CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ (now deceased), substituted by SUSANA A. LLAGAS vs. EVANGE LINE RODRIGUEZ , BELEN RODRIGUEZ and BUENAVENTURA RODRIGUEZ G.R. No. 175720, September 11, 2007 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment located at San Jose Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. On October 27, 1983, he executed a Huling Habilin at Testamento giving petitioner Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, his live-in partner, apartments D and E, and his children Benjamin Rodr iguez (de cea sed hus band of res pond ent Evangeline Rodriguez), apar tme nt A, respondent Buenaventura Rodriguez, apartment B, and respondent Belen Rodriguez, apartment C. Juanito later on executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of petitioner who re gi stered it in her name. Cr esenci ana then file d a compl aint for unlawf ul det ai ner against respondents who, without her knowledge and consent, leased the units to some other persons who failed to vacate the premises and pay the rentals thereof. Respondents in their answer claimed ownership over the property by succession, and alleged that petitioner is only the registered owner, not the lawful owner of the property because the Deed ofAbsolute Sale was simulated and void. They filed an action to assail the validity of the sale arguing that petitioner exerted undue influence over Juanito, who at the time was seriously ill, to agree to the sale of the property for only P20,000 after knowing that only two apartments were given to her in the Huling Habilin at Testamento . The MTC in the unlawful detainer case ruled in respondent’s favor. On appeal by petitioner, the RTC revers ed the MTC decisio n , in that pet itioner’s certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the property. The RTC also held that the MTC erred in relying heavily on Juanito’s last will and testament which was not probated hence has no effect and no right can be claimed therein. Respondents filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the RTC decision and reinstated that ofMTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied . Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not a will which was not probated has effect or can confer a right. RULING: NO. The Court hel d tha t res pond ents fai led to prove the ir rig ht of pos ses sion, as theHuling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can ha ve force or validity it mus t be probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public policy . Arti cle 838 of the Civil Code mandates tha t “[n]o will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.” As the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement which wa s executed pursuant to the last will of Juanito can not be given effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession. Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the time ofhis deat h. Thus, as owner of the prope rt y, he had the abs olute ri ght to dis pos e of it dur ing his lifetime. Now, whether or not the disposition was valid is an issue that can be resolved only in the action filed by respondents with the RTC of Makati City. The action in this case is one of unlawful detainer which is summary in nature and hence the validity of the will shall not be subject to a collateral attack. The Court’s ruling on the issue of o wnership is only provisi onal to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. Thus, the Court reversed and set aside the decision of the CA.
