RULE 75 3. March 1978- 2 wills and codicil were presented for probate by Maxine in District Court of Utah.
3. March 1978- 2 wills and codicil were presented for probate by Maxine in District Court of Utah. Juanita & Ethel were
1. CYNTHIA V. NITTSCHER vs. DR. NITTSCHER (Deceased), ATTY. NOGALES and RTC MAKATI (Branch 59)
1. Dr. filed w/ RTC Makati City Pet. for probate of his holographic will (HW) and for issuance of letters testamentary (LT)
to Atty.
2. After hearing and w/ due notice to compulsory heirs, probate court issued order allowing HW; Dr. died; Atty. filed
Pet. for LT for admin. of Dr.’s estate
3. Cynthia (Dr’s surviving spouse) moved for dismissal of Atty’s Pet; RTC denied MTD and granted Atty’s Pet. for LT;
Cynthia’s MR denied; LT issued to Atty; Cynthia to CA- RTC NO jurisdiction over subject matter & she’s denied due
process
4. CA denied Cynth’s appeal.
5. Cynth’s CONT- Atty’s Pet. for LT lacked Cert. against forum-shopping; RTC NO jurisdiction over subject matter since
Dr. was NOT Phil. resident, neither he left real props. in Phil, props. belong to her; she’s denied due process since she
didn’t receive by personal service notices of the proceedings.
ISSUE 1: w/n Atty’s failure to include Cert. against FS in Pet for LT ground for dismissal= NO.
SC: 1. SC Revised Circular No. 28-91 & Admin Circular No. 04-94 require Cert. against FS for all initiatory pleadings filed
in court. But Pet. for LT NOT an initiatory pleading, but mere continuation of orig. Pet. for Dr’s will probate. Hence,
respondent’s failure to include a certification against forum-shopping in his petition for the issuance of letters
testamentary is not a ground for outright dismissal of the said petition.
ISSUE 2: W/n Dr. correctly filed Pet. for probate of will and issuance of LT at RTC Makati City= YES.
SC: 1. Rule 73 Sec. 1. Dr. was resident of Las Piñas, Metro Manila at time of his deathas per RTC and CA; reviews on
certiorar limited to errors of law, hence cannot be disturbed; RTC Makati City, covered Las Piñas, Metro Manila,
ISSUE 3: w/n Cynth is denied due process= NO.
SC: 1. Rule 76, Sec. 4- If testator asks for allowance of his own will, notice be sent ONLY to his compulsory heirs.
-Cynth. w/ whom Dr. had no child, and Dr’s children from his previous marriage were all duly notified, by registered
mail, of probate proceedings; Cynth. even appeared in court to oppose Atty’s Pet. for issuance of LT & filed MTD the
Pet; she filed MR of issuance of LT & denial of her MTD; hence Cynth. was accorded every opportunity to defend her
cause.
2. Cynth. should realize that allowance of her husband’s will is conclusive only as to its due execution since authority of
probate court is limited to ascertaining whether testator, being of sound mind, freely executed will in accord. w/
formalities prescribed by law; Thus, Cynth’s claim of title to props. forming part of her husband’s estate should be
settled in ordinary action before regular courts.
2. ETHEL ROBERTS vs. JUDGE LEONIDAS, CFI MANILA, BR. 38, MAXINE, EDWARD GRIMM II & LINDA
1. Edward Grimm(deceased)- American, resident of Manila, died in Makati; survived by Maxine (2nd wife) and their 2
children: Edward Grimm II/Pete and Linda;;; and 2 children in 1st marriage w/c was divorced: Juanita and
Ethel/McFadden
2. Deceased executed 2 wills in California; a.) Will 1- disposed of his Phil. estate w/c is conjugal prop. of himself and
Maxine; b) Will 2- for estate outside Phil; both wills favored heirs in 2nd marriage; heirs of 1st marriage were given their
legitimes in Will 1 but no provision for them in Will 2
notified; Maxine admitted that she received notice of intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel
-Utah Court admitted to probate 2 wills and codicil upon consid. of stipulation dated April 1978 "by and between attys
for Maxine, Linda, Edward, Juanita (1st wife in 1st marriage), Juanita and Ethel
-2 weeks later, Maxine, et al as 1st parties, & Ethel, Juanita and their mother Juanita as 2nd parties, w/ knowledge of
intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into compromise agreement in Utah regarding estate; STIPULATIONS: Maxine,
Pete and Ethel would be (administrators) of deceased’s Phil. estate; Maxine's 1/2 conjugal share in estate should be
reserved for her and not be less than $1.5M plus homes in Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila; agreement indicated "net
distributable estate" and recognized that estate to pay Angara law firm; decedent's 4 children "shall share equally in
Net Distributable Estate" and Ethel and Juanita should each receive at least 12-1/2% of total of net distributable estate
and marital share; supplemental memorandum executed by parties
4. Intestate proceeding (IP)- Jan. 1978- Ethel filed w/ CFI Manila, Br. 20 IP for settlement of estate. She was named
special administratrix;
- Maxine filed opposition and MTD the IP on ground of pendency of Utah probate proceeding; moved that she be
appointed special administratrix, and submitted to court copy of deceased’s will disposing his Phil. estate
-CFI BR. 20- ignored the will already found in the record since said opposition and MTD were withdrawn pursuant to
compromise agreement.
5. 3 admins(Maxine, Pete 7 Ethel) submitted an inventory and w/ approval of court, sold Palawan Pearl Project
(deceased’s business) to Makiling Management Co. w/c turned out to be incorporated by Ethel. Linda and Juanita
confirmed sale; also sold RFM Corp shares to Server
6. In 1979- Judge Molina of Br. 20- adjudicated to Maxine (4/8) of Phil. estate and 1/8 each to 4 children based on
declaration of heirs and project of partition signed and filed by lawyers Limqueco and Macaraeg but NOT signed by
Maxine and her 2 children
- Maxine, et al moved to defer approval of project of partition but Br. 20 considered motion moot since it already
approved declaration of heirs and project of partition
7. For period of more than 5 months, there was no movement in intestate case; Juanita filed motion for accounting "so
that Estate properties be partitioned among heirs and intestate estate be closed
8. Maxine, et al, filed in CFI Manila, Br. 38, Pet. for probate of deceased’s 2 wills & that 1979 partition be set aside and
Letters of Admin. be revoked, that Maxine be appointed executrix and that Ethel and Juanita be ordered to account for
props. received by them and to return it to Maxine; Maxine et al alleged that they were defraud due to machinations of
Ethel, that Utah compromise agreement was illegal, that IP is void because deceased died testate and partition was
contrary to decedent's wills
9. Ethel’s MTD w/c was denied by Judge Leonidas- Ethel’s Pet. for certiorari and prohibition-testate proceeding be
dismissed, or 2 proceedings be consolidated and heard in Br. 20
ISSUE: W/n Judge Leonidas of Br 38 erred in denying Ethel's MTD= NO.
1. Rule 75, Sec. 1-testate proceeding is proper since deceased died with 2 wills and "no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed"; probate of the will is mandatory; anomalous that estate of person
who died testate should be settled in IP, thus intestate case should be consolidated w/ the testate proceeding and
judge assigned to testate proceeding should continue hearing 2 cases
2. Ethel may file w/in 20 days from notice of finality of this judgment opposition & answer to Pet. unless she considers
her MTD and other pleadings sufficient for purpose; Juanita who appeared in intestate case, should be served w/ copies
of orders, notices and other papers in testate case.

3.VICENTE URIARTE vs. CFI NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, CFI MANILA, JUAN ZAMACONA and HIGINIO URIARTE
1. Vicente filed w/ Negros Court (NC) Spec. Pro. 6344/Pet. for settlement of Don Juan’s estate alleging that he’s natural son,
sole heir, and during Juan’s Vicente instituted Civil Case No. 6142 in same Court for his compulsory acknowledgment as natural
son; NC appointed Phil. National Bank (PNB) as special admin., set the date for hearing and ordered notices be published; PNB
never qualified as special admin.
2. December 1961- Higinio filed opposition alleging he’s nephew of Don who "executed Last Will and Testament in Spain,
authenticated copy been requested and be submitted to Court; Aug. 1962-Zamacona, filed w/ Manila Court (MC) Spec. Pro.
51396/Pet. for probate of last will of Don and filed MTD in SP. 6344 of NC on ground that Don left will, thus, no legal basis to
proceed w/ IP & Vicente no legal personality to initiate IP as he’s not acknowledged natural son; copy of Pet. for Probate and
alleged Will were attached to MTD/.
3. Vicente opposed MTD contending that, as NC was first to take cognizance of settlement of the estate it had acquired
exclusive jurisdiction over same pursuant to Rule 75, Section 1.
4. NC sustained Zamacona's MTD & dismissed SP 6344/IP
5. Vicente filed in MC an Omnibus Motion to intervene therein for dismissal of Pet. in MC & annulment of proceedings; MC
denied said Motion
- When Vicente filed the Civil Case for acknowledgement & SP 6344, he was not yet acknowledged as natural son of Don and
up to this time, no final judgment to that effect appears; SP in NC NOT gone farther than appointment of special admin. who
failed to qualify; MC admitted to probate the last will of Don, Probate Pet. not been contested; Higinio’s MTD attached a copy
of last will and Pet. filed w/ MC hence almost from start of SP 6344, NC and Vicente knew of existence of last will and of
probate proceedings
ISSUE: W/N NC erred in dismissing SP No. 6644 and MC in not dismissing SP 51396= NO.
1. When estate to be settled is that of non-resident alien- like Don, RTC in provinces where deceased left any prop. have
concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of SP for settlement of his estate
2. Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings thus, if in IP it’s found that decedent left last will, probate
proceedings should replace IP even if admin. already been appointed, admin. required to render final account and turn over
estate in his possession to executor subsequently appointed; w/o prejudice that if last will be rejected proceeding shall
continue as an intestacy.
3. It would seem that Vicente should submit will for probate to NC, either in separate SP or appropriate motion for said
purpose filed in pending SP 6344.
-a.) not in accord w/ public policy and orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation,
especially if several courts would be involved; This was result of submission of will to MC. b.) when Higinio filed opposition, he
already informed NC that Don left will in Spain, & when Zamacona, filed his MTD he submitted to NC a copy of alleged will of
Don, thus, like Higinio, Zamacona knew before filing Pet. for probate w/MC that there’s already SP pending in NC.
4. Instead of will being presented for probate to NC, Zamacona filed w/ MC Pet. for Probate and SC cannot accept Vicente’s
cont. that MC had no jurisdiction to consider said Pet., instead, SC say it’s improper venue.
5. Improper venue is merely waiveable procedural defect; Vincente waived right to raise such objection or is precluded from
doing so by laches; Vicente knew of existence of will since December 1961 when Higinio filed his opposition; he was served w/
notice of existence of will in Phil. and of filing of Probate Pet. w/ MC since Aug. 1962 when Zamacona filed MTD; BUT only on
April 1963 that he filed w/ MC Omnibus motion, thus enabling MC not only to appoint admin. but also to admit will to probate;
To allow Vicente now to assail exercise of jurisd. over probate of will by MC and validity of proceedings had in SP 51396 would
put premium on his negligence; SC not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had in lower court even if latter was improper
venue if net result would be to have same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction;
6. proper thing for Vincente is to intervene in testate estate proceedings/SP 51396 in MC instead of maintaining independent
action, for his supposed interest in estate of decedent is of his doubtful character pending final decision of action for
compulsory acknowledgment; Vicente is entitled to prosecute Civil Case No. 6142 until it’s finally determined, or intervene in
SP 51396 of MC, if it’s still open, or to ask for its reopening if it’s been closed, to submit for determination the question of his
acknowledgment as natural child of deceased, said court having, in its capacity as probate court, jurisdiction to declare who are
heirs of deceased testator and w/n party is or should be declared his acknowledged natural child
4. RAFAEL & DRA. SOLEDAD MANINANG VS CA, JUDGE PRONOVE OF CFI of Rizal and BERNARDO ASENETA
1. Clemencia Aseneta- single, died at ManilA, left holo. will (HW): props. are for Dra. Soledad whose family she lived for around
last 30 years now. Dra. been kind to her especially when she was troubled by her nephew Bernardo and niece Salvacion, she
did not consider Nonoy as her adopted son.
2. Dra. filed Pet. for probate of Will w/ CFI QC- Testate Case (TC)
3. Bernardo- adopted son, claims to be sole heir of Clemencia & instituted Intestae case (IC) w/ CFI Pasig, Rizal ; TC and IC
consolidated before CFI Rizal, Br. 11 by Judge Pronove
4. Bernardo’s MTD the TC since HW was void because he, as only compulsory heir, was preterited thus intestacy should ensue.
- Dra’s Opp- in case for probate of Will, Court's area of inquiry is limited to exam. and resolution on extrinsic validity of will; and
Bernardo was effectively disinherited by decedent.
5. CFI dismissed TC appointed Bern.admin. of th intestate estate "considering he’s forced heir of deceased while Dra. is not"
6. Sra’s Certiorari in CA denied; CFI’s order of dismissal was final hence appeal was proper remedy, w/c Dra. failed to avail of.
ISSUE: W/n CFI is correct in dismissing the Testate case= NO.
SC: 1. Probate of Will is mandatory since no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court; law enjoins probate of Will and public policy requires it, because unless Will is probated
and notice given to whole world, right of a person to dispose his prop. may be nugatory.
2. Normally, probate not look into intrinsic validity of will since it’s purpose is to determine due execution thereof, the
testatrix's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.
3. Bern. relies on Nuguid case that intrinsic validity of will normally comes after court declared will to be duly
authenticated. However, where practical considerations demand that intrinsic validity of will be passed upon, even before it’s
probated, the Court should meet that issue.
-The Nuguid and Balanay cases provide exception rather than rule since "meat of controversy" was intrinsic validity of Will;
NOT in this case where probate is insisted by Dra. and resolution on extrinsic validity demanded; in Nuguid case SC ruled that
Will was intrinsically invalid as it completely preterited parents of testator; BUT In this case, crucial issue that calls for
resolution is whether under terms of Will, Bern. had been preterited/ disinherited, and if latter, whether it was valid
disinheritance. Preterition & disinheritance are 2 diff. concepts.
PRETERITION DISINHERITANCE
omission in testator's will of forced heirs/anyone of them, either testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in
because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, legitimate for a cause authorized by law; preterition is always voluntary
they are neither instituted as heirs nor expressly disinherited;
presumed to be "involuntary"
Art. 854 effect- annul institution of heir in toto, unless in will there Art. 918- annul institution of heirs only insofar as it may prejudice person
are dispositions in form of devises/legacies disinherited, hence nullity is limited to portion of estate of w/c
disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived
4. By dismissal of TC, determination of that controversial issue not been thoroughly considered; CFI’s order based on
conclusion that Bernardo has been preterited that conclusion is not certain.
5. Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing TC, certiorari is a proper remedy; TC is then remanded to CFI RIZAL to
be reinstated and consolidated w/ IC
5. REMEDIOS NUGUID vs. FELIX and PAZ NUGUID
1. Rosario- resident of QC, died single, w/o descendants; Surviving her were legit. parents, Resps, and 6 bros &
sis, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto
2. Pet. filed Pet. for probate and Letters of Admin. in CFI Rizal HW allegedly executed by Rosario 11 years before
her death.
3. Resps Opp- by institution of Pet. as universal heir, oppositors who are compulsory heirs of deceased in direct
ascending line were illegally preterited hence institution is void; MTD on ground of absolute preterition.
4. CFI dismissed Pet’s Pet. for Probate- will is complete nullity and create intestacy
ISSUE: w/n CFI as probate court is correct in declaring will void= YES
SC: 1. Probate of will- limited to an examination of, and resolution on, extrinsic validity of the will; due execution,
testatrix's testamentary capacity, and compliance w/ solemnities by law
2. Peculiar situation is here - parties moved aside question of w/n will should be allowed probate. For them,
meat of case is intrinsic validity
- To remand the case to probate court- in event of probate or if court rejects will, probability exists that case will
come up once again before SC on same issue of intrinsic validity, hence, waste of time, effort, expense, plus
added anxiety; These are practical considerations that induce SC it must meet head-on issue of validity of
provisions of will; also there’s justiciable controversy
3. Art. 854 & 814- preterition shall annul institution of heirs but devises and legacies valid
-To annul;- to abrogate, to make void
4. Will completely omits Resps hence deprived of their legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited, thus a
case of preterition; the one-sentence will here institutes Pet. as sole, universal heir, and NO specific legacies or
bequests are provided for, hence, nullity is complete, perforce, Rosario died intestate.
5. Devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious merit consideration only when they are so
expressly given as such in a will; nothing Art. 854 suggests that mere institution of universal heir in will-void
because of preterition- would give heir so instituted a share in inheritance since as to him, will is inexistent.;
There must be, in addition to such institution, testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart
and separate from nullified institution of heir.
6. Will here NOT explicitly disinherit the testatrix's parents, but simply omits their names altogether. Said will
rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one of preterition.
7. SC rejected pet’s cont. that compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to receive their legitimes,
but institution of heir "is not invalidated," although inheritance of heir so instituted is reduced to extent of said
legitimes; destructive effect of theory advanced is due to failure to distinguish institution of heirs from legacies
and betterments, and a general from a special provision; Institution of heirs is bequest by universal title of
property that is undetermined. Legacy refers to specific property bequeathed by particular or special title
6. THELMA M. ARANAS vs. TERESITA, FELIMON, RICHARD, FRANKLIN MERCADOS, CARMENCITA SUTHERLAND,
MA. TERESITA M. ANDERSON
1. Emigdio died intestate survived by Teresita (2ND WIFE) and their 5 children: Allan, Felimon, Carmencita,
Richard, Maria; and his 2 children by 1st marriage: Franklin & Thelma
-Emigdio inherited real props. during his lifetime, owned shares in Mervir Realty, assigned real props. in
exchange for stocks of Mervir, and sold real prop. (Lot 3353) in Cebu
2. Thelma filed RTC in Cebu City Pet. for appointment of Teresita as admin. of Emigdio’s estate; granted and
letters of admin. in favor of Teresita were issued
3. Teresita submitted inventory of estate; indicated that at time of death, Emigdio "left no real properties but
only personal properties
-Claiming that Emigdio owned other properties excluded from inventory, Thelma moved RTC to direct Teresita to
amend inventory, and to be examined w/c was granted by RTC
- Teresita filed compliance supporting her inventory w/ certs. of stocks covering Mervir Realty shares; deed of
assignment executed by Emigdio involving real props. in exchange Mervir Realty shares, and cert. of stock issued
for shares of stock of Cebu Emerson
- Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be examined Thelma be allowed to file formal opposition to
inventory; RTC issued an order expressing need for parties to present evidence and for Teresita to be examined
to enable the court to resolve motion for approval of inventory; Thelma opposed approval of inventory, and
asked leave of court to examine Teresita on inventory; Parties agreed to submit themselves to jurisdiction of
court on issue of what properties should be included or excluded from inventory, thus, RTC set hearing
4. RTC against Teresita- after hearings for 8 yrs ruled that Teresita’s inventory excluded props. that should be
included; Tere and other heirs filed MR on ground that one of real props affected, Lot No. 3353 located in
Badian, Cebu, already sold to Mervir Realty, and parcels of land covered by deed of assignment already come
into the possession and registered in name of Mervir; MR denied by RTC since heirs agreed to submit to RTC the
issue of inventory, they are already estopped from questioning its jurisdiction
5. CA partly granted tere’s Pet for certiorari; RTC acted w/ grave abuse… in ordering Tere to include in inv. Lot
3353 located at Badian, Cebu subject matter of DAS & parcels of land subject matter of Deeds of Assignment;
certiorari is proper because RTC’s order directing new inventory of properties was interlocutory; sale made thru
public instrument was equivalent to delivery of object of sale, thus sale by Emigdio transferred ownership of Lot
No. 3353 to Mervir because DAS executed was notarized; Emigdio assigned lands to Mervir "for saving; such
parcels of land, subject matter(s) of Deed Assignmentm (DA) were again given monetary consideration thru
shares of stock; lands could not be included in inventory "considering that there is nothing wrong about the
estate planning scheme"; RTC, as intestate court, NO power to take cognizance of and determine issue of title to
property registered in name of 3rd persons/ corp; prop. covered by Torrens system should be afforded
presumptive conclusiveness of title;
Issue: Did CA properly determine that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing inclusion of certain
properties in inventory notwithstanding that such props. had been either transferred by sale or exchanged for
corporate shares in Mervir by decedent during his lifetime= NO.
SC: 1. Rule 83 Sec. 1- usage of the word “all” demands that no properties appearing to belong to decedent can
be excluded from inv. regardless of their being in possession of another person/entity; Rationale: aid court in
revising accounts and determining liabilities of executor/admin, and in making final & equitable distribution
(partition) of estate thus RTC that presides over admin. of estate is vested w/ wide discretion on question of
what props should be included in inventory and CA cannot impose its judgment to supplant that of RTC on issue
of w/c props. are to be included in absence of "positive abuse of discretion,"
- GR: jurisd. of TC, either as probat/intestate court relates only to probate of will and/or settlement of the estate
of deceased persons, but NOT to questions of ownership that arise during proceedings as it exercises special and
limited jurisdiction.
-EXC: justified by expediency and convenience: a.)probate court may provisionally pass upon in intestate or
testate proceeding question of inclusion/exclusion from inv. of property w/o prejudice to final determination of
ownership in separate action; b.) interested parties are all heirs to estate, or question is one of collation or
advancement, or parties consent to assumption of jurisd. by probate court and rights of 3rd parties NOT impaired
2. Props that must be included in inv: a.) props. constituting Emigdio’s share in Severina’s estate; b.) shares of
stock of Mervir partaking of being conjugal, thus ½ thereof; c.) ½ of conjugal bank acct; d.) Lot No. 3353 located
in Badian, Cebu that’s still registered in name of Emigdio until now, when it’s subjected to civil case, it’s estate of
Emigdio w/c claimed to be & Mervir never intervened;e.)lands assigned to Mervir w/c was transfer in
contemplation of death, made 2 days before he died
3. RTC strictly followed directives of Rules and the jurisprudence relevant to procedure for preparing inventory;
its directive to include props. in question in inv. rested on good & valid reasons, far from whimsical, or arbitrary,
or capricious; JUSTIF for inclusion of props. in SC # 3:
a. Teresita, et al. did not dispute about shares being inherited by Emigdio; b & c.) Emigdio and Teresita married
prior to Family Code thus property regime was conjugal partnership; d.) although title over Lot 3353 already
registered in name of Mervir RTC made findings that put title in dispute.- Civil Case that involved ownership of
said Lot resolved in favor of estate of Emigdio, TCT still in his name and Mervir didn’t intervene since Mervir
managed by Richard, was headed by Teresita herself as President, thus Mervir Realty is family corp; notarized
deed of sale DAS only enjoyed presump. of regularity but NOT guarantee legal efficacy of transaction; e.) Emigdio
having been sick of cancer of pancreas at time of assignment, hence whether CA correctly characterized
exchange as form of estate planning scheme remained to be validated by facts to be established in RTC; Torrens
system NOT mode of acquiring titles to lands;
4. Inv. must be prepared and submitted for resolving difficult issues of collation and advancement to heirs. Rule
90 expandedspecial and limited jurisdiction of RTC as intestate court about matters relating to e inventory of
estate by authorizing it to direct inclusion of properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous title to any
compulsory heir by the decedent.
Collateral issue: W/n certiorari is proper remedy on RTC’s order directing new inventory of props. (As per Thelma
appeal is the proper one, as per Tere and CA certiorari is the one)= YES
1. Final Order- first disposes subject in its entirety/ terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing
except execution; Interlocutory order- prelimin. matters and trial on merits is yet to be held and the judgment
rendered.
-RTC order here is interlocutory, because inclusion of props. in inv. NOT yet final determination of ownership as
approval of the inventoryinv. and determination of ownership as basis for inclusion were provisional and subject
to revision at anytime during course of admin. proceedings; thus certiorari and NOT appeal is remedy to avoid
multiplicity of appeals
-All RTC could do is determine whether they should/not include in inv. props. to be administered; if there’s
dispute as to ownership, opposing parties and admin. have to resort to ordinary action for final determ. of claims
of title because probate court cannot do so; assailed orders of RTC, being interlocutory, did not come under any
of instances under Rule 109 Sec. 1 in which w/c multiple appeals are permitted
7. ALUADS vs. ZENAIDO ALUAD
1. Matilde married to Crispin – childless who raised Maria (Pets’ mother) and Resp.
-Crispin- owner of 6 lots including Lots 674 & 676 in Capiz; after he died, Matilde adjudicated lots to herself
-Matilde executed "Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos" (DOD) in favor of Maria covering all 6 lots; DOD reads:
Maria being adopted ; become effective upon death of the DONOR, but if DONEE should die before DONOR, donation be
deemed rescinded ; Provided, however, that anytime during lifetime of DONOR or anyone of them who should survive, they
could use encumber or even dispose of any or even all lands donated.
-OCTs of 674 and 676 were issued in Matilde’s name; she sold 676 to Resp. by DAS; she executed last will and testament,
devising 675, 677, 682, and 680 to Maria, and 674 to Resp; she died and also Maria died
2. Pets. filed in RTC Roxas City Complaint, for declaration and recovery of ownership & possession of Lots 674 and 676, and
damages against Resp; alleging that after Matilde’s death, they succeeded by right of representation from their deceased
mother, Maria who is sole and only daughter of Matilde
3. RESP’s ANSWER- L674 is owned by him as this was adjudicated to him in Last Will while L676 was purchased by him from
Matilde
4. Pets’ Amended Complaint cited donation of 6 lots via DOD in favor of Maria; w/c as per Resp. is forged and assuming it
exists, the same was already revoked by Matilde "when she exercised all acts of dominion over said properties
5. RTC- Matilde could not transmit any right over L 674 and 676 to Resp., she having previously alienated them to Maria via
DOD; hence issued writ of execution pending appeal to CA
6. CA reversed RTC holding that DOD was actually donation mortis causa, not inter vivos, thus it had to, but did not, comply w/
formalities of will; Resp. is rightful owner of L 676, but CA did not so declare w/respect to L674, as Matilde’s last will NOT yet
been probated.
ISSUE: W/n CA is correct in ruling infav. of Resp= YES
SC: 1. DOD here is mortis causa: a.) conveys no title/ownership to transferee before death of transferor; b) before death of
transferor, transfer should be revocable; c)transfer should be void if transferor should survive transferee.
- "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR"- Matilde NOT intend to transfer ownership to Maria during Matilde’s
lifetime
- "anytime during lifetime of DONOR or anyone of them who should survive- Matilde retained ownership of lots and reserved
in her right to dispose them. For the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than those established by law is an
attribute of ownership.30 The phrase in the Deed of Donation
-"or anyone of them who should survive"- referring to donor Matilde.
2. RTC’s error- "but in event DONEE should die before DONOR, donation shall be deemed rescinded and no further force and
effect" means that after execution of donation, same became effective immediately and shall be "deemed rescinded upon
arrival of resolutory term that is death of donee -As per SC, see SC#1c of this digest
3. Donation is mortis causa is fortified by Matilde’s acts of possession as she continued to pay taxes for props. w/c remained
under her name; appropriated produce; applied for free patents for w/c OCTs issued to her name.
4. Formalities of Will not complied: only 2 witnesses, it must atleast 3; witnesses did not even sign attestation clause; witnesses
did not acknowledge will before notary public; requirement that all pages of will be numbered correlatively in letters placed
on upper part of each page NOT followed.
5. Since DOD w/c is mortis causa, not followed formalities of will, it’s void and transmitted no right to Maria; Even assuming
that formalities observed, since it’s not probated, no right to L674 and 676 was transmitted to Maria.
-Matilde validly disposed of L674 to Resp. by her last will and testament, subject to req. that will be probated.
-L 676, been validly sold by Matilde to Resp.
6. SC rejected Pets’ cont. that lot should been awarded to them because they acquired it by acquisitive prescription, having
been in continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, open, and public possession of it in good faith and in concept of owner since 1978;
As per SC, Pets. failed to raise issue of acquisitive prescription before CFI. GR: points of law, theories, and issues not brought to
TC cannot be raised for 1st time on appeal.