Rules on Electronic Evidence [BAR Q. 2003, 2009, 2010, 2012] Child Witness Rule [BAR Q. 2005, 2012] Chain of Custody [BAR Q, 2011, 2012) . DNA Evidence [BAR Q. 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012] CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISION taiier v. Shari’a District Court ker v. Estate of Alice Sheker ¥, Court of Appeals ... }CTION OF WILL; ALLOWANCE OF WILL MCESSARY . qRULE 76 .. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANGE OF WILL CASE f Alaban v. Court of Appei RULE 77 .. ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATION 85 85 aceeaseeeee 111 100 59 102 eh 102 105 OF ESTATE THEREUNDE! 61 108 j RULE 78 ... S . 65 | LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, n8 WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED 65 6 RULE 79 6 AND ADMINISTRATORS... BE Rioferio v. Court of Appeals wows 1E6 SUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY PETITION AND CONTEST FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION . . 16 SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR CASE Tan v. Gedorio, dr. RULE 81 .... BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. RULE 82 .... ] REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH, ! RESIGNATION AND REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS | ‘AND ADMINISTRATORS, RULE 83 .. INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL; PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF FAMILY... CASES PPacioles, Jr. v. Chuatoco-Ching CHAPTER 3 Aranas v. Mereado.... Heirs of Joso Sy Bang v. Sy.. 137 187CASES Republic v, Registry of deeds of Roxas City... Republic v. Court of Appeals... 142 143 CHAPTER 4 GUARDIANSHIP...... 148 PART I, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RULES OF couRT GENERAL GUARDIAN AND GUARDIANSH RULE 92 VENUE. RULE 93 APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS. CASES Alamayri v. Pabale Vaneil v. Belmes RULE 95 .. SELLING AND ENCUMBERING PROPERTY OF WARD RULE 96 ...... een GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS RULE 97 ... ce ‘TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP. CASES ‘Tonog v. Court of Appeals.. Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto.. Caitiza v. Court of Appeals 148, 148 148 152 152 soe 156 157 160 160 161 161 163 168 163 165 166 PART Il. UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 03-02-05-SC RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS. 167 CHAPTER 5 RULE 98 TRUSTEES. 177 17 CHAPTER 6 PTION ... 179 iT I. INTRODUC OF ADOPTION 179 I, GOVERNING Rt 185 ‘The Rules on Ado, 185 NB. Distinctions between , RA.No. 8048.. 185 IIL CASES....., 191 iS Jn re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim 191 Landingin v. Republie . 194 In the Matter of the. 196 Lahom v. Sibulo..... 198. CHAPTER T 203 203 203 21 216 222 Il, THE RULE ON CUSTODY OF. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN Ri ISTODY OF MINORS...... 226 CHAPTER 8 WRIT OF AMPARO..... peace a: DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, AMPARO, AND DATA ress 285 BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO..... ves 247 p THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO wccccssssnee 248 AMENDMENTS TO THE RULE ON THE WRIT OP AMPARO ene 262E. CASES In the matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in Favor of CHAPTER 9 ‘THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA 284 A. BACKGROUND. 284 B. THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA, 286 CASES In tho matter of the Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Saez. v. Macapagal-Arroyo 293 Meralco v. Lim 295 Roxas v. Macapay 297 CHAPTER 10 ‘THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN. 299 CASES Oposa v. Factoran ... 808 CHAPTER 11 RULE 108 ...... 307 CHANGE OF NAMI 307 CASES Grande v. Antonio ... 819 Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo 319 Republic v. Kho... B21 Republic v. Capote . 923 In re: Petition for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in Civil v. Cebu City Civil sone 828 CHAPTER 12 327 ICIAL APPROVAL OF VOLUNTARY OF MINOR NATURAL CHILDREN. 827 SES Ligaya Gapusan-Chua v. Court of Appeal 829 Uyguangeo v. Court of Appeals... 332 CHAPTER 13 335 INSTITUTION OF FAMILY HOME 385 CHAPTER 14 340 340 Republic v. Cantor .. 345 Republic v. Court of. 346 CHAPTER 15 E108 von 849 \CELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY........ + 849 ES Silverio v. Republic. 356 Republic v. Cagandahan, 368 Republic v, Labrador. 364 Lee v. Court of Appeals. 365 Corpus v. Sto, Tomas, 368 Republic v. Olaybar. 366 Dela Cruz v. Garci 870CHAPTER 16 DIX D-1 ~ Dissenting opinion of Justice Panganiban 377 Fthe Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void 377 inges and Annulment of Voidable Marriages... 452 APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCERDINGS CASES E-AM. NO. 02-1-19-8C ... ones 459 Peiia v, LON Construction Corp. 380 fle on Commitment of Children Son Lobia Mia i He PIX F - A.M. NO. 03-02-05-SC 469 EE : Rule on Guardianship of Mi Sonera DIX G~ A.M. NO. 03-04-04.8C se 416 THE CLERICAL ERROR ACT, R.A. NO. 9048... . 386 Phe Rule on Custody of Minors and Wri pus in Relation to Custody of Minors CHAPTER 18 ENDIX H — A.M. NO. 07-9-12-8C ae 488 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10172 .... 892 Frtie Rule on the Writ of Amparo CHAPTER 19 a SPECIAL RULES OF COURT ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION we 995 cand CASES Koppel, Ine. v. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, Ine. ‘J Plus Asia Development Corp. v -Usiity Assurance Corp, ... woe 418, 558 Rule 7— The Writ of Kalikasan ' APPENDICES 559 APPENDIX A - A.M. NO. 02-11-12-S6 .... Rule on Provisional Orders APPENDIX B - REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255 ... An act allowing illegitimate children to use the surname of their father, amending for the purpose Article 176 of Executive Order No. 208, otherwise known as the ‘Family Code of the Philippines’ APPENDIX C ~ REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8369 ‘The law establishing Family Courts and APPENDIX D—A.M, NO. 02-11-10-8C .. Rule on declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. and annulment of voidable marriages 437 4438CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISION RULE 72 JBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES R QUESTIONS: 1996, 1998, 2008, 2012) {FINE SPECIAL PROCEEDING. fs an application to establish the status or ur fact or any remedy other than an ordiné Ab THE LIST OF SUBJECT MATTERS UNDER SEC- [ON I OF RULE 72 EXCLUSIVE? ‘Any petition which has for its main purpose the establish- | tts, right ora particular fact may bo inciuded as opecial Ing. An example of this for declaration of nullity It seeks to establish a [2012] of the following is not a Special Proceeding? “BAR Q. [1996, 1998] ish civil action from special proceeding. following are the distinctions: ial proceeding under the same rule provi ‘a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a 18 2 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ee Subject Mattar and Applienbility of General Rules JHOULD THE DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PERSON BE MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS? is, jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are rs of the deceased must be made in the proper special in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of own- d possession of property and this must take precedence over for recovery of possession and ownership. BF thie case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to explain why HH court cannot make a declaration of heirship in an ordinary right or a particular fact. Pursuant: to Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a civil action is one by which a party sues another for tho enforcement or protec- tion of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, 2 Unlike actions, a special proceeding is generally com- menced by application, petition or special form of pleading ‘as may be provided for by the particular rule or law. 3. In special proceedings, it does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced against any person. Court. has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that ~ {declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Bi 8, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revisod Rules of Court, a civil action is 'és one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or on of a right, or the prevention or redross of a wrong while fal proceeding is a remedy by which a party secks to establish right, or a particular fact, It is then decisively clear that tion of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding {ch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a jor right. (Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA and Lourdes Evero ),@.R. No, 150206, March 13, 2009) B. CASE MONTANER, et al. v. SHARIA DISTRICT COURT, 4TH SHARPA JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, DISANGCOPAN, et al. January 20, 2009 DOCTRINE: Unlike a civil action which has definite adverse Parties, a special proceeding has no definite adverse party. ‘The Supreme Court held: The prohibition against a decedent or his estate from being a party defendant in an ordinary civil action does not apply to a special ‘CEPTION TO THE RULE ON THE proceeding such as the settlement of the estato of the deceased. NOTE ERLE eine CERDING FOR DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP? prudence dictates that the determination of who are the firs of the deceased must be made in the proper special pro- on court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of owner- ‘possession of property. This must take precedence over the for recovery of possession and ownership. ‘The definitions of a civil action and a special proceeding, res- pectively, in the Rules illustrate this difference, A civil action, in which “a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong” necessarily has definite adverse: parties, who are either the plaintiff or defendant. On the other hand, a special proceeding, “by which a party seeks to establish @ status, right, or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse party. It bears emphasis that the estate of the decedent is not being sued for any cause of action. As a special proceeding, the purpose of the settlement of the estate of the decedent is to determine all the assets of tho estate, pay its liabilities, and to distribute the residual d institut mut losed and termi- to those entitled to the same. had been instituted but had been finally closed an4 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS nated, and hence, cannot be re-opened. (Heirs of Ypon v. Ricaforte, GR. No. 198680, July 8, 2013) 1.07 IS LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING AN ORDINARY ACTION OR ASPECIAL PROCEEDING? A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified as a special proceeding and not as an ordinary action. Such petition does not sock the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or ‘omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced against any person. (Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization v. CA, 242 SCRA 492 [1995}) 1.08 IS A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SHARFA DISTRICT COURT AGAINST A DECEASED PERSON AN ORDI- NARY CIVIL ACTION OR A SPECIAL PROCEEDING? A proceeding before the Shari'a District Court for the settlement of the estate is deemed a special proceeding. MONTANER v. SHARIA DISTRICT COURT G.R. No, 174975, January 20, 2009 DOCTRINE: The Court reiterates that the proceedings before the court a quo are for the issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and distribution of the estate of the deceased, which is a special proceeding. Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court (Rules) defines « special proceeding as “a remedy by which @ party seeks to est @ status, a right, or a particular fact.” This Court has applied the Rules, particularly the rules on special proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased Muslim. FACTS: In May 1995, Alejandro Montaiior, Sr. died leaving peti tioners Luisa Kho, his wife, and his three children as heirs to his estate, Five years later, a complaint for judicial partition of properties of Alejandro, Sr, was filed before the Shari’a District Court by Liling Disangcopan and Almahleen Liling S. Montafier, who claimed that Alejandro, Sr. was a Muslim and that they wore his first family. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the complai ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Shari'a Court, alleging that the decedent was a Roman Catholic. They also argued that the proceed. ty of Goneral Rules fore the district court is an ordinary civil action against a Baed person. Said court dismissed the comy holding that eased was nota Muslim and the court’ iction extends p:settlement of estate of deceased Muslims, Eftivate respondent Liling filed a Motion for Reconsideration jas granted by the Shari'a District Court. It reconsidered its ‘and allowed the respondents to adduce further evidence. jored the continuation of the trial on merits. This was ed by tho petitioners. Whether or not the complaint filed by the respondents Re Shari’ +t Court for the settlement of the estate ig ‘The complaint fled by the respondents before the Sharva bt Court for the sottlement ofthe estate is a special proceeding in petitioners’ argument that the ¢ding before the Shari’ +t Court is an ordinary civil action rt ‘a deceased person, rests on an erroneous understanding of eding before the court a quo. Part of the confusion may be 3d to the proceeding before the Shari'a Dietrict Court where tios were designated either as plaintiffs or dofondants and the 8 denominated as a special civil action. before the court a quo ly by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, ular fact.” This Court has applied the Rules, particularly bles on special proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a Adid Musi ne Petition for the issuance of letters of administration, settle- } and distribution of estate, the applicants seek to est of death of the decedent and later to be duly recognized as the decedent's heire, which would allow them to exercise their idro Montafier, Sts death and, subsequently, for pri int Almahleen Liling 8. Montaiter to be recognized as among ‘such is the case in fact.6 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 72 7 Subject Mutter and Applicability of General Rules ‘As a special proceeding, the purpose of the settlement of the estate of the decedent is to determine all the assets of the estate, pay its liabilities, and distribute the residue to those entitled to the same, ‘The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice r and thereafter issued an order for all the creditors to file jective claims against the estate. In compliance therewith, filed a contingent claim for agent's commission due him ing to approximately P206,250.00 as reimbursement for ex- incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of ting the sale of said realties. Boho respondent exccutrix moved for th al of said pay slain agsinat tho estate on tho grounds that (1) Ne Toqisite pf feo, as prescribed in Soction 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of ‘haid not been paid; (2) petitionor failed to attach a certification non-forum shopping; and (3) petitioner failed to attach a n explanation why the money claim was not filed and served 2.01 ARE THE RULES IN CIVIL ACTIONS APPLICABLE IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS? ‘Yes, in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. (See. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court) A. BAR Q. [2008] An heir/oppositor in a probate proceeding filed a motion to remove the administrator on the grounds of neglect of jes as administrator and absence from the country. On art, the heir/oppositor served written interrogatories to administrator preparatory to presenting the latter as a {RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing without prejudice the ¥y claim basod on the grounds advancod by respondent. Petitioner His that Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that of discovery apply only to ordinary ci i ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in proceedings. Rule on the matter. JE: Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner's Pngent money claim against respondent estate for failure Petitioner to attach in his motion a certification against orum shopping. SUGGESTED ANSWER: ILING: Section 2, Rule 72, Part Il of the same Rules of Court that in the absence of special provisions, the rules pro- r in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable pial proceedings, covery under the Rules of Court shall apply to special proceedings. B. CASE ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER v. ESTATE, OF ALICE O. SHEKER, VICTORIA 8. MEDINA G.R. No. 157912, December 13, 2007 the rules provided for in Part I of the Rules governing il actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as DOCTRINE: Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certi- fication of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory piThe word “practicable” is defined as: possible to practice or per- pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case, ine that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary (s may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible Where doing co would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. hbre in the Rulos of Court does it categorically say that rules actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special8 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non- forum shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written ‘explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case. pdent of the required inventory of the decedent's estate. In the petitioners also filed other pleadings or motions with RTC, alleging lapses on the part dministration of the estat and as private respondent aeacaee 9 M Appeals likewise dismissed the petition. ALFREDO HILADO, et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS, GAR. No. 164108, May 8, 2009 DOCTRINE: Notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, Interven- tion as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on contingent claim. FACTS: The well-known sugar magnate Roberto 8. Benedicto died intestate on May 15, 2000. He was survived by his wife, private respondent Julita Campos Benedicto (administratrix Benedicto), and his only daughter, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino. At the time of his death, there were two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving the petitioners. The first was then pending with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City with petitioner Alfredo Hilado as one of the plaintiffs. The second was then pending with the same RTC of Bacolod City with petitioners Lopez Sugar Corporation and First Farmers Holding Corporation as among the plaintiffs. ‘Thereafter, private respondent Julita Campos Benedicto filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Manila RTC issued an order appointing private respondent as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband. In January 2001, private respondent submitted an Inven- tory of the Estate, Lists of Personal and Real Properties, and Liabi- lities of the Estate which included as among the Kabilities, the above-mentioned two pending claims then being litigated before the Bacolod City courts. Subsequently, petitioners filed with the Manila RTC a Mani- festation/Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, praying that they be furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the intestate proceedings. They also filed an omnibus motion praying that the Manila RTC set, a deadline for the submission by private Whether or not creditors whose credit is based on ‘claim have the right to participate in the settlement 18 by way of intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules fh &: Whether or not petitioners, as persons interested in tate estate of the deceased person, are entitled to cop- Fall processes and orders pertaining to the intestate pro- G ON THE Ist ISSUE: fotwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose eredit ij on a contingent claim. The definition of “intervention” under FY simply does not accommodate contingent claims. otion 1, Rule 19 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure requires ict where the claims of the the class of claims to be filed red under Rule 86. These actions, IF an they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may enced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1 of10 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULING ON THE 2nd ISSUE: they 2 may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the records of the intestate proceedings is an eminently preferable precedent than mandating the service of court processes and pleadings upon them. In either case, the interest of the creditor in seing to it that the assets are being preserved and disposed of in accordance with the rules will be duly satisfied. Nonetheless, in the instances that the Rules on Special Pro- ceedings do require notice to any or all “interested partis petitioners, as “interested parties,” will be entitled to st are provided Section 10 of Rule 85 in reference to the time 1 of Rule 90 regarding the hearing on the application for an order to distribute the estate residue. After all, even the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted inventory, the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners. CHAPTER 2 RULE 73 JECT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS. (BAR QUESTIONS: 2003, 2005, 2009) SPECIAL PROCEEDING RELATIVE TO THE ENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON. proceeding relative to the settloment of the estate of a onmay either be testate or intestate. Where the deceased ~ will, the proceeding shall be intestate and where there which case, the probate of a will King in another place. MUST THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE DECEASED INS BE FILED? against deceased persone should be filed during the st proceedings of their estate. Such proceedings are primarily by special rules found under Rules 78 to 90 of the Rules, ‘governing ordinary actions may, as far as practicable, (Heirs of the Late Sps. Flaviano Maglasang and -Maglasang, et al. v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. HHICH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER PROBATE EEDING? t to R.A. No, 7691, the question as to which court shall jurisdiction over probate proceedings depends upon the gross tion over the same. Outside Metro Manila, u2 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have jurisdiction over probate proceedings if the gross value of the est vy the decedent does not exceed 300,000.00 beginning April 16, 2004 (before the said date, it was 200,000.00). 1.04 WHERE IS THE VENUE OF THE SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDING? ‘The residence of the decedent at the time of his death is deter- minative of the venue of the proceeding, Itis only where the decedent was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time of his death that venue lies in any province in which he had estate. 1.05 WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE TERM “RESIDES”? “Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, ‘meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence of place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a lace and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presonce as an inhabitant icile requires bodily presence in that particular place and also an intention to make one’s domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary. (Garcia Fule v. CA, 74 ‘SCRA 189) ‘Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings hhave one and the same meaning. As thus defined, “residence,” in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. (Quiazon v, Belen, G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013) 1,06 COMPARATIVE TABLE ON JURISDICTION AND VENUE IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Kind of Special Proceedings 1, Settlement of Estate 1 (Rule 73) ‘Jurisdiction and Venue RTC or MTC (depending on the ‘gross value of the estate) of the province where the docoased Inst resided. RULE TS Subjeot of Hstate of Deceased Peteons 2, Incase the decedont is a non- resident of the Philippines at the time of his death, venue lies in any province in which he had an ‘estate, 1. RIC of province where the deceased last resided, 2 Incase the decedent ia a non- resident of the Philippines at the time of his death, venue lies in ‘any province in which he had an estate. ‘a. Rule on Guardianship of Minors 1, (AM, No, 08-02-08-80) 1b, Guardianship over Incompetent persons who are not minors 1") under the Rules of Court (Rules 92-97) 1. Family Court of province or city where the minor actually resides. Ifthe minor resides in a foreign ‘country, in the Family Court of the province or city where his ‘property or any part thereof is situated. RTC of the province or city where incompetent porson last resided. Ifthe incompetent person resides in a foreign country, in the Family oust ofthe prone ety where perty or any part thereof ® (The Rules of Adoption (AM, No. 02-6-02-SC) 4 Iffiled under the Domestic Adoption ‘Act (B.A. No. 8552) b, Ieiiled under the } Inter-Country ‘Adoption Act, (RA. No. 8048) Family Court of province or city where prospective adoptive parents reside. Court of the city or province where the adopteo resides. (Sec. 19) 1. Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where the child resides or may be found (filed by a foreign national or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad). 2, Itmay be filed directly with the Inter-Country Adoption Board.‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 5. Habeas Corpus a. Habeas Corpus for confinement or tention (Rule 102) b. Habeas Corpus for custody of minors (AM. No. 03-04-04 80) . If filed with RTC, where the porson is detained. SC, CA, and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction “The writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC shall be enforceable only within its judicial region ec. 21, BP. Big. 123), 1, Family courts have exclusive juriedition (Family Courts Act of 1997 [RLA. No. 8808). Under the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No, 08-04-0480), the petition may be filed with or any ofits members, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. }. Amparo (AM. No, 07-9-12-S0) SC, CA and Sandiganbayan, RTC IEwith the RTC: ‘he place where the threat, acto: was committed or any of its ements occurred. (See. 3) 7% ‘Habeas Data (AM. No, 08-146-S0) ‘SC, CA and Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data or Giles of government offices Ie with the RTC: 1. where petitioner resides; or 2, where respondent resides; or 8, that which has jurisdiction over the place whore data or information is gathered, collected cor stored, at the option of petitioner. (See. 3) 8. Change of Name RTC of the province where the (Rule 103) Petitioner resides, (Sec. 1) 9. Absentees RTC of place where absentee resided (Rule 107) before his disappearance. (Sec. 1) RULES 6 Subject of Estate of Deceased Persons Pancellation or jorrection of Entries RIV of the province where the corres- ponding Local Civil Registrar of place is located. (See. 1) Clerical Error Act ‘No, 9048) try office of the city where the record 2, Local civil registrar of the place where the interested party is presontly residing or domiciled; 8. Philippine Consulates WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES IF, IN” iE COURSE OF INTESTATE PROCEEDING, A WILL JS LATER DISCOVERED? ther the intestate proceeding already commenced should inued and a new proceeding under a separate number and uld be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within ind discretion of the court. In no matter does it prejudice ibstantial rights of any of the heirs or creditors. (Reynoso v. jago, 85 Phil. 268, 270) iit has been held that the probate of the will is mandatory. It pmalous that the estate of a person who died testate should d in an intestate procoeding. Therefore, the intestate case {4:be consolidated with the testato procooding and the judge d to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two (Roberts v. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 33) kif in the course of the intestate proceedings, itis found that the int had left last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter Nd. replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage, an ‘ator had already been appointed, the latter being required final account and turn over the estate in his possession to xecutor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood ‘without prejudice that the proceeding shall continue as an - (Uriate v. CFT of Negros, 38 SCRA 252, 259) , tho mere discovery of a document purporting to be and testamont of the decedent after appointment of an strator and assumption that the decedent died intestate does ; ipso facto nullify the letters of administration alreadyRULE TS " 6 eee ‘Subject of Kstate of Deceased Persons: issued or even authorize their revocation until the will has been proved and allowed. (Advincula v. Teodoro, 99 Phil. 413) 1.08 WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS? ‘The settlement of a decedent's estate is a proceeding in rem \ding against the whole world. All persons having interest, matter involved, whether they were notified or not, are equally bound. (Philippine Savings Bank v. Lantin, 124 SCRA 488) Lif at least three witnesses who know yxplicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the pting of the testator; in the absence of any competent witness, court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted 1.09 WHAT MUST BE DONE IF THE NOTARIAL WILL IS CONTESTED? For notarial wills, Section 11 of Rule 76 provides that if the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in the ease of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court, If all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines butoutside the province where the will has been filed, their deposition must be taken, If any or all of them testify against the due execution of will, ‘THE PROBATE COURT ISSUE WRITS OF EXECU- ‘As a rule, the probate court cannot issue writs of execution orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against /hich the executor or administrator may satisfy without K of executor processes. THERE EXCEPTIONS? court may issue writs of execution on the following: To satisfy the contributive shares of the devisees, legates ‘and heirs on possession of the decedent's assets as laid HP’ down in Rule 88, Section 6; L To enforce payment of the expenses of partition under B Rute 90, Section 8; fissTo satisfy the cost when a person is cited for examination probate proceedings under Rule 142, Section 13. fied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law. It is an established rule that “al testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting witnesses declare against its does it have to be necessarily allowed itnesses declare in favor of its legalizatic that the court is convinced by evidence before it, not necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must [UGGESTED ANSWER: testify, that the will was or was not duly executed in the manner 78 of the Rules of Court expressly declares that if the required by law.” (Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012) i ip an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, Yi citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of tion granted, and his estate settled, in the Regional Trial la the province in which he resides at the timo of hie death, he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Regional Trial x (8) State the rule on venue in judicial settlement of ‘deceased person. 1.10 WHAT IF A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL IS CONTESTED? ‘The possibility of false document being adjudged as the will of the testator cannot be eliminated, which is why if the holographic‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ;ny province in which he had estate. The court first taking e of the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. Note the changes made by R.A. No. 7691 on jurisdiction, 1.14 BAR Q. [2003] A, a resident of Malolos, Bulacan, died leaving an estate located in Manila, worth P200,000.00. In what court, taking into consideration the nature of jurisdiction and venue, should probate proceeding on the estate of A be instituted? SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan has jurisdiction of the probate proceeding on the estate of A taking into account the amount of the estate involved valued at 200,000.00, (Sec. 33, B.P. Big. 129 as amended, Sec. 1, Rules of Court and R.A. No, 7691). ‘Venue is in Bulacan as A is a resident of Malolos, Bulacan at the time of his death. Note: The determination of which court exercises jurisdiction over matters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent. R.A. No. 7691 provides that a municipal court has exclu- sive original jurisdiction over probate proceedings, where the value of the estate does not exceed P200,000.00 in places other than Metro ‘Manila (Beginning April 16, 2004 however, the jurisdictional amount other than in Metro Manila is adjusted to P300,000.00). 2.01 SECTION 4, RULE 73 OF THE RULES OF COURT PRO- VIDES FOR PRESUMPTION OF DEATH FOR PUR- POSES OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE. CITE RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE. ‘Some of the related Civil Code provisions are the following: ARTICLE 890. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shail be presumed dead for all purposes, except for succession. RULE 73 ‘Subject of Hotate of Deceased Poreons ty-five years, an absence of five years shall t in order that his succession may be opened. ICLE 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all including the division of the estate among the heirs: Apperson on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an which ia missing, who has not been heard of for four years By lost of the vessel or aeroplane; H) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, ‘been missing for four years; 1 «A person who has been in danger of death under other cir- ~ Bnoes and his existence has not been known for four years. RITCLE 392. If the absentee appears, or without appearing Bitence is proved, he shall recover his property in the condition it may be found, and the price of any property that may ‘lienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot Ir fruits or rent. PEAR Q. [2009] frank and Gina were married on June 12, 1987 in Manila. "a year after the wedding, Frank exhibited a violent ment, forcing Gina, for reasons of personal safety, to flth her parents. A year thereafter, Gina found employ- Pils & domestic helper in Singapore, where she worked ‘consecutive years. All the time she was abroad, Gina olutely no communications with Frank, nor did she news about him. While in Singapore, Gina met and Jon July 4, 2007, Gina filed a petition with the RTC of to declare Frank presumy lead, so that she could y Will. The RIC granted Gina's petition, The Office of sd a Notice of Appeal with the ing the decision to the Court of Pls ‘a petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death a fal proceeding? Why or why not?2 ‘SPECIAL PROCBEDINGS. SUGGESTED ANSWER: in a nature of a special proceed: ing because it is an application that seeks to ostablish a status or a particular fact 2.08 IS PARTITION PROPER WHEN THERE REMAINS AN ISSUE AS TO THE EXPENSES CHARGEABLE TO THE ESTATE? No, in a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the ostate, pai inappropriate. In the case of Gerilla v. Carolina vda, de Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 2006, while petitioner points out that the estate it any debt and she and respondents are the only legal heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the CA that “certain expenses” including these related to her father’s final illness and burial have not been properly settled, The petitioner and respondents in this case, hav mit their father’s estate to settlement because the determin ‘these expenses cannot be done in an action for partition. of the properties may take possession thereof even before the settle- ment of account they first file a bond conditioned on the payment of the estate's obligations, 2.04 CASES 1 QUIAZON v. BELEN G.R. No. 189121, July 81, 2013 DOCTRINES: 4. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death, RULES a ‘Subject of Bstate of Daceasod Persons ua defined, “residence,” in the context of venue Yisions, means nothing more than a perso ince or place of abode, provided he resides the th continuity and consistency. © Quiazon died intestate. A petition for Letters of tion of his estate was filed by his common-law wife hhie daughter Elise. This was opposed by the decedent's lia ond children Jenneth and Jennifer on the ground of yvenue. The latter claimed that it should have been filed ffi Tarlac where Eliseo is a resident of and not in Las Pifias lived at the time of his death. Whether or not the proper venue for the filing of the jOf Administration is in Las Pirias City or in Capas, ~ COURT'S RULING: The case was properly filed in Las the place where the decedent resides at the time of his Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an of a foreign. country, the Court of First Instance now taking cognizance of the ‘shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other flv. The juriadiction assumed by a court, 60 far as it depends “legal residence or domicile.” The term “resides,” “residing” and “residence,” is elastic and should be din the light of the object or purpose of the statute orRULE 73 Ey ‘Subject of Rstate of Deceased Perens 2 SPECIAL PROCREDINGS rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules ~ Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature ~ residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even when the statute uses the word “domicile” still it is construed to mean residence and not domicile in the technical sense. In other words, “resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, smear the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. As thus defined, “residence” in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person’s actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency, IE COURT'S RULING: The Court lays down the doctrinal the term ‘resides’ connotes et vi termini ‘actual residence’ guished from ‘legal residence or domicile.’ ‘This term "like the terms ‘residing’ and ‘residence’ is elastic and should ted in the light of the object or purposes of the statute or which it is employed. jon 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court states that rather than domicile is the significant factor in determi | Bven where the statute uses the word ‘domicile’ still, ed ae residence and not domicile in the technical sense, Some ‘a distinction between the terms ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’ generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are syno- ‘and convey the same meaning as the term ‘inhabitant,’ In ‘words, ‘resides’ should be viewed or understood in its popular meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a :ctual residence or place of abode. Residence simply requires ‘presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make ile. No particular length of time of residence is required however, the residence must be more than “temporary.” 2 SALUDO, JR. v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC, G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006 DOCTRINE: Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court states that residence rather than domicile is the significant factor in determining venue. FACTS: Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. filed a comp! ‘damages against AMEX and/oriits officers with the RTC of Mi ity, Southern Leyte. ed, inter alia, that plaintiff (herein petitioner 10 citizen, of legal age, and a member of the House of Representatives and a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern ‘Leyte, Philippines.” The complaint’s cause of action stemmed from the alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner Saludo's AMEX credit card and the supplementary card issued to his daughter. Respondents averred that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that venue was improperly laid because none of the partios was a resident of Leyte, They alleged that respondents were not residents of Southern Leyte. Moreover, notwithstanding the claim in his complaint, petitioner Saludo was not allogedly a resident thereof as evidenced by the fact that his community tax certificate, which was presented when he executed the complaint’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was issued in Pasay City. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court committed rever- sible error in holding that venue was improperly laid because not one of the parties, including petitioner Saludo was a resident of Southern Leyte at the time of filing of the complaint.m4 ‘SPRCIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 13 2 ‘Subject of Bstate of Deceased Persone FORM: PETITION FOR THE SETTLEMENT ‘OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE a st proceedings prior to tho distribution of the n Quezon City a ee B Petitioner is not personally aware of a by the heirs or by the other interested parti ed sinca the doath of X on Navember 10, 2009. Ps y therefore, be appointed as an administrator of the estate. Sec. ‘of the Rules of Court provides: “If no executor is m: executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the (@ To the surviving husband or wife, as the ease may be, or px! of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person uch surviving husband or wife, or next of in, requests to have Inted, ifcompetent and willing to serve Ifsuch surviving husband or wi the person selected by them, be COMES NOW, the Petitioner, by counsel and to this to this Honorable Court, most respectfully alloges: |. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married and wi ______ He is one of the princip 8 of 2 On November 10, 2009, X died without leaving any will. At the time of his death, he was a resident of No, 3. ‘The deceased was survived by tho following compulsory heirs, namely: G, surviving spouse and legitimate children R, W and B, all of legal age and residents of No. xx x Tandang Sara. Ave 4, The deceased left several properties consisting primarily of real estate properties i ct value of ix million (P,000,000,00) poooe and asoesod val of four (P4,000,000.00) pesos. The deceased also left several obligations and personal debts at 1 of his death, which neod settled bofore the estate is finally to eorve, x3 mp Potitioncr has none of the disqualifications under Section 1, Rule ‘Rules of Court, as amended, Petitioner is thus qualified under the law, and is competent and fgoume such solemn duty of administering the estate of the , whom he considers as his best friend and brother anyway during fimo. And for this purpose, petitioner is willing to post a bond that {fixed by this Honorable Court conditioned upon the circumstances d under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court, an amended. [EREFORE, premises considered, it se most respoctfully prayed of which the deceased owed the petitioner as of 5 October 2008, as evidenced 3 tlement and partition of the of account prepared by the accountant of the deceased e compulsory heirs be rendered Annex “A” and forme an intogral part of this petition, 6, To finally settle the estate of the deceased, petitioner, being one by this Honorable Court of Letters of Administration in order full inventory and accounting of his estate, administer such estate, andSPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Quezon City, 1102 ‘VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING ran RULE 74 SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES (BAR QUESTIONS: 1994 [Sections 1 and 2], 1998, 2001, 2005, 2008) MAT IS THE RULE WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTATE BPT BY THE DECEDENT? {fenoral rule is that when a person dies leaving property, the ally administered and the competent: court BG THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT THE ‘ATE SHOULD BE JUDICIALLY ADMINISTERED? Bib Q. (2001) Shé'rules on special proceedings ordinarily require that ftate of the deceased should be judicially administered fh an administrator or executor. What are the two ex- ‘to the said requirement? [NGGESTED ANSWER: Tho two exceptions to the rule that the estate of the deceased MA be judicially administered through an administrator or exe- fire tho following: fh) If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are Flegel ago, the parties may, without securing letters of admin- an; divide the estate among themselves by means of public ins- {ht or by stipulation in a pending action for partition and shall a ified administrator, in the order esteblished in _oe ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS file a bond with the register of deeds in an amount equivalent to tho| value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned. The fact of extrajudicial settlement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for threa consecutive weeks in the province. 2) Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased| person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten| thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction of the estato by the petition of an interested: person and upon hearing, which shall be hold not less than (1) month nor more than three (3) months ftom the date of the last publication| of a notice which shall be published once a week for three consecutiv! weeks in a newspaper of goneral circulation in the province, and after euch other notice to interested persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an! executor or administrator, to settle the estate. 1.04 DISTINGUISH EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT UN.| DER SECTION 1 FROM SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF} ESTATES OF SMALL VALUE UNDER SECTION 2 OF RULE 74. ‘The distinctions are as follows: EXTRAJUDICIAL SUMMARY SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT 1. Does not require court Requires summary court intervention. adjudication, 2, The value of the estateis _| Applicable where the gross immaterial. value of tho estate is P10,000.00. ‘The amount is jurisdictional. 8. Allowed only in intestate Allowed in both testate and mn. intestate estates. 4. Proper when there arono _| Available oven if there are outstanding debts of the estate | debts, at the time of the sottlement. 5, Instituted by agreement of all | Instituted by any interested heirs, party and even by a credi the estate, without the consent of all the heirs. Wes by means of public instrum¢ Qt yaction for partition and shall fle a bond with the register of ‘an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property RULE 74 29 ‘Summary Settlement of Estates \T ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID EXTRA- CIAL SETTLEMENT? following are the requisites of a valid extrajudicial settle ), The decedent died intestate; ‘The estate has no outstanding debts at the time of the settlement; ‘The heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians or legal representatives; The settlement is mado in a public instrument, ‘or affidavit duly filed with the register of dees ‘The fact of such judicial settlement must be pi ‘week for three consecutive weeks. Incase of personal property, a bond equivalent to the value fi of personal property posted with the Register of Deeds is required. : T IS SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF L VALUE? ‘a eummary proceeding for the settlement of the estate of id person whether he died testate or intestate if the gross the estate ia P10,000.00 without need of an appointment of ator or executor. @, {2005} x 2, Nestor died intestate in 2003, leaving no debts, ‘his estate be settled by his heirs who are of legal age shed in + "a newspaper of general circulation in the province once a30 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE TA ‘Summary Settlement of Hstates involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned. fact of extrajudicial settlement shall be published in a newspaper general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks in 1 province. Hight of the admission of respondent-spouses Gualvez, the had properly rendered judgment on the validity of the {Self- Adjudication oxecuted by Avelina. As pointed out by dourt, an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when Bit ie the sole heir of the decedent, The second sontence of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court is patently clear that self- only warranted when there is only one heir: 1.08 WHAT IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF SELF-ADJUDICATION? It is an affidavit required by Section 1 of Rule 74 that is be executed by the sole heir of a deceased person in adjudicating to himself the entire estate left by the decedent. It is filed with Registry of Deods. on 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. tire estate by means of an affidavit fi r of deeds. x x x (emphasis su with and as acondition precedent to the filing of the public instrument or stipulation in the action for partition, orof the affidavit in the offic of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in af amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved a certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upotf MY the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 a ; this rule ‘when she declared in the affidavit that she is “the only d sole heir of spouses EULALIO ABARIENTOS AND ‘VILLAREAL.” The falsity of this claim renders her act of ‘to herself the inheritance left by her father invalid. HEN DOES THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DECE- LEFT NO DEBTS ARISE? Hall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no eredi- { petition for lottors of administration within two years after BY of the decedent. .@- [1994] died intestate, leaving several heirs and substan- here in the Philippines. suming Rene left no debts, as counsel for Rene’ jeirs, what steps would you suggest to settle Rene’ Adjudication by an heir of the decedent's entire estate to him¢ self by means of an affidavit is allowed only if he is the sole heir t the estate. (Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Mareiana Vda. dt Damian, 480 SCRA 334) 1.09 RECENT CASE REBUSQUILLO and OROSCO v. SPS. GUALVEZ G.R. No. 204029, June 4, 2014 SUPREME COURT'S RULING: F Assuming Rene left only one heir and no debt, as counsel for Rene’s lone heir, what steps would you suggest? IHGESTED ANSWER: humbly submitted that to settle Rene's estate in the Bensive manner, an extrajudicial settlement of estate by nt of the parties should be made through a public instrument with the register of deeds together with a bond in an was the sole heir to Portugal's estate, executed on February 15, 1988] the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentenca] of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving al property, it should be judicially administered and the competent cour) should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in 6 of Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he aiabe ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon payment of any just claim that may be filed within two years by an heir or other person unduly deprived of participation in the state. 2) Rene’s lone heir may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by executing an affidavit of self-adjudication to be filed with the Register of Deeds and upon submission of other requirements, 1.12 BAR Q. (1998) A, claiming to be an illegitimate child of the deceased ituted an intestate proceeding to settle the estate of itter. He also prayed that he be appointed administrator of said estate. S, the surviving spouse, opposed the petition and A’s application to be appointed the administrator on the ground that he was not the child of her deceased husband D. The court, however, appointed A as the administrator of said estate. Subsequently, S, claiming to be the sole heir of D, executed an affidavit of self-adjudication, adjudicating unto herself the entire estate of her deceased husband D.S sold the entire estate to X. 1 xxx 2. Was the action of S in adjudicating the entire estate of her late husband to herself legal? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action of S in adjudicating the entire estate of her late husband to herself is not legal because under the Rules of Court, an affidavit of self-adjudication is allowed only if the affiant is the sole heir of the deceased. In this ease, it appears that there is someone ‘who also claims to be an heir. The fact that there is a pending judicial proceeding for the settlement of the estate would suggest that there is doubt as to whether she is indeed the sole heir to the estate. 8 action therefore, is not proper. 1.13 BAR Q, [1994] Rene died intestate, leaving several heirs and substantial property here in the Philippines. Wo xxx 2) xxx RULE 14 Summary Settlement of Estates ‘Assuming that the value of Rene’s estate does not 110,000.00, what remedy is available to obtain a speedy it of his estate? To obtain a speedy surtlement of his estate, the remedy to proceed to undertake a summary settlement of estate shall be published once a week Joonsecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation movince, and after such other notice to interested persons as may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the pent of an executor or administrator, to settle the estate. RULE BARS DISTRIBUTEES OR HEIRS FROM \CTING TO ANEXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION AFTER, YEARS FROM SUCH PARTITION. IS THE RULE [CABLE TO PERSONS WHO HAD NO KNOWLEDGE, ff, tho limitations arc not applicable. ‘The provisions of Sec- fof Rule 74 barring distributee or heirs from objecting to an partition after the expiration of two years from such jcfal partition, is applicable only to: f),, Persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition; and, in addition, when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74, have been , strictly complied with. (Sampio v. CA, 103 Phil. 71) WA PERSON HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OR HAD NOT PARTICIPATED IN THE EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLE- , IS HE BOUND THEREBY BY REASON OF CON- RUCTIVE NOTICE OF PUBLICATION? o/ Publication in this case does not constitute constructive Extrajudicial Sottlement of Estates under Section 1 of Rule 7496 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Leta Summary Settlement of Bstates latter's death. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide the estate among themselves without need of delay and d ubseque risks of being dissipated. When a person dies without leaving pend- R herein petitioners. February 1998, or nearly 20 years later, four trocenia, Numeriano and Enrique, filed with his heirs, are not required to submit the property for ial administration, nor apply for the appointment of an admin- istrator by the court, The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error when it ruled that the lower court did not err in converting petitioner's action for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition. Nor can the Court sustain petitioner's argument th: of the trial court converting an actior to one for judicial partition has no basis procedurally infirm. The basis for the trial court’s Order is Sectic 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. It provides that in cases wher P ; that the report did not the signatures of heirs disagree as to the partition of the estate and no extrajudicial ent; and that no evidence of notice of the conference to the sottlement is possible, then an ordinary action for partition may be mts was presented, CA held that since the order stemmed resorted to, as in this case, ‘compromise agreement, the annulled order had no legal 3.01 CASE Whether or not the order of the trial court approving SPS. BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS Hesioner’s Report (on compromise agreement without G.R. No. 161220, July 30, 2008 DOCTRINE: The publication of the settlement does not consti- IME COURT'S RULING: No. The assailed order, which tute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or smmissionen’s Report is void for lackof did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fo vee Bee fact of execution. i Vargas, in which the issue was whether heirs we FACTS: When Evaristo Cuyos died in 1966, he left six parcels of land in Daanbantayan, Cebu, Gloria, one of Evaristo's nine children, Was appointed as administrator of his estate. Subsequently, Atty. Taneo, the Clerk of Court of the CFI which granted the letiers of administration to Gloria, was appointed to act as Commissioner in charge to effect the agreement of the heirs and to prepare the project of partition of the estate. In his report, Atty. Taneo stated that in a conference to arrive at an agrooment for partition attended by six out of nine heirs, it was agroed that the properties of the estate would be sold to o Columba Cuyos Benatiro, one of the heirs of the decedent. Finding ‘the terms of the agreement in order, the CFI approved the compro- mise agreement embodied in the Commissioner’s Report. Thus, to implement the agreement, Lope, the new administrator, executed a a7 0-4 ‘VSU-R LAW LIBP.ARY thereby. It contemplates a noti ifore any deed of settlement and/or par calling all interested parties to participate in the said‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ‘The publication of the settlement does not constitute construc- tive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. The RULE 75 requirement of publication is geared for the protection of 8 } and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation PRODUCTION OF WILL in the decedent's estate, In this connection, the records of the present ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their existence only shortly before thi filing of the present complaint, Following Rule 74, ; 2007, 2910, 2011) settlements do not bind respondents, and the par ‘ JF WILLS. their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned DEE eee : of proving in court a document purporting to be the Applying the above-mentioned ease by analogy, what matters ae oe rine See Soe pore ete pares whether the heirs were indeed notified before the compromise agre ii sosaruras ieeetataa und caja ot iG pees se rar tah ns MB. cg alloged agreement afterwards ‘The Court also finds nothing in the records that would show that tho hoirs were called to 2 hearing to validate the Report. The CFI adopted and approved the Report despite the absence of the signatures of all the heirs showing conformity thereto. The CFI adopted the Report despite the statement therein that only six out ‘THE PROBATE OF A WILL MANDATORY? of the nine heirs attended the conference, thua, effectively depriving ‘a will is mandatory. (Baluyot v. Panio, G.R. the other heirs of their chance to be heard. The CFT's action was eee tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. The Bs z AND EFFECT EVEN IF Court finds that the assailed Order dated December 16, 1976, which F SeamAmane eee approved a void Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment for lack Reeaitee | a of due process (Until admitted to probate, a will has no effect and no rig! Baimed thoreunder. (Pascual v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA ALLOWANCE OF A WILL NECESSARY? is necessary. Section 1 of Rule 75 is “No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless itis allowed in the proper court” AR Q. (20071 xxx ‘The heirs of H agree among themselves that they r the division of H’s estate as indicated in her Last ‘Testament, To avoid the expense of going to court n for Probate of the Will, can they instead execute \dicial settlement agreement among themselves? fly. Cia ee eC eee ee Cee a0 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUGGESTED ANSWER: submitted that the heirs cannot extrajudicially enter into provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in court. The will must first be probated bofore parties may enter into any extrajudicial agreement. 1.06 BAR Q. [2006] Sergio Punzalan, Filipino, 60 years old, married, and Iupa City, of sound and testament in language spoken and written by him proficiently. 1d of his estate consisting of a parcel of land in and cash deposit at the City Bank in the sum of mn. He bequeathed P50 million each to his 8 sons and P150 million to Susan, his favorite daughter-in-law. He named his best friend, Cancio Vidal, as executor of the will without bond, Lo xxx 2 xxx B xxx 4, Canthe widow and her children settle extrajudicially among themselves the estate of the deceased? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The widow and her children cannot settle extrajudicially among themselves the estate of the deceased without the will being probated, Section 1 of Rule 75 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that, “No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved arid allowed in the proper court.” 5. Can the widow and her children initiate a separate nn for partition of the estate pending the probate of the and testament by the court? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pending the probate of the last will, the widow and her children cannot initiate a separate petition for partition of the estate. The Rule provides that the will must first be probated before the property may be settled or partitioned. | ixbmited tha the acl of the lawyer isnot comest. The irt is clear on the matter. No will shall pass either real or 'satate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Q, [1992] last will and testament of the deceased was presented Ifor the probate of tl ‘Before evidence thereon presented, the legal of the deceased, his widow two surviving daughters, filed a manifestation that already agreed to divide the net estate differently lance with a project of partition attached to their yn, Consequently, they moved that the project of be approved and forthwith implemented without jof the decedent's will. Id the court grant the heirs’ motion and accordingly ‘the court cannot approve a project of pat the will because under the Rules of Court, “No eal or personal property unless it is proved and ‘such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due ag stated in Section 1 of Rule 75.RULES 8 Production of Will Allowance of Will Necoasary THE CONCEPT AND EXTENT OF “DUE EXECU- IN” execution covers the following: The will was executed in accordance with the strict forma ties of the law; ‘The testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will; Consent is not vitiated by any duress, fear or threats; ) The will was not procured by any undue influence from the i: beneficiary or by some other person for his benefit; and } The signature of the testator is genuine. 2 SPKCIAL PROCEEDINGS A decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execu: tion of the will and it cannot be impugned on any grounds except that of fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding. (Manahan v. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448, 45) 1.10 DUE EXECUTION CONNOTES THAT THE WILL WAS EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALI- TIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW. CITE THESE LAWS. Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, being of sound mind, frooly executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to wit: Article 806. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his pres- ‘ence, and by his express direction, and attested and subseribod by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testa- tor and of one another. \Y A PROBATE COURT PASS UPON THE INTRINSIC LIDITY OF A WILL? {n a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by ierestricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, .e. whether itor, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accor- {th the formalities prescribed by law. As a rule, the question ip is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot, th finality. (Pastor, Jr. v. CA, 122 SCRA 185) ‘The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, ar caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. RULE PROVIDES THAT “SUCH ALLOWANCE OF WILL SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO ITS DUE UTION.” EXPLAIN ITS MEANING. allowance of the will precludes any interested person from ‘the due execution of the will but not the intrinsic validity jentary provisions. Matters relating to intrinsic validity of .ed by substantive law on inheritance and partition. ingon, 39 Phil. 156) If the attestation clause is in a language not known to tho witnesses, it shall bo interpreted to them. Article 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or flo another with the Office of the Clerk of Court. (M. Mateo, Nenita A, Pacheco, Virgilio Regala, Jr., and Rafael Titeo v. Lorenzo Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012) @, [2010] ina died single. She left all her properties by will to Duqueza, In the will, Czarina stated that she did ize Marco as an adopted son because of his disres- juct towards her. Jueza soon instituted an action for probate of Czari- ‘Marco, on the other hand, instituted intestate pro- | Both actions were consolidated before the RTC ofRULES 46 Production of Will Allowance of Wil Necessary HAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT MAY BE BROUGHT IBEFORE THE PROBATE COURT? determination of whether a property should be included in tory is within the jurisdiction of a probate court. (Munsayac- 1. Court of Appeals, 414 SCRA 436) imay also include the determination of who are the heirs of dent; the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights; the status heir and all other matters incidental to the administration, Bent and distribution of the estate. “ ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Pasig. On motion of Marco, Duqueza’s petition was ordered dismissed on the ground that the will is void for depriving him of his legitime. Argue for Duqueza. SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The dismissal of Duqueza’s action for probate is not valid. The probate court may only pass upon the extrinsic validity of the iLe., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the wi in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. The issue as to whether the will is void because an adopted child cannot be deprived of his legitime involves intrinsic val It is asettied rule that probate court is a court of, is , it may only determine and rule upon issues that relate to settlement of the extate of deceased person such as the administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate. Matters relating to intrinsic validity of a will are governed by substantive law on inheritance and partition, Q, [2011] part from the case for the settlement of her parents’ y:Betty filed an action against her sister, Sigma, for veyance of title to a piece of land. Betty claimed that | forged the signatures of their late parents to make it Ly that they sold the land to her when they did not, thus. Hloing Betty's legitime. Sigma moved to dismiss the pon the ground that the dispute should be resolved in be proceedings. Is Sigma correct? ‘Yes, questions of collation should be resolved in the estate , : ¢ Pexesa No, since questions of ownership of property cannot be | resolved in the estate proceedings. ‘Yes, in the sense that Betty needs to wait until the estate case has been terminated. No, the filing of the separate action is proper; but the estate proceeding must he suspended meantime. 1.15 BAR Q. [1999] a) xxx b) _A’s will was allowed by the Court. No appeal was taken from its allowance. Thereafter, Y, who was interested in the estate of A, discovered that the will was not genuine because A's signature was forged by X. A criminal action for forgery was instituted against X. May the due execution of the Will be validly questioned in such criminal action? SUGGESTED ANSWER: It is submitted that the due execution of the will cannot be validly questioned in such criminal action since allowance of the will from which no appeal was taken is conclusive as to its due # execution. Due execution includes a finding that the will is genuine {A PROBATE COURT A COURT OF LIMITED JURIS- and not a forgery. Thus, the due execution of the will cannot again be OTION? ‘questioned in sul ent proceeding, not even in a criminal action 4 fimited jurisdiction. As such, it for forgery of the A probate court is a court of limited jurisdi fy determine and rule upon issues that relate to settlement of of deceased person such as the administration, liquidation (bution of the estate. yate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It acts on ‘aining to the estate but never on the rights to property contract. (Pio Barreto Realty Dev., Inc. v. CA, L-62431, 606) 1.16 IS THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL APPLICABLE IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS? No, the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in probate pro- coodings since the presentation and the probate of a will are required by public policy. (Fernandez, et al. v. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12, 1967)SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULES a Production of Will Allowanco of Will Necessary (8) pass upon with the consent: of all the heirs the issue of ‘ownership of estate asset, contested by an heir if no thixd parson is affected. When questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administration proceedings. ‘The trial court, acting as probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the trial court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. (Ongsingco v. Tan, 97 Phil. 330, 334-335) 2.01 THE GENERAL RULE PROVIDES THAT A PROBATE rule on a claim by one of the heirs that an estate asset was held in trust for him by the deceased. rescind a contract of lease entered into by the deceased before death on the ground of contractual breach by the lessee. COURT CANNOT DECIDE A QUESTION OF TITLE ISCUSS THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF OWNERSHIP. ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. i eae @ rule provides that when a probate court first takes cogni- ‘The probate court may pass upon the question of title to property jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of a deceased on the following cases: shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over the same to the other 3c , it cannot there- (a) The interestod parties who are all heirs of the deceased vaveotod of cur jnodicunn bythe subnagunt aa of te consent thereto and the interests of third parties are not prejudiced; ‘as when they enter into extrajudicial partition or by filing (b) Ina provisional manner, to determine whether said pro- 9" petition for settlement in a proper court of concurrent juris- perty should be included in or excluded from the inventory, without rojudice to the final determination of title in a separate action, @. (1990) In Valera v, Inserto, 149 SCRA 533 (1987), the Supreme Court, declared that where the determination by the probate court was Magialo,excoutor of the estato of the deceased merely provisional, it cannot be the subject of execution, especially rAceron, submitted an inventory which includes a ten; 0, where the Torrens Title to the property is not in the decedent's Jot occupied by Carlos Domingo. Domingo oppose name but in others. nin the inventory of the property claiming ownership The probate court directed the executor and Domingo Likewise in Coca, et al. v. Pangilinan, et al., 1-27082, January it evidence of ownership. Domingo refused to par- 81, 1978 and in Munsayac-De Villa v. Court of Appeals, 414 SCRA in the proceedings, assorting lack of jurisdiction on 436, the Supreme Court ruled that although, generally, a probate of the probate court, The probate court nonetheless court may not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the with the hearing and rendered judgment declaring interestetl parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or \sed to be the owner of the questioned property. The advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction court directed Domingo to vacate the premises. by the probate court and the rights of thied porsone are not impaired, : : the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership. {the judgment correct? Explain your answer, 2.02 BAR Q. [2011] \GGESTED ANSWER: ‘ fan f eae In proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased See eas asin eee a a a eats Persons, the court in which the action is pending may properly ee ee pay cate peered (A) pass upon question of ownership of a real property in the on for the purpose of including the same in the inventory name of the deceased claimed by a stranger. te.RULE 75 7 Production of Will Allowance of Will Necossary 8 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 2.05 IF A NOTARIAL WILL IS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE, iaiaial WILL ITS PROBATE BE DENIED? xxx ‘Yes, a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number )oxex of pages on which the wil is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is |GGESTED ANSWER: fatally defective, And perhaps most importantly, a will Section 2, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court expressly provides not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally def mm who has custody of the will shall deliver the same to Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial wil ee ‘that Susan has a with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection. ‘There is a distinct and consequential reason the Civil Code pro- vides a comprehensive catalog of imperatives for the proper execution of a notarial will. Full and faithful compliance with all the detailed requisites undor Article 805 of the Code leave littl as to the validity in the due execution of the notarial will. Article 806 likewise imposes another safeguard to the validity of notarial wills — that they be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. A notarial will executed with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging questions as to its legit (Felix Azuela v. CA, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006) rson named as ption 8 of Rule 75 expressly states that a person nam {in a will shall, within 20 days after he knows of the death tator, or within 20 days after he knows that - ¥ named obtait after the death of the testa- 8.01 WHAT IS THE DUTY OF A CUSTODIAN OF AWILL UPON Bp ho chtsine such tnowieign ae ie cea KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR? tate mone ‘manner, and shall, within such Section 2 of Rule 75 provides that the person who has custody 4 in writing his acceptance of the trust or ofa will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of Himily to the cour the testator, deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will. 8.02 BAR Q. (2006) Sergio Punzalan, Filipino, 50 years old, married, and resi- ding at Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, of sound and disposing mind, executed a last will and testament in English, a language spoken and written by him proficiently. He disposed of his estate consisting of a parcel of land in Makati City and cash deposit at the City Bank in the sum of P300 milli bequeathed P50 mil i Is Cancio Vidal, after learning of Sergio’s death, ion court a petition for probate of to Susan, hi daughter-in-law. He named his best friend, se ee Cancio Vidal, as executor of the will without bond. Loxxz 2, Supposing the original copy of the last will and tes- tament was lost, can Cancio compel Susan to produce a copy in her possession to be submitted to the probate court? ‘Bection 3, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court is explicit. A person a will shall, within 20 days after he knows of BEE ee eee eee eee0 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS the death of the testator, or within 20 days after he knows that he is named executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator, present such will to the court having jurisdiction. Consider- ing the fact that Cancio Vidal is named as executor in the will, he is, therefore, obliged to file a petition for probate of the will. 5,01 MAY MANDAMUS LIE TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL WILL? No, as held in the case of Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No, 176831, January 5, 2010, the Suprome Court, without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation involved here — the production of the original holographic will -is in the nature of a public or a private duty, rules that the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the respondent because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It should be noted in this case that the respondent has a photocopy of the will and that he seeks the production of the original for purposes of probate, The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent him from ins- tituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not. Section 1 of Rule 76 relevantly provides: Sec. 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. An adequate remedy is further provided in Sections 2 to 6 of Rule 75 for the production of the original holographic will. Thus — Sec. 2. Custodian of will to deliver. — The person who has custody of a will shall, rwenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to the court having Jurisdiction, or to the oxecutor named in the will. Sec. 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust. — A person named as executor in a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the doath of the testator, or within twenty (20) days after he knows that he is named executor if he obtained such kmowledge after the death of the testator, present RULES aL Production of Will ‘Allowance of Will Necessary 1 to the court having jurisdiction, unless the will has ached the court in any other manner, and shall, within such d, signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust refusal to accept it. Sec. 4, Custodian and executor subject to fine for neglect. |A person who noglocts any of the duties required in the two preceding sections without excuse satisfactory to the court ‘be fined not exceeding two thousand pesos, ¢ See. 5. Person retaining will may be committed. — A per- having custody of a will after the death of the testator who ets without reasonable cause to deliver the same, when 3d 80 to do, to the court having jurisdiction, may be com- {tted to prison and there kept until he delivers the will. wre being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordi- of law for the production of the subject will, the remedy 149 cannot be availed of. PACIOLES, JR. v, CHUATOCO-CHING GR. No. 127920, August 9, 2005 | May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear upon questions of ownership involving properties to be part of the decedent's estate? BME COURT'S RULING: The general rule is that the juris- fof the trial court either as an intestate or a probate court enly to matters having to do with the settlement of the robate of will of deceased persons but does not extend mination of questions of ownership that arise during gs. (Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947, 29, 1997) The patent rationale for this rule is that such jsee special and limited jurisdiction. (Heirs of Oscar R. G.R. No. 139587, November 22, 2000) |recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an :0¥ a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of whether oF not a pro- i be included in the inventory. In such a situation, the on ie merely incidental and provisional. alee Eee eee eee eet52 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS FORM: PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF A WILL Court of Manila Branch Petition for the Probate of the last will and testament is capacity as the named Executor in the last will and testament of the late H. Petitioner, ‘Spee. Pro. Case No, PETITION COMES NOW, the Petitioner in his capecity as the named executor in the last will and testament of the deceased H before this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following: 8. WhenMs. H passed away, she was unmartied and had no children other own. Both her parents had long passed away prior to her death. She is survived by the following percona as her next of kin and heirs. Her sibl R married to L, parents of Jos, and M with postal address at yD maeied to Dra, parents of Mi, Ee, Vi, and Be with postal address at ae ¢. married to C. However soon after the demise ofthe testator we passed away. He left his children namely: R, Sand T with postal address at testator left a last will and testament executed on February 14,2006, (te under the tare and custody of Attorney V for safekeeping. ‘The testator, at the time of her death, was a resident of RULES 88 reduction of Will Allowance of Wil Necese en as practicable and when necessa executor will cause the fyotion of original of the will before the bAttached herewith and made an integral part of this pleading is a fh! copy of the last will and testament of H as Annex “B." F, That the petitioner, as executor named in said will, consents to such, ‘The testator left a zeal property in Manila and the following use and Lot in Manila 1¥2,600,000.00 500,000.00 (600,000.00) 'P150,000.00 (150,000.00), 1,850.00 |AUSE OF ACTION: PROBATE OF THE, Pi Petitioner respectfully seeks the probat hit with the requisites ofthe laws of the \USE OF ACTION: PARTITION OF THE ESTATE IN ACCOR- }WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE WILL tne Willis allowed inthis probate, the properties ofthe late H in accordance withthe provisions and instructions inthe Will. PRAYER ORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that: ‘Aplaco and time be eet for proving the last will and tests- ant ofthe Into. b, That due notice be provided in accordance with the Rules of ill and testament be issued to herein s, That after proper hearing, said mitted to probate and letters testament 4. Intheevent that the willis allowed, theestatebe distributed ocordance with the oaid Will, Baar romedios just and equitable and necessary in order to achieve of justice under the premises are likewise prayed for.a SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS JUAN DBLA cruz Roll No 40128 PTR No, 8882148 1142015 RULE 76 TBP No, 690130 1 MCLE Compliano 10008269 0228/10 OWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL ‘Tel. No. (02) 416-3900 (BAR QUESTIONS: 1999, 2002, 2011, 2012) Coll Phone No. 0020 1284667 7 E-Mail Address: jhimfes2@yahoo.com HO MAY PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF WILL? No. 222 Wheels Executive Suite odriguer Sr. Avenue, Quezon Cit exocutor, devisee, or legates named in a will, or any other eS eres eee eee Hnterested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of ‘VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING Yor, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will whether the eame be in his posseasion or not, or is lost or 1, J.0., Flipin, of logal age, with residence address at after having been sworn to in necordance with law hereby states: testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court 1, Tam the petitioner in the above-entitled case, allowance of his will. 2. Teaused the preparation of the aforementioned petition. 3, Thereby certify that T have not commenced any other, action or proceeding involving the same issues as are now raised in the : before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other court, ate proceeding he must have an inters or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proc {in the property to be affected by pending before the Supreme int of the estate. An interested party is one who would be on ee ‘by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim gtinst een filed or is pendit f it ,, Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 13 any other court, tribunal or agency, I shall personally notify this Honorable Ike a creditor. (Sumilang v. Rar Court of such fact within five (6) days from said native. {0 IS A “PERSON INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE”? INE PROBATE OF A WILL. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before mo, this___day of. {san act of proving in court a document purporting to be the affiant exhibiting to me his LTO Driver's License Identification Card with ‘and tostamont of a deceased person in order that it may be Hr IneREniE in recognized, registered and its provisions carried insofar as NOTARY PUBLIC {n accordance with law. Doc, No. PROBATE OF A WILLSUBJECT'T0 PRESCRIPTION? PAGE NO. i ; Pestaatd . The petition for probate of the will is not subject to the beeeirecheedeeermmeet of limitations and does not prescribe, as euch petition may Yat any time” and is required by publi (Guevara v. it al., 98 Phil. 249)56 ‘SPRCIAL, PROCEEDINGS RULE TG 57 Allowance oF Disallowance of Wil 1.05 WHAT MUST THE PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE nrybody, even against the State. The probate of a will of the OF A WILL SHOW? jurisdiction thereof is conclusive as to its due execution Our rule requires merely that the petition for the allowance of ity. (Cuenco v. CA, 53 SCRA 360) will must show, so far as known fee a) the jurisdictional facts; Lace Aer cea i Pio Rule declares that no will shall be proved as a lost or }) the names, ages and residences of the heirs, legates and ‘ i vali b deviaees of the testator or decedent; will unless the execution and validity of the same be hed, and the will ie proved to have been in existence at the ©) the probable value and character of the property of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been frauduler estate; jin the lifetime of the testator without his 4) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and sions are clearly and distinctly proved will is proved, the ©) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it. (In the Matter of the Petition to h is Approve the Will of Ruperta Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January drded as other wills are filed and recorded. 26, 2011) T KIND OF PROOF DOES THE EXISTENCE OF 1.06 DO THE RULES REQUIRE PROOF THAT THE FOR- | WILL ESTABLISH? EIGN WILL HAS BEEN PROBATED IN THE FOREIGN ve etn ote Wi in trina pt No, the rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of ts execution. (In the matter of the petition to approve the will of Ruperta Palaganas, GR. No. 169144, January 26, 2011) 1.07 BAR Q. [2012] What are the jurisdictional facts that must be alleged in a petition for probate of a will? in order that a lost or des- SUGGESTED ANSWER: jonal facts in probate proceedings are the death of idence at the time of his death in the province by order that a lost or destroyed will may be allowed, the follow- of where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a Dit be, in a subsequent proceeding, complied with: foreign country, his leaving his estate in such province. (Cuenco v. CA, 53 SCRA 360) 1.08 WHAT IS THE NATURE OF PROBATE PROCEEDINGS? shown to have been fraudulently or acciden- lifetime of the testator without his knowledge; inctly proved by at least SEE ae ee eee eee eee58 ‘SPUCIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 76 59 Allowanes or Disellowange of Will 2.02 BAR Q. [2011] to any person named as co-executor Which of the following is sufficient to disallow a will on the ground of mistake? (A) Anerror in the description of the land devised in the will. (B) Theinclusion for distribution among the heirs of properties ‘at least ten (10) days before the day pof hearing shall be equivalent to mailing. If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice all be sent only to his compulsory heirs.” not belonging to the testator. " © i Mth the case of Alaban v. CA, G.R, No. 186021, September 28, ‘executed a will } i perusal of tho will instituted by the testator shows that res- Mint was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, (D) Anerror in the name of the person nominatod as executor. Ay phews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor Ye heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceed- Under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention ners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of 2.03 BAR Q. [2002] May an order denying the probate of a will still be over- turned after the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘Yes, an order denying the probate of a will may be overturned aftr the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed. A petition for relief ‘may be filed on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence within a period of 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered (Rule 88, Secs. 1 and 8; Soriano v, Asi, 100 Phil. 785 [1957). An action for annulment may also be filed on the ground of extrinsic fraud within four years from its discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel, (Rule 47, Secs. 2 and 3) ALABAN, et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005 IS: Respondent Francisco Provide fled a petition for the probate Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Eleven- d the probate of the will of the decedent and directed the of letters testamentary to respondent. jed a motion for the reopening of the probate , they filed an opposition to the allowance of the the decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testamentary to iming that they are the intestate heirs of the decedent, laimed that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over tion due to non-payment of the correct docket fees, defective Bation, and lack of notice to the other heirs. 2.04 WHO ARE ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE, OF PROBATE PROCEEDINGS? Section 4 of Rule 76 provides that known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator are entitled to notices. It provides: issued an Order denying petitioners’ motion for being ftorious holding that petitioners were deemed notified of the by publication and that the deficieney in the payment of fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition. ly required respondent to pay the deficiency. thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing, if Whether or not petitioners have become parties to the fie proceedings by virtue of a notice by publication. such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice mu: like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he Fa ai aa ee CCE Cee ee eee eee6 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUPREME COURT'S RULING: It has been held that a proceeding for the probate of wills one in rem, such that, publication of the petition the court's persons interested in said will or in the the decedent. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing. Assuming orpuende RULE 77 , ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE JF THE PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATION yt OF ESTATE THEREUNDER (BAR QUESTIONS: 2011, 2014) ‘WILL WAS PROBATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. IT BE RE-PROBATED IN THE PHILIPPINES? Philippines. If the , separate proceedings country must be re-probated in t] ‘owns properties in different co ‘had to cover the same. \T MUST THE PROPONENT PROVE DURING A PROBATE PROCEEDING? the xe-probate proceedings in the Philippines, the proponent (a) that the testator was domiciled in the foreign country, the will has been admitted to probate in such country, (©) foreign court was, under the laws of said foreign country, a ‘court with jurisdiction over the proceedings, (d) the law on procedure in said foreign country and proof of compliance , and () the legal requirements in said foreign country for ‘execution of the will. (Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610) t petitioners are entitled to be so noti- is cured by the publication of the notice. spon the heirs is a matter of procedural jurisdictional requisite. T ARE THE EFFECTS OF ALLOWANCE OF A WILL ER THIS RULE? effects are as follows: ‘The will shall be treated as iforiginally proved and allowed > in Philippine courts; Letters testamentary or administration with a will annexed (° Bhall extend to all estates of the Philippines; \ After paymentof ust debts and expenses of administration, the residue of the estate shall be disposed of as provided ‘by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. a aaa eee ile eee eee eee ett63 ea ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. RULE? Allowance of Will Proved Outeide of the Philippines ‘and Administration of Estate Therounder 2.02 MAY A WILL EXECUTED BY FOREIGNERS ABROAD lece Anastacia, an American citizen re BE PROBATED IN THE PHILIPPINES EVEN IF NOT injum unit of Johnny located at Fort Boni YET PROVED AND ALLOWED IN THE COUNTRY OF younger brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnny’ EXECUTION? Epond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and a younger sister, a, who manages Johnny's rental condominium units mur laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by i ipkati City. Johnny's entire estate which he inherited cep elise hp teed MM ed ae lin con abot given legal effects in our jurisdiction, Article 816 of the Civil Code as exeoutrix of his will, states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Can Johnny's notarial will be probated before the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities proscribed by If court in the Philippines? the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country. Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides SUGGESTED ANSWER: that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC Johnny's notarial will can be probated before the proper of the province where he has an estate may take cognizance of the ‘the Philippines. xxx that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other is a settled jurisprudential doctrine that our laws do not person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of ‘the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will have not yet been probated and allowed in the countries of allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or ition. Article 816 of the Civil Code expressly provides that destroyed. Stan aon who abroad produces effect in the Philippins i ‘The rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the ; i ities observed in his, will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional he resides or according to the formalities observe facts; (b) the names, ages, and rosidences of the heirs, legatecs, and devises of the testator or docodent; (6) the probable value and the case at bar, Johnny's notarial will was executed in character of the property of the estate; (4) the name of the person for 8 with the laws of California, U.S.A. Hence, his will may be whom letters are prayed; and (¢) if the will has not been delivered to din the Philippines. the court, the name of the person having custody to it. Jurisdictional ; facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the RQ. [2011] time of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, Aas pecanaae re 1 or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he Se ac cee Wie a such province, The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has ce already been allowed and probated in the country of its exocution. (ln Re: In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Ruperta Palaganas v. Paleganas, C.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011) ‘Kong so that Winston would receive the equivalent of 2.08 BAR Q. [2014] per month for the next 15 years. ), a naturalized citizen of ited ting to recetve the principal amount of the annuity, ‘America (SA) but formerly a no citizen, cereals ip files for the probate of Pedrillo’s will in Makati RTC. notarial will in accordance with the d for, the court names Winston as administrator of fornia, USA. Johnny, at the time of64 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Winston now files in the Makati RTC a motion to compel XYZ to account for all sums in its possession forming part of Pedrillo’s estate. Rule on the motion. RULE 78 SUGGESTED ANSWER: BRS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, ‘The motion must; be denied. When a will is allowed, the letters * ‘WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED of administration granted by the court shall extend to all the estate (BAR : 106, 2011, 2014) of the testator in the Philippines. (Rule 77, Sec. 4) Hence, RTC of q Seen Ne toe ante J Makati has no jurisdiction over XYZ of Hongkong. 2.05 CANOUR COURTS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS? No, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Hence, 0 ARE INCOMPETENT TO SERVE AS EXECUTORS executors or administrators of the decodent’s estate are duty-bound PR ADMINISTRATORS? to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the foreign court which i’ admitted to probate the will of the decedent, (Ancheta v. Dalaygon, GR. No, 139868, June 8, 2006) {following may administer the estate: 1) executor; 2) admin- the Rule, no person is competent to serve as executor or prator who: Isa minor; 2.06 WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE PETITIONER IN A REPRO- ; i BATE PROCEEDINGS? Is not a resident of the Philippines; and While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notie of them; how ‘he trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want ever, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey's estate, was of understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of duty-bound to introduce the pertinent law of the State of Maryland. ‘an offense involving moral tu (Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon, G.R. No. 139868, June 8, 2006) Hi (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed a will in accordance with the laws of the State of Cali- d'in Lingayen, Pangasinan and a younger sister, who manages Johnny’s rental condominium Biat! City. Johnny's entire estate which he inherited Ni parents is valued at P200 million. Johnny appointed 1g as executrix of his will. 6568 SPECIAL. PROCEEDINGS 8.02 WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE RULE ON THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE? Textually, the rule lists a sequence to be observed, an order of preference, in the appointment of an administrator. This order of preference, which categorically seeks out the surviving spouse, the next of kin and the creditors on the appointment of an administrator, has been reinforced in jurisprudence. ‘The paramount consideration in the appointment of an admin- istrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administra- tor’s interest in the estate. This is the same consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mis- management, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a decedent's estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate, ‘To illustrate, the preference bestowed by law to the surviving istration of a decedent's estate presupposes the surviving spouse’s interest in the conjugal partnership or community property forming part of the decedent's estate, Likewise, a surviving spouseis a compulsory heir of a decedent which evinces as much, ifnot ‘more, interest in administering the entire ostate of a decedent, aside from her share in the conjugal partnership or absolute community property. (Suntay IIT v. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No, 183053, October 10, 2012) 3.03 IS THE RULE ON ORDER OF PREFERENCE ABSOLUTE? As a general rule, the court cannot set aside the order of preference. The Rules of Court provides for the order of preference in the appointment of an administrator. (Ventura v. Ventura, 160 SCRA 810) However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends fon the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed, RULES cy Letters Testamentary and of Administration ‘When and to Whom Taaed jhWPhe order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co- jstrators, specially in cases where justice and equity demand pposing parties or factions be represented in the management, ‘states, a situation which obtains hore. (In the Matter of the bte Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay v. Isabel Cojuangco- . No. 182063, October 10, 2012) AIN THE REASON WHY THE APPOINTMENT OF IMINISTRATORS HAS BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE RULE ON THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE. ‘over the estate ofa decedentis the prospective administrator's stn the estate, ia to servation of the order of prefer- ‘the appointment of trator of a decedent's estate that ‘Court which specifically states that letters of administration iasued to both the surviving spouse and the next of kin. In fon and impliedly, the Supreme Court in its discussion, pointed on 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court which say that "x x x In executor or administrator dies, resigns or is removed, the executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, py. Isabel Cojwangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, October 10,2012) WHAT OTHER INSTANCES MAY THE COURT SET THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE? BS case the persons who have the preferential right to be d under the Rules are not competent or are unwilling to iministration may be granted to such other person as the Bhy appoint. (Villamor v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 574) \T 1S THE SCOPE OR LIMIT OF ADMINISTRATION? general rule universally recognized is that administration only to the assets of a decedent found within the state or where it was granted, so that an administrator appointed in intry has no power over the property in another state . This is specifically embodied in Section 4, Rule 78 of the Court. (Leon v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 90 Phil Bae = ES TF AWET 2 eens... _» SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ‘The courts have always respected the right to which a testator enjoys to determine who is most suitable to cettle his testamentary affairs, and his solemn selection should not lightly be disrogardod. After the admission of a will to probate, the courts a better executor for the testator nor disqualify, by a judicial veto, the widow or friend or other person selected in the will, except upon strict proof of the statutory grounds of incompetency. (Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, G.R, Nos. 130371 and 180855, August 4, 2009) 4.01 BAR Q. [2011] Anna filed a petition for appointment as regular admin- istratrix of her fathers’ estate. Her sister So miss the petition on the ground that the parties, as members of the same family, have not exerted earnest effort toward a compromise prior to the filing of the petition. Should the petition be dismissed? @) ‘Yes, sinco such earnest effort ie jurisdictional in all eatate cases. (B) No, since such carnest effort. is not required in_special proceedings. (©) Yes, since such earnest effort is required prior to the filing of the case. (D) No, since such earnest effort toward a compromise is not required in summary proceedings. 4.02 BAR Q, [2006] Sergio Punzalan, Filipino, 50 years old, married, and residing at Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, of sound and disposing mind, executed a last will and testament in English, a language spoken and written by him proficiently. He disposed of his estate consisting of a parcel of land in Makati City and cash deposit at the City Bank in the sum of 300 million. He bequeathed P50 million each to his three sons and P150 million to Susan, his favorite daughter-in-law. named his best friend, Cancio Vidal, as oxecutor of the will without bond, Lo xxx 2 xxx 3. Can the probate court appoint the widow as exe- cutor of the will? RULE 8 n Letters Testamentary and of Adminiatration ‘When and to Whom Inewed |SUGGESTED ANSWER: fea, it is submitted that the probate court can appoint the j a8 executor of the will as Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of provides that if the executor named in the willis incompetont, tho trust, or fails to give bond, administration shall be granted jaurviving spouse as the case may be, if competent and willing Q, [1998] dlaiming to be an illegitimate child of the deceased D, an intestate proceeding to settle the estate of the He also prayed that he be appointed administrator state. S, the surviving spouse, opposed the petition - application to be appointed the administrator on the that he was not the child of her deceased husband court, however, appointed A as the administrator of te. Subsequently, S, claiming to be the sole heir of ited an affidavit of adjudication, adjudicating unto the entire estate of her deceased husband D.S sold the ‘estate to X. Was the appointment of A as administrator proper? ]GGESTED ANSWER: is, the illegitimate child may be appointed as administrator ‘of the wife in the absence of grave abuse of discretion by , Though the spouse may have enjoyed preferer {tment of administrator of the estate, it appears has neglected to apply for leters of administration from the death of the decedent as required by theRULE 78 n Latvers Testamentary and of Administration ‘When and to Whom Issued 2 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS FORM 3: ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ADMINISTRATION ‘case of petitioner's only brother B, although petitioner and her regularly visit the docoased spouses. Consid int companion of the deceased spouses prior to to him the possession of all documents evide In the Mattor of TA. In several occasions, tho deceased spouses would tell poti- Intestate Estate of Spouses that they havo poso ond dollar savings/chocking and time HandW Spee. Proc. Case No. te accounts with the following banks: For: Issuance of Letters of pea ‘Administration with Prayer fisted Baufla Back for the Special Administratrix J Bank of the Pearl of the Orient Bank of the Pilipinas Islands PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectilly deposit certificates evidencing such accounts, and other personal states: 1. Petitioner is a Fuipino citizen, of legal age, maricd to B, and a resident of, ‘Makati City. 2, Petitioner is the youngest of the three children of the Into H, who died on 25 December, 2005, and W, who died on 14 February 2009. The other children are Mand J dr. for safekeeping, with a directive to divide and partition the equally among their three children when they pass away. 72_ In several occasions, Petitioner's deceased father H, would ‘petitioner that B had his Rolex watches for his occasional use and ‘easions, the deceased spouses would remind that the collection of valued paintings was upposed to be disposed of unless all of them agreed, ‘To date, Bhas not accounted, liquidated, settled, and partitioned of tho deceased spouses. B has not even informed his siblings details respecting the said estate. ni Petitioner is not aware of any debt or obligation of the deceased 3, ‘The deceased spouses were residents of. at the time of their death. 4. ‘The names, ages, and residences of the only surviving Deceased ‘Spouses are as follows: 4.1 A, 47 years legitimate daughter of the deceased spouses, and with residence address ats 4.2 B, 45 yoars of ago, legitimate son af the deceased spouses, and with residence address nt and Jn order to protect the integrity of the estate of the deceased ito recover properties, to settle the obligations of the estate, if any, the estate of the Deceased Spouses until its distribution to, heirs, there is an urgent need to appoint an administrator of the * 4.8 C, 40 years of age, legitimate daughter of tho docoased spouses, and with residence address at. 5. Petitioner has no idea whether the Deceased Spo and left their respective wills. 6. To the best of petitioner’ knowlesige, the deconsed spouses left an estate consisting of bank accounts several banks and other personal effects ‘and belongings, with a probable gross value of at least Two Million Pesex ‘(Php2,000,000.00). 7. Since petitioner and eldest sister, A got married on 29 Octo: ber 1999 and 21 March 2000 respectively, they left the deceased spouses executed itioner reapoctfully offers herself to be appointed as the regu- ratrix of the estate of the Deceased Spouses under Rule 78 of the rt, Petitioner is qualified, competent and willing to be appointed ‘adininistratrix of the intestate of the Deceased Spouses because ‘all the qualification and none of the disqualification. LLL Petitionar is of legal ago. “11.2 Petitioner is a resident ofthe Philippines that thoy entrusted to B their vault containing the passbocks and ~ | | 1™ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 11,3. Petitioner has not been charged or convicted of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude, 11.4 Petitioner is competent, ft and able to faithfully discharge the duties of an adminiatratrix, 11.5 Petitioner is also willing and able to give a bond in such ‘sum and under such conditions as the Honorable Court may fix and ‘impose. 12, Pending iscuanco of letters of administration, petitioner also respectfully offers herself to be appointed as of the estate of the deceased spouses under Rule 480 that there is someone to attend to the immedi tthe estate, such as the filing of the estate tax return applicable estate tex duo with the Bureau of Interns accrual of surcharges, interest and penalties as well a ‘wastage and loss of the assets of the estate. For this purpose, potitioner is aleo ready, willing, and able to post a bond in auch amount as the Honorable Court may direct. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court render judgment as follows: 1. Immediately upon filing of the instant petition, an Order be issued Appointing petitioner as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased spouses tntil the issuance of permanent lettors of administration, and directing () The following banks and their euccessors-in-interest, namely: Far West Bank, Metro Manila Bank, Bank of the Pearl of the Oriont and Bank of the Pilipinas to disclose all necossary information regarding the account ied by the deceased spouses, whether joint or individual, to provide accounting and supporting documents relative to th accounts; and to im- mediately freeze aforesaid accounts to prevent their dissipation, wasthge and loss. Gi) For B to submit an inventory of any and all the propertios his possession, and to make an accoun- ‘the same; and to turn over the same to the Gi) For B to surrender the value mentioned i contents to the custody of the special administra Gv) For B to immediately surrender possession of any and all of the properties left by the deceased spouses to petitioner as may ba directed by the Honorable Court, RULE 78 Lottore Testamentary and of Administration estate of the Deceased Spouses, 1uch further or other relief as maybe deemed justRULE ” ‘Opposing lawance of Lattors Testamentary Patition ‘and Contest for Letters of Administration. Section 3 of Rule 79, which mandates the giving of notice ing on the petition for letters of administration to the known RULE 79 ‘areditors, and “to any other persons tate” OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY ia 7 Section 1 of Rule 76, which allowe a “person interested in PETITION AND CONTEST FOR LETTERS {te” to petition for the allowance of a will; ee eee Section 6 of Rule 87, which allows an individual interested (BAR QUESTIONS: 2008, 2010) state of the deceased “to complain to the court of the conceal- mbezzlement, or conveyance of any assets of the decedent, or 1.01 WHO MAY FILE A PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMIN- ee of the decedent's title or interest therein”; ISTRATION? js ‘ ‘i MN) Section 10 of Rule 85, which requires notice of th ___A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an co of the examination and allowance of the Administrat interested person. (Sec. 2) “to the persons interested” 1.02 WHO IS AN “INTERESTED PARTY” IN ESTATE PRO- "Section 7 of Rule 89, which requires the court to give notice CEEDINGS? Scction 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that a Petition for Letters of Administration must be filed by an interested person, persons interested?” before it may hear and grant a petition the disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the An “interested party,” in estate proceedings, is one who would be P) Section 1 of Rule 90, which allows “any person interested in benefited in tho estate, such as an heir, or one who has claim against te" to petition for an order for the distribution of the residue the estate, such as creditor. (Heirs of Austino Mesina and Genoveva 0 of the decedent, after all obligations are either satisfied S. Mesina, represented by Norman Mesina v. Heirs of Domingo Fian, for. Sr, represented by Theresa Fian Yray, et al., G.R. No. 201816, April 8, : aise T REMEDY IS GIVEN TO A CREDITOR OR ANY Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase “next of kin” refers to RSON INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE TO PROTECT ‘hove whose telationship with the decedent is such that they aro B INTEREST IN THE ESTATE? entitled to share in the estate as distributees. (Quiazon v. Belen, G.R. ee of Alfredo Hilado v. CA, G-R. No. 16408, May 8, No. 189121, July 31, 2018) ee car ueid hatin the anne manner that the Rls on i interested 1.08 THE RULES ON SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ENTITLE linge do not provide a creditor or any person interes ‘ANY INTERESTED PERSON” OR “ANY PERSON i ht to partiipate in overy aspect of tho testator INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE” TO PARTICIPATE IN , but instead provides for specificinstances when VARYING CAPACITIES IN THE TESTATE OR INTES- me i he TATE PROCEEDINGS. CITE THESE PROVISIONS. ye that while there is no general right to intervene on the : petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers, ‘The following provisions allow “any interested person" or “any tly provided for under person interested in the estate” to participate in varying capacities: if the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their 1) Section 1 of Rule 79, which recognizes the right of “any Hin the estate, and there is no other modality under the Rules person interested” to oppose the issuance of letters testamentary and juch interest can be protected. icrerarelatvamettedeesrneriicei in this ease, ptitionors'interestin the estate of Benedicto 6 te interests, but they are viable interests nonetheless. Sete eee eee aaa Cia aeRULU TO ” Opposing laavance of Lattors Testamentary Petition ‘and Contest for Letters of Administration 7% ‘SPECIAL PROCREDINGS ‘The Court is mindful that the Rules of Special Proceedings allow not just creditors, but also “any person interested” or “persons interested in the estate” various specified capacities to protect their respective interests in the estate. Anybody with a contingent claim based on a pending action for quasi-delict against a decedent may be reasonably concerned that by the time judgment is rendered in their favor, the estate of the decedent would have already been distributed, or dimin- ished to the extent that the judgment could no longer be enforced against it. | BAR Q. [2008] enico and Gen lived without the benefit of marriage jenty years, during which time they purchased proper- Hogether. After Domenico died without a will, Gen filed Hition for letters of administration. Domenico’s siblings d the same on the ground that Gen has no legal person- Decide. IGGESTED ANSWER: ithe opposition filed by Domenico's siblings should be denied. ry to their claim, Gen has legal personality to file a petition tninistration. Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court expressly 1.05 DISCUSS THE RIGHT OF THE TESTATOR TO APPOINT AN EXECUTOR OVER HIS PROPERTY? ‘The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, ‘a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to ‘appoint one of his confidence, one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of his estate. Tho curtailment of this right may be considered a curtailment of the right to dispose, (Maloles II v. ips, G.R. No. 129505, January 31, 2000) gt that Gen and Domenico was not married is of no moment. ‘considered as “interested party” because their “live-in” rela- Hip is governed by the property regime of a union without mar- Hinder Chapter 7, Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code as tho hay be. tion 3 of Rule 79 provides that, “When a petition for letters istration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such court time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause rreof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the it, and to any other persons believed to have an interest in , in the manner provided in Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.” jon 4 of Rule 79 provides that, “Any interested person may, ‘a written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of npetency of the person for whom letters are prayed therein, Bie ground of the contestant’s own right to the administration, pray that letters issue to himself, or to any competent pr person named in the opposition.” 1.06 ENUMERATE THE CONTENTS OF A PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. ‘The petition must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) The jurisdictional facts; (b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and tho names and residences of the ereditors, of the decedent; (©) The probable value and character of the property of the estate; (@)_ The name of the person for whom letters of administration * are prayed. But no dofect on the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration. a @. [2010] fa] Mineo died intestate, leaving a P1 billion estate. He lved by his wife Dayanara and their five children. ra filed a petition for the issuance of letters of admin- Charlene, one of the children, filed an oppo: 2.01 WHO MAY FILE AN OPPOSITION TO THE ISSUANCE, OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY? Any person interested in a will may state in writing the grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons named therein as executors, or any of them. The court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficieney of such grounds. (See. 1, Rule 79) effort to settle the estate amicably before the filing of filtion. Rule on the opposition. ‘that said petition may be filed by any “interested party.”0 SPBCIAL PROCEEDINGS SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The opposition should beoverruled. Ap foradministeation may be opposed based only on two grounds: (1) incompetency of the person for whom letters are prayed therein, or (2) on the ground of the contestant’s own right to the administration. (Seo. 4, Rule 79) ‘The ground raised by Charlene in opposing the petition is not one of those mentioned under the Rules. 3.01 CASE AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON v. MA. LOURDES BELEN G.R. No, 189121, July 31, 2013 DOCTRINE: An “interested party,” in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase “next of kin” refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estae as distributes. SUPREME COURT'S RULING: Inthe instant case, Elise, as a com- pulsory heir who stands to be benefited by the distribution of Elisco's estate, is deemed to be an interested party. With the overwhelming evidence on record produced by Elise to prove her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioner’s pounding on her lack of interest in the administra- tion of the decedent's estate, is just a desperate attempt to sway this Court to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals, Certainly, the rright of Elise to be appointed administratrix of the estate of Eliseo is on good grounds. Itis founded om her right as a compulsory heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her legitime after the debts of the estate are satisfied. Having a vested right in the distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one natural children, Elise can be rightfully be considered as an interested party within the purview of the law. An “interested party,” in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase “next of kin” refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees, RULE 80 SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR 7 (BAR QUESTION: 2012) DEFINE A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR. special administrator is a representative of the decedent aby the probate court to care for and preserve his estate ‘executor or general administrator is appointed. ‘WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR? supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and ‘settlement. When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an ‘ot representative of the parties suggesting the appointment. pal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator eerve the estate until it ean pass to the hands of s person lithorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, t to Section 2, Rule 80 of tho Rules of Court. (Ocampo v. et al., GR, No. 187879, July 5, 2010) N CAN THE COURT APPOINT A SPECIAL ADMIN- ITRATOR? n there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of jatration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or dis- ‘of a will or some other cause, the court may appoint the JAR Q. [2012] special administrator may be appointed by a court the executor cannot post a bond. the executor fails to render an account. istrator has a claim against the estate he regular admi " epresents. A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject ~ Beazer et BS WT AWS FrTeeseeo Aa SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 4 RULE Special Administrator (D) a Motion for Reconsideration is filed with respect to a even ifa special administrator had already been appointed, eee : id in withdrawing the appointment and 1.05 DIFFERENTIATE A REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR AND ‘The special administrator is an officer of the court who A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR. tote supervision and contol and who i expected to work ‘The administrator may be differentiated from a special admin. Hest interest of the entire estate, especially with respect to i istrator in the following instances: tration and earliest settlement, 1, __An administrator is appointed when a decedent tate or did not appoint any executor in his will or the wi quently disallowed while a special administrator is appointed when 5 i in ion; tho trial court has the diseretion to appoint anyone as a there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration; eo cratsaese oa ian anise Be oaemebsd 2. An administrator is obliged to pay the debts of the estate while a special administrator is not; SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRE- 8. The appointment of an administrator may be the subject trator isto preserve the estate until a regular of appeal while the order of appointment of special administrator tor is appointed. is regarded as an interlocutory order and may not be the subject of this duty on the part of the special administrator, it ion re, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone i ventual distribution to 1.06 IS THE PREFERENCE OR ORDER OF APPOINTMENT 1 preceregOhe cate ieh necl ea OF A REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 6 ss oqtuta tx Ineo Gast ol effectively diminish his or her OF RULE 78 LIKEWISE APPLICABLE IN THE APPOINT- is was culate my uetie cee ea depart from such MENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR? No, appointment of special administrator lies entirely in the estate and otherwise a stranger sound discretion ofthe court. The preference laid down under Section Bybe tantamount to grave abuse of diseretion. (Manungas v. 6 of Rule 78 to the surviving spouse refers to the appointment of WR. No, 198161, August 22, 2011) 4 regular administrator or administratrix, not to that of a special : administrator. (Pijuan v. De Gurrea, 124 Phil. 1527) MAY THE COURT APPOINT SPECIAL CO- In the ease of Co v, Rosario, GR. No, 160671, April 30, 2008, STRATORS? the Supreme Court said that the selection or removal of special Jn circumstances and for various reasons well- administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection B Philippine and American jurisprudence, the Supreme Court or removal of regular administrators. fie appointment of co-administrators: Courts may appoint or remove special administrators based B To have the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at all on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules, at their dis- have different interests represented; cretion. As long as the said discretion is exercised without grave {Where justice and cquity demand that opposing parties be represented in the management of the estate of the abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. This, however, is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes provail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. : exercise of such discretion must be based on reason, equity, F the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate justice and legal principles. one to settle; Se aa ee aea ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 4, To have all interested persons satisfied and the represot tatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and, __5. When a person entitled to the administration of an est desires to have another competent person associated with him office, In the frequently cited Matias v. Gonzales, the Court dwelt 9 the appointment of special co-administrators during the pendend] of the appeal for the probate of the decedent's will. Pending probate therefore, the Court recognized Matias’ sp the decedent's estate as universal heir and executrix the instrument who should not be excluded in the adi thereof. Thus, it held that justice and equity demands that factions among the non-compulsory heirs of the decedent, consisti of an instituted heir (Matias) and intestate heirs (respondent thereat), should be represented in the management of the decedent estate, (Bmilio Suntay v. Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay, G.R. No. 1830 October 10, 2012) 1.09 BAR Q. [2012] In settlement proceedings, appeal may be taken from al (A) order appointing a special administrator; (B) order appointing an administrator; (© order of an administrator to recover property of the estat (D) order to include or exclude property from the estate. 1.10 WHAT IS THE REMEDY AGAINST THE APPOINTMEM| OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR? the only remedy against the appointmer Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules joners filed with the Court of Appeal Certiorari, however, requires nothing less than grave abuse of discr tion, a term which implics such capricious and whimsical exer: of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdi ‘The abuso of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a dul enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tan if Gedorio, Jr, G.R. No. 166520, March 14, 2008) RULE 80 85 Special Administrator ‘TAN v. GEDORIO, JR. G.R. No, 166520, March 14, 2008 ‘The Court has consistently ruled that the order ¢ in the appointment of a regular administrator dd in the aforequoted provision does not apply to the of a special administrator. The preference under Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers intment of a regular administrator, and not of a inistrator, as the appointment of the latter lies Jn the discretion of the court, and is not appealable. |Gerardo Tan died, leaving no will. The private respondents, timate children of the deceased, filed with the RTC of ‘petition for the issuance of letters of administration and the appointment of attorney-in-fact Romualdo Lim as in} administrator of the deceased estate. It was opposed by Hts, claiming to be the legitimate children of Gerardo Tan ‘for the appointment of Vilma Tan as already acting as de fhistratrix of Gerardo’s estate. The court appointed Vilma de facto administrator, however, due to the fact that she ply with her duties, Romualdo Lim was appointed as the inistrator of Gorardo's estate, er filed a motion for reconsideration for Vilma’s appoint- g that they should be given priority in the adminis- ‘the estate sinco thoy are allegedly the legitimate heirs of sdo as opposed to private respondents who purportedly Htlmate children, but it was denied. Whether or not the court erred in denying petitioner's {given primacy in the administration of their father’s io. The order of preference in the of a regular administrator provision does not apply to of a special administrator. of preference that petitioners speak of is found in (8, When and to whom letters of administration grant pr is named in the will, or the executor or executor refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person iminietration shall be granted: a lia86 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. (@) | To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, ot next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or noxt of kin, requests to hava| RULE 81 appointed, if competent and willing to serve; IDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (©) _ [such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, of next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwill. j ing, or f the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED days after the death of the person to apply for administration or a POST BOND? request that administration be granted to some other person, it may] Bofore an executor or administrator enters upon the execu- bbe granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and trust, and letters testamentary or of administration issue, willing to serve; Helve a bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned as (©) If there isnno such creditor competent and i it may be granted to such other person as the court To make and return to the court, within three months, 1d complete inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits, of the deceased which shall come to his possession or reference in the appoints admis a prov ; i bd tamarrsinghtobiniryider wrserseneipe wcll or to the possession of any other person for him; in the aforequoted provision does not apply to the sel: special administrator. The preference under Section, ‘To administer according to these rules, and, ifan executor, the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to th jf to the will of the testator, all goods, chattels, rights, credits, which shall at any time come to his possession or to the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the discretion of the of any other person for him, and from the proceeds to pay court, and is not appealable. harge all debts, legacios, and charges on the same, or such thoreon as shall be decreed by the court; ‘To render a true and just account of his administration to within one year, and at any other time when required by ‘To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed. {HE BOND OF EXECUTOR NEEDED? ;bond posted by administrators and executors is intended nity to the creditors, the heirs and the estate. The court ‘amount thereof and hold it accountable for any breach of ‘may be done by the administrator or executor. The liability eed by motion or in a separate civil action. {importance of a bond was emphasized by the Court in Ocampo v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 6, 2010. It ‘administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors ire, as it compels the administrator, whether regular or aSPECIAL PROCEEDINGS special, to perform the trust reposed in, and discharge the obligationd incumbent upon him. Its object and purpose is to safeguard tha properties of the decedent, and, therefore, the bond should not ba RULE 82 considered as part ofthe necessary expenses chargeable against th fOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH, i ification for the office of administration. GNATION AND REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS 1.03 IS A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED TO Post} f AND ADMINISTRATORS ABOND? (BAR QUESTION: 2002) Yes. Under Section 4, a special administrator before entering! IN A WILL WHa’ upon the duties of his trust shal gives bond in such sum as the cou DEN TO THE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION directs, conditioned that he will make and return a true invento (OUSLY GRANTED? the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased wl : or knowledge, and that he will truly ace fatter lottors of administration have been granted on the a decedent as ithe had died intestate, his will s proved and Jby the court, the letters of administration shall be revoked or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them. 378 thereunder coase, and the administrator shall forth the lettors to the court, and render his account within p the course of the intestate proceedings, ft a will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should intestate proceedings even if at that stage, an administra- dy been appointed, the latter being required to render a int and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor ‘appointed. This, however, is understood to be without that the proceeding shall continue as intestacy. (Uriate v. 08 Occidental, 33 SCRA 252, 259) F the intestate proceeding already commenced should ued and a new proceeding under a separate number and discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice rights of any of the heirs or creditors. (Reynoso v. 85 Phil. 268, 270) 8SEEPS EEE EERE EEE EERE EEE EEREE EEE EEE EEE Err reeee Eee ‘SPRCIAL PROCEEDINGS lidation and joint hearing of the two cat would have been proper if they do not involve settloment ofthe estal of a decedent, which is covered by a special provision of the Rules, Court, namely Section 1 of Rule 73, the specific command of whit should be obeyed. 1,08 WOULD THE DISCOVERY OF 'THE WILL IPSO FA( NULLIFY THE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATIO! ALREADY ISSUED? No. It is only when the nowly-discovered will has been admit to probate that the letters of administration may be revoked. In Advincula v. Teodoro, 99 Phil. 413, the Supreme Court lin the occasion to declare that mere discovery of a document purportin ‘to be the last will and testament of the decodont after the appoi ment of an administrator does not ipso facto nullify the letters administration already issued or even authorize their revocati until the will has been proved and allowed. 1.04 BAR Q. [2002] x x x. B, What should the court do if, in the intestate proceedings, a will is found and it is submitted f probate? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: If a will is subsequently found while the intestate proceeding pending and the will is submitted for probate, the intestate proceel ings shall be discontinued or suspended. After the will is probatot the intestate proceedings will be terminated. 2.01 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATION? WHAT DOES LIQUIDATION MEAN? The purpose of administration is tho liquidation of the estal and distribution of the residue among the heirs and legates. Li dation means the determination of all the assets of payment of all debts and expenses. Approval of the project of par tion does not necessarily terminate administration. (Luzon Surety Quebrar, 127 SCRA 801) RULE a2 Revocation of Administration, Death ‘of Bxecutors and Admini ER SECTION 2 OF RULE 82, WHAT ARE THE WHEREIN A COURT MAY REMOVE OR PT RESIGNATION OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINIS- RP Hbxocutor or administrator neglects to render his account, the estate according to law, or to perform an order or of the court, or a duty oxprossly provided by those rules, or ‘becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to ‘the trust, the court may remove him, or, in its discretion, {thim to rosign. ‘an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed ing executor or administrator may administer the trust 8 the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If ‘ing executor or administrator, administration may ‘The court is invested with ample disi ‘an administrator for as long as there is evidence of an act on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in f the rules or the orders of the court which it deems suffi- tantial to warrant the removal of the administrator. THE GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF A SPECIAL ISTRATOR THE SAME AS THOSE FOR REMO- OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR? ‘special administrator may be removed on other grounds EXAMPLES OF VALID GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL ADMINISTRATOR BY THE PROBATE COURT. llowing constitute valid grounds for removal of an adn administrator who disbursed funds of the estate without pproval. (Cotia v. Jimenez, 104 Phil. 966) lso representation by an administrator in securing his it. (Cabarrubias v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 209)92 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 3. An administrator who holds an interest adverse to that off ee estate or by his conduct shows unfitness to discharge the trust, Coe v. enat SCRA i: 7 RULE 83 L administrator who] rysical inability and consequent | unsuitability to manage the estate. (De Borja v, Tan, 93 Phil. 167) VENT ORY AND AEE R Aone ‘PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF FAMILY THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR DUTY JUND TO MAKE A RETURN OF THE INVENTORY D APPRAISAL OF THE ESTATE? |. Section 1 expressly provides that three months after his, jont every executor or administrator shall return to the court Wentory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of ‘ 1d which has come into his possession or knowledge. THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD TO SUBMIT AN IN- ORY AND APPRAISAL OF ALL REAL AND PER- DNAL ESTATE MANDATORY? H the three-month period under this Rule is not mandatary. 2.06 IS THE ORDER OF REMOVAL APPEALABLE? ‘Yes, the order of removal is appealable. (Borromeo v. Borromen, 97 Phil. 549, 551) | of hearing, the probate court acquires j : estate and retains that jurisdiction until the proceeding ‘The fact that an inventory was filed after the three-month : d not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction to approve yin fing the inventory by the administrator, however, f | 1.R. No, L-23419, 64 SCRA 885, 391) MERATE ARTICLES WHICH NEED NOT BE INVEN- of the family of the deceased, under the direction of the not be considered as assets, nor jatered as such, be included in the inventory. cy seme ses 82237 ¢- ATE? TF Panes -94 ‘SPRCIAL PROCEEDINGS RULES 96 Inventory and Appraisal Provision for Support of Femily 2,02 MAY A PROPERTY CLAIMED BY A THIRD PERSON Bl ‘Section 1, Inventory and appraisal to be returned within INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY? ‘months. — Within three (3) months after his appointment : : ny executor or administrator shall return to the court a true i i eertiuas ee ry and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the invent part of the assets of the estate and the probate cout Site cane this ha acuity may order such inclusion, but: such order of the probate court is only| 7 Sesh theta ieee ie zl raisement of such estate, the court may order one or more a prima facie determination and does not preclude the claimant ee Sete hie eens from maintaining an ordinary civil action for the determination o ee rit eee ee eerie title. (Vda. de Paz v. Vda. de Madrigal, 100 Phil. 1085) ‘usage of the word “all” in Section 1, supra, demands the ofall the real and personal properties of the decedent in the 3.01 MAY THE WIDOW AND FAMILY OF A DECEASED] | However, the word “all” is qualified by the phrase which PERSON RECEIVE AN ALLOWANCE DURING THI into his possession or knowledge, which signifies that the SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE? must be known to the administrator as decedent's proper- Xe in her possession as the administrator. Section 1 allows on, for the phrase true inventory implies that no properties ar to be owned by the decedent can be excluded from the Yegardless of whether or not they are in the possession of ron or entity. Under Section 3, the widow and minor or incapacitated chilaro of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate, shall rece! therefrom, under the direction of the court, such allowance as a provided by law. ‘' 3.02 ARE GRANDCHILDREN ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCE? abjective of the Rules of Court in requiting the inventory No, grandchildren aze not entitled to allowance under Ri ipnenninerrmaunmnen aria air nrnianitt ‘The law ywrance to “widow and cl 4 = rane ie 7 Se eae eee ane ceaeee iinistrator, and in making a final and equitable does not extend it to the deceased's grandchildren, regardless of th Hen ste esiais a bent eens cae anit aor areas 28 190 Rutz v. Court of Appeala) to.” Hence, the RTC that presides over the administration LR. No, 118671, January 29, vested with wide discretion on the question of what sonuAeES jhould be included in the inventory. According to Peralta the CA cannot impose its judgment in order to supplant L Bb RIC on the issue of which properties are to be included ARANAS v. MERCADO, et al. ae ee eee eee Gane ries eat, Sarmard 45 ante judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the appel- SUPREME COURT'S RULING: Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of tha terfere with or attempt to replace the action Rules of Court, the letters of administration may be granted at tha 8 it be shown that there has been a positive As long as the RTC commits no patently grave srdere must he respected as part of the regular letters of administration to the surviving spouse, the RTC becomu] of its judicial duty. duty-bound to direct the preparation and submission of the inventor) {sno dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an of the properties of the estate, and the surviving spouse, as the nl Srtis special and limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate ministrator, has the duty and responsibility to submit the inventory 8 which are claimed to be part of the estate but are within three months from the issuance of letters of administration "bo belonging to third parties by title adverse to that of pursuant to Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, viz. Pitt and the estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance 2. 8B £ AWE FT Twewe 6 oc:SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS from he ecodnt, All thatthe trial court ean do roparding ‘Such determination is provisional and may be still revised. Aw Court said in Agtarap v. Agtarap: ‘The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, ei as a probate court or an intestate court, relates only to mal having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determinal of questiona of ownership that arise during the proceedings, patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exerd special and limited jurisdiction, However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as j by expediency and convenience. First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or ox sion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudi final determination of ownership in a separate action. Secon interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is o collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assur of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third partion spouse. 2 . HEIRS OF JOSE SY BANG, et al. v. ROLANDO SY, ROSALINO SY, et al. G.R. No, 114217, October 13, 2009 ILUMINADA TAN, et al. v. BARTOLOME SY, et al. GR. No, 150797 FACTS: Deceased Sy Bang died intestate leaving behind real personal properties including several businesses. Respondents Rolando Sy, Rosalino Sy, Lucio Sy, Enrique Rosauro Sy, Bartolome Sy, Julieta Sy, Lourdes Sy, and Florecitn RULE SS oty and Appraisal Provision for Support of Family, Ben of Sy Bang by his second marriage to respondent }, while petitioners Jose Sy Bang, Julian Sy, and children of Sy Bang from his first marriage to Ba Zenaida Tan and Ma, Emma Sy are the children ses Jose Sy Bang and Iluminada Tan. te filed Complaint for Partition against petitioners. out-of-court conference between petitioners and ‘was agreed that the management, supervision or of the common properties andlor the entire estate of ‘Bang shall be placed temporarily in the hands of ‘Sy Bang. Thoy also agreed that the income of the houses shall exclusively pertain to respondents for justenance, pending the termination of Civil Case ficial Partition, and the income from the vast parts Baivoly to petitioners. case was pending, Rosita Ferrera-Sy filed a Motion She alleged that her deceased ng, left an extensive es Bund by the trial court to be t of Sy Bang’s death until the fling of the mo given any widow's allowance as provided in Section. state, or her share in the conjugal partnership. anted the Motion for Payment of Widow's Allow- petitioners jointly and severally to pay Rosita he widow's allowance to be taken from the estate of the estate is finally settled or until further orders from Hilo, respondents filed a Joint Petition for the Guardian- snpetent Rosita Ferrera-Sy before the RTC of Lucena In May 19, 1997, Rosauro Sy, who sought to be ‘ipecial guardian, filed before the guardianship court a tf Court Deposit of Widow's Allowance Ordered by the inship court issued’ an order directing the respon- before such court cortain amount ropresonting the tice of the incompetent Rosita. Respondent became i Petitioncrs questioned the order.98 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 83 9 Provision for Support of Family Inventory and Apprai ISSUES: J. Whether or not the trial court, acting as a Guat order the.delivery of the property of the ward found to be dianship Court, had authority to enforce payment of widow! concealed, or conveyed. le . bina ISSUE: The widow's allowance is chargeable to Sy Bang’s it the full extent of Sy Bang’s estate has not yet been is no excuse from complying with this Court's order. 2. Whether or not the payment of widow's allowar should not be implemented as the estate of Sy Bang- the sour from which payment is to be taken - has not been determins of the estate have been identified — i.e., those in the names with finality. pners — thus, these properties should be made to answer for allowance. , the it Rosita recoives for SUPREME COURT'S RULING: honey oeedlboet ars which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to her, will be FIRST ISSUE: No, the guai ip court exereising special ani {from her share of the estate. Limited jurisdiction cannot actually order the delivery of the proper of the ward found to be embezzled, concealed, or conveyed. It is th court hearing the settlement of the estate that should effect the ' vance considering that the properties of thd estate are within its jurisdiction. Soction 3, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court states: Correlatively, Article 188 of the Civil Code states: Art, 188, From the common mass of property support shall bbe given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belong to them is red; but from this shall be deducted thatf pertaining to them, Obviously, “the court” referred to in Section 3, Rule 83 of| the Rules of Court is the court hearing the settlement of the| estate. Also crystal clear is the provision of the law that the widow's allowance is to be taken from the common mass of| property forming part of the estate of the decedent. ‘Thus, as evident from the foregoing provisions, it is the court hearing the settlement of the estate that should effect the payment of widow's allowance considering that the properties of the estaty; to the exclusion of all other courts. Tho special and limited juriediction cannot, stam 2 ea EF OA EEF TF Wewewe 4 oe.RULES 101 Gonoral Powers and Duties of Exacutora and Administrators ‘THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF ADMINIS- TION BY 'THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR, RULE 84 JULD THERE BE LEAVE OF COURT? GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF EXECUTORS ralor or executor has all the powers necessary stration of the estate and which powers he can exercise AND ADMINISTRATORS 4 of court. Tt has long been held that the constitution of property of the estate is an act of administration and leave 1.01 WHAT ARE THE GENERAL. POWERS AND DUTIES 0 ot required. (San Diego. Nombre et al, 110265, May The general powers and duties of executors and administrator, ave the following: following circumstances, however, leave of court is nece- the acta are not considered within the power of adminis. ) shall atalltimos have access to, and may examine and taka copies of, books and papers relating tothe partnership business; ; Sacre . ministration of an intestate cannot exercise the right of }) may examine and male invoices of the property belonging! tao iio pont es papers ceatat ealoomanes to such partnership; ‘of the other co-owners since this is not within the powers, shall maintain in tenantable repair the houses and othot ration. (Caro v. CA, 113 SCRA 10) structures and fences belonging to the estate, and deliver the sama} ; in such repair to the heirs or devisees when directed so to do by tha tate of a deceased person is already the subject of a oe tion involving it without any prior approval of the Court. shall have the right to the possession and management of ‘Olave v. Reyes, 123 SCRA 767) the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long aii necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of admin- istration, 1.02 IS THE RIGHT OF AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRA\| ‘TOR TO THE POSSESSION AND MANAGEMENT Of PROPERTIES LEFT BY THE DECEASED ABSOLUTE? No, the right of an executor or administrator to the possession| and management of the real and personal properties of the decease is not absolute and can only be exercised “so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of the administration.” (Estala of Hilario Ruiz v. CA, G.R. No, 118671, 252 SCRA 541) He may, therefore, exercise acts of administration without spocial authority) from the court having jurisdiction of the estate. For instance, it haw long been settled that an administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the estate even without) prior judicial authority and approval. (Mananquil v. Atty. Villegas, A.M, No, 2430, August 30, 1990) 100RULES 108 RULE 85 gover attomey’s fees, the attorney may either bring an ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPENSATION it action personally against the executor or administrator, OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS the same and to direct the payment of his fee as an 1.01 WHAT ARE ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES? eee erect Administration expenses are those which are necessary for t management of the estate, for protecting it against destruction N SHOULD AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR deterioration, and possibly, for the production of fruits. They INDER AN ACCOUNT? ‘exponsos and its management for purposes of liquidation, paymon| Bry oxocutor or administrator shall render an account of his of debts, and distribution of the residue among the persons enti sion within ono yoar from tho timo of receiving lttoro thereto, lary oof administration, unless the court otherwise directs : ‘extensions of time for presenting claims against, or paying 1.02 WHAT ARE NECESSARY EXPENSES? F'of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he shal Necessary expenses are such expenses as are entailed for t further accounts as the court may require unt preservation and productivity of the estate and for its managemo settled. (Gee. 8) for purposes of liquidation, payment of debts, and distribution q the residue among persons entitled thereto. (Lizarraga Hermanos Abada, 40 Phil. 124) cpenses for the renovation and improvement of the fi administration expenses of the estate of the deceased. (Guzman v. J Guzman Carillo, 83 SCRA 256) accounts and identify 1.08 WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES TO COLLECT ATTORNI @ his disbursements FEES IN ESTATE PROCEEDINGS? Where an attorney renders services to the administrator po executor personally to in the execution of his trust, the adi evidence in support of his istrator or executor is liable for the fees, but he can move for (Qe Guzman v. De Guzman-Carillo, 83 SCRA 256, 260) een a BONE YEAR PrnIOD TO RENDER AN ACCOUNT. v, Imperial, et al., 53 Phil. 802) On the other hand, where the attorney's services were. vender ina litigation involving such administrator or executor in his as trustee of the estate and for the protection of the interests rendering of an accounting by an administrator of his within one year from his appointment is mandatory, the word “shall” in said rule. The only exception is when wise directs because of extensions of the time for pre- i ims against the estate or for paying the debts or disposing ere. tae ol OA BEY FT Twewe 4 sc:104 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS the assets of the estate. (Kalaw v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R, : No, 74618, September 2, 1991) . RULE 86 2.04 MAY A PARTY WHOSE CLAIM IS CONTINGENT COM : CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE arent eco (BAR QUESTIONS: 1991, 2002, 2009, 2012) ‘The administrator is required to render an account of his] "THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PERSON BUR- administration within one year from receipt of the letters of admin 1D WITH LIEN OF CREDITORS? istration. There are reliefs available to compel an administrator 1a i : ; , upon the death of a person, all his property is burdened Pe eee racve ne 8 Denes aes ciaien agains fue eoeeee ol Js debta, his death creating an equitable in thereon for the still contingent is not the party entitled to do so. (Hilado v. Court Nhe ereliters And such len continues until the debts are Appeals, G.R. No, 164108, May 8, 2009) either by the payment, prescription, or satisfaction in i " (Suiliong and Co. v. Chio Tayean, 2.05 BEFORE THE ACCOUNT OF AN EXECUTOR OR ADMI eee Seer ze \T IS THE SO-CALLED “STATUTE OF NON- 7 Section 10 of Rule 85 is explicit, It states: “Account to be settled on notice. — Before the account of an executor or administrator is allowed, notice shall be given (a| persons interested of time and place of examining and allowing] ‘the same; and such notice may be given personally to such por sons interested or by advertisement in a newspaper or newa Papers, or both, as the court directs.” ‘the period fixed by Section 2 of Rule 86 for the filing of the inst the estate. The rule mandates certain creditors of person to present their claims for examination and allow- in a specified period, the purpose thereof being to settle with dispatch, so that the residue may be delivered to the titled thereto without their being afterwards called upon Jn action for elaims, which, under the ordinary statute of . Me 2 BT 2.06 TO WHAT INSTANCES ARE “INTERESTED PARTIES" , have not yet prescribed. (Santos v. Manarang, ENTITLED TO RECEIVE NOTICES? ‘The instances when notice has to be given to interested partiod] Q. (2012] calcistieete statute of “non-claims” requires that: examining and allowing the account of the executor or administrator eras : : id ea 2) Section 7(b) of Rulo 89 concerning the petition to authoriza Mime presribed by the mules the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mort : i ‘ ‘aims of an exocutor or administrator against the estate gago or otherwise encumber real estates; and ee mia ese peal Ace 8) Section 1 of Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the apy a il the tion for an order for distribution of the estate residue. After all, within two years after settlement and distribution of ini i itted i tate, an heir unduly deprived of participation in the the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted invento mrtinetingreon cea apa the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners. (Alfr Hilado v. CA, G.R. No. 164108, May 8, 2009) tro F- ee L Ab OF OF 3%2=3 A zeSPECIAL PROCREDINGS 2.03 WHAT IS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE TH CLAIM? The range of the period specified in Section 2 is intended to gi the court the discretion to fix the poriod for the filing of claims. probate court is permitted by the rule to set the period as long a within the limitation provided. It should not be less than six month nor more than 12 months from the day of the first publication of th notice thereof. Such period when fixed by the probate court becoma mandatory. 2.04 WHAT IS THE RATIONALE IN FIXING ‘THE PERIOM TO CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE? ‘The purpose of the law, in fixing a period within which claim against an estate must bo presented, isto insure a speedy settlem of the affairs of the deceased person and the early delivery of th property to the person entitled to the same. (Santos v. Manarang, 3 Phil. 209, 213) 2.05 IS EXTENSION OF THE GIVEN PERIOD ALLOWED? ‘Yes, It is clear from Section 2 of Rule 86 that the period pro cribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; that money clainn against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of dis bution is entered, at the discretion of the court for cause and upi such terms as aro equitable. (Quisumbing v. Guison, 76 Phil. 730) 2.06 BAR Q, [1991] Afiled a complaint against Y with the RTC of Argao, Cehi for payment of a promissory note in the sum of P50,000. for liquidated damages of P5,000.00 and attorney's fees 4 5,000.00 After he filed his answer, ¥ died, but his lawyer dl not file a motion to dismiss. In the mea of the intestate estate of Y. administratrix of the estate. A fil object. The court granted the motion. Tri had. In due course, the court rendered a decisi A. At the time it was rendered, the period to fl intestate estate of ¥ had already lapsed. The administratrh X, did not appeal from the deci nd after it became final for the execution of judgment. Z opposed the motion {ing that the decision is void because the claim does ve. The case should have been dismissed upon the Y since upon his death, the court lost jurisdic case. }) Rule on the issue xxx Ifthe opposition is without merit, can a writ of exe- validly issued? If it cannot be issued, what is the remedy of A? 1 This question was asked in the 1992 bar examination. mic purposes, it bears stressing that. prior to the 1997 Rule ceedure the rule provides that in action wwolving money the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 3 of Section ot be dismissed but shall instead, d of judgment. Once a judgment is inst the estate, the.same shall be enforced as a money it further need to prove it. she expressly provided under Section 2, Rule 8 of the Rules ‘A may file a money claim based on the decision rendered estate of the deceased at any time before an order of is entered upon application. IAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PUBLICATION OF (CE TO CREDITORS? F iblication of the notice to creditors is constructive notice ep a creditor cannot be permitted to file his claim beyond. | fixed in said notice on the bare ground that he had no dof the administration proceedings. (Villanueva v. PNB, {eptember 30, 1963) —_ + mee £« Meer T TESS. 2 Sos a108 ‘SPECIAL PROCBEDINOS 3.02 ENUMERATE THE TYPES OF CLAIM THAT MUST BE FILED WITH THE PROBATE COURT UNDER THB. NOTICE. 1) All money claims against the decedent arising from con: tract, express or implied, whether the samo be due, not due, or cons tingent; 2) All claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; and 38) Judgment for money against the decedent. The judgment must be presented as a claim t the estate, where the judgmenl| debtor dies before levy on execution of his properties, 8.08 WHICH RULE SHALL PREVAIL IN CASE OF CONFLICT] BETWEEN SECTION 5 OF RULE 86 AND SECTION OF RULE 6? The specific provisions of Section 6, Rule 86 of the Rules off Court should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule} 6 of the Rules of Court. Tho settlement of the estato of deceased sons (where claims against the deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings, while the rules provided} for ordinary claims, ing Section 11, Rule 6 ofthe Rules of Courk merely apply sup; (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company) v, Absolute Management Corporation, 688 SCRA 225) For academic purposes, Section 6, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court provides: “See. 5, Claims which must be filed under the notice. filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money agai decedent, arising from contr the same be due, not due, or cor expenses and expenses for the ‘and judgment for monay final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amou) ‘RULE 88 109 Claims Against Retato as though the claim had been presented directly before ‘oourt in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due ‘contingent, may be approved at their present value.” i the other hand, Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court complaint, — A that a defending jms other than for money, debt or interest thereon, From contract cannot be presented in the testate or intestate claims are claims for money, debt or interest thereon ity contracted by the decedent before his death. Claims d after his death cannot, therefore, be presented with the ‘of funeral expenses and expenses incurred on the last ss of Court expressly ing from a contract against the FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT IN THE NOTICE? Jaaid claims are not fled within the time limit in the notice, Warred forever from presenting them. RE AN EXCEPTION? ressly provided under Section 5 of Rule 86, these forth as counterclaims in any action that the trator may bring against the claimants,SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 3.08 IN CASE OF CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT YET DUE, SHOULD THEY LIKEWISE BE FILED WITHIN THU ‘TIME LIMIT? ‘Yes, not only claims due, but also claims not due or contingent should be filed, otherwise, they too are barred forever. 3.09 WHAT IS A CONTINGENT CLAIM? It is one by which, by its nature is necossarily dependent upon an uncertain event for its existence and claim, and its validity and enforceability depending upon an uncertain event. (Gasket and Co. v, Tan Sit, 43 Phil. 810) It is one which, by its nature, is necessarily dependent up\ event for its existence or validity. It may or may a valid and enforceable claim and its validity ty depending upon an uncertain event, It is one whic , is necessarily dependont upon an uncertain event existence or validity, one of which may or may not develop into a valid and enforceable claim. (Buan v. Laya, 102 Phil. 682) 3.10 IS DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT A CONTINGENT CLAIM? Yes, deficiency judgment is a contingent claim and, therefore, must be filed with the probate court where the settlement of tha ‘estate of the deceased is pending, within the period fixed for the filing] of claims. (First National City Bank of New York v. Cheng Tan, 4 ‘SCRA 501) 3.11 BAR Q. [2009] sresencio sued Dioscoro for collection of a sum of money, the trial, but after the presentation of eviderice, Dioscoro died. Atty. Cruz, Dioscoro’s counsel, then filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground of hig client's death. The court denied the motion to dismiss and) instead, directed counsel to furnish the court with the named! and addresses of Dioscoro’s heirs and ordered that the desi nated administrator of Dioscoro’s estate be substituted l, the court rendered judgment in favor off Cresencio, When the decision had become final and exec tory, Cresencio moved for the issuance of a writ of execution RULE 86 Claims Against Batate ,Dioscoro's estate to enforce his judgment claim. The ued thé writ of execution. Was the court's issuance of it of execution proper? Explain. PGGESTED ANSWER: court's issuance of the writ of execution was not proper. fRule 8 of Section 20, a favorable judgment in a contractual ‘laim shall be enforced in the manner especially provided lules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased B'Under Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, a judgment for money Bie filed as.a money claim with the probate court, The Supreme Bis held that a money claim cannot be enforced by a writ of ‘but should instead be filed as a money claim. T ARE THE THREE DISTINCT AND ALTERNATIVE DIES AVAILABLE TO A MORTGAGE CREDITOR [PON THE DEATH OF THE MORTGAGOR? y alternative remedies provided under this Rules are the P To waive the security mortgage and claim the entire debt ‘estate as an ordinary claim. By filing money claim against Hts he is deemed to have abandoned the mortgage and there- inot file a foreclosure suit if he fails to recover his money "To foreclose tho mortgage judicially and prove any defi- ‘an ordinary claim. The foreclosure suit should be against or administrator as party defendant. In the event that fails to fully recover his claim, he may obtain deficiency d file it as a claim against the estate in the manner this Rule; ithout right to claim ‘exercise precludes one from recovery any balance of ‘against the estate and frees the estate from further ‘a creditor who elects to foreclose by extrajudicial sale D his rights to recover against the estate of the deceased ‘any deficiency remaining unpaid after the sale. It can beSPECIAL PROCEEDINGS readily seen that the decision in this case will impose a burden upon| the estates of deceased persons who have mortgaged real property for the security of debts, without any compensatory advantage. (PND v. Hon. CA, Chua, G.R. No, 121597, June 29, 2001) 5.01 EXPLAIN THE TERM “ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES" AVAILABLE TO THE MORTGAGE CREDITOR. In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage enw: ditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an eloo| tion of one remedy operates as a waiver of tho other. For this purposy,| a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection of upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mor! gage, pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed| elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the provines where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the provisions uff Act No. 8135, as amended by Act No, 4118, (Heirs of the late Spa Flaviano Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corp., G.R. No. 1711206) September 28, 2013) 5.02 WHAT DOES SECTION 10 OF RULE 86 PROVIDE? Section 10 of Rule 86 provides: “Within fifteen (16) days after service of a copy of the claim on} the executor or administrator, he shall file his answer admitting denying the claim specifically, and setting forth the admission denial. If he has no knowledge sufficiont to enable him to admi 1e shall state such want of knowlodge. The executa or administrator in his answer shall allege in offsct any claim wl the decddent before death had against the claimant, and his fai be} served by the executor or administrator on the claimant, The court} in its discretion may extend the time for filing suc! 5.03 IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT APPROVING OR} DISAPPROVING A CLAIM APPEALABI Yes, as provided under Section 13 of Rule 86, a judgment of tha} court approving or disapproving a claim shall be appealable. RULE SS us A GENERAL RULE, A PROBATE COURT HAS NO ISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM IN FAVOR, ‘THE ESTATE AGAINST A THIRD PERSON AS THE MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ORDINARY OTION. CITE THE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE. exception to this Rule is provided under Section 10 of Rule X filed a claim in the intestate proceedings of D. D's - -ator denied liability and filed a counterclaim against ‘dlaim was disallowed. [1) Does the probate court still have jurisdiction to allow of D's administrator by way of offset? Why? ‘probate court has no jurisdiction to allow the claims of D’s pator by way of offset because it appears that there is no ‘against which to offset the claim. Suppose D’s administrator did not allege any claim ‘an D’s administrator prosecute in an independent proceeding? Why? ns failure to do so would bar his claim forever. UNION BANK v. SANTIBANEZ AND ARIOLA ‘GAR. No. 149926, February 23, 2005 INE: The filing of a money claim against the decedent's ‘the probate court is mandatory. ea aoa etaus ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS FACTS: First Countryside Credit Corporation and Efraim M. Sar tibafiez entered into a loan agreement which was intended for payment of the purchase price of tractors. Efraim died leaving holographic will. Subsequently, in March 1981, testate proceedin were commenced and Edmund, one of the heirs, was appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the decedent. During the pendency of the testate proceedings, the survivin heirs, Edmund and his sister Ariola, executed a Joint Agreem: wherein they agreed to divide between themselves and take possa of the three tractors; that is, two tractors for Edmund and ont tractor for Ariola. Each of them was to assume tho indebtedness their late father to FCCC, corresponding to the tractor respective taken by them. A Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Lial executed by FCCC assigning all its assets and li Savings and Mortgage Bank, Demand letters for the settlement of his account were sent petitioner UBP to Edmund, but the latter failed to heed the sam and refused to pay. Thus, petitioner filed a Complaint for sum money against the heirs of Efraim Santibafiez, Edmund and Arial Respondent Ariola maintained that the money claim of the petition should have been presented before the probate court, ‘The appellate court found that the appeal was n and held that the petitioner should have filed its ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can hold the heirs lial on the obligation of the deceased after probate of will. SUPREME COURT'S RULING: Well-settled is the rule that probate court has the jurisdiction to determine all the propert of the deceased, to determine whether they should or should not included in the inventory or list of properties to be adi In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no valid partitis among the heirs until after the will has been probated, The filing of a money claim against the decedent's estate in ( probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the purposo protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor RULE 86 us Claims Against Ketate rator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine {mn and to determine whether it is a proper one which should id. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy nt of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of to the distributees, legatees, or heirs, The law strictly prompt presentation and disposition of the claims decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue. Saale le eee eee eaeRULE 87 ur ‘Actions by and Against Bxecutors and Administrators PONDER SECTION 1 OF THIS RULE, WHAT ACTIONS MAY NOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE EXECUTOR OR JMINISTRATOR? ce dor this rule, an action upon claim for recovery of money or nterest therein may not be commenced against the executor aridity altered EXECUTORS istrator. Under Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Rule 86, this should ‘AND ADMINISTRATORS against the estate itself. 1.01 UNDER SECTION 1 OF THIS RULE, WHAT ACTIONS! A RULE, HEIRS HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT ‘MAY BE COMMENCED AGAINST THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR? Under this rule, the following are the actions that may be conw OITE EXCEPTIONS, IF THERE 1S ANY. Cee eee heirs have no standing in court to sue for the recovery of ‘ ‘of the estate represented by an executor or administrator. the heirs may sue in the following instances: Recovery of real or personal property or any interest, therein from the estate; 2. Enforcement of a lien thereon; 3 Action to recover damages for any injury to person ot property, real or personal ‘The aforementioned instances are deomed actions that surviva the death of the decedent, THE THIRD EXCEPTION THAT THE COURT ENUNCIATED IN THE CASE OF 1.02 ILLUSTRATE ACTIONS THAT MAY BE BROUGHT A. RIOFERIO, et al. v. CA, G.R. NO. 129008, AGAINST THE EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, TUARY 18, 2004? The following cases are examples of actions that may be com ‘Supreme Court held: ‘menced against the executors and administrators: iis if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence Civil Case No. 2570 is an action for quieting of title two exceptions, viz.; (1) if the executor or administrator damages. It is an action involving real property. Pursuant to Sec ig or refuses to bring suit; and (2) when the administrator 1 of Rule 87, it is an action that survives as the claim is not ext dl to have participated in the act complained of and he : guished by the death of a party. (Saligumba v, Palanog, G.R. ty defendant. Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to see) to recover property of the estate is as compelling when inted administrator, if not more, as where there is an 143365, December 4, 2008) b) Civil Case No, 3488 is an action for the recovery of a motor vehicle, a personal property. Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 87, itis an hon _ survives as the claim is not extinguished by the death of ue that the heir have no legal standing to sue for the property ofthe estate dusing the pendency of administray ns, the third being when thereae SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 3.01 SECTION 6 OF RULE 87 GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR) THE RIGHT TO THE PRODUCTION AND EXAMINA« ‘TION OF SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS BELIEVE TO BE IN| POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON WHICH TENDS! TO SHOW THE DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO REAL OR PER} SONAL PROPERTY. CITE THE RATIONALE BEHIN| ‘THIS RULE. ‘The production and examination is nothing to be afraid of sin the intestate court has no authority to decide who the decedent hoirs are in connection with such incident which is confined to examination of documents which may aid the administrator in detor4 mining properties believed to belong to the decedent's estate, Whni} is more, that court has no authority to decide the question of whoth certain properties belong to the estate or to the person sought to b examined. In fact, if after the examination the court has good reason believe that the person examined is in possession of properties belong to the deceased, the administrator cannot detain the property| He has to file an ordinary action for the recovery of the properties. Th purpose of the production and examination of documents is to information or secure evidence from persons suspected of hav possession of, or knowledge or properties suspected of belonging the estate of the deceased. The procedure is ing natura designed as an economical and efficient mode of discovering propertiog of the estate, (Elenterio Rivera v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 189697, June 21} decedent. A judicial declaration of heirship is not necessary in for an heir to assert his right to the property of a deceased. 3.08 DOES THE PROHIBITION TO BRING A SUIT LIKEWISIf APPLY TO A DONEE INTER VIVOS? No, the prohibition expressly stated under this Section appli to heirs and devisees and not to a donee inter vivas who may st the administrator for the delivery of the property donated. (Lopez Olbes, 15 Phil. 540) RULES? ne Actions by and Against Bxoeutors and Administrators RA A. RIOFERIO, et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 129008, January 13, 2004 (E: All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have i standing to sue for the recovery of property of the fliring the pendency of administration proceedings has tions, the third being when there is no appointed itor auch as in this case, On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will i ing several personal and real properties located pt places. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. ‘with whom he had seven children who are the herein 8, Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent is ix children, They are petitioner Hand co-potitioners Veronica, Alberto, and Rowena. smber 14, 1995, respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes petitioner Teodora Rio- Settlement of Estate the properties of the fhe decedent located in Dagupan City and that accordingly, ‘of Deeds in Dagupan issued Certificates of Titles in favor petitioners. Respondents also found out that petitioners pp cbain «loan of 70,000.00 from x bank by exeouting a Hf Mortgage over the properties subject of the extrajudicial Respondent Orfinada IIT filed @ Petition for Letters of n praying that letters of administration encompassing fonso P, Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him. 4, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for the jon of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of a ith Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancel- xr Certificate of Titles and other related documents against petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, ster of Deeds of Dagupan City before the court. 19 filed their Answer to the aforesaid complaint raising ‘the defense that respondents ate not the real parties- vather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of120 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: the pendency of the administration proceedings and moved to disinis the case. However, the court issued an order denying the samo, Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari averring thal] the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailad} ground that the proper party to file the complaint f ant of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of th deceased is the estate of the decedent and not the respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not the heira have legal standing to p secute the rights belonging to the deceased subsequent to th commencement of the administration proceedings. SUPREME COURT'S RULING: Just as no blame of abu: discretion can be laid on the lower court's doorstep for not hearin Petitioners’ affirmative defense, it cannot likewise be faulted fo recognizing the legal standing of the respondents as heirs to the suit. Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the hei without doubt have legal personality to bring suit estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Artick of the New Civil Code “that the righte to succession are tran: from the moment of the death of the decedent.” ‘The provision turn, is the foundation of the principle that the property, rights, ions to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are} itted through his death to another or others by his will or h operation of law. Even if administration proceedings have already been com menced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representat namely Section 8, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 ofthe Rules of Coury In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, thie Court recognized tw} egal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and propertis the decedent under administration pending the appointment of administrator. Thus: ‘The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor wt administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of thi deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the coased. These rules are easily applicable to eases in which administrator has already been appointed, But no rule catego cally addresses the situation in which special proceedings fur RULES? 1a ‘Actions by and Against Exocutors and Administrators ttlement of an estate have already been instituted, yet no ministrator has been appointed, In such instances, the heira t be expected to wait for the appointment of an adminis- ; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed ld care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the 3t3 of the deceased; and in the meantime do nothing while fights and the properties of the decedent are violated or iipated. if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or administrator ; and (2) when the administrator the act complained of and he is iontly, the necessity for the heirs to seek is as compelling when ‘appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or guilty partios himself. Id, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing the recovery of property of the estate during the pendency ion proceedings has three exceptions, the third being no appointed administrator such as in this case. Pe eee Ee aRULE 88 138 Payment of tho Dobts of the Eotato if for assistance relative to Special Proceedings No. 28 pending Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Branch RULE 88 by Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., Adm. Case No. RTJ-01- PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE ESTATE ane HEIR OR DISTRIBUTEE LIABLE FOR OUT- 1.01 DOES THE PROBATE COURT HAVE THE POWER ING CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE? ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION TO PAY CLAIMS? ey crea ig age eae ge their deceased ancestors. But even after the partition of ‘the heirs and distributes are able individually for the all lawful outstanding claims against the estate in pro- ‘amount or value of the property they have respectively the estate, The hereditary property consists only of hich remains after the settlement of all lawful claims eatate, for the settlement of which the entire estate is cannot, by any act of their own or by agreement. reduce the creditors’ security for the payment of , (Pavis v. de la Raja, 8 Phil. 70) procedure allowed by and expenses of administration. The proper procedure is for court to order the sale of personal estate or the sale or mortgn administration should be paid out of the proceeds of such sale mortgage. The order for the sale or mortgage should be issuer motion of the administrator and with the written notice to heirs, legates and devisees residing in the Philippines, accordi to Section 8 of this Rule, and Section 2 of Rule 89. And or mortgage is to be made, the regulations contained in Section 7: Rule 89 should be complied with. 1,02 ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS? ‘Yes, under the following circumstances, the probate court ms issue writs of execution: 1. To satisfy the distributive shares of devisees, legates heirs in possession of the decedent's assets; o fe 2 3. To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for oxaminati in probate proceedings. ‘To enforce payment of the expenses of partition; and 1.08 MAY THE COURT AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO DI POSE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE ESTATE? It is only the executor or administrator of the estate whom t court may authorize to dispose of the properties of the estate so the proceeds of the sale or mortgage may be applied to its obliga 12RULE 89 125 Sales, Morigages, and Other Eneurabrances ‘of Property of Decedent tin asked the intestate court for the amendment of one of wary 25, 1980 Orders. He prayed for the cancellation of the RULE 89 of express conformity of the heirs as a condition for the SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER Lof th aforesaid properties which the intestate court granted ENCUMBRANCES See aaa a OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT joners Josephine and Eleanor, together with their sister filed motions with tho intestate court to set aside an order 1.01 IS NOTICE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT'TO EFFE\ ‘the mortgage to PNB of certain properties of the estate THE AUTHORITY OF THE SALE OR ENCUMBRANCI es denied. OF REAL PROPERTY? ue they filed their complaint: for Nullification of Mortgage lure to give notice to the heirs, devisees or legate ind Foreclosure Proceedings and Damages against idate the authority granted by the court. ind PNB, | Whether or not Agustin’s petitions were null and vold biel Of compliance with the mandatory requirements of PAHAMOTANG v. PNB AND THE HEIRS OF ARGUNA ‘the Rules of Court, particularly Sections 2, 4, and 7. GR. No, 156403, March 31, 2005 COURT'S RULING: Settled is the rule in this juris- DOCTRINE: Settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that when an| jat when an order authorizing the sale or encumbrance of order authorizing the sale or encumbrance of real property wal irty was issued by the testate or intestate court without issued by the testate or intestate court without previous notiet} notice to the heirs, devieess and legatees as required by the to the heirs, devisees and legatees as required by the Rules, it ld iis not only the contract itself which is null and void but also not only the contract itself: is null and void but also # of the court authorizing the same. order of the court authorizing the same. it compliance with Sections 2, 4, and 7 of Rule 89 of the FACTS: On July 1, 1972, Melitona Pahamotang died. She was sur Court, “the authority to sell, the sale itself and the order vived by her husband Agustin Pahamotang, and their eight child {b would be null and void ab initio: consisting of petitioners Josephine and Eleonor. }, the requirements of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court are Agustin filed with the then Court of First Instance of Davng] and failure to give paeioe a te Nears oe taveete toe City a.petition for issuance of letters of administration over 'Branted by the intestate/probate court to mortgage or sell estate of his deceased wife. Respondent PNB and Agustin execute Ep an Amendment of Real and Chattel Mortgages with Assumption it appears that p. ers were never notified of the Obligation in behalf of the estate of Melitona. ions filed by Agustin with the intestate court to mortgage In separate Orders, the intestato court granted Agustin autho} properties of his wife rity to sell estate properties. The court also required all the hei of Melitona to give their express conformity to the disposal of 1 subject proportics ofthe estate and to sign the deod of sale to be sul mitted to the same court. aS eee easRULE: Distbution and RDO S, SILVERIO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS RULE 90 ‘and NELIA S, SILVERIO-DEE DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION ear eeeeeee errr cetera? OF THE ESTATE INE: Additionally, the above provision must be viewed ESTION: that the subject property is part of an estate and ee | 10 intestate proceedings before the courts. It is, thus, Hi to note that in Section 1, Rule 84 of the Rules of Court, 1.01 WHEN MUST THE ORDER FOR DISTRIBUTION 01 Inistrator may only deliver properties of the estate to RESIDUE BE MADE? upon order of the Court. Similarly, under Section 1, ules of Cou hall When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administer Of the Rules of Court, the properties of the estate sI tion, the allowanes to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, char Uc rn lalate nr epee da able to the estate in aecordanco with law, have been paid, the cou Lele eae cnceealtereaiteeL shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled t d by the Court. same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which e¢ ‘The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of Raleoeee Bie decoasod Boatriz Silverio in which the RTC ordered the No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obl Properties of the intastate estate of the deceased to gations abovementioned has been made or provided for, unless th Hhettle estate taxes, penalties, interests and other charges distributees, or any of them, give a bond, court, conditioned for the payment of i it d ‘the properties authorized to be sold was the one located timo as the court directs. | Park, Makati City, occupied by herein respondent. The 1 issued a writ of execution and a notico to vacate the 1.02 BAR @, [2011] Ingainst her. Consequently, this was opposed and tho CA As a rule, the estate shall not be distributed prior to th nd eet aside the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate payment of all charges to the estate. What will justify advand RTC. Hence, this appeal. Aistrtbution as an exception? fi) Whether or not the authority granted by the ad- “ ent residual assets Fr allowing the respondent to remain in possession ‘ property while ite obligations remain unpaid is ether or not the CA seriously erred and/or commit- use of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of B® ‘The specific property sought to be distributed might suff in value. © fn agreement among the heirs regarding such dist in annulling the Order, the Writ of Execution, ote tice to Vacate because the respondent's occupancy (@) The conformity of the majority of the creditors to sud at property will prevent the sale authorized by the distribution. funds for the payment of taxes due which are d rapidly inereasing payment of which must not128 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUPREME COURT'S RULING: The alleged authority given b Silverio, Sr. for the respondent to occupy the property is nul since the possession of estate property can only be given a purported heir by virtue of an Order from this Court. Sect of Rule 90 is explicit when it states that, “No distribution shi ‘management of the real as well as the personal estate of the decea only when it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expensew administration, (Sec. 3, Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court) With this in mind, itis without an iota of doubt that the possa sion by the respondent of the property in question has absolutely egal basis considering that her occupancy cannot pay the debts i ‘expenses of administration, Additionally, the above provision must be viewed in the cont that the subject property is part of an estate and subject to intesta proceedings before the courts. It is, thus, relevant to note that. Section 1, Rule 84 of the Rules of Court, the administrator may deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the ( Similarly, under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the p) ties of the estate shall only bo distributed after the payment debts, funeral charges, and other expenses against the estate, exci when authorized by the Court. 1.04 WHAT IS LIQUIDATION? It is the determination of all assets of the estate and paym of all debts and expenses. 1.05 CITE INSTANCES SHOWING THE PROPER EXERCIAI OF POWERS OF THE PROBATE COURT. ‘The probate court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to distri the estate, has the power to determine the proportion or pai which each distribute is entitled, (Vda. De Kilayco v, Tengco, 19 ‘SCRA 600) Included in the jurisdiction of the probate court to maka declaration of heirs is the power to entertain the question of whethi or not a person is an acknowledged natural child of the deced (Conde v. Abaya, 13 Phil. 249) RULE SO 129 Distribution and Pastition ofthe Rotate \Y THE COURT HEAR AND DETERMINE QUESTIONS O ADVANCEMENT MADE BY THE DECEDENT? "Questions as to advancement made, or alleged to have been he deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by ving jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final Fthe court thereon shall be binding on the person questions and on the heir. ON M. GREGORIO, et al. v. MADARANG, et al. G.R, No, 185226, February 11, 2010 : The facts obtaining in the present case do not call te court to make a provisional determination of of Lot 829-B-4-B. It bears stressing that the question Fpollation or advancement by the decedent to an heir Ith the question of title and ownership can be passed probate court. Basimiro V. Madarang, Sr. (Casimiro, Sr. or the decedent) ‘on June 3, 1995 leaving real and personal properties 1d value of P200,000.00. He was survived by his wife sir five children, namely Casimiro, Jr., Jose, Ramiro, 1 Corazon. intestate proceedings filed by the couple's son Jose, appointed as administratrix of the intestate estate of . Dolores submitted an Inventory Report listing the pro- cedent’s estate. Jose filed his Comment on the Ret t it omitted six lots including Lot 629-B-4-B which fransfer Certificate of Title No, 125429. ed that the six lots had been transferred during the decodent by a Deed of Donation executed in August Hy parents Dolores and Casimiro, Sr. and therefore, should included in the inventory, Whether or not the properties subject of a deed of uted by the decedent during his lifetime should id from inventory of the estate of the decease. }COURT’S RULING: The facts obtaining in the present, peall for the probate court to make a provisional detor- => Mune § FEVE2 AS OS aa -ee oe Un £2120 SPRCIAL PROCEEDINGS mination of ownership of Lot 829-B-4-B. It hears stressing that the question is one of collation or advancement by the decedent to un} heir over which the question of title and ownership can be passud| upon by a probate court. Vicente’s claim of ownership over Lot 829-B-4-B rests upon &] deed of donation by his father (decedent) and his mother. Arti 1061 of the Civil Code expressly provides: Article 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estald any property or right which he may have received from tha| decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir and in the account of partition. In relation to which, Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court provides Sec. 2. Questions as to advancement to be determined. the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on th person raising the questions and on the heir. of law, Lot 829-B-4-B which was to have been donated by the decedent and his wi respondent Vicente should not be excluded from the inventory of th properties of the decedent. 3.01 BY WHOM ARE THE EXPENSES OF PARTITION P; 1. by the executor or administrator if at the time of 1h distribution he has retained sufficient effects in his hands for as lon as it appears equitable to the court and not inconsistent intention of the testator; otherwise, 2. _ by the parties in proportion to their respective shares a interest in the premises. 4.01 WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A FINAL DECREE OF DId TRIBUTION? A final decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased pers vests the title to the land of the estate to the distributoos. If th RULE SO 11 Distribution and Partition of tho Batate idity or invalidity of the project of partition by irrelevant. (Vda. de Kolayco v. Tengco, 207 SCRA 600) BEN DOES A PROBATE COURT LOSE JURISDICTION NAN ESTATE UNDER ADMINISTRATION? probate court lose jurisdiction of an estate under admin- only after the payment ofall debts and the remaining estate to the heirs entitled to receive the same, The finality of the § of the project of partition by itself alone does not terminate wding, As long as the order of the distribution of the estate ‘boon complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be Ptlosed and terminated. (Guilas v. -Judge of CFI Pampanga, 11) {Ar IS THE REMEDY OF AN HEIR WHO HAS NOT iD HIS SHARE? heir has not received his share, his proper romody is to file {th the probate court for dolivery to him of hie chare or if ‘Proceedings had been closed, he should file a motion for ‘of the proceeding, within the proscriptive period, and not i \dent action for annulment of the project of partition. , Where the order closing the intestate proceeding was Bal and executory, the same cannot be reopened on motion phe lapse of the reglementary period. (Divinagracia, et al. B73 SCRA 207, G.R. No. E-42615, August 10, 1976) fy as the order of distribution of the estate has not boon, ith, the probate proceedings cannot be doomed closed and because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive prevent the heirs from bringing an action to obtain his the prescriptive period, therefore, has not elapsed. ractice, however, for the heir who has not received his mand his share through proper motion in the same inistrative proceedings, or for the reopening of the istrative proceedings if it had alroady been closed, h an independent action, which would be tried by an- Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of tho132 ‘SPHCIAL PROCEEDINGS probate or intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffig roportics long ago distributed and disposed of. (Timbol v. Cano, ‘SCRA 1271) 4,04 WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE COURT'S ORDEI OF PARTITION OF THE ESTATE? ‘The Rules provide that certified copies of final orders at judgments of the court relating to the real estate or the partitio ‘thereof shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the proving where the property is situated. 4.05 CASE ANITA REYES-MESUGAS v. ALEJANDRO. AQUINO REYES G.R. No. 174835, March 22, 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Anita Reyes-Mesugas and respondent Alejand ‘A. Reyes are the children of Lourdes A. Reyes and Pedro N. Lourdes died i saving to her heirs, among others, th parcels of land, including a lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Ti (TCT) No. 24475. Respondent filed a petition for settlement of the estate prayi for his appointment ae administrator. Petitioner and other partlt opposed the petition. Later, a compromise agreement was entered into by the parti to partition the estate of Lourdes Reyes. A Decision dated Septem) 18, 2000 was rendered by the RTC based on the said comprom agreoment. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion to cancel lis pende annotation for TOT No. 24475 in view of the finality of judgment the settlement of the estate. Respondent opposed the motion and claimed that the parti ‘on to the compromise agreement, executed “side agreement which had yet to be fulfilled. One such agreement was execu! between petitioner and respondent. granting respondent a on meter right of way on the lot covered by TCT No. 24475. Howe petitioner refused to give the right of way and threatened to bul a conerete structure to prevent access. Respondent countered unless petitioner permitted the inscription of the right of way the certificate of title pursuant to their agreement, the notice of pendens in TCT No. 24475 must remain. RULE 00 138 Distribution nnd Partition ofthe Ratato Whether or. not the annotation of the lis pendens on may be cancelled in view of the termination of the int of estate case. E COURT'S RULING: A compromise is a contract where- , by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or nd to one already commenced. Once submitted to the court id with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere ontract binding upon the parties. Having the sanction of the bd entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the offect of any judgment. Consequently, a judgment rendered ince with a compromise agreement is immediately execu- is no appeal from such judgment. stance, the case filed with the RTC was a special pro- the settlement of the estate of Lourdes Reyes. Settled ie that e probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction ‘matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights arising from the contract. It approves contracts entered d on behalf of the estate or the heirs to it but this is by fiat of Court. It is apparent, therefore, that when the RTC ; the compromise agreement the settlement of the estate tj came to an end. , a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled when the 48 not necessary to protect the title of the party who be recorded. The compromise agreement did not mention tight of way to respondent. Any agreement other than approved compromise agreement between the parties 'the limited jurisdiction of the probate court, Any alleged hg from the “side agreement” on the right of way can be by filing an ordinary action for specific performance {general jurisdiction, Fimportently, the order of the probate court approving the ip had the effect of directing the delivery of the residue of ff Lourdes to the persons entitled thereto under the com- ment. As such, it brought to a close the intestate pro- the probate court lost jurisdiction over the case, except, to the compliance and the fulfillment by the parties tIve obligations under the compromise agreement. (established that the proceedings for the settlement of ourdes came to an end upon the RTC's promulgation of alee Se aaah aSSeb 6-ES- YT £52? & secen. ‘SPRCIAL PROCBEDINGS a decision based on the compromise agrooment, Section 4, Rule 90] the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 4. Recording the order of partition of estate. —Certi copies of final orders and judgments of the court relating the real estate or the partition thereof shall be recorded in registry of deeds of the province where the property is situal In line with the recording of the order for the partition of estate, paragraph 2, Section 77 of P.D, No. 1629 provides: Section 77. Cancellation of Lis Pendens xxx At any time after final judgment in favor of the do nate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the la and/or buildings involved, in any case in which a memorif dum or notice of lis pendens has been registered as provid in the preceding section, the notice of lis pendens sh: which the aetion or proceeding was pend stating the manner of disposal thereof. (emphasis supplied) ‘Thus, when the September 18, 2000 Decision was recor the Registry of Deeds pursuant to Section 4, Rule 90 of the Ru of Court, the notice of lis pendens inscribed on TCT No. 24475 by virtue of Section 77 of P.D. No. 1529. 4.06 OTHER CASE EMILIO B. PACIOLES, JR. v. MIGUELA CHUATOCO-CHING G.R. No, 127920, August 9, 2005 DOCTRINE: The general rule is that the jurisdiction of i trial court either as an intestate or a probate court rela only to matters having to do with the settlement of the eatt and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend the determination of questions of ownership that arise dur| the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that a court exercises special and limited jurisdiction. A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the prinel that an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass questions of ownership when its purpose is to determ| whether or not a property should be included in the inventa situations the adjudication is merel) and is subject to the final decision in a separate fo resolve title. Miguelita died intestate, leaving real properties. She was ‘by her husband, petitioner herein, and their two minor Petitioner filed with the RTC a verified petition for the tof Miguelita’s estate praying that letters of administration {in his name, and that the net residue of the estate be divided ‘a compulsory heir, and that he, being the surviving spouse, preferential right to be appointed as administrator under fpondent countered that she has direct and material interest te because she gave half of her inherited properties to Wk on condition that both of them “would undertake what- hess endeavor they decided to, in the capacity of business Btlonor filed with the intestate court an omnibus motion others, thatan Order be issued directing the partition ition of the estate among the declared heirs. Respondent itimer’s motion on the ground that the partition and tn of the estate is “premature and precipitate,” considering Ma yet no det tion “whether the properties specified in ory are conjugal, paraphernal or owned in a joint venture.” ther or not a trial court, acting as an intestate ar and pass upon questions of ownership involving ‘elaimed to be part of the decedent's estate. f COURT'S RULING: A probate court or one in charge of ips whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or deter- to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which to belong to outside parties.196 ‘SPBCIAL PROCEEDINGS ‘The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court cith as an intestate or @ probate court relates only to matters having i do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceat CHAPTER 3 persons but does not extend to the determination of questions ‘ ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent: r y RULE 91 this rule is that such court exercises special and limited jurisdic ESCHEAT A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the u (BAR QUESTIONS: 1997, 2002, 2012) of ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or nol property should be included in the inventory. In such situal Sea eee adjudication is merely provisional, not conclusive, ie the falling of a decodent’s ostate into the general property of the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. fle on his death intestate without lawful heirs, and is applied ptly to all his rights to property of whatever nature. (21 CJ Wj & proceeding whereby the real and personal property of Jid person become the property of the State upon his death {leaving a will or legal heirs. [tis not an ordinary action, but a ding, and commenced by petition and not by complaint. wl Council of San Pedro, Laguna, et al. v. Colegio de San atal,, 65 Phil. 318) heat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, State, by virtue of sovereignty, ste al property of a person who dies intestate leaving no [Me absence of a lawful owner, a proporty is claimed by the tall an open “invitation to self-service by the first timers.” CA, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002) heat proceedings does not apply where a land unconstitu- quired by an alien was subsequently transferred to a Fili- int that procured the manager's check, the same in favor of the government. (Rizal Commercial 137 sea eat paspaseresseerrr=9r"sauer=sear= =‘ 139 138 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ee Bcheat Banking Corporation v. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz By,.5 years from date of resignation of the judgment to file a Bakunawa, G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012) Slaim. p-B years from date of resignation of the judgment to file @ 1.02 WHO IS THE REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST IN AL claim, ACTIONS FOR THE REVERSION TO THE GOVERN i MENT OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN? THE RATIONALE OF THE FIVE-YEAR TIME In all actions for the reversion to the Government of lat SITATION TO BAR A PERSON FROM the public domain or improvements thereon, the Republic of th DPERTY ALREADY ESCHEATED TO THE GOVERN- Philippines is the real part by the S Cc in his stead, in beht ‘escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignt of the Republic of ippines, (Luis B. Manese, etal. v. Spot 35, prescribe the eonditions and limits the time Velasco, et al, G.R. No. 164084, January 29, 2009) be recovered is generally 1.03 AS A RULE, ESCHEAT IS PROPER WHEN THERE IS Ng Spe scenes aa toee inate pe, WILL LEFT BY THE DECEDENT. CITE AN INSTANC ‘ ‘CA, GAR No. 143483, January WHERE AN ESCHEAT PROCEEDING IS PROPER EVit sdedlabiniie Gaceetseasitioe IF THE DECEDENT DIED TESTATE? : Sue Even if the decedent died testate but his will was not allowed Se scuaie date of ease fag probate, itis as fhe died intestate. In such a ease, ithe has no k heirs and there are no persons entitled to his property, the same ea » accountable to him for the proceeds, still be escheated, im not made shall be barred 1.04 BAR Q. [1997] " need ant; on the contrary, it is decidedly ‘be claimants to be punctilious in | F their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a Fuent. (Republic v. CA, G.R. No, 143482, January 31, 2002) Give the proper venue for the following special proceo ings: a) A petition to declare as escheated a parcel of owned by a resident of the Philippines who died intest and without heirs or persons entitled to the property, SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘petition to declaze as escheated a parcel of land owned by resident of the Philippines who died intestate and without hein persons entitled to the property is to be filed at the place wher ae handed a instant petition, the escheat judgment was hande eee Peceae dest ea lower court as early as June 27, 1989 but it was only 1.05 BAR Q. [2012] '28, 1997, more or less seven A person entitled to the estate of a deceased persoy jor annulment of judgment before the Court of Appesls, Speen Savor oc che State BAe ‘private respondont's belated assertion of her right over (A) Bears from date of judgment to fle a claim. d properties militates against recovery. (Republic v. CA, (B) 2 years from date of judgment to file a claim. 42483, January 81, 2002) the property is lost and the escheat judgment ed | q f k .0 SPECIAL PROCERDINGS With the lapse of the five-year period, therefore, private pondent has irretrievably lost her right to claim and the sup “discovery of the deeds of donation” is not enough justifi to nullify the escheat judgment which has long attained fi (Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 148483, January 31, 2002) 2.08 CAN-THE TRIAL COURT CONVERT AN ESCHEAT PR RULESL a achont 0d, loft-vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being an person having a legal claim thereto. In the case of dormant tho State inquires into the status, custody, and ownership jlaimed balance to determine whether the inactivity was by the fact of death or absence of or abandonment by If after the proceedings the property remains without owner interested to claim it, the property ehalll be reverted CEEDING INTO AN ORDINARY SPECIAL PROCEEDIN( No, this is not allowed by the rules. The two actions are entiral different from cach other and the requirements in vesting juried tion are likewise different, In special proceedings, publication is on a week for threo consecutive weeks while in escheat, once a week [i six consecutive weeks. - te “to forestall an open invitation to self-service by the first fHowever, if interested parties have come forward and lain property, the courts shall determine whether the credit, should pass to the claimants or be forfeited in favor of the is not a proceeding to penalize depositors for failing \draw from their accounts. It is a proceeding State compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit 2.04 WHO HAS THE PERSONALITY TO CHALLENGE THI Pwhen there is substantial ground for a belief that they have CAPACITY OF A PERSON TO ACQUIRE OR OWN LANY ed, forgotten, or without an owner. (RCBC v. Hi-Tri BASED ON NON-CITIZENSHIP? Corp. and Luz R. Bakunawa, G.R. No. 192413, June 13, Under Section 7, B.P. Blg. 185, the Solicitor General or his ra ’ ‘ resentative shall institute escheat proceedings against its viol \Y, THE FUNDS OF UNDELIVERED MANAGER'S Although the law does not categorically states that only the Gove PiCK BE THE SUBJECT OF ESCHEAT? doctrine that the deposit represented by a manager's : Government, through the Solicitor General, has the porsonality ti ally passes to the payee is inapplicable, because the ' jh accepted in advance - remains undelivered, a case challenging the capacity of a person to acquire or to own though aecepted in advance based on non- jp non-delivery of a manager’s check, its assigned fund is ' not against any individu ‘part of the account which procured it. When there the event that the transferee is adjudged to be not Win the account that procured the manager's check, the same ; n, the affected property reverts to the State, not to th euchente in favor ofthe goverment, (Rizal Commercial ious owner or any other individual. (Catalina Balais-Mabanagl ion v. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. ted by her husband, Eleuterio Mabanag v. The Register of Dect @, G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012) of Quezon City, et al, G-R, No. 153142, March 29, 2010) BR Q. [2002] x x x Suppose the property of D was declared es- gn July 1, 1990 in eschcat proceedings brought by ibitor General. Now, X, who claims to be an heir of D, on to recover the escheated property. Is the action Even assuming that the alien was legally disqualified subw quently, from owning the subject property, the decision that voids o annuls their right of ownership over the subject land will not to the benefit of the petitioner. Instead, the subject property wi be escheated in favor of the State in accordance with B.P. Blg. 186, 2.05 CAN DEPOSIT OR CREDIT BALANCE BE THE SUBJEt OF ESCHEAT PROCEEDINGS? It depends. Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process| in which the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claimal GESTED ANSWER: faction is not viable anymore. Section 4, Rule 92 of the of Court expressly provides that an action to recover14a SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS escheated property must be filed within five years or the same wi be barred forever. In this case, the property had been escheated favor of the government since July 1, 1990 and therefore, the claim i beyond the time limitation allowed by law. 2.08 CASE L REPUBLIC v. REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY G.R. No. 158230, July 16, 2008 FACTS: In 1936, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, bought a lot located the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street in Roxas City from th Dinglasans. Liong died intestate and was survived by his widow Ang} Chia, and his sons Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting. The survivi ly settled the estate of the deceaso and partitioned among themselves. When Lee Bing Hoo and Lee But} ‘Ting died, the lot was transferred by succession to their respecti wives, Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu-Lee. In 1956, in the ease of Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, sp that oven though the aforesaid sale of the property was. for violating the constitutional prohibition on the sale of ian’ the doctrine of pari delicto barred the sellers from recove the title to the property. through the OSG with the RTC a complaint for reversion of Title against Elizabeth and Pacita Yu-Lee and the Register of Deeds of Roxas City pra: that the sale be sot aside for being null and void ab ir be reverted to the public domain. ‘The trial court decided in favor of the reversion. ‘The CA, however, reversed its decision and declared prival respondents as the absolute and lawful owners, ISSUE: May reversion of Lot No. 398 to the State be allowed? SUPREME COURT'S RULING: No. Subsequent. circumstar militate against escheat proccedings because the land is now in . They are Filipino citizens, a fn that the Solicitor General does not dispute. RULE OL us Becheat .w disregards the constitutional disqualification of the hhold land if the land is subsequently transferred to a quali- , or the buyer himself becomes a qualified party. LIC v. COURT OF APPEALS AND SOLANO. GAR, No, 143483, January 31, 2002 INE: The five-year period is not a device capriciously by the State to defraud any claimant; on the contrary; Hidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to ilious in asserting their claims, otherwise, they may ‘national, for more than three decades. During Ms. Hankins’ most especially during the waning years of her life, res- volving two parcels of iand, Private respondent alleged laced the Deeds of Donation and were nowhere to be of Pasay City. Since it was established #1 b heirs and persons entitled to the properties of decedent ‘the lower court eschoated the estate of the decedent in sists that notwithstanding the execution of in favor of private respondent, the five-year which to file claims before the court a i in Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of Court has set in. Whether or not private respondent can claim the pro- Hat are subjects of donations. [ COURT'S RULING: Escheat is a proceeding, unlike ion or assignment, whereby the State, by virtue of its eps in and claims the real or personal property of a jes intestate leaving no heir. — emer 6©lCU UB UCU CLS 28 See fe aLRULE OL 145 Bcheat Ma SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Aclaimant to an escheated property must file his claim “withi FORM: ESCHEAT five () years from the date of such judgient, such person shal possession of and title to the same, of if eold, the municipality city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting. estate; but a elaim not made shall be barred forever.” The five-yu period is not a device eapriciously conjured by the State to defn any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encoun of the Philippines would-be claimants to be punctlious in asserting their claim otherwise thoy may lose them forever in a final judgment. Plaintift, Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in th property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested part may appear and oppose the petition for oscheat. However, private ra pondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properti militates against recovery. PETITION FOR ESCHEAT by counsel, respectfully states: ay bo served with summor : ‘Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. Defendants B,EM Banks aro duly organized banking institu- the meaning of Section 1 of Act No, 3986 as amonded int to Section 2 of Act No. 3936, as amended, the above- jant banks forwarded to the ‘Treasurer of the Philippines a fepared under oath by their respective managing officers of fo credits held by them in their favor, or in. the names, of known to be dead, or who have not boon heard form, or further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten since ‘Those eworn statements of credits as of ________, 20___, are attached hereto ‘and made integral parts of this complaint. {faid eworn statements reveal that, as of December 31, 1999, ‘balances in cach defendant bank are as follows: a te a aMe SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NAME OF THEBANK | BRANCH AMOUNT Signature over Printed Name Solicitor General B P1,000,000.00 aa rare E P1,000,000.00 TBP Lifetime Roll No. 000000 7 2,000,000.00 Signature over Printed Name TOTAL 'P4,000,000.00 s 5. Pursuant to Section 3 of Act No, $936, as amend Aveafceateced sitors or creditors of the defendant banks aforementioned wl Amnexes__are hereby made parties-defendants. Said ‘owise provides that service of procoss in this action be made by d copy of the complaint and summons to tho president, cashier, or mai officer of each defendant bank and by publication of such summon newspaper of gon situated, if there be any, ssuch time as this Honorable Court may order. S that the clerk of court shall issue a notice to be attached to and pi ith a copy of said summons, directing all persons, defendants, to show cause, if they have any, why no judgment in favor' plaintiff may be rendered in this case, 6. Said unclaimed balances for the year 20___are subject to exe in favor of plaintiff under the terms of Act No, 8936 as amended. PRAYER ‘summons to defendant banks and its various depositors listed in Ann and of the Notice to all persons, other than those nam¢ if they have any, why no judgmer favor of plaintiff may be rendered in accordance with Section 3 of Act the Treasurer of the Philippines to the credit ol Republic of the Philippines. ff prays for such other reliefs as may be just and eq the premises, for the _ ware), eeces cee lU8lCC KB CUlCOB & 3S Bs A OST’RULE OZ us ‘Venue Jlation of the most sacred character, in which one lian” ard” whom CHAPTER 4 San ‘regards as incapable of managit is own affairs. peribceteieii ardianship is designed to further the ward's wel ‘or better understanding of the topic, the discussion sh: the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward's property, eae ote iz e ion shal divided as follow: to render any assistance that the ward may personally as follows: PART L AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RULES OF COURT \CUSS THE BASIS OF GUARDIANSHIP. Rules 92 to 97 of the Rules of Court limit its ap; guardianship of incompetents who are not minors pursuant to A No. 03-02-05 SC. PART IL UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 03-0 05-SC OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE RULE ON GUARDIAI SHIP OF MINORS.” ‘This Rule which became effective on May 1, 2003, governs gual dianship of minors. Rules 92 to 97 of the Rules of Court no longer apply to guardiang ship of minors, April 1, 1972, 44 SCRA 431) GUARDIAN. i in whom the law has entrusted the cus- Si ee incapable of managing his own affairs. Section 27 of the said Circular expressly provides: “Effect of the rule—This Rule ar of the Rules of Court on di incompetents who are not minors diction of the ian ts and 1ed by the Rules of Court. \ Seer ee eee eee eee IMERATE THE CLASSIFICATION AND KINDS OF PART |. AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RULES OF COURT IRDIAN. GENERAL GUARDIAN AND GUARDIANSHIP ay be claseined te ues RULE 92 According to scope of powers: VENUE ae TION Limit fa oe oe 7 cae ae " According to the Constitution: leo ¢ Rules of Court still apply to petitions i involving guardianship of incompetents other than minors. 1, Goneral guardian Legal guardian: Guardian ad litem us. 8. azowes—pe os JA oO of BS 22 2 TSEPRULE 92 ee Venue 150 ‘SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS to the property is 1.05 DIFFERENTIATE GENERAL AND LIMITED GUARDIAN, a aeaaaanay cae akg iste al ose A general Suardian is one whose respons teilotvoryreeturn Poointe Dacuycuy, et, etal, 0. person of the ward or over his property whi if 9, June 29, 1982) over the property only. 4 Q. [1997] the proper venue for the following special proceed- 1.06 WHO IS A LEGAL GUARDIAN? A legal guardian is a Person who, without the need of judicial appointment, is designated as such by provision of law as in the cad : intent of an administrator of the parents over the persons of their minor children. pa pesto ee ‘American citizen residing Yinla, who had beon declared an incompetent by an court, 1.07 WHO IS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM? A guardian ad litem is any competent person appointed by th court to prosecute or defend a minor, insane or person declared to li ESTED ANSWER: incompetent, in an action in court. ition for the appointment of an ea wa as URIS i nn eae Cllrni, ‘°° SHIP PHOGHEDINGS?. TOT!ON OVE GUARDIAN Le et ca acumen ate SHIP PROCEEDINGS? jal Court of the place where his property or part thereof In guardianship proceedings involuing incompetents who are nol ‘minors, the Regional Trial Court where he resides has jurisdiction} Pursuant to the provisions of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended. In guardianship of minors, it is the Family Court where the minor resides, 1.09 WHERE IS THE VENUE OF GUARDIANSHIP CASES? ‘Venue is the place of residence of the minor or incompetent person. However, if the minor or incompetent resides outsid: Philippines (non-resident), the petition may be filed in the Regional; Trial Court of the place where the property of auch minor or incot petent may be situated. 1.10 AN ISSUE ARISES AS TO WHO HAS A BETTER RIGHT OR TITLE TO PROPERTIES CONVEYED IN THK COURSE OF GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS. DORH THE GUARDIANSHIP COURT HAVE JURISDICTION ‘TO SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY? No, the controversy should be threshed out in a separate nary action as the dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of the guard ship court, (Parco, et al. v. CA, et al., L-33152, January 30, 1982) uzgoeer—-ge gs, fp Bee 8 2 eae A SESRULE 9S ae Appointment of Guardians Other person on behalf of the resident incompetent who hhas no parents or lawful guardian; or i on who RULE 93 | The Director of Health in favor of an insane person wl ‘thould be hospitalized or in favor of an isolated leper; Bee a {terested in the estate of a non-resident incom- (BAR QUESTION: 2012) 6) 1.01 DIFFERENTIATE INCOMPETENCY OF GUARDIAN ANI NTIATE THE CONTENTS OF PETITION INCOMPETENCY OF PERSON UNDER GUARDIANSHII GUARDIANSHIP OVER A MINOR (SC A.M. a Incompetency to act as exe 06) AND PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF AN equated with the incompetency the ETENT OTHER THAN A MINOR (1 mn for guardianship over @ minor are as envisaged in the law of guardianship. (Enearnacion Lopez Vda. d Baluyot v. Leonor Ines Luciano, G.R. No, L-42246, July 13, 1976) 1.02 DIFFERENTIATE THE PERSONS WHO MAY PETITIO! : FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN WITH RESPEC ‘The death of the parents of the minor or the termination, TO A RESIDENT MINOR (SC A.M. No. 03-02-05) AND Al deprivation or suspension of their parental authority, INCOMPETENT OTHER THAN A MINOR (THE RULK Moo vemarsiagn of he rule's vorvving parent oneoeee me names, ages, and residences of relative within the With respect to a minor (as governed by SC A.M. No. 03-02-08 | fourth (th) civil degree of minor and of persons having the following are the persons who may petition for app i Sete custodyy 1, character and Jocation of the property 1. Any relative; or . Other person on behalf ofthe minor; oF . "The minor himself if 14 years of age or over; or Welfare and by the Secretary ane minor who needs to be hospita (Sec, 2 of SC AM 03-02-05) With respect to incompetent other than a minor (as govern the Rules of Court) the following persons may petition for api a ‘The probable value and character of his e beittedammieaes ‘The names, ages, and residences of the relatives of the ! incompetent as well as the persons having him under their 152 at 2 Friend; or