parental authority;
(d) any other person, who in the sound discretion of the court, would serve the
(c) remarriage of his surviving parent, if the latter Is found unsuitable to exercise best interests of the minor.
parental authority; or
Sec. 7. Contents of petition. – A petition for the appointment of a general
(d) when the best interests of the minor so require. guardian must allege the following:

(a) The jurisdictional facts;

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 109

(b) The name, age and residence of the prospective ward; Sec. 11. Hearing and order for letters to issue. – At the hearing of the petition, it
must be shown that the requirement of notice has been complied with. The
(c) The ground rendering the appointment necessary or convenient; prospective ward shall be presented to the court. The court shall hear the
evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegations. If warranted,
(d) The death of the parents of the minor or the termination, deprivation or the court shall appoint a suitable guardian of the person or property, or both, of
suspension of their parental authority; the minor.

(e) The remarriage of the minor’s surviving parent; At the discretion of the court, the hearing on guardianship may be closed to the
public and the records of the case shall not be released without its approval.
(f) The names, ages, and residences of relatives within the 4th civil degree of the
minor, and of persons having him in their care and custody; Sec. 12. When and how a guardian of the property for non‐resident minor is
appointed; notice. – When the minor resides outside the Philippines but has
(g) The probable value, character and location of the property of the minor; and property in the Philippines, any relative or friend of such minor, or any one
interested in his property, in expectancy or otherwise, may petition the Family
(h) The name, age and residence of the person for whom letters of guardianship Court for the appointment of a guardian over the property.
are prayed.
Notice of hearing of the petition shall be given to the minor by publication or any
The petition shall be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum other means as the court may deem proper. The court may dispense with the
shopping. However, no defect in the petition or verification shall render void the presence of the non‐resident minor.
issuance of letters of guardianship.
If after hearing the court is satisfied that such non‐resident is a minor and a
Sec. 8. Time and notice of hearing. – When a petition for the appointment of a guardian is necessary or convenient, it may appoint a guardian over his property.
general guardian is filed, the court shall fix a time and place for its hearing, and
shall cause reasonable notice to be given to the persons mentioned in the Sec. 13. Service of final and executory judgment or order. – The final and
petition, including the minor if he is fourteen years of age or over, and may direct executory judgment or order shall be served upon the Local Civil Registrar of the
other general or special notice to be given. municipality or city where the minor resides and the Register of Deeds of the
place where his property or part thereof is situated shall annotate the same in
Sec. 9. Case study report. – The court shall order a social worker to conduct a case the corresponding title, and report to the court his compliance within fifteen days
study of the minor and all the prospective guardians and submit his report and from receipt of the order.
recommendation to the court for its guidance before the scheduled hearing. The
social worker may intervene on behalf of the minor if he finds that the petition Sec. 14. Bond of guardian; amount; conditions.‐Before he enters upon the
for guardianship should be denied. execution of his trust, or letters of guardianship issue, an appointed guardian
may be required to post a bond in such sum as the court shall determine and
Sec. 10. Opposition to petition. – Any interested person may contest the petition conditioned as follows:
by filing a written opposition based on such grounds as the majority of the minor
or the unsuitability of the person for whom letters are prayed, and pray that the (a) To make and return to the court, within three months after the issuance of his
petition be denied, or that letters of guardianship issue to himself, or to any letters of guardianship, a true and complete Inventory of all the property, real
suitable person named in the opposition.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 110

and personal, of his ward which shall come to his possession or knowledge or to The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding In which all
the possession or knowledge of any other person in his behalf; incidents and issues regarding the performance of the obligations of a general
guardian shall be heard and resolved.
(b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the
property according to this rule for the best interests of the ward, and to provide Sec. 17. General duties of guardian. – A guardian shall have the care and custody
for his proper care, custody and education; of the person of his ward and the management of his property, or only the
management of his property. The guardian of the property of a nonresident
(c) To render a true and Just account of all the property of the ward in his hands, minor shall have the management of all his property within the Philippines.
and of all proceeds or interest derived therefrom, and of the management and
disposition of the same, at the time designated by this rule and such other times A guardian shall perform the following duties:
as the court directs; and at the expiration of his trust, to settle his accounts with
the court and deliver and pay over all the property, effects, and monies (a) To pay the just debts of the ward out of the personal property and the income
remaining in his hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person of the real property of the ward, If the same is sufficient; otherwise, out of the
lawfully entitled thereto; and real property of the ward upon obtaining an order for its sale or encumbrance;

(d) To perform all orders of the court and such other duties as may be required by (b) To settle all accounts of his ward, and demand, sue for, receive all debts due
law. him, or may, with the approval of the court, compound for the same and give
discharges to the debtor on receiving a fair and just dividend of the property and
Sec. 15. Where to file the bond; action thereon. – The bond posted by a guardian effects; and to appear for and represent the ward in all actions and special
shall be filed in the Family Court and, In case of breach of any of its conditions, proceedings, unless another person is appointed for that purpose;
the guardian may be prosecuted in the same proceeding for the benefit of the
ward or of any other person legally interested in the property. (c) To manage the property of the ward frugally and without waste, and apply the
income and profits thereon, insofar as may be necessary, to the comfortable and
Whenever necessary, the court may require the guardian to post a new bond and suitable maintenance of the ward; and if such income and profits be insufficient
may discharge from further liability the sureties on the old bond after due notice for that purpose, to sell or encumber the real or personal property, upon being
to interested persons, if no injury may result therefrom to those interested in the authorized by the court to do so;
property.
(d) To consent to a partition of real or personal property owned by the ward
Sec. 16. Bond of parents as guardians of property of minor. – lf the market value jointly or in common with others upon authority granted by the court after
of the property or the annual Income of the child exceeds P50,000.00, the parent hearing, notice to relatives of the ward, and a careful investigation as to the
concerned shall furnish a bond In such amount as the court may determine, but necessity and propriety of the proposed action;
in no case less than ten per centurn of the value of such property or annual
income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general (e) To submit to the court a verified inventory of the property of his ward within
guardians. three months after his appointment, and annually thereafter, the rendition of
which may be required upon the application of an interested person;
A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be flied in the Family Court of
the place where the child resides or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in (f) To report to the court any property of the ward not included in the inventory
the Family Court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated. which is discovered, or succeeded to, or acquired by the ward within three
months after such discovery, succession, or acquisition; and

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 111

witnesses, and grant or deny the petition as the best interests of the ward may
(g) To render to the court for its approval an accounting of the property one year require.
from his appointment, and every year thereafter or as often as may be required.
Sec. 22. Contents of order for sale or encumbrance and its duration; bond. – If,
Sec. 18. Power and duty of the court – The court may: after full examination, it is necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, to sell
or encumber the property, or some portion of it, the court shall order such sale or
(a) Request the assistance of one or more commissioners in the appraisal of the encumbrance the proceeds of which shall be expended for the maintenance or
property of the ward reported in the initial and subsequent inventories; the education of the ward, or invested as the circumstances may require. The
order shall specify the grounds for the sale or encumbrance and may direct that
(b) Authorize reimbursement to the guardian, other than a parent, of reasonable the property ordered sold be disposed of at public sale, subject to such conditions
expenses incurred in the execution of his trust, and allow payment of as to the time and manner of payment, and security where a part of the payment
compensation for his services as the court may deem just, not exceeding ten per is deferred. The original bond of the guardian shall stand as security for the
centum of the net income of the ward, if any; otherwise, in such amount the proper appropriation of the proceeds of the sale or encumbrance, but the court
court determines to be a reasonable compensation for his services; and may, if deemed expedient, require an additional bond as a condition for the sale
or encumbrance. The authority to sell or encumber shall not extend beyond one
(c) Upon complaint of the guardian or ward, or of any person having actual or year, unless renewed by the court.
prospective interest in the property at the ward, require any person suspected of
having embezzled, concealed, or disposed of any money, goods or interest, or a Sec. 23. Court may order investment of proceeds and direct management of
written instrument belonging to the ward or his property to appear for property. – The court may authorize and require the guardian to invest the
examination concerning any thereof and issue such orders as would secure the proceeds of sales or encumbrances, and any other money of his ward in his
property against such embezzlement, concealment or conveyance. hands, in real or personal property, for the best interests of the ward, and may
make such other orders for the management, investment, and disposition of the
Sec. 19. Petition to sell or encumber property.‐When the income of a property property and effects, as circumstances may warrant.
under guardianship is insufficient to maintain and educate the ward, or when it is
for his benefit that his personal or real property or any part thereof be sold, Sec. 24. Grounds for removal or resignation of guardian. – When a guardian
mortgaged or otherwise encumbered, and the proceeds invested in safe and becomes insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or is found
productive security, or in the improvement or security of other real property, the thereafter to be unsuitable, or has wasted or mismanaged the property of the
guardian may file a verified petition setting forth such facts, and praying that an ward, or has failed to render an account or make a return for thirty days after it is
order issue authorizing the sale or encumbrance of the property. due, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him as such
and require him to surrender the property of the ward to the person found to be
Sec. 20. Order to show cause. – If the sale or encumbrance is necessary or would lawfully entitled thereto.
be beneficial to the ward, the court shall order his next of kin and all person/s
interested in the property to appear at a reasonable time and place therein The court may allow the guardian to resign for justifiable causes.
specified and show cause why the petition should not be granted.
Upon the removal or resignation of the guardian, the court shall appoint a new
Sec. 21. Hearing on return of order; costs. – At the time and place designated in one.
the order to show cause, the court shall hear the allegations and evidence of the
petitioner and next of kin, and other persons interested, together with their

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 112

No motion for removal or resignation shall be granted unless the guardian has
submitted the proper accounting of the property of the ward and the court has PARTIES INVOLVED IN AN EXPRESS TRUST
approved the same. 1. Trustor
2. Trustee
Sec. 25. Ground for termination of guardianship. – The court motu proprio or 3. Beneficiary
upon verified motion of any person allowed to file a petition for guardianship
may terminate the guardianship on the ground that the ward has come of age or FILING OF PETITION MAY BE DONE IN TESTATE ESTATE PROCEEDINGS
has died. The guardian shall notify the court of such fact within ten days of its  Where the appointment of a trustee is necessary to carry into effect the
occurrence. provisions of the will, as where the testator provided therein that certain
portions of his property be placed in trust
Sec. 26. Service of final and executory judgment or order. – The final and
executory judgment or order shall be served upon the Local Civil Registrar of the Section 2. Appointment and powers of trustees under will. Executor of former
municipality or city where the minor resides and the Register of Deeds of the trustee need not administer trust. □ If a testator has omitted in his will to appoint
province or city where his property or any part thereof is situated. Both the Local a trustee in the Philippines, and if such appointment is necessary to carry into
Civil Registrar and’ the Register of Deeds shall enter the final and executory effect the provisions of the will, the proper Court of First Instance may, after
judgment or order in the appropriate books in their offices. notice to all persons interested, appoint a trustee who shall have the same rights,
powers, and duties, and in whom the estate shall vest, as if he had been
Sec. 27. Effect of the rule. – This Rule amends Rules 92 to 97 inclusive of the Rules appointed by the testator. No person succeeding to a trust as executor or
of Court on guardianship of minors. Guardianship of incompetents who are not administrator of a former trustee shall be required to accept such trust.
minors shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of the regular courts and
governed by the Rules of Court. Section 3. Appointment and powers of new trustee under written instrument. □
When a trustee under a written instrument declines, resigns, dies or removed
Sec. 28. Effectivity. ‐ This Rule shall take effect on May 1, 2003 following its before the objects of the trust are accomplished, and no adequate provision is
publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than April 15, 2003. made in such instrument for supplying the vacancy, the proper Court of First
Instance may, after due notice to all persons interested, appoint a new trustee to
act alone or jointly with the others, as the case may be. Such new trustee shall
RULE 98
have and exercise the same powers, right, and duties as if he had been originally
TRUSTEES
appointed, and the trust estate shall vest in him in like manner as it had vested or
would have vested, in the trustee in whose place he is substituted and the court
Section 1. Where trustee appointed. □ A trustee necessary to carry into effect the may order such conveyance to be made by the former trustee or his
provisions of a will on written instrument shall be appointed by the Court of First representatives, or by the other remaining trustees, as may be necessary or
Instance in which the will was allowed, if it be a will allowed in the Philippines, proper to vest the trust estate in the new trustee, either or jointly with the
otherwise by the Court of First Instance of the province in which the property, or others.
some portion thereof, affected by the trust is situated.
Section 4. Proceedings where trustee appointed abroad. □ When land in the
APPLICABILITY OF RULES Philippines is held in trust for persons resident here by a trustee who derives his
 This rule applies only to express trusts as these are understood in the authority from without the Philippines, such trustee shall, on petition filed in the
Civil Code provisions and doesn’t apply to implied trusts which arise from Court of First Instance of the province where the land is situated, and after due
operation of law notice to all persons interested, be ordered to apply to the court for appointment

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 113

as trustee; and upon his neglect or refusal to comply with such order, the court to be returned by a trustee, the estate and effects belonging to the trust shall be
shall declare such trust vacant, and shall appoint a new trustee in whom the trust appraised and the court may order one or more inheritance tax appraisers to
estate shall vest in like manner as if he had been originally appointed by such assist in the appraisement. The compensation of the trustee shall be fixed by the
court. court, if it be not determined in the instrument creating the trust.

Section 5. Trustee must file bond. □ Before entering on the duties of his trust, a Section 8. Removal or resignation of trustee. □ The proper Court of First Instance
trustee shall file with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the trust a bond may, upon petition of the parties beneficially interested and after due notice to
in the amount fixed by the judge of said court, payable to the Government of the the trustee and hearing, remove a trustee if such removal appears essential in the
Philippines and sufficient and available for the protection of any party in interest, interest of the petitioner. The court may also, after due notice to all persons
and a trustee who neglects to file such bond shall be considered to have declined interested, remove a trustee who is insane or otherwise incapable of discharging
or resigned the trust; but the court may until further order exempt a trustee his trust or evidently unsuitable therefor. A trustee, whether appointed by the
under a will from giving a bond when the testator has directed or requested such court or under a written instrument, may resign his trust if it appears to the court
exemption and may so exempt any trustee when all persons beneficially proper to allow such resignation.
interested in the trust, being of full age, request the exemption. Such exemption
may be cancelled by the court at any time and the trustee required to forthwith Section 9. Proceedings for sale or encumbrance of trust estate. □ When the sale
file a bond. or encumbrance of any real or personal estate held in trust is necessary or
expedient, the court having jurisdiction of the trust may, on petition and after
Section 6. Conditions included in bond. □ The following conditions shall be due notice and hearing, order such sale or encumbrance to be made, and the re‐
deemed to be part of the bond whether written therein or not; investment and application of the proceeds thereof in such manner as will best
(a) That the trustee will make and return to the court, at such time as it may effect the objects of the trust. The petition, notice, hearing, order of sale or
order, a true inventory of all the real and personal estate belonging to him as encumbrance, and record of proceedings, shall conform as nearly as may be to
trustee, which at the time of the making of such inventory shall have come to his the provisions concerning the sale or imcumbrance by guardians of the property
possession or knowledge; of minors or other wards.
(b) That he will manage and dispose of all such estate, and faithfully discharge his
trust in relation thereto, according to law and the will of the testator or the EXEMPTION OF TRUSTEE FROM POSTING BOND
provisions of the instrument or order under which he is appointed;  Unlike an executor who must still post a bond notwithstanding
(c) That he will render upon oath at least once a year until his trust is fulfilled, exemption stated in will, the trustee is not mandated to post a bond if he
unless he is excused therefrom in any year by the court, a true account of the was exempted under the will
property in his hands and the management and disposition thereof, and will
render such other accounts as the court may order;
RULE 102
(d) That at the expiration of his trust he will settle his account in court and pay
HABEAS
over and deliver all the estate remaining in his hands, or due from him on such
CORPUS
settlement, to the person or persons entitled to thereto.
But when the trustee is appointed as a successor to a prior trustee, the court may Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. □ Except as otherwise expressly
dispense with the making and return of an inventory, if one has already been provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
filed, and in such case the condition of the bond shall be deemed to be altered confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
accordingly. which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto.
Section 7. Appraisal. Compensation of trustee. □ When an inventory is required

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 114

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by some person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
 Writ directed to the person detaining another and commanding him to (a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or
produce the body of the prisoner at a certain time and place, with the restrained on his liberty;
day and the cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and (b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained;
receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in or, if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by
that behalf an assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the writ shall be
deemed the person intended;
HABEAS CORPUS AS A REMEDY UNDER THE RULES (c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
 Remedy in all cases of illegal confinement or detention or where the (d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be
rightful custody of a person is withheld from one entitled to such custody procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment
 Actual or effective, not merely nominal or moral, restraint is required or restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear.
 However, actual physical restrained is not always required, any restraint
that will prejudice freedom of action is sufficient Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. □ If it appears that the
person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under
INSTANCES WHEN THE WRIT MAY LIKEWISE BE AVAILED OF process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court
1. There has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in a of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render
restraint of a person the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the
2. The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged
3. An excessive penalty has been imposed, such sentence being void as to by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Not
such excess shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged
with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering
WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR WRIT TO BE ISSUED IN CASE OF COURT JUDGMENT imprisonment under lawful judgment.
RESULTING TO ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY?
 Judgment no longer appealable, in which case the writ is in the nature of Section 5. When the writ must be granted and issued. □ A court or judge
a collateral attack against a final and void judgment authorized to grant the writ must, when a petition therefor is presented and it
 If the judgment is still appealable then the remedy of the person is to appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same forthwith, and immediately
duly appeal therefrom thereupon the clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court;
or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. □ The writ of habeas corpus may be granted may depute any officer or person to serve it.
by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law,
and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be Section 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require. □ In case of imprisonment
made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before a Court of or restraint by an officer, the writ shall be directed to him, and shall command
First Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits. It him to have the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or
may also be granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified. In case of
and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ shall be directed to
judicial district. an officer, and shall command him to take and have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ at the
Section 3. Requisites of application therefor. □ Application for the writ shall be by time and place therein specified, and to summon the person by whom he is
petition signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or restrained then and there to appear before said court or judge to show the cause

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 115

of the imprisonment or restraint. or judge;


(d) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has
Section 7. How prisoner designated and writ served. □ The person to be transferred such custody or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what
produced should be designated in the writ by his name, if known, but if his name time, for what cause, and by what authority such transfer was made.
is not known he may be otherwise described or identified. The writ may be
served in any province by the sheriff or other proper officer, or by a person Section 11. Return to be signed and sworn to. □ The return or statement shall be
deputed by the court or judge. Service of the writ shall be made by leaving the signed by the person who makes it; and shall also be sworn by him if the prisoner
original with the person to whom it is directed and preserving a copy on which to is not produced, and in all other cases unless the return is made and signed by a
make return or service. If that person cannot be found, or has not the prisoner in sworn public officer in his official capacity.
his custody, then the service shall be made on any other person having or
exercising such custody. Section 12. Hearing on return. Adjournments. □ When the writ is returned before
one judge, at a time when the court is in session, he may forthwith adjourn the
Section 8. How writ executed and returned. □ The officer to whom the writ is case into the court, there to be heard and determined. The court or judge before
directed shall convey the person so imprisoned or restrained, and named in the whom the writ is returned or adjourned must immediately proceed to hear and
writ, before the judge allowing the writ, or in case of his absence or disability, examine the return, and such other matters as are properly submitted for
before some other judge of the same court, on the day specified in the writ, consideration, unless for good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in which
unless, from sickness or infirmity of the person directed to be produced, such event the court or judge shall make such order for the safekeeping of the person
person cannot, without danger, be bought before the court or judge; and the imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the case requires. If the person
officer shall make due return of the writ, together with the day and the cause of imprisoned or restrained is not produced because of his alleged sickness or
the caption and restraint of such person according to the command thereof. infirmity, the court or judge must be satisfied that it is so grave that such person
cannot be produced without danger, before proceeding to hear and dispose of
Section 9. Defect of form. □ No writ of habeas corpus can be disobeyed for defect the matter. On the hearing the court or judge shall disregard matters of form and
of form, if it sufficiently appears therefrom in whose custody or under whose technicalities in respect to any warrant or order of commitment of a court or
restraint the party imprisoned or restrained is held and the court or judge before officer authorized to commit by law.
whom he is to be bought.
Section 13. When the return evidence, and when only a plea. □ If it appears that
Section 10. Contents of return. □ When the person to be produced is imprisoned the prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law,
or restrained by an officer, the person who makes the return shall state therein, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint, but
and in other cases the person in whose custody the prisoner is found shall state, if he is restrained of his liberty by any alleged private authority, the return shall
in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable, plainly and be considered only as a plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming
unequivocably: the custody must prove such facts.
(a) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under
restraint; Section 14. When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail.
(b) If he has the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, the authority □ If it appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly and
and the true and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, specifically charged in the warrant of commitment with an offense punishable by
order execution, or other process, if any, upon which the party is held; death, he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed. If he is lawfully imprisoned
(c) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by him, and is not or restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not so punishable, he
produced, particularly the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such may be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of the
party by reason of which he cannot, without danger, be bought before the court court or judge. If he be admitted to bail, he shall forthwith file a bond in such sum

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 116

as the court or judge deems reasonable, considering the circumstances of the process, or the prisoner be delivered to an inferior officer to carry to jail, or, by
prisoner and the nature of the offense charged, conditioned for his appearance order of the proper court or judge, be removed from one place to another within
before the court where the offense is properly cognizable to abide its order of the Philippines for trial, or in case of fire epidemic, insurrection, or other
judgment; and the court or judge shall certify the proceedings, together with the necessity or public calamity; and a person who, after such commitment, makes
bond, forthwith to the proper court. If such bond is not so filed, the prisoner shall signs, or counter‐signs any order for such removal contrary to this section, shall
be recommitted to confinement. forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in
a proper action.
Section 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal. □ When the court or judge
has examined into the cause of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is Section 19. Record of writ, fees and costs. □ The proceedings upon a writ of
satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall forthwith order habeas corpus shall be recorded by the clerk of the court, and upon the final
his discharge from confinement, but such discharge shall not be effective until a disposition of such proceedings the court or judge shall make such order as to
copy of the order has been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. costs as the case requires. The fees of officers and witnesses shall be included in
If the officer or person detaining the prisoner does not desire to appeal, the the costs taxed, but no officer or person shall have the right to demand payment
prisoner shall be forthwith released. in advance of any fees to which he is entitled by virtue of the proceedings. When
a person confined under color of proceedings in a criminal case is discharged, the
Section 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying the same. □ A costs shall be taxed against the Republic of the Philippines, and paid out of its
clerk of a court who refuses to issue the writ after allowance thereof and demand Treasury; when a person in custody by virtue or under color of proceedings in a
therefor, or a person to whom a writ is directed, who neglects or refuses to obey civil case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against him, or against the person
or make return of the same according to the command thereof, or makes false who signed the application for the writ, or both, as the court shall direct.
return thereof, or who, upon demand made by or on behalf of the prisoner,
refuses to deliver to the person demanding, within six (6) hours after the demand
A.M. No.
therefor, a true copy of the warrant or order of commitment, shall forfeit to the
07‐9‐12‐SC WRIT
party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recorded in a proper
OF AMPARO
action, and may also be punished by the court or judge as for contempt.
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to
Section 17. Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. □ A person who is set any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
at liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
same offense unless by the lawful order or process of a court having jurisdiction private individual or entity.
of the cause or offense; and a person who knowingly, contrary to the provisions
of this rule, recommits or imprisons, or causes to be committed or imprisoned, The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
for the same offense, or pretended offense, any person so set at liberty, or thereof.
knowingly aids or assists therein, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of
one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper action, notwithstanding any SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any
colorable pretense or variation in the warrant of commitment, and may also be qualified person or entity in the following order:
punished by the court or judge granting the writ as for contempt. 1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and
parents of the aggrieved party;
Section 18. When prisoner may be removed from one custody to another. □ A 2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
person committed to prison, or in custody of an officer, for any criminal matter, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
shall not be removed therefrom into the custody of another unless by legal those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 117

3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is 3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
party. respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other 4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals,
an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any
others, observing the order established herein. report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court 6. The relief prayed for.
of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or
returnable before such court or judge. judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to
issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable
before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who
Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to
place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
occurred. without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a
the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall
judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately. retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be
served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall
allege the following: SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy‐two (72) hours after service of the writ,
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner; the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, 1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation; threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 118

aggrieved party, through any act or omission; 7. Reply;


2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or 8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons 9. Intervention;
responsible for the threat, act or omission; 10. Memorandum;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining 11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and orders; and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall 12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken: interlocutory order.
a. To verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
b. To recover and preserve evidence related to the death or SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
responsible; SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
c. To identify witnesses and obtain statements from them However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
concerning the death or disappearance; simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
d. To determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or admissions from the parties.
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death or disappearance; The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority
e. To identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the as petitions for habeas corpus.
death or disappearance; and
f. To bring the suspected offenders before a competent court. SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its
resolution and the prosecution of the case. (a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an
accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised in safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in
the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived. Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.

SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall
are prohibited: extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
1. Motion to dismiss; member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, issue.
position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement; The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and
4. Motion for a bill of particulars; conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
5. Counterclaim or cross‐claim;
6. Third‐party complaint; (b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 119

due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a designated land
or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government
surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and
thereon. securing their safety.

The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion of
supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the respondent and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an
the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. inspection order or production order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the
preceding section.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged
nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the
respondent.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the
right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court to be
inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.
The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless extended SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall
for justifiable reasons. establish their claims by substantial evidence.

(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary
due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of any diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or the performance of duty.
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. observed in the performance of duty.

The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge may official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the
constitutional rights of all the parties. time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are
proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be
proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to denied.
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 6981. SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 120

Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or
both. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment. SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause
such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving
lives. extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the
trial and appellate courts.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that
shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready CERTIORARI, HABEAS AMPARO HABEAS DATA
for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon PROHIBITION, CORPUS
failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the MANDAMUS
petitioner of the order archiving the case. WEIGHT OF Preponderanc Preponderanc Substantial Preponderanc
EVIDENCE e of evidence e of evidence evidence e of evidence
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a BURDEN OF Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner and
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of PROOF and respondent
January of every year. respondent
DISMISSAL OF If failed If failed Not If failed
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of PETITION burden of burden of dismissed, burden of
separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. proof proof archived proof
DILIGENCE Ordinary Ordinary If public Ordinary
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been REQUIRED respondent,
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the extraordinar
writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case. y
GENERAL OK OK Not allowed Not allowed
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available DENIAL
under the writ of amparo. PRESUMPTIO Yes Yes No Yes
N OF
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of REGULARITY
a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
RIGHTS Constitutional Right to Right to life, Right to
PROTECTED and statutory liberty liberty, and privacy in life,
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
rights security liberty, and
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal security
action.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 121

DOCKET FEES Yes Yes No Yes 2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
A. M. No. 08‐1‐16‐SC
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court
where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over
SECTION 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened option of the petitioner.
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government
aggrieved party. offices.

WHAT IS THE WRIT FOR HABEAS DATA? SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. When the writ is issued by a Regional
 Remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or Trial Court or any judge thereof, it shall be returnable before such court or judge.
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices,
the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
WHAT RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED BY THIS WRIT? collected or stored.
 Right to privacy in life, liberty, or security
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable
ILLUSTRATION: MAY A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DATA BE FILED AGAINST before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Court of Appeals or the
SWS? Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place
 With respect to being a respondent, SWS as an entity may be a where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over
respondent—it is engaged in the gathering, collecting and storing of data the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored.
or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence
 With respect to the acts conducted of SWS, if the same are unlawful in The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
nature, then it may be made a respondent to the petition for the
issuance of writ of habeas data Sec. 5. Docket Fees. No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an
indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docked and acted upon
SEC. 2. Who May File. Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency
habeas data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition.
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
1. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: SEC. 6. Petition. A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should
the spouse, children and parents; or contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 122

(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it (a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party; communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or and others;
information; (b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, or information subject of the petition;
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or (i) A disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner,
information, if known; the nature of such data or information, and the purpose
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, for its collection;
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept (ii) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the
by the respondent. security and confidentiality of the data or information;
and,
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining (iii) The currency and accuracy of the data or information held;
the act complained of; and and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or
judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to SEC. 11. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may punish with imprisonment or
issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause fine a respondent who commits contempt by making a false return, or refusing to
it to be served within three (3) days from the issuance; or, in case of urgent make a return; or any person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process
necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and or order of the court.
may deputize any officer or person serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. A hearing in chambers may
which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its issuance. be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the
data or information in question shall compromise national security or state
SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to
refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to its nature or privileged character.
serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions. Sec. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions
are prohibited:
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a 1. Motion to dismiss;
judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall 2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be position paper and other pleadings;
served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply. 3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
SEC. 10. Return; Contents. The respondent shall file a verified written return 5. Counterclaim or cross‐claim;
together with supporting affidavits within five (5) working days from service of 6. Third‐party complaint;
the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable 7. Reply;
reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the following: 8. Motion to declare respondent in default;

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 123

9. Intervention; SEC. 18. Hearing on Officer?s Return. The court shall set the return for hearing
10. Memorandum; with due notice to the parties and act accordingly.
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or
interlocutory order. both.

SEC. 14. Return; Filing. In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the
justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the judgment or final order.
petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion
requires the petitioner to submit evidence. The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus and amparo
cases.
SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. The filing of a petition for the writ of
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and habeas data shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
admissions from the parties. administrative actions.

SEC. 16. Judgment. ‐ The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from SEC. 21. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of
the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained of,
or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the
otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied. criminal action.

Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the
officers as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) working disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
days.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been
SEC. 17. Return of Service. The officer who executed the final judgment shall, commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief under the
within three (3) days from its enforcement, make a verified return to the court. writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the criminal case.
The return shall contain a full statement of the proceedings under the writ and a
complete inventory of the database or information, or documents and articles The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available
inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copies served on the petitioner under the writ of habeas data.
and the respondent.
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. ‐ This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was enforced and complied substantive rights.
with by the respondent, as well as all objections of the parties regarding the
manner and regularity of the service of the writ. SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall
apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 124

3. The name asked for.


SEC. 25. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008, following its
publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation. POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR CHANGE OF NAME
1. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write
or pronounce
RULE 103
2. When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation
CHANGE OF NAME
3. When the change will avoid confusion
4. Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino
Section 1. Venue. A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition name, unaware of alien parentage
to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of 5. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino to erase signs of foreign alienage, all
Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. in good faith and without prejudicing anybody

RULE 103 AND 108 DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER CHANGE OF NAME SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED
 Rule 103 and 108 differ from one another—they involve different  Would not be permitted if it would give a false impression of family
allegations, issues to be threshed out, and the reliefs being asked of relationship to another
 If the reliefs of both the rules are prayed for, then the requirements of  It will be allowed however if it wouldn’t cause prejudice to the family
both should be satisfied before such shall be granted whose surname it is

CHANGE OF NAME CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DECIDED ON Section 3. Order for hearing. If the petition filed is sufficient in form and
 The change of name of a person as recorded in the registry cannot be substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a
effected through summary proceedings as provided for in Article 412, date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order
which refers only to the correction of clerical errors and not those which be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive
will involve substantial change weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the
court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30)
ALIEN MAY PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME days prior to an election nor within four (4) month after the last publication of
 He may if he is domiciled in the Philippines the notice.

NAME THAT APPEARS IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME IS A PROCEEDING IN REM
 The name that can be changed under this rule  The publication requirement is a jurisdictional requirement
 Not the name reflected in the baptismal certificate or that by which the  To be valid and to confer jurisdiction upon the court, such publication
person is known in the community must give the proper information

Section 2. Contents of petition. A petition for change of name shall be signed and Section 4. Hearing. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose
verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall
behalf, and shall set forth: appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.
1. That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where
the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such Section 5. Judgment. Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in
filing; the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations
2. The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought; of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 125

for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in
accordance with the prayer of the petition. SUMMARY OR ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING
 Even substantial errors in a civil register may be corrected provided that
Section 6. Service of judgment. Judgments or orders rendered in connection with the aggrieved parties avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the proceeding; and that the proceeding under Rule 108 ceases to be
court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil summary in nature and takes the character of an appropriate adversary
register. proceeding when all the procedural requirements therein are complied
with
 If the petition filed under Rule 108 is merely to correct obvious clerical
RULE 108
errors the court may conduct a summary proceeding and issue an order
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY
for the correction of that mistake

Section 1. Who may file petition. ¾ Any person interested in any act, event, order Section 3. Parties. ¾ When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the proceeding.
corresponding civil registry is located.
Section 4. Notice and publication. ¾ Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall,
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. ¾ Upon good and valid by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause
grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The
(a) births: (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural
children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil Section 5. Opposition. ¾ The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any
interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within
a minor; and (o) changes of name. fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication
of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
CHANGES IN DETAILS OF CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY NOT ALLOWED Section 6. Expediting proceedings. ¾ The court in which the proceeding is brought
 While birth is mentioned as one of the entries that may be corrected, this may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary
referred only to such particulars as are attendant to birth excluding injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
citizenship and nationality proceedings.
 Citizenship details that may be changed—election, loss or recovery
Section 7. Order. ¾ After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN MAY USE THEIR FATHER’S SURNAME issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a
 RA 9255 allows illegitimate children to use the surname of their fathers if certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned
their filiation has been expressly recognized by him through the record of who shall annotated the same in his record.
birth in the civil register, or by an admission in the public instrument
made by the father, provided that he had the right to institute an action
in court to prove non‐filiation during his lifetime REPUBLIC ACT No. 6085

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 126

private document without stating or affixing his real or original name and all
AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY‐
names or aliases or pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to use."
TWO REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES
Section 1. Section one of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty‐two Section 4. Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty‐two is hereby
is hereby amended to read as follows: amended by the insertion of the following new section to be designated Section
"Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or four to read as follows:
other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of "Sec. 4. Six months from the approval of this act and subject to the provisions of
pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name section 1 hereof, all persons who have used any name and/or names and alias or
different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the aliases different from those authorized in section one of this act and duly
local civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time, or, in case of recorded in the local civil registry, shall be prohibited to use such other name or
an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; names and/or alias or aliases."
or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court:
Provided, That persons, whose births have not been registered in any local civil Section 5. Section four of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty‐two
registry and who have not been baptized, have one year from the approval of this is hereby amended to read as Section five, as follows:
act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The "Sec. 5. Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of from
name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames." one year to five years and a fine of P5,000 to P10,000."

Section 2. Section Two of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty‐two Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval, and all Acts, rules or
is hereby amended to read as follows: regulations of laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
"Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in
proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RA 9048 AND RULE 108
name, and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more RA 9048 RULE 108
than one alias. The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's baptismal and Administrative proceeding Summary proceeding
family name and the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his
immigrant's name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names other Affidavit is filed Petition is filed
than his original or real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the use of the
desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of alias the Christian name and the Penalty clause No penalty clause
alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no
person shall use any name or names other, than his original or real name unless Publication requirement: once a week Publication requirement: once a week
the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry." for 2 consecutive weeks for three consecutive weeks

Section 3. Section three of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty‐ Posting in conspicuous place No posting
two, is hereby amended to read as Follows:
"Sec. 3. No person having been baptized with a name different from that with Change of name is based on 3 Change of name is to correct clerical
which he was registered at birth in the local civil registry, or in case of an alien, enumerated ground and/or innocuous errors
registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained
judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym, shall represent
himself in any public or private transaction or shall sign or execute any public or RULE 101

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 127

file the proper petition with the Court of First Instance which ordered the
PROCEEDINGS FOR HOSPITALIZATION OF INSANE PERSONS
commitment.

Section 1. Venue, Petition for commitment. A petition for the commitment of a Section 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding. It shall be the duty of the
person to a hospital or other place for the insane may be filed with the Court of provincial fiscal or in the City of Manila the fiscal of the city, to prepare the
First Instance of the province where the person alleged to be insane is found. The petition for the Director of Health and represent him in court in all proceedings
petition shall be filed by the Director of Health in all cases where, in his opinion, arising under the provisions of this rule.
such commitment is for the public welfare, or for the welfare of said person who,
in his judgment, is insane and such person or the one having charge of him is NOTES:
opposed to his being taken to a hospital or other place for the insane. 1. Where the insane person was judicially commited to the hospital or
asylum, the Director of Health may not order his release without prior
WHO MAY FILE PETITION? court approval
 May be filed by the person who has custody or having charge of said 2. Likewise, the court may not order his release without the
insane person recommendation of the Director
 If he refuses to do so and where it is required for the welfare of the
insane person or the public, the petition shall be filed by the Director of
RULE ON ADOPTION
Health or the present authorized officer

Section 2. Order for hearing. If the petition filed is sufficient in form and A. DOMESTIC ADOPTION
substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a
date for the hearing thereof, and copy of such order shall be served on the person Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. □ This Rule covers the domestic adoption of
alleged to be insane, and to the one having charge him, or on such of his relatives Filipino children.
residing in the province or city as the judge may deem proper. The court shall
furthermore order the sheriff to produce the alleged insane person, if possible, Section 2. Objectives. □ (a) The best interests of the child shall be the paramount
on the date of the hearing. consideration in all matters relating to his care, custody and adoption, in
accordance with Philippine laws, the United Nations (UN) Convention on the
Section 3. Hearing and judgment. Upon satisfactory proof, in open court on the Rights of the Child, UN Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the
date fixed in the order, that the commitment applied for is for the public welfare Protection and Welfare of Children with Special Reference to Foster Placement
or for the welfare of the insane person, and that his relatives are unable for any and Adoption, Nationally and Internationally, and the Hague Convention on the
reason to take proper custody and care of him, the court shall order his Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter‐country Adoption.
commitment to such hospital or other place for the insane as may be
recommended by the Director of Health. The court shall make proper provisions (b) The State shall provide alternative protection and assistance through foster
for the custody of property or money belonging to the insane until a guardian be care or adoption for every child who is a foundling, neglected, orphaned, or
properly appointed. abandoned. To this end, the State shall:

Section 4. Discharge of insane. When, in the opinion of the Director of Health, the 1. Ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of his
person ordered to be committed to a hospital or other place for the insane is parents and is provided with love, care, understanding and security for
temporarily or permanently cured, or may be released without danger he may the full and harmonious development of his personality. Only when
such efforts prove insufficient and no appropriate placement or

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 128

adoption within the child□s extended family is available shall adoption at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for
by an unrelated person be considered. adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is
2. Safeguard the biological parents from making hasty decisions in entered, that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office
relinquishing their parental authority over their child; or any appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to
3. Prevent the child from unnecessary separation from his biological adopt in his country, and that his government allows the adoptee to
parents; enter his country as his adopted child. Provided, further, That the
4. Conduct public information and educational campaigns to promote a requirements on residency and certification of the alien□s qualification
positive environment for adoption; to adopt in his country may be waived for the following:
5. Ensure that government and private sector agencies have the capacity
to handle adoption inquiries, process domestic adoption applications (i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within
and offer adoption‐related services including, but not limited to, parent the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
preparation and post‐adoption education and counseling; (ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino
6. Encourage domestic adoption so as to preserve the child’s identity and spouse; or
culture in his native land, and only when this is not available shall inter‐ (iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
country adoption be considered as a last resort; and jointly with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)
7. Protect adoptive parents from attempts to disturb their parental degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.
authority and custody over their adopted child.
(3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the
Any voluntary or involuntary termination of parental authority shall be guardianship and clearance of his financial accountabilities.
administratively or judicially declared so as to establish the status of the child as
legally available for adoption□ and his custody transferred to the Department of Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
Social Welfare and Development or to any duly licensed and accredited child‐ 1. if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by the
placing or child‐caring agency, which entity shall be authorized to take steps for other spouse; or
the permanent placement of the child. 2. if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his consent thereto; or
Section 4. Who may adopt. □ The following may adopt: 3. if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
(1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and
legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the illegitimate child
crime involving moral turpitude; who is emotionally and psychologically of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the
adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children in Section 5. Who may be adopted. □ The following may be adopted:
keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of a 16‐year 1. Any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been voluntarily
difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived committed to the Department under Articles 154, 155 and 156 of P.D.
when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the No. 603 or judicially declared available for adoption;
spouse of the adoptee□s parent; 2. The legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse;
3. An illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the
(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above‐stated for Filipino former to that of legitimacy;
nationals: Provided, That his country has diplomatic relations with the 4. A person of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the adoption,
Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the Philippines for said person has been consistently considered and treated by the

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 129

adopters as their own child since minority; The requirements of certification of the alien□s qualification to adopt in his
5. A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or country and of residency may be waived if the alien:
6. A child whose biological or adoptive parents have died: Provided, That (i) is a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth
no proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the time of degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
death of said parents. (ii) seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
7. A child not otherwise disqualified by law or these rules. (iii) is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
Section 6. Venue. □ The petition for adoption shall be filed with the Family Court spouse.
of the province or city where the prospective adoptive parents reside.
3) If the adopter is the legal guardian of the adoptee, the petition shall allege that
Section 7. Contents of the Petition. □ The petition shall be verified and guardianship had been terminated and the guardian had cleared his financial
specifically state at the heading of the initiatory pleading whether the petition accountabilities.
contains an application for change of name, rectification of simulated birth,
voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, or declaration of child as 4) If the adopter is married, the spouse shall be a co‐petitioner for joint adoption
abandoned, dependent or neglected. except if:
(a) one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other, or
1) If the adopter is a Filipino citizen, the petition shall allege the following: (b) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child and the other spouse
(a) The jurisdictional facts; signified written consent thereto, or
(b) That the petitioner is of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal (c) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
rights; is of good moral character; has not been convicted of any crime involving
moral turpitude; is emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children; 5) If the adoptee is a foundling, the petition shall allege the entries which should
is at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, unless the adopter is the appear in his birth certificate, such as name of child, date of birth, place of birth,
biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the adoptee□s parent; and is if known; sex, name and citizenship of adoptive mother and father, and the date
in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the means of the and place of their marriage.
family and has undergone pre‐adoption services as required by Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 8552. 6) If the petition prays for a change of name, it shall also state the cause or
reason for the change of name.
2) If the adopter is an alien, the petition shall allege the following:
(a) The jurisdictional facts; In all petitions, it shall be alleged:
(b) Sub‐paragraph 1(b) above; (a) The first name, surname or names, age and residence of the adoptee as
(c) That his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines; shown by his record of birth, baptismal or foundling certificate and school
(d) That he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any records.
appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in his country (b) That the adoptee is not disqualified by law to be adopted.
and his government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child (c) The probable value and character of the estate of the adoptee.
and reside there permanently as an adopted child; and (d) The first name, surname or names by which the adoptee is to be known and
(e) That he has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous registered in the Civil Registry.
years prior to the filing of the petition and he maintains such residence until the
adoption decree is entered. A certification of non‐forum shopping shall be included pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 130

3. The legitimate and adopted children of the adopter and of the adoptee, if any,
Section 8. Rectification of Simulated Birth. □ In case the petition also seeks who are ten (10) years of age or over;
rectification of a simulated of birth, it shall allege that: 4. The illegitimate children of the adopter living with him who are ten (10) years
(a) Petitioner is applying for rectification of a simulated birth; of age or over; and
(b) The simulation of birth was made prior to the date of effectivity of Republic 5. The spouse, if any, of the adopter or adoptee.
Act No. 8552 and the application for rectification of the birth registration and the
petition for adoption were filed within five years from said date; C. Child study report on the adoptee and his biological parents;
(c) The petitioner made the simulation of birth for the best interests of the
adoptee; and D. If the petitioner is an alien, certification by his diplomatic or consular office or
(d) The adoptee has been consistently considered and treated by petitioner as his any appropriate government agency that he has the legal capacity to adopt in his
own child. country and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his
own adopted child unless exempted under Section 4(2);
Section 9. Adoption of a foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected child.
□ In case the adoptee is a foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected E. Home study report on the adopters. If the adopter is an alien or residing
child, the petition shall allege: abroad but qualified to adopt, the home study report by a foreign adoption
(a) The facts showing that the child is a foundling, abandoned, dependent or agency duly accredited by the Inter‐Country Adoption Board; and
neglected;
(b) The names of the parents, if known, and their residence. If the child has no F. Decree of annulment, nullity or legal separation of the adopter as well as that
known or living parents, then the name and residence of the guardian, if any; of the biological parents of the adoptee, if any.
(c) The name of the duly licensed child‐placement agency or individual under
whose care the child is in custody; and Section 12. Order of Hearing. □ If the petition and attachments are sufficient in
(d) That the Department, child‐placement or child‐caring agency is authorized to form and substance, the court shall issue an order which shall contain the
give its consent. following:
1. The registered name of the adoptee in the birth certificate and the
Section 10. Change of name. □ In case the petition also prays for change of name, names by which the adoptee has been known which shall be stated in
the title or caption must contain: the caption;
(a) The registered name of the child; 2. The purpose of the petition;
(b) Aliases or other names by which the child has been known; and 3. The complete name which the adoptee will use if the petition is
(c) The full name by which the child is to be known. granted;
4. The date and place of hearing which shall be set within six (6) months
Section 11. Annexes to the Petition. □ The following documents shall be attached from the date of the issuance of the order and shall direct that a copy
to the petition: thereof be published before the date of hearing at least once a week for
A. Birth, baptismal or foundling certificate, as the case may be, and school three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
records showing the name, age and residence of the adoptee; province or city where the court is situated; provided, that in case of
B. Affidavit of consent of the following: application for change of name, the date set for hearing shall not be
1. The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over; within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice nor within
2. The biological parents of the child, if known, or the legal guardian, or the child‐ thirty (30) days prior to an election.
placement agency, child‐caring agency, or the proper government instrumentality
which has legal custody of the child; The newspaper shall be selected by raffle under the supervision of the Executive

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 131

Judge.
Section 14. Hearing. □ Upon satisfactory proof that the order of hearing has been
5. A directive to the social worker of the court, the social service office of published and jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, the court
the local government unit or any child‐placing or child‐caring agency, or shall proceed to hear the petition. The petitioner and the adoptee must
the Department to prepare and submit child and home study reports personally appear and the former must testify before the presiding judge of the
before the hearing if such reports had not been attached to the petition court on the date set for hearing.
due to unavailability at the time of the filing of the latter; and
The court shall verify from the social worker and determine whether the
6. A directive to the social worker of the court to conduct counseling biological parent has been properly counseled against making hasty decisions
sessions with the biological parents on the matter of adoption of the caused by strain or anxiety to give up the child; ensure that all measures to
adoptee and submit her report before the date of hearing. strengthen the family have been exhausted; and ascertain if any prolonged stay
of the child in his own home will be inimical to his welfare and interest.
At the discretion of the court, copies of the order of hearing shall also be
furnished the Office of the Solicitor General through the provincial or city Section 15. Supervised Trial Custody. □ Before issuance of the decree of adoption,
prosecutor, the Department and the biological parents of the adoptee, if known. the court shall give the adopter trial custody of the adoptee for a period of at
least six (6) months within which the parties are expected to adjust
If a change in the name of the adoptee is prayed for in the petition, notice to the psychologically and emotionally to each other and establish a bonding
Solicitor General shall be mandatory. relationship. The trial custody shall be monitored by the social worker of the
court, the Department, or the social service of the local government unit, or the
Section 13. Child and Home Study Reports. □ In preparing the child study report child‐placement or child‐caring agency which submitted and prepared the case
on the adoptee, the concerned social worker shall verify with the Civil Registry studies. During said period, temporary parental authority shall be vested in the
the real identity and registered name of the adoptee. If the birth of the adoptee adopter.
was not registered with the Civil Registry, it shall be the responsibility of the
social worker to register the adoptee and secure a certificate of foundling or late The court may, motu proprio or upon motion of any party, reduce the period or
registration, as the case may be. exempt the parties if it finds that the same shall be for the best interests of the
adoptee, stating the reasons therefor.
The social worker shall establish that the child is legally available for adoption
and the documents in support thereof are valid and authentic, that the adopter An alien adopter however must complete the 6‐month trial custody except the
has sincere intentions and that the adoption shall inure to the best interests of following:
the child. 1. A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth
(4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
In case the adopter is an alien, the home study report must show the legal 2. One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
capacity to adopt and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his 3. One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
country as his adopted child in the absence of the certification required under his or her spouse the latter□s relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8552. consanguinity or affinity.

If after the conduct of the case studies, the social worker finds that there are If the child is below seven (7) years of age and is placed with the prospective
grounds to deny the petition, he shall make the proper recommendation to the adopter through a pre‐adoption placement authority issued by the Department,
court, furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner. the court shall order that the prospective adopter shall enjoy all the benefits to

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 132

which the biological parent is entitled from the date the adoptee is placed with
him. If the adoptee is a foundling, the court shall order the Civil Registrar where the
foundling was registered, to annotate the decree of adoption on the foundling
The social worker shall submit to the court a report on the result of the trial certificate and a new birth certificate shall be ordered prepared by the Civil
custody within two weeks after its termination. Registrar in accordance with the decree.

Section 16. Decree of Adoption. □ If the supervised trial custody is satisfactory to Section 17. Book of Adoptions. □ The Clerk of Court shall keep a book of
the parties and the court is convinced from the trial custody report and the adoptions showing the date of issuance of the decree in each case, compliance by
evidence adduced that the adoption shall redound to the best interests of the the Civil Registrar with Section 16(B)(3) and all incidents arising after the issuance
adoptee, a decree of adoption shall be issued which shall take effect as of the of the decree.
date the original petition was filed even if the petitioners die before its issuance.
Section 18. Confidential Nature of Proceedings and Records. □ All hearings in
The decree shall: adoption cases, after compliance with the jurisdictional requirements shall be
A. State the name by which the child is to be known and registered; confidential and shall not be open to the public. All records, books and papers
B. Order: relating to the adoption cases in the files of the court, the Department, or any
1. The Clerk of Court to issue to the adopter a certificate of finality upon other agency or institution participating in the adoption proceedings shall be kept
expiration of the 15‐day reglementary period within which to appeal; strictly confidential.
2. The adopter to submit a certified true copy of the decree of adoption
and the certificate of finality to the Civil Registrar where the child was If the court finds that the disclosure of the information to a third person is
originally registered within thirty (30) days from receipt of the necessary for security reasons or for purposes connected with or arising out of
certificate of finality. In case of change of name, the decree shall be the adoption and will be for the best interests of the adoptee, the court may,
submitted to the Civil Registrar where the court issuing the same is upon proper motion, order the necessary information to be released, restricting
situated. the purposes for which it may be used.
3. The Civil Registrar of the place where the adoptee was registered:
a. To annotate on the adoptee□s original certificate of birth the Section 19. Rescission of Adoption of the Adoptee. □ The petition shall be verified
decree of adoption within thirty (30) days from receipt of the and filed by the adoptee who is over eighteen (18) years of age, or with the
certificate of finality; assistance of the Department, if he is a minor, or if he is over eighteen (18) years
b. To issue a certificate of birth which shall not bear any notation of age but is incapacitated, by his guardian or counsel.
that it is a new or amended certificate and which shall show,
among others, the following: registry number, date of The adoption may be rescinded based on any of the following grounds committed
registration, name of child, sex, date of birth, place of birth, by the adopter:
name and citizenship of adoptive mother and father, and the 1. Repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter despite
date and place of their marriage, when applicable; having undergone counseling;
c. To seal the original certificate of birth in the civil registry 2. Attempt on the life of the adoptee;
records which can be opened only upon order of the court 3. Sexual assault or violence; or
which issued the decree of adoption; and 4. Abandonment or failure to comply with parental obligations.
d. To submit to the court issuing the decree of adoption proof of
compliance with all the foregoing within thirty days from Adoption, being in the best interests of the child, shall not be subject to rescission
receipt of the decree. by the adopter. However, the adopter may disinherit the adoptee for causes

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 133

provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.


Section 24. Service of Judgment. □ A certified true copy of the judgment together
MAY THE ADOPTER RESCIND THE ADOPTION? with a certificate of finality issued by the Branch Clerk of the Court which
 No rendered the decision in accordance with the preceding Section shall be served
 But he may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided for by the Civil by the petitioner upon the Civil Registrar concerned within thirty (30) days from
Code receipt of the certificate of finality. The Civil Registrar shall forthwith enter the
rescission decree in the register and submit proof of compliance to the court
Section 20. Venue. The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the city or issuing the decree and the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of
province where the adoptee resides. the decree.

Section 21. Time within which to file petition. The adoptee, if incapacitated, must The Clerk of Court shall enter the compliance in accordance with Section 17
file the petition for rescission or revocation of adoption within five (5) years after hereof.
he reaches the age of majority, or if he was incompetent at the time of the
adoption, within five (5) years after recovery from such incompetency. Section 25. Repeal. ‐ This supersedes Rule 99 on Adoption and Rule 100 of the
Rules of Court.
Section 22. Order to Answer. The court shall issue an order requiring the adverse
party to answer the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy EFFECTS OF ADOPTION
thereof. The order and copy of the petition shall be served on the adverse party 1. The adopter shall have parental authority over the adopted child
in such manner as the court may direct. 2. Adopted shall be considered as legitimate child of the adopter and shall
be only considered directly related to the adopted
Section 23. Judgment. □ If the court finds that the allegations of the petition are
true, it shall render judgment ordering the rescission of adoption, with or without B. INTER‐COUNTRY ADOPTION
costs, as justice requires.
Section 26. Applicability. □ The following sections apply to inter‐country
The court shall order that the parental authority of the biological parent of the adoption of Filipino children by foreign nationals and Filipino citizens
adoptee, if known, or the legal custody of the Department shall be restored if the permanently residing abroad.
adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated and declare that the reciprocal rights and
obligations of the adopter and the adoptee to each other shall be extinguished. Section 27. Objectives. □ The State shall:
a. Consider inter‐country adoption as an alternative means of child care, if
The court shall further declare that successional rights shall revert to its status the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot, in
prior to adoption, as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission. Vested rights any suitable manner, be cared for in the Philippines;
acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected. b. Ensure that the child subject of inter‐country adoption enjoys the same
protection accorded to children in domestic adoption; and
It shall also order the adoptee to use the name stated in his original birth or c. Take all measures to ensure that the placement arising therefrom does
foundling certificate. not result in improper financial gain for those involved.

The court shall further order the Civil Registrar where the adoption decree was Section 28. Where to File Petition. □ A verified petition to adopt a Filipino child
registered to cancel the new birth certificate of the adoptee and reinstate his may be filed by a foreign national or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad
original birth or foundling certificate. with the Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where the child resides or

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 134

may be found. Section 31. Annexes. ‐ The petition for adoption shall contain the following
annexes written and officially translated in English:
It may be filed directly with the Inter‐Country Adoption Board. 1. Birth certificate of petitioner;
2. Marriage contract, if married, and, if applicable, the divorce decree, or
Section 29. Who may be adopted. □ Only a child legally available for domestic judgment dissolving the marriage;
adoption may be the subject of inter‐country adoption. 3. Sworn statement of consent of petitioner□s biological or adopted
children above ten (10) years of age;
Section 30. Contents of Petition. □ The petitioner must allege: 4. Physical, medical and psychological evaluation of the petitioner
a. His age and the age of the child to be adopted, showing that he is at certified by a duly licensed physician and psychologist;
least twenty‐seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years older 5. Income tax returns or any authentic document showing the current
than the child to be adopted at the time of application, unless the financial capability of the petitioner;
petitioner is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the 6. Police clearance of petitioner issued within six (6) months before the
spouse of such parent, in which case the age difference does not apply; filing of the petitioner;
b. If married, the name of the spouse who must be joined as co‐petitioner 7. Character reference from the local church/minister, the petitioner□s
except when the adoptee is a legitimate child of his spouse; employer and a member of the immediate community who have known
c. That he has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities the petitioner for at least five (5) years;
of parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the 8. Full body postcard‐size pictures of the petitioner and his immediate
appropriate counseling from an accredited counselor in his country; family taken at least six (6) months before the filing of the petition.
d. That he has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
e. That he is eligible to adopt under his national law; Section 32. Duty of Court. □ The court, after finding that the petition is sufficient
f. That he can provide the proper care and support and instill the in form and substance and a proper case for inter‐country adoption, shall
necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the immediately transmit the petition to the Inter‐Country Adoption Board for
child to be adopted; appropriate action.
g. That he agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child, as embodied
under Philippine laws and the U. N. Convention on the rights of the Section 33. Effectivity. ‐ This Rule shall take effect on August 22, 2002 following
child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to implement the its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
provisions of Republic Act no. 8043;
h. That he comes from a country with which the Philippines has diplomatic WHAT IF THE CHILD IS ALLOWED TO ENTER COUNTRY OF ADOPTER BUT HE IS NOT
relations and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and GRANTED CITIZENSHIP?
accredited agency and that adoption of a filipino child is allowed under  Law only provides that entry and residence should be allowed but it
his national laws; and didn’t provide that the foreign country should grant citizenship
i. That he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided in this rule, in Republic Act no. 8043 and in all other applicable
Philippine laws.

DOMESTIC ADOPTION INTER‐COUNTRY ADOPTION


RA 8552 RA 8043
DEFINITION Defined as a socio‐legal process of providing a permanent family Inter‐country adoption refers to the socio‐legal process of

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 135

to a child whose parents have voluntarily or involuntarily adopting a Filipino child by a foreigner or a Filipino citizen
relinquished parental authority over the child permanently residing abroad where the petition is filed, the
supervised trial custody is undertaken, and the decree of
adoption is issued outside the Philippines.

Sec. 7. Inter‐Country Adoption as the Last Resort. — The Board


shall ensure that all possibilities for adoption of the child under
the Family Code have been exhausted and that inter‐country
adoption is in the best interest of the child. Towards this end, the
Board shall set up the guidelines to ensure that steps will be
PROCEDURE
taken to place the child in the Philippines before the child is
placed for inter‐country adoption: Provided, however, That the
maximum number that may be allowed for foreign adoption shall
not exceed six hundred (600) a year for the first five (5) years.

A verified petition to adopt a Filipino child may be filed by a


foreign national or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad
with the Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where
the child resides or may be found.

It may be filed directly with the Inter‐Country Adoption Board.

It shall be supported by the following—


1. Birth certificate of petitioner;
2. Marriage contract, if married, and, if applicable, the
The application for the adoption of a child shall be filed with the divorce decree, or judgment dissolving the marriage;
DSWD 3. Sworn statement of consent of petitioner□s biological
WHERE TO FILE
or adopted children above ten (10) years of age;
4. Physical, medical and psychological evaluation of the
petitioner certified by a duly licensed physician and
psychologist;
5. Income tax returns or any authentic document showing
the current financial capability of the petitioner;
6. Police clearance of petitioner issued within six (6)
months before the filing of the petitioner;
7. Character reference from the local church/minister,
the petitioner□s employer and a member of the
immediate community who have known the petitioner
for at least five (5) years;

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGALADO TEXT; CHUA) 136

8. Full body postcard‐size pictures of the petitioner and


his immediate family taken at least six (6) months
before the filing of the petition.

(1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full An alien or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file
civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not an application for inter‐country adoption of a Filipino child if
been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; who is he/she:
emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at
1. Is at least twenty‐seven (27) years of age and at least
least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who is in a
sixteen (16) years older than the child to be adopted,
position to support and care for his children in keeping with the
at the time of application unless the adopter is the
means of the family. The requirement of a 16‐year difference
parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the
between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived
spouse of such parent:
when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the
spouse of the adoptee¾s parent;
2. If married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the
adoption;
(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above‐
stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his country has 3. Has the capacity to act and assume all rights and
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he responsibilities of parental authority under his national
has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous laws, and has undergone the appropriate counseling
years prior to the filing of the petition for adoption and from an accredited counselor in his/her country;
maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered,
WHO MAY ADOPT
that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or 4. Has not been convicted of a crime involving moral
any appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to turpitude;
adopt in his country, and that his government allows the adoptee
to enter his country as his adopted child. Provided, further, That
the requirements on residency and certification of the alien¾s 5. Is eligible to adopt under his/her national law;
qualification to adopt in his country may be waived for the
following: 6. Is in a p