1. specpro case digest 1

8/19/2019 1. SpecPro Case Digest 1

1/37

Republic of the Philippines

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

College of La

Vigan Cit!

Special P"ocee#ings

Prosecutor Elizabeth Garcia Bringas, JDEvery Mondays, 5:30 !:30 "#

I$ Rule %&

$EP%B&'( )* (+, M+D$-+

G.$. -. /301 M+2 005

*4EE$ )* *4EE$

G.$. -. /5!6/ /3 DE(EMBE$ 00!

$E2E* )* E-$'7%E8

G.$. -o. /65 /0 +P$'& 009

(4'-G E.+& )* $D$'G%E8G$ /699 9 -)EMBE$ 0//

II$ Rule %'( Section )

ME-D8+ )* E4 et.al

G.$. -o. /1 March /1, /66!

$EP%B&'( )* )'&&+$+M+


2/37

G.$. -o. //!!33. *e"te#ber 5, /66!

M+&&E* '' )* P4'&'PP*

G.$. -o. /6505. January 3/, 000

M+&&E* '' )* (%$ ; +PPE+&*, Goros"e

G$ -o. /6505. 3/ January 000

-'*(4E$ )* D$ -'*(4E$

G.$. -o. /0530 0 -ove#ber 00!

III$ Rule %'( Section &

($E* )* (+ < $E*E&)+

G.$. -o. //!1/! / *e"te#ber / 000

IV$ Rule %*( Section )-E$', E +&. )* 4E'$* ; %2G$ -. /613 /0 (BE$ 0/

4E'$* ; E)E* )* (+, 4E'$* ; ' 'G.$. -o. /0663. ctober /3, /666

+- )*. BE-&'$+G$ -. /5390 / (BE$ 006

$E'&& et. al vs *+- J*EG$ /363 /9 J%-E 006

V$ Rule %+( Section )+--' B+&+8+$ et al. )*. &$E-8 &+=+


3/37

G$ -. /!1196, // +P$'& 0/

VI$ Rule %+( Sections & , +%2 '+ E-G vs. -'=- &EEG.$.-o. /!93/ /5 January 0/0

VII$ Rule %-( Sections ) .&P+&+G+-+* )* P+&+G+-+*G.$. -o. /6/11 J+-%+$2 0//

VIII$ Rule %-( Sections ' .+D2 2'E-G *E+-G', et al. vs. $E2E*, et al.G.$. -. /103!/>! ? ! -)EMBE$ 00

REPU/LIC vs$ COURT OF 0PPE0LS( 102RON03$R$ No$ )-'-4*$ 1a! -( &44+

F0CTS5 'n 'n the Matter o@ Declaration o@ Presu#"tive Death o@ +bsentee *"ouse (le#ente P.Jo#oc, +"olinaria Malinao Jo#oc, "etitioner, the r#oc (ity, $egional rial (ourt, Branch 35,by rder o@ *e"te#ber 6, /666, granted the "etition on the basis o@ the (o##issioners $e"ortand accordingly declared the absentee s"ouse, Aho had le@t his "etitioner>Ai@e nine years earlier,

"resu#"tively dead.

'n granting the "etition, the trial udge, Judge ;ortunito &. Madrona, cited +rticle 1/, "ar. o@the ;a#ily (ode. *aid article "rovides that @or the "ur"ose o@ contracting a valid subseCuent#arriage during the subsistence o@ a "revious #arriage Ahere the "rior s"ouse had been absent@or @our consecutive years, the s"ouse "resent #ust institute su66a"! p"ocee#ings @or the


4/37

declaration o@ "resu#"tive death o@ the absentee s"ouse, Aithout "reudice to the e@@ect o@ therea""earance o@ the absent s"ouse.

ISSUE5 hether a "etition @or declaration o@ the "resu#"tive death o@ a "erson is in the nature o@ as"ecial "roceeding

HEL25 (onsidering the a@ore#entioned distinction, this (ourt @inds that the instant petition is inthe natu"e of a special p"ocee#ing an# not an o"#ina"! action . he "etition #erely sees @or adeclaration by the trial court o@ the "resu#"tive death o@ absentee s"ouse (le#ente Jo#oc. 'tdoes not see the en@orce#ent or "rotection o@ a right or the "revention or redress o@ a Arong.-either does it involve a de#and o@ right or a cause o@ action that can be en@orced against any"erson.

n the basis o@ the @oregoing discussion, the subect rder dated January /3, 000 denying *GsMotion @or $econsideration o@ the rder dated -ove#ber , /666 disa""roving its -otice o@+""eal Aas correctly issued. The instant petition( being in the natu"e of a specialp"ocee#ing(OS3 shoul# ha7e file#( in a##ition to its Notice of 0ppeal( a "eco"# on appeal inaccordance Aith *ection /6 o@ the 'nteri# $ules and Guidelines to '#"le#ent BP Blg. /6 and*ection Fa, $ule 1/ o@ the $ules o@ (ourt .

SHE8ER VS SHE8ER

3$R$ NO$ )+%9)& )' 2ECE1/ER &44%


5/37

F0CTS5 +lice *heer died and her estate Aas le@t under the ad#inistration o@ )ictoria Medina.+lice le@t a hologra"hic Aill Ahich Aas ad#itted to "robate by the $egional rial (ourt o@ 'ligan (ity.he trial court issued an order @or all creditors to @ile their clai#s against the estate. 'n co#"liancethereAith, +lan Jose"h *heer @iled a contingent #oney clai# in the a#ount o@ P0,50.00

re"resenting the a#ount o@ his co##ission as an agent @or selling so#e "ro"erties @or +liceH andanother P!5 as rei#burse#ents @or eI"enses he incurred.

Medina #oved @or the dis#issal o@ +lan *heers clai# alleging a#ong others that the #oney clai#@iled by +lan *heer is void because the latter did not attach a certi@ication o@ non>@oru# sho""ingthereto.

ISSUE5 hether or not the #oney clai# @iled by +lan *heer is void.

HEL25 -o. he *u"re#e (ourt e#"hasized that the certi@ication o@ non>@oru# sho""ing isreCuired only @or co#"laints and other initiatory "leadings. 'n the case at bar, the "robate

"roceeding Aas initiated - by +lan *heers #oney clai# but rather u"on the @iling o@ the"etition @or alloAance o@ the +lice *heers Aill. %nder *ections / and 5, $ule 9 o@ the $ules o@(ourt, a@ter granting letters o@ testa#entary or o@ ad#inistration, all "ersons having #oney clai#sagainst the decedent are #andated to @ile or noti@y the court and the estate ad#inistrator o@ theirres"ective #oney clai#sH otherAise, they Aould be barred, subect to certain eIce"tions.

+ #oney clai# in a "robate "roceeding is lie a creditors #otion @or clai#s Ahich is to berecognized and taen into consideration in the "ro"er dis"osition o@ the "ro"erties o@ the estate.+nd as a #otion, its o@@ice is not to initiate neA litigation, but to bring a #aterial but incidental

#atter arising in the "rogress o@ the case in Ahich the #otion is @iled. + #otion is not aninde"endent right or re#edy, but is con@ined to incidental #atters in the "rogress o@ a cause. 'trelates to so#e Cuestion that is collateral to the #ain obect o@ the action and is connected Aith andde"endent u"on the "rinci"al re#edy.


6/37

REYES VS ENRI:UE;

3$R$ No$ )&9+- )4 0PRIL &44<

F0CTS: he "resent case involves a "arcel o@ land noAn as &ot -o. /95/ ;lr>/33 Aith anaggregate area o@ ,0/! sCuare #eters located in alisay, (ebu. he "etitioners contended thatthey are the legal heirs o@ Dionisia $eyes Aho co>oAned the subect "arcel o@ land Aith +nacleto(abrera as evidenced by rans@er (erti@icate o@ itle F( -o. $>355/ F>90!0. n +"ril /!,/66, "etitioners eIecuted an EItraudicial *ettle#ent Aith *ale o@ the Estate o@ Dionisia $eyesinvolving a "ortion o@ the subect "arcel o@ land. n March /, /66!, the "etitioners and the noAnheirs o@ +nacleto (abrera eIecuted a *egregation o@ $eal Estate and (on@ir#ation o@ over thesa#e "ro"erty. By virtue o@ the a@orestated docu#ents, ( -o. $>3555/ F>90!0 Aas cancelledand neA (s Aere issued. $es"ondents alleges that their "redecessor>in>interest +nacleto(abrera and his Ai@e Patricia *eguera (abrera oAned "ro>indiviso share in the subect "arcel o@land or /05/ sC. # hey @urther allege that *"ouses (abrera Aere survived by tAo daughtersGraciana, Aho died single and Aithout issue, and Etta, the Ai@e o@ res"ondent Peter and #other o@res"ondent Deborah +nn. Aho succeeded their "arents rights and too "ossession o@ the /05/ sC.#. o@ the subect "arcel o@ land.During her li@eti#e, Graciana sold her share over the land toEtta. hus, #aing the latter the sole oAner o@ the one>hal@ share o@ the subect "arcel o@ land.*ubseCuently, Etta died and the "ro"erty "assed on to "etitioners Peter and Deborah +nn by virtueo@ an EItra>Judicial *ettle#ent o@ Estate. n June /6, /666, "etitioners Peter and Deborah +nnsold 00 sC. #. out o@ the /05/ sC. #. @or P00,000.00 to *"ouses Dionisio and (atalina;ernandez , also their co>res"ondents. +@ter the sale, *"ouses ;ernandez too "ossession o@ thesaid area in the subect "arcel o@ land. hen *"ouses ;ernandez, tried to register their share inthe subect land, they discovered that certain docu#ents "revent the# @ro# doing so, Ahich arethe @olloAing: F/ +@@idavit by +nacleto (abrera dated March /, /65! stating that his share in &ot-o. /95/, the subect "ro"erty, is a""roIi#ately 36 sC. #.H F +@@idavit by Dionisia $eyes datedJuly /3, /66 stating that +nacleto only oAned o@ &ot -o. /95/, Ahile 30.55 sC. #. belongs toDionisia and the rest o@ the "ro"erty is co>oAned by -icolasa Bacalso, Juan $eyes, ;lorentino$eyes and MaIi#iano DicoH F3 EItra>Judicial *ettle#ent Aith *ale o@ the Estate o@ Dionisia $eyesdated +"ril /!, /66H F1 certi@icates o@ title in the na#e o@ the herein "etitionersH and F5 Deed o@

*egregation o@ $eal Estate and (on@ir#ation o@ *ale dated March /, /66! eIecuted by thealleged heirs o@ Dionisia $eyes and +nacleto (abrera. +lleging that the @oregoing docu#ents are@raudulent and @ictitious, the res"ondents @iled a co#"laint @or annul#ent or nulli@ication o@ thea@ore#entioned docu#ents and @or da#ages. hey lieAise "rayed @or the re"artition andresubdivision o@ the subect "ro"erty. %"on the #otion o@ the "etitioners, he $( dis#issed thecase on the ground that the res"ondents>"lainti@@s Aere actually seeing @irst and @ore#ost to bedeclared heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera since they cannot de#and the "artition o@ the real "ro"erty


7/37

Aithout @irst being declared as legal heirs and such #ay not be done in an ordinary civil action, asin this case, but through a s"ecial "roceeding s"eci@ically instituted @or the "ur"ose. he case Aaselevated to the (+ Aho reversed the decision o@ the $(. 4ence this "etition.

ISSUE5 hether or not the res"ondents have to institute a s"ecial "roceeding to deter#ine theirstatus as heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera be@ore they can @ile an ordinary civil action to nulli@y thea@@idavits o@ +nacleto (abrera and Dionisia $eyes, the EItra>Judicial *ettle#ent Aith the *ale o@Estate o@ Dionisia $eyes, and the Deed o@ *egregation o@ $eal Estate and (on@ir#ation o@ *aleeIecuted by the heirs o@ Dionisia $eyes and the heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera, as Aell as to cancel theneA trans@er certi@icates o@ title issued by virtue o@ the above>Cuestioned docu#ents.

HEL25 he (ourt has consistently ruled that a declaration o@ heirshi" is i#"ro"er in an ordinary

civil action since the #atter is Aithin the eIclusive co#"etence o@ the court in a s"ecial "roceeding.'n the instant case, Ahile the co#"laint Aas deno#inated as an action @or the Declaration o@ -on>EIistencyKsicL, -ullity o@ Deeds, and (ancellation o@ (erti@icates o@ itle, etc., a revieA o@ theallegations therein reveals that the right being asserted by the res"ondents are their right as heirso@ +nacleto (abrera Aho they clai# co>oAned one>hal@ o@ the subect "ro"erty and not #erely one>@ourth as stated in the docu#ents the res"ondents sought to annul. -oA, the deter#ination o@ Ahoare the legal heirs o@ the deceased cou"le #ust be #ade in the "ro"er s"ecial "roceedings incourt, and not in an ordinary suit @or reconveyance o@ "ro"erty. his #ust tae "recedence over theaction @or reconveyance. 'n the sa#e #anner, the res"ondents herein, eIce"t @or their allegations,

have yet to substantiate their clai# as the legal heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera Aho are, thus, entitled tothe subect "ro"erty. -either is there anything in the records o@ this case Ahich Aould shoA that as"ecial "roceeding to have the#selves declared as heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera had beeninstituted. +s such, the trial court correctly dis#issed the case @or there is a lac o@ cause o@ actionAhen a case is instituted by "arties Aho are not real "arties in interest. hile a declaration o@heirshi" Aas not "rayed @or in the co#"laint, it is clear @ro# the allegations therein that the right theres"ondents sought to "rotect or en@orce is that o@ an heir o@ one o@ the registered co>oAners o@ the"ro"erty "rior to the issuance o@ the neA trans@er certi@icates o@ title that they see to cancel. hus,there is a need to establish their status as such heirs in the "ro"er @oru#. 'n the "resent case,

nothing in the records o@ this case shoAs that the only "ro"erty le@t by the deceased +nacleto(abrera is the subect lot, and neither had res"ondents Peter and Deborah +nn "resented anyevidence to establish their rights as heirs, considering es"ecially that it a""ears that there are otherheirs o@ +nacleto (abrera Aho are not "arties in this case that had signed one o@ the Cuestioneddocu#ents. 4ence, under the circu#stances in this case, this (ourt @inds that a deter#ination o@the rights o@ res"ondents Peter and Deborah +nn as heirs o@ +nacleto (abrera in a s"ecial"roceeding is necessary.


8/37

CHIN3 ET$0L VS RO2RI3UE;3R )9&Judicial *ettle#ent o@ Estate adudicatingsolely to hi#sel@ +ntonioNs entire estate to the "reudice o@ the res"ondentsH and F $a#on sold+ntonioNs tAo "arcels o@ land in -avotas to co>de@endant +sia +tlantic Business )entures, 'nc.+nother "arcel o@ land, Ahich Aas "art o@ +ntonioNs estate, Aas sold by $a#on to co>de@endantElena iu Del Pilar at an unreasonably loA "rice.

he res"ondents thus "rayed @or the F/ issuance o@ a $ to restrain $a#on or hisre"resentatives @ro# dis"osing or selling any "ro"erty that belongs to the estate o@ +ntonioH F that$a#on be declared as disCuali@ied @ro# inheriting @ro# +ntonio (hingH and F3 declaring null theunauthorized trans@ers #ade by $a#on.

he $( denied the "etitioners Motion to Dis#iss and subseCuent Motion @or $econsideration.

ISSUE5 hether or not the $( should have granted the Motion to Dis#iss Aith regard to theissues Ahich could only be resolved in a s"ecial "roceeding and not in an ordinary civil action

HEL25 -o reversible errors Aere co##itted by the $( and the (+ Ahen they both ruled that thedenial o@ the "etitionersN second #otion to dis#iss Aas "ro"er.

+n action @or reconveyance and annul#ent o@ title Aith da#ages is a civil action, Ahereas #attersrelating to settle#ent o@ the estate o@ a deceased "erson such as advance#ent o@ "ro"erty #ade


9/37

by the decedent, "artae o@ the nature o@ a s"ecial "roceeding, Ahich conco#itantly reCuires thea""lication o@ s"eci@ic rules as "rovided @or in the $ules o@ (ourt.

%nder +rticle 6/ o@ the -((, disinheritance can be e@@ected only through a Aill Aherein the legalcause there@or shall be s"eci@ied. his (ourt agrees Aith the $( and the (+ that Ahile the

res"ondents in their (o#"laint and +#ended (o#"laint sought the disinheritance o@ $a#on, noAill or any instru#ent su""osedly e@@ecting the dis"osition o@ +ntonioNs estate Aas ever #entioned.4ence, des"ite the "rayer @or $a#onNs disinheritance, the case @iled does not "artae o@ the natureo@ a s"ecial "roceeding and does not call @or the "robate courtNs eIercise o@ its li#ited urisdiction.

Even Aithout the necessity o@ being declared as heirs o@ +ntonio, the res"ondents have thestanding to see @or the nulli@ication o@ the instru#ents in the light o@ their clai#s that there Aas noconsideration @or their eIecution, and that $a#on eIercised undue in@luence and co##itted @raudagainst the#. (onseCuently, the res"ondents then clai#ed that the +@@idavit o@ EItra>Judicial*ettle#ent o@ +ntonios estate eIecuted by $a#on, and the (s issued u"on the authority o@ the

said a@@idavit, are null and void as Aell. $a#onNs aver#ent that a resolution o@ the issues raisedshall @irst reCuire a declaration o@ the res"ondentsN status as heirs is a #ere de@ense Ahich is notdeter#inative o@ Ahich court shall "ro"erly eIercise urisdiction.

'n su#, this (ourt agrees Aith the (+ that the nulli@ication o@ the docu#ents subect o@ the civil casecould be achieved in an ordinary civil action, Ahich in this s"eci@ic case Aas instituted to "rotect theres"ondents @ro# the su""osedly @raudulent acts o@ $a#on. 'n the event that the $( Aill @indgrounds to grant the relie@s "rayed @or by the res"ondents, the only conseCuence Aill be thereversion o@ the "ro"erties subect o@ the dis"ute to the estate o@ +ntonio. he civil case Aas notinstituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the ad#inistration, liCuidation and

distribution o@ +ntonioNs estate, hence, not the "ro"er subect o@ a s"ecial "roceeding @or thesettle#ent o@ the estate o@ a deceased "erson under $ules !3>6/ o@ the $ules o@ (ourt.

he res"ondentsN resort to an ordinary civil action be@ore the $( #ay not be strategically sound,because a settle#ent "roceeding should therea@ter still @olloA, i@ their intent is to recover @ro#$a#on the "ro"erties alleged to have been illegally trans@erred in his na#e. Be that as it #ay, the$(, in the eIercise o@ its general urisdiction, cannot be restrained @ro# taing cognizance o@res"ondentsN (o#"laint and +#ended (o#"laint as the issues raised and the "rayers indicatedtherein are #atters Ahich need not be threshed out in a s"ecial "roceeding.


10/37

1EN2O;0 VS TEH et$al

3$R$ No$ )&&-*- 1a"ch )*( )99%

F0CTS5 n ctober 9, /661, "etitioner @or hersel@ and as ad#inistratriI o@ the intestate estate o@her deceased husband -orberto Mendoza @iled be@ore the $egional rial (ourt F$( o@ Batangasa co#"laint @or reconveyance o@ title Finvolving "arcels o@ lot in Batangas and da#ages Aith"etition @or "reli#inary inunction, co#"laint states: that +delia (. Mendoza lieAise re"resents herco>"lainti@@, the 'ntestate Estate o@ the late -orberto B. Mendoza in her ca"acity as the surviving

Ai@e o@ the deceased -orberto B. Mendoza Aho died on Dece#ber 6, /663H that +delia (.Mendoza should be a""ointed by this 4onorable (ourt as the udicial ad#inistratriI o@ her co>"lainti@@ @or "ur"oses o@ this case. Private res"ondents @iled their ansAer Aith #otion to dis#issalleging that the co#"laint states no cause o@ action and that "etitioners de#and had already been"aid. n ;ebruary /!, /665, "rivate res"ondents @iled another "leading entitled #otion to dis#issinvoing, this ti#e, lac o@ urisdiction, lac o@ cause o@ action, esto""el, laches and "rescri"tion. 'nsu""ort o@ their argu#ent o@ lac o@ urisdiction, "rivate res"ondents contend that a s"ecial"roceedings case @or a""oint#ent o@ ad#inistratriI o@ an estate cannot be incor"orated in theordinary action @or reconveyance. 'n her o""osition to the #otions, "etitioner asserts a#ong others,

that the allegation seeing a""oint#ent as ad#inistratriI is only an incidental #atter Ahich is noteven "rayed @or in the co#"laint. $e"lying to the o""osition, "rivate res"ondents argued that since"etitioners husband resided in 7uezon (ity at the ti#e o@ his death, the a""oint#ent o@ the estatead#inistratriI should be @iled in the $( o@ that "lace in accordance Aith *ection / $ule !3 o@ the$ules o@ (ourt. +ccordingly, it is their argu#ent that the $( o@ Batangas has no urisdiction overthe case.

ISSUE5 hether or not in an action @or reconveyance, an allegation seeing a""oint#ent asad#inistratriI o@ an estate, Aould oust the $( o@ its urisdiction over the Ahole caseO

HEL25 -o. *ection /6 o@ B.P. /6 as a#ended by $+ !6/ "rovides:

Jurisdiction in (ivil (ases > $egional rial (ourts shall eIercise eIclusive original urisdiction: F/ 'nall civil actions in Ahich the subect o@ the litigation is inca"able o@ "ecuniary esti#ationH F 'n allcivil actions Ahich involve the title to, or "ossession o@, real "ro"erty, or any interest therein, Aherethe assessed value o@ "ro"erty involved eIceeds Aenty thousand "esos FP0,000.00 F1 'n all#atters o@ "robate, both testate and intestate


11/37

&ieAise, *ection 33 o@ the sa#e laA "rovides that: Metro"olitan rial (ourt shall eIercise:

F/ EIclusive original urisdiction over civil actions and "robate "roceedings, testate and intestate.

he above laA is clear. +n action @or reconveyance, Ahich involves title title to "ro"erty Aorth

#illions o@ "esos, such as the lots subect o@ this case, is cognizable by the $(. &ieAise @allingAithin its urisdiction are actions inca"able o@ "ecuniary esti#ation, such as the a""oint#ent o@ anad#inistratriI @or an estate. Even the $ules on venue o@ estate "roceedings i#"liedly recognize the urisdiction o@ the $( over "etitions @or granting o@ letters o@ ad#inistration. n the other hand,"robate "roceedings @or the settle#ent o@ estate are Aithin the a#bit o@ either the $( or M(de"ending on the net Aorth o@ the estate. By arguing that the allegation seeing such a""oint#entas ad#inistratriI ousted the $( o@ its urisdiction, both "ublic and "rivate res"ondents con@uses urisdiction Aith venue. *ection o@ $ule 1 as revised by (ircular /3>65K9L "rovides that actionsinvolving title to "ro"erty shall be tried in the "rovince Ahere the "ro"erty is located, in this case, >

Batangas. he #ere @act that "etitioners deceased husband resides in 7uezon (ity at the ti#e o@his death a@@ects only the venue but not the urisdiction o@ the (ourt.


12/37

REPU/LIC VS VILL0R010

3$R$ No$ ))%%''$ Septe6be" +( )99%

F0CTS5 $e"ublic o@ the Phili""ines is the "etitioner in *"ecial Proceedings -o. /0!6. he"etition, @iled on / ctober /66, alleged that during his eIile the late President ;erdinand E.

Marcos eIecuted his last Aill and testa#ent in 4aAaii, %nited *tates o@ +#erica, Aith his Ai@e'#elda rinidad $. Marcos and son ;erdinand $. Marcos '' as eIecutors. Petitioner usti@ied itsaction in @iling the "etition by clai#ing neglect on the "art o@ the testators heirs to initiate testate"roceedings and the need to "rotect the interest o@ the Phili""ine govern#ent in assessing andcollecting the taIes due the estate. 't #oved that Mrs. Marcos and ;erdinand '' be declaredinco#"etent as eIecutors and "rayed that letters o@ ad#inistration be issued in @avor o@ "etitionersno#inee.

Mrs. '#elda Marcos and ;erdinand Marcos '' o""osed the #otion clai#ing that the (o##issionero@ 'nternal $evenue Aas not a suitable "erson to act as ad#inistrator o@ the estate.

+@ter establishing the urisdictional @acts and concluding its "resentation o@ evidence in the "robatecourt, "etitioner @iled an %rgent Motion @or +""oint#ent o@ *"ecial +d#inistrator?s

'n its rder o@ 6 *e"te#ber /661, the "robate court, "er "ublic res"ondent Judge )illara#a,granted the #otion and a""ointed (o##issioner &iAayAay )inzons>(hato as *"ecial+d#inistrator o@ the estate o@ ;erdinand E. Marcos. (iting *ection / o@ $ule !3 o@ the $ules o@(ourt, the order also declared that u"on the @iling o@ the "etition @or "robate o@ the Aill, the "robatecourt acCuired urisdiction over the estate to the eIclusion o@ all other courtsH and that the %.*.District (ourt o@ 4aAaii cannot assert its urisdiction over the assets o@ the estate and eIclude the

urisdiction already vested in Kthe "robate courtL.

'n his ""osition +tty. Do#ingo also contended that the #otion @or issuance o@ a Arit o@ "reli#inaryinunction Aas grossly insu@@icient both in @or# and substance, since it Aas not veri@ied and Aasde@icient and baseless.H and that "etitioners reliance on *ection /, $ule !3 o@ the $ules o@ (ourt is#is"laced. he Aords eIclusive urisdiction @ound therein should be li#ited to "roceedingsconcerning the "robate o@ the Aill and settle#ent o@ the estate o@ the decedent and should not


13/37

include other litigation @or or against the estate. 4e argued that MD& -o. 910 is an action @orrecovery o@ da#ages arising out o@ the late PresidentNs tortuous violation o@ international laA. heaction is totally unrelated to the "robate "roceedings. 4e reasoned that the "robate court is o@li#ited urisdiction and that it can only eIercise urisdiction over the "ro"erty o@ the estate in the

Phili""ines.Mrs. Marcos subseCuently @iled a #otion @or leave to intervene and to ad#it its "etition inintervention, citing that "etitioner @ailed to de@end the interest o@ the estate o@ her late husband. *heclai#s that the "roceeding undertaen by the s"ecial #asters by virtue o@ the re@erence order Aasa continuation o@ the trial o@ MD& -o. 910, considering that F/ a re@erence is the trial anddeter#ination o@ Cuestions arising in litigation by a "erson a""ointed @or that "ur"ose by the courtAherein the case is "endingH F a s"ecial #aster is an o@@icer o@ the a""ointing courtH and F3 thea""licable laA "ertaining to a re@erence and a #aster is *ection 53 o@ the %.*. $ules o@ (ivilProcedure @or the District (ourts. Public res"ondent Judge then erred in considering the

"roceeding as one @or de"osition as a #ode o@ discovery. +ccordingly, in denying the "etition @orinunction he abdicated the urisdiction o@ the "robate court in @avor o@ the %.*. District (ourt o@4aAaiiH he even #ade a turn>about since earlier, in his 6 *e"te#ber /661 rder, he ruled that the4aAaii (ourt could not assert urisdiction over the Marcos assets.

ISSUE: hether or not the court acCuired urisdiction.

HEL25 e dis#iss the "etition not only on the ground o@ #ootness Ahich, generally, Aould usti@ydis#issal. e dis#iss it also @or lac o@ #erit.

't is settled that Ahere the ground invoed in a s"ecial civil action @or certiorari under $ule 5 o@ the

$ules o@ (ourt is abuse o@ discretion >>as in this case >> the abuse #ust be grave as Ahere the"oAer is eIercised in an arbitrary or des"otic #anner by reason o@ "assion or "ersonal hostilityH or,it #ust be so "atent and gross as to a#ount to an evasion o@ "ositive duty or to a virtual re@usal to"er@or# the duty enoined or to act at all in conte#"lation o@ laA. his re#edy then is eItraordinary,and its use is restricted to truly eItraordinary cases.

;or another, *ection / o@ $ule !3 re@ers to courts in the Phili""ines and si#"ly #eans that once as"ecial "roceeding @or the settle#ent o@ the estate o@ a decedent is @iled in one o@ such courts, thatcourt has eIclusive urisdiction over said estate and no other s"ecial "roceedings involving the

sa#e subect #atter #ay be @iled be@ore any other court. *ince @oreign courts are not conte#"latedin *ection /, in no Aay then can it be validly #aintained that the District (ourt o@ 4aAaii hasencroached u"on, or i#"inged on, the urisdiction o@ the "robate court by the issuance o@ the$e@erence rder. he $e@erence rder cannot be construed as concerning or a@@ecting the Marcosestate Aithin the eIclusive urisdiction o@ the "robate court. he duties o@ the s"ecial #asters asde@ined in the $e@erence rder Aere to "re"are Aritten @indings @or sub#ission to the ury regardingFa Ahether the victi#s identi@ied in the clai# @or#s su@@ered torture, su##ary eIecution or


14/37

disa""earance, and Fb the eItent o@ the da#ages sustained. -o eItravagant i#agination can leadus to a conclusion that such duties do not involve any issue cognizable by the "robate court.

-either is there #erit to the clai# that the issuance and i#"le#entation o@ the $e@erence rderviolated the sovereignty o@ the Phili""ines. he decision o@ the loAer court is a@@ir#ed.

10LOLES II VS PHILIPPS

3$R$ No$ )&9+4+$ =anua"! ')( &444

F0CTS5 n July 0, /665 Dr. +rturo De *antos @iled @or the "robate o@ his Aill. 4e clai#ed he hadno co#"ulsory heirs and had na#ed in his Aill as sole legatee and devisee the +rturo de *antos;oundation, 'nc.H that he dis"osed by his Aill his "ro"erties Aith an a""roIi#ate value o@ not lessthan P,000,000.00H and that co"ies o@ said Aill Aere in the custody o@ the na#ed eIecutriI, "rivateres"ondent Pacita de los $eyes Philli"s.

n ;eb. / /66, Maati $( Branch>/ under udge Goros"e issued an order granting the"etition and alloAing the Aill, the court @ound that the testator Aas o@ sound #ind and @reelyeIecuted said Aill.

*hortly a@ter on ;eb. , /66 Dr. De *antos died

Petitioner Ftestators ne"heA clai#ing to be the only son o@ the deceaseds sister +licia de santos,

@iled a #otion @or intervention as the nearest o@ in, and also as a creditor o@ the deceased.De@endant @iled a #otion @or the issuance o@ letters testa#entary in Maati Branch /, but thenAithdreA the sa#e. &ater de@endant then @iled the #otion in Maati $( Branch 5.

Petitoner then @iled a #otion @or intervention also Aith Branch 5, stating again he Aas a @ullblooded ne"heA and that a case already related to the subect #atter Aas "ending in Branch /.Judge +bad *antos, re@erred the case to Branch /.


15/37

MeanAhile Judge Goros"e in Branch / denied the "etitioners #otion to intervene, and deniedtaing cognizance o@ the case @orAarded by Branch 5, because the case in Branch 5 involvedthe Estate o@ Decent +rturo De *antos, Ahile the one in Branch / Aas @iled by +rturo de *antos4i#sel@ Ahen he Aas alive and had already been decided bac in ;eb. / /66, Ahen it alloAed

the Aill.Branch 5 did not Aant to tae the case, but reversed its decision and again too cognizance o@the case to eI"edite "roceedings.

ISSUES5

/. hether or not Maati, Branch / has lost urisdiction to "roceed Aith the "robate "roceedingsu"on its issuance o@ an order alloAing the Aill o@ Dr. +rturo de *antos.

. hether or not Maati, Branch 5 acCuired urisdiction over the "etition @or issuance o@ letterstesta#entary @iled by F"rivate res"ondent.

3. hether or not the "etitioner, being a creditor o@ the late Dr. +rturo de *antos, has a right tointervene and o""ose the "etition @or issuance o@ letters testa#entary @iled by the res"ondent.

HEL25 Branch 5 noA has urisdiction. Petitioners contention that that the "roceedings #ustcontinue until the estate is @ully distributed to the laA@ul heirs, devisees, and legatees o@ thetestator, "ursuant to $ule !3, sec. / o@ the $ules o@ (ourt is Aithout #erit.

'n cases @or the "robate o@ Aills, it is Aell>settled that the authority o@ the court is li#ited toascertaining the eItrinsic validity o@ the Aill, i .e., Ahether the testator, being o@ sound #ind, @reelyeIecuted the Aill in accordance Aith the @or#alities "rescribed by laA. his Aas already done in theante>#orte# "robate o@ Dr. De *antos Aill during his li@eti#e.

hus, a@ter the alloAance o@ the Aill o@ Dr. De *antos on ;ebruary /, /66, there Aas nothing else@or Branch / to do eIce"t to issue a certi@icate o@ alloAance o@ the Aill "ursuant to $ule !3, / o@the $ules o@ (ourt.

Petitioner, Aho de@ends the order o@ Branch 5 alloAing hi# to intervene, cites $ule !3, / Ahichstates:

Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at

the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of

administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which

he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First


16/37

Instance of any province in which he had estate. he court first ta!ing cognizance of the settlement

of the estate of a decedent, shall e"ercise #urisdiction to the e"clusion of all other courts$

he above rule, hoAever, actually "rovides @or the venue o@ actions @or the settle#ent o@ the estateo@ deceased "ersons. 't could not have been intended to de@ine the urisdiction over the subect#atter, because such legal "rovision is contained in a laA o@ "rocedure dealing #erely Aith"rocedural #atters. Procedure is one thing, urisdiction over the subect #atter is another.

'ndeed, the urisdiction over "robate "roceedings and settle#ent o@ estates Aith a""roIi#ate valueo@ over P/00,000.00 Foutside Metro Manila or P00,000.00 Fin Metro Manila belongs to theregional trial courts. he di@@erent branches co#"rising each court in one udicial region do not"ossess urisdictions inde"endent o@ and inco#"atible Aith each other.

't is noteAorthy that, although $ule !3, sec. / a""lies inso@ar as the venue o@ the "etition @or

"robate o@ the Aill o@ Dr. De *antos is concerned, it does not bar other branches o@ the sa#e court@ro# taing cognizance o@ the settle#ent o@ the estate o@ the testator a@ter his death.

&astly, regarding "etitioners clai# as heir and creditor the (ourt said that

Qhe "rivate res"ondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the Aill o@ the decedent +rturo de*antos. -either is he a co#"ulsory heir o@ the latter. +s the only and nearest collateral relative o@the decedent, he can inherit @ro# the latter only in case o@ intestacy. *ince the decedent has le@t aAill Ahich has already been "robated and dis"oses o@ all his "ro"erties the "rivate res"ondent can

inherit only i@ the said Aill is annulled. 4is interest in the decedentNs estate is, there@ore, not direct ori##ediate. 4is clai# to being a creditor o@ the estate is a belated one, having been raised @or the@irst ti#e only in his re"ly to the o""osition to his #otion to intervene, and, as @ar as the recordsshoA, not su""orted by evidence.R

hus, the Petition Aas denied.


17/37

10LOLES II VS COURT OF 0PPE0LS( 3o"ospe

G$ -o. /6505. 3/ January 000

N0TURE OF THE C0SE5 hese are "etitions @or revieA on certiorari o@ the decisions o@ thehirteenth and the *"ecial Eighth Divisions o@ the (ourt o@ +""eals Ahich ruled that "etitioner hasno right to intervene in the settle#ent o@ the estate o@ Dr. +rturo de *antos. he cases Aereconsolidated considering that they involve the sa#e "arties and so#e o@ the issues raised are thesa#e.


18/37

F0CTS5 Dr. +rturo de *antos, ;ili"ino and a resident o@ Maati (ity, @iled a "etition @or "robate o@his AillK/L in the $egional rial (ourt, Branch /, Maati, doceted as *". Proc. -o. M>13. 'n his"etition, Dr. De *antos alleged that he had no co#"ulsory heirsH that he had na#ed in his Aill assole legatee and devisee the +rturo de *antos ;oundation, 'nc.

he rial (ourt then granted the "etition alloAing the Aill. +rturo de *antos died shortly therea@ter.

Petitioner @iled a #otion @or intervention clai#ing that, as the only child o@ +licia de *antosFtestators sister and ctavio &. Maloles, *r., he Aas the sole @ull>blooded ne"heA and nearest o@in o@ Dr. De *antos. 4e lieAise alleged that he Aas a creditor o@ the testator. Petitioner thus"rayed @or the reconsideration o@ the order alloAing the Aill and the issuance o@ letters o@ad#inistration in his na#e.

he rial (ourt hoAever a""ointed Private $es"ondent as eIecutor o@ the estate in Ahich

"etitioner sought to intervene reiterating his allegations. he rial (ourt granted the Motion @orintervention by the Petitioner.

+ggrieved, Private $es"ondent sought recourse Aith the (ourt o@ +""eals through Petition @or(ertiorari Ahich Aas granted accordingly.

ISSUE5 hether or not Petitioner has the right to intervene.

RULIN35 $ule !6 states that any "erson interested in a Aill #ay state in Ariting the grounds Ahyletters testa#entary should not issue to the "ersons na#ed therein as eIecutors, or any o@ the#,

and the court, a@ter hearing u"on notice, shall "ass u"on the su@@iciency o@ such grounds.

%nder this "rovision, it has been held that an interested "erson is one Aho Aould be bene@ited bythe estate, such as an heir, or one Aho has a clai# against the estate, such as a creditor, andAhose interest is #aterial and direct, not #erely incidental or contingent. hus, even i@ "etitioner isthe nearest neIt o@ in o@ Dr. De *antos, he cannot be considered an heir o@ the testator. 't is a@unda#ental rule o@ testa#entary succession that one Aho has no co#"ulsory or @orced heirs #aydis"ose o@ his entire estate by Aill.

-or does he have any right to intervene in the settle#ent "roceedings based on his allegation that

he is a creditor o@ the deceased. *ince the testator instituted or na#ed an eIecutor in his Aill, it isincu#bent u"on the (ourt to res"ect the desires o@ the testator. he choice o@ his eIecutor is a"recious "rerogative o@ a testator, a necessary conco#itant o@ his right to dis"ose o@ his "ro"erty inthe #anner he Aishes. 't is natural that the testator should desire to a""oint one o@ his con@idence,one Aho can be trusted to carry out his Aishes in the dis"osal o@ his estate. he curtail#ent o@ thisright #ay be considered a curtail#ent o@ the right to dis"ose.


19/37

nly i@ the a""ointed eIecutor is inco#"etent, re@uses the trust, or @ails to give bond #ay the courta""oint other "ersons to ad#inister the estate. -one o@ these circu#stances is "resent in thiscase.

R0TIO 2ECI2EN2I5 he "etition is DE-'ED and the decisions o@ the (ourt o@ +""eals are hereby+;;'$MED.


20/37

-'*(4E$ )* D$ -'*(4E$

G.$. -o. /0530 0 -ove#ber 00!

F0CTS5 3/ January /660, Dr. -ittscher @iled Aith the $( o@ Maati (ity a "etition @or the "robateo@ his hologra"hic Aill and @or the issuance o@ letters testa#entary to herein res"ondent +tty.$ogelio P. -ogales. n *e"te#ber /6, /66/, a@ter hearing and Aith due notice to the co#"ulsoryheirs, the "robate court issued an order alloAing the said hologra"hic Aill.

*e"te#ber /661, Dr. -ittscher died. 4ence, +tty. -ogales @iled a "etition @or letters testa#entary@or the ad#inistration o@ the estate o@ the deceased. Dr. -ittschers surviving s"ouse, herein"etitioner (ynthia ). -ittscher, #oved @or the dis#issal o@ the said "etition. 4oAever, the court in its*e"te#ber 6, /665 rder denied "etitioners #otion to dis#iss, and granted res"ondents "etition

@or the issuance o@ letters testa#entary.

Petitioner #oved @or reconsideration, but #otion Aas denied @or lac o@ #erit. n May 6, /66, +tty.-ogales Aas issued letters testa#entary and Aas sAorn in as eIecutor.

Petitioner a""ealed to the (ourt o@ +""eals alleging that res"ondents "etition @or the issuance o@letters testa#entary should have been dis#issed outright as the $( had no urisdiction over thesubect #atter and that she Aas denied due "rocess. he a""ellate court dis#issed the a""eal

Petitioner contends that res"ondents "etition @or the issuance o@ letters testa#entary laced acerti@ication against @oru#>sho""ing. *he adds that the $( has no urisdiction over the subect

#atter o@ this case because Dr. -ittscher Aas allegedly not a resident o@ the Phili""inesH neither didhe leave real "ro"erties in the country. Petitioner clai#s that the "ro"erties listed @or dis"osition inher husbands Aill actually belong to her. *he insists she Aas denied due "rocess o@ laA becauseshe did not receive by "ersonal service the notices o@ the "roceedings.

ISSUES: F/hether or not certi@icate o@ nonS@oru# sho""ing is reCuired. F hether or not the$( has urisdiction over the case. F3 hether or not "etitioner Aas denied due "rocess.

HEL25

>)? $evised (ircular -o. 9>6 and +d#inistrative (ircular -o. 01>61 o@ the (ourt reCuire a

certi@ication against @oru#>sho""ing @or all initiatory "leadings @iled in court. 4oAever, in this case,the "etition @or the issuance o@ letters testa#entary is not an initiatory "leading, but a #erecontinuation o@ the original "etition @or the "robate o@ Dr. -ittschers Aill. 4ence, res"ondents @ailureto include a certi@ication against @oru#>sho""ing in his "etition @or the issuance o@ letterstesta#entary is not a ground @or outright dis#issal o@ the said "etition.

>&? *ection /, $ule !3 o@ the $ules o@ (ourt "rovides:


21/37

SECTION ). Where estate of deceased persons settled . If the #ece#ent is an inhabitant of thePhilippines at the ti6e of his #eath, Ahether a citizen or an alien, his ill shall be p"o7e#( o"lette"s of a#6inist"ation g"ante#( an# his estate settle#( in the Cou"t of Fi"st Instance >no

Regional T"ial Cou"t? in the p"o7ince in hich he "esi#es at the ti6e of his #eath , and i@ he isan inhabitant o@ a @oreign country, the (ourt o@ ;irst 'nstance FnoA $egional rial (ourt o@ any"rovince in Ahich he had estate. FE#"hasis su""lied.

'n this case, the $( and the (ourt o@ +""eals are one in their @inding that Dr. -ittscher Aas aresident o@ &as Pias, Metro Manila at the ti#e o@ his death. *uch @actual @inding, Ahich Ae @indsu""orted by evidence on record, should no longer be disturbed. i#e and again Ae have said thatrevieAs on certiorari are li#ited to errors o@ laA. %nless there is a shoAing that the @indings o@ theloAer court are totally devoid o@ su""ort or are glaringly erroneous, this (ourt Aill not analyze orAeigh evidence all over again$

4ence, a""lying the a@oreCuoted rule, Dr. -ittscher correctly @iled in the $( o@ Maati (ity, Ahich

then covered &as Pias, Metro Manila, the "etition @or the "robate o@ his Aill and @or the issuance o@letters testa#entary to res"ondent.

>'? *ection 1, $ule ! o@ the $ules o@ (ourt states: SEC$ *. %eirs, devisees, legatees, and e"ecutors to be notified by mail or personally . '@ the testator ass @or the alloAance o@ his oAn Aill,notice shall be sent only to his co#"ulsory heirs.

'n this case, records shoA that "etitioner, Aith Aho# Dr. -ittscher had no child, and Dr. -ittscherschildren @ro# his "revious #arriage Aere all duly noti@ied, by registered #ail, o@ the "robate"roceedings. Petitioner even a""eared in court to o""ose res"ondents "etition @or the issuance o@letters testa#entary and she also @iled a #otion to dis#iss the said "etition. *he lieAise @iled a#otion @or reconsideration o@ the issuance o@ the letters testa#entary and o@ the denial o@ her#otion to dis#iss. e are convinced "etitioner Aas accorded every o""ortunity to de@end hercause. here@ore, "etitioners allegation that she Aas denied due "rocess in the "robate"roceedings is Aithout basis.

Petitioner should realize that the alloAance o@ her husbands Aill is conclusive only as to its dueeIecution. he authority o@ the "robate court is li#ited to ascertaining Ahether the testator, being o@sound #ind, @reely eIecuted the Aill in accordance Aith the @or#alities "rescribed by laA. hus,"etitioners clai# o@ title to the "ro"erties @or#ing "art o@ her husbands estate should be settled inan ordinary action be@ore the regular courts.


22/37

CORTES VS C0 @ RESELV0

3$R$ No$ ))%*)% &) Septe6be" &) &444

F0CTS5 Petitioner Menandro +. $eselva, "rivate res"ondent Milagros $. (ortes, and ;lorante$eselva are brothers and sister and children > heirs o@ the late s"ouses eodoro . $eselva and&ucrecia +guirre $eselva, Aho died on +"ril //, /696 and May /3, /69!, res"ectively. During theirli@eti#e, they acCuired a "ro"erty "articularly a house and lot consisting o@ /00 sCuare #eters,#ore or less, Aith address at /!3 'laA *t., Balut, ondo, Manila. +s can be gleaned @ro# the

records, &ucrecia +guirre $eselva died ahead o@ eodoro . $eselva. he latter eIecuted ahologra"hic Aill Ahich Aas "robated in this case on July 3/, /66/, Aith Milagros $. (ortes, as thea""ointed EIecutriI. +@ter having been a""ointed and Cuali@ied as EIecutriI, she @iled a #otionbe@ore res"ondent "robate court "raying that Menandro +. $eselva, the occu"ant o@ the "ro"erty,be ordered to vacate the "ro"erty and turn over to said EIecutriI the "ossession thereo@. his isthe #otion Ahich the res"ondent court granted in the assailed order o@ ctober /9, /663. he$egional rial (ourtNs order Aas set aside @or having been issued beyond the latterNs li#ited urisdiction as a "robate court.

ISSUE5 hether or not the "ro"erty in issue belongs to the conugal "artnershi" or eIclusively tothe decedent.

HEL2: Probate courts, or those in charge o@ "roceedings Ahether testate or intestate, cannotadudicate or deter#ine title to "ro"erties clai#ed to be "art o@ the estate and Ahich are clai#ed tobelong to outside "arties. *tated otherAise, clai#s @or title to, or right o@ "ossession o@, "ersonal orreal "ro"erty, #ade by the heirs the#selves, by title adverse to that o@ the deceased, or #ade bythird "ersons, cannot be entertained by the F"robate court.

$eselva, Aho re@used to vacate the house and lot being eyed as "art o@ the estate o@ the lateeodoro . $eselva, cannot be considered an outside "arty @or he is one o@ the three co#"ulsoryheirs o@ the @or#er. +s such, he is very #uch involved in the settle#ent o@ eodoroNs estate. By Aayo@ eIce"tion to the above>#entioned rule, Ahen the "arties are all heirs o@ the decedent, it is

o"tional u"on the# to sub#it to the "robate court the Cuestion o@ title to "ro"erty. 4ere, the "robatecourt is co#"etent to decide the Cuestion o@ oAnershi". More so, Ahen the o""osing "arties belongto the "oor stratu# o@ society and a se"arate action Aould be #ost eI"ensive and ineI"edient.hen the controversy is Ahether the "ro"erty in issue belongs to the conugal "artnershi" oreIclusively to the decedent, the sa#e is "ro"erly Aithin the urisdiction o@ the "robate court, Ahichnecessarily has to liCuidate the conugal "artnershi" in order to deter#ine the estate o@ thedecedent Ahich is to be distributed a#ong the heirs. he case at bar @alls sCuarely under $ule !3,


23/37

*ection o@ the $evised $ules o@ (ourt: Qhere estate u"on dissolution o@ #arriage. > hen the#arriage is dissolved by the death o@ the husband or Ai@e, the co##unity "ro"erty shall beinventoried, ad#inistered, and liCuidated, and the debts thereo@ "aid, in the testate or intestate"roceedings o@ the deceased s"ouse. '@ both s"ouses have died, the conugal "artnershi" shall beliCuidated in the testate or intestate "roceedings o@ either.

NERI( ET 0L$ VS HEIRS OF UY3R NO$ )9*'-- )4 OCTO/ER &4)&

F0CTS5 +nunciacion -eri, during her li@eti#e, had seven children, tAo @ro# her @irst #arriageAith Gonzalo na#ely: Eutro"ia and )ictoria, and @ive 5 @ro# her second #arriage Aith EnriCue -eriEnriCue, na#ely: -a"oleon, +licia, )is#inda, Douglas and $osa. *"ouses EnriCue and+nunciacion, they acCuired several ho#estead "ro"erties Aith a total area o@ 6,555 sCuare#eters located in *a#al, Davao del -orte. n *e"te#ber /, /6!!, +nunciacion died intestate.4er husband, EnriCue, in his "ersonal ca"acity and as natural guardian o@ his #inor children $osaand Douglas, together Aith -a"oleon, +licia, and )is#inda eIecuted an EItra>Judicial *ettle#ento@ the Estate Aith +bsolute Deed o@ *ale adudicating a#ong the#selves the said ho#estead"ro"erties, and therea@ter, conveying the# o@ the late s"ouses %y @or a consideration o@₱90,000.00. n June //, /66, the children o@ EnriCue @iled a co#"laint @or annul#ent o@ sale o@the said ho#estead "ro"erties against s"ouses %y be@ore the $( assailing the validity o@ the sale@or having been sold Aithin the "rohibited "eriod. he co#"laint Aas later a#ended to includeEutro"ia and )ictorias additional "lainti@@s @or having been eIcluded and de"rived o@ their legiti#es

as children o@ +nunciacion @ro# her @irst #arriage. 'n their a#ended ansAer Aith counterclai#, theheirs o@ %y countered that the sale too "lace beyond the 5>year "rohibitory "eriod @ro# theissuance o@ the ho#estead "atents. hey also denied noAledge o@ Eutro"ia and )ictoriaseIclusion @ro# the eItraudicial settle#ent and sale o@ the subect "ro"erties, and inter"osed@urther the de@enses o@ "rescri"tion and laches. he $( rendered a decision ordering theannul#ent o@ the EItra>Judicial *ettle#ent o@ the Estate Aith +bsolute Deed o@ *ale. 't ruled thatAhile the sale occurred beyond the year "rohibitory "eriod, the sale is still void because Eutro"iaand )ictoria Aere de"rived o@ their hereditary rights and that EnriCue had no udicial authority to sellthe shares o@ his #inor children, $osa and Douglas. (onseCuently, it reected the de@enses o@

laches and "rescri"tion raised by s"ouses %y, Aho clai#ed "ossession o@ the subect "ro"erties @or/! years, holding that co>oAnershi" rights are i#"rescri"tible. he (+ reversed and set aside theruling o@ the $( and dis#issed the co#"laint o@ the "etitioners.

ISSUE5 hether or not the natural guardian under "arental authority, has the "oAer to dis"ose orencu#ber the "ro"erty o@ the #inor.


24/37

HEL25 -o. (hildren o@ +nunciacion @ro# her @irst and second #arriages are entitled to inherit @ro#her in eCual shares. 'n the eIecution o@ the EItra>Judicial *ettle#ent o@ the Estate Aith +bsoluteDeed o@ *ale in @avor o@ s"ouses %y, all the heirs o@ +nunciacion should have "artici"ated.(onsidering that Eutro"ia and )ictoria Aere ad#ittedly eIcluded and that then #inors $osa and

Douglas Aere not "ro"erly re"resented therein, the settle#ent Aas not valid and binding u"onthe#. hile the settle#ent o@ the estate is null and void, the subseCuent sale o@ the "ro"erties#ade by EnriCue and his children, -a"oleon, +licia and )is#inda, in @avor o@ the s"ouses is validbut only Aith res"ect to their "ro"ortionate shares. ith res"ect to $osa and Douglas Aho Aere#inors at the ti#e o@ the eIecution o@ the settle#ent and sale, their natural guardian and @ather,EnriCue, re"resented the# in the transaction. + @ather or #other, as the natural guardian o@ the#inor under "arental authority, does not have the "oAer to dis"ose or encu#ber the "ro"erty o@ thelatter such "oAer is granted by laA only to a udicial guardian o@ the Aards "ro"erty and even thenonly Aith courts "rior a""roval secured in accordance Aith the "roceedings set @orth by the $ules

o@ (ourt.


25/37

HEIRS OF TEVES VS C0( HEIRS OF IT , IT3$R$ No$ )499-'$ Octobe" )'( )999

F0CTS5 Marcelina (i#a@ranca and JoaCuin eves had nine children, na#ely eoti#o, ;elicia,Pedro, +ndres, +suncion, Gorgonio, (resenciano, +rcadia and Maria. +@ter they died, intestate andAithout debts, in /613 and /653, res"ectively, their children eIecuted eItraudicial settle#ents"ur"orting to adudicate unto the#selves the oAnershi" over tAo "arcels o@ land belonging to theirdeceased "arents and to alienate their shares thereto in @avor o@ their sister +suncion eves. nMay 6, /691, "lainti@@s>a""ellants $icardo, son o@ (resenciano, and +rcadia eves @iled a co#"laintAith the $( o@ -egros riental @or the "artition and reconveyance o@ tAo "arcels o@ land located inDu#aguete, designated as &ots !6>+ and 106, against the heirs o@ +suncion eves. heco#"laint Aas subseCuently a#ended to include Maria eves and the heirs o@ eoti#o, ;elicia,Pedro, and Gorgonio eves as "lainti@@s. hey alleged that de@endantsa""ellees, Aithout any usti@iable reason, re@used to "artition the said "arcels o@ land and to convey to "lainti@@s their

right@ul shares. he "resent controversy involves only Marcelina (i#a@rancaNs one>@ourth F/?1share in the land, designated as &ot !6>+. n June /3, /65, eoti#o, ;elicia, Pedro, +suncion,Gorgonio and +rcadia eves eIecuted a docu#ent entitled *ettle#ent o@ Estate and *ale,adudicating unto the#selves, in eCual shares, &ot !6>+ and conveying their shares, interests and"artici"ations over the sa#e in @avor o@ +suncion eves @or the consideration o@ P15.00. + si#ilardeed deno#inated EItraudicial *ettle#ent and *aleR Aas signed by Maria eves on +"ril /,/656. %nder such deed, Maria conveys her oAn share over &ot !6>+ in @avor o@ +suncion eves@or the consideration o@ P90.00. he tAo settle#ents Aere denounced by the "lainti@@s as s"urious.'n ansAer to "lainti@@s>a""ellantsN charges o@ @raud, de@endants>a""ellees #aintained that theassailed docu#ents Aere eIecuted Aith all the @or#alities reCuired by laA and are there@orebinding and legally e@@ective as bases @or acCuiring oAnershi" or legal title over the lots in Cuestion.;urther#ore, it is contended that "lainti@@s>a""ellants have sle"t on their rights and should noA bedee#ed to have abandoned such rights. he trial court ruled in @avor o@ de@endants>a""ellees andrendered udg#ent dis#issing the co#"laint Aith costs against "lainti@@s>a""ellants. he (ourt o@+""eals u"held the trial courtNs decision.

ISSUES5


26/37

/. hether or not the eItraudicial settle#ents eIecuted by the heirs o@ eves validO. hether or not the non>registration o@ an eItraudicial settle#ent a@@ect its intrinsic

validityO

HEL25

/. 2E*. ;or a "artition "ursuant to section / o@ $ule !1 to be valid, the @olloAing conditions #ustconcur: F/ the decedent le@t no AillH F the decedent le@t no debts, or i@ there Aere debts le@t, allhad been "aidH F3 the heirs are all o@ age, or i@ they are #inors, the latter are re"resented by their udicial guardian or legal re"resentativesH F1 the "artition Aas #ade by #eans o@ a "ublicinstru#ent or a@@idavit duly @iled Aith the $egister o@ Deeds. e u"hold, @inding no cogent reason toreverse, the trial and a""ellate courtsN @actual @inding that the evidence "resented by "lainti@@s>a""ellants is insu@@icient to overco#e the evidentiary value o@ the eItraudicial settle#ents. hedeeds are "ublic docu#ents and it has been held by this (ourt that a "ublic docu#ent eIecutedAith all the legal @or#alities is entitled to a "resu#"tion o@ truth as to the recitals contained therein.

'n order to overthroA a certi@icate o@ a notary "ublic to the e@@ect that the grantor eIecuted a certaindocu#ent and acnoAledged the @act o@ its eIecution be@ore hi#, #ere "re"onderance o@ evidenceAill not su@@ice. $ather, the evidence #ust be so clear, strong and convincing as to eIclude allreasonable dis"ute as to the @alsity o@ the certi@icate. hen the evidence is con@licting, thecerti@icate Aill be u"held. he a""ellate courtNs ruling that the evidence "resented by "lainti@@s>a""ellants does not constitute the clear, strong, and convincing evidence necessary to overco#ethe "ositive value o@ the eItraudicial settle#ents eIecuted by the "arties, all o@ Ahich are "ublicdocu#ents, being essentially a @inding o@ @act, is entitled to great res"ect by the a""ellate court andshould not be disturbed on a""eal. he division o@ &ot !6>+ Aas e#bodied in tAo deeds. he @irsteItraudicial settle#ent Aas entered into by eoti#o, ;elicia, Pedro, Gorgonio, +rcadia and+suncion eves in /65 , Ahile the second deed Aas eIecuted in /656 by Maria eves.(resenciano Aas not a signatory to either settle#ent. 4oAever, in contrast to the eItraudicialsettle#ent covering &ot 106, the tAo eItraudicial settle#ents involving &ot !6>+ do not "ur"ortto eIclude (resenciano @ro# his "artici"ation in &ot !6>+ or to cede his share therein in @avor o@+suncion. he settle#ent clearly adudicated the "ro"erty in eCual shares in @avor o@ the eight heirso@ Marcelina (i#a@ranca. Moreover, the deeds Aere intended to convey to +suncion eves only theshares o@ those heirs Aho a@@iIed their signatures in the tAo docu#ents.

. -o. 'n the case o@ )da. de $eyes vs. (+, the (ourt, inter"reting section / o@ $ule !1 o@ the$ules o@ (ourt, u"held the validity o@ an oral "artition o@ the decedentNs estate and declared that thenon>registration o@ an eItraudicial settle#ent does not a@@ect its intrinsic validity. 't Aas held in thiscase that T KtLhe reCuire#ent that a "artition be "ut in a "ublic docu#ent and registered has @or its"ur"ose the "rotection o@ creditors and at the sa#e ti#e the "rotection o@ the heirs the#selvesagainst tardy clai#s. he obect o@ registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. 't @olloAsthen that the intrinsic validity o@ "artition not eIecuted Aith the "rescribed @or#alities does not co#einto "lay Ahen there are no creditors or the rights o@ creditors are not a@@ected. here no such


27/37

rights are involved, it is co#"etent @or the heirs o@ an estate to enter into an agree#ent @ordistribution in a #anner and u"on a "lan di@@erent @ro# those "rovided by laA. hus, des"ite itsnon>registration, the eItraudicial settle#ents involving &ot !6>+ are legally e@@ective and bindinga#ong the heirs o@ Marcelina (i#a@ranca since their #other had no creditors at the ti#e o@ herdeath.

T0N VS$ /ENOLIR0O3R NO$ )+'oAners o@ a 96>sCuare #eter "arcel o@ land F property located in agaytay(ity and covered by rans@er (erti@icate o@ itle FC -o. 13.

n ctober , /66, the co>oAners eIecuted a Deed o@ (onditional *ale over the "ro"erty in @avoro@ an @or the "rice o@ P/,3!9,000.00. U

Pursuant to the Deed o@ (onditional *ale, an issued and delivered to the co>oAners?vendorsMetroban (hec -o. 60110! @or P00,000.00 as doAn "ay#ent @or the "ro"erty, @or Ahich thevendors issued a corres"onding recei"t.

n -ove#ber , /66, &a#berto Benolirao died intestate. Erlinda Benolirao Fhis AidoA and one o@the vendors o@ the "ro"erty and her children, as heirs o@ the deceased, eIecuted an eItraudicialsettle#ent o@ &a#bertos estate. n the basis o@ the eItraudicial settle#ent, a neA certi@icate o@title over the "ro"erty, ( -o. !335, Aas issued on March , /663 in the na#es o@ the *"ouses$eynaldo and -or#a aningco and Erlinda Benolirao and her children. +s stated in the Deed o@(onditional *ale, an had until March /5, /663 to "ay the balance o@ the "urchase "rice. Byagree#ent o@ the "arties, this "eriod Aas eItended by tAo #onths, so an had until May /5,/663 to "ay the balance.

an @ailed to "ay and ased @or another eItension, Ahich the vendors again granted.-otAithstanding this second eItension, an still @ailed to "ay the re#aining balance due on May /,

/663. he vendors thus Arote hi# a letter de#anding "ay#ent o@ the balance o@ the "urchase"rice Aithin @ive F5 days @ro# noticeH otherAise, they Aould declare the rescission o@ theconditional sale and the @or@eiture o@ his doAn "ay#ent based on the ter#s o@ the contract. anre@used to co#"ly Aith the vendors de#and and instead Arote the# a letter clai#ing that theannotation on the title, #ade "ursuant to *ection 1, $ule !1 o@ the $ules, constituted anencu#brance on the "ro"erty that Aould "revent the vendors @ro# delivering a clean title to


28/37

hi#. hus, he alleged that he could no longer be reCuired to "ay the balance o@ the "urchase "riceand de#anded the return o@ his doAn "ay#ent.

ISSUE5 hether or not an annotation #ade "ursuant to *ection 1, $ule !1 o@ the $ules o@ (ourton a certi@icate o@ title covering real "ro"erty considered an encu#brance on the "ro"ertyO

HEL2: 2es. hile an ad#its that he re@used to "ay the balance o@ the "urchase "rice, heclai#s that he had valid reason to do so the sudden a""earance o@ an annotation on the title"ursuant to *ection 1, $ule !1 o@ the $ules, Ahich an considered an encu#brance on the"ro"erty. he annotation "laced on ( -o. !335, the neA title issued to re@lect theeItraudicial "artition o@ &a#berto Benoliraos estate a#ong his heirs. V

his annotation Aas "laced on the title "ursuant to *ection 1, $ule !1 o@ the $ules. *ec.1. &iability of distributees and estate. ' '@ it shall a""ear at any ti#e Aithin tAo F years a@ter thesettle#ent and distribution o@ an estate in accordance Aith the "rovisions o@ either o@ the @irst tAo

sections o@ this rule, that an heir or other "erson has been unduly de"rived o@ his laA@ul"artici"ation in the estate, such heir or such other "erson #ay co#"el the settle#ent o@ the estatein the courts in the #anner hereina@ter "rovided @or the "ur"ose o@ satis@ying such laA@ul"artici"ation. +nd if ithin the sa#e ti#e o@ to >&? !ea"s( it shall appea" that the"e a"e#ebts outstanding against the estate Ahich have not been "aid, or that an heir or other "erson hasbeen unduly de"rived o@ his laA@ul "artici"ation "ayable in #oney, the court having urisdiction o@the estate #ay, by order @or that "ur"ose, a@ter hearing, settle the a#ount o@ such debts or laA@ul"artici"ation and order hoA #uch and in Ahat #anner each distributee shall contribute in the"ay#ent thereo@, and #ay issue eIecution, i@ circu#stances reCuire,against the bond"rovided in the "receding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both.

*uch bond and such real estate shall re#ain charged Aith a liability to creditors, heirs, or other"ersons @or the @ull "eriod o@ tAo F years a@ter such distribution, notAithstanding any trans@ers o@real estate that #ay have been #ade. he annotation, there@ore, creates a legal encu#brance orlien on the real "ro"erty in @avor o@ the eIcluded heirs or creditors. here a buyer "urchases thereal "ro"erty des"ite the annotation, he #ust be ready @or the "ossibility that the title could besubect to the rights o@ eIcluded "arties.

he cancellation o@ the sale Aould be the logical conseCuence Ahere: Fa the annotation clearlya""ears on the title, Aarning all Aould>be buyersH Fb the sale unlaA@ully inter@eres Aith the rights o@heirsH and Fc the right@ul heirs bring an action to Cuestion the trans@er Aithin the tAo>year "eriod"rovided by laA.


29/37

REILLO et$ al 7s S0N =OSE3R )--'9' )< =UNE &449

F0CTS: 7uiterio *an Jose and +ntonina Es"iritu *anto are husband and Ai@e. Both died intestatein /6!0 and /6! res"ectively. hey have @ive children, to Ait: )irginia, )irgilio, Galicano, )ictoria,and (atalina.

'n /669, )irginia Aith the hel" o@ her husband F8osi#o ;ernando, *r. and her children F(ristina$eillo et al eIecuted a Deed o@ EItraudicial *ettle#ent o@ Estate Ahere they #ade it a""ear that)irginia Aas the only heir o@ the s"ouses 7uiterio and +ntonina. hey adudicated a#ongthe#selves the estate and then later sold it to Ma. eresa PiWon.

&ater, the other siblings @ound out about Ahat )irginia did and so in ctober /666, they @iled aco#"laint in $(>$izal @or the annul#ent o@ the deed o@ eItraudicial settle#ent as Aell as thesubseCuent deed o@ sale.

'n their ansAer, $eillo et al Fchildren o@ the noA deceased )irginia ad#itted that their grand"arentsF7uiterio and +ntonina indeed had @ive children and that their #o# isnt the only heir. 4oAever,they alleged that Ahat their #o# adudicated to hersel@ is her inheritanceH that other than the "arcelo@ land their #o# adudicated to hersel@, their grand"arents have / other "arcels o@ land Ahichare under the "ossession o@ Galicano et alH that as such, they are @iling a Qco#"ulsoryRcounterclai# @or the "artition o@ the other / "arcels o@ land.

Galicano et al then @iled a #otion @or the court to render udg#ent on the "leadings. he trial court

granted the #otion. he $( ruled that the ad#ission o@ $eillo et al that there are 1 other heirs is"roo@ that the eItraudicial settle#ent is void because the other heirs Aere eIcluded. he $( alsoruled that $eillo et als counterclai# is not co#"ulsory but rather it is a "er#issive counterclai#. +ssuch, $eillo et al should have "aid docet @ees there@or but they @ailed to do so hence theircounterclai# is dis#issed. he $( then ordered the heirs to "artition the estate according to thelaAs o@ intestate succession. n a""eal, the (ourt o@ +""eals F(+ a@@ir#ed the decision o@ the$(.


30/37

$eillo et al a""ealed the decision o@ the (+ on the ground that the udg#ent on the "leading isvoidH that it is the $(s @ault Ahy they @ailed to "ay the docet @ees @or its @ailure to direct the#Hand that the order @or "artition is void because it does not co#e Aith an order o@ "ublication"ursuant to $ule !1 o@ the $ules o@ (ourt.

ISSUE5 hether or not the order @or "artition issued by the trial court is void because there Aas nocorres"onding order @or "ublication "ursuant to the "rovisions o@ $ule !1 o@ the $ules o@ (ourt.

HEL25 -o. he a""licable rule is $ule 6 o@ the $ules o@ (ourt. *ince the eItraudicial settle#entis void, the "ro"erty is reverted bac to its "revious state Ahich is: that it is "art o@ the estate o@7uiterio and +ntonina. +s such, the estate is dee#ed undivided a#ong the heirs. +nd every actionto end an in division a#ong heirs is dee#ed an action @or "artition. here@ore $ule 6 a""lies andunder this rule, there is no need to "ublish the "artition in a neAs"a"er o@ general circulation.

+nent the issue o@ the udg#ent on the "leadings, the sa#e is valid because $eillo et al @ailed toraise an issue Ahen they already ad#itted that there are other heirs Ahich Aere eIcluded in thedeed o@ eItraudicial settle#ent. heir allegation that the "arcel o@ land adudicated by their #otheris her inheritance is not tenable because the sa#e Aas not indicated in the deed o@ eItraudicialsettle#ent. 'n @act, Ahat Aas stated Aas that she Aas the sole heir.

+nent the issue o@ the counterclai#, $eillo et als counterclai# is "er#issive in nature and not aco#"ulsory one because their clai# is not Qnecessarily connected Aith the transaction oroccurrence constituting the subect #atter o@ the o""osing "artys clai#R. heir counterclai#consists o@ a clai# that there are / other "arcels o@ land oAned by 7uiterio and +ntonina. *uchallegation is already entirely di@@erent @ro# the action brought by Galicano et al., hence it is"er#issive and it can even be brought in a se"arate "roceeding. +s a "er#issive "leading, itreCuires the "ay#ent o@ docet @ees and the $( cannot be @aulted @or not directing $eillo et al todo so. he "ay#ent is incu#bent u"on $eillo et al and the obligation cannot be shi@ted to the $(.


31/37

0NTONIO /0LT0;0R et al$ VS$ LOREN;O L0A03R NO$ )%**in>interest and Pacencia had no right to beCueath the# to &orenzo and Aas later oined by the other"etitioners. hey clai# that: the Aill Aas not eIecuted and attested to in accordance Aith thereCuire#ents o@ the laAH that Pacencia Aas #entally inca"able o@ #aing the Aill and that she Aasin@luenced triced, and Aas under duress Ahen she eIecuted the Aill.

he $( denied the reCuest o@ both &orenzo and +ntonio to be a""ointed as ad#inistrator since

&orenzo is a resident o@ the %* and +ntonios clai# as co>oAner o@ the "ro"erties has not yet beenestablished.

he $( later ruled denying the "etition and disalloAed the notarized Aill and gave credence tothe testi#ony o@ one o@ the "etitioners that Pacencia Aas no longer "ossesed o@ su@@icient reasonor strength o@ #ind to have testa#entary ca"acity.

he "etitioners a""ealed to the (ourt o@ +""eals Ahich reversed the ruling o@ the $(.


32/37

ISSUE5hether the authenticity and due eIecution o@ the notarial Aill Aas su@@iciently establishedto Aarrant its alloAance @or "robate.

HEL25 2es. ;aith@ul co#"liance Aith the @or#alities laid doAn by laA is clear and evident @ro# the@ace o@ the Aill. +ll the signatures o@ the testatriI, her Aitnesses and the notary "ublic are "resent

and evidence and signed in the "resence o@ one another. &ieAise, the burden to "rove thatPacencia Aas o@ unsound #ind at the ti#e o@ the eIecution o@ the Aill lies on the shoulder o@ the"etitioner. he state o@ being @orget@ul, as in the case o@ Pacencia does not render a "erson#entally unsound and unable and un@it to eIecute a Aill. ;orget@ulness is not eCuivalent to being o@unsound #ind. ;urther, bare allegations o@ duress or in@luence o@ @ear o@ threats, undue andi#"ro"er in@luence and "ressure, @raud o@ tricery cannot be used as basis to deny the "robate o@a Aill. 't is clear and undis"uted @act that Pacencia too care and treated &orenzo as her oAn son.his ind o@ relationshi" is unusual and goes againt the allegations o@ "etitioners. &ieAise, on theallegation o@ the "etitioners that all o@ the Aitnesses, as Aell as, the notary "ublic be "resented is

court, the (ourt disagrees. 't Aas thoroughly eI"lained Ahy the other Aitnesses Aere not"resented. 't is established rule that a testa#ent #ay not be disalloAed ust because the attestingAitneeses declare against its due eIecution. he "robate o@ the Aill #ay be alloAed on the basiso@ the testi#ony o@ one o@ the Aitnesses "roving Pacencias sanity and due eIecution o@ the Aill, asAell as on the "roo@ o@ her handAriting. &astly, the very eIistence o@ the Aill is in itsel@ "ri#a @acie"roo@ that the su""osed testatriI has Ailled that her estate be distributed in the #anner she Aills.his, together Aith the close and established relationshi" o@ Pacencia and &orenzo, the evidenceand testi#onies o@ Aitnesses, as o""osed to the total lac o@ evidence @ro# the o""ositor,constrained the (ourt to @avor the authenticity o@ the Aill and the alloAance @or "robate.


33/37

UY 8I0O EN3 7s$ NIAON LEE3$R$No$ )%-


34/37

"erson reCuiring the "er@or#ance o@ a "articular duty therein s"eci@ied, Ahich duty results @ro# theo@@icial station o@ the "arty to Aho# the Arit is directed or @ro# o"eration o@ laA. his de@initionrecognizes the "ublic character o@ the re#edy, and clearly eIcludes the idea that it #ay be resortedto @or the "ur"ose o@ en@orcing the "er@or#ance o@ duties in Ahich the "ublic has no interest. heArit is a "ro"er recourse @or citizens Aho see to en@orce a "ublic right and to co#"el the"er@or#ance o@ a "ublic duty, #ost es"ecially Ahen the "ublic right involved is #andated by the(onstitution. +s the Cuoted "rovision instructs, #anda#us Aill lie i@ the tribunal, cor"oration, board,o@@icer, or "erson unlaA@ully neglects the "er@or#ance o@ an act Ahich the laA enoins as a dutyresulting @ro# an o@@ice, trust or station.

he Arit o@ #anda#us, hoAever, Aill not issue to co#"el an o@@icial to do anything Ahich is not hisduty to do or Ahich it is his duty not to do, or to give to the a""licant anything to Ahich he is notentitled by laA. -or Aill #anda#us issue to en@orce a right Ahich is in substantial dis"ute or as toAhich a substantial doubt eIists, although obection raising a #ere technical Cuestion Aill bedisregarded i@ the right is clear and the case is #eritorious. +s a rule, #anda#us Aill not lie in theabsence o@ any o@ the @olloAing grounds: KaL that the court, o@@icer, board, or "erson against Aho#the action is taen unlaA@ully neglected the "er@or#ance o@ an act Ahich the laA s"eci@ically enoinsas a duty resulting @ro# o@@ice, trust, or stationH or KbL that such court, o@@icer, board, or "erson hasunlaA@ully eIcluded "etitioner?relator @ro# the use and enoy#ent o@ a right or o@@ice to Ahich he isentitled. n the "art o@ the relator, it is essential to the issuance o@ a Arit o@ #anda#us that heshould have a clear legal right to the thing de#anded and it #ust be the i#"erative duty o@res"ondent to "er@or# the act reCuired.

$ecognized @urther in this urisdiction is the "rinci"le that #anda#us cannot be used to en@orcecontractual obligations. Generally, #anda#us Aill not lie to en@orce "urely "rivate contract rights,and Aill not lie against an individual unless so#e obligation in the nature o@ a "ublic or Cuasi>"ublicduty is i#"osed. he Arit is not a""ro"riate to en@orce a "rivate right against an individual.L he Arito@ #anda#us lies to en@orce the eIecution o@ an act, Ahen, otherAise, ustice Aould be obstructedHand, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the "ublic and to the govern#entH hence, it is calleda "rerogative Arit. o "reserve its "rerogative character, #anda#us is not used @or the redress o@"rivate Arongs, but only in #atters relating to the "ublic.

Moreover, an i#"ortant "rinci"le @olloAed in the issuance o@ the Arit is that there should be no"lain, s"eedy and adeCuate re#edy in the ordinary course o@ laA other than the re#edy o@#anda#us being invoed. 'n other Aords, #anda#us can be issued only in cases Ahere the usual#odes o@ "rocedure and @or#s o@ re#edy are "oAerless to a@@ord relie@. +lthough classi@ied as alegal re#edy, #anda#us is eCuitable in its nature and its issuance is generally controlled byeCuitable "rinci"les. 'ndeed, the grant o@ the Arit o@ #anda#us lies in the sound discretion o@ thecourt.

'n the instant case, the (ourt, Aithout unnecessarily ascertaining Ahether the obligation involvedhereTthe "roduction o@ the original hologra"hic AillTis in the nature o@ a "ublic or a "rivate duty,


35/37

rules that the re#edy o@ #anda#us cannot be availed o@ by res"ondent &ee because there liesanother "lain, s"eedy and adeCuate re#edy in the ordinary course o@ laA. &et it be noted thatres"ondent has a "hotoco"y o@ the Aill and that he sees the "roduction o@ the original @or"ur"oses o@ "robate. he $ules o@ (ourt, hoAever, does not "revent hi# @ro# instituting "robate"roceedings @or the alloAance o@ the Aill Ahether the sa#e is in his "ossession or not.

here being a "lain, s"eedy and adeCuate re#edy in the ordinary course o@ laA @or the "roductiono@ the subect Aill, the re#edy o@ #anda#us cannot be availed o@. *u@@ice it to state that res"ondent&ee lacs a cause o@ action in his "etition. hus, the (ourt grants the de#urrer.

P0L030N0S VS P0L030N0S

3$R$ No$ )-9)** &- =0NU0RY &4))

F0CTS5 n -ove#ber 9, 00/ $u"erta (. Palaganas, a ;ili"ino Aho beca#e a naturalized %nited*tates citizen, died single and childless. 'n the last Aill and testa#ent she eIecuted in (ali@ornia,she designated her brother, *ergio (. Palaganas, as the eIecutor o@ her Aill @or she had le@t"ro"erties in the Phili""ines and in the %*+. n May /6, 003 res"ondent Ernesto (. Palaganas,another brother o@ $u"erta, @iled Aith the $egional rial (ourt o@ Malolos, Bulacan, a "etition @or the"robate o@ $u"ertas Aill and @or his a""oint#ent as s"ecial ad#inistrator o@ her estate.

n ctober /5, 003, hoAever, "etitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas and Bena#in Gregorio

Palaganas, ne"heAs o@ $u"erta, o""osed the "etition on the ground that $u"ertas Aill should notbe "robated in the Phili""ines but in the %.*. Ahere she eIecuted it. Manuel and Bena#in addedthat, assu#ing $u"ertas Aill could be "robated in the Phili""ines, it is invalid nonetheless @orhaving been eIecuted under duress and Aithout the testators @ull understanding o@ theconseCuences o@ such act. Ernesto, they clai#ed, is also not Cuali@ied to act as ad#inistrator o@ theestate. Meanti#e, since $u"ertas @oreign>based siblings, Gloria )illaluz and *ergio, Aere onse"arate occasions in the Phili""ines @or a short visit, res"ondent Ernesto @iled a #otion Aith the$( @or leave to tae their de"osition, Ahich it granted. n +"ril, /3, 001 the $( directed the"arties to sub#it their #e#orandu# on the issue o@ Ahether or not $u"ertas %.*. Aill #ay be"robated in and alloAed by a court in the Phili""ines. X n June /!, 001 the $( issued anorder: Fa ad#itting to "robate $u"ertas last AillH Fb a""ointing res"ondent Ernesto as s"ecialad#inistrator at the reCuest o@ *ergio, the %.*.>based eIecutor designated in the AillH and Fcissuing the &etters o@ *"ecial +d#inistration to Ernesto. X +ggrieved by the $(s order, "etitionerne"heAs Manuel and Bena#in a""ealed to the (ourt o@ +""eals F(+, arguing that an un"robatedAill eIecuted by an +#erican citizen in the %.*. cannot be "robated @or the @irst ti#e in thePhili""ines. X n July 6, 005 the (+ rendered a decision, a@@ir#ing the assailed order o@ the


36/37

$(, holding that the $( "ro"erly alloAed the "robate o@ the Aill, subect to res"ondent Ernestossub#ission o@ the authenticated co"ies o@ the docu#ents s"eci@ied in the order and his "osting o@reCuired bond. he (+ "ointed out that *ection , $ule ! o@ the $ules o@ (ourt does not reCuire"rior "robate and alloAance o@ the Aill in the country o@ its eIecution, be@ore it can be "robated inthe Phili""ines. he "resent case, said the (+, is di@@erent @ro# re"robate, Ahich re@ers to a Aillalready "robated and alloAed abroad. $e"robate is governed by di@@erent rules or "rocedures.%nsatis@ied Aith the decision, Manuel and Bena#in ca#e to this (ourt.

ISSUE :hether or not a Aill eIecuted by a @oreigner abroad #ay be "robated in the Phili""inesalthough it has not been "reviously "robated and alloAed in the country Ahere it Aas eIecuted.

RULIN3: 2es. ur laAs do not "rohibit the "robate o@ Aills eIecuted by @oreigners abroad althoughthe sa#e have not as yet been "robated and alloAed in the countries o@ their eIecution. + @oreignAill can be given legal e@@ects in our urisdiction. +rticle 9/ o@ the (ivil (ode states that the Aill o@an alien Aho is abroad "roduces e@@ect in the Phili""ines i@ #ade in accordance Aith the @or#alities

"rescribed by the laA o@ the "lace Ahere he resides, or according to the @or#alities observed in hiscountry. 'n insisting that $u"ertas Aill should have been @irst "robated and alloAed by the court o@(ali@ornia, "etitioners Manuel and Bena#in obviously have in #ind the "rocedure @or the re"robateo@ Aill be@ore ad#itting it here. But, re"robate or re>authentication o@ a Aill already "robated andalloAed in a @oreign country is di@@erent @ro# that "robate Ahere the Aill is "resented @or the @irstti#e be@ore a co#"etent court. $e"robate is s"eci@ically governed by $ule !! o@ the $ules o@ (ourt.(ontrary to "etitioners stance, since this latter rule a""lies only to re"robate o@ a Aill, it cannot be#ade to a""ly to the "resent case. 'n re"robate, the local court acnoAledges as binding the@indings o@ the @oreign "robate court "rovided its urisdiction over the #atter can be established.


37/37

2Y YIEN3 SE0N3IO( et al$ 7s$ REYES( et al$

3$R$ NO$ )*4'%).%& B &% NOVE1/ER &44-

F0CTS5 Petitioners +l@redo *eangio et. al @iled @or the settle#ent o@ the intestate estate o@ the late*egundo *eangio. Petitioners o""osed said "etition, contending that *egundo le@t a hologra"hicAill disinheriting +l@redo @or cause. he reason @or the disinheritance Aas due to +l@redos#altreat#ent to his @ather *egundo. 'n vieA o@ the "ur"orted hologra"hic Aill, "etitioners averredthat in the event the decedent is @ound to have a Aill, the intestate "roceedings are to beauto#atically sus"ended and re"laced by the "roceedings o@ the Aill. P$s #oved @or the dis#issalo@ the "robate "roceedings contending that the alleged Aill o@ *egundo does not contain anydis"osition o@ the estate o@ the deceased and that all other co#"ulsory heirs Aere not na#ed nor

instituted as heir. Devisee or legatee hence there is "reterition Ahich Aould result to intestacy.Petitioners countered that the rule on "reterition does not a""ly because *egundos Aill does notconstitute a universal heir or heirs to the eIclusion o@ one or #ore co#"ulsory heirs. hey arguedthat the testator intended all his co#"ulsory heirs, "etitioners and P$s alie, Aith the soleeIce"tion o@ +l@redo, to inherit his estate.

ISSUE5 hether or not the co#"ulsory heirs in the direct line Aere "reterited in the Aill

HEL25 -o. he co#"ulsory heirs in the direct line Aere not "reterited in the Aill. +ccording to the*(, it Aas *egundos last eI"ression to beCueath his estate to all his co#"ulsory heirs Aith the

sole eIce"tion o@ +l@redo. +lso, *egundo did not institute an heir to the eIclusion o@ his otherco#"ulsory heirs. he #ere #ention o@ the na#e o@ one o@ the "etitioners, )irginia, in thedocu#ent did not o"erate to institute her as the universal heir. 4er na#e Aas included only as aAitness to the altercation betAeen *egundo and his son, +l@redo

1. specpro case digest 1

Documents