Cases on Settlement of Estate

8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate

1/25

Special Proceedings Cases:

Settlement of Estate

Bernardo v. CA, GR No. L-!"!,

#e$r%ar& '!, ()*

Parties:

1. Deogracias Bernardo. He is the

executor of the Testate Estate of

the deceased Eusebio Capili;2. Armando Capili !rsula Capili

Buena"entura Capili

Hermogena #e$es Arturo

Bernardo Deogracias Bernardo

Eduardo Bernardo. The ones%ho stand to bene&t from the

%ill of Eusebio Capili.'. Hermogena #e$es. The %ido%

of the Eusebio Capili.(. Collateral relati"es and

intestate heirs of Hermogena

#e$es.

Facts:

Eusebio Capili and Hermogena #e$es%ere married. During their marriage

Hermogena donated her share to the

con)ugal partnership to Eusebio.

Hence %hen Eusebio died and a

testate proceeding for the settlement

of his estate %as &led before the C*+ of

Bulacan the properties including

those %hich %ere considered part of

the con)ugal partnership %ere to be

disposed to his testamentar$ heirs

including his %ife in accordance %ith

the terms contained in his %ill. His

%ife after the %ill %as admitted to

probate died and %as substituted

through the executor,s petition b$ her

collateral relati"es and intestate heirs.

-hen the Deogracias %ho %as the

executor of the estate of Eusebio

Capili submitted a pro)ect partition

the collateral relati"es and intestate

heirs of Hermogena opposed the same

and claimed that of the propertiesmentioned in Eusebio,s %ill belonged

to the con)ugal partnership of the

spouses. The$ submitted a counter/

pro)ect of partition of their o%n.

The probate court set the t%o pro)ects

of partition for hearing. +t %as the

argued b$ the executor and the

instituted heirs that the properties to

be disposed belonged exclusi"el$ to

Eusebio since Hermogena his %ife

donated her share to the con)ugal

partnership to him; that the heirs of

Hermogena #e$es had no la%ful

standing to 0uestion the "alidit$ of the

donation; and that should the$ ha"e

legal standing the 0uestion as regards

the donation cannot be litigated in the

testate proceeding but in a separate

ci"il action. +t %as the argument of

Hermogena,s heirs that the donation%as null and "oid thereb$ not maing

Eusebio as the o%ner of his %ife,s

share and therefore could not "alidl$

dispose of it in his %ill.

The probate court ruled that the

donation %as "oid %ithout maing

an$ speci&c &nding as to %hether the

donation %as inter "i"os or mortis

causa. According to the probate court

if the donation %as donation inter"i"os it %as "oid due to Article 1'' of

the Ci"il Code %hich prohibits

donations bet%een spouses during the

marriage. hould the donation be a

donation mortis causa it failed to

compl$ %ith the formalities of a %ill as


2/25

re0uired b$ la% Articles 324 and 456

of the Ci"il Code there being no

attestation clause.

As to the pro)ect of partition the

probate court disappro"ed both anddirected the executor to &le another

%hich di"ided the properties

mentioned in the %ill and the

properties mentioned in the deed of

donation on the basis that such

properties %ere con)ugal properties.

Deogracias and the instituted heirs

&led a motion for ne% trial and

reiterated his contention that the

probate court had no )urisdiction totae cogni7ance of the claim in"ol"ing

the title to the properties mentioned in

the %ill. This motion %as denied b$

the probate court.

Deogracias et al appealed to the CA

%hich a8rmed the probate court,s

decision. Hence Deogracias &led a

petition for re"ie% b$ certiorari before

the C.

+t %as their contention that the

probate court had limited and special

)urisdiction and hence had no po%er to

ad)udicate title.

Issue:

The issue %as %hether the probate

court could decide on 0uestion of

o%nership of certain properties

in"ol"ed i.e. %hether such propertiesbelonged to the con)ugal partnership

or the Eusebio exclusi"el$.

Ruling:

The Court has held that generall$

0uestion as to title to propert$ cannot

be passed upon in testate or intestate

proceedings. There are instances

ho%e"er %hen the probate court ma$

pass upon pro"isionall$ upon the

0uestion such as %here one of the

parties pra$s merel$ for the inclusionor exclusion from the in"entor$ of the

propert$; %here the parties are all

heirs of the deceased; or %here there

is consent of the parties pro"ided that

third parties are not pre)udiced.

The probate court has )urisdiction to

decide on such matter. +t is %ithin the

probate court to li0uidate the con)ugal

partnership in order to determine the

estate of the decedent %hich is to be

distributed among his heirs %ho are all

parties to the proceedings.

9oreo"er there are no third parties

%hose rights are a:ected. This is so

e"en though the heirs of the deceased

%ido% are not heirs of the testator

Eusebio. Ho%e"er as the$ %ere

substituted due to her death the$

could no longer be treated as third

parties. 9oreo"er %hat the$ asserted

%as the %ife,s right to the con)ugal

propert$. The claim that is being

asserted therefore is one belonging to

an heir to the testator and

conse0uentl$ it complied %ith the

re0uirement of the exception that the

parties interested are all heirs claiming

title under the testator.

+t %as lie%ise argued b$ petitionersthat the$ ne"er submitted themsel"es

to the )urisdiction f the court for the

purpose of determining 0uestion of

o%nership of the disputed properties.

Ho%e"er on the contrar$ the$ %ere

the ones %ho presented the pro)ect of

partition claiming the 0uestioned


3/25

properties as part of the testator,s

assets. B$ presenting their pro)ect of

partition petitioners themsel"es put in

issue the 0uestion of o%nership of the

properties.

*inall$ petitioners claimed that

respondents %ere estopped to raise

the 0uestion of o%nership because the

%ido% herself during her lifetime did

not ob)ect to the inclusion of these

properties in the in"entor$ of the

assets of her deceased husband.

Ho%e"er since there is no%ledge of

the facts and no appraisal of rights at

the time the act %as made as the %ife

executed in fa"or of her husband not

no%ing that such deed %as illegal or

ine:ectual.

+oroteo v. CA, GR !!,

+ecem$er !, (((

Parties:

1. ourdes egaspi Dorotheo2. icente

Dorotheo and ?ose Dorotheo.

The$ are legitimate children of

Ale)andro Dorotheo and Aniceta

#e$es.

Facts:

ourdes Dorotheo &led a special

proceeding for the probate of the %ill

of Ale)andro Dorotheo further claiming

that she had taen care of Ale)andro

before he died. The estate of

Ale)andro,s %ife %ho died ahead of

him %as not settled ho%e"er prior to

his death. This %ill %as admitted in

1@41 %ith icente and ?ose not

appealing from said order.

Ho%e"er the$ &led a motion to

declare the %ill intrinsicall$ "oid. The

trial court granted the motion further

declaring ourdes egaspi Dorotheo

not the %ife of Ale)andro. ie%ise

respondents %ere declared as the onl$heirs of Ale)andro and Aniceta. This

%as no%n as the ?anuar$ '5 1@4

decision.

ourdes ho%e"er mo"ed for the

decision,s reconsideration arguing

that she %as entitled to some

compensation since she too care of

Ale)andro prior to his death although

the$ %ere not married to each other.

Her 9# %as denied ho%e"er.

he appealed to the CA but it %as

dismissed due to her failure to &le

appellant,s brief %ithin the extended

period granted. The dismissal became

&nal and executor$ on *ebruar$ '

1@4@ and it %as recorded into the

entr$ of )udgment of the CA. A %rit of

execution %as issued b$ the lo%er

court to implement the &nal and

executor$ order.

#espondents &led se"eral motions

including a motion to compel

petitioner to surrender to them the

Transfer Certi&cates of Titles co"ering

the properties of Ale)andro and e"en

for the cancellation of the titles and

issuance of ne% titles %hen petitioner

refused to do so.

An order %as issued at a later date


4/25

interlocutor$ hence not &nal in

character. This order %as challenged

b$ respondents through a 9# %hich

%as denied and a petition before the

CA %hich e"entuall$ nulli&ed the


5/25


6/25

The trial court ruled in fa"or of

defendants and dismissed the

complaint. As regards ot (5@ the

Extra)udicial ettlement and ale

executed b$ the heirs of ?oa0uin and

9arcelina %as dul$ executed.9oreo"er if there %ere indeed

in&rmities in the deed the right to

bring an action for partition and

recon"e$ance had alread$ prescribed

as it %as &led after ( $ears from the

disco"er$ of fraud as in the case for

annulment of partition or after 15

$ears from the registration of the deed

or from the issuance of the title as for

action for recon"e$ance. The trial

court also held that ha"ing been

prepared and acno%ledged before a

notar$ public the extra)udicial

settlements o"er the t%o lots %ere

"ested %ith public interest and hence

its sanctit$ should be upheld unless

o"er%helmed b$ clear and con"incing

e"idence.

The CA a8rmed the "alidit$ of the

extra)udicial settlements but modi&edthe #TC,s decision ordering the

deli"er$ of the 1L4 portion of ot 3@/A

%hich correspond to the share of

Cresenciano Te"es to his son #icardo

Te"es after the lot,s partition. As for

ot (5@ their claims %ere alread$

barred b$ prescription after the lapse

of 15 $ears from the issuance of title

in fa"or of Asuncion %hile their claim

o"er ot 3@/A %as barred b$ laches

since more than 26 $ears had alread$

inter"ened bet%een the date of sale

and the &ling of the action. 9oreo"er

although Cresenciano %as not a

signator$ thereto it could not order

the recon"e$ance of his share in such

land in fa"or of his heir #icardo

because Cresenciano predeceased

?oa0uin Te"es and he #icardo %as

represented b$ his mother %hen the

heirs authori7ed the sale of their

shares.

Issue:

The primar$ issue in this case is the

"alidit$ of the settlements executed

pursuant to ection 1 of #ule 3( of the

#ules of Court.

Ruling:

The extra)udicial settlements executed

b$ the heirs %ere legall$ "alid and

binding.

*or the partition to be "alid se"eral

re0uisites must concur. These are

thatF a the decedent left no %ill; b

the decedent left no debts or if there

%ere debts left all had been paid; c

the heirs are all of age or if the$ are

minors the minors are represented b$

their )udicial guardian or legal

representati"es; and d the partition

%as made b$ means of a public

instrument or a8da"it dul$ &led %ith

the #egister of Deeds.

9oreo"er the Deeds of Extra)udicial

ettlement %ere public documents

and it is settled in the Court that a

public document executed %ith all the

legal formalities is entitled to a

presumption of truth as to the recitals

contained therein.

E"en though the Deed of Extra)udicial

ettlement and ale %hich co"ered ot

(5@ did not contain the names or

signatures of edro and Cresenciano

Te"es %ho predeceased ?oa0uin Te"es

the$ or their heirs do not lose the right


7/25

to the share in the partition of the

propert$. This is so due to the right of

representation.


8/25

ino died ahead of Geno"e"a.

>irginia &led a petition and pra$ed

that she be appointed as administratix

of the properties of the spouses ino

and Geno"e"a. +n her petition thechildren of the &rst marriage %ere

included as co/heirs.

eonardo ?r. %ho %as the son of

eonardo r. &led for the exclusion of

his father,s name as %ell as those of

his aunts and uncle from the petition

because the$ %ere the children of the

&rst marriage and the$ had alread$

recei"ed their inheritance consisting of

&"e parcels of land.

>irginia ?imene7 %as later on

appointed administrator of the

+ntestate Estate of ino ?imene7 and

Geno"e"a Caolbo$. +n her in"entor$

she included the &"e parcels of land

%hich %ere MinheritedN b$ the children

of the &rst marriage. As a

conse0uence eonardo ?r. mo"ed for

the exclusion of said properties on the

ground that said properties hadalread$ been ad)udicated to the

children of the &rst marriage b$ their

father ino.

The probate court ordered the

exclusion of the &"e parcels of land

from the in"entor$ on the basis of the

Tax Declaration sho%ing that the

sub)ect properties %ere ac0uired

during the con)ugal partnership of ino

?imene7 and Consolacion !ngson and

a Deed of ale %herein Geno"e"a

Caolbo$ stated that the sub)ect

properties had been ad)udicated b$

ino ?imene7 to his children b$ a

pre"ious marriage.

etitioners &led an 9# %hich %as

denied.

In appeal to the CA b$ petitioners

the CA dismissed the petition. aid

dismissal %as due to the Geno"e"a,sadmission that the sub)ect parcels of

land had been ad)udicated to the

children of the pre"ious marriage; that

long before ino,s marriage to

Geno"e"a the properties %ere alread$

titled in the name of ino; that the

claim of >irginia ?imene7 %as barred

b$ prescription as the action %as &led

in 1@41 more than 15 $ears from

Geno"e"a,s admission in 1@(; and

that >irginia %as barred b$ laches.

T%o $ears after petitioner &led an

amended complaint to reco"er

possession or o%nership of the sub)ect

&"e parcels of land as part of the

estate of ino ?imene7 and Geno"e"a.

The trial court resol"ed to dismiss the

complaint on the ground of res

)udicata and said fate %as had for

their 9#. The CA lie%ise dismissed

petitioners, appeal.

Issue:

The issue is %hether in a settlement

proceeding the lo%er court has

)urisdiction to settle 0uestions of

o%nership and %hether res )udicata

exists as to bar petitioners, present

action for the reco"er$ of possession

and o%nership of the &"e parcels of

land.

Ruling:

The Court re"ersed the CA,s decision.

A probate court can onl$ pass upon

0uestions of title pro"isionall$. As the


9/25

probate court,s &ndings are not

conclusi"e a separate proceeding is

necessar$ to establish the o%nership

of the &"e parcels of land. This is so

because of the probate court,s limited

)urisdiction and the principle that0uestions of title or o%nership %hich

result in inclusion or exclusion from

the in"entor$ of the propert$ can onl$

be settled in a separate action.

9oreo"er the probate court could onl$

determine as to %hether the propert$

should or should not be included in the

in"entor$ or list of properties to be

administered b$ the administrator. +f

there is a dispute as to the o%nership

then the opposing parties and the

administrator ha"e to resort to an

ordinar$ action for a &nal

determination of the conOicting claims

of title because the probate court

cannot do so.

*or res )udicata to appl$F 1 there

must be a prior &nal )udgment or

order; 2 the court rendering the

)udgment or order must ha"e

)urisdiction o"er the sub)ect matter

and o"er the parties; ' the )udgment

or order must be on the merits; and

( there must be bet%een t%o cases

the earlier and the instant identit$ of

parties identit$ of sub)ect matter and

identit$ of cause of action. +n the case

at bar there is no identit$ in the

causes of action. Hence such claim

does not exist.

This is so as one action %as for the

settlement of the intestate estate of

ino ?imene7 and Geno"e"a Caolbo$

%hile the other action %as for the

reco"er$ of possession and o%nership

of the &"e parcels of land. Hence an$

pronouncements made b$ the probate

court as to the title %ere not

conclusi"e and could still be attaced

in a separate proceeding.

As to the issue of prescription andlaches due to the number of the

factual issues raised b$ petitioners

before the lo%er court there should be

the presentation of e"idence at a full/

blo%n trial. This is so because the C

is not a trier of facts.

Lacenal v. Salas, GR No. L-"''6,

0%ne ", (6)

Parties:

1. +ldefonso achenal Elias

achenal +renea antos *lora

anches and ictorio achenal.'. Hon. Emilio alas. He %as the

presiding )udge of the C*+ of

asig.

Facts:

+ldenfoso achenal son of >ictorio

achenal %as named executor of his

father,s %ill. +n his in"entor$ he

included achenal >++ a &shing boat.

The executor &led in the settlement of the testate estate of >ictorio achenal

before the C*+ of asig a motion to

re0uire the spouses ope eonio and

*la"iana achenal/eonio to pa$ the

rentals for the lease of achenal >++

and to return the boat to


10/25

*la"iana ho%e"er opposed such

motion. he claimed that she %as the

o%ner of the boat because she

purchased it from her father in 1@3.

uch argument %as contained in her

motion to exclude. uch motion %asopposed b$ the executor.

A commissioner %as designated b$

the probate court in order to recei"e

e"idence of the parties relati"e to the

o%nership of the motorboat. *la"iana

&nished her presentation %hile the

executor did not present his

countera"ailing e"idence.

+nstead the executor together %ith>ictorio,s other children &led an

action before the C*+ of Caloocan Cit$

for the reco"er$ of the motorboat

achenal >++ %ith bac rentals and

damages against the spouses eonio

and three other children of >ictorio

named Crispula 9odesto and

Esperan7a.

The$ alleged that >ictorio in 1@(

leased the said motorboat to his son/in/la% ope eonio for a monthl$

rental of 2555.55 and that after

>ictorio,s death the executor of his

estate demanded from eonio the

return of the boat and the pa$ment of

the bac rentals.

ubse0uentl$ the executor and his

group &led in the probate court their

motion to exclude the said motorboat

from the testator,s estate on the

ground that the probate court had no

)urisdiction to decide the 0uestion as

to its o%nership because said matter

%as to be resol"ed b$ the Caloocan

court.

The probate court ruled ho%e"er that

it had )urisdiction o"er the issue of

o%nership because the heirs had

agreed to present their e"idence on

that point before a commissioner.

The executor and his group &led

special ci"il actions of prohibition and

certiorari against the probate court

before the C.

Issue:

The issue is %hether the probate court

should be allo%ed to continue the

hearing on the o%nership of the

&shing boat or %hether that 0uestion

should be left to the determination of

the Caloocan court %here the

subse0uent separate action %hich

%as on the pre/trial stage for the

reco"er$ of the motorboat is pending.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the title to the

&shing boat should be determined in

the separate action because it

a:ected the lessee eonio %ho %as a

third person %ith respect to the estate

of >ictorio although he %as the

latter,s son/in/la%.

+t has been held that %here a part$ in

a probate proceeding pra$s for the

inclusion in or exclusion from the

in"entor$ of a piece of propert$ the

court ma$ pro"isionall$ pass upon the

0uestion %ithout pre)udice to its &naldetermination in a separate action.

9oreo"er for the reco"er$ or

protection of the propert$ rights of the

decedent an executor or

administrator ma$ bring or defend in

the right of the decedent actions for


11/25

causes %hich sur"i"e. +n the instant

case the executor &led a separate

action in the Caloocan Court for the

reco"er$ of the &shing boat and bac

rentals from the eonio spouses.

robate )urisdiction includes all

matters relating to the settlement of

estates and the probate of %ills of

persons particularl$ the

administration of the decedent,s

estate the pa$ment of his debts

0uestions as to collation or

ad"ancements to heirs the li0uidation

of the con)ugal partnership and the

partition and distribution of the estate.

+t %as intimated b$ the Court that

since the contro"ers$ is among

members of the same famil$ the

Caloocan court should endea"or to

persuade the litigants to agree upon

some compromise.

7aneclang v. Ba%n and Ba%n, GR

No. L-'6!6), April '', (('

Parties:

1. Adelaida 9aneclang. he is the

administrator of the +ntestate

Estate of 9argarita uri antos.2. ?uan Baun and Amparo Baun'. Cit$ of Dagupan

Facts:

9argarita uri antos died intestate.he %as sur"i"ed b$ her husband

e"ero 9aneclang and nine children.

he left se"eral parcels of land among

%hich %as ot


12/25

angasinan an action for the

annulment of the sales made b$ the

pre"ious administrator the

cancellation of titles reco"er$ of

possession and damages against ?uan

Baun and Amparo Baun and the Cit$of Dagupan among others. The cause

of action against the Cit$ of Dagupan

%as the deed of sale executed b$ it

%ith the former administrator Iscar

9aneclang.

+t %as alleged b$ plainti: that Iscar

9aneclang %as induced b$ then

ma$or Att$. Angel *ernande7 to sell

the propert$ to the Cit$ of Dagupan

and that the Cit$ had been leasing the

premises to numerous tenants at the

rate of 5.4' per s0uare meter per

month.

The Trial Court ruled that the Deed of

ale entered bet%een 9aneclang and

the Cit$ of Dagupan %as "oid ab initio;

hence it ordered for the Deed,s

annulment. +t further ordered the

cancellation of the Certi&cate of Title

issued in fa"or of the Cit$ of Dagupan

the issuance of a ne% Certi&cate of

Title in fa"or of plainti: as

administratix the Cit$ of Dagupan to

pa$ accumulated rentals or reasonable

"alue of the use of the propert$ in

fa"or of plainti: and the plainti: to

reimburse the Cit$ of Dagupan %hich

is to deducted from the amount due

the plainti: from the defendant.

The trial court based its decision on

the absence of notices of the

application gi"en to the heirs of

9argarita. 9oreo"er estoppel did not

lie against plainti: as no estoppel

could be predicated on an illegal act.

*inall$ the Cit$ of Dagupan %as not a

purchaser in good faith and for "alue

as the former )udicial administrator

Iscar 9aneclang testi&ed that he %as

induced to enter into the sale.

The Cit$ of Dagupan appealed to theC alleging that the decision %as

contrar$ to la% and that the amount

in"ol"ed exceeded 655555.55.

Issues:

The issues include the "alidit$ of the

sale entered into bet%een the )udicial

administrator and the Cit$ of

Dagupan estoppel on the part of the

plainti: and the &nding that the Cit$

of Dagupan %as not a purchaser in

good faith.

Ruling:

+t %as argued b$ the Cit$ of Dagupan

that notice of the application for

authorit$ to sell gi"en to 9argarita,s

sur"i"ing spouse e"ero %as deemed

su8cient notice to the minor chidren

being the designated legal

representati"e pursuant to Article '25

of the Ci"il Code. This argument

ho%e"er did not hold %ater. This is so

because the petition for authorit$ to

sell %as &led prior to the e:ecti"it$ of

the Ci"il Code as the petition %as &led

on 1@(@. Hence the go"erning la%

%as Article 16@ of the Ci"il Code of

pain. aid pro"isions pro"ide that

the father or mother is the

administrator of the child,s propert$.

Despite the pro"isions so cited it does

not follo% that for purposes of

compl$ing %ith the re0uirement of

notice under #ule 4@ of the #ules of

Court notice to the father is notice to

the children. ections 2 ( and 3 of


13/25

said #ule state explicitl$ that the

notice %hich must be in %riting must

be gi"en to the heirs de"isees and

legatees and that the court shall &x a

time and place for hearing such

petition and cause to be gi"en to theinterested parties.

The re0uirement of notice %as not

complied %ith as the notice %as gi"en

onl$ to e"ero.


14/25

%hich he bases his suit; and ( in)ur$

or pre)udice to the defendant in the

e"ent relief is accorded to the

complainant or the suit is not held

barred. +n the case at bar the action

%as &led after 12 $ears 15 monthsand 2( da$s after the sale %as

executed in 1@62.

During the execution of the deed of

sale ( of the nine children %ere

alread$ of age including Iscar %ho

executed said deed. Iscar then

cannot be expected to renounce his

o%n act. -ith respect to the other '

Hector Cesar and Amanda the$

should ha"e taen immediate steps to

protect their rights. Their failure to do

so for 1' $ears amounted to such

inaction and dela$ as to constitute

laches. This cannot appl$ to the rest

of the children ho%e"er as the$ could

not ha"e &led an action to protect

their interests. Hence neither dela$

nor negligence could be attributed to

them as basis for laches. The estate is

entitled to reco"er 6L@ of the0uestioned propert$.

The issue on good faith on the Cit$ of

Dagupan,s end %as lie%ise

discussed. The trial court in ruling out

good faith too into account the

testimon$ of Iscar 9aneclang to the

e:ect that it %as 9a$or *ernande7 and

Councilor Teo&lo Guadi7 r. induced

him to sell the propert$ and that the

execution of the sale %as %itnessed b$the Cit$ *iscal. The C did not agree

ho%e"er.

The order granting the motion for

authorit$ to sell %as issued during the

incumbenc$ of administratorship of

*eliciano %hich %as prior to

9aneclang,s administration. Hence

Iscar 9aneclang cannot be said to

ha"e been induced to sell the propert$

as there %as alread$ the order

authori7ing the sale.

The Court lie%ise ruled that %hen it

&led its Ans%er the Cit$ of Dagupan

became a possessor in bad faith.

Hence prior to such &ling the Cit$

%as a possessor in good faith. Being a

possessor in good faith it is entitled to

the fruits recei"ed before the

possession %as legall$ interrupted

hence the pa$ment accumulated

rentals from the time it possessed the

propert$ until the &ling of the

complaint %as not proper.

5ntestate Estate of te +eceased

Gelacio Se$ial v. Se$ial, GR No. L-

'*"(, 0%ne '6, (6

Parties:

1. Ben)amina ebial. A petitioner.

he %as appointed as

administratrix of the estate of

Gelacio ebial.2. #oberta ebial ?uliano ebial

and the heirs of Balbina ebial.

ri"ate respondents. The$ are

the children of Gelacio in the

&rst marriage.

Facts:

Gelacio ebial %as married t%ice.

-ith his &rst %ife eoncia 9aniis

%ho died in 1@1@ he had three

children namel$ #oberta Balbina and

?uliano. -ith his second %ife Dolores

Enad %hom he married in 1@23 he

had six children namel$ Ben)amina


15/25

>alentina Ciriaco Gregoria

Esperan7a and uciano.

-hen Gelacio died in 1@(' one of his

children %ith Dolores Ben)amina &led

in the C*+ of Cebu a "eri&ed petitionfor the settlement of his estate in

1@5. Ben)amina pra$ed that she be

appointed administratrix of the estate.

Ine of the children in the &rst

marriage #oberta opposed the

petition on the ground that the estate

of Gelacio had alread$ been

partitioned among his children.

9oreo"er if indeed an administration

proceeding %as necessar$ she should

be appointed as administratrix as she

%as li"ing in Guimba%ian a remote

mountain barrio of inamunga)an

%here the decedent,s estate %as

supposedl$ located unlie Ben)amina

%ho %as a housemaid %oring at

Talisa$ %hich %as 35 ilometers a%a$

from inamunga)an.

The children of the &rst marriage

contended in a supplemental

opposition that the remed$ of

Ben)amina %as an action to rescind

the partition.

The trial court appointed Ben)amina as

administratrix. +t lie%ise found that

the decedent left an estate consisting

of lands %ith an area of 21 hectares

"alued at more than 555.55 and

that the alleged partition of

decedent,s estate %as in"alid andine:ecti"e. Correspondingl$ letters of

administration %ere issued to

Ben)amina as %ell as notice to

creditors.

The oppositors mo"ed for the

reconsideration of the order

appointing Ben)amina as

administratrix and reiterated their

claim that the estate of Gelacio %as

alread$ partitioned and that the action

to rescind the partition had alread$

prescribed. This opposition %asdenied b$ the trial court ho%e"er.

The oppositors &led a motion to

terminate the administration

proceeding on the grounds that the

estate %as "alued at less than

555.55 and that there %as no

necessit$ for the administration

proceeding as the estate %as alread$

partitioned.

Ben)amina &led an in"entor$ and

appraisal of the decedent,s estate.

Correspondingl$ the oppositors

registered their opposition to the

in"entor$ on the ground that the

se"en parcels of land enumerated in

the in"entor$ no longer formed part of

the decedent,s estate.

The probate court ho%e"er ordered

the suspension of the action due tothe possibilit$ of an amicable

settlement. +t lie%ise ordered the

parties to prepare a complete list of

the properties belonging to the

decedent %ith a segregation of the

properties belonging to each marriage.

The oppositors %ho are the children of

the &rst marriage submitted their o%n

in"entor$ of the con)ugal assets of

Gelacio and eoncia consisting of t%o

parcels of land. The$ alleged that the

properties %ere partitioned as follo%sF

P %ere partitioned in fa"or of #oberta

?uliano and *rancisco as representati"e

of estate of Balbina %hile J %as

partitioned to >alentina ebial as


16/25

representati"e of the six children of

the second marriage. This %as

opposed b$ the administratrix.

The lo%er court inexplicabl$ re0uired

the administratrix to submit anotherin"entor$ to %hich the administratrix

complied %ith. The oppositors

opposed the in"entor$ and &led a

motion for re"ision of partition. The

second in"entor$ submitted b$ the

administratrix %as appro"ed b$ the

court because there %as allegedl$ a

prima facie e"idence to sho% that the

se"en parcels of land and t%o houses

listed therein belonged to the

decedent,s estate.

The lo%er court lie%ise granted the

motion of the administratrix for the

deli"er$ to her of certain parcels of

land and directed the heirs of Gelacio

to deli"er these properties to

administratrix. +t lie%ise denied

oppositors, motion for re"ision of

partition.

#oberta ebial mo"ed for thereconsideration of the t%o orders.

ending resolution ho%e"er the

oppositors &led a notice of appeal %ith

the CA. About during that time the

trial court denied oppositors, 9#.

The CA certi&ed the court to the C

because in its opinion the appeal

in"ol"ed onl$ the legal issues of the

construction of ection 2 #ule 3( and

ection 1 #ule 4( #ule 4' of the

#ules of Court and %hether an

ordinar$ ci"il action for reco"er$ of

propert$ and not an administration

proceeding is the proper remed$. The

Cler of Court of the lo%er court in its

letter transmitting the amended

record on appeal said that there %as

presentation of e"idence b$ either

part$ concerning the t%o parties.

+n her appeal #oberta appealed that

she %as a pauper and in )ustif$ingtheir circumstances her husband and

her nephe% &led a mimeographed

brief and s%ore that their families

subsisted on root crops because the$

could not a:ord to bu$ corn grit or

rice.

Issue:

The issue in"ol"ed the conOicting

claims of Ben)amina and #oberta.

Ruling:

Ine of the arguments of the

oppositors %as that the probate court

had no )urisdiction to appro"e the

in"entor$ because the administratrix

&led it after three months from the

date of her appointment. This %as not

%ell/taen b$ the C.

The three/month period prescribed in

ection 1 #ule 4( #ule 4( %as not

mandator$. After the &ling of a

petition for the issuance of letters of

administration and the publication of

the notice of hearing the proper C*+

ac0uires )urisdiction o"er a decedent,s

estate and retains that )urisdiction

until the proceeding is closed. The

fact that an in"entor$ %as &led after

three months %ould not depri"e theprobate court of )urisdiction to

appro"e it. The administrator,s

unexplained dela$ in &ling the

in"entor$ ma$ be a ground for his

remo"al ho%e"er.


17/25

The second contention of oppositors

%as that inasmuch as the "alue of the

estate %as less than 6555.55 and he

had no debts the estate could be

settled summaril$ or that the

administration proceeding %as notnecessar$. Ho%e"er the "alue of the

estate %as not ascertained b$ the

lo%er court ho%e"er.

+t %ould not be useful ho%e"er to

dismiss the petition and order a ne%

petition for summar$ settlement

according to the Court. +t considered

that the probate court could still

proceed summaril$ and expeditiousl$

as a regular administration %as

alread$ appointed and notice to

creditors issued and %ith no claims

&led.

The C intimated that la%$ers of

parties should stri"e to e:ect an

amicable settlement of the case.

hould it fail the probate court should

then ascertain %hat assets constituted

the estate of Gelacio %hat happened

to those assets and %hether the

children of the second marriage could

still ha"e a share.

The C furthered that the lo%er court,s

order appro"ing the amended

in"entor$ %as not a conclusi"e

determination of %hat assets belonged

to the decedent as %ell their

"aluations. This is so as determination

of probate court is pro"isional and%ithout pre)udice to a )udgment in a

separate action on the issue of title or

o%nership.

The lo%er court,s orders re0uiring

deli"er$ of properties to administratrix

%ere erroneous as the probate court

failed to recei"e e"idence as to the

o%nership of the said parcels of land.

aid orders %ere set aside b$ the C.

+n the case of oren7o #ematado and

a7aro #ecuelo %ho are not heirs of the decedent the$ are considered

third persons. As a rule matters

a:ecting propert$ under

administration ma$ be taen

cogni7ance of b$ the probate court in

the course of the intestate

proceedings pro"ided that the

interests of third persons are not

pre)udiced. Ho%e"er third persons to

%hom the decedent,s assets had been

fraudulentl$ con"e$ed ma$ be cited to

appear in court and be examined

under oath as to ho% the$ came into

the possession of the decedent,s

assets but a separate action %ould be

necessar$ to reco"er the said assets.

The Court ruled that the probate court

should re0uire the parties to present

further proof on the o%nership of the

se"en parcels of land and the

materials of the t%o houses

enumerated in the in"entor$.

2e Estate of /ilario R%i4 v. CA,

GR No. !)6, 0an%ar& '(, (()

Parties:

1. Edmond #ui7. He is the

petitioner. He is lie%ise theexecutor of the estate of Hilario

#ui7.2. 9aria ilar #ui7/9ontes 9aria

Cathr$n #ui7 Candice Albertine

#ui7 9aria Angeline #ui7. The$

are the pri"ate respondents.


18/25

Facts:

+n the holographic %ill of Hilario #ui7

he named as his heirs the follo%ingF

his son Edmond #ui7 his adopted

daughter 9aria ilar #ui7 9ontes andhis three granddaughters 9aria

Cathr$n Candice Albertine and 9aria

Angeline %ho are children of Edmond

#ui7. He lie%ise named Edmond #ui7

as executor of his estate.

-hen Hilario #ui7 died in 1@44 the

cash component of his estate %as

distributed among Edmond and

pri"ate respondents. Ho%e"er the

executor Edmond did not tae an$action for the probate of his father,s

holographic %ill.

*our $ears after Hilario,s death it %as

pri"ate respondent 9aria ilar the

testator,s adopted daughter %ho &led

before the #TC a petition for the

probate and appro"al of Hilario,s %ill

and for the issuance of letters

testamentar$ to Edmond #ui7.

Ho%e"er Edmond #ui7 opposed thepetition on the ground that the %ill

%as executed under undue inOuence.

Edmond #ui7 leased out to third

persons the properties of the estate

>alle >erde properties %hich %ere

be0ueathed to the granddaughters.

In such regard the probate court

ordered Edmond to deposit %ith the

Branch Cler of Court the rental

deposit and pa$ments representing

the one/$ear lease of the >alle >erde

propert$. +n compliance Edmond

turned o"er the balance of the rent

after deducting the expenses for

repair and maintenance.

Edmond later one %ithdre% his

opposition to the probate of the %ill.

Conse0uentl$ the probate court

admitted the %ill to probate and

ordered the issuance of letters

testamentar$ to Edmond conditionedupon the &ling of the bond in the

amount of 65555.55. The letters

testamentar$ %ere issued.

etitioner Testate Estate of Hilario #ui7

%ith Edmond #ui7 as executor &led an

MEx/arte 9otion for #elease of *undsN

pra$ing for the release of the rent

pa$ments deposited %ith the Branch

Cler of Court. #espondent 9ontes

opposed the motion and &led a motion

for release of funds to certain heirs

and for issuance of certi&cate of

allo%ance of probate %ill. he pra$ed

for the release of said rent pa$ments

to Hilario,s granddaughters and for the

distribution of the testator,s properties

>alle >erde propert$ and Blue #idge

apartments in accordance %ith the

pro"isions of the holographic %ill.

The probate court denied petitioner,s

motion for release of funds. +t granted

respondent 9ontes, motion in "ie% of

petitioner,s lac of opposition and

ordered the release of rent pa$ments

to the decedent,s three

granddaughters. +t lie%ise ordered

the deli"er$ of the titles and

possession of the properties

be0ueathed to the ' granddaughters

and respondent 9ontes upon the &lingof a bond of 65555.55.

etitioner mo"ed for reconsideration.

He alleged that he actuall$ &led his

opposition to respondent 9ontes,

motion for release of rent pa$ments

%hich opposition the court failed to


19/25

consider. He lie%ise reiterated his

pre"ious motion for the release of

funds.

etitioner later on manifested that he

%as %ithdra%ing his motion for therelease of funds because the lease

contract o"er the >alle >erde propert$

had been rene%ed for another $ear.

Despite this the probate court ordered

the release of funds to Edmond but

onl$ such amount as ma$ be

necessar$ to co"er the expenses of

administration and allo%ances for

support of the testator,s three

granddaughters sub)ect to collation

and deductible from their share in the

inheritance. +t held in abe$ance

ho%e"er the release of the titles to

respondent 9ontes and the three

granddaughters until the lapse of six

months from the date of &rst

publication of the notice to creditors.

The court ordered Edmond #ui7 to

submit an accounting of the expenses

necessar$ for administration including

pro"isions for the support of the

testator,s granddaughters.

This order %as assailed b$ petitioner

before the CA %hich the CA

dismissed. Hence petitioner &led a

petition before the C "ia a petition for

re"ie% on certiorari.

Issues:

The issue for resolution is %hether theprobate court after admitting the %ill

to probate but before pa$ment of the

estate,s debts and obligations has the

authorit$ to grant an allo%ance from

the funds of the estate for the support

of the testator,s grandchildren to

order the release of the titles to

certain heirs and to grant possession

of all properties of the estate to the

executor of the %ill.

Ruling:

Edmond #ui7 alleged that ection ' of

#ule 4' onl$ gi"es the %ido% and the

minor or incapacitated children of the

deceased the right to recei"e

allo%ances for support during the

settlement of estate proceedings. He

furthered that the testator,s three

granddaughters his o%n daughters

do not 0ualif$ for an allo%ance

because the$ %ere not incapacitatedand %ere no longer minors but alread$

of legal age married and gainfull$

emplo$ed. 9oreo"er the pro"ision

excludes the latter,s grandchildren as

said pro"ision expressl$ states

Mchildren.N

Although allo%ances for support

should not be limited to the minor or

incapacitated children of the

deceased grandchildren are notentitled to pro"isional support from

the funds of the decedent,s estate.

This is so because the la% clearl$

limits the allo%ance to %ido% and

children and does not extend it to the

deceased,s grandchildren regardless

of their minorit$ or incapacit$. Hence

it %as error for the appellate court to

sustain the probate court,s order

granting an allo%ance to thegrandchildren of the testator pending

settlement of his estate.

The C also held that the appellate

and probate courts erred %hen the$

ordered the release of the titles of the

be0ueathed properties to pri"ate


20/25

respondents six months after the date

of &rst publication of notice to

creditors. +t has been held that in the

settlement of estate proceedings the

distribution of the estate properties

can onl$ be made after all the debtsfuneral charges expenses of

administration allo%ance to the

%ido% and estate tax ha"e been paid;

or before pa$ment of said obligations

onl$ if the distributes or an$ of them

gi"es a bond in a sum &xed b$ the

court conditioned upon the pa$ment

of said obligations %ithin such time as

the court directs or %hen pro"ision is

made to meet those obligations.

+n the case at bar the 0uestioned

order speas of MnoticeN to creditors

not pa$ment of debts and obligations.

9oreo"er the taxes on Hilario,s estate

had not been paid nor ascertained.

*inall$ at the time the order %as

issued the properties of the estate

had not $et been in"entoried and

appraised.

+t %as too earl$ for the court to issue

said order after admitting the %ill to

probate. This is so as 0uestions

regarding the intrinsic "alidit$ and

e8cac$ of the pro"isions of the %ill

the legalit$ of an$ de"ise or legac$

ma$ be raised e"en after the %ill has

been authenticated. uch so %as

raised b$ Edmond.

etitioner assailed the distributi"eshares of the de"isees and legatees

inasmuch as his father,s %ill included

the estate of his mother and allegedl$

impaired his legitime as an intestate

heir of his mother. Ho%e"er Edmond

cannot correctl$ claim that the

assailed order depri"ed him of his

right to tae possession of all the real

and personal properties of the estate.

The right to an executor or

administrator to the possession and

management of the real and personal

properties of the deceased is notabsolute and can onl$ be exercised so

long as it is necessar$ for the pa$ment

of the debts and expenses of

administration.

Qet Edmond must be reminded that

he has merel$ inchoate right of

o%nership o"er the properties of his

father as long as the estate has not

been full$ settled and partitioned. As

executor he is a mere trustee of his

father,s estate. The funds of the

estate in his hands are trust funds and

he is held to the duties and

responsibilities of a trustee of the

highest order. He cannot unilaterall$

assign to himself and possess all of his

parents, properties and the fruits

thereof %ithout &rst submitting an

in"entor$ and appraisal of all real and

personal properties of the deceasedrendering a true account of his

administration the expenses of

administration the amount of the

obligations and estate tax.

Except as to orders granting an

allo%ance to the grandchildren and

release of titles to the pri"ate

respondents upon notice to creditors

the CA,s decision %as a8rmed.

Sociedad de Li4arrage /ermanos

v. A$ada, GR No. *(,

Septem$er 6, ((

Parties:


21/25

1. ociedad de i7arrage

Hermanos. The$ are the

petitioners. +n their fa"or does

decedent *rancisco Caponong

o%ed a sum of mone$.

2. *elicisima Abada. he %as thedecedent,s %ido% and %as

appointed administratrix of the

estate.'. ?anuario Granada. He is the

guardian of the minor children

of Caponong.

Facts:

Decedent *rancisco Caponong at the

time of his death o%ed ociedad dei7arraga Hermanos a sum of mone$

%hich %as then less than the amount

allo%ed b$ the commissioners.

Caponong,s %ido% *elicisima Abada

%as appointed administratrix of the

estate. Commissioners to appraise

the estate and to pass on the claims

against the estate %ere dul$

appointed and before the

commissioners did petitioner presenttheir claims amounting to 1234'.3(.

9ean%hile administratrix leased the

hacienda MCoronacionN to Hilario

a$co for a term of $ears. Ho%e"er

after she married >icente Al"are7 the

lease %as transferred to Al"are7 b$

a$co.

e"en $ears after the death of

Caponong the petitioners &led a suitbefore the C*+ of Iccidental


22/25


23/25

The la% declares that the

commissioners shall pass upon all

claims against the estate. The$ had

done so in this case. The la% &xed the

limit of the estate,s liabilit$. The court

could not charge it %ith debts that%ere ne"er o%ed b$ it. The

administratrix could onl$ charge the

estate %ith the reasonable and proper

expenses of administration.

The estate o%ed petitioners less than

1'555.55 %hen the commissioners

passed on their claim. After se"eral

pa$ments the balance due them

during trial %as 4666.34 plus

interest. After their claim had been

presented and allo%ed b$ the

commissioners petitioners made

ad"ances to the administratrix till their

claim %as more than 4555.55.

etitioners claimed that ma)or part of

this debt %as for administration

expenses and hence chargeable

against the assets of the estate.

Administration expense %ould be

necessar$ expenses of handling the

propert$ of protecting it against

destruction or deterioration and

possibl$ producing a crop. Ho%e"er if

petitioners holding a claim originall$

for less than 1'555.55 against the

estate let the administratrix ha"e

mone$ and e:ects till their claim gro%

to 4555.55 the$ cannot be

permitted to charge this amount as

expense of administration. The$might be allo%ed to charge it against

the current re"enue from the hacienda

or the net proceeds of the exploitation

of the hacienda for %hich it %as

obtained and used but it cannot relate

bac to the presenting of their claim to

the commissioners and be a charge

against the inheritance of the heirs or

e"en a claim to prorate %ith other

creditors, claims allo%ed b$ the

commissioners.

The court could not appro"e a

settlement saddling upon the estate

debts it ne"er %ed and if it did its

appro"al %ould be a nullit$. Hence

the contract %as a dead letter and the

appro"al of the court could not

breathe the breath of life into it.

ie%ise the mortgage %as "oid. This

is so as no mortgage can be placed b$

an administrator on the estate of adescendant unless it is speci&call$

authori7ed b$ statute. There is no

statute in the hilippine +slands

authori7ing it.

In the issue of attachment it %as not

proper as the properties %ere in the

name and possession of the

administratrix %ere in custodia legis

and could not be la%full$ attached.

The same %as for the recei"ership.

The court summed up that the claim

should ha"e been %holl$ denied. +t

reduced the claim of 1'22.65 to

422.65.

8illal%4 v. Neme and 8illafranca,

GR No. L-")6), 0an%ar& *, ()*

Parties:

1. Candida >illalu7. he %as the

daughter of edro >illalu7 and

niece of inforosa atricia and

9aria.


24/25

2. ?uan illafranca.

Facts:

9aria #ocabo,s children %ere

inforosa atricia 9aria edro

e"erina and Gregoria. -hen 9aria

#ocabo died onl$ three sur"i"edF

inforosa atricia and 9aria. edro,s

children %ere Candida Emilia

Clemencia #oberto and +sidra all

surnamed >illalu7. e"erina,s children

%ere +sabelo and Teodoro illalu7, refusal to surrender

the title to the donees unless gi"en a

share and upon the ad"ice of the

notar$ public Carlos de ?esus

The three concurred on the partition to

the exclusion and %ithout the

no%ledge and consent of their

nephe%s and nieces. The ICT %as

cancelled and TCTs %ere issued in the

names of inforosa atricia and 9aria.

The three declared the land for

taxation purposes in their names.

The$ sold the land to #amona a)arillo

%ife of Adriano 9ago and Angela

a)arillo %ife of ?uan


25/25

the decedent namel$ inforosa

atricia 9aria and her grandchildren.

The deed of extra/)udicial partition %as

fraudulent and "icious as the same

%as executed among the ' sisters%ithout including their co/heirs %ho

had no no%ledge of and consent to

the same. The partition did not and

could not pre)udice the interest and

participation of the petitioners and

the sale of the land to the defendants

did not and could not also pre)udice

and a:ect petitioners, interest and

participation. The cancellation of the

ICT and the issuance of TCT did not

lie%ise pre)udice the interest and the

participation of the petitioners. The

three sisters could not ha"e sold %hat

did not belong to them.

Documents

Cases on Settlement of Estate