01 - rule 73

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/01-rule-73 1/69

G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976

VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, an !"N"RA#LE $EVER" A. %ALVAR, &re'((n) *+)e, Co+r o F(r'In'ane o La)+na, #ran/ V, petitioners,vs.

!E !"N"RA#LE C"UR "F A&&EAL$, &RECI"$A #. GARCIA an AGU$INA #.GARCIA, respondents.

G.R. No. L-42670 November 29, 1976

VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, 3e((oner,v'.!"N"RA#LE ERNANI C. &A", &re'((n) *+)e o Co+r o F(r' In'ane o R(a, +eon C(,#ran/ 8VIII, an &RECI"$A #. GARCIA, re'3onen'.

Francisco Carreon for petitioners.

Augusto G. Gatmaytan for private respondents.

%ARIN, J.:

/e'e o (nerreae a'e' br(n) o U' /e :+e'(on o /a /e or ;re'(e'; (n $e(on 1,R+e 7< o /e Rev('e R+e' " Co+r, reerr(n) o /e '(+' o /e 'eemen o /e e'ae oeea'e 3er'on', mean'. A((ona, /e r+e (n /e a33o(nmen o a '3e(a am(n('raor (''o+)/ o be rev(ee.

"n %a 2, 197<, V(r)(n(a G. F+e (e (/ /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na, a Caamba,3re'(e over b *+)e $evero A. %avar, a 3e((on or eer' o am(n('ra(on, o=ee a' $3.

&ro. No. 27-C, ae)(n), (ner a(a, ;/a on A3r( 26, 197<, Amao G. Gar(a, a property owner ofCalamba, Laguna, (e (ne'ae (n /e C( o %an(a, eav(n) rea e'ae an 3er'ona 3ro3er(e'(n Caamba, La)+na, an (n o/er 3ae', (/(n /e >+r('((on o /e !onorabe Co+r.; A /e'ame (me, '/e moveex parte or /er a33o(nmen a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? over /e e'ae. "n even ae, %a 2, 197<,*+)e %avar )rane /e mo(on.

A mo(on or reon'(era(on a' (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a on %a @, 197<, onen(n) /a /eorer a33o(n(n) V(r)(n(a G. F+e a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? a' (''+e (/o+ >+r('((on, '(neno no(e o /e 3e((on or eer' o am(n('ra(on /a' been 'erve +3on a 3er'on' (nere'e(n /e e'ae /ere /a' been no ea or a+'e or ea (n /e 3roee(n)' or /e a33o(nmen o a re)+ar am(n('raor a' /e '+rv(v(n) '3o+'e o Amao G. Gar(a, '/e '/o+ be 3reerre (n/e a33o(nmen o a '3e(a am(n('rar(? an, V(r)(n(a G. F+e (' a ebor o /e e'ae o

Amao G. Gar(a. &re(o'a #. Gar(a, /ereore, 3rae /a '/e be a33o(ne '3e(aam(n('rar(? o /e e'ae, (n (e+ o V(r)(n(a G. F+e, an a' re)+ar am(n('rar(? aer +e/ear(n).

B/(e /(' reon'(era(on mo(on a' 3en(n) re'o+(on beore /e Co+r, &re(o'a #. Gar(a(e on %a 29, 197< a mo(on o remove V(r)(n(a G. F+e a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? ae)(n),be'(e' /e >+r('((ona )ro+n ra('e (n /e mo(on or reon'(era(on o %a @, 197< /a /era33o(nmen a' oba(ne /ro+)/ erroneo+', m('ea(n) anor (nom3ee m('re3re'ena(on'

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


/a V(r)(n(a G. F+e /a' aver'e (nere' a)a(n' /e e'ae an /a '/e /a' '/on /er'e+n'+(abe a' am(n('rar(? an a' o(er o /e o+r.

In /e mean(me, /e no(e o /ear(n) o /e 3e((on or eer' o am(n('ra(on (e b V(r)(n(aG. F+e (/ /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o Caamba, La)+na, a' 3+b('/e on %a 17, 24, an <1,197<, (n /eayani!an, a ee= 3+b(a(on o )enera (r+a(on (n $o+/ern L+on.

"n *+ne 6, 197<, &re(o'a #. Gar(a ree(ve a ;$+33emena &e((on or /e A33o(nmen oRe)+ar Am(n('raor D (e b V(r)(n(a G. F+e. /(' '+33emena 3e((on mo((e /e or()(na3e((on (n o+r a'3e' 1 /e ae)a(on /a +r(n) /e (e(me o /e eea'e Amao G.Gar(a, /e a' eee a' Con'(+(ona Hee)ae or /e F(r' H('r( o La)+na an /(' a' 3aeo re'(ene a' a Caamba, La)+na 2 /e ee(on o /e name' o &re(o'a #. Gar(a anA)+'(na Gar(a a' e)a /e(r' o Amao G. Gar(a < /e ae)a(on /a Caro(na Car3(o, /oa' '(m3 ('e a' /e(r (n /e or()(na 3e((on, (' /e '+rv(v(n) '3o+'e o Amao G. Gar(a an/a '/e /a' e?3re'' reno+ne /er 3reeren(a r()/ o /e am(n('ra(on o /e e'ae (n avoro V(r)(n(a G. F+e an 4 /a V(r)(n(a G. F+e be a33o(ne a' /e re)+ar am(n('rar(?. /eam(''(on o /(' '+33emena 3e((on a' o33o'e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a or /e rea'on, amon)o/er', /a ( aem3' o oner >+r('((on on /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na, o /(/ /eo+r a' no 3o''e''e a /e be)(nn(n) bea+'e /e or()(na 3e((on a' e((en.

"n *+ 19, 197<, &re(o'a #. Gar(a (e an o33o'((on o /e or()(na an '+33emena 3e((on'or eer' o am(n('ra(on, ra('(n) /e (''+e' o >+r('((on, ven+e, a= o (nere' o V(r)(n(a G.F+e (n /e e'ae o Amao G. Gar(a, an (':+a((a(on o V(r)(n(a G F+e a' '3e(aam(n('rar(?.

An omn(b+' mo(on a' (e b V(r)(n(a G. F+e on A+)+' 20, 197<, 3ra(n) or a+/or( o a=e3o''e''(on o 3ro3er(e' o /e eeen ae)e (n /e /an' o /(r 3er'on' a' e a' o'e+re a'/ avane' rom /e Caamba $+)ar &aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In.&re(o'a #. Gar(a o33o'e /e mo(on, a(n) aen(on o /e (m(a(on mae b *+)e %avaron /e 3oer o /e '3e(a am(n('rar(?, v(., ;o ma=(n) an (nvenor o /e 3er'ona an rea3ro3er(e' ma=(n) +3 /e 'ae o /e eea'e.;

!oever, b *+ 2, 197<, *+)e %avar an area (''+e an orer, ree(ve b &re(o'a #.Gar(a on on *+ <1, 197<, en(n) /e mo(on o &re(o'a #. Gar(a o reon'(er /e orer o%a 2, 197<, a33o(n(n) V(r)(n(a G. F+e a' '3e(a am(n('rar(?, an am((n) /e'+33emena(on 3e((on o %a 1@,197<.

"n A+)+' <1, 197<, &re(o'a #. Gar(a move o ('m('' /e 3e((on, bea+'e 1 >+r('((onover /e 3e((on or over /e 3ar(e' (n (nere' /a' no been a:+(re b /e o+r 2 ven+e a'(m3ro3er a( an < V(r)(n(a G. F+e (' no a 3ar (n (nere' a' '/e (' no en(e o (n/er(rom /e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a.

"n $e3ember 2@, 197<, &re(o'a #. Gar(a (e a '+33emena mo(on o '+b'(+e V(r)(n(a G.F+e a' '3e(a am(n('rar(?, rea'on(n) /a /e 'a( V(r)(n(a G. F+e am(e beore beore /eo+r /a '/e (' a +-booe '('er o &abo G. Aae, an (e)((mae 'on o Anrea Aae,

(/ /om /e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a /a' no rea(on.

/ree mo(on' ere (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a on November 14, 197<, one, o en>o(n /e '3e(aam(n('rar(? rom a=(n) 3o''e''(on o 3ro3er(e' (n /e /an' o /(r 3er'on' /(/ /ave nobeen eerm(ne a' beon)(n) o Amao G. Gar(a ano/er, o remove /e '3e(a am(n('rar(?or a(n) o+'(e /er a+/or( an a)a(n' /e (nere' o /e e'ae an '( ano/er, (e (nbe/a o /e m(nor A)+'(na #. Gar(a, o ('m('' /e 3e((on or an o a+'e o a(on,

>+r('((on, an (m3ro3er ven+e.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


"n November 2@, 197<, *+)e %avar re'ove /e 3en(n) omn(b+' mo(on o V(r)(na G. F+e an/e mo(on o ('m('' (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a. Re'ov(n) /e mo(on o ('m('', *+)e %avarr+e /a /e 3oer' o /e '3e(a am(n('rar(? are /o'e 3rov(e or (n $e(on 2, R+e @0 o/e R+e' o Co+r, 1 '+b>e on o /e 3rev(o+' :+a((a(on mae b /e o+r /a /eam(n('ra(on o /e 3ro3er(e' '+b>e o /e mar=e(n) a)reemen (/ /e Can+ban) $+)ar&aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on '/o+ rema(n (/ /e aer an /a /e '3e(aam(n('rar(? /a area been a+/or(e (n a 3rev(o+' orer o A+)+' 20, 197< o a=e +'oan 3o''e''(on o a 3a3er' an er((ae' o (e an 3er'ona ee' o /e eeen (/ /eCan+ban) $+)ar &aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In. Ramon %erao, o /eCan+ban) $+)ar &aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In., a' orere o e(ver o&re(o'a #. Gar(a a er((ae' o (e (n /er name (/o+ an :+a((n) or' (=e ;marr(e oAmao Gar(a; oe' no a33ear. Re)ar(n) /e mo(on o ('m('', *+)e %avar r+e /a /e(''+e o >+r('((on /a area been re'ove (n /e orer o *+ 2, 197<, en(n) &re(o'a #.Gar(aD' mo(on o reon'(er /e a33o(nmen o V(r)(n(a G. F+e an am((n) /e '+33emena3e((on, /e a(+re o V(r)(n(a G. F+e o ae)e (n /er or()(na 3e((on or eer' o am(n('ra(on(n /e 3ae o re'(ene o /e eeen a /e (me o /(' ea/ a' +re. *+)e %avar +r/er/e /a &re(o'a #. Gar(a /a '+bm(e o /e >+r('((on o /e o+r an /a a(ve /erob>e(on' /ereo b 3ra(n) o be a33o(ne a' '3e(a an re)+ar am(n('rar(? o /e e'ae.

An omn(b+' mo(on a' (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a on Heember 27, 197< o ar( or reon'(er/e ore)o(n) orer o *+)e %avar, (n v(e o 3rev(o+' o+r orer (m((n) /e a+/or( o /e'3e(a am(n('rar(? o /e ma=(n) o an (nvenor. &re(o'a #. Gar(a a'o a'=e or /ere'o+(on o /er mo(on o ('m('' /e 3e((on' or a= o a+'e o a(on, an a'o /a (e (nbe/a o A)+'(na #. Gar(a. Re'o+(on o /er mo(on' o '+b'(+e an remove /e '3e(aam(n('rar(? a' (=e('e 3rae or.

"n Heember 19, 197<, *+)e %avar (''+e o 'e3arae orer', /e (r', en(n) &re(o'a #.Gar(aD' mo(on' o '+b'(+e an remove /e '3e(a am(n('rar(?, an /e 'eon, /o(n) /a/e 3oer aoe /e '3e(a am(n('rar(? enabe' /er o on+ an '+bm( an (nvenor o/e a''e' o /e e'ae.

"n *an+ar 7, 1974, &re(o'a #. Gar(a move or reon'(era(on o /e ore)o(n) orer' o

November 2@, 197< an Heember 19, 197<, (n'oar a' /e '+'a(ne or a(e o r+e on /e(''+e' ra('e b /er a e)a 'an(n) a+'e o a(on o V(r)(n(a G. F+e b ven+e >+r('((on a33o(nmen, :+a((a(on an remova o '3e(a am(n('rar(? an e e(vero /e '3e(a am(n('rar(? o /e=' an 3a3er' an ee' (n /e o(e o /e Caamba $+)ar&aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In.

"n %ar/ 27, 197<, *+)e %avar (''+e /e (r' :+e'(one orer en(n) &re(o'a #. Gar(aD'mo(on or reon'(era(on o *an+ar 7, 1974. "n *+ 19, 1974, *+)e %avar (''+e /e o/er/ree :+e'(one orer' one, (re(n) Ramon %erao, o /e Caamba $+)ar &aner'Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In., o +rn('/ V(r)(n(a G. F+e, a' '3e(a am(n('rar(?,o3 o /e 'aemen o ao+n' an (na (:+(a(on o '+)ar 3oo, a' e a' o e(ver o /er/e orre'3on(n) amo+n +e /e e'ae ano/er, (re(n) &re(o'a #. Gar(a o e(ver oV(r)(n(a G. F+e o moor ve/(e' 3re'+mab beon)(n) o /e e'ae an ano/er, (re(n)Ramon %erao o e(ver o /e o+r a er((ae' o (e (n /(' 3o''e''(on (n /e name o&re(o'a #. Gar(a, /e/er :+a((e (/ /e or ;'(n)e; or ;marr(e o Amao Gar(a.;

H+r(n) /e /ear(n) o /e var(o+' (n(en' o /(' a'e $3. &ro. 27-C beore *+)e%avar, 2 V(r)(n(a G. F+e 3re'ene /e ea/ er((ae o Amao G. Gar(a '/o(n) /a /('re'(ene a /e (me o /(' ea/ a' +eon C(. "n /er 3ar, &re(o'a #. Gar(a 3re'ene /ere'(ene er((ae o /e eeen or 197< '/o(n) /a /ree mon/' beore /(' ea/ /('re'(ene a' (n +eon C(. V(r)(n(a G. F+e a'o e'((e /a Amao G. Gar(a a' re'((n) (nCaamba, La)+na a /e (me o /(' ea/, an /a /e a' a ee)ae o /e 1971 Con'(+(onaConven(on or /e (r' ('r( o La)+na.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


"n *+ 26, 1974, &re(o'a #. Gar(a an A)+'(na #. Gar(a ommene a '3e(a a(on orer(orar( anor 3ro/(b((on an 3re(m(nar (n>+n(on beore /e Co+r o A33ea', o=ee a'CA-G.R. No. 0<221-$&. 3r(mar( o ann+ /e 3roee(n)' beore *+)e %avar (n $3. &ro. No. 27-C o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na, or, (n /e aerna(ve, o vaae /e :+e'(one o+rorer' o /a o+r, v(., one ae %ar/ 27, 1974, en(n) /e(r mo(on or reon'(era(on o/e orer en(n) /e(r mo(on o ('m('' /e r(m(na an '+33emena 3e((on' on /e (''+e,amon) o/er', o >+r('((on, an /e /ree o/er', a ae *+ 19, 1974, (re(n) /e e(vero era(n 3ro3er(e' o /e '3e(a am(n('rar(?, V(r)(n(a G. F+e, an o /e o+r.

"n *an+ar <0, 1975, /e Co+r o A33ea' renere >+)men ann+(n) /e 3roee(n)' beore*+)e $evero A. %avar (n $3. &ro. 27-C o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o Caamba, La)+na, ora= o >+r('((on.

Hen(e o /e(r mo(on or reon'(era(on on %ar/ <1, 1975, V(r)(n(a G. F+e or/(/ eevae/e maer o U' on a33ea b er(orar(. /e a'e a' o=ee a' G.R. No. L-40502.

!oever, even beore V(r)(n(a G. F+e o+ ree(ve /e e('(on o /e Co+r o A33ea', &re(o'a#. Gar(a /a area (e on Febr+ar 1, 1975 a 3e((on or eer' o am(n('ra(on beore /eCo+r o F(r' In'ane o R(a, +eon C( #ran/, o=ee a' $3. &ro. No. -197<@, over /e

'ame (ne'ae e'ae o Amao G. Gar(a. "n Febr+ar 10, 1975, &re(o'a #. Gar(a +r)enmove or /er a33o(nmen a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? o /e e'ae. *+)e V(ene G. Er(a )rane/e mo(on an a33o(ne &re(o'a #. Gar(a a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? +3on a bon o &<0,000.00.&re(o'a #. Gar(a :+a((e an a''+me /e o(e.

For /e (r' (me, on Febr+ar 14, 1975, &re(o'a #. Gar(a (norme *+)e Er(a o /e 3eneno $3. &ro. No. 27-C beore *+)e %avar o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na, an /eann+men o /e 3roee(n)' /ere(n b /e Co+r o A33ea' on *an+ar <0, 1975. $/eman(e'e, /oever, /er ((n)ne'' o (/ra $3. &ro. -197<@ '/o+ /e e('(on o /eCo+r o A33ea' ann+(n) /e 3roee(n)' beore /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na (n $3.&ro. No. 27-C /ave no e beome (na, ( be(n) /e '+b>e o a mo(on or reon'(era(on.

"n %ar/ 10, 197<, *+)e Er(a orere /e '+'3en'(on o /e 3roee(n)' beore /(' o+r +n(

&re(o'a #. Gar(a (norm /e o+r o /e (na o+ome o /e a'e 3en(n) beore /e Co+r oA33ea'. /(' no(/'an(n), &re(o'a #. Gar(a (e on Heember 11, 1975, an ;Ur)en &e((onor A+/or( o &a E'ae "b()a(on'.;

"n Heember 1<, 1975, V(r)(n(a G. F+e (e a ;$3e(a A33earane o +e'(on Ven+e an*+r('((on; re(era(n) /e )ro+n' 'ae (n /e 3rev(o+' '3e(a a33earane o %ar/ <, 1975,an a(n) aen(on /a /e e('(on o /e Co+r o A33ea' an (' re'o+(on en(n) /emo(on or reon'(era(on /a been a33eae o /(' Co+r /a /e 3ar(e' /a area (e /e(r re'3e(ve br(e' an /a /e a'e (' '( 3en(n) beore /e Co+r.

"n Heember 17, 1975, *+)e Ernan( Cr+ &ano, /o '+eee *+)e Er(a, (''+e an orer)ran(n) &re(o'a #. Gar(aD' ;Ur)en &e((on or A+/or( o &a E'ae "b()a(on'; (n /a /e3amen' ere or /e bene( o /e e'ae an /a /ere /an)' a o+ o o+b on /e va(( o

/e 3roee(n)' (n $3. &ro. No. 27-C o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o La)+na.

A om3(ane o /(' "rer a' (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a on *an+ar 12,1976.

"n Febr+ar 4,1974, VIRGINIA G. FULE (n'(+e G.". #o. L$%&'() , a 3e((on or er(orar( (/em3orar re'ra(n(n) orer, o ann+ /e 3roee(n)' (n $3. &ro. No. -197<@ an o re'ra(n*+)e Ernan( Cr+ &ao rom +r/er a(n) (n /e a'e. A re'ra(n(n) orer a' (''+e onFebr+ar 9, 1976.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Be ('m('' /e a33ea (n G.". #o. L$%)*)& an /e 3e((on or er(orar( (n G.". #o. L$%&'() or/e rea'on' an on'(era(on' /ere(naer 'ae.

1. $e(on 1, R+e 7< o /e Rev('e R+e' o Co+r 3rov(e' ;+f t!e decedent is an in!abitant oft!e !ilippines at t!e time of !is deat!, /e/er a ((en or an a(en, !is will s!all be proved, orletters of administration granted, and !is estate settled, in t!e Court of First +nstance in t!e

province in w!ic! !e resides at t!e time of !is deat!, an ( /e (' an (n/ab(an o a ore()no+nr, /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o an 3rov(ne (n /(/ /e /a e'ae. /e o+r (r' a=(n)o)n(ane o /e 'eemen o /e e'ae o a eeen, '/a e?er('e >+r('((on o /ee?+'(on o a o/er o+r'. /e >+r('((on a''+me b a o+r, 'o ar a' ( e3en' on /e3ae o re'(ene o /e eeen, or o /e oa(on o /(' e'ae, '/a no be one'e (n a '+(or 3roee(n), e?e3 (n an a33ea rom /a o+r, (n /e or()(na a'e, or /en /e an o

>+r('((on a33ear' on /e reor.; B(/ 3ar(+ar re)ar o eer' o am(n('ra(on, $e(on 2,R+e 79 o /e Rev('e R+e' o Co+r eman' /a /e 3e((on /ereor '/o+ a(rma(ve'/o /e e?('ene o >+r('((on o ma=e /e a33o(nmen 'o+)/, an '/o+ ae)e a /enee''ar a', '+/ a' ea/, /e name an last residence o /e eeen, /e e?('ene, an'(+' ( nee be, o a''e', (ne'a, /ere /(' (' re(e +3on, an /e r()/ o /e 3er'on /o'ee=' am(n('ra(on, a' ne? o =(n, re(or, or o/er('e, o be a33o(ne. /e a o ea/ o/e (ne'ae an /(' a' re'(ene (/(n /e o+nr are o+na(on a' +3on /(/ a'+b'e:+en 3roee(n)' (n /e am(n('ra(on o /e e'ae re', an /a ( /e (ne'ae a' noan (n/ab(an o /e 'ae a /e (me o /(' ea/, an e no a''e' (n /e 'ae, no >+r('((on ('onerre on /e o+r o )ran eer' o am(n('ra(on. <

/e aore:+oe $e(on 1, R+e 7< ormer R+e 75, $e(on 1, '3e((a /e a+'e ;'o ar a'( e3en' on /e 3ae o re'(ene o /e eeen, or o /e oa(on o /e e'ae,; (' (n rea(a maer o ven+e, a' /e a3(on o /e R+e (n(ae' ;$eemen o E'ae o Heea'e&er'on'. -enue an &roe''e'. 4 I o+ no /ave been (nene o e(ne /e >+r('((on over/e '+b>e maer, bea+'e '+/ e)a 3rov('(on (' ona(ne (n a a o 3roe+re ea(n) mere(/ 3roe+ra maer'. &roe+re (' one /(n) >+r('((on over /e '+b>e maer (' ano/er./e 3oer or a+/or( o /e o+r over /e '+b>e maer ;e?('e an a' (?e beore3roe+re (n a )(ven a+'e be)an.; /a 3oer or a+/or( (' no aere or /an)e b3roe+re, /(/ '(m3 (re' /e manner (n /(/ /e 3oer or a+/or( '/a be + an

>+' e?er('e. /ere are a'e' /o+)/ /a ( /e 3oer (' no e?er('e onormab (/ /e3rov('(on' o /e 3roe+ra a, 3+re, /e o+r aem3(n) o e?er('e ( o'e' /e 3oer oe?er('e ( e)a. !oever, /(' oe' no amo+n o a o'' o >+r('((on over /e '+b>e maer.Ra/er, ( mean' /a /e o+r ma /ereb o'e >+r('((on over /e 3er'on or /a /e >+)menma /ereb be renere ee(ve or a= o 'ome/(n) e''en(a o '+'a(n (. /e a33earane o /(' 3rov('(on (n /e 3roe+ra a a one ra('e' a 'ron) 3re'+m3(on /a ( /a' no/(n) o o(/ /e >+r('((on o /e o+r over /e '+b>e maer. In 3a(n or', ( (' >+' a maer ome/o, o onven(ene o /e 3ar(e'. 5

/e *+((ar A o 194@, a' amene, oner' +3on Co+r' o F(r' In'ane >+r('((on over a3robae a'e' (ne3enen o /e 3ae o re'(ene o /e eea'e. #ea+'e o /e e?('eneo n+mero+' Co+r' o F(r' In'ane (n /e o+nr, /e R+e' o Co+r, /oever, 3+r3o'e (?e'/e ven+e or /e 3ae /ere ea/ a'e '/a be bro+)/. A or(or(, /e 3ae o re'(ene o /eeea'e (n 'eemen o e'ae', 3robae o (, an (''+ane o eer' o am(n('ra(on oe'no on'(+e an eemen o >+r('((on over /e '+b>e maer. I (' mere on'(+(ve o ven+e.An ( (' +3on /(' rea'on /a /e Rev('e R+e' o Co+r 3ro3er on'(er' /e 3rov(ne /ere/e e'ae o a eea'e 3er'on '/a be 'ee a' ;ven+e.; 6

2. #+, /e ar-ran)(n) :+e'(on (' /(' B/a oe' /e erm ;re'(e'; meanJ Hoe' ( reer o /ea+a re'(ene or om((e o /e eeen a /e (me o /(' ea/J Be a on /e or(nar+e /a /e erm ;re'(e'; onnoe' ex vi termini ;a+a re'(ene; a' ('(n)+('/e rom ;e)are'(ene or om((e.; /(' erm ;re'(e',; (=e, /e erm' ;re'((n); an ;re'(ene,; (' ea'(an '/o+ be (ner3ree (n /e ()/ o /e ob>e or 3+r3o'e o /e 'a+e or rule (n /(/ ( ('

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


em3oe. 7 In /e a33(a(on o ven+e 'a+e' an r+e' K $e(on 1, R+e 7< o /e Rev('eR+e' o Co+r (' o '+/ na+re K re'(ene rat!er t!an om((e (' /e '()n((an aor. Even/ere /e 'a+e +'e' /e or ;om((e; '( ( (' on'r+e a' mean(n) re'(ene an noom((e (n /e e/n(a 'en'e. $ome a'e' ma=e a ('(n(on beeen /e erm' ;re'(ene;an ;om((e; b+ a' )enera +'e (n 'a+e' (?(n) ven+e, /e erm' are 'nonmo+', anonve /e 'ame mean(n) a' /e erm ;(n/ab(an.; @ In o/er or', ;re'(e'; '/o+ be v(eeor +ner'oo (n (' 3o3+ar 'en'e, mean(n), /e 3er'ona, a+a or 3/'(a /ab(a(on o a3er'on, a+a re'(ene or 3ae o aboe. I '()n((e' 3/'(a 3re'ene (n a 3ae an a+a'a /erea. In /(' 3o3+ar 'en'e, /e erm mean' mere re'(ene, /a (', 3er'ona re'(ene,no e)a re'(ene or om((e. 9 Re'(ene '(m3 re:+(re' bo( 3re'ene a' an in!abitant (n a)(ven 3ae, /(e om((e re:+(re' bo( 3re'ene (n /a 3ae an a'o an (nen(on o ma=e (oneD' om((e. 10 No 3ar(+ar en)/ o (me o re'(ene (' re:+(re /o+)/ /oever, /ere'(ene m+' be more /an em3orar. 11

<. H(ver)en a(m' are ma(na(ne b V(r)(n(a G. F+e an &re(o'a #. Gar(a on /e re'(ene o/e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a a /e (me o /(' ea/. In /er or()(na 3e((on or eer' oam(n('ra(on beore /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o Caamba, La)+na, V(r)(n(a G. F+e mea'e'ae ;/a on A3r( 26,197<, Amao G. Gar(a, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna, (e(ne'ae (n /e C( o %an(a, eav(n) rea e'ae an 3er'ona 3ro3er(e' (n Caamba, La)+na, an(n o/er 3ae' (/(n /e >+r('((on o /(' !onorabe Co+r.; &re(o'a #. Gar(a a''a(e /e3e((on or a(+re o 'a(' /e >+r('((ona re:+(remen an (m3ro3er a(n) o ven+e. For /er,/e :+oe 'aemen aver' no om((e or re'(ene o /e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a. o 'a/a a' ;3ro3er oner o Caamba, La)+na,; /e a'o re'(e' (n Caamba, La)+na, (', aor(n)o /er, non seuitur . "n /e onrar, &re(o'a #. Gar(a a(m' /a, a' a33ear(n) (n /(' ea/er((ae 3re'ene b V(r)(n(a G. F+e /er'e beore /e Caamba o+r an (n o/er 3a3er', /ea' re'(ene o Amao G. Gar(a a' a 11 Carme Aven+e, Carme $+b(v('(on, +eon C(.&aren/e(a, (n /er amene 3e((on, V(r)(n(a G. F+e ae)or(a ae)e /a Amao G.Gar(aD' ;a' 3ae o re'(ene a' a Caamba, La)+na.;

"n /(' (''+e, Be r+e /a /e a' 3ae o re'(ene o /e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a a' a 11Carme Aven+e, Carme $+b(v('(on, +eon C(, an not a Caamba, La)+na. A ea/ er((ae(' am(''(be o 3rove /e re'(ene o /e eeen a /e (me o /(' ea/. 12 A' ( (', /e ea/er((ae o Amao G. Gar(a, /(/ a' 3re'ene (n ev(ene b V(r)(n(a G. F+e /er'e ana'o b &re(o'a #. Gar(a, '/o' /a /(' a' 3ae o re'(ene a' a 11 Carme Aven+e,Carme $+b(v('(on, +eon C(. A'(e rom /(', /e eea'eD' re'(ene er((ae or 197<oba(ne /ree mon/' beore /(' ea/ /e %ar=e(n) A)reemen an &oer o Aorne aeNovember 12, 1971 +rn(n) over /e am(n('ra(on o /(' o 3are' o '+)ar an o /eCaamba $+)ar &aner' Coo3era(ve %ar=e(n) A''o(a(on, In. /e Hee o Hona(on ae*an+ar @, 197<, ran'err(n) 3ar o /(' (nere' (n era(n 3are' o an (n Caamba, La)+na oA)+'(na #. Gar(a an er((ae' o (e' over(n) 3are' o an (n Caamba, La)+na, '/o (nbo o+men' /a Amao G. Gar(aD' a' 3ae o re'(ene a' a +eon C(. B(/a, /eon+'(on beome' (m3era(ve /a /e ven+e or V(r)(n(a C. F+eD' 3e((on or eer' oam(n('ra(on a' (m3ro3er a( (n /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o Caamba, La)+na.Never/ee'', /e on)-'ee r+e (' /a ob>e(on o (m3ro3er ven+e (' '+b>e o a(ver.$e(on 4, R+e 4 o /e Rev('e R+e' o Co+r 'ae' ;B/en (m3ro3er ven+e (' no ob>ee o (na mo(on o ('m('', ( (' eeme a(ve.; In /e a'e beore U' /e Co+r o A33ea' /a rea'on

o /o /a (n a'=(n) o '+b'(+e V(r)(n(a G. F+e a' '3e(a am(n('rar(?, &re(o'a #. Gar(a( no nee''ar( a(ve /er ob>e(on o /e >+r('((on or ven+e a''+me b /e Co+r o F(r'In'ane o Caamba, La)+na, b+ ava(e o a mere 3ra(a re'or o aerna(ve reme o a''er/er r()/' a' '+rv(v(n) '3o+'e, /(e (n'('(n) on /e enoremen o /e R+e (?(n) /e 3ro3erven+e o /e 3roee(n)' a /e a' re'(ene o /e eeen.

4. &re(o'a #. Gar(aD' /aen)e o V(r)(n(a G. F+eD' a33o(nmen a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? ('ano/er (''+e o 3er3e?(. &re(o'a #. Gar(a a(m' 3reerene o /e a33o(nmen a' '+rv(v(n)'3o+'e. $e(on 1 o R+e @0 3rov(e' /a ;/en /ere (' ea (n )ran(n) eer' e'amenar

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


or o am(n('ra(on b an a+'e (n+(n) an a33ea rom /e aoane or ('aoane o a(, /e o+r ma a33o(n a special administrator o a=e 3o''e''(on an /ar)e o /e e'ae o/e eea'e +n( /e :+e'(on' a+'(n) /e ea are e(e an e?e+or' or am(n('raor'a33o(ne. 1< Former, /e a33o(nmen o a '3e(a am(n('raor a' on 3ro3er /en /eaoane or ('aoane o a ( (' +ner a33ea. /e ne R+e', /oever, broaene /e ba'('or a33o(nmen an '+/ a33o(nmen (' no aoe /en /ere (' ea (n )ran(n) eer'e'amenar or am(n('ra(on by any cause e.)., 3ar(e' anno a)ree amon)/em'eve'. 14 Never/ee'', /e ('re(on o a33o(n a '3e(a am(n('raor or no (e' (n /e3robae o+r. 15/a, /oever, (' no a+/or( or /e >+)e o beome 3ar(a, or o ma=e /('3er'ona (=e' an ('(=e' 3reva( over, or /(' 3a''(on' o r+e, /(' >+)men. E?er('e o /a('re(on m+' be ba'e on rea'on, e:+(, >+'(e an e)a 3r(n(3e. /ere (' no rea'on / /e'ame +namena an e)a 3r(n(3e' )overn(n) /e /o(e o a re)+ar am(n('raor '/o+ nobe a=en (no ao+n (n /e a33o(nmen o a '3e(a am(n('raor. 16 No/(n) (' ron) or /e

>+)e o on'(er /e orer o 3reerene (n /e a33o(nmen o a re)+ar am(n('raor (na33o(n(n) a '3e(a am(n('raor. Aer a, /e on'(era(on /a overr(e' a o/er' (n /('re'3e (' /e beneficial interest o /e a33o(nee (n /e e'ae o /e eeen. 17 Uner /e a,/e (o o+ /ave /e r()/ o '+e''(on over a 3or(on o /e e?+'(ve 3ro3er o /eeeen, be'(e' /er '/are (n /e on>+)a 3arner'/(3. For '+/ rea'on, '/e o+ /ave a''+/, ( no more, (nere' (n am(n('er(n) /e en(re e'ae orre /an an o/er ne? o =(n./e )oo or ba am(n('ra(on o a 3ro3er ma ae ra/er /e r+(' /an /e na=e

oner'/(3 o a 3ro3er. 1@

V(r)(n(a G. F+e, /oever, ('3+e' /e 'a+' o &re(o'a #. Gar(a a' /e (o o /e aeAmao G. Gar(a. B(/ e:+a ore, &re(o'a #. Gar(a ma(na(n' /a V(r)(n(a G. F+e /a' norea(on /a'oever (/ Amao G. Gar(a, or /a, '/e (' a mere (e)((mae '('er o /e aer,(na3abe o an '+e''(ona r()/'. 19 "n /(' 3o(n, Be r+e /a &re(o'a #. Gar(a (' primafacie en(e o /e a33o(nmen o '3e(a am(n('rar(?. I nee' be em3/a'(e /a (n /e(''+ane o '+/ a33o(nmen, /(/ (' b+ em3orar an '+b'('' on +n( a re)+aram(n('raor (' a33o(ne, 20 /e a33o(n(n) o+r oe' no eerm(ne /o are en(e o '/are (n/e e'ae o /e eeen b+ /o (' en(e o /e am(n('ra(on. /e (''+e o /e(r'/(3 (' one obe eerm(ne (n /e eree o ('r(b+(on, an /e (n(n)' o /e o+r on /e rea(on'/(3 o /e3ar(e' (n /e am(n('ra(on a' o be /e ba'(' o ('r(b+(on. 21 /e 3reerene o &re(o'a #.Gar(a (' (/ '+((en rea'on. In a Hona(on Iner V(vo' e?e+e b /e eea'e Amao G.

Gar(a on *an+ar @, 197< (n avor o A)+'(na #. Gar(a, /e (n(ae /ere(n /a /e (' marr(e o&re(o'a #. Gar(a. 22 In /(' er((ae o an(a or /e o(e o Hee)ae o /e Con'(+(onaConven(on or /e F(r' H('r( o La)+na (e on $e3ember 1, 1970, /e roe /ere(n /e nameo &re(o'a #. #ana(a a' /(' '3o+'e. 2< Fae (/ /e'e o+men' an /e 3re'+m3(on /a aman an a oman e3or(n) /em'eve' a' /+'ban an (e /ave enere (no a a+ onrao marr(a)e, &re(o'a #. Gar(a an be rea'onab be(eve o be /e '+rv(v(n) '3o+'e o /e aeAmao G. Gar(a. /emper praesumitur pro matrimonio. 24

5. Uner /e'e (r+m'ane' an /e or(ne a( on (n C+eno v'. Co+r o A33ea', 25 /('Co+r +ner (' '+3erv('or a+/or( over a (ner(or o+r' ma 3ro3er eree /a ven+e (n /e(n'an a'e a' 3ro3er a''+me b an ran'erre o +eon C( an /a ( (' (n /e (nere'o >+'(e an avo(ane o neee'' ea /a /e +eon C( o+rD' e?er('e o >+r('((onover /e 'eemen o /e e'ae o /e eea'e Amao G. Gar(a an /e a33o(nmen o '3e(a

am(n('rar(? over /e aerD' e'ae be a33rove an a+/or(e an /e Co+r o F(r' In'aneo La)+na be ('a+/or(e rom on(n+(n) (/ /e a'e an (n'ea be re:+(re o ran'er a/e reor' /ereo o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o +eon C( or /e on(n+a(on o /e3roee(n)'.

6. Aor(n), /e "rer o *+)e Ernan( Cr+ &ano o Heember 17, 1975, )ran(n) /e ;Ur)en&e((on or A+/or( o &a E'ae "b()a(on'; (e b &re(o'a #. Gar(a (n $3. &ro. No. -197<@, '+b>e maer o G.R. No. L-42670, an orer(n) /e Can+ban) $+)ar E'ae o e(ver o

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


/er a' '3e(a am(n('rar(? /e '+m o &4@,@74.70 or 3amen o /e '+m o e'ae ob()a(on' ('/ereb +3/e.

IN VIEB "F !E F"REG"ING, /e 3e((on' o 3e((oner V(r)(n(a Gar(a F+e (n G.R. No. L-40502an (n G.R. No. L42670 are /ereb en(e, (/ o'' a)a(n' 3e((oner.

$" "RHEREH.

0ee!an1ee 2C!airman3, 4a1asiar, Auino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

4u5o6 alma, J., too1 no part.

Foonoe'

Co+r o A33ea', $3e(a F(r' H(v('(on, om3o'e o **. Ree', L.#., Gav(oa, *r.an He Ca'ro.

1 $e. 2. owers and duties of special administrator . K $+/ '3e(a am(n('raor'/a a=e 3o''e''(on an /ar)e o /e )oo', /ae', r()/', re(', an e'aeo /e eea'e an 3re'erve /e 'ame or /e e?e+or or am(n('raoraerar' a33o(ne, an or /a 3+r3o'e ma ommene an ma(na(n '+(' a'am(n('raor. !e ma 'e on '+/ 3er('/abe an o/er 3ro3er a' /e o+rorer' 'o. A '3e(a am(n('raor '/a no be (abe o 3a an eb' o /eeea'e +ne'' 'o orere b /e o+r.

2 *+ 2, 197<, *+ 26, 197<, A+)+' 9, 197<, *+ 17, 1974, *+ 25, 1974, a 270-<91, Roo o No. L-40502.

< H(e v. $erra, 51 &/(. 2@6 1927.

4 $ee %a() v. #+'/, L-22761, %a <1, 1969, 2@ $CRA 45<-454.

5 %an(a Ra(roa Co. v. Aorne-Genera, 20 &/(. 5<0-<2 1911.

6 In re a $(n)o. $ "a v. Co !o, 74 &/(. 241-242 194< Ror()+e v. #or>a, L-2199<, *+ne 21, 1966, 17 $CRA 442.

7 %Gra/ v. $even'on, 77 & 2 60@ In re *one', 19 A 2 2@0.

@ $ee 92 C.*.$. @1<-14 $ee a'o C+eno v. Co+r o A33ea', L-24742, "ober26,197<, 5< $CRA <77.

9 $ee 77 C.*.$. 2@6.

10 em3 v. em3, 16 NM$ 2 <4.

11 $ee 92 C.*.$. @16.

12 $ee R+e' o Co+r, Fran('o, Vo. V-#, 1970 E., a <2 %ananero v. #on)on,67 &/(. 602 19<9.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


1< A '3e(a am(n('raor (' a re3re'ena(ve o eeen, a33o(ne b /e3robae o+r o are or an 3re'erve /(' e'ae +n( an e?e+or or )eneraam(n('raor (' a33o(ne. *one' v. %(nne'oa ran'er R. Co., 121 NB 606, (e(n *a(no, $3e(a &roee(n)', 1965 e., a 106.

14 $ee &roee(n)' o /e In'(+e on /e Rev('e R+e' o Co+r, U& La Cener,

196<, a 99.

15 *.%. +a'on Co., In. v. He G+man, 99 &/(. 2@1 1956 !on. Aa'( v.$am'on, 102 &/(. 7<6 1957.

16 "aea v. &e'on, 9< &/(. 419-20 195<.

17 Ro?a' v. &e'on, 92 &/(. 410 194@.

1@ Iem, a 411.

19 Ar(e 992 o /e C(v( Coe 3rov(e' An (e)((mae /( /a' no r()/ o(n/er( ab intestato rom /e e)((mae /(ren an rea(ve' o /(' a/er ormo/er nor '/a '+/ /(ren or rea(ve' (n/er( (n /e 'ame manner rom /e(e)((mae /(.

20 Fernane v. %arav(a, L-1@799, %ar/ <1, 1964, 10 $CRA 597.

21 N)o /e !+a v. C/+n) (a !+a, L-17091, $e3ember <0, 196<, 9 $CRA 11<.

22 -ide, Roo o No. L-40502, a 219, Anne? ;$$; o &e((on or er(orar( anor&ro/(b((on an &re(m(nar In>+n(on b &re(o'a #. Gar(a (n CA-G.R. No. 0<221-$&.

2< -ide, Roo o No. L-40502, a 26@ Anne? 5 o An'er (e b V(r)(n(a G. F+e o

3e((on o &re(o'a #. Gar(a (n C.A.-G.R. No. 0<221-$&.

24 $ee &er(o v'. &er(o, L-2@24@, %ar/ 12, 1975, %a=a(na, C.*. ponente, F(r'H(v('(on, 6< $CRA 97.

25 5< $CRA <@1.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. L-@409 Heember 2@, 1956

In /e %aer o /e Ine'ae o /e eea'e Anre' E+'eb(o. EUGENI" EU$E#I", petitioner-

appellee,

vs.

A%ANHA EU$E#I", *UAN EU$E#I", HELFIN EU$E#I", VICENE EU$E#I", an CARL"$EU$E#I",oppositors-appellants.

Francisco M. Ramos and Valeriano Silva for appellee.

Filemon Cajator for appellants.

C"NCE&CI"N, J.:

This case instituted on November 16, 1953, when Eugenio Eusebio iled with the !ourt o "irst #nstance

o $i%al, a petition or his appointment as administrator o the estate o his ather, &ndres Eusebio, who

died on November '(, 195', residing, according to said petition, in the !it) o *ue%on. +n ecember ,1953, &manda, irginia, /uan, elin, icente and !arlos, all surnamed Eusebio, ob0ected to said petition,

stating that the) are illegitimate children o the deceased and that the latter was domiciled in an

"ernando, 2ampanga, and pra)ing, thereore, that the case be dismissed upon the ground that venue

had been improperl) iled. ) an order, dated 4arch 1, 195, said court overruled this ob0ection and

granted said petition. ence, the case is beore us on appeal ta7en, rom said order, b) &manda Eusebio,

and her aorementioned sister and brothers.

The appeal hinges on the situs o the residence o &ndres Eusebio on November '(, 195', or $ule 85,

section 1, o the $ules o !ourt, provides

Where estate of deceased persons settled . : # the decedent is an inhabitant o the 2hilippines atthe time o his death, whether a citi%ens or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters o

administration granted, and his estate, in the !ourt o "irst #nstance in the province in which he

resides at the time o his death, and i he is an inhabitant o a oreign countr), the !ourt o "irst

#nstance o an) province in which he had estate. The court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the

settlement o the estate o a decedent, shall e;ercise 0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other

courts. The 0urisdiction assumed b) a court, so ar as it depends on the place o residence o the

decedent, or o the location o his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, e;cept in

an appeal rom that court, in the original case, or when the want o 0urisdiction appears on the

record.

#t is not disputed that up to, at least, +ctober '9, 195', &ndres Eusebio was, and had alwa)s been,

domiciled in an "ernando, 2ampanga, where he had his home, as well as some other properties.#nasmuch as his heart was in bad condition and his son, r. /esus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at

No. 1 2. "lorentino t., *ue%on !it), on +ctober '9, 195', &ndres Eusebio bought a house and lot at

((9-& Espa<a E;tention, in said !it) =E;hibit '>. ?hile transerring his belongings to this house, soon

thereater, the decedent suered a stro7e =probabl) heart ailure>, or which reason r. Eusebio too7 him

to his =r. Eusebio@s> aorementioned residence, where the decedent remained until he was brought to

the AT ospital, in the !it) o 4anila, sometimes beore November '6, 195'. +n this date, he

contracted marriage in articulo mortis with his common law wie, !oncepcion illanueva, in said hospital.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Two ='> da)s later, he died therein o Bacute let ventricular ailure secondar) to h)pertensive heart

diseaseB, at the age o sevent)-our =8> )ears =E;hibit &>. !onseCuentl), he never sta)ed or even slept in

said house at Espa<a E;tention.

#t being apparent rom the oregoing that the domicile o origin o the decedent was an "ernando,

2ampanga, where he resided or over sevent) =8> )ears, the presumption is that he retained such

domicile, and, hence, residence, in the absence o satisactor) proo to the contrar), or it is well-settled

that Ba domicile once acCuired is retained until a new domicile is gainedB =4inor, !onlict o Daws, p.8

$estatement o the Daw on !onlict o Daws, p. 8 #n re Estate o /ohnson, 19' #owa, 8(>. Ander the

circumstances surrounding the case at bar, i &ndres Eusebio established another domicile, it must have

been one o choice, or which the ollowing conditions are essential, namel) =1> capacit) to choose and

reedom o choice ='> ph)sical presence at the place chosen and =3> intention to sta) therein

permanentl) =4inor, !onlict o Daws, pp. 19-11 Foogrich, !onlict o Daws, p. 169 elilla vs. 2osadas,

6' 2hil., 6' Guellig vs. $epublic o the 2hilippines, 6 +. Fa%. uppl. No. 11, p. ''>. &dmittedl), the

decedent was 0uridicall) capable o choosing a domicile and had been in *ue%on !it) several da)s prior

to his demise. Thus, the issue narrows down to whether he intended to sta) in that place permanentl).

There is no direct evidence o such intent. Neither does the decedent appears to have maniested hiswish to live indeinitel) in said cit). is son, petitioner-appellee, who too7 the witness stand, did not testi)

thereon, despite the allegation, in his answer to the aoremention, opposition o the appellants herein, that

Bthe deceased =had> decided to reside . . . or the rest o his lie, in *ue%on !it)B. 4oreover, said appellee

did not introduce the testimon) o his legitimate ull brother and son o the decedent, r. /esus Eusebio,

upon whose advice, presumabl), the house and lot at No. ((9-& Espa<a E;tention was purchased, and

who, thereore, might have cast some light on his =decedent@s> purpose in bu)ing said propert). This

notwithstanding, the lower court held that the decedent@s intent to sta) permanentl) in *ue%on !it) is

BmaniestB rom the acCuisition o said propert) and the transer o his belonging thereto. This conclusion

is untenable.lawphil.net

The aorementioned house and lot were bought b) the decedent because he had been adviced to do so

Bdue to his illnessB, in the ver) words o herein appellee. #t is not improbable : in act, its is ver) li7el) :

that said advice was given and ollowed in order that the patient could be near his doctor and have a

more eective treatment. #t is well settled that Bdomicile is not commonl) changed b) presence in a place

merel) or one@s own healthB, even i coupled with B7nowledge that one will never again be able, on

account o illness, to return home.B =The !onlict o Daws, b) eale, ol. #, pp. 18'-183 see, also,

henton vs. &bbott, 4d., 15., &. 'd. 96 A.. vs. Hnight, . !. 4ont., '91 "ed. 1'9>.

&gain, the decedent did not part with, or alienate, his house in an "ernando, 2ampanga. 4oreover,

some o his children, who used to live with him in an "ernando, 2ampanga, remained in that

municipalit). Then, again, in the deed E;hibit ', b) virtue o which said propert) at No. ((9-& Espa<a

E;tention, *ue%on !it), was conve)ed to him, on +ctober '9, 195', or less than a month before his

death, the decedent gave San Fernando, Pampana, as his residence. imilarl), the B&B and BBresidence certiicates used b) the decedent in a7nowledging said E;hibit ', beore a notar) public, was

issued in San Fernando, Pampana. Dastl), the marriage contract E;hibit 1, signed b) the deceased

when he was married, in articulo mortis, to !oncepcion illanueva, at the AT ospital, on November '6,

195', or two ='> da)s prior to his demise, stated that his residence is San Fernando, 2ampanga. #t is

worth) o notice that &lonso Eusebio, one o the legitimate ull brothers o the herein appellee, was a

witness to said wedding, thus indicating that the children o the deceased b) his irst marriage, including

said appellee, were represented on that occasion and would have ob0ected to said statement about his

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


court and the) maintain that these proceedings should bedismissed .B Thus, appellants speciall) made o

record that the) were not submitting themselves to the 0urisdiction o the court, e;cept or the

purpose onl! o assailin the same, and the court elt that appellants were not ivin up their stand , which

was, and is, a act.

&t an) rate, appellants were entitled to establish acts tending to prove, not onl) their right to ob0ect to

appellee@s petition, but, also, that venue had been laid improperl). uch acts were =a> their alleged

relationship with the decedent, 3 which, i true, entitle them to proceed him under the !ivil !ode o the

2hilippines and =b> his alleged residence is 2ampanga. #n other words, the lower court should have

admitted E;hibits 1 and ' in evidence and given thereto the proper eect, in connection with the issue

under consideration.

&ppellee, however, as7s B?hat will happen i this case be dismissed in the !ourt o "irst #nstance o

*ue%on !it) on the ground o lac7 o 0urisdiction or improper venueJB #n this connection, it appears that

on November 1, 1953, the !ler7 o the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 2ampanga received a petition o

appellants herein, dated November , 1953, or the settlement o the B#ntestate Estate o the late on

&ndres EusebioB. &ttached to said petition was petition or the doc7eting thereo ree charge, pursuant to

$ule 3, section '', o the $ules o !ourt. The latter petition was granted b) an order dated November 16,1953, which was received b) the cashier o said court on November 18, 1953, on which date the case

was doc7eted as pecial 2roceedings No. 958. +n ecember 1, 1953, /esus, Eugenio, &mando and

&lonso, all surnamed Eusebio =the children o the decedent b) irst marriage, including petitioner herein>,

moved or the dismissal o said proceedings, owing to the pendenc) o the present case, beore the !ourt

o "irst #nstance o $i%al, since November 16, 1953. This motion was granted in an order dated

ecember '1, 1953, rel)ing upon the above $ule 85, section 1, o the $ules o !ourt, pursuant to which

Bthe court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o a decedent, shall e;ercise 0urisdiction

to the e;clusion o all other courts.B

&lthough said order is now inal, it cannot aect the outcome o the case at bar. aid order did not pass

upon the Cuestion o domicile or residence o the decedent. 4oreover, in granting the court irst ta7ing

cogni%ance o the case e;clusive 0urisdiction over the same, said provision o the $ules o !ourt evidentl)

reers to cases triable beore two or more courts with concurrent 0urisdiction. #t could not possibl) have

intended to deprive a competent court o the authorit) vested therein b) law, merel) because a similar

case had been previousl) iled beore a court to which jurisdiction is denied b! law , or the same would

then be deeated b) the will o one o the parties. 4ore speciall), said provision reers mainl) to non-

resident decedents who have properties in several provinces in the 2hilippines, or the settlement o their

respective estates ma) underta7en beore the court o irst instance o either one o said provinces, not

onl) because said courts then have concurrent 0urisdiction : and, hence, the one irst ta7ing cogni%ance

o the case shall e;clude the other courts : but, also, because the statement to this eect in said section

1 o $ule 85 o the $ules o the !ourt immediatel) ollows the last part o the ne;t preceding sentence,

which deals with non-resident decedents, whose estate ma) settled the court o irst instance o an)

province in which the) have properties.lawphil.net

#n view, however, o the last sentence o said section, providing that

. . . The 0urisdiction assumed b) a court, so ar as it depends on the place o residence o the

decedent, or o the location o his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings, e;cept in


record.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


i proceedings or the settlement o the estate o a deceased resident are instituted in two or more courts,

and the Cuestion o venue is raised beore the same, the court in which the irst case was iled shall have

e;clusive 0urisdiction to decide said issue, and we so held in the case o Taciana da. e or0a vs. Tan, D-

889' =/ul) '8, 1955>. hould it be decided, in the proceedings beore the said court, that venue had been

improperl) laid, the case pending therein should be dismissed and the corresponding proceedings ma),

thereater, be initiated in the proper court.

#n conclusion, we ind that the decedent was, at the time o his death, domiciled in an "ernando,

2ampanga that the !ourt o "irst #nstance o $i%al had no authorit), thereore, to appoint an administrator

o the estate o the deceased, the venue having been laid improperl) and that it should, accordingl), have

sustained appellants@ opposition and dismissed appellee@s petition.

?hereore, the order appealed rom is hereb) reversed and appellee@s petition is dismissed, with costs

against the appellee. #t is so ordered.

Paras, C.%., &en'on, Padilla, &autista (nelo, )abrador, Re!es, %.&.)., *ndencia and Feli+, %%., concur.

Foonoe'

1 BThere is a presumption in avor o the continuance o an e;isting domicile. Thereore, then

burden o proving a change lies in all cases upon those who alleged that he change has

occurred. This presumption ma) have a decisive eect, or it the evidence is so conlicting that it

is impossible to elicit with certainl) what the resident@s intention is, the !ourt, being unable to

reach a satisactor) conclusion one wa) or the other, will decide in avor o the e;isting domicile.B

=2rivate #nternational Daw b) !heshire, pp. '1(-'19.>

B#n the absence o an) circumstances rom which the courts ma) iner the animus, the) areaccustomed to all bac7 on two legal presumptions, without which it would in some cases be

impossible to arrive at an) conclusions as to a part)@s domicile.

BThe irst o these is the presumption that the part) has retained the last domicile 7nown to have

been possessed b) him. This ollows rom the principle that a domicile acCuired is retained until

another is gained, and rom the other principle growing out o it that the burden o proo is on him

who alleges a change o domicile.B =!onlict o Daws b) 4inor, p. 1'3.>

' B#t is oten said, particularl) in the English cases, that there is a stronger presumption against

change rom a domicile o origin.

3 ?hich was not been categoricall) denied, appellee@s counsel having limited themselves to

alleging, in an unsworn pleading, that the) have no 7nowledge suicient to orm a belie on said

claim the appellants than there is against other changes o domicile. B@omicile o origin. . . .

diers rom domicile o choice mainl) in this : that is character is more enduring, its hold

stronger, and less easil) sha7en o.@ The English view was orcibl) e;pressed in a 2enns)lvania

case in which Dewis, /., said BThe attachment which ever) one eels or his native land is the

oundation o the rule that the domicile o origin is presumed to continue until it is actuall)

changed b) acCuiring a domicile elsewhere. No temporar) so0ourn in oreign countr) will wor7 this

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


change.@ #n a ederal case in 2enns)lvania the same point was emphasi%ed.B =The !onlict o

Daws, b) eale, ol. #, p. 1'9.>

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. 12@<14 %a 29, 2002

R"H"LF" V. *A", petitioner,

vs.

C"UR "F A&&EAL$ an &ERIC" V. *A", respondents.

MNARE$-$ANIAG", J.:

$odolo and 2erico /ao were the onl) sons o the spouses #gnacio /ao Ta)ag and &ndrea . /ao, who

died intestate in 19(( and 19(9, respectivel). The decedents let real estate, cash, shares o stoc7 and

other personal properties.

+n &pril 18, 1991, 2erico instituted a petition or issuance o letters o administration beore the $egional

Trial !ourt o *ue%on !it), ranch 99, over the estate o his parents, doc7eted as pecial 2roceedings

No. *-91-(58.1 2ending the appointment o a regular administrator, 2erico moved that he be appointed

as special administrator. e alleged that his brother, $odolo, was graduall) dissipating the assets o the

estate. 4ore particularl), $odolo was receiving rentals rom real properties without rendering an)

accounting, and orcibl) opening vaults belonging to their deceased parents and disposing o the cashand valuables therein.

$odolo moved or the dismissal o the petition on the ground o improper venue.' e argued that the

deceased spouses did not reside in *ue%on !it) either during their lietime or at the time o their deaths.

The decedentKs actual residence was in &ngeles !it), 2ampanga, where his late mother used to run and

operate a ba7er). &s the health o his parents deteriorated due to old age, the) sta)ed in $odoloKs

residence at 61 cout Fandia treet, *ue%on !it), solel) or the purpose o obtaining medical treatment

and hospitali%ation. $odolo submitted documentar) evidence previousl) e;ecuted b) the decedents,

consisting o income ta; returns, voterKs aidavits, statements o assets and liabilities, real estate ta;

pa)ments, motor vehicle registration and passports, all indicating that their permanent residence was in

&ngeles !it), 2ampanga.-wphi.nt

#n his opposition,3 2erico countered that their deceased parents actuall) resided in $odoloKs house in

*ue%on !it) at the time o their deaths. &s a matter o act, it was conclusivel) declared in their death

certiicates that their last residence beore the) died was at 61 cout Fandia treet, *ue%on

!it). $odolo himsel even supplied the entr) appearing on the death certiicate o their mother, &ndrea,

and ai;ed his own signature on the said document.

$odolo iled a re0oinder, stating that he gave the inormation regarding the decedentsK residence on the

death certiicates in good aith and through honest mista7e. e gave his residence onl) as reerence,

considering that their parents were treated in their late )ears at the 4edical !it) Feneral ospital in

4andalu)ong, 4etro 4anila. Their sta) in his house was merel) transitor), in the same wa) that the)

were ta7en at dierent times or the same purpose to 2ericoKs residence at Degaspi Towers in $o;asoulevard. The death certiicates could not, thereore, be deemed conclusive evidence o the decedentsK

residence in light o the other documents showing otherwise.5

The court reCuired the parties to submit their respective nominees or the position.6 oth ailed to compl),

whereupon the trial court ordered that the petition be archived.8

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


ubseCuentl), 2erico moved that the intestate proceedings be revived.( &ter the parties submitted the

names o their respective nominees, the trial court designated /ustice !arlos D. undiam as special

administrator o the estate o #gnacio /ao Ta)ag and &ndrea /ao.9

+n &pril 6, 199, the motion to dismiss iled b) petitioner $odolo was denied, to wit

& mere perusal o the death certiicates o the spouses issued separatel) in 19(( and 19(9,

respectivel), conirm the act that *ue%on !it) was the last place o residence o the decedents.

urprisingl), the entries appearing on the death certiicate o &ndrea . /ao were supplied b)

movant, $odolo . /ao, whose signature appears in said document. 4ovant, thereore, cannot

disown his own representation b) ta7ing an inconsistent position other than his own admission.

;;; ;;; ;;;.

?E$E"+$E, in view o the oregoing consideration, this court EN#E or lac7 o merit

movantKs motion to dismiss.

+ +$E$E.1

$odolo iled a petition or certiorari with the !ourt o &ppeals, which was doc7eted as !&-F.$. 2 No.

359(. +n ecember 11, 1996, the !ourt o &ppeals rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive

portion o which reads

?E$E"+$E, no error, much less an) grave abuse o discretion o the court a Cuo having been

shown, the petition or certiorari is hereb) #4#E. The Cuestioned order o the respondent

/udge is airmedin toto.

+ +$E$E.11

$odoloKs motion or reconsideration was denied b) the !ourt o &ppeals in the assailed resolution dated"ebruar) 18, 1998.1' ence, this petition or review, anchored on the ollowing grounds

#

$E2+NENT !+A$T & E!#E & *AET#+N +" AT&N!E #N & ?&I N+T #N

&!!+$ ?#T TE D&? &N # #$E!TDI !+NT$&#!T+$I T+ TE &22D#!&DE

E!##+N &D$E&I $ENE$E I T# +N+$&DE !+A$T.

##

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N #$EF&$#NF TE $AD#NF +" T# +N+$&DE

!+A$T #N TE !&E +" EAE#+ . EAE#+, 1 2#D. 593, ?#! !DE&$DI

#NTE$2$ETE ?&T # 4E&NT I $E#EN!E #N E!. 1 +" $ADE 83 +" TE $ADE +"

!+A$T.

###

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N +D#NF T&T 2I#!&D 2$EEN!E #N & 2D&!E &T

TE T#4E +" E&T # ETE$4#N&T#E +" E!EENTK $E#EN!E $&TE$ T&N

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


TE #NTENT#+N +" TE E!EENT T+ ET&D# TE#$ 2E$4&NENT $E#EN!E #N

&N+TE$ 2D&!E.

#

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N &22DI#NF I &N&D+FI TE $E#EN!E

!+NTE42D&TE #N E!. ' +" $ADE "+$ TE 2A$2+E +" E$#NF A44+N T+ &

E"EN&NT #N & 2E$+N&D &!T#+N T+ TE $E#EN!E !+NTE42D&TE #N E!. 1 +"

$ADE 83 "+$ TE 2A$2+E +" ETE$4#N#NF ENAE #N TE ETTDE4ENT +" TE

ET&TE +" & E!E&E.

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N F##NF 4+$E ?E#FT T+ TE ENT$I +" 2ET#T#+NE$

&N 2$#&TE $E2+NENT #N TE $E2E!T#E E&T !E$T#"#!&TE +" TE

E!EENT $&TE$ T&N TE +E$?ED4#NF E#EN!E +?#NF TE !DE&$

#NTENT#+N +" TE E!EENT T+ ET&D# TE#$ 2E$4&NENT $E#EN!E #N

&NFEDE !#TI.

#

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N &22DI#NF TE 2$#N!#2DE +" ET+22ED & &F&#NT

2ET#T#+NE$ ?#! !&N N+T E 4+$E 2E$A&#E T&N TE !DE&$ #NTENT#+N +"

TE E!EENT TE4EDE T+ ET&D# 2E$4&NENT $E#EN!E #N &NFEDE

!#TI.

##

$E2+NENT !+A$T E$$E #N #4##NF TE 2ET#T#+N "+$ !E$T#+$&$# E2#TETE !DE&$ &AE +" #!$ET#+N +N TE 2&$T +" TE T$#&D !+A$T #N #N#T#NF T+

T&HE !+FN#G&N!E +" 2. 2$+!EE#NF N+. *-91-(58.13

The main issue beore us is where should the settlement proceedings be had --- in 2ampanga, where the

decedents had their permanent residence, or in *ue%on !it), where the) actuall) sta)ed beore their

demiseJ

$ule 83, ection 1 o the $ules o !ourt states

Where estate of deceased persons be settled . L # the decedent is an inhabitant o the 2hilippines

at the time o his death, whether a citi%en or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters o

administration granted, and his estate settled, in the !ourt o "irst #nstance in the province in

which he resides at the time o his death, and i he is an inhabitant o a oreign countr), the !ourt

o "irst #nstance o an) province in which he had estate. The court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the

settlement o the estate o a decedent shall e;ercise 0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other

courts. The 0urisdiction assumed b) a court, so ar as it depends on the place o residence o the

decedent, or o the location o his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, e;cept in


record. =underscoring ours>

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


!learl), the estate o an inhabitant o the 2hilippines shall be settled or letters o administration granted in

the proper court located in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.

2etitioner $odolo invo7es our ruling in the case o *usebio v. *usebio, et al.,1 where we held that

the situs o settlement proceedings shall be the place where the decedent had his permanent residence

or domicile at the time o death. #n determining residence at the time o death, the ollowing actors must

be considered, namel), the decedent had =a> capacit) to choose and reedom o choice =b> ph)sical

presence at the place chosen and =c> intention to sta) therein permanentl).15 ?hile it appears that the

decedents in this case chose to be ph)sicall) present in *ue%on !it) or medical convenience, petitioner

avers that the) never adopted *ue%on !it) as their permanent residence.-wphi.nt

The contention lac7s merit.

The acts in *usebio were dierent rom those in the case at bar. The decedent therein, &ndres Eusebio,

passed awa) while in the process o transerring his personal belongings to a house in *ue%on !it). e

was then suering rom a heart ailment and was advised b) his doctorMson to purchase a *ue%on !it)

residence, which was nearer to his doctor. ?hile he was able to acCuire a house in *ue%on !it), Eusebio

died even beore he could move therein. #n said case, we ruled that Eusebio retained his domicile --- andhence, residence --- in an "ernando, 2ampanga. #t cannot be said that Eusebio changed his residence

because, strictl) spea7ing, his ph)sical presence in *ue%on !it) was 0ust temporar).

#n the case at bar, there is substantial proo that the decedents have transerred to petitionerKs *ue%on

!it) residence. 2etitioner ailed to suicientl) reute respondentKs assertion that their elderl) parents

sta)ed in his house or some three to our )ears beore the) died in the late 19(s.

"urthermore, the decedentsK respective death certiicates state that the) were both residents o *ue%on

!it) at the time o their demise. igniicantl), it was petitioner himsel who illed up his late motherKs death

certiicate. To our mind, this unCualiiedl) shows that at that time, at least, petitioner recogni%ed his

deceased motherKs residence to be *ue%on !it). 4oreover, petitioner ailed to contest the entr) in

#gnacioKs death certiicate, accomplished a )ear earlier b) respondent.

The recitals in the death certiicates, which are admissible in evidence, were thus properl) considered and

presumed to be correct b) the court a "uo. ?e agree with the appellate courtKs observation that since the

death certiicates were accomplished even beore petitioner and respondent Cuarreled over their

inheritance, the) ma) be relied upon to relect the true situation at the time o their parentsK death.

The death certiicates thus prevailed as proos o the decedentsK residence a /e (me o ea/, over the

numerous documentar) evidence presented b) petitioner. To be sure, the documents presented b)

petitioner pertained no o re'(ene a /e (me o ea/, as reCuired b) the $ules o !ourt, but

to 3ermanen re'(ene or om((e. #n /arcia0Fule v. Court of (ppeals,16 we held

;;; ;;; ;;; the term BresidesB connotes e+ vi termini Bactual residenceB as distinguished rom

Blegal residence or domicile.B This term BresidesB, li7e the terms BresidingB and BresidenceB, is

elastic and should be interpreted in the light o the ob0ect or purpose o the statute or rule in which

it is emplo)ed. #n the application o venue statutes and rules L ection 1, $ule 83 o the $evised

$ules o !ourt is o such nature L residence rather than domicile is the signiicant actor. Even

where the statute uses the word BdomicileB still it is construed as meaning residence and not

domicile in the technical sense. ome cases ma7e a distinction between the terms BresidenceB

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


and BdomicileB but as generall) used in statutes i;ing venue, the terms are s)non)mous, and

conve) the same meaning as the term Binhabitant.B #n other words, BresidesB should be viewed or

understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or ph)sical habitation o a person,

actual residence or place o abode. #t signiies ph)sical presence in a place and actual sta)

thereat. #n this popular sense, the term means merel) residence, that is, personal residence, not

legal residence or domicile. $esidence simpl) reCuires bodil) presence as an inhabitant in a

given place, while domicile reCuires bodil) presence in that place and also an intention to ma7e it

oneKs domicile. No particular length o time o residence is reCuired though however, the

residence must be more than temporar).18

oth the settlement court and the !ourt o &ppeals ound that the decedents have been living with

petitioner at the time o their deaths and or some time prior thereto. ?e ind this conclusion to be

substantiated b) the evidence on record. & close perusal o the challenged decision shows that, contrar)

to petitionerKs assertion, the court below considered not onl) the decedentsK ph)sical presence in *ue%on

!it), but also other actors indicating that the decedentsK sta) therein was more than temporar). #n the

absence o an) substantial showing that the lower courtsK actual indings stemmed rom an erroneous

apprehension o the evidence presented, the same must be held to be conclusive and binding upon this

!ourt.

2etitioner strains to dierentiate between the venue provisions ound in $ule , ection ',1( on ordinar)

civil actions, and $ule 83, ection 1, which applies speciicall) to settlement proceedings. e argues that

while venue in the ormer understandabl) reers to actual ph)sical residence or the purpose o serving

summons, it is the permanent residence o the decedent which is signiicant in $ule 83, ection 1.

2etitioner insists that venue or the settlement o estates can onl) reer to permanent residence or

domicile because it is the place where the records o the properties are 7ept and where most o the

decedentsK properties are located.

2etitionerKs argument ails to persuade.

#t does not necessaril) ollow that the records o a personKs properties are 7ept in the place where he

permanentl) resides. Neither can it be presumed that a personKs properties can be ound mostl) in the

place where he establishes his domicile. #t ma) be that he has his domicile in a place dierent rom that

where he 7eeps his records, or where he maintains e;tensive personal and business interests. No

generali%ations can thus be ormulated on the matter, as the Cuestion o where to 7eep records or retain

properties is entirel) dependent upon an individualKs choice and peculiarities.

&t an) rate, petitioner is obviousl) splitting straws when he dierentiates between venue in ordinar) civil

actions and venue in special proceedings. #n Ra!mond v. Court of (ppeals19 and &ejer v. Court of

(ppeals,' we ruled that venue or ordinar) civil actions and that or special proceedings have one and the

same meaning. &s thus deined, BresidenceB, in the conte;t o venue provisions, means nothing more

than a personKs actual residence or place o abode, provided he resides therein with continuit) andconsistenc).'1 &ll told, the lower court and the !ourt o &ppeals correctl) held that venue or the

settlement o the decedentsK intestate estate was properl) laid in the *ue%on !it) court.

B!EREF"RE, in view o the oregoing, the petition is HENIEH, and the decision o the !ourt o &ppeals

in !&-F.$. 2 No. 359( is AFFIR%EH.

$" "RHEREH.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


1avide, %r., C.%., Puno, 2apunan, and (ustria0Martine', %%., concur.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. L-22761 %a <1, 1969

R"$E #U$! %ALIG an *"E, !"%A$, an *"!N a '+rname #U$!, re3re'ene (n /(' '+( b/e(r aorne-(n-a, R"$E #U$! %ALIG, plaintis-appellants,

vs.

%ARIA $AN"$ #U$!, deendant-appellee.

1ewe! /. Soriano for plaintiffs0appellants.

Feria, Feria, )utu and )a34 for defendant0appellee.

%AALINAL, J.:

This is an appeal b) the plaintis rom two orders o the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 4anila in !ivil !ase No.

51639, the irst dismissing the complaint and the second den)ing the motion to reconsider the order o

dismissal.

+n eptember 19, 196' the plaintis iled the complaint, alleging that the) were the ac7nowledged

natural children and the onl) heirs in the direct line o the deceased /ohn T. ush, having been born o thecommon-law relationship o their ather with &polonia 2ere% rom 19'3 up to &ugust, 191 that said /ohn

T. ush and &polonia 2ere%, during the conception o the plaintis, were not suering rom an) disabilit)

to marr) each other that the) lived with their alleged ather during his lietime and were considered and

treated b). him as his ac7nowledge natural children that said /ohn T. ush, at the time o his death, let

several real and personal properties that the deendant, b) alsel) alleging that she was the legal wie o

the deceased was able to secure her appointment as administratri; o the estate o the deceased in

Testate 2roceedings No. '993' o the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 4anila that she submitted to the court or

approval a pro0ect o partition, purporting to show that the deceased let a will whereb) he beCueathed his

estate to three persons, namel) 4aria antos ush, &nita . ush and &nna erger that the deendant

then 7new that the plaintis were the ac7nowledged natural children o the deceased and that the)

discovered the raud and misrepresentation perpetrated b) the deendant onl) in /ul), 196'. The) pra)ed

that the pro0ect o partition be annulled that the deendant be ordered to submit a complete inventor) and

accounting o all the properties let b) the deceased and another pro0ect o partition ad0udicating to the

plaintis their legal participation in the said estate andMor in the event that the deendant had disposed o

all or part o the estate, that she be ordered to pa) them the mar7et value thereo and that the deendant

be ordered to pa) or the value o the ruits received, damages and attorne)@s ees.

The deendant moved to dismiss, alleging lac7 o cause o action, res judicata and statute o limitations.

The plaintis opposed and the deendant iled a repl) to the opposition. +n /anuar) 1, 1963 the lower

court denied the motion, Bit appearing that the grounds upon which said motion is based are not

indubitable.B #n time, the deendant iled her answer speciicall) den)ing all the material averments o the

complaint and invo7ing laches,res judicata and statute o limitations as airmative deenses.

&ter the issues were 0oined the case was set or hearing, but on the date thereo the hearing was

postponed upon the deendant@s maniestation that she would ile a written motion to dismiss. The motion,

when iled, challenged the 0urisdiction o the court, stating that since the action was one to annul a pro0ect

o partition dul) approved b) the probate court it was that court alone which could ta7e cogni%ance o the

case, citing $ule 85, ection 1, o the $ules o !ourt. +n +ctober 31, 1963 the lower court granted the

motion and dismissed the complaint, not on the ground relied upon b) the deendant but because the

action had prescribed. The plaintis moved to reconsider but were turned down hence, this appeal.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


place o residence o the decedent, or o the location o his estate, shall not be contested in a suit

or proceeding, e;cept in an appeal rom that court, in the original case, or when the want o

0urisdiction appears on the record.lawphi.6et

#t will be noted that the oregoing rule i;es 0urisdiction or purposes o the special proceeding or the

settlement o the estate o a deceased person, Bso ar as it depends on the place o residence o the

decedent, or o the location o his estate.B The matter reall) concerns venue, as the caption o $ule cited

indicates, and in order to preclude dierent courts which ma) properl) assume 0urisdiction rom doing so,

the $ule speciies that Bthe court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o a decedent,

shall e;ercise 0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other courts.B

#n the inal anal)sis this action is not necessaril) one to annul the partition alread) made and approved b)

the probate court, and to reopen the estate proceeding so that a new partition ma) be made, but or

recover) b) the plaintis o the portion o their alleged inheritance o which, through raud, the) have been

deprived.

?ithout pre0udice to whatever deenses ma) be available to the deendant, this !ourt believes that the

plaintis@ cause should not be oreclosed without a hearing on the merits.

?E$E"+$E, the orders appealed rom are set aside and the case remanded or urther proceedings.

!osts against the deendant-appellee in this instance.

Re!es, %.&.)., 1i'on, 7aldivar, Sanche', Fernando and Capistrano, %%., concur.

8eehan9ee and &arredo, %%., too9 no part.

Concepcion, C.%., and Castro, %., are on leave.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


"CAVI" $. %AL"LE$ II, petitioner, vs. &ACIA HE L"$ REME$ &!ILLI&$, respondent .

OG.R. No. 1<<<59. *an+ar <1, 2000P

"CAVI" $. %AL"LE$ II, petitioner, vs. C"UR "F A&&EAL$, !"N. FERNANH" V. G"R"$&E,*R., (n /(' "((a Ca3a( a' &re'((n) *+)e o RC-%a=a(, #ran/ 61, an &ACIA &!ILLI&$a' /e ae)e e?e+r(? o /e ae)e ( o /e ae Hr. Ar+ro e $ano', respondents. $m('

H E C I $ I " N

%ENH"QA, J .

These are petitions or review on certiorari o the decisions o the Thirteenth and the pecial Eighth

ivisions o the !ourt o &ppeals which ruled that petitioner has no right to intervene in the settlement o

the estate o r. &rturo de antos. The cases were consolidated considering that the) involve the same

parties and some o the issues raised are the same.

The acts which gave rise to these two petitions are as ollows

+n /ul) ', 1995, r. &rturo de antos, "ilipino and a resident o 4a7ati !it), iled a petition or probate o

his will1O in the $egional Trial !ourt, ranch 61, 4a7ati, doc7eted as p. 2roc. No. 4-''3. #n his petition,

r. e antos alleged that he had no compulsor) heirs that he had named in his will as sole legatee and

devisee the &rturo de antos "oundation, #nc. that he disposed b) his will his properties with an

appro;imate value o not less than 2',,. and that copies o said will were in the custod) o the

named e;ecutri;, private respondent 2acita de los $e)es 2hillips. & cop) o the will 'O was anne;ed to the

petition or probate.

+n "ebruar) 16, 1996, /udge "ernando . Forospe, /r. o $T!-4a7ati, ranch 61 issued an order

granting the petition and allowing the will. The order reads

+n 3 &ugust 1995, the !ourt issued an +rder setting the hearing o the petition on 1'

eptember 1995, at (3 ocloc7 in the morning, copies o which were served to &rturo de

antos "oundation, #nc. and 4s. 2acita de los $e)es 2hillips =+icers $eturn, dated

eptember 1995 attached to the records>. ?hen the case was called or hearing on the

date set, no oppositor appeared nor an) written opposition was ever iled and on motion

o petitioner, he was allowed to adduce his evidence in support o the petition.

2etitioner personall) appeared beore this !ourt and was placed on the witness stand

and was directl) e;amined b) the !ourt through Bree wheelingB Cuestions and answers

to give this !ourt a basis to determine the state o mind o the petitioner when he

e;ecuted the sub0ect will. &ter the e;amination, the !ourt is convinced that petitioner is

o sound and disposing mind and not acting on duress, menace and undue inluence or

raud, and that petitioner signed his Dast ?ill and Testament on his own ree and

voluntar) will and that he was neither orced nor inluenced b) an) other person in

signing it. 4is sc

"urthermore, it appears rom the petition and the evidence adduced that petitioner in his

lietime, e;ecuted his Dast ?ill and Testament =E;hs. B&B, B&-1B, B&-'B, B&-B, B&-5B> at his

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/129505.html#_ftn1





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


residence situated at 9 auhinia corner #ntsia treets, "orbes 2ar7, 4a7ati !it) said Dast

?ill and Testament was signed in the presence o his three =3> witnesses, namel), to wit

r. Elpidio alencia =E;hs. B&-6B, B&-8B, B&-(B, B&-16B, B&-16-&B>, &tt). Edward /.

erenguer =E;hs. B&-3B, B&-3-&B, B&-9B, B&-1B, P B&-11B>, and &tt). ictoria !. delos

$e)es =E;hs. B&-1'B, B&-13B, B&-1B, B&-18B, P B&-1(B>, who in turn, in the presence o the

testator and in the presence o each and all o the witnesses signed the said Dast ?ill

and Testament and dul) notari%ed beore Notar) 2ublic &nna 4elissa D. $osario =E;h.

B&-15B> on the actual e;ecution o the Dast ?ill and Testament, pictures were ta7en

=E;hs. BB to B-3B>.

2etitioner has no compulsor) heirs and &rturo de antos "oundation, #nc., with address

at No. 9 auhinia corner #ntsia treets, "orbes 2ar7, 4a7ati !it) has been named as sole

legatee and devisee o petitioners properties, real and personal, appro;imatel) valued at

not less than 2' million, 4s. 2acita de los $e)es 2hillips was designated as e;ecutor

and to serve as such without a bond.

"rom the oregoing acts, the !ourt inds that the petitioner has substantiall) established

the material allegations contained in his petition. The Dast ?ill and Testament havingbeen e;ecuted and attested as reCuired b) law that testator at the time o the e;ecution

o the will was o sane mind andMor not mentall) incapable to ma7e a ?ill nor was it

e;ecuted under duress or under the inluence o ear or threats that it was in writing and

e;ecuted in the language 7nown and understood b) the testator dul) subscribed thereo

and attested and subscribed b) three =3> credible witnesses in the presence o the

testator and o another that the testator and all the attesting witnesses signed the Dast

?ill and Testament reel) and voluntaril) and that the testator has intended that the

instrument should be his ?ill at the time o ai;ing his signature thereto.

?E$E"+$E, as pra)ed or b) the petitioner =testator himsel> the petition or the

allowance o the Dast ?ill and Testament o &rturo de antos is hereb) &22$+E and

&DD+?E.

hortl) ater the probate o his will, r. e antos died on "ebruar) '6, 1996.

+n &pril 3, 1996, petitioner +ctavio . 4aloles ## iled a motion or intervention claiming that, as the onl)

child o &licia de antos =testators sister> and +ctavio D. 4aloles, r., he was the sole ull-blooded

nephew and nearest o 7in o r. e antos. e li7ewise alleged that he was a creditor o the testator.

2etitioner thus pra)ed or the reconsideration o the order allowing the will and the issuance o letters o

administration in his name. 4is spped

+n the other hand, private respondent 2acita de los $e)es 2hillips, the designated e;ecutri; o the will,

iled a motion or the issuance o letters testamentar) with ranch 61. Dater, however, private respondentmoved to withdraw her motion. This was granted, while petitioner was reCuired to ile a memorandum o

authorities in support o his claim that said court =ranch 61> still had 0urisdiction to allow his intervention.3O

2etitioner iled his memorandum o authorities on 4a) 13, 1996. +n the other hand, private respondent,

who earlier withdrew her motion or the issuance o letters testamentar) in ranch 61, reiled a petition or



7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


the same purpose with the $egional Trial !ourt, 4a7ati, which was doc7eted as p. 2roc. No. 4-33

and assigned to ranch 65.

Apon private respondents motion, /udge alvador &bad antos o ranch 65 issued an order, dated /une

'(, 1996, appointing her as special administrator o r. e antoss estate.

+n /ul) '9, 1996, petitioner sought to intervene in p. 2roc. No. 4-33 and to set aside the appointment

o private respondent as special administrator. e reiterated that he was the sole and ull blooded nephew

and nearest o 7in o the testator that he came to 7now o the e;istence o p. 2roc. No. 4-33 onl) b)

accident that the probate proceedings in p. 2roc. No. 4-''3 beore ranch 61 o the same court was

still pending that private respondent misdeclared the true worth o the testators estate that private

respondent was not it to be the special administrator o the estate and that petitioner should be given

letters o administration or the estate o r. e antos.

+n &ugust '(, 1996, /udge &bad antos ordered the transer o p. 2roc. No. 4-33 to ranch 61, on

the ground that BitO is related to the case beore /udge Forospe o $T! ranch 61 . . .B

#t appears, however, that in p. 2roc. No. 4-''3, /udge Forospe had denied on &ugust '6, 1996petitioners motion or intervention. 2etitioner brought this matter to the !ourt o &ppeals which, in a

decisionO promulgated on "ebruar) 13, 199(, upheld the denial o petitioners motion or intervention.

4eanwhile, /udge Forospe issued an order, dated eptember , 1996, returning the records o p. 2roc.

No. 4-33 to ranch 65 on the ground that there was a pending case involving the Estate o ecedent

&rturo de antos pending beore said court. The order reads pped

&cting on the +$E$ dated '( &ugust 1996 o ranch 65, this !ourt, transerring this

case to this ranch 61 on the ground that this case is related with a case beore this

!ourt, let this case be returned to ranch 65 with the inormation that there is no related

case involving the ET&TE +" E!EENT &$TA$+ E &NT+ pending beore this

ranch.

There is, however, a case iled b) &$TA$+ E &NT+, as petitioner under $ule 86 o

the $ules o !ourt or the &llowance o his will during his lietime doc7eted as 2. 2$+!.

N+. 4-''3 which was alread) decided on 16 "ebruar) 1996 and has become inal.

#t is noted on records o !ase No. 4-''3 that ater it became inal, herein 2etitioner

2acita de los $e)es 2hillips iled a 4+T#+N "+$ TE #A&N!E +" DETTE$

TET&4ENT&$I, which was subseCuentl) withdrawn ater this !ourt, during the

hearing, alread) ruled that the motion could not be admitted as the sub0ect matter

involves a separate case under $ule 8( o the $ules o !ourt, and movant withdrew her

motion and iled this case =No. 33>.

+ctavio de antos 4aloles ##O iled a 4+T#+N "+$ #NTE$ENT#+N beore !ase No. 4-

''3 and this motion was alread) EN#E in the order =ranch 61> o '6 &ugust 1996

li7ewise or the same grounds that the matter is or a separate case to be iled under $ule

8( o the $ules o !ourt and cannot be included in this case iled under $ule 86 o the

$ules o !ourt.



7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


#t is urther noted that it is a matter o polic) that consolidation o cases must be approved

b) the 2residing /udges o the aected ranches.

#nitiall), in his decision dated eptember '3, 1996,5O /udge &bad antos appeared irm in his position that

B . . . it would be improper or =ranch 65> to hear and resolve the petition =p. 2roc. No. 4-33>,B

considering that the probate proceedings were commenced with ranch 61. e thus ordered the transer

o the records bac7 to the latter branch. owever, he later recalled his decision and too7 cogni%ance o

the case Bto e;pedite the proceedings.B Thus, in his +rder, dated +ctober '1, 1996, he stated

!onsidering the reusal o the on. "ernando . Forospe, /r. o ranch 61 to continue

hearing this case notwithstanding the act that said branch began the probate

proceedings o the estate o the deceased and must thereore continue to e;ercise its

0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all others, until the entire estate o the testator had been

partitioned and distributed as per +rder dated '3 eptember 1996, this branch =$egional

Trial !ourt ranch 65> shall ta7e cogni%ance o the petition i onl) to e;pedite the

proceedings, and under the concept that the $egional Trial !ourt o 4a7ati !it) is but

one court. /o spped

"urnish a cop) o this order to the +ice o the !hie 0ustice and the +ice o the !ourt

&dministrator, o the upreme !ourt the on. "ernando . Forospe, /r. 2acita e Dos

$e)es 2hillips, 2etitioner and +ctavio de antos 4aloles, #ntervenor.

+n November , 1996, /udge &bad antos granted petitioners motion or intervention. 2rivate respondent

moved or a reconsideration but her motion was denied b) the trial court. he then iled a petition

or certiorari in the !ourt o &ppeals which, on "ebruar) '6, 1998, rendered a decision6O setting aside the

trial courts order on the ground that petitioner had not shown an) right or interest to intervene in p. 2roc.

No. 4-33.

ence, these petitions which raise the ollowing issues

1. ?hether or not the onorable $egional Trial !ourt - 4a7ati, ranch 61 has lost

0urisdiction to proceed with the probate proceedings upon its issuance o an order

allowing the will o r. &rturo de antos

'. ?hether or not the onorable =$egional Trial !ourt - 4a7ati, ranch 65> acCuired

0urisdiction over the petition or issuance o letters testamentar) iled b) =private>

respondent.

3. ?hether or not the petitioner, being a creditor o the late r. &rturo de antos, has a

right to intervene and oppose the petition or issuance o letters testamentar) iled b) the

respondent.

. ?hether or not =private> respondent is guilt) o orum shopping in iling her petition or

issuance o letters testamentar) with the $egional Trial !ourt - 4a7ati, ranch 65

7nowing ull) well that the probate proceedings involving the same testate estate o the

decedent is still pending with the $egional Trial !ourt - 4a7ati, ranch 61. pped 0o





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


First . 2etitioner contends that the probate proceedings in ranch 61 o $T!-4a7ati did not terminate

upon the issuance o the order allowing the will o r. e antos. !iting the cases o Santiesteban v.

Santiesteban8O and 8ale v. Manalo,(O he argues that the proceedings must continue until the estate is

ull) distributed to the lawul heirs, devisees, and legatees o the testator, pursuant to $ule 83, 1 o the

$ules o !ourt. !onseCuentl), petitioner contends that ranch 65 could not lawull) act upon private

respondents petition or issuance o letters testamentar).

The contention has no merit.

#n cases or the probate o wills, it is well-settled that the authorit) o the court is limited to ascertaining the

e;trinsic validit) o the will, i.e., whether the testator, being o sound mind, reel) e;ecuted the will in

accordance with the ormalities prescribed b) law.9O

+rdinaril), probate proceedings are instituted onl) ater the death o the testator, so much so that, ater

approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters testamentar) and settle the estate o

the testator. The cases cited b) petitioner are o such nature. #n act, in most 0urisdictions, courts cannot

entertain a petition or probate o the will o a living testator under the principle o ambulator) nature o

wills.1O

owever, &rt. (3( o the !ivil !ode authori%es the iling o a petition or probate o the will iled b) the

testator himsel. #t provides

!ivil !ode, &rt. (3(. No will shall pass either real or personal propert) unless it is proved

and allowed in accordance with the $ules o !ourt.

The testator himsel ma), during his lietime, petition the court having 0urisdiction or the

allowance o his will. #n such case, the pertinent provisions o the $ules o !ourt or the

allowance o wills ater the testators death shall govern. 4iso

The upreme !ourt shall ormulate such additional $ules o !ourt as ma) be necessar)

or the allowance o wills on petition o the testator.

ub0ect to the right o appeal, the allowance o the will, either during the lietime o the

testator or ater his death, shall be conclusive as to its due e;ecution.

$ule 86, 1 li7ewise provides

ec. 1 Who ma! petition for the allowance of will . - &n) e;ecutor, devisee, or legatee

named in a will, or an) other person interested in the estate, ma), at an) time ater the

death o the testator, petition the court having 0urisdiction to have the will allowed,

whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destro)ed.

The testator himsel ma), during his lietime, petition in the court or the allowance o his

will.

The rationale or allowing the probate o wills during the lietime o testator has been e;plained b) the

!ode !ommission thus










7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


4ost o the cases that reach the courts involve either the testamentar) capacit) o the

testator or the ormalities adopted in the e;ecution o wills. There are relativel) ew cases

concerning the intrinsic validit) o testamentar) dispositions. #t is ar easier or the courts

to determine the mental condition o a testator during his lietime than ater his death.

"raud, intimidation and undue inluence are minimi%ed. "urthermore, i a will does not

compl) with the reCuirements prescribed b) law, the same ma) be corrected at once. The

probate during the testators lie, thereore, will lessen the number o contest upon wills.

+nce a will is probated during the lietime o the testator, the onl) Cuestions that ma)

remain or the courts to decide ater the testators death will reer to the intrinsic validit) o

the testamentar) dispositions. #t is possible, o course, that even when the testator

himsel as7s or the allowance o the will, he ma) be acting under duress or undue

inluence, but these are rare cases.

&ter a will has been probated during the lietime o the testator, it does not necessaril)

mean that he cannot alter or revo7e the same beore his death. hould he ma7e a new

will, it would also be allowable on his petition, and i he should die beore he has had a

chance to present such petition, the ordinar) probate proceeding ater the testators death

would be in order.11O

Thus, ater the allowance o the will o r. e antos on "ebruar) 16, 1996, there was nothing else or

ranch 61 to do e;cept to issue a certiicate o allowance o the will pursuant to $ule 83, 1' o the $ules

o !ourt. There is, thereore, no basis or the ruling o /udge &bad antos o ranch 65 o $T!-4a7ati

that -Ne; old

ranch 61 o the $egional Trial !ourt o 4a7ati having begun the probate proceedings o

the estate o the deceased, it continues and shall continue to e;ercise said 0urisdiction to

the e;clusion o all others. #t should be noted that probate proceedings do not cease

upon the allowance or disallowance o a will but continues up to such time that the entire

estate o the testator had been partitioned and distributed.

The act that the will was allowed during the lietime o the testator meant merel) that the

partition and distribution o the estate was to be suspended until the latters death. #n

other words, the petitioner, instead o iling a new petition or the issuance o letters

testamentar), should have simpl) iled a maniestation or the same purpose in the

probate court.1'O

2etitioner, who deends the order o ranch 65 allowing him to intervene, cites $ule 83, 1 which states

Where estate of deceased persons settled. - # the decedent is an inhabitant o the

2hilippines at the time o his death, whether a citi%en or an alien, his will shall be proved,

or letters o administration granted, and his estate settled, in the !ourt o "irst #nstance inthe province in which he resides at the time o his death, and i he is an inhabitant o a

oreign countr), the !ourt o "irst #nstance o an) province in which he had estate. The

court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o a decedent, shall e;ercise

0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other courts. The 0urisdiction assumed b) a court, so ar

as it depends on the place o residence o the decedent, or o the location o his estate,

shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, e;cept in an appeal rom that court, in the

original case, or when the want o 0urisdiction appears on the record.





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


The above rule, however, actuall) provides or the venue o actions or the settlement o the estate o

deceased persons. #n /arcia Fule v. Court of (ppeals, it was held13O

The aoreCuoted ection 1, $ule 83 =ormerl) $ule 85, ection 1>, speciicall) the clause

Bso ar as it depends on the place o residence o the decedent, or o the location o the

state,B is in realit) a matter o venue, as the caption o the $ule indicates Bettlement o

Estate o eceased 2ersons. enue and 2rocesses.B #t could not have been intended to

deine the 0urisdiction over the sub0ect matter, because such legal provision is contained

in a law o procedure dealing merel) with procedural matters. 2rocedure is one thing,

0urisdiction over the sub0ect matter is another. The power or authorit) o the court over the

sub0ect matter Be;isted was i;ed beore procedure in a given cause began.B That power

or authorit) is not altered or changed b) procedure, which simpl) directs the manner in

which the power or authorit) shall be ull) and 0ustl) e;ercised. There are cases though

that i the power is not e;ercised conormabl) with the provisions o the procedural law,

purel), the court attempting to e;ercise it loses the power to e;ercise it legall). owever,

this does not amount to a loss o 0urisdiction over the sub0ect matter. $ather, it means that

the court ma) thereb) lose 0urisdiction over the person or that the 0udgment ma) thereb)

be rendered deective or lac7 o something essential to sustain it. The appearance o thisprovision in the procedural law at once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing to

do with the 0urisdiction o the court over the sub0ect matter. #n plain words, it is 0ust a

matter o method, o convenience to the parties. 4ani 7;

#ndeed, the 0urisdiction over probate proceedings and settlement o estates with appro;imate value o

over 21,. =outside 4etro 4anila> or 2',. =in 4etro 4anila> belongs to the regional trial

courts under .2. lg. 1'9, as amended. The dierent branches comprising each court in one 0udicial

region do not possess 0urisdictions independent o and incompatible with each other.1O

#t is noteworth) that, although $ule 83, 1 applies insoar as the venue o the petition or probate o the will

o r. e antos is concerned, it does not bar other branches o the same court rom ta7ing cogni%ance o

the settlement o the estate o the testator ater his death. &s held in the leading case o &acalso v.

Ramolote15O

The various branches o the !ourt o "irst #nstance o !ebu under the "ourteenth /udicial

istrict, are a coordinate and co-eCual courts, and the totalit) o which is onl) one !ourt

o "irst #nstance. The 0urisdiction is vested in the court, not in the 0udges. &nd when a

case is iled in one branch, 0urisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or

0udge alone, to the e;clusion o the other branches. Trial ma) be held or proceedings

continue b) and beore another branch or 0udge. #t is or this reason that ection 58 o the

/udiciar) &ct e;pressl) grants to the ecretar) o /ustice, the administrative right or

power to apportion the cases among the dierent branches, both or the convenience o

the parties and or the coordination o the wor7 b) the dierent branches o the samecourt. The apportionment and distribution o cases does not involve a grant or limitation o

0urisdiction, the 0urisdiction attaches and continues to be vested in the !ourt o "irst

#nstance o the province, and the trials ma) be held b) an) branch or 0udge o the court.

Necessaril), thereore, ranch 65 o the $T! o 4a7ati !it) has 0urisdiction over p. 2roc. No. 4-33.








7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


/econd . 2etitioner claims the right to intervene in and oppose the petition or issuance o letters

testamentar) iled b) private respondent. e argues that, as the nearest ne;t o 7in and creditor o the

testator, his interest in the matter is material and direct. #n ruling that petitioner has no right to intervene in

the proceedings beore ranch 65 o $T!-4a7ati !it), the !ourt o &ppeals held

The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will o the decedent

&rturo de antos. Neither is he a compulsor) heir o the latter. &s the onl) and nearest

collateral relative o the decedent, he can inherit rom the latter onl) in case o intestac).

ince the decedent has let a will which has alread) been probated and disposes o all

his properties the private respondent can inherit onl) i the said will is annulled. is

interest in the decedents estate is, thereore, not direct or immediate. 4ani7s

is claim to being a creditor o the estate is a belated one, having been raised or the irst

time onl) in his repl) to the opposition to his motion to intervene, and, as ar as the

records show, not supported b) evidence.

. . . . TOhe opposition must come rom one with a direct interest in the estate or the will,

and the private respondent has none. 4oreover, the ground cited in the privaterespondents opposition, that the petitioner has deliberatel) misdeclared the truth worth

and value o the estate, is not relevant to the Cuestion o her competenc) to act as

e;ecutor. ection ', $ule 86 o the $ules o !ourt reCuires onl) an allegation o the

probable value and character o the propert) o the estate. The true value can be

determined later on in the course o the settlement o the estate.16O

$ule 89, 1 provides

4pposition to issuance of letters testamentar!. Simultaneous petition for administration. -

&n) person interested in a will ma) state in writing the grounds wh) letters testamentar)

should not issue to the persons named therein as e;ecutors, or an) o them, and the

court, ater hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the suicienc) o such grounds. &

petition ma), at the same time, be iled or letters o administration with the will anne;ed.

Ander this provision, it has been held that an Binterested personB is one who would be beneited b) the

estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor, and whose interest

is material and direct, not merel) incidental or contingent.18O

Even i petitioner is the nearest ne;t o 7in o r. e antos, he cannot be considered an BheirB o the

testator. #t is a undamental rule o testamentar) succession that one who has no compulsor) or orced

heirs ma) dispose o his entire estate b) will. Thus, &rt. (' o the !ivil !ode provides

+ne who has no compulsor) heirs ma) dispose b) will o all his estate or an) part o it inavor o an) person having capacit) to succeed. 4ani7an

+ne who has compulsor) heirs ma) dispose o his estate provided he does not

contravene the provisions o this !ode with regard to the legitimate o said heirs.

!ompulsor) heirs are limited to the testators -





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


=1> Degitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and

ascendants

='> #n deault o the oregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their

legitimate children and descendants

=3> The widow or widower

=> &c7nowledged natural children, and natural children b) legal iction

=5> +ther illegitimate children reerred to in &rticle '(8 o the !ivil !ode. 1(O

2etitioner, as nephew o the testator, is not a compulsor) heir who ma) have been preterited in the

testators will.

Nor does he have an) right to intervene in the settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a

creditor o the deceased. ince the testator instituted or named an e;ecutor in his will, it is incumbent

upon the !ourt to respect the desires o the testator. &s we stated in 4'aeta v. Pecson19O

The choice o his e;ecutor is a precious prerogative o a testator, a necessar)

concomitant o his right to dispose o his propert) in the manner he wishes. #t is natural

that the testator should desire to appoint one o his conidence, one who can be trusted

to carr) out his wishes in the disposal o his estate. The curtailment o this right ma) be

considered a curtailment o the right to dispose.

+nl) i the appointed e;ecutor is incompetent, reuses the trust, or ails to give bond ma) the court

appoint other persons to administer the estate.'O None o these circumstances is present in this case.

0!ird . 2etitioner contends that private respondent is guilt) o orum shopping when she iled the petitionor issuance o letters testamentar) =p. 2roc. No. 4-33> while the probate proceedings =p. 2roc. No.

4-''3> were still pending. &ccording to petitioner, there is identit) o parties, rights asserted, and relies

pra)ed or in the two actions which are ounded on the same acts, and a 0udgment in either will result

in res judicata in the other.

This contention has no merit. &s stated earlier, the petition or probate was iled b) r. e antos, the

testator, solel) or the purpose o authenticating his will. Apon the allowance o his will, the proceedings

were terminated. +ldmis o

+n the other hand, the petition or issuance o letters testamentar) was iled b) private respondent, as

e;ecutor o the estate o r. e antos, or the purpose o securing authorit) rom the !ourt to administer

the estate and put into eect the will o the testator. The estate settlement proceedings commenced b)

the iling o the petition terminates upon the distribution and deliver) o the legacies and devises to the

persons named in the will. !learl), there is no identit) between the two petitions, nor was the latter iled

during the pendenc) o the ormer. There was, conseCuentl), no orum shopping.

B!EREF"RE, the petition is EN#E and the decisions o the !ourt o &ppeals are hereb) &""#$4E.

$" "RHEREH.







7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No'. L-219<@-<9 %a 29, 1970

VICENE URIARE, petitioner,

vs.

!E C"UR "F FIR$ IN$ANCE "F NEGR"$ "CCIHENAL 12/ *+((a H('r( !E C"UR"F FIR$ IN$ANCE "F %ANILA, #RANC! IV, *UAN URIARE QA%AC"NA an !IGINI"URIARE, respondents.

:orberto %. ;uisumbin for petitioner.

8a6ada, 8eehan9ee < Carreon for respondents.

HIQ"N, J.:

+n +ctober 3, 1963 petitioner icente Ariarte iled an original petition or certiorari : doc7eted as F.$. D-

'193( : against the respondents /uan Ariarte Gamacona, iginio Ariarte, and the !ourts o "irst#nstance o Negros +ccidental and o 4anila, ranch #, who will be reerred to hereinater as the Negros

!ourt and the 4anila !ourt, respectivel) : pra)ing

... that ater due proceedings 0udgment be rendered annulling the orders o 19 &pril 1963

=&nne; @@> and 11 /ul) 1963 =&nne; @#@> o respondent Negros court dismissing the irst

instituted pecial 2roceeding No. 63, supra, and the order o 1 /ul) 1963 =&nne; @H@> o

respondent 4anila court den)ing petitioner@s omnibus motion to intervene and to dismiss

the later-instituted pecial 2roceeding No. 51396, supra, both special proceedings

pertaining to the settlement o the same estate o the same deceased, and conseCuentl)

annulling all proceedings had in pecial 2roceeding No. 51396 supra, o the respondent

4anila court as all ta7en without 0urisdiction.

"or the preservation o the rights o the parties pending these proceedings, petitioner

pra)s or the issuance o a writ o preliminar) in0unction en0oining respondents 4anila

court, /uan Ariarte Gamacona and iginio Ariarte rom proceeding with pecial

2roceeding No. 51396, supra, until urther orders o this !ourt.

$easons in support o said petition are stated therein as ollows

6. $espondent Negros court erred in dismissing its pecial 2roceeding No. 63, supra,

and ailing to declare itsel @the court irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate

o@ the deceased on /uan Ariarte ) Foite as prescribed in $ule 85 section 1 o the $ules

o !ourt. $espondent 4anila court erred in ailing to dismiss its pecial 2roceeding No.

51396, supra, notwithstanding proo o prior iling o pecial 2roceeding No. 63, supra,

in the Negros court.

The writ o preliminar) in0unction pra)ed or was granted and issued b) this !ourt on +ctober ', 1963.

+n &pril '', 196 petitioner iled against the same respondents a pleading entitled A22DE4ENT&D

2ET#T#+N "+$ 4&N&4A : doc7eted in this !ourt as F.$. No. D-'1939 : pra)ing, or the reasons

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


therein stated, that 0udgment be rendered annulling the orders issued b) the Negros !ourt on ecember

8, 1963 and "ebruar) '6, 196, the irst disapproving his record on appeal and the second den)ing his

motion or reconsideration, and urther commanding said court to approve his record on appeal and to

give due course to his appeal. +n /ul) 15, 196 ?e issued a resolution deerring action on this

upplemental 2etition until the original action or certiorari =F.$. D-'193(> is ta7en up on the merits.

+n +ctober '1, 1963 the respondents in F.$. D-'193( iled their answer traversing petitioner@s contention

that the respondent courts had committed grave abuse o discretion in relation to the matters alleged in

the petition or certiorari .

#t appears that on November 6, 1961 petitioner iled with the Negros !ourt a petition or the settlement o

the estate o the late on /uan Ariarte ) Foite =pecial 2roceeding No. 63> alleging therein, inter alia,

that, as a natural son o the latter, he was his sole heir, and that, during the lietime o said decedent,

petitioner had instituted !ivil !ase No. 61' in the same !ourt or his compulsor) ac7nowledgment as

such natural son. Apon petitioner@s motion the Negros !ourt appointed the 2hilippine National an7 as

special administrator on November 13, 1961 and two da)s later it set the date or the hearing o the

petition and ordered that the reCuisite notices be published in accordance with law. The record discloses,

however, that, or one reason or another, the 2hilippine, National an7 never actuall) Cualiied as specialadministrator.

+n ecember 19, 1961, iginio Ariarte, one o the two private respondents herein, iled an opposition to

the above-mentioned petition alleging that he was a nephew o the deceased /uan Ariarte ) Foite who

had Be;ecuted a Dast ?ill and Testament in pain, a dul) authenticated cop) whereo has been reCuested

and which shall be submitted to this onorable !ourt upon receipt thereo,B and urther Cuestioning

petitioner@s capacit) and interest to commence the intestate proceeding.

+n &ugust '(, 196', /uan Ariarte Gamacona, the other private respondent, commenced pecial

2roceeding No. 51396 in the 4anila !ourt or the probate o a document alleged to be the last will o the

deceased /uan Ariarte ) Foite, and on the same date he iled in pecial 2roceeding No. 63 o the

Negros !ourt a motion to dismiss the same on the ollowing grounds =1> that, as the deceased /uan

Ariarte ) Foite had let a last will, there was no legal basis to proceed with said intestate proceedings, and

='> that petitioner icente Ariarte had no legal personalit) and interest to initiate said intestate

proceedings, he not being an ac7nowledged natural son o the decedent. & cop) o the 2etition or

2robate and o the alleged ?ill were attached to the 4otion to ismiss.

2etitioner opposed the aoresaid motion to dismiss contending that, as the Negros !ourt was irst to ta7e

cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o the deceased /uan Ariarte ) Foite, it had acCuired e;clusive

0urisdiction over same pursuant to $ule 85, ection 1 o the $ules o !ourt.

+n &pril 19, 1963, the Negros !ourt sustained /uan Ariarte Gamacona@s motion to dismiss and dismissed

the pecial 2roceeding No. 63 pending beore it. is motion or reconsideration o said order havingbeen denied on /ul) '8, 1963, petitioner proceeded to ile his notice o appeal, appeal bond and record

on appeal or the purpose o appealing rom said orders to this court on Cuestions o law. The

administrator with the will anne;ed appointed b) the 4anila !ourt in pecial 2roceeding No. 51396

ob0ected to the approval o the record on appeal, and under date o ecember 8, 1963 the Negros !ourt

issued the ollowing order

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


+ppositor pra)s that the record on appeal iled b) the petitioner on /ul) '8, 1963, be

dismissed or having been iled out o time and or being incomplete. #n the meantime,

beore the said record on appeal was approved b) this !ourt, the petitioner iled a petition

or certiorari beore the upreme !ourt entitled Vicente =riarte, Petitioner, vs. Court of

First $nstance of :eros 4ccidental, et al ., F.$. No. D-'193(, bringing this case sCuarel)

beore the upreme !ourt on Cuestions o law which is tantamount to petitioner@s

abandoning his appeal rom this !ourt.

?E$E"+$E, in order to give wa) to the certiorari, the record on appeal iled b) the

petitioner is hereb) disapproved.

#n view o the above-Cuoted order, petitioner iled the supplemental petition or mandamus mentioned

heretoore.

+n &pril 15, 1963 icente Ariarte iled an +mnibus 4otion in pecial 2roceeding No. 51396 pending in

the 4anila !ourt, as7ing or leave to intervene therein or the dismissal o the petition and the annulment

o the proceedings had in said special proceeding. This motion was denied b) said court in its order o

/ul) 1 o the same )ear.

#t is admitted that, as alleged in the basic petition iled in pecial 2roceeding No. 63 o the Negros

!ourt, icente Ariarte iled in the same court, during the lietime o /uan Ariarte ) Foite, !ivil !ase No.

61' to obtain 0udgment or his compulsor) ac7nowledgment as his natural child. !learl) inerrable rom

this is that at the time he iled the action, as well as when he commenced the aoresaid special

proceeding, he had not )et been ac7nowledged as natural son o /uan Ariarte ) Foite. Ap to this time, no

inal 0udgment to that eect appears to have been rendered.

The record urther discloses that the special proceeding beore the Negros !ourt has not gone arther

than the appointment o a special administrator in the person o the 2hilippine National an7 who, as

stated heretoore, ailed to Cuali).

+n the other hand, it is not disputed that, ater proper proceedings were had in pecial 2roceeding No.

51396, the 4anila !ourt admitted to probate the document submitted to, it as the last will o /uan Ariarte )

Foite, the petition or probate appearing not to have been contested. #t appears urther that, as stated

heretoore, the order issued b) the 4anila !ourt on /ul) 1, 1963 denied petitioner. icente Ariarte@s

+mnibus 4otion or #ntervention, ismissal o 2etition and &nnulment o said proceedings.

Di7ewise, it is not denied that to the motion to dismiss the special proceeding pending beore the Negros

!ourt iled b) iginio Ariarte were attached a cop) o the alleged last will o /uan Ariarte ) Foite and o

the petition iled with the 4anila !ourt or its probate. #t is clear, thereore, that almost rom the start o

pecial 2roceeding No. 63, the Negros !ourt and petitioner icente Ariarte 7new o the e;istence o

the aoresaid last will and o the proceedings or its probate.

The principal legal Cuestions raised in the petition or certiorari are =a> whether or not the Negros !ourt

erred in dismissing pecial 2roceeding No. 66, on the one hand, and on the other, =b> whether the

4anila !ourt similarl) erred in not dismissing pecial 2roceeding No. 51396 notwithstanding proo o the

prior iling o pecial 2roceeding No. 63 in the Negros !ourt.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Ander the /udiciar) &ct o 19( ection , paragraph =e>O, !ourts o "irst #nstance have original

e;clusive 0urisdiction over Ball matters o probate,B that is, over special proceedings or the settlement o

the estate o deceased persons : whether the) died testate or intestate. ?hile their 0urisdiction over such

sub0ect matter is be)ond Cuestion, the matter o venue, or the particular !ourt o "irst #nstance where the

special proceeding should be commenced, is regulated b) ormer $ule 85, ection 1 o the $ules o

!ourt, now ection 1, $ule 83 o the $evised $ules o !ourt, which provides that the estate o a decedent

inhabitant o the 2hilippines at the time o his death, whether a citi%en or an alien, shall be in the court o

irst instance in the province in which he resided at the time o his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a

forein countr!, the court of first instance of an! province in which he had estate . &ccordingl), when the

estate to be settled is that o a non-resident alien : li7e the deceased /uan Ariarte ) Foite : the !ourts

o "irst #nstance in provinces where the deceased let an) propert) have concurrent 0urisdiction to ta7e

cogni%ance o the proper special proceeding or the settlement o his estate. #n the case beore As, these

!ourts o "irst #nstance are the Negros and the 4anila !ourts : province and cit) where the deceased

/uan Ariarte ) Foite let considerable properties. "rom this premise petitioner argues that, as the Negros

!ourt had irst ta7en cogni%ance o the special proceeding or the settlement o the estate o said

decedent =pecial 2roceeding No. 63>, the 4anila !ourt no longer had 0urisdiction to ta7e cogni%ance

o pecial 2roceeding No. 51396 intended to settle the estate o the same decedent in accordance with

his alleged will, and that conseCuentl), the irst court erred in dismissing pecial 2roceeding No. 63,while the second court similarl) erred in not dismissing pecial 2roceeding No. 51396.

#t can not be denied that a special proceeding intended to eect the distribution o the estate o a

deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his

will, is a Bprobate matterB or a proceeding or the settlement o his estate. #t is eCuall) true, however, that

in accordance with settled 0urisprudence in this 0urisdiction, testate proceedings, or the settlement o the

estate o a deceased person ta7e precedence over intestate proceedings or the same purpose. Thus it

has been held repeatedl) that, i in the course o intestate proceedings pending beore a court o irst

instance it is ound it hat the decedent had let a last will, proceedings or the probate o the latter should

replace the intestate proceedings even i at that stage an administrator had alread) been appointed, the

latter being reCuired to render inal account and turn over the estate in his possession to the e;ecutor

subseCuentl) appointed. This, however, is understood to be without pre0udice that should the alleged last

will be re0ected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestac). &s alread) adverted to,

this is a clear indication that proceedings or the probate o a will en0o) priorit) over intestate proceedings.

Apon the acts beore As the Cuestion arises as to whether /uan Ariarte Gamacona should have iled the

petition or the probate o the last will o /uan Ariarte ) Foite with the Negros !ourt : particularl) in

pecial 2roceeding No. 63 : or was entitled to commence the corresponding separate proceedings,

as he did, in the 4anila !ourt.

The ollowing considerations and the acts o record would seem to support the view that he should have

submitted said will or probate to the Negros !ourt, either in a separate special proceeding or in an

appropriate motion or said purpose iled in the alread) pending pecial 2roceeding No. 63. #n the irstplace, it is not in accord with public polic) and the orderl) and ine;pensive administration o 0ustice to

unnecessaril) multipl) litigation, especiall) i several courts would be involved. This, in eect, was the

result o the submission o the will aoresaid to the 4anila !ourt. #n the second place, when respondent

iginio Ariarte iled an opposition to icente Ariarte@s petition or the issuance o letters o administration,

he had alread) inormed the Negros !ourt that the deceased /uan Ariarte ) Foite had let a will in pain,

o which a cop) had been reCuested for submission to said court and when the other respondent, /uan

Ariarte Gamacona, iled his motion to dismiss pecial 2roceeding No. 63, he had submitted to the

Negros !ourt a cop) o the alleged will o the decedent, rom which act it ma) be inerred that, li7e

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


iginio Ariarte, he 7new beore iling the petition or probate with the 4anila !ourt that there was alread)

a special proceeding pending in the Negros !ourt or the settlement o the estate o the same deceased

person. &s ar as iginio Ariarte is concerned, it seems Cuite clear that in his opposition to petitioner@s

petition in pecial 2roceeding No. 63, he had e;pressl) promised to submit said will or probate to the

Negros !ourt.

ut the act is that instead o the aoresaid will being presented or probate to the Negros !ourt, /uan

Ariarte Gamacona iled the petition or the purpose with the 4anila !ourt. ?e can not accept petitioner@s

contention in this regard that the latter court had no 0urisdiction to consider said petition, albeit we sa) that

it was not the proper venue thereor.

#t is well settled in this 0urisdiction that wron venue is merel) a waiveable procedural deect, and, in the

light o the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, we are o the opinion, and so hold, that petitioner

has waived the right to raise such ob0ection or is precluded rom doing so b) laches. #t is enough to

consider in this connection that petitioner 7new o the e;istence o a will e;ecuted b) /uan Ariarte ) Foite

since ecember 19, 1961 when iginio Ariarte iled his opposition to the initial petition iled in pecial

2roceeding No. 63 that petitioner li7ewise was served with notice o the e;istence =presence> o the

alleged last will in the 2hilippines and o the iling o the petition or its probate with the 4anila !ourt since &ugust '(, 196' when /uan Ariarte Gamacona iled a motion or the dismissal o pecial 2roceeding No.

63. &ll these notwithstanding, it was onl) on &pril 15, 1963 that he iled with the 4anila !ourt in pecial

2roceeding No. 51396 an +mnibus motion as7ing or leave to intervene and or the dismissal and

annulment o all the proceedings had therein up to that date thus enabling the 4anila !ourt not onl) to

appoint an administrator with the will anne;ed but also to admit said will to probate more than ive months

earlier, or more speciicall), on +ctober 31, 196'. To allow him now to assail the e;ercise o 0urisdiction

over the probate o the will b) the 4anila !ourt and the validit) o all the proceedings had in pecial

2roceeding No. 51396 would put a premium on his negligence. 4oreover, it must be remembered that

this !ourt is not inclined to annul proceedings regularl) had in a lower court even i the latter was not

the proper venue thereor, i the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some

other court o similar 0urisdiction more so in a case li7e the present where the ob0ection against said

proceedings is raised too late.

#n his order o &pril 19, 1963 dismissing pecial 2roceeding No. 63, /udge "ernande% o the Negros

!ourt said that he was Bnot inclined to sustain the contention o the petitioner that inasmuch as the herein

petitioner has instituted !ivil !ase No. 61' or compulsor) ac7nowledgment b) the decedent such action

0ustiies the institution b) him o this proceedings. # the petitioner is to be consistent with the authorities

cited b) him in support o his contention, the proper thing or him to do would be to intervene in the testate

estate proceedings entitled pecial 2roceedings No. 51396 in the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 4anila

instead o maintaining an independent action, or indeed his supposed interest in the estate o the

decedent is o his doubtul character pending the inal decision o the action or compulsor)

ac7nowledgment.B

?e believe in connection with the above matter that petitioner is entitled to prosecute !ivil !ase No. 61'

until it is inall) determined, or intervene in pecial 2roceeding No. 51396 o the 4anila !ourt, i it is still

open, or to as7 or its reopening i it has alread) been closed, so as to be able to submit or determination

the Cuestion o his ac7nowledgment as natural child o the deceased testator, said court having, in its

capacit) as a probate court, 0urisdiction to declare who are the heirs o the deceased testator and whether

or not a particular part) is or should be declared his ac7nowledged natural child =## 4oran on $ules o

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. L-2199< *+ne 21, 1966

ANGELA R"HRIGUEQ, %ARIA R"HRIGUEQ, E AL., petitioners,

vs.

!"N. *UAN HE #"R*A, a' *+)e o /e Co+r o F(r' In'ane o #+aan, #ran/ III,ANA"LIA &ANGILINAN an AHELAIHA *ACALAN, respondents.

)oren'o Somulon for petitioners.

8orres and 8orres for respondents.

REME$, *.#.L., J.:

2etitioners &ngela, 4aria, &belardo and &ntonio, surnamed $odrigue%, petition this !ourt or a writ

o certiorari and prohibition to the !ourt o "irst #nstance o ulacan, or its reusal to grant their motion to

dismiss its pecial 2roceeding No. 1331, which said !ourt is alleged to have ta7en cogni%ance o without

0urisdiction.

The acts and issues are succinctl) narrated in the order o the respondent court, dated /une 13, 1963=2etition, &nne; >, in this wise

#t is alleged in the motion to dismiss iled b) &ngela, 4aria, &belardo and &ntonio $odrigue%,

through counsel, that this !ourt Bhas no 0urisdiction to tr) the above-entitled case in view o the

pendenc) o another action or the settlement o the estate o the deceased $ev. "r. !elestino

$odrigue% in the !ourt o "irst #nstance o $i%al, namel), p. 2roceedings No. 398 entitled @#n

the matter o the #ntestate Estate o the deceased $ev. "r. !elestino $odrigue% which was iled

ahead o the instant caseB.

The records show that "r. !elestino $odrigue% died on "ebruar) 1', 1963 in the !it) o 4anila

that on 4arch , 1963, &polonia 2angilinan and &delaida /acalan delivered to the !ler7 o !ourto ulacan a purported last will and testament o "r. $odrigue% that on 4arch (, 1963, 4aria

$odrigue% and &ngela $odrigue%, through counsel iled a petition or leave o court to allow them

to e;amine the alleged will that on 4arch 11, 1963 beore the !ourt could act on the petition, the

same was withdrawn that on 4arch 1', 1963, aorementioned petitioners iled beore the !ourt

o "irst #nstance o $i%al a petition or the settlement o the intestate estate o "r. $odrigue%

alleging, among other things, that "r. $odrigue% was a resident o 2ara<aCue, $i%al, and died

without leaving a will and pra)ing that 4aria $odrigue% be appointed as pecial &dministratri; o

the estate and that on 4arch 1', 1963 &polonia 2angilinan and &delaida /acalan iled a petition

in this !ourt or the probation o the will delivered b) them on 4arch , 1963. #t was stipulated b)

the parties that "r. $odrigue% was born in 2ara<aCue, $i%al that he was 2arish priest o the

!atholic !hurch o agono), ulacan, rom the )ear 193 up to the time o his death in 1963 that

he was buried in 2ara<aCue, and that he let real properties in $i%al, !avite, *ue%on !it) andulacan.

The movants contend that since the intestate proceedings in the !ourt o "irst #nstance o $i%al

was iled at ( &.4. on 4arch 1', 1963 while the petition or probate was iled in the !ourt o

"irst #nstance o ulacan at 11 &.4. on the same date, the latter !ourt has no 0urisdiction to

entertain the petition or probate, citing as authorit) in support thereo the case o 4nsinco

Vda. de &orja vs. 8an and 1e &orja , F.$. No. 889', /ul) '8, 1955.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


The petitioners 2angilinan and /acalan, on the other hand, ta7e the stand that the !ourt o "irst

#nstance o ulacan acCuired 0urisdiction over the case upon deliver) b) them o the will to the

!ler7 o !ourt on 4arch , 1963, and that the case in this !ourt thereore has precedence over

the case iled in $i%al on 4arch 1', 1963.

The !ourt o "irst #nstance, as previousl) stated denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that a

dierence o a ew hours did not entitle one proceeding to preerence over the other that, as earl) as

4arch 8, movants were aware o the e;istence o the purported will o "ather $odrigue%, deposited in the

!ourt o ulacan, since the) iled a petition to e;amine the same, and that movants clearl) iled the

intestate proceedings in $i%al Bor no other purpose than to prevent this !ourt =o ulacan> rom

e;ercising 0urisdiction over the probate proceedingsB. $econsideration having been denied, movants, now

petitioners, came to this !ourt, rel)ing principall) on $ule 83, section 1 o the $ules o !ourt, and invo7ing

our ruling in 4nsinco vs. 8an and 1e &orja, D-889', /ul) '8, 1955.

E!T#+N 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled . : # the decedent is an inhabitant o the

2hilippines at the time o his death, whether a citi%en or an alien, his will shall be proved, or

letters o administration granted, and his estate settled, in the !ourt o "irst #nstance in the

province in which he resides at the time o his death, and i he is an inhabitant o a oreigncountr), the !ourt o "irst #nstance o an) province which he had estate. The court irst ta7ing

cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o a decedent, shall e;ercise 0urisdiction to the

e;clusion o all other courts. The 0urisdiction assumed b) a court, as ar as it depends on the

place o residence o the decedent, or o the location o his estate, shall not be contested in a suit

or proceeding, e;cept in an appeal rom that court, in the original case, or when the want o

0urisdiction appears on the record.

?e ind this recourse to be untenable. The 0urisdiction o the !ourt o "irst #nstance o ulacan became

vested upon the deliver) thereto o the will o the late "ather $odrigue% on 4arch , 1963, even i no

petition or its allowance was iled until later, because upon the will being deposited the court could, motu

proprio, have ta7en steps to i; the time and place or proving the will, and issued the corresponding

notices conormabl) to what is prescribed b) section 3, $ule 86, o the $evised $ules o !ourt =ection 3,

$ule 88, o the old $ules>

E!. 3. Court to appoint time for provin will . :otice thereof to be published. : ?hen a will is

delivered to, or a petition or the allowance o a will is iled in, the !ourt having 0urisdiction, such

!ourt shall i; a time and place or proving the will when all concerned ma) appear to contest the

allowance thereo, and shall cause notice o such time and place to be published three =3> wee7s

successivel), previous to the time appointed, in a newspaper o general circulation in the

province.

ut no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition or probate has been iled b) the

testator himsel.

The use o the dis0unctive in the words Bwhen a will is delivered to +$ a petition or the allowance o a will

is iledB plainl) indicates that the court ma) act upon the mere deposit therein o a decedent@s testament,

even i no petition or its allowance is as )et iled. ?here the petition or probate is made ater the deposit

o the will, the petition is deemed to relate bac7 to the time when the will was delivered. ince the

testament o "r. $odrigue% was submitted and delivered to the !ourt o ulacan on 4arch , while

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in the !ourt o "irst #nstance o $i%al onl) on 4arch 1', eight

da)s later, the precedence and e;clusive 0urisdiction o the ulacan court is incontestable.>wph?.6@t

ut, petitioners ob0ect, section 3 o revised $ule 86 =old $ule 88> spea7s o a will being delivered to Bthe

!ourt having 0urisdiction,B and in the case at bar the ulacan court did not have it because the decedent

was domiciled in $i%al province. ?e can not disregard "r. $odrigue%@s 33 )ears o residence as parish

priest in agono), ulacan =193-1963> but even i we do so, and consider that he retained throughout

some animus revertendi to the place o his birth in 2ara<aCue, $i%al, that detail would not impl) that the

ulacan court lac7ed 0urisdiction. &s ruled in previous decisions, the power to settle decedents@ estates is

conerred b) law upon all courts o irst instance, and the domicile o the testator onl) aects the venue

but not the 0urisdiction o the !ourt =$n re Haw ingco, 8 2hil. '39 $e)es vs. ia%, 83 2hil. ( ernabe

vs. ergara, 83 2hil. 686>. Neither part) denies that the late "r. $odrigue% is deceased, or that he let

personal propert) in agono), province o ulacan =t.s.n. p. 6, hearing o /une 11, 1963, &nne; BB,

2etition, $ec., p. (>. That is suicient in the case beore us.

#n the 2aw Sinco case =ante> this !ourt ruled that

B... # we consider such Cuestion o residence as one aecting the 0urisdiction o the trial court over the sub0ect-matter, the eect shall be that the whole proceedings including all decisions on the

dierent incidents which have arisen in court will have to be annulled and the same case will have

to be commenced anew beore another court o the same ran7 in another province. That this is o

mischievous eect in the prompt administration o 0ustice is too obvious to reCuire comment. =!.

Tanunchuan vs. ) uncio P !o., F.$. No. ('6, ecember 31, 19'>. "urthermore, section

6 o &ct No. 19, providing that the estate o a deceased person shall be settled in the province

where he had last resided, could not have been intended as deining the 0urisdiction o the

probate court over the sub0ect matter, because such legal provision is contained in a law o

procedure dealing merel) with procedural matters, and, as we have said time and again,

procedure is one thing and 0urisdiction over the sub0ect matter is another. =&ttorne) Feneral vs.

4anila $ailroad !ompan), ' 2hil. 5'3.> The law o 0urisdiction : &ct No. 136, ection 56, No. 5

: coners upon !ourts o "irst #nstance 0urisdiction over all probate cases independentl) o the

place o residence o the deceased.1 ince, however, there are man) !ourts o "irst #nstance in

the 2hilippines, the Daw o 2rocedure, &ct No. 19, section 6, i;es the venue or the place

where each case shall be brought. Thus, the place o residence o the deceased is not an

element o 0urisdiction over the sub0ect matter but merel) o venue. &nd it is upon this ground that

in the new $ules o !ourt the province where the estate o a deceased person shall be settled is

properl) called BvenueB =$ule 85, section 1.> 4otion or reconsideration is denied.

The estate proceedings having been initiated in the ulacan !ourt o "irst #nstance ahead o an) other,

that court is entitled to assume 0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other courts, even i it were a case o

wrong venue b) e;press provisions o $ule 83 =old $ule 85> o the $ules o !ourt, since the same en0oins

that

The !ourt irst ta7ing cogni%ance o the settlement o the estate o a decedent shall e;ercise

0urisdiction to the e;clusion o all other courts. =ec. 1>

This disposition presupposes that two or more courts have been as7ed to ta7e cogni%ance o the

settlement o the estate. + them onl) one could be o proper venue, )et the rule grants precedence to

that !ourt whose 0urisdiction is irst invo7ed, without ta7ing venue into account.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


There are two other reasons that militate against the success o petitioners. +ne is that their commencing

intestate proceedings in $i%al, ater the) learned o the deliver) o the decedent@s will to the !ourt o

ulacan, was in bad aith, patentl) done with a view to divesting the latter court o the precedence

awarded it b) the $ules. !ertainl) the order o priorit) established in $ule 83 =old $ule 85> was not

designed to convert the settlement o decedent@s estates into a race between applicants, with the

administration o the properties as the price or the leetest.

The other reason is that, in our s)stem o civil law, intestate succession is onl) subsidiar) or subordinate

to the testate, since intestac) onl) ta7es place in the absence o a valid operative will. a)s &rticle 96 o

the !ivil !ode o the 2hilippines

&$T. 96. Degal or intestate succession ta7es place

=1> # a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has subseCuentl) lost its

validit)

='> ?hen the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose o all the propert) belonging to the

testator. #n such case, legal succession shall ta7e place onl) with respect to the propert) in whichthe testator has not disposed

=3> # the suspensive condition attached to the institution o heir does not happen or is not ulilled,

or i the heir dies beore the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no substitution,

and no right o accretion ta7es place

=> ?hen the heir instituted is incapable o succeeding, e;cept in cases provided in this !ode.

Thereore, as ruled in Castro, et al. vs. Martine' , 1 2hil. 38, Bonl) ater inal decision as to the nullit) o

testate succession could an intestate succession be instituted in the orm o pre-established actionB. The

institution o intestac) proceedings in $i%al ma) not thus proceed while the probate o the purported will o "ather $odrigue% is pending.

?e rule that the ulacan !ourt o "irst #nstance was entitled to priorit) in the settlement o the estate in

Cuestion, and that in reusing to dismiss the probate. proceedings, said court did not commit an) abuse o

discretion. #t is the proceedings in the $i%al !ourt that should be discontinued.

?hereore, the writ o certiorari applied or is denied. !osts against petitioners $odrigue%.

Concepcion, C.%., &arrera, 1i'on, Reala, Ma9alintal, &en'on, %.P., 7aldivar and Sanche', %%., concur.

Foonoe'

1Now section , subpar. =e> o the /udiciar) &ct =$.&. No. '96>.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. L-1@14@ Febr+ar 2@, 196<

HE"GRACIA$ #ERNARH", e?e+or o /e e'ae e'ae o /e eea'e EU$E#I" CA&ILI an/e (n'(+e /e(r', name AR%ANH" CA&ILI an ARUR" #ERNARH", E AL., petitioners,

vs.

!"N. C"UR "F A&&EAL$ an !E !EIR$ "F !E LAE !ER%"GENA REME$, nameFRANCI$C" REME$, E AL., an *"$E I$IH"R", E AL., respondents.

(mbrosio Padilla )aw 4ffices for petitioners.

Romerico F. Flores for respondents.

#ARRERA, J.:

This is a petition b) certiorari or the review o the decision o the !ourt o &ppeals airming that o the

!ourt o "irst #nstance o ulacan holding that the probate court in pecial 2roceeding 111 had

0urisdiction to determine the validit) o the deed o donation in Cuestion and to pass upon the Cuestion o

title or ownership o the properties mentioned therein.

The acts are briel) stated in the appealed decision o the !ourt o &ppeals as ollows

Eusebio !apili and ermogena $e)es were husband and wie. The irst died on /ul) '8, 195(

and a testate proceeding or the settlement o his estate was instituted in the !ourt o the "ist

#nstance o ulacan. is will was admitted to probate on +ctober 9, 195(, disposing o his

properties in avor o his widow his cousins &rmando, Arsula, and uenaventura, all surnamed

!apili and &rturo, eogracias and Eduardo, all surnamed ernardo. ermogena $e)es hersel

died on &pril ', 1959. Apon petition o eogracias ernardo, e;ecutor o the estate o the

deceased Eusebio !apili, she was substituted b) her collateral relatives and intestate heirs,

namel), 4arcos, icente, "rancisco and ominga, all surnamed $e)es and /ose, !onstancia,

$a)munda and Elena, all surnamed #sidoro.

+n /une 1', 1959, the e;ecutor iled a pro0ect o partition in the testate proceeding in accordance

with the terms o the will, ad0udicating the estate o Eusebio !apili among the testamentar) heirs

with the e;ception o ermogena $e)es, whose share was alloted to her collateral relatives

aorementioned. +n /une 16, 1959 these relatives iled an opposition to the e;ecutor@s pro0ect o

partition and submitted a counter-pro0ect o partition o their own, claiming 1M' o the properties

mentioned in the will o the deceased Eusebio !apili on the theor) that the) belonged not to the

latter alone but to the con0ugal partnership o the spouses.

The probate court, in two orders dated /une ', 1959 and "ebruar) 1, 196, respectivel), set

the two pro0ects o partition or hearing, at which evidence was presented b) the parties, ollowed

b) the submission o memoranda discussing certain legal issues. #n the memorandum or thee;ecutor and the instituted heirs it was contended =1> that the properties disposed o in the will o

the deceased Eusebio !apili belonged to him e;clusivel) and not to the con0ugal partnership,

because ermogena $e)es had donated to him her hal share o such partnership ='> that the

collateral heirs o ermogena $e)es had no lawul standing or grounds to Cuestion the validit) o

the donation and =3> that even assuming that the) could Cuestion the validit) o the donation, the

same must be litigated not in the testate proceeding but in a separate civil action.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


?hereore, the parties respectull) pra) that the oregoing stipulation o acts be admitted and

approved b) this onorable !ourt, without pre0udice to the parties adducing other evidence to

prove their case not covered b) this stipulation o acts. >wph?.6@t

The oppositors and heirs o ermogena $e)es, on their part, argued that the deed o donation

itsel was determinative o the original con0ugal character to the properties, aside rom the legal

presumption laid down in &rticle 16 o the !ivil !ode, and that since the donation was null and

void the deceased Eusebio !apili did not become owner o the share o his wie and thereore

could not validl) dispose o it in his will.

+n eptember 1, 196, the probate court, the onorable 4. 4e0ia presiding, issued an order

declaring the donation void without ma7ing an) speciic inding as to its 0uridical nature, that is,

whether it was inter vivos or mortis causa, or the reason that, considered under the irst categor),

it alls under &rticle 133 o the !ivil !ode, which prohibits donations between spouses during the

marriage and considered under the second categor), it does not compl) with the ormalities o a

will as reCuired b) &rticle 8'( in relation to &rticle (5 o the same !ode, there being no

attestation clause. #n the same order the court disapproved both pro0ects o partition and directed

the e;ecutor to ile another,B dividing the propert) mentioned in the last will and testament o thedeceased Eusebio !apili and the properties mentioned in the deed o donation, E;hibit ,

between the instituted heirs o the deceased Eusebio !apili and the legal heirs o the deceased

ermogena $e)es, upon the basis that the said properties were con0ugal properties o the

deceased spouses.B +n eptember '8, 196, the e;ecutor iled a motion or new trial, reiterating

and emphasi%ing the contention previousl) raised in their memorandum that the probate court

had no 0urisdiction to ta7e cogni%ance o the claim o the legal heirs o ermogena $e)es

involving title to the properties mentioned in the will o Eusebio !apili and ta7ing e;ception to the

court@s declaration o the nullit) o the donation Bwithout stating acts or provision o law on which

it was based.B The motion or new trial was denied in an order dated +ctober 3, 196.

+n appeal to the !ourt o &ppeals the order appealed rom being airmed, petitioners iled this present

petition or review b) certiorari .

The petitioners-appellants contend that the appellate court erred in not declaring that the probate court,

having limited and special 0urisdiction, had generall) no power to ad0udicate title and erred in appl)ing the

e;ception to the rule.

#n a line o decisions, this !ourt consistentl) held that as a general rule, Cuestion as to title to propert)

cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings,B1 e;cept where one o the parties pra)s

merel) or the inclusion or e;clusion rom the inventor) o the propert), in which case the probate court

ma) pass provisionall) upon the Cuestion without pre0udice to its inal determination in a separate

action.' owever, we have also held that when the parties interested are all heirs o the deceased, it is

optional to them to submit to the probate court a Cuestion as to title to propert), and when so submitted,said probate court ma) deinitel) pass 0udgment thereon =2ascual v. 2ascual, 83 2hil. 561 4analac v.

+campo, et al., 83 2hil. 661> and that with the consent o the parties, matters aecting propert) under

0udicial administration ma) be ta7en cogni%ance o b) the court in the course o intestate proceeding,

provided interests o third persons are not pre0udiced =!unanan v. &mparo, ( 2hil. ''9, '3'>.

#n the light o this doctrine, ma) it be said correctl) that the trial court as well as the !ourt o &ppeals erred

in upholding the power o the probate court in this case to ad0udicate in the testate proceedings, the

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Cuestion as to whether the properties herein involved belong to the con0ugal partnership o Eusebio !apili

and ermogena $e)es, or to the deceased husband e;clusivel)J

&t the outset, let it be clariied that the matter at issue is not a Cuestion o 0urisdiction, in the sense

advanced b) appellants that the trial court had completel) no authorit) to pass upon the title to the lands

in dispute, and that its decision on the sub0ect is null and void and does not bind even those who had

invo7ed its authorit) and submitted to its decision because, it is contended, 0urisdiction is a creature o law

and parties to an action can not vest, e;tend or broaden it. # appellants@ contention is correct, then there

can be no e;ception to the no-0urisdiction theor). ut as has been stated in the case o Cunanan v.

(mparo AsupraB the upreme !ourt spea7ing through 4r. /ustice 2edro Tuason Betermination o title to

propert) is within the 0urisdiction o !ourts o "irst #nstance. The responding oriano@s ob0ection =that the

probate court lac7ed 0urisdiction to order the deliver) o the possession o the lots to the estate> relates

e;clusivel) to the procedure, which is distinct rom 0urisdiction. #t aects onl) personal rights to a mode o

practice =the iling o an independent ordinar) action> which ma) be waivedB. trictl) spea7ing, it is more a

Cuestion o 0urisdiction over the person, not over the sub0ect matter, or the 0urisdiction to tr) controversies

between heirs o a deceased person regarding the ownership o properties alleged to belong to his estate,

has been recogni%ed to be vested in probate courts. This is so because the purpose o an administration

proceeding is the liCuidation o the estate and distribution o the residue among the heirs and legatees.DiCuidation means determination o all the assets o the estate and pa)ment o all the debts and

e;penses.3 Thereater, distribution is made o the decedent@s liCuidated estate among the persons entitled

to succeed him. The proceeding is in the nature o an action o partition, in which each part) is reCuired to

bring into the mass whatever communit) propert) he has in his possession. To this end, and as a

necessar) corollar), the interested parties ma) introduce proos relative to the ownership o the properties

in dispute. &ll the heirs who ta7e part in the distribution o the decedent@s estate are beore the court, and

sub0ect to the 0urisdiction thereo, in all matters and incidents necessar) to the complete settlement o

such estate, so long as no interests o third parties are aected.

#n the case now beore us, the matter in controvers) is the Cuestion o ownership o certain o the

properties involved : whether the) belong to the con0ugal partnership or to the husband e;clusivel). This

is a matter properl) within the 0urisdiction o the probate court which necessaril) has to liCuidate the

con0ugal partnership in order to determine the estate o the decedent which is to be distributed among his

heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, o course, the widow, now represented because o

her death, b) her heirs who have been substituted upon petition o the e;ecutor himsel and who have

appeared voluntaril). There are no third parties whose rights ma) be aected. #t is true that the heirs o

the deceased widow are not heirs o the testator-husband, but the widow is, in addition to her own right to

the con0ugal propert). &nd it is this right that is being sought to be enorced b) her substitutes. Thereore,

the claim that is being asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, conseCuentl), it complies

with the reCuirement o the e;ception that the parties interested =the petitioners and the widow,

represented b) dents> are all heirs claiming title under the testator.

2etitioners contend additionall) that the) have never submitted themselves to the 0urisdiction o theprobate court, or the purpose o the determination o the Cuestion o ownership o the disputed

properties. This is not borne b) the admitted acts. +n the contrar), it is undisputed that the) were the

ones who presented the pro0ect o partition claiming the Cuestioned properties as part o the testator@s

asset. The respondents, as representatives or substitutes o the deceased widow opposed the pro0ect o

partition and submitted another. &s the !ourt o &ppeals said, B#n doing so all o them must be deemed to

have submitted the issue or resolution in the same proceeding. !ertainl), the petitioners can not be

heard to insist, as the) do, on the approval o their pro0ect o partition and, thus, have the court ta7e it or

granted that their theor) as to the character o the properties is correct, entirel) without regard to the

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


opposition o the respondentsB. #n other words, b) presenting their pro0ect o partition including therein the

disputed lands =upon the claim that the) were donated b) the wie to her husband>, petitioners

themselves put in issue the Cuestion o ownership o the properties : which is well within the

competence o the probate court : and 0ust because o an opposition thereto, the) can not thereater

withdraw either their appearance or the issue rom the 0urisdiction o the court. !ertainl), there is here a

waiver where the parties who raise the ob0ection are the ones who set the court in motion.5 The) can not

be permitted to complain i the court, ater due hearing, ad0udges Cuestion against them.6

"inall), petitioners-appellants claim that appellees are estopped to raise the Cuestion o ownership o the

properties involved because the widow hersel, during her lietime, not onl) did not ob0ect to the inclusion

o these properties in the inventor) o the assets o her deceased husband, but also signed an e;tra-

0udicial partition o those inventoried properties. ut the ver) authorities cited b) appellants reCuire that to

constitute estoppel, the actor must have 7nowledge o the acts and be appraised o his rights at the time

he perorms the act constituting estoppel, because silence without 7nowledge wor7s no estoppel.8 #n the

present case, the deceased widow acted as she did because o the deed o donation she e;ecuted in

avor o her husband not 7nowing that such deed was illegal, i inter-vivos, and ineectual i mortis-causa,

as it has not been e;ecuted with the reCuired ormalities similar to a will.

?E$E"+$E, the decision o the !ourt o &ppeals being in accordance with law, the same is hereb)

airmed with costs against appellants. o ordered.

&en'on, C.%., Padilla, &autista (nelo, )abrador, Concepcion, Re!es, %.&.)., Paredes, 1i'on and

Reala, %%., concur.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


G.R. No. 7577< A3r( 17, 1990

"%A$ *I%ENEQ, VI$IACI"N *I%ENEQ, HIGN" *I%ENEQ, AN"NI" *I%ENEQ, A%AHE"*I%ENEQ, %"HE$" *I%ENEQ an VIRGINIA *I%ENEQ, petitioners,vs.

!"N"RA#LE INER%EHIAE A&&ELLAE C"UR, !"N. A%ANHA VALERA-CA#IGA", (n /era3a( a' &re'((n) *+)e, Re)(ona r(a Co+r, #ran/ 888VII, L(n)aen, &an)a'(nan,LE"NARH" *I%ENEQ, *R. an C"RAQ"N *I%ENEQ, respondents.

Simplicio M. Sevilleja for petitioners.&itt! S. Viliran for private respondents.)eonardo &. %imene', %r. for respondents.

FERNAN, CJ.:

This is a petition or review on certiorari see7ing to reverse and set aside the decision 1 o the !ourt o &ppeals dated 4a) '9, 19(6 which dismissed the petition or certiorari and mandamus in &!-F.$. No.658( entitled BTomas /imene%, et. al. vs. on. &manda alera-!abigao.B

The acts are as ollows

The marriage o Deonardo =Dino> /imene% and !onsolacion Angson produced our => children, namel) &lberto, Deonardo, r., &le0andra and &ngeles. uring the e;istence o the marriage, Dino /imene%acCuired ive =5> parcels o land in alomague, ugallon, 2angasinan.

&ter the death o !onsolacion Angson, Dino married Fenoveva !aolbo) with whom he begot the sevenpetitioners herein Tomas, isitacion, igno, &ntonio, &madeo, 4odesto and irginia, all surnamed

/imene%. Dino /imene% died on &ugust 11, 1951 while Fenoveva !aolbo) died on November '1, 198(.

Thereater, in &pril 1989, irginia /imene% iled a petition beore the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 2angasinan,ranch , doc7eted as pecial 2roceedings No. 536, pra)ing to be appointed as administratri; o theproperties o the deceased spouses Dino and Fenoveva. Enumerated in her petition were the supposedheirs o the deceased spouses which included herein co-petitioners and the our children o Dino /imene%b) !onsolacion Angson, his previous wie.'

#n +ctober, 1989, herein private respondent Deonardo /imene%, /r., son o Deonardo /imene%, r., iled amotion or the e;clusion o his ather@s name and those o &lberto, &le0andra, and &ngeles rom thepetition, inasmuch as the) are children o the union o Dino /imene% and !onsolacion Angson and not oDino /imene% and Fenoveva !aolbo) and because the) have alread) received their inheritanceconsisting o ive =5> parcels o lands in alomague, ugallon, 2angasinan.3

+n 4arch '3, 19(1, petitioner irginia /imene% was appointed administrator o the #ntestate Estate oDino /imene% and Fenoveva !aolbo). +n 4a) '1, 19(1, she iled an inventor) o the estate o thespouses Dino /imene% and Fenoveva !aolbo) wherein she included the ive =5> parcels o land inalomague, ugallon, 2angasinan. &s a conseCuence, Deonardo /imene%, /r. moved or the e;clusion othese properties rom the inventor) on the ground that these had alread) been ad0udicated to Deonardor., &lberto, &le0andra and &ngeles b) their deceased ather Dino /imene%. 2rivate respondent Deonardo/imene%, /r. presented testimonial and documentar) evidence in support o his motion while petitioner

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/apr1990/gr_75773_1990.html#rnt1











7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


irginia /imene%, other than cross-e;amining the witnesses o Deonardo, presented no evidence o herown, oral or documentar).

+n eptember '9, 19(1, the probate court ordered the e;clusion o the ive =5> parcels o land rom theinventor) on the basis o the evidence o private respondent Deonardo /imene%, /r. which consistedamong others o =1> Ta; eclaration showing that the sub0ect properties were acCuired during the

con0ugal partnership o Dino /imene% and !onsolacion Angson and, ='> a eed o ale dated 4a) 1',196 wherein Fenoveva !aolbo) stated, that the sub0ect properties had been ad0udicated b) Dino/imene% to his children b) a previous marriage, namel) &lberto, Deonardo, &le0andra and &ngeles.5 Themotion or reconsideration o said order was denied on /anuar) '6, 19('.6

2etitioner irginia /imene% then went to the !ourt o &ppeals on a petition or certiorari and prohibition,doc7eted thereat as !&-F.$. No. 2-13916, see7ing the annulment o the order dated eptember '9,19(1 as well as the order o /anuar) '6, 19('. +n November 1(, 19(', the !ourt o &ppeals dismissedthe petition because =1> Fenoveva !aolbo), petitioners@ mother, had admitted that the sub0ect parcels oland had been ad0udicated to the children o the previous nuptial ='> the sub0ect properties could not havebeen acCuired during the marriage o Dino /imene% to Fenoveva !aolbo) because the) were alread)titled in the name o Dino /imene% even prior to 19'1, long beore Dino@s marriage to Fenoveva in 19=3> the claim o irginia /imene% was barred b) prescription because it was onl) in 19(1 when the)

Cuestioned the ad0udication o the sub0ect properties, more than ten =1> )ears ater Fenoveva hadadmitted such ad0udication in a public document in 196 and, => petitioner irginia /imene% was guilt) o laches. This decision became inal and e;ecutor).8

Two ='> )ears ater, petitioners iled an amended complaint dated ecember 1, 19( beore the $egionalTrial !ourt o 2angasinan, ranch QQQ##, doc7eted thereat as !ivil !ase No. 16111, to recoverpossessionMownership o the sub0ect ive =5> parcels o land as part o the estate o Dino /imene% andFenoveva !aolbo) and to order private respondents to render an accounting o the produce thererom.2rivate respondents moved or the dismissal o the complaint on the grounds that the action was barredb) prior 0udgment in !&-F.$. No. 2-13916 dated November 1(, 19(' and b) prescription and laches.owever, petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss contending that =1> the action was not barred b) prior

0udgment because the probate court had no 0urisdiction to determine with inalit) the Cuestion oownership o the lots which must be ventilated in a separate action and, ='> the action instituted in 19(1

was not barred b) prescription or laches because private respondents@ orcible acCuisition o the sub0ectproperties occurred onl) ater the death o petitioners@ mother, Fenoveva !aolbo) in 198(.

+n "ebruar) 13, 19(5, the trial court resolved to dismiss the complaint on the ground o res judicata. ( +n4a) 31, 19(5, petitioners@ motion or reconsideration o the resolution was denied. &s earlier intimated,the petition or certiorari and mandamus iled b) petitioners beore the appellate court was li7ewise denieddue course and dismissed in a decision dated 4a) '9, 19(6.9

ence, this recourse.

The issue in this case is whether in a settlement proceeding =testate or intestate> the lower court has 0urisdiction to settle Cuestions o ownership and whether res judicata e;ists as to bar petitioners@ presentaction or the recover) o possession and ownership o the ive =5> parcels o land. #n the negative, is the

present action or reconve)ance barred b) prescription andMor lachesJ

?e reverse. 2etitioners@ present action or recover) o possession and ownership is appropriatel) iledbecause as a general rule, a probate court can onl) pass upon Cuestions o title provisionall). ince theprobate, court@s indings are not conclusive being prima facie, 1 a separate proceeding is necessar) toestablish the ownership o the ive =5> parcels o land. 11
















7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


The patent reason is the probate court@s limited 0urisdiction and the principle that Cuestions o title orownership, which result in inclusion or e;clusion rom the inventor) o the propert), can onl) be settled ina separate action. 1'

&ll that the said court could do as regards said properties is determine whether the) should or should notbe included in the inventor) or list o properties to be administered b) the administrator. # there is a

dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties and the administrator have to resort to an ordinar)action or a inal determination o the conlicting claims o title because the probate court cannot do so. 13

The provisional character o the inclusion in the inventor) o a contested propert) was again reiterated inthe ollowing cases 2io arreto $ealt) evelopment, #nc. vs. !ourt o &ppeals, 1 /unCuera vs.orromeo, 15orromeo vs. !anono), 16 $ecto vs. de la $osa. 18 #t has also been held that in a specialproceeding or the probate o a will, the Cuestion o ownership is an e;traneous matter which the probatecourt cannot resolve with inalit). 1( This pronouncement no doubt applies with eCual orce to an intestateproceeding as in the case at bar.

Res judicata 19 does not e;ist because o the dierence in the causes o actions. peciicall) in .2. No.536, the action was or the settlement o the intestate estate o Dino /imene% and Fenoveva !aolbo)while !ivil !ase No. 16111 was an action or the recover) o possession and ownership o the ive =5>

parcels o land. 4oreover, while admittedl), the !ourt o "irst #nstance o 2angasinan, ranch in .2.No. 536 had 0urisdiction, the same was merel) limited 0urisdiction. &n) pronouncement b) said court asto title is not conclusive and could still be attac7ed in a separate proceeding. !ivil !ase No. 16111, on theother hand. was lodged beore the $egional Trial !ourt o 2angasinan, ranch QQQ## in the e;ercise othe court@s general 0urisdiction. #t was, in act, such Bseparate or ordinar) proceedingsB contemplated b)the rules or a inal determination o the issue o ownership o the disputed properties. To repeat, since thedetermination o the Cuestion o title to the sub0ect properties in .2. 536 was merel) provisional,petitioners are not barred rom instituting the appropriate action in !ivil !ase No. 16111.

#ndeed, the grounds relied upon b) private respondents in their motion to dismiss do not appear to beindubitable.-wphi Res judicata has been shown here to be unavailable and the other grounds oprescription and laches pleaded b) private respondents are seriousl) disputed. The allegation in thecomplaint is that the heirs o Deonardo /imene%, r. =reerring to private respondents,> orcibl) intruded

into and too7 possession o the disputed properties onl) in 198(, ater the death o Fenoveva !aolbo).ince the action or reconve)ance was instituted in 19(, it would appear that the same has not )etprescribed or otherwise barred b) laches.

There are a number o actual issues raised b) petitioners beore the lower court which cannot beresolved without the presentation o evidence at a ull-blown trial and which ma7e the grounds ordismissal dubitable. &mong others, the alleged admission made b) petitioners@ mother in the deed o saleis vehementl) denied, as well as the act itsel o ad0udication, there being no showing that the con0ugalpartnership o Dino /imene% and !onsolacion Angson had been liCuidated nor that a 0udicial or e;tra-

0udicial settlement o the estate o Dino /imene% was underta7en whereb) such ad0udication could havebeen eected.

The grounds stated in the motion to dismiss not being indubitable, the trial court committed grave abuse

o discretion in dismissing the complaint in !ivil !ase No. 16111.

?E$E"+$E, the Cuestioned decision o the respondent appellate court is hereb) $EE$E. !ivil!ase No. 16111 is reinstated and the $egional Trial !ourt o 2angasinan, ranch QQQ## is directed toproceed in said case with dispatch.

+ +$E$E.






















7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Feliciano, &idin and Cortes, %%., concur./utierre', %r., %, is on leave.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


FERHINANH R. %ARC"$ II, petitioner, vs. C"UR "F A&&EAL$, !E C"%%I$$I"NER "F !E#UREAU "F INERNAL REVENUE an !ER%INIA H. HE GUQ%AN, respondents.

H E C I $ I " N

"RRE$, *R., J .

#n this 2etition or $eview on Certiorari, Fovernment action is once again assailed as precipitate and

unair, suering the basic and otl) implored reCuisites o due process o law. peciicall), the petition

assails the ecision1O o the !ourt o &ppeals dated November '9, 199 in !&-F.$. 2 No. 31363, where

the said court held

B#n view o all the oregoing, we rule that the deicienc) income ta; assessments and estate ta;

assessment, are alread) inal and =u>nappealable -and- the subseCuent lev) o real properties is a ta;

remed) resorted to b) the government, sanctioned b) ection '13 and '1( o the National #nternal

$evenue !ode. This summar) ta; remed) is distinct and separate rom the other ta; remedies =such as

/udicial !ivil actions and !riminal actions>, and is not aected or precluded b) the pendenc) o an) otherta; remedies instituted b) the government.

?E$E"+$E, premises considered, 0udgment is hereb) rendered #4##NF the petition or certiorari

with pra)er or $estraining +rder and #n0unction.

No pronouncements as to costs.

+ +$E$E.B

4ore than seven )ears since the demise o the late "erdinand E. 4arcos, the ormer 2resident o the

$epublic o the 2hilippines, the matter o the settlement o his estate, and its dues to the government inestate ta;es, are still unresolved, the latter issue being now beore this !ourt or resolution. peciicall),

petitioner "erdinand $. 4arcos ##, the eldest son o the decedent, Cuestions the actuations o the

respondent !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue in assessing, and collecting through the summar) remed)

o Dev) on $eal 2roperties, estate and income ta; delinCuencies upon the estate and properties o his

ather, despite the pendenc) o the proceedings on probate o the will o the late president, which is

doc7eted as p. 2roc. No. 1'89 in the $egional Trial !ourt o 2asig, ranch 156.

2etitioner had iled with the respondent !ourt o &ppeals a 2etition or Certiorari and 2rohibition with

an application or writ o preliminar) in0unction andMor temporar) restraining order on /une '(, 1993,

see7ing to -

#. &nnul and set aside the Notices o Dev) on real propert) dated "ebruar) '', 1993 and 4a) ', 1993,

issued b) respondent !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue

##. &nnul and set aside the Notices o ale dated 4a) '6, 1993

###. En0oin the ead $evenue E;ecutive &ssistant irector ## =!ollection ervice>, rom proceeding with the

&uction o the real properties covered b) Notices o ale.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn1


7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


&ter the parties had pleaded their case, the !ourt o &ppeals rendered its ecision 'O on November

'9, 199, ruling that the deicienc) assessments or estate and income ta; made upon the petitioner and

the estate o the deceased 2resident 4arcos have alread) become inal and unappealable, and ma) thus

be enorced b) the summar) remed) o lev)ing upon the properties o the late 2resident, as was done b)

the respondent !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue.

B?E$E"+$E, premises considered 0udgment is hereb) rendered #4##NF the petition or

!ertiorari with pra)er or $estraining +rder and #n0unction.

No pronouncements as to cost.

+ +$E$E.B

Anperturbed, petitioner is now beore us assailing the validit) o the appellate court@s decision,

assigning the ollowing as errors

&. $E2+NENT !+A$T 4&N#"ETDI E$$E #N $AD#NF T&T TE A44&$I T&Q

$E4E#E $E+$TE T+ I TE F+E$N4ENT &$E N+T &""E!TE &N 2$E!DAE I TE2ENEN!I +" TE 2E!#&D 2$+!EE#NF "+$ TE &DD+?&N!E +" TE D&TE 2$E#ENT@

&DDEFE ?#DD. T+ TE !+NT$&$I, T# 2$+&TE 2$+!EE#NF 2$E!#EDI 2D&!E &DD

2$+2E$T#E ?#! "+$4 2&$T +" TE D&TE 2$E#ENT@ ET&TE #N !AT+#& DEF# +"

TE 2$+&TE !+A$T T+ TE EQ!DA#+N +" &DD +TE$ !+A$T &N &4#N#T$&T#E

&FEN!#E.

. $E2+NENT !+A$T &$#T$&$#DI E$$E #N ?EE2#NFDI E!##NF T&T #N!E TE

T&Q &E4ENT +" 2ET#T#+NE$ &N # 2&$ENT & &D$E&I E!+4E "#N&D &N

AN&22E&D&DE, TE$E ?& N+ NEE T+ F+ #NT+ TE 4E$#T +" TE F$+AN !#TE #N

TE 2ET#T#+N. #NE2ENENT +" ?ETE$ TE T&Q &E4ENT & &D$E&I E!+4E

"#N&D, +?EE$, 2ET#T#+NE$ & TE $#FT T+ *AET#+N TE AND&?"AD 4&NNE$ &N

4ET+ #N ?#! T&Q !+DDE!T#+N # +AFT T+ E EN"+$!E I $E2+NENT

!+44##+NE$ &N E FAG4&N. TA, $E2+NENT !+A$T +AD &E "&+$&DI

!+N#E$E TE 4E$#T +" TE "+DD+?#NF F$+AN #N TE 2ET#T#+N

=1> The Notices o Dev) on $eal 2ropert) were issued be)ond the period provided in the $evenue

4emorandum !ircular No. 3(-6(.

='> aO The numerous pending court cases Cuestioning the late 2resident@s ownership or interests in

several properties =both personal and real> ma7e the total value o his estate, and the conseCuent

estate ta; due, incapable o e;act pecuniar) determination at this time. Thus, respondents

assessment o the estate ta; and their issuance o the Notices o Dev) and ale are premature,

coniscator) and oppressive.

bO 2etitioner, as one o the late 2resident@s compulsor) heirs, was never notiied, much less served

with copies o the Notices o Dev), contrar) to the mandate o ection '13 o the N#$!. &s such,

petitioner was never given an opportunit) to contest the Notices in violation o his right to due

process o law.




7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


!. +N &!!+ANT +" TE !DE&$ 4E$#T +" TE 2ET#T#+N, $E2+NENT !+A$T

4&N#"ETDI E$$E #N $AD#NF T&T #T & N+ 2+?E$ T+ F$&NT #N/AN!T#E $ED#E" T+

2ET#T#+NE$. E!T#+N '19 +" TE N#$! N+T?#TT&N#NF, !+A$T 2+E TE 2+?E$

T+ #AE & ?$#T +" 2$ED#4#N&$I #N/AN!T#+N T+ $ET$&#N $E2+NENT

!+44##+NE$@ &N E FAG4&N@ &$#T$&$I 4ET+ +" !+DDE!T#NF TE &DDEFE

E"#!#EN!I ET&TE &N #N!+4E T&QE I 4E&N +" DEI.

The acts as ound b) the appellate court are undisputed, and are hereb) adopted

B+n eptember '9, 19(9, ormer 2resident "erdinand 4arcos died in onolulu, awaii, A&.

+n /une '8, 199, a pecial Ta; &udit Team was created to conduct investigations and e;aminations o

the ta; liabilities and obligations o the late president, as well as that o his amil), associates and

BcroniesB. aid audit team concluded its investigation with a 4emorandum dated /ul) '6, 1991. The

investigation disclosed that the 4arcoses ailed to ile a written notice o the death o the decedent, an

estate ta; returns sicO, as well as several income ta; returns covering the )ears 19(' to 19(6, -all in

violation o the National #nternal $evenue !ode =N#$!>.

ubseCuentl), criminal charges were iled against 4rs. #melda $. 4arcos beore the $egional Trial o

*ue%on !it) or violations o ections (', (3 and ( =has penali%ed under ections '53 and '5 in

relation to ection '5'- a P b> o the National #nternal $evenue !ode =N#$!>.

The !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue thereb) caused the preparation and iling o the Estate Ta; $eturn

or the estate o the late president, the #ncome Ta; $eturns o the pouses 4arcos or the )ears 19(5 to

19(6, and the #ncome Ta; $eturns o petitioner "erdinand @ongbong@ 4arcos ## or the )ears 19(' to

19(5.

+n /ul) '6, 1991, the #$ issued the ollowing =1> eicienc) estate ta; assessment no. "&!-'-(9-91-

'6 =against the estate o the late president "erdinand 4arcos in the amount o 2'3,'93,68,63(.

2esos> ='> eicienc) income ta; assessment no. "&!-1-(5-91-'5' and eicienc) income ta;

assessment no. "&!-1-(6-91-'51 =against the pouses "erdinand and #melda 4arcos in the amounts

o 219,551.8 and 21(,9,838. representing deicienc) income ta; or the )ears 19(5 and 19(6>

=3> eicienc) income ta; assessment nos. "&!-1-('-91-'6 to "&!-1-(5-91-'63 =against

petitioner "erdinand @ongbong@ 4arcos ## in the amounts o 2'5(.8 pesos 29,3(6. 2esos 2,3((.3

2esos and 26,386.6 2esos representing his deicienc) income ta;es or the )ears 19(' to 19(5>.

The !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue avers that copies o the deicienc) estate and income ta;

assessments were all personall) and constructivel) served on &ugust '6, 1991 and eptember 1', 1991

upon 4rs. #melda 4arcos =through her careta7er 4r. 4artine%> at her last 7nown address at No.

' +rtega t., an /uan, 4.4. =&nne;es @@ and @E@ o the 2etition>. Di7ewise, copies o the deicienc)

ta; assessments issued against petitioner "erdinand @ongbong@ 4arcos ## were also personall) andconstructivel) served upon him =through his careta7er> on eptember 1', 1991, at his last 7nown address

at on 4ariano 4arcos t. corner 2. Fuevarra t., an /uan, 4.4. =&nne;es @/@ and @/-1@ o the

2etition>. Thereater, "ormal &ssessment notices were served on +ctober ', 199', upon 4rs. 4arcos

cMo petitioner, at his oice, ouse o $epresentatives, atasan 2ambansa, *ue%on !it). 4oreover, a

notice to Ta;pa)er inviting 4rs. 4arcos =or her dul) authori%ed representative or counsel>, to a

conerence, was urnished the counsel o 4rs. 4arcos, ean &ntonio !oronel - but to no avail.

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


The deicienc) ta; assessments were not protested administrativel), b) 4rs. 4arcos and the other heirs

o the late president, within 3 da)s rom service o said assessments.

+n "ebruar) '', 1993, the #$ !ommissioner issued twent)-two notices o lev) on real propert) against

certain parcels o land owned b) the 4arcoses - to satis) the alleged estate ta; and deicienc) income

ta;es o pouses 4arcos.

+n 4a) ', 1993, our more Notices o Dev) on real propert) were issued or the purpose o satis)ing the

deicienc) income ta;es.

+n 4a) '6, 1993, additional our => notices o Dev) on real propert) were again issued. The oregoing

ta; remedies were resorted to pursuant to ections '5 and '13 o the National #nternal $evenue !ode

=N#$!>.

#n response to a letter dated 4arch 1', 1993 sent b) &tt). Doreto &ta =counsel o herein petitioner> calling

the attention o the #$ and reCuesting that the) be dul) notiied o an) action ta7en b) the #$ aecting

the interest o their client "erdinand @ongbong 4arcos ##, as well as the interest o the late president -

copies o the aoresaid notices were served on &pril 8, 1993 and on /une 1, 1993, upon 4rs. #melda4arcos, the petitioner, and their counsel o record, @e or0a, 4edialdea, &ta, ello, Fuevarra and

erapio Daw +ice@.

Notices o sale at public auction were posted on 4a) '6, 1993, at the lobb) o the !it) all o Tacloban

!it). The public auction or the sale o the eleven =11> parcels o land too7 place on /ul) 5, 1993. There

being no bidder, the lots were declared oreited in avor o the government.

+n /une '5, 1993, petitioner "erdinand @ongbong@ 4arcos ## iled the instant petition or certiorari and

prohibition under $ule 65 o the $ules o !ourt, with pra)er or temporar) restraining order andMor writ o

preliminar) in0unction.B

#t has been repeatedl) observed, and not without merit, that the enorcement o ta; laws and the

collection o ta;es, is o paramount importance or the sustenance o government. Ta;es are the lieblood

o the government and should be collected without unnecessar) hindrance.owever, such collection

should be made in accordance with law as an) arbitrariness will negate the ver) reason or government

itsel. #t is thereore necessar) to reconcile the apparentl) conlicting interests o the authorities and the

ta;pa)ers so that the real purpose o ta;ation, which is the promotion o the common good, ma) be

achieved.B3O

?hether or not the proper avenues o assessment and collection o the said ta; obligations were

ta7en b) the respondent ureau is now the sub0ect o the !ourt@s inCuir).

2etitioner posits that notices o lev), notices o sale, and subseCuent sale o properties o the late2resident 4arcos eected b) the #$ are null and void or disregarding the established procedure or the

enorcement o ta;es due upon the estate o the deceased. The case o omingo vs. FarlitosO is

speciicall) cited to bolster the argument that Bthe ordinar) procedure b) which to settle claims o

indebtedness against the estate o a deceased, person, as in an inheritance =estate> ta;, is or the

claimant to present a claim beore the probate court so that said court ma) order the administrator to pa)

the amount thereor.B This remed) is allegedl), e;clusive, and cannot be eected through an) other

means.





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


2etitioner goes urther, submitting that the probate court is not precluded rom den)ing a reCuest b)

the government or the immediate pa)ment o ta;es, and should order the pa)ment o the same onl)

within the period i;ed b) the probate court or the pa)ment o all the debts o the decedent. #n this regard,

petitioner cites the case o !ollector o #nternal $evenue vs. The &dministratri; o the Estate o Echarri

=68 2hil 5'>, where it was held that

BThe case o 2ineda vs. !ourt o "irst #nstance o Ta)abas and !ollector o #nternal $evenue =5' 2hil

(3>, relied upon b) the petitioner-appellant is good authorit) on the proposition that the court having

control over the administration proceedings has 0urisdiction to entertain the claim presented b) the

government or ta;es due and to order the administrator to pa) the ta; should it ind that the assessment

was proper, and that the ta; was legal, due and collectible. &nd the rule laid down in that case must be

understood in relation to the case o !ollector o !ustoms vs. a)good, supra., as to the procedure to be

ollowed in a given case b) the government to eectuate the collection o the ta;. !ategoricall) stated,

where during the pendenc) o 0udicial administration over the estate o a deceased person a claim or

ta;es is presented b) the government, the court has the authorit) to order pa)ment b) the administrator

but, in the same wa) that it has authorit) to order pa)ment or satisaction, it also has the negative

authorit) to den) the same. ?hile there are cases where courts are reCuired to perorm certain duties

mandator) and ministerial in character, the unction o the court in a case o the present character is notone o them and here, the court cannot be an organism endowed with latitude o 0udgment in one

direction, and converted into a mere mechanical contrivance in another direction.B

+n the other hand, it is argued b) the #$, that the state@s authorit) to collect internal revenue ta;es

is paramount. Thus, the pendenc) o probate proceedings over the estate o the deceased does not

preclude the assessment and collection, through summar) remedies, o estate ta;es over the

same. &ccording to the respondent, claims or pa)ment o estate and income ta;es due and assessed

ater the death o the decedent need not be presented in the orm o a claim against the estate. These

can and should be paid immediatel). The probate court is not the government agenc) to decide whether

an estate is liable or pa)ment o estate o income ta;es. ?ell-settled is the rule that the probate court is a

court with special and limited 0urisdiction.

!oncededl), the authorit) o the $egional Trial !ourt, sitting, albeit with limited 0urisdiction, as a

probate court over estate o deceased individual, is not a triling thing. The court@s 0urisdiction, once

invo7ed, and made eective, cannot be treated with indierence nor should it be ignored with impunit) b)

the ver) parties invo7ing its authorit).

#n testament to this, it has been held that it is within the 0urisdiction o the probate court to approve

the sale o properties o a deceased person b) his prospective heirs beore inal ad0udication 5O to

determine who are the heirs o the decedent 6O the recognition o a natural child 8Othe status o a woman

claiming to be the legal wie o the decedent(O the legalit) o disinheritance o an heir b) the testator9O and to pass upon the validit) o a waiver o hereditar) rights.1O

The pivotal Cuestion the court is tas7ed to resolve reers to the authorit) o the ureau o #nternal

$evenue to collect b) the summar) remed) o lev)ing upon, and sale o real properties o the decedent,

estate ta; deiciencies, without the cognition and authorit) o the court sitting in probate over the

supposed will o the deceased.

The nature o the process o estate ta; collection has been described as ollows
















7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Btrictl) spea7ing, the assessment o an inheritance ta; does not directl) involve the administration o a

decedent@s estate, although it ma) be viewed as an incident to the complete settlement o an estate, and,

under some statutes, it is made the dut) o the probate court to ma7e the amount o the inheritance ta; a

part o the inal decree o distribution o the estate. #t is not against the propert) o decedent, nor is it a

claim against the estate as such, but it is against the interest or propert) right which the heir, legatee,

devisee, etc., has in the propert) ormerl) held b) decedent. "urther, under some statutes, it has been

held that it is not a suit or controvers) between the parties, nor is it an adversar) proceeding between the

state and the person who owes the ta; on the inheritance. owever, under other statutes it has been held

that the hearing and determination o the cash value o the assets and the determination o the ta; are

adversar) proceedings. The proceeding has been held to be necessaril) a proceeding in rem. 11O

#n the 2hilippine e;perience, the enorcement and collection o estate ta;, is e;ecutive in character,

as the legislature has seen it it to ascribe this tas7 to the ureau o #nternal $evenue. ection 3 o the

National #nternal $evenue !ode attests to this

Bec. 3. 2owers and duties o the ureau.-The powers and duties o the ureau o #nternal $evenue shall

comprehend the assessment and collection o all national internal revenue ta;es, ees, and charges, and

the enorcement o all oreitures, penalties, and ines connected therewith, including the e;ecution o 0udgments in all cases decided in its avor b) the !ourt o Ta; &ppeals and the ordinar) courts. aid

ureau shall also give eect to and administer the supervisor) and police power conerred to it b) this

!ode or other laws.B

Thus, it was in era vs. "ernande% 1'O that the court recogni%ed the liberal treatment o claims or

ta;es charged against the estate o the decedent. uch ta;es, we said, were e;empted rom the

application o the statute o non-claims, and this is 0ustiied b) the necessit) o government unding,

immortali%ed in the ma;im that ta;es are the lieblood o the

government. Vectialia nervi sunt rei publicae - ta;es are the sinews o the state.

BTa;es assessed against the estate o a deceased person, ater administration is opened, need not be

submitted to the committee on claims in the ordinar) course o administration. #n the e;ercise o its control

over the administrator, the court ma) direct the pa)ment o such ta;es upon motion showing that the

ta;es have been assessed against the estate.B

uch liberal treatment o internal revenue ta;es in the probate proceedings e;tends so ar, even to

allowing the enorcement o ta; obligations against the heirs o the decedent, even ater distribution o the

estate@s properties.

B!laims or ta;es, whether assessed beore or ater the death o the deceased, can be collected rom the

heirs even ater the distribution o the properties o the decedent. The) are e;empted rom the application

o the statute o non-claims. The heirs shall be liable thereor, in proportion to their share in the

inheritance.B13O

BThus, the Fovernment has two wa)s o collecting the ta;es in Cuestion. +ne, b) going ater all the heirs

and collecting rom each one o them the amount o the ta; proportionate to the inheritance

received. &nother remed), pursuant to the lien created b) ection 315 o the Ta; !ode upon all propert)

and rights to propert) belong to the ta;pa)er or unpaid income ta;, is b) sub0ecting said propert) o the

estate which is in the hands o an heir or transeree to the pa)ment o the ta; due the estate.

=!ommissioner o #nternal $evenue vs. 2ineda, '1 !$& 15, eptember 15, 1968.>







7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


"rom the oregoing, it is discernible that the approval o the court, sitting in probate, or as a

settlement tribunal over the deceased is not a mandator) reCuirement in the collection o estate ta;es. #t

cannot thereore be argued that the Ta; ureau erred in proceeding with the lev)ing and sale o the

properties allegedl) owned b) the late 2resident, on the ground that it was reCuired to see7 irst the

probate court@s sanction. There is nothing in the Ta; !ode, and in the pertinent remedial laws that implies

the necessit) o the probate or estate settlement court@s approval o the state@s claim or estate ta;es,

beore the same can be enorced and collected.

+n the contrar), under ection (8 o the N#$!, it is the probate or settlement court which is bidden

not to authori%e the e;ecutor or 0udicial administrator o the decedent@s estate to deliver an) distributive

share to an) part) interested in the estate, unless it is shown a !ertiication b) the !ommissioner o

#nternal $evenue that the estate ta;es have been paid. This provision disproves the petitioner@s

contention that it is the probate court which approves the assessment and collection o the estate ta;.

# there is an) issue as to the validit) o the #$@s decision to assess the estate ta;es, this should

have been pursued through the proper administrative and 0udicial avenues provided or b) law.

ection ''9 o the N#$! tells us how

Bec. ''9. 2rotesting o assessment.-?hen the !ommissioner o #nternal $evenue or his dul) authori%ed

representative inds that proper ta;es should be assessed, he shall irst noti) the ta;pa)er o his

indings. ?ithin a period to be prescribed b) implementing regulations, the ta;pa)er shall be reCuired to

respond to said notice. # the ta;pa)er ails to respond, the !ommissioner shall issue an assessment

based on his indings.

uch assessment ma) be protested administrativel) b) iling a reCuest or reconsideration or

reinvestigation in such orm and manner as ma) be prescribed b) implementing regulations within =3>

da)s rom receipt o the assessment otherwise, the assessment shall become inal and unappealable.

# the protest is denied in whole or in part, the individual, association or corporation adversel) aected b)

the decision on the protest ma) appeal to the !ourt o Ta; &ppeals within thirt) =3> da)s rom receipt o

said decision otherwise, the decision shall become inal, e;ecutor) and demandable. =&s inserted b) 2..

1883>B

&part rom ailing to ile the reCuired estate ta; return within the time reCuired or the iling o the

same, petitioner, and the other heirs never Cuestioned the assessments served upon them, allowing the

same to lapse into inalit), and prompting the #$ to collect the said ta;es b) lev)ing upon the properties

let b) 2resident 4arcos.

2etitioner submits, however, that Bwhile the assessment o ta;es ma) have been validl) underta7en

b) the Fovernment, collection thereo ma) have been done in violation o the law. Thus, the manner andmethod in which the latter is enorced ma) be Cuestioned separatel), and irrespective o the inalit) o the

ormer, because the Fovernment does not have the unbridled discretion to enorce collection without

regard to the clear provision o law.B1O

2etitioner speciicall) points out that appl)ing 4emorandum !ircular No. 3(-6(, implementing

ections 31( and 3' o the old ta; code =$epublic &ct 5'3>, the #$@s Notices o Dev) on the 4arcos

properties, were issued be)ond the allowed period, and are thereore null and void



7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


B...the Notices o Dev) on $eal 2ropert) =&nne;es to NN o &nne; ! o this 2etition> in satisaction o

said assessments were still issued b) respondents well be)ond the period mandated in $evenue

4emorandum !ircular No. 3(-6(. These Notices o Dev) were issued onl) on '' "ebruar) 1993 and '

4a) 1993 when at least seventeen =18> months had alread) lapsed rom the last service o ta;

assessment on 1' eptember 1991. &s no notices o distraint o personal propert) were irst issued b)

respondents, the latter should have complied with $evenue 4emorandum !ircular No. 3(-6( and issued

these Notices o Dev) not earlier than three =3> months nor later than si; =6> months rom 1' eptember

1991. #n accordance with the !ircular, respondents onl) had until 1' 4arch 199' =the last da) o the si;th

month> within which to issue these Notices o Dev). The Notices o Dev), having been issued be)ond the

period allowed b) law, are thus void and o no eect.B15O

?e hold otherwise. The Notices o Dev) upon real propert) were issued within the prescriptive period

and in accordance with the provisions o the present Ta; !ode. The deicienc) ta; assessment, having

alread) become inal, e;ecutor), and demandable, the same can now be collected through the summar)

remed) o distraint or lev) pursuant to ection '5 o the N#$!.

The applicable provision in regard to the prescriptive period or the assessment and collection o ta;

deicienc) in this instance is &rticle ''3 o the N#$!, which pertinentl) provides

Bec. ''3. E;ceptions as to a period o limitation o assessment and collection o ta;es.- =a> #n the case o

a alse or raudulent return with intent to evade ta; or o a ailure to ile a return, the ta; ma) be assessed,

or a proceeding in court or the collection o such ta; ma) be begun without assessment, at an) time

within ten =1> )ears ater the discover) o the alsit), raud, or omission Provided , That, in a raud

assessment which has become inal and e;ecutor), the act o raud shall be 0udiciall) ta7en cogni%ance

o in the civil or criminal action or the collection thereo.

;;;

=c> &n) internal revenue ta; which has been assessed within the period o limitation above prescribed,

ma) be collected b) distraint or lev) or b) a proceeding in court within three )ears ollowing the

assessment o the ta;.

;;;

The omission to ile an estate ta; return, and the subseCuent ailure to contest or appeal the

assessment made b) the #$ is atal to the petitioner@s cause, as under the above-cited provision, in case

o ailure to ile a return, the ta; ma) be assessed at an) time within ten )ears ater the omission, and an)

ta; so assessed ma) be collected b) lev) upon real propert) within three )ears ollowing the assessment

o the ta;. ince the estate ta; assessment had become inal and unappealable b) the petitioner@s deault

as regards protesting the validit) o the said assessment, there is now no reason wh) the #$ cannot

continue with the collection o the said ta;. &n) ob0ection against the assessment should have beenpursued ollowing the avenue paved in ection ''9 o the N#$! on protests on assessments o internal

revenue ta;es.

2etitioner urther argues that Bthe numerous pending court cases Cuestioning the late president@s

ownership or interests in several properties =both real and personal> ma7e the total value o his estate,

and the conseCuent estate ta; due, incapable o e;act pecuniar) determination at this time. Thus,

respondents@ assessment o the estate ta; and their issuance o the Notices o Dev) and sale are



7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


premature and oppressive.B e points out the pendenc) o andiganba)an !ivil !ase Nos. 1-3

and 11, which were iled b) the government to Cuestion the ownership and interests o the late

2resident in real and personal properties located within and outside the 2hilippines. 2etitioner, however,

omits to allege whether the properties levied upon b) the #$ in the collection o estate ta;es upon the

decedent@s estate were among those involved in the said cases pending in the andiganba)an. #ndeed,

the court is at a loss as to how these cases are relevant to the matter at issue. The mere act that the

decedent has pending cases involving ill-gotten wealth does not aect the enorcement o ta;

assessments over the properties indubitabl) included in his estate.

2etitioner also e;presses his reservation as to the propriet) o the #$@s total assessment

o 2'3,'9',68,63(., stating that this amount deviates rom the indings o the epartment o /ustice@s

2anel o 2rosecutors as per its resolution o ' eptember 1991. &llegedl), this is clear evidence o the

uncertaint) on the part o the Fovernment as to the total value o the estate o the late 2resident.

This is, to our mind, the petitioner@s last ditch eort to assail the assessment o estate ta; which had

alread) become inal and unappealable.

#t is not the epartment o /ustice which is the government agenc) tas7ed to determine the amounto ta;es due upon the sub0ect estate, but the ureau o #nternal $evenue 16O whose determinations and

assessments are presumed correct and made in good aith. 18O The ta;pa)er has the dut) o proving

otherwise. #n the absence o proo o an) irregularities in the perormance o oicial duties, an

assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawul

where it does not appear to have been arrived at arbitraril) or capriciousl). The burden o proo is upon

the complaining part) to show clearl) that the assessment is erroneous. "ailure to present proo o error

in the assessment will 0usti) the 0udicial airmance o said assessment. 1(O #n this instance, petitioner has

not pointed out one single provision in the 4emorandum o the pecial &udit Team which gave rise to the

Cuestioned assessment, which bears a trace o alsit). #ndeed, the petitioner@s attac7 on the assessment

bears mainl) on the alleged improbable and unconscionable amount o the ta;es charged. ut mere

rhetoric cannot suppl) the basis or the charge o impropriet) o the assessments made.

4oreover, these ob0ections to the assessments should have been raised, considering the ample

remedies aorded the ta;pa)er b) the Ta; !ode, with the ureau o #nternal $evenue and the !ourt o

Ta; &ppeals, as described earlier, and cannot be raised now via 2etition or Certiorari , under the prete;t o

grave abuse o discretion. The course o action ta7en b) the petitioner relects his disregard or even

repugnance o the established institutions or governance in the scheme o a well-ordered societ). The

sub0ect ta; assessments having become inal, e;ecutor) and enorceable, the same can no longer be

contested b) means o a disguised protest. #n the main, Certiorari ma) not be used as a substitute or a

lost appeal or remed).19O This 0udicial polic) becomes more pronounced in view o the absence o

suicient attac7 against the actuations o government.

+n the matter o suicienc) o service o Notices o &ssessment to the petitioner, we ind therespondent appellate court@s pronouncements sound and resilient to petitioner@s attac7s.

B&nent grounds 3=b> and => - both allegingMclaiming lac7 o notice - ?e ind, ater considering the acts

and circumstances, as well as evidences, that there was suicient, constructive andMor actual notice o

assessments, lev) and sale, sent to herein petitioner "erdinand BongbongB 4arcos as well as to his

mother 4rs. #melda 4arcos.











7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


Even i we are to rule out the notices o assessments personall) given to the careta7er o 4rs. 4arcos at

the latter@s last 7nown address, on &ugust '6, 1991 and eptember 1', 1991, as well as the notices o

assessment personall) given to the careta7er o petitioner also at his last 7nown address on eptember

1', 1991 - the subseCuent notices given thereater could no longer be ignored as the) were sent at a time

when petitioner was alread) here in the 2hilippines, and at a place where said notices would surel) be

called to petitioner@s attention, and received b) responsible persons o suicient age and discretion.

Thus, on +ctober ', 199', ormal assessment notices were served upon 4rs. 4arcos cMo the petitioner,

at his oice, ouse o $epresentatives, atasan 2ambansa, *.!. =&nne;es B&B, B&-1B, B&-'B, B&-3B pp.

'8-'1, !ommentM4emorandum o +F>. 4oreover, a notice to ta;pa)er dated +ctober (, 199' inviting

4rs. 4arcos to a conerence relative to her ta; liabilities, was urnished the counsel o 4rs. 4arcos -

ean &ntonio !oronel =&nne; BB, p. '11, ibid>. Thereater, copies o Notices were also served upon 4rs.

#melda 4arcos, the petitioner and their counsel Be or0a, 4edialdea, &ta, ello, Fuevarra and erapio

Daw +iceB, on &pril 8, 1993 and /une 1, 1993. espite all o these Notices, petitioner never lited a

inger to protest the assessments, =upon which the Dev) and sale o properties were based>, nor appealed

the same to the !ourt o Ta; &ppeals.

There being suicient service o Notices to herein petitioner =and his mother> and it appearing thatpetitioner continuousl) ignored said Notices despite several opportunities given him to ile a protest and to

thereater appeal to the !ourt o Ta; &ppeals, - the ta; assessments sub0ect o this case, upon which the

lev) and sale o properties were based, could no longer be contested =directl) or indirectl)> via this instant

petition or certiorari.B'O

2etitioner argues that all the Cuestioned Notices o Dev), however, must be nulliied or having been

issued without validl) serving copies thereo to the petitioner. &s a mandator) heir o the decedent,

petitioner avers that he has an interest in the sub0ect estate, and notices o lev) upon its properties should

have been served upon him.

?e do not agree. #n the case o notices o lev) issued to satis) the delinCuent estate ta;, the

delinCuent ta;pa)er is the Estate o the decedent, and not necessaril), and e;clusivel), the petitioner as

heir o the deceased. #n the same vein, in the matter o income ta; delinCuenc) o the late president and

his spouse, petitioner is not the ta;pa)er liable. Thus, it ollows that service o notices o lev) in

satisaction o these ta; delinCuencies upon the petitioner is not reCuired b) law, as under ection '13 o

the N#$!, which pertinentl) states

B;;;

...Dev) shall be eected b) writing upon said certiicate a description o the propert) upon which lev) is

made. &t the same time, written notice o the lev) shall be mailed to or served upon the $egister o eeds

o the province or cit) where the propert) is located and upon the delinCuent ta;pa)er, or i he be absent

rom the 2hilippines, to his agent or the manager o the business in respect to which the liabilit) arose, ori there be none, to the occupant o the propert) in Cuestion.

;;;B

The oregoing notwithstanding, the record shows that notices o warrants o distraint and lev) o sale

were urnished the counsel o petitioner on &pril 8, 1993, and /une 1, 1993, and the petitioner himsel on

&pril 1', 1993 at his oice at the atasang 2ambansa. '1O ?e cannot thereore, countenance petitioner@s





7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


insistence that he was denied due process. ?here there was an opportunit) to raise ob0ections to

government action, and such opportunit) was disregarded, or no 0ustiiable reason, the part) claiming

oppression then becomes the oppressor o the orderl) unctions o government. e who comes to court

must come with clean hands. +therwise, he not onl) taints his name, but ridicules the ver) structure o

established authorit).

IN VIEB B!ERE"F, the !ourt $E+DE to ENI the present petition. The ecision o the !ourt

o &ppeals dated November '9, 199 is hereb) &""#$4E in all respects.

$" "RHEREH.

Realado, AChairmanB, Romero, Puno, and Mendo'a, %%., concur .

7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


&URIA ALI&I", petitioner , vs. C"UR "F A&&EAL$ an R"%E" G. *ARING, re3re'ene b /('Aorne-In-Fa RA%"N G. *ARING, respondents.

H E C I $ I " N

%ENH"QA, J .

The Cuestion or decision in this case is whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse or the

collection o a debt which is owed b) the con0ugal partnership o gains, or whether such claim must be

iled in proceedings or the settlement o the estate o the decedent. The trial court and the !ourt o

&ppeals ruled in the airmative. ?e reverse.

The acts are as ollows

$espondent $omeo /aring1O was the lessee o a 1.5 hectare ishpond in arito, 4abuco, ermosa,

ataan. The lease was or a period o ive )ears ending on eptember 1', 199. +n /une 19, 19(8, he

subleased the ishpond, or the remaining period o his lease, to the spouses 2lacido and 2urita &lipio andthe spouses ienvenido and $emedios 4anuel. The stipulated amount o rent was 2(5,6., pa)able

in two installments o 23,. and 21(5,6., with the second installment alling due on /une 3,

19(9. Each o the our sublessees signed the contract.

The irst installment was dul) paid, but o the second installment, the sublessees onl) satisied a

portion thereo, leaving an unpaid balance o 25,6.. espite due demand, the sublessees ailed to

compl) with their obligation, so that, on +ctober 13, 19(9, private respondent sued the &lipio and 4anuel

spouses or the collection o the said amount beore the $egional Trial !ourt, ranch 5, inalupihan,

ataan. #n the alternative, he pra)ed or the rescission o the sublease contract should the deendants ail

to pa) the balance.

2etitioner 2urita &lipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband, 2lacido &lipio,

had passed awa) on ecember 1, 19((. 'O he based her action on $ule 3, '1 o the 196 $ules o !ourt

which then provided that Bwhen the action is or recover) o mone), debt or interest thereon, and the

deendant dies beore inal 0udgment in the !ourt o "irst #nstance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted

in the manner especiall) provided in these rules.B This provision has been amended so that now $ule 3,

' o the 1998 $ules o !ivil 2rocedure provides

?hen the action is or the recover) o mone) arising rom contract, e;press or implied, and the deendant

dies beore entr) o inal 0udgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time o such death,

it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entr) o inal 0udgment. & avorable

0udgment obtained b) the plainti therein shall be enorced in the manner especiall) provided in these

$ules or prosecuting claims against the estate o a deceased person.

The trial court denied petitioner@s motion on the ground that since petitioner was hersel a part) to the

sublease contract, she could be independentl) impleaded in the suit together with the 4anuel spouses

and that the death o her husband merel) resulted in his e;clusion rom the case. 3O The 4anuel spouses

ailed to ile their answer. "or this reason, the) were declared in deault.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/134100.htm#_edn1







7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


+n "ebruar) '6, 1991, the lower court rendered 0udgment ater trial, ordering petitioner and the

4anuel spouses to pa) private respondent the unpaid balance o 25,6. plus attorne)@s ees in the

amount o 21,. and the costs o the suit.

2etitioner appealed to the !ourt o &ppeals on the ground that the trial court erred in den)ing her

motion to dismiss. #n its decisionO rendered on /ul) 1, 1998, the appellate court dismissed her appeal. #t

held

The rule that an action or recover) o mone), debt or interest thereon must be dismissed when the

deendant dies beore inal 0udgment in the regional trial court, does not appl) where there are other

deendants against whom the action should be maintained. This is the teaching o Climaco v. Si! =! ,

wherein the upreme !ourt held

Apon the acts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that !limaco had a cause o action against the persons

named as deendants therein. #t was, however, a cause o action or the recover) o damages, that is, a

sum o mone), and the corresponding action is, unortunatel), one that does not survive upon the death o

the deendant, in accordance with the provisions o ection '1, $ule 3 o the $ules o !ourt.

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

owever, the deceased i) A) was not the onl) deendant, 4anuel !o was also named deendant in the

complaint. +bviousl), thereore, the order appealed rom is erroneous insoar as it dismissed the case

against !o. =Anderlining added>

4oreover, it is noted that all the deendants, including the deceased, were signatories to the contract o

sub-lease. The remaining deendants cannot avoid the action b) claiming that the death o one o the

parties to the contract has totall) e;tinguished their obligation as held in $mperial $nsurance, $nc. v. 1avid

?e ind no merit in this appeal. Ander the law and well settled 0urisprudence, when the obligation is asolidar) one, the creditor ma) bring his action in toto against an) o the debtors obligated in

solidum. Thus, i husband and wie bound themselves 0ointl) and severall), in case o his death, her

liabilit) is independent o and separate rom her husband@s she ma) be sued or the whole debt and it

would be error to hold that the claim against her as well as the claim against her husband should be made

in the decedent@s estate. =&gcaoili vs. da. de &gcaoili, 9 2hil. 98>. 5O

2etitioner iled a motion or reconsideration, but it was denied on /une , 199(. 6O ence this petition

based on the ollowing assignment o errors

&. TE $E2+NENT !+A$T !+44#TTE $EE$#DE E$$+$ #N &22DI#NF !D#4&!+

v. #I AI, 19 !$& (5(, #N 2#TE +" TE "&!T T&T TE 2ET#T#+NE$ ?& N+T

EEH#NF TE #4#&D +" TE !&E &F&#NT $E4&#N#NF E"EN&NT AT+NDI ?#T $E2E!T T+ TE !D&#4 "+$ 2&I4ENT &F&#NT E$ &N E$

A&N ?#! +AD E 2$+E!ATE & & 4+NEI !D&#4.

. TE $E2+NENT !+A$T !+44#TTE $EE$#DE E$$+$ #N &22DI#NF #42E$#&D

#NA$&N!E #N!. v. &#, 133 !$& 318, ?#! # N+T &22D#!&DE E!&AE TE

2+AE #N T# !&E # N+T #N TE4EDE /+#NTDI &N EE$&DDI #N

"&+$ +" $E2+NENT /&$#NF.8O









7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


The petition is meritorious. ?e hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse o a decedent in

an ordinar) proceeding or the collection o a sum o mone) chargeable against the con0ugal partnership

and that the proper remed) is or him to ile a claim in the settlement o estate o the decedent.

F(r'. 2etitioner@s husband died on ecember 1, 19((, more than ten months beore private

respondent iled the collection suit in the trial court on +ctober 13, 19(9. This case thus alls outside o

the ambit o $ule 3, '1 which deals with dismissals o collection suits because o the death o the

deendant during the pendenc) o the case and the subseCuent procedure to be underta7en b) the

plainti, i.e., the iling o claim in the proceeding or the settlement o the decedent@s estate. &s alread)

noted, $ule 3, ' o the 1998 $ules o !ivil 2rocedure now provides that the case will be allowed to

continue until entr) o inal 0udgment. & avorable 0udgment obtained b) the plainti therein will then be

enorced in the manner especiall) provided in the $ules or prosecuting claims against the estate o a

deceased person. The issue to be resolved is whether private respondent can, in the irst place, ile this

case against petitioner.

2etitioner and her late husband, together with the 4anuel spouses, signed the sublease contract

binding themselves to pa) the amount o stipulated rent. Ander the law, the &lipios@ obligation =and also

that o the 4anuels> is one which is chargeable against their con0ugal partnership. Ander &rt. 161=1> o the !ivil !ode, the con0ugal partnership is liable or

&ll debts and obligations contracted b) the husband or the beneit o the con0ugal partnership, and those

contracted b) the wie, also or the same purpose, in the cases where she ma) legall) bind the

partnership.(O

?hen petitioner@s husband died, their con0ugal partnership was automaticall) dissolved 9O and debts

chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement o estate proceedings in accordance with $ule 83, '

which states

Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriae. ?hen the marriage is dissolved b) the death o the

husband or wie, the communit) propert) shall be inventoried, administered, and liCuidated, and the debts

thereo paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings o the deceased spouse. # both spouses have died,

the con0ugal partnership shall be liCuidated in the testate or intestate proceedings o either.

&s held in Calma v. 8aedo,1O ater the death o either o the spouses, no complaint or the collection

o indebtedness chargeable against the con0ugal partnership can be brought against the surviving

spouse. #nstead, the claim must be made in the proceedings or the liCuidation and settlement o the

con0ugal propert). The reason or this is that upon the death o one spouse, the powers o administration

o the surviving spouse ceases and is passed to the administrator appointed b) the court having

0urisdiction over the settlement o estate proceedings.11O#ndeed, the surviving spouse is not even a de

facto administrator such that conve)ances made b) him o an) propert) belonging to the partnership prior

to the liCuidation o the mass o con0ugal partnership propert) is void. 1'O

The ruling in Calma v. 8aedo was reairmed in the recent case o Ventura v. Militante.13O #n that case,

the surviving wie was sued in an amended complaint or a sum o mone) based on an obligation

allegedl) contracted b) her and her late husband. The deendant, who had earlier moved to dismiss the

case, opposed the admission o the amended complaint on the ground that the death o her husband

terminated their con0ugal partnership and that the plainti@s claim, which was chargeable against the

partnership, should be made in the proceedings or the settlement o his estate. The trial court

















7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


nevertheless admitted the complaint and ruled, as the !ourt o &ppeals did in this case, that since the

deendant was also a part) to the obligation, the death o her husband did not preclude the plainti rom

iling an ordinar) collection suit against her. +n appeal, the !ourt reversed, holding that

as correctl) argued b) petitioner, the con0ugal partnership terminates upon the death o either spouse. . . .

?here a complaint is brought against the surviving spouse or the recover) o an indebtedness

chargeable against said con0ugal partnershipO, an) 0udgment obtained thereb) is void. The proper action

should be in the orm o a claim to be iled in the testate or intestate proceedings o the deceased spouse.

#n man) cases as in the instant one, even ater the death o one o the spouses, there is no liCuidation o

the con0ugal partnership. This does not mean, however, that the con0ugal partnership continues. &nd

private respondent cannot be said to have no remed). Ander ec. 6, $ule 8( o the $evised $ules o

!ourt, he ma) appl) in court or letters o administration in his capacit) as a principal creditor o the

deceased . . . i ater thirt) =3> da)s rom his death, petitioner ailed to appl) or administration or reCuest

that administration be granted to some other person.1O

The cases relied upon b) the !ourt o &ppeals in support o its ruling, namel), Climaco v. Si!

=! 15O

and $mperial $nsurance, $nc. v. 1avid ,16O

are based on dierent sets o acts. #n Climaco, thedeendants, !arlos i) A) and 4anuel !o, were sued or damages or malicious prosecution. Thus, apart

rom the act the claim was not against an) con0ugal partnership, it was one which does not survive the

death o deendant A), which merel) resulted in the dismissal o the case as to him but not as to the

remaining deendant 4anuel !o.

?ith regard to the case o $mperial , the spouses therein 0ointl) and severall) e;ecuted an indemnit)

agreement which became the basis o a collection suit iled against the wie ater her husband had

died. "or this reason, the !ourt ruled that since the spouses@ liabilit) was solidar), the surviving spouse

could be independentl) sued in an ordinar) action or the enorcement o the entire obligation.

#t must be noted that or marriages governed b) the rules o con0ugal partnership o gains, an

obligation entered into b) the husband and wie is chargeable against their con0ugal partnership and it is

the partnership which is primaril) bound or its repa)ment. 18O Thus, when the spouses are sued or the

enorcement o an obligation entered into b) them, the) are being impleaded in their capacit) as

representatives o the con0ugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept o 0oint

or solidar) liabilit), as between them, does not appl).ut even assuming the contrar) to be true, the

nature o the obligation involved in this case, as will be discussed later, is not solidar) but rather merel)

0oint, ma7ing $mperial still inapplicable to this case.

"rom the oregoing, it is clear that private respondent cannot maintain the present suit against

petitioner. $ather, his remed) is to ile a claim against the &lipios in the proceeding or the settlement o

the estate o petitioner@s husband or, i none has been commenced, he can ile a petition either or the

issuance o letters o administration1(O or or the allowance o will, 19O depending on whether petitioner@shusband died intestate or testate. 2rivate respondent cannot short-circuit this procedure b) lumping his

claim against the &lipios with those against the 4anuels considering that, aside rom petitioner@s lac7 o

authorit) to represent their con0ugal estate, the inventor) o the &lipios@ con0ugal propert) is necessar)

beore an) claim chargeable against it can be paid. Needless to sa), such power e;clusivel) pertains to

the court having 0urisdiction over the settlement o the decedent@s estate and not to an) other court.













7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


$eon. The trial court ordered petitioner and the 4anuel spouses to pa) private respondent the

unpaid balance o the agreed rent in the amount o 25,6. without speci)ing whether the amount is

to be paid b) them 0ointl) or solidaril). #n connection with this, &rt. 1'8 o the !ivil !ode provides

The concurrence o two or more creditors or o two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does

not impl) that each one o the ormer has a right to demand, or that each one o the latter is bound to

render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidar) liabilit) onl) when the obligation

e;pressl) so estates, or when the law or the nature o the obligation reCuires solidarit).

#ndeed, i rom the law or the nature or the wording o the obligation the contrar) does not appear, an

obligation is presumed to be onl) 0oint, i.e., the debt is divided into as man) eCual shares as there are

debtors, each debt being considered distinct rom one another.'O

2rivate respondent does not cite an) provision o law which provides that when there are two or

more lessees, or in this case, sublessees, the latter@s obligation to pa) the rent is solidar). To be

sure, should the lessees or sublessees reuse to vacate the leased propert) ater the e;piration o the

lease period and despite due demands b) the lessor, the) can be held 0ointl) and severall) liable to pa)

or the use o the propert). The basis o their solidar) liabilit) is not the contract o lease or sublease butthe act that the) have become 0oint torteasors. '1O #n the case at bar, there is no allegation that the

sublessees reused to vacate the ishpond ater the e;piration o the term o the sublease. #ndeed, the

unpaid balance sought to be collected b) private respondent in his collection suit became due on /une

3, 19(9, long beore the sublease e;pired on eptember 1', 199.

Neither does petitioner contend that it is the nature o lease that when there are more than two

lessees or sublessees their liabilit) is solidar). +n the other hand, the pertinent portion o the

contract involved in this case reads ''O

'. That the total lease rental or the sub-leased ishpond or the entire period o three =3> )ears and two

='> months is "+A$ AN$E E#FT-"#E T+A&N #Q AN$E =2(5,6.> 2E+,

including all the improvements, prawns, mil7ishes, crabs and related species thereon as well all ishing

eCuipment, paraphernalia and accessories. The said amount shall be paid to the ub-Dessor b) the ub-

Dessees in the ollowing manner, to wit

&. Three hundred thousand =23,.> 2esos upon signing this contract and

. +ne undred Eight-"ive Thousand i;-undred =21(5,6.> 2esos to be paid on /une 3, 19(9.

!learl), the liabilit) o the sublessees is merel) 0oint. ince the obligation o the 4anuel and &lipio

spouses is chargeable against their respective con0ugal partnerships, the unpaid balance o 25,6.

should be divided into two so that each couple is liable to pa) the amount o2'5,3..

B!EREF"RE, the petition is F$&NTE. ienvenido 4anuel and $emedios 4anuel are ordered to

pa) the amount o 2'5,3., the attorne)@s ees in the amount o 21,. and the costs o the

suit. The complaint against petitioner is dismissed without pre0udice to the iling o a claim b) private

respondent in the proceedings or the settlement o estate o 2lacido &lipio or the collection o the share

o the &lipio spouses in the unpaid balance o the rent in the amount o 2'5,3..

$" "RHEREH.








7/25/2019 01 - Rule 73


&ellosillo, AChairmanB, ;uisumbin, &uena, and 1e )eon, %r., %%., concur .

01 - rule 73

Documents