7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

1/72

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23638 October 12, 1967

DIONISIO ERN!NDE", EUSE#IO RE$ES %&' LUIS! RE$ES,petitioners,vs.ISM!EL! DIM!GI#!,respondent.

----------------------------------------

G.R. No. L-23662 October 12, 1967

M!RI!NO RE$ES, CES!R RE$ES, LEONOR RE$ES %&' P!CIENCI! RE$ES,petitioners,vs.

ISM!EL! DIM!GI#!,respondent.

Jose D. Villena for petitioners.Antonio Barredo and Exequiel M. Zaballero for respondent.

RE$ES, (.#.L.,Actg. C.J.:

The heirs intestate of the late Benedicta de los Reyes have petitioned for a revie of the

decision of the Court of Appeals !in CA-". R. No. #$%%$-R& affir'in( that of the Court of )irst

*nstance of Bulacan, in +pecial Proceedin( No. #$ of said Court, ad'ittin( to probate the

alle(ed last ill and testa'ent of the deceased, and overrulin( the opposition to the probate.

*t appears fro' the record that on anuary $, $//, *s'aela 0i'a(iba, no respondent,

sub'itted to the Court of )irst *nstance a petition for the probate of the purported ill of the late

Benedicta de los Reyes, e1ecuted on 2ctober %%, $#3, and anne1ed to the petition. The illinstituted the petitioner as the sole heir of the estate of the deceased. The petition as set for

hearin(, and in due ti'e, 0ionisio )ernande4, Eusebio Reyes and 5uisa Reyes and one 'onth

later, Mariano, Cesar, 5eonor and Paciencia, all surna'ed Reyes, all clai'in( to be heirs

intestate of the decedent, filed oppositions to the probate as6ed. "rounds advanced for the

opposition ere for(ery, vices of consent of the testatri1, estoppel by laches of the proponent

and revocation of the ill by to deeds of conveyance of the 'a7or portion of the estate 'ade by

the testatri1 in favor of the proponent in $8# and $88, but hich conveyances ere finally set

aside by this +upre'e Court in a decision pro'ul(ated on Au(ust #, $/8, in cases ".R. Nos. 5-

/9$ and 5-/9%3 !unpublished&.

After trial on the for'ulated issues, the Court of )irst *nstance, by decision of une %3, $/,

found that the ill as (enuine and properly e1ecuted: but deferred resolution on the ;uestions

of estoppel and revocation , $9%, after receivin( further evidence on the issue hether the e1ecution by

the testatri1 of deeds of sale of the lar(er portion of her estate in favor of the testa'entary heir,

'ade in $8# and $88, subse;uent to the e1ecution of her $#3 testa'ent, had revo6ed the

latter under Article />!%& of the $/3 Civil Code !Art. 9 of the Civil Code of $&, the trial

Court resolved a(ainst the oppositors and held the ill of the late Benedicta de los Reyes

$3&. As such, the probate order is final and appealable: and it is so

reco(ni4ed by e1press provisions of +ection $ of Rule $3, that specifically prescribes that

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

2/72

Appellants ar(ue that they ere entitled to aait the trial Courts resolution on the other (rounds

of their opposition before ta6in( an appeal, as otherise there ould be a 'ultiplicity of

recourses to the hi(her Courts. This contention is ithout ei(ht, since Rule $3, section $,

e1pressly enu'erates si1 different instances hen appeal 'ay be ta6en in special proceedin(s.

There bein( no controversy that the probate decree of the Court belo as not appealed on

ti'e, the sa'e had beco'e final and conclusive. ence, the appellate courts 'ay no lon(er

revo6e said decree nor revie the evidence upon hich it is 'ade to rest. Thus, the appeal

belatedly lod(ed a(ainst the decree as correctly dis'issed.

The alle(ed revocation i'plied fro' the e1ecution of the deeds of conveyance in favor of the

testa'entary heir is plainly irrelevant to and separate fro' the ;uestion of hether the

testa'ent as duly e1ecuted. )or one, if the ill is not entitled to probate, or its probate is

denied, all ;uestions of revocation beco'e superfluous in la, there is no such ill and hence

there ould be nothin( to revo6e. Then, a(ain, the revocation invo6ed by the oppositors-

appellants is not an e1press one, but 'erely i'plied fro' subse;uent acts of the testatri1

alle(edly evidencin( an abandon'ent of the ori(inal intention to be;ueath or devise the

properties concerned. As such, the revocation ould not affect the ill itself, but 'erely the

particular devise or le(acy. 2nly the totalandabsoluterevocation can preclude probate of the

revo6ed testa'ent !Trillana vs. Crisosto'o, supra.&.

As to the issue of estoppel, e have already ruled in "uevara vs. "uevara, Phil. %8, that the

presentation and probate of a ill are re;uire'ents of public policy, bein( pri'arily desi(ned to

protect the testators, e1pressed ishes, hich are entitled to respect as a conse;uence of the

decedents onership and ri(ht of disposition ithin le(al li'its. Evidence of it is

the dutyi'posed on a custodian of a ill to deliver the sa'e to the Court, and the fine and

i'prison'ent prescribed for its violation !Revised Rule >/&. *t ould be a non sequiturto allo

public policy to be evaded on the prete1t of estoppel. ?hether or not the order overrulin( the

alle(ation of estoppel is still appealable or not, the defense is patently un'eritorious and the

Court of Appeals correctly so ruled.

The last issue, that of revocation, is predicated on para(raph % of Article /> of the Civil Code of

$/3 !Art. 9 of the Code of $&, hich recites@

Art. />. The le(acy or devise shall be ithout effect@

!$& . . . .

!%& *f the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the thin( be;ueathed or any

part thereof, it bein( understood that in the latter case the le(acy or devise shall be

ithout effect only ith respect to the part thus alienated. *f after the alienation the

thin( should a(ain belon( to the testator, even if it be by reason of nullity of the

contract, the le(acy or devise shall not thereafter be valid, unless the reac;uisition

shall have been effected by virtue of the e1ercise of the ri(ht of repurchase:

111 111 111

*t is ell to note that, unli6e in the )rench and *talian Codes, the basis of the ;uoted provision is

a presu'ed chan(e of intention on the part of the testator. As pointed out by Manresa in his

Co''entaries on Article 9 of the Civil Code !Dol. 9, >th Ed., p. >8#&

Este caso se funda en la presunta voluntad del testador. +i este, despues de le(ar, se

desprende de la cosa por titulo lucrativo u oneroso, hace desaparecer su derecho

sobra ella, dando lu(ar a la presuncion de ;ue ha ca'biado de voluntad, y no ;uiere

;ue el le(ado se cu'pla. Mas para ;ue pueda presu'irse esa voluntad, es necesario

;ue 'edien actos del testador ;ue la indi;uen. +i la perdida del derecho sobre la

cosa ha sido independiente de la voluntad del testador, el le(ado podra;uedar sinefecto, 'as no en virtud del nu'ero % del articulo 9, ;ue e1i(e sie'pre actos

voluntarios de ena7enacion por parte del 'is'o testador.

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the e1istence of any such chan(e or departure fro' the

ori(inal intent of the testatri1, e1pressed in her $#3 testa'ent, is rendered doubtful by the

circu'stance that the subse;uent alienations in $8# and $88 ere e1ecuted in favor of the

le(atee herself, appellee 0i'a(iba. *n fact, as found by the Court of Appeals in its decision

annullin( these conveyances !affir'ed in that point by this +upre'e Court in Reyes vs. Court of

Appeals and Dimaiba, 5-/9$ and 5-/9%3, pro'ul(ated on uly #$, $/8&,

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

3/72

intent,#and it can not be held that there as in fact an alienation that could produce a revocation

of the anterior be;uest.

*n vie of the fore(oin( considerations, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby

affir'ed. Costs a(ainst appellants Reyes and )ernande4. +o ordered.

Di!on" Ma#alintal" Zaldivar" $an%&e!" Castro" Aneles and 'ernando" JJ." concur.

Con%ep%ion" C.J. and Ben!on" J.(." J."are on leave, too6 no part.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. )*629 Se+teber 22, 1938

!NTIL!NO G. MERC!DO,petitioner,vs.

!LONSO S!NTOS, ('e o/ 0rt I&t%&ce o/ P%+%&%,respondents.

ROS!RIO #!S! DE LEON, ET !L.,intervenors.

Claro M. Re%to and Benino $. Aquino for petitioner.

Esperan!a de la Cru! and )era%io Abistao for respondents.

$otto and $otto for intervenors.

L!UREL, J.:

2n May %, $#$, the petitioner herein filed in the Court of )irst *nstance of Pa'pan(a a petition

for the probate of the ill of his deceased ife, *nes Basa. ?ithout any opposition, and upon the

testi'ony of Beni(no ). "abino, one of the attestin( itnesses, the probate court, on une

%>,$#$, ad'itted the ill to probate. Al'ost three years later, on April $$, $#8, the five

intervenors herein 'ovedex parte to reopen the proceedin(s, alle(in( lac6 of 7urisdiction of thecourt to probate the ill and to close the proceedin(s. Because filed ex parte, the 'otion as

denied. The sa'e 'otion as filed a second ti'e, but ith no tice to the adverse party. The

'otion as nevertheless denied by the probate court on May %8, $#8. 2n appeal to this court,

the order of denial as affir'ed on uly %9, $#/. !Basa vs.Mercado, ## 2ff. "a4., %/%$.&

*t appears that on 2ctober %>, $#%, i. e., si1teen 'onths after the probate of the ill of *nes

Basa, intervenor Rosario Basa de 5eon filed ith the 7ustice of the peace court of +an )ernando,

Pa'pan(a, a co'plaint a(ainst the petitioner herein, for falsification or for(ery of the ill

probated as above indicated. The petitioner as arrested. e put up a bond in the su' of

P8,333 and en(a(ed the services of an attorney to underta6e his defense. Preli'inary

investi(ation of the case as continued tice upon petition of the co'plainant. The co'plaintas finally dis'issed, at the instance of the co'plainant herself, in an order dated 0ece'ber ,

$#%. Three 'onths later, or on March %, $##, the sa'e intervenor char(ed the petitioner for

the second ti'e ith the sa'e offense, presentin( the co'plaint this ti'e in the 7ustice of the

peace court of Me1ico, Pa'pan(a. The petitioner as a(ain arrested, a(ain put up a bond in the

su' of P8,333, and en(a(ed the services of counsel to defend hi'. This second co'plaint, after

investi(ation, as also dis'issed, a(ain at the instance of the co'plainant herself ho alle(ed

that the petitioner as in poor health. That as on April %>, $##. +o'e nine 'onths later, on

)ebruary %, $#8, to be e1act, the sa'e intervenor accused the sa'e petitioner for the third

ti'e of the sa'e offense. The infor'ation as filed by the provincial fiscal of Pa'pan(a in the

7ustice of the peace court of Me1ico. The petitioner as a(ain arrested, a(ain put up a bond of

P8,333, and en(a(ed the services of defense counsel. The case as dis'issed on April %8,

$#8, after due investi(ation, on the (round that the ill alle(ed to have been falsified had

already been probated and there as no evidence that the petitioner had for(ed the si(nature ofthe testatri1 appearin( thereon, but that, on the contrary, the evidence satisfactorily established

the authenticity of the si(nature aforesaid. 0issatisfied ith the result, the provincial fiscal, on

May , $#8, 'oved in the Court of )irst *nstance of Pa'pan(a for reinvesti(ation of the case.

The 'otion as (ranted on May %#, $#8, and, for the fourth ti'e, the petitioner as arrested,

filed a bond and en(a(ed the services of counsel to handle his defense. The reinvesti(ation

dra((ed on for al'ost a year until )ebruary $, $#8, hen the Court of )irst *nstance ordered

that the case be tried on the 'erits. The petitioner interposed a de'urrer on Nove'ber %/,

$#/, on the (round that the ill alle(ed to have been for(ed had already been probated. This

de'urrer as overruled on 0ece'ber %8, $#/, hereupon an e1ception as ta6en and a

'otion for reconsideration and notice of appeal ere filed. The 'otion for reconsideration and

the proposed appeal ere denied on anuary $8, $#9. The case proceeded to trial, and

forthith petitioner 'oved to dis'iss the case clai'in( a(ain that the ill alle(ed to have been

for(ed had already been probated and, further, that the order probatin( the ill is conclusive asto the authenticity and due e1ecution thereof. The 'otion as overruled and the petitioner filed

ith the Court of Appeals a petition for %ertiorariith preli'inary in7unction to en7oin the trial

court fro' further proceedin(s in the 'atter. The in7unction as issued and thereafter, on une

$, $#>, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for %ertiorari, and dissolved the rit of

preli'inary in7unction. Three 7ustices dissented in a separate opinion. The case is no before

this court for revie on %ertiorari.

Petitioner contends !$& that the probate of the ill of his deceased ife is a bar to his cri'inal

prosecution for the alle(ed for(ery of the said ill: and, !%& that he has been denied the

constitutional ri(ht to a speedy trial.

$. +ection #39 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides as to the effect of 7ud('ents.

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

4/72

+EC. #39. Effe%t of *udment. The effect of a 7ud('ent or final order in an action or

special proceedin( before a court or 7ud(e of the Philippine *slands or of the Hnited

+tates, or of any +tate or Territory of the Hnited +tates, havin( 7urisdiction to

pronounce the 7ud('ent or order, 'ay be as follos.

$. *n case of a 7ud('ent or order a(ainst a specific thin(, or in respe%t to t&e probate

of a +ill, or the ad'inistration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the

personal, political, or le(al condition or relation of a particular person, t&e *udment or

order is %on%lusive upon the title of the thin(, t&e +ill or ad'inistration, or the condition

or relation of the person (rovided, That the probate of a ill or (rantin( of letters ofad'inistration shall only beprima fa%ieevidence of the death of the testator or

intestate.

111 111 111

!E'phasis ours.&

+ection 9%/ of the sa'e Code is 'ore e1plicit as to the conclusiveness of the due e1ecution of

a probate ill. *t says.

+EC. 9%/.Allo+an%e ,e%essary" and Con%lusive as to Exe%ution. No ill shall

pass either the real or personal estate, unless it is proved and alloed in the Court of)irst *nstance, or by appeal to the +upre'e Court: and t&e allo+an%e by t&e %ourt of a

+ill of real and personal estate s&all be %on%lusive as to its due exe%ution. !E'phasis

ours.&

!*n Manahan vs.Manahan / Phil., 88, 8/$&, e held@

. . . The decree of probate is conclusive ith respect to the due e1ecution thereof and

it cannot be i'pu(ned on any of the (rounds authori4ed by la, e1cept that of fraud,

in any separate or independent action or proceedin(. +ec. 9%/, Code of Civil

Procedure: Castaeda vs.Ale'any, # Phil., 8%9: Pi'entel vs.Palanca, / Phil., 8#9:

+aha(un vs.0e "orosti4a, > Phil., #8>: 5i'7uco vs."anara, $$ Phil., ##:

Montaano vs.+uesa, $8 Phil., 9>9: in re Estate of ohnson, # Phil, $/9:

Riera vs.Pal'aroli, 83 Phil., $3/: Austria vs.Dentenilla, %$ Phil., $3:

Ra'ire4 vs."'ur, 8% Phil., //: and Chion( ocsoy vs.Dano, Phil., $$.

*n % R. C. 5., p. #>>, section #>, it is said.

-&e probate of a +ill by t&e probate %ourt &avin *urisdi%tion t&ereof is usually

%onsidered as %on%lusive as to its due exe%ution and validity, and is also conclusive

that the testator as of sound and disposin( 'ind at the ti'e hen he e1ecuted the

ill, and as not actin( under duress, 'enace, fraud, or undue influence, and t&at t&e

+ill is enuine and not a forery. !E'phasis ours.&

As our la on ills, particularly section 9%/ of our Code of Civil Procedure afore;uoted, as

ta6en al'ost bodily fro' the +tatutes of Der'ont, the decisions of the +upre'e Court of the

+tate relative to the effect of the probate of a ill are of persuasive authority in this 7urisdiction.

The Der'ont statute as to the conclusiveness of the due e1ecution of a probated ill reads as

follos.

+EC. %#/9. No ill shall pass either real or personal estate, unless it is proved and

alloed in the probate court, or by appeal in the county or supre'e court: and the

probate of a ill of real or personal estate shall be conclusive as to its due e1ecution.

!Der'ont +tatutes, p. 8/$.&

+aid the +upre'e Court of Der'ont in the case of Missionary +ociety vs.Eells !9 Dt., 8>,

/38&@ Phil.,

#&@

The proceedin( for the probate of a ill is one in rem !83 Cyc., $%9/&, and the court

ac;uires 7urisdiction over all the persons interested, throu(h the publication of the

notice prescribed by section 9#3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and any order that'ay be entered therein is bindin( a(ainst all of the'.

Throu(h the publication of the petition for the probate of the ill, the court ac;uires

7urisdiction over all such persons as are interested in said ill: and any 7ud('ent that

'ay be rendered after said proceedin( is bindin( a(ainst the hole orld.

*n Everrett vs.?in( !$3# Dt., 8, 8%&, the +upre'e Court of Der'ont held.

*n this +tate the probate of a ill is a proceedin( in rembein( in for' and substance

upon the ill itself to deter'ine its validity. The 7ud('ent deter'ines the status of the

instru'ent, hether it is or is not the ill of the testator. ?hen the proper steps

re;uired by la have been ta6en the 7ud('ent is bindin( upon everybody, and 'a6es

the instru'ent as to all the orld 7ust hat the 7ud('ent declares it to be.

!?oodruffvs.Taylor, %3 Dt., 9/, >#: Burbec6 vs.5ittle, /3 Dt., >$#, >$/: Missionary

+ociety vs.Eells, 9 Dt., 8>, /38: #/ Atl., 89#.& The proceedin(s before the probate

court are statutory and are not (overned by co''on la rules as to parties or causes

of action. !oldri(e vs.oldri(es Estate, /# Dt., /89, //3: Purdyvs.Estate of Purdy,

9> Dt. /3, //: #3 Atl., 9/.& No process is issued a(ainst anyone in such proceedin(s,

but all persons interested in deter'inin( the state or conditions of the instru'ent are

constructively notified by the publication of notice as re;uired by ". 5. #%$.

!?oodruff vs.Taylor, supra: n re ?arners Estate Dt., %/8: %>$: $%> Atl., #9%.&

+ection ###, para(raph 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes an incontrovertible

presu'ption in favor of 7ud('ents declared by it to be conclusive.

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

5/72

+EC. ###. Con%lusive (resumptions. The folloin( presu'ptions or deductions,

hich the la e1pressly directs to be 'ade fro' particular facts, are dee'ed

conclusive.

111 111 111

8. The 7ud('ent or order of a court, hen declared by this code to be conclusive.

Conclusive presu'ptions are inferences hich the la 'a6es so pere'ptory that it ill not allothe' to be overturned by any contrary proof hoever stron(. !Brantvs.Mornin( ournal Assn.,

3 N.G.+., $33%, $338: $ App. 0iv., $#: see, also, oslyn vs.Puloer, / un., $%, $83, $#

N.G.+., #$$.& The ill in ;uestion havin( been probated by a co'petent court, the la ill not

ad'it any proof to overthro the le(al presu'ption that it is (enuine and not a for(ery.

The 'a7ority decision of the Court of Appeals cites En(lish decisions to bolster up its conclusion

that

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

6/72

upon hich they rely in support of their theory that the probate of a for(ed ill does not protect

the for(er fro' punish'ent, as decided lon( before the fore(oin( a'endatory statutes to the

En(lish la on ills ere enacted. The case of +tate vs.Mc"lynn 'ay be considered, therefore,

as 'ore or less authoritative on the la of En(land at the ti'e of the pro'ul(ation of the

decision in the case of Re1 vs.Buttery and Macna'arra.

*n the case of +tate vs.Mc"lynn, the Attorney "eneral of California filed an infor'ation to set

aside the probate of the ill of one Broderic6, after the lapse of one year provided by the la of

California for the revie of an order probatin( a ill, in order that the estate 'ay be escheated to

the +tate of California for the revie of an probated ill as for(ed and that Broderic6 thereforedied intestate, leavin( no heirs, representatives or devisees capable of inheritin( his estate.

Hpon these facts, the +upre'e Court of California held.

The fact that a ill purportin( to be (enuine ill of Broderic6, devisin( his estate to a

devisee capable of inheritin( and holdin( it, has been ad'itted to probate and

established as a (enuine ill by the decree of a Probate Court havin( 7urisdiction of

the case, renders it ne%essary to de%ide +&et&er t&at de%ree" and t&e +ill establis&ed

by it" or eit&er of t&em" %an be set aside and va%ated by t&e *udment of any ot&er

%ourt. *f it shall be found that the decree of the Probate Court, not reversed by the

appellate court, is final and conclusive, and not liable to be vacated or ;uestioned by

any other court, either incidentally or by any direct proceedin(, for the purpose of

i'peachin( it, and that so lon( as the probate stands the ill 'ust be reco(ni4ed and

ad'itted in all courts to be valid, then it ill be i''aterial and useless to in;uirehether the ill in ;uestion as in fact (enuine or for(ed. !+tate vs.Mc"lynn, %3 Cal.,

%##: $ A'. 0ec., $$, $%$.&.

Althou(h in the fore(oin( case the infor'ation filed by the +tate as to set aside the decree of

probate on the (round that the ill as for(ed, e see no difference in principle beteen that

case and the case at bar. A subtle distinction could perhaps be dran beteen settin( aside a

decree of probate, and declarin( a probated ill to be a for(ery. *t is clear, hoever, that a duly

probated ill cannot be declared to be a for(ery ithout disturbin( in a ay the decree alloin(

said ill to probate. *t is at least ano'alous that a ill should be re(arded as (enuine for one

purpose and spurious for another.

The A'erican and En(lish cases sho a conflict of authorities on the ;uestion as to hether or

not the probate of a ill bars cri'inal prosecution of the alle(ed for(er of the probate ill. ?e

have e1a'ined so'e i'portant cases and have co'e to the conclusion that no fi1ed standard

'aybe adopted or dran therefro', in vie of the conflict no less than of diversity of statutory

provisions obtainin( in different 7urisdictions. *t behooves us, therefore, as the court of last resort,

to choose that rule 'ost consistent ith our statutory la, havin( in vie the needed stability of

property ri(hts and the public interest in (eneral. To be sure, e have seriously reflected upon

the dan(ers of evasion fro' punish'ent of culprits deservin( of the severity of the la in cases

here, as here, for(ery is discovered after the probate of the ill and the prosecution is had

before the prescription of the offense. By and lar(e, hoever, the balance see's inclined in

favor of the vie that e have ta6en. Not only does the la surround the e1ecution of the ill

ith the necessary for'alities and re;uire probate to be 'ade after an elaborate 7udicial

proceedin(, but section $$#, not to spea6 of section /$#, of our Code of Civil Procedure provides

for an ade;uate re'edy to any party ho 'i(ht have been adversely affected by the probate of

a for(ed ill, 'uch in the sa'e ay as other parties a(ainst ho' a 7ud('ent is rendered

under the sa'e or si'ilar circu'stances. !Pecson vs.Coronel, 8# Phil., #/.&The a((rieved

party 'ay file an application for relief ith the proper court ithin a reasonable ti'e, but in no

case e1ceedin( si1 'onths after said court has rendered the 7ud('ent of probate, on the (round

of 'ista6e, inadvertence, surprise or e1cusable ne(lect. An appeal lies to revie the action of a

court of first instance hen that court refuses to (rant relief. !Banco Espaol )ilipino vs.Palanca,

#> Phil., %$: Philippine Manufacturin( Co. vs.*'perial, 8> Phil., $3: +a'ia vs.Medina, /9

Phil., 9$#.& After a 7ud('ent alloin( a ill to be probated has beco'e final and unappealable,

and after the period fi1ed by section $$# of the Code of Civil Procedure has e1pired, the la as

an e1pression of the le(islative isdo' (oes no further and the case ends there.

. . . The court of chancery has no capacity, as the authorities have settled, to 7ud(e ordecide hether a ill is or is not a for(ery: and hence there ould be an incon(ruity in

its assu'in( to set aside a probate decree establishin( a ill, on the (round that the

decree as procured by fraud, hen it can only arrive at the fact of such fraud by first

decidin( that the ill as a for(ery. There see's, therefore, to be a substantial

reason, so lon( as a court of chancery is not alloed to 7ud(e of the validity of a ill,

e1cept as shon by the probate, for the e1ception of probate decrees fro' the

7urisdiction hich courts of chancery e1ercise in settin( aside other 7ud('ents

obtained by fraud. But hether the e1ception be founded in (ood reason or otherise,

it has beco'e too fir'ly established to be disre(arded. At the present day, it ould not

be a (reater assu'ption to deny the (eneral rule that courts of chancery 'ay set

aside 7ud('ents procured by fraud, than to deny the e1ception to that rule in the case

of probate decrees. ?e 'ust ac;uiesce in the principle established by the authorities,

if e are unable to approve of the reason. ud(e +tory as a staunch advocate for the'ost enlar(ed 7urisdiction of courts of chancery, and as co'pelled to yield to the

ei(ht of authority. e says .& +i'ilar provisions are to be found in the Presidents *nstructions to the

+econd Philippine Co''ission !par. $$&, the Philippine Bill of uly $, $3% !sec. /, par. %& and

the ones Act of Au(ust %, $$9 !sec. #, par. %&. The provisions in the fore(oin( or(anic acts

appear to have been ta6en fro' si'ilar provisions in the Constitution of the Hnited +tates !9th

A'end'ent& and those of the various states of the A'erican Hnion. A si'ilar in7unction is

contained in the Malolos Constitution !art. , Title *D&, not to spea6 of other constitutions. More

than once this court had occasion to set aside the proceedin(s in cri'inal cases to (ive effect to

the constitutional in7unction of speedy trial. !Conde vs.ud(e of )irst *nstance and )iscal of

Tayabas I$%#J, 8/ Phil., $>#: Conde vs.Rivera and HnsonI$%8J, 8/ Phil., 9/3:

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

7/72

People vs.Castaeda and )ernande4I$#9J&, #/ 2ff. "a4., $%9: Kala vs.Apostol, 2ct. $/,

$#>, ".R. No. 8//$: Es(uerra vs.0e la Costa, Au(. #3,$#, ".R. No. 893#.&.

*n Conde vs. Rivera and 0nson" supra, decided before the adoption of our Constitution, e said.

Philippine or(anic and statutory la e1pressly (uarantee that in all cri'inal

prosecutions the accused shall en7oy the ri(ht to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde,

li6e all other accused persons, has a ri(ht to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she

'ay (o free, and she has been deprived of that ri(ht in defiance of la. 0is'issed

fro' her hu'ble position, and co'pelled to dance attendance on courts hile

investi(ations and trials are arbitrarily postponed ithout her consent, is palpably and

openly un7ust to her and a detri'ent to the public. By the use of reasonable dili(ence,

the prosecution could have settled upon the appropriate infor'ation, could have

attended to the for'al preli'inary e1a'ination, and could have prepared the case for

a trial free fro' ve1atious, capricious, and oppressive delays.

*n (eople vs. Casta1eda and 'ernande!" supra, this court found that the accused had not been

(iven a fair and i'partial trial. The case as to have been re'anded to the court a ;uo for a

ne trial before an i'partial 7ud(e. This step, hoever, as found unnecessary. A revie of the

evidence convinced this court that a 7ud('ent of conviction for theft, as char(ed, could not be

sustained and, havin( in vie the ri(ht to a speedy trial (uaranteed by the Constitution to every

person accused of cri'e, entered a 7ud('ent ac;uittin( the accused, ith costs de ofi%io. ?e

said.

. . . The Constitution, Article ***, section $, para(raph $>, (uarantees to every accused

person the ri(ht to a speedy trial. This cri'inal proceedin( has been dra((in( on for

al'ost five years no. The accused have tice appealed to this court for redress fro'

the ron( that they have suffered at the hands of the trial court. At least one of the',

na'ely Pedro )ernande4 aliasPiro, had been con-fined in prison fro' uly %3, $#%

to Nove'ber %>, $#8, for inability to post the re;uired bond of P#,333 hich as

finally reduced to P#33. The "overn'ent should be the last to set an e1a'ple of

delay and oppression in the ad'inistration of 7ustice and it is the 'oral and le(al

obli(ation of this court to see that the cri'inal proceedin(s a(ainst the accused co'e

to an end and that they be i''ediately dis-char(ed fro' the custody of the la.

!Condevs.Rivera and Hnson, 8/ Phil., 9/$.&

*n 2ala+ vs. Apostol" supra, the petitioner invo6ed and this court applied and (ave effect to the

doctrines stated in the second Conde case, supra. *n (rantin( the rits prayed for, this court,

after referrin( to the constitutional and statutory provisions (uaranteein( to persons accused of

cri'e the ri(ht to a speedy trial, said@

+e infiere de los preceptos le(ales transcritos ;ue todo acusado en causa cri'inal

tiene derecho a ser 7u4(ado pronta y publica'ente. uicio rapido si(nifica un 7uicio;ue

se celebra de acuerdo con la ley de procedi'iento cri'inal y los re(la'entos, libre de

dilaciones ve7atorias, caprichosas y opersivas !Burnettvs.+tate, >9 Ar6., %/: +. ?.,

/9: $$# AM+R, 8: +teart vs.+tate, $# Ar6., >%3: Peo. vs.+hufelt, 9$ Mich., %#>:

% N. ?., >: Ni1on vs.+tate, $3 Miss., 8>: 8$ AM0., 93$: +tate vs.Cole, 8 26l. Cr.,

%/: $3 P., >#9: +tate vs.Caruthers, $ 26l. Cr., 8%: P., 8>8: +tate vs.Keefe, $>?yo., %%>, p., $%%:%% *RAN+, 9: $> Ann. Cas., $9$&. +e(un los hechos

ad'itidos resulta ;ue al recurrente se le concedio vista parcial del asunto, en el

u4(ado de Pri'era *nstancia de +a'ar, solo despues de haber transcurrido ya 'as

de un ao y 'edio desde la presentacion de la pri'era ;uerella y desde la recepcion

de la causa en dicho u4(ado, y despues de haberse transferido dos veces la vista

delasunto sin su consenti'iento. A esto debe aadirse ;ue lapri'era transferencia de

vista era clara'ente in7ustificadapor;ue el 'otivo ;ue se ale(o consistio unica'ente

en laconveniencia personal del ofendido y su abo(ado, no habiendose probado

suficiente'ente la ale(acion del pri'ero de ;uese hallaba enfer'o. Es cierto ;ue el

recurrente habia pedido ;ue, en ve4 de sealarse a vista el asunto para el 'ayo de

$#9, lo fuera para el novie'bre del 'is'o ao: pero,aparte de ;ue la ra4on ;ueale(o era bastante fuerte por;uesu abo(ado se oponia a co'parecer por

co'pro'isos ur(entes contraidos con anterioridad y en tal circunstancia hubiera

;uedado indefenso si hubiese sido obli(ado a entraren 7uicio, aparece ;ue la vista se

pospuso por el u4(ado amotu proprio, por haber cancelado todo el calendario

7udicial preparado por el Escribano para el 'es de 7unio. 0eclara'os, con visto de

estos hechos, ;ue al recurrents se leprivo de su derecho funda'ental de ser 7u4(ado

pronta'ente.

Esuerra vs. De la Costa" supra, as a petition for mandamusto co'pel the respondent 7ud(e

of the Court of )irst *nstance of Ri4al to dis'iss the co'plaint filed in a cri'inal case a(ainst the

petitioner, to cancel the bond put up by the said petitioner and to declare the costs de ofi%io. *n

acceptin( the contention that the petitioner had been denied speedy trial, this court said@

Consta ;ue en 'enos de un ao el recurrente fue procesado cri'inal'ente por el

ale(ado delito de abusos deshonestos, en el u4(ado de Pa4 del Municipio de Cainta,

Ri4al. Co'o consecuencia de las denuncias ;ue contra el se presentaron fue

arrestado tres veces y para (o4ar de libertad provisional, en espera de los 7uicios, se

vio obli(ado a prestartres fian4as por la su'a de P$,333 cada una. +i no se da fin al

proceso ;ue ulti'a'ente se ha incoado contra el recurrente la incertidu'bre

continuara cerniendose sobre el y las consi(uientes 'olestias y preocupaciones

continuaran i(ual'ente abru'andole. El Titulo ***, articulo $, No. $>,de la Constitucion

preceptua ;ue en todo proceso cri'inalel acusado tiene derecho de ser 7u4(ado

pronta y publica'ente. El Articulo $/, No. >, de la 2rden "eneral No. / dispone

asi'is'o ;ue en las causas cri'inales el acusado tendra derecho a ser 7u4(ado

pronta y publica'ente. +i el recurrente era real'ente culpable del delito ;ue se le

i'puto, tenia de todos 'odos derechos a ;ue fuera 7u4(ado pronta y publica'ente ysin dilaciones arbitrarias y ve7atorias. e'os declarado reiterada'ente ;ue e1iste un

re'edio positivo para los casos en ;ue se viola el derecho constitucional del acusado

de ser 7u4(ado pronta'ente. El acusado ;ue esprivado de su derecho fundo'ental

de ser en7uiciado rapida'ente tiene derecho a pedir ;ue se le pon(a en libertad, si

estuviese detenido, o a ;ue la causa ;ue pende contra el sea sobreseida

definitiva'ente. !Conde %ontraRivera y Hnson, 8/ ur. )il., 9%: *n the 'atter of )ord

I$$$J, $93 Cal., ##8: H. +. vs.)o1 I$3J, # Mont., /$%: Kala %ontraApostol, R. ".

No. 8//$, 2ct. $/, $#>: Pueblo %ontraCastaeda y )ernande4, #/ "ac. 2f., $#/>.&

?e are a(ain called upon to vindicate the funda'ental ri(ht to a speedy trial. The facts of the

present case 'ay be at variance ith those of the cases hereinabove referred to. Nevertheless,

e are of the opinion that, under the circu'stances, e should consider the substance of the

ri(ht instead of indul(in( in 'ore or less acade'ic or undue factual differentiations. Thepetitioner herein has been arrested four ti'es, has put up a bond in the su' of P8,333 and has

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

8/72

en(a(ed the services of counsel to underta6e his defense an e;ual nu'ber of ti'es. The first

arrest as 'ade upon a co'plaint filed by one of the intervenors herein for alle(ed falsification

of a ill hich, si1teen 'onths before, had been probated in court. This co'plaint, after

investi(ation, as dis'issed at the co'plainants on re;uest. The second arrest as 'ade

upon a co'plaint char(in( the sa'e offense and this co'plaint, too, as dis'issed at the

behest of the co'plainant herself ho alle(ed the ;uite startlin( (round that the petitioner as

in poor health. The third arrest as 'ade folloin( the filin( of an infor'ation by the provincial

fiscal of Pa'pan(a, hich infor'ation as dis'issed, after due investi(ation, because of

insufficiency of the evidence. The fourth arrest as 'ade hen the provincial fiscal secured a

reinvesti(ation of the case a(ainst the petitioner on the prete1t that he had additional evidenceto present, althou(h such evidence does not appear to have ever been presented.

*t is true that the provincial fiscal did not intervene in the case until )ebruary %, $#8, hen he

presented an infor'ation char(in( the petitioner, for the third ti'e, of the offense of falsification.

This, hoever, does not 'atter. The prosecution of offenses is a 'atter of public interest and it is

the duty of the (overn'ent or those actin( in its behalf to prosecute all cases to their ter'ination

ithout oppressive, capricious and ve1atious delay. The Constitution does not say that the ri(ht

to a speedy trial 'ay be availed of only here the prosecution for cri'e is co''enced and

underta6en by the fiscal. *t does not e1clude fro' its operation cases co''enced by private

individuals. ?here once a person is prosecuted cri'inally, he is entitled to a speedy trial,

irrespective of the nature of the offense or the 'anner in hich it is authori4ed to be

co''enced. *n any event, even the actuations of the fiscal hi'self in this case is not entirely

free fro' criticis'. )ro' 2ctober %>, $#%, hen the first co'plaint as filed in the 7ustice of thepeace court of +an )ernando, to )ebruary %, $#8, hen the provincial fiscal filed his

infor'ation ith the 7ustice of the peace of Me1ico, one year, three 'onths and si1 days

transpired: and fro' April %>, $##, hen the second cri'inal co'plaint as dis'issed by the

7ustice of the peace of Me1ico, to )ebruary %, $#8, nine 'onths and si1 days elapsed. The

investi(ation folloin( the fourth arrest, 'ade after the fiscal had secured a reinvesti(ation of

the case, appears also to have dra((ed on for about a year. There obviously has been a delay,

and considerin( the antecedent facts and circu'stances ithin the 6noled(e of the fiscal, the

delay 'ay not at all be re(arded as per'issible. *n 2ala+ vs. Apostol" supra, e observed that

the prosecutin( officer all prosecutions for public offenses !secs. $9$ and %89/ of the Rev.

Ad'. Code&, and that it is his duty to see that cri'inal cases are heard ithout ve1atious,

capricious and oppressive delays so that the courts of 7ustice 'ay dispose of the' on the 'erits

and deter'ine hether the accused is (uilty or not. This is as clear an ad'onition as could be

'ade. An accused person is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. !+utherland on the

Constitution, p. 998: Hnited +tates vs.)o1, # Mont., /$%.& e cannot be oppressed by delayin(

he co''ence'ent of trial for an unreasonable len(th of ti'e. *f the proceedin(s pendin( trial

are deferred, the trial itself is necessarily delayed. *t is not to be supposed, of course, that the

Constitution intends to re'ove fro' the prosecution every reasonable opportunity to prepare for

trial. *'possibilities cannot be e1pected or e1traordinary efforts re;uired on the part of the

prosecutor or the court. As stated by the +upre'e Court of the Hnited +tates,

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

9/72

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2313* Deceber 26, 1967

TEST!TE EST!TE O IL!RION R!M!GOS!. M!RI!NO SUMIL!NG, petitioner-appellee,vs.

S!TURNIN! R!M!GOS!, S!NTI!GO R!M!GOS!, ENRIUE P!#ELL!, LICERI!P!#ELL! %&' !NDRE! R!4!LO,oppositors-appellants.

9at%&alian and $ison and J. A. Bardelosa" Jr. for petitioner8appellee.

Jose :. Desvarro Jr. for oppositors8appellants

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

10/72

M!5!LINT!L, J.:

2n uly /, $93 Mariano +u'ilan( filed in the Court of )irst *nstance of Lue4on a petition for the

probate of a docu'ent alle(ed to be the last ill and testa'ent of ilarion Ra'a(osa, ho died

on 0ece'ber $, $/. +aid docu'ent, ritten in Ta(alo( and dated )ebruary %9, $8,

institutes petitioner as sole heir of the testator.

The petition for probate as opposed by to !%& of oppositors appellants herein ho

;uestioned the due e1ecution of the docu'ent, clai'in( that it as 'ade under duress and as

not really intended by the deceased to be his last ill and testa'ent. Aside fro' 'erely

opposin( the petition for probate, the first set of oppositors +aturnino and +antia(o

Ra'a(osa also clai'ed that they, instead of petitioner, ere entitled to inherit the estate of

the deceased. The other oppositors representin( the'selves si'ply as ne1t of 6in, appropriately

prayed only for the disalloance of the ill.

At the hearin(s of the petition petitioner adduced his evidence, and then rested his case on

)ebruary $9, $9$. Reception of oppositors evidence as set for uly $8, $9$. oever, on

uly #, $9$ oppositors 'oved for the dis'issal of the petition for probate 'ainly on the (round

that /#, March %9, $9/.&

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

11/72

The reason for the rule e1cludin( stran(ers fro' contestin( the ill, is not that thereby

the court 'ay be prevented fro' learnin( facts hich ould 7ustify or necessitate a

denial of probate, but rather that the courts and the liti(ants should not be 'olested by

the intervention in the proceedin(s of persons ith no interest in the estate hich

ould entitle the' to be heard ith relation thereto. !Paras vs. Narciso, #/ Phil. %88.&

+o'eti'e after this case as elevated to this Court appellee 'oved to dis'iss the appeal on

the (round that the order appealed fro' is interlocutory. ?e deferred action on the 'otion until

after the brief of both parties had been filed. The 'otion, althou(h no practically acade'ic in

vie of our resolution of the 'ain issue involved, 'ust be denied, since the order of the loercourt stri6in( out appellants opposition to the probate of the ill on the (round that they have no

personality to intervene in the case, as final and therefore appealable order insofar as they

ere concerned.

The order appealed fro' is hereby affir'ed, ith costs a(ainst oppositors- appellants.

Con%ep%ion" C.J." Reyes" J.B.:." Di!on" Ma#alintal" Ben!on" J.(." Zaldivar" $an%&e!" Castro"

Aneles and 'ernando" JJ."concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

+EC2N0 0*D*+*2N

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

12/72

G.R. No. L-392)7 (&e 27, 197*

I& te M%tter o/ te Pet0t0o& to !++roe te 0 o/ Leo'e%r0% (0%&. ELI: #!L!N!$,(R., petitioner,vs.

ON. !NTONIO M. M!RTINE", ('e o/ te Cort o/ 0rt I&t%&ce o/ D%%o, #r%&c 4I;!4ELIN! #. !NTONIO %&' DELI! #. L!N!#!N, respondents.

Roberto M. $arenas for petitioner.

Jose B. 9uyo for private respondents.

!UINO, J.:

)eli1 Balanay, r. appealed by %ertiorarifro' the order of the Court of )irst *nstance of 0avao

dated )ebruary %, $>8, declarin( ille(al and void the ill of his 'other, 5eode(aria ulian,

convertin( the testate proceedin( into an intestate proceedin( and orderin( the issuance of the

correspondin( notice to creditors !+pecial Case No. $3&. The antecedents of the appeal are

as follos@

5eode(aria ulian, a native of +ta. Maria, *locos +ur, died on )ebruary $%, $># in 0avao City at

the a(e of si1ty-seven. +he as survived by her husband, )eli1 Balanay, +r., and by their si1

le(iti'ate children na'ed )eli1 Balanay, r., Avelina B. Antonio, Beatri4 B. +ola'o, Carolina B.

Man(uiob, 0elia B. 5anaban and E'ilia B. Pabaonon.

)eli1 . Balanay, r. filed in the loer court a petition dated )ebruary %>, $># for the probate of

his 'others notarial ill dated +epte'ber /, $>3 hich is ritten in En(lish. *n that ill

5eode(aria ulian declared !a& that she as the oner of the #& her paraphernal lands and all the con7u(al lands !hich she described as # herein he ithdre his opposition to the probate of the ill and affir'ed

that he as interested in its probate. 2n the sa'e date )eli1 Balanay, +r. si(ned an instru'ent

captioned # #.

*n the 'eanhile, another layer appeared in the case. 0avid 2. Montaa, +r., clai'in( to be

the layer of petitioner )eli1 Balanay, r. !his counsel of record as Atty. Cabreros&, filed a

'otion dated +epte'ber %/, $># for 8 it dis'issed the

petition for the probate, converted the testate proceedin( into an intestate proceedin(, ordered

the issuance of a notice to creditors and set the intestate proceedin( for hearin( on April $ and

%, $>8. The loer court did not abro(ate its prior orders of une $ and 2ctober $/, $>#. The

notice to creditors as issued on April $, $>8 and published on May %, and $9 in the 0avao

+tar in spite of petitioners 'otion of April $>, $>8 that its publication be held in abeyance.

)eli1 Balanay, r., throu(h a ne counsel, Roberto M. +arenas, in a verified 'otion dated April

$/, $>8, as6ed for the reconsideration of the loer courts order of )ebruary %, $>8 on the

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

13/72

(round that Atty. Montaa had no authority to ithdra the petition for the alloance of the ill.

Attached to the 'otion as a copy of a letter dated March %>, $>8 addressed to Atty. Montaa

and si(ned by )eli1 Balanay, r., Beatri4 D. +ola'o, Carolina B. Man(uiob and E'ilia B.

Pabaonon, herein they ter'inated Montaas services and infor'ed hi' that his ithdraal of

the petition for the probate of the ill as ithout their consent and as contrary to their

repeated re'inder to hi' that their 'others ill as

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

14/72

The instant case is different fro' the ,uuid case, supra, here the testatri1 instituted as heir

her sister and preterited her parents. er ill as intrinsically void because it preterited her

co'pulsory heirs in the direct line. Article /8 of the Civil Code provides that #. +ave in an e1tre'e case here the ill on its face is

intrinsically void, it is the probate courts duty to pass first upon the for'al validity of the ill.

"enerally, the probate of the ill is 'andatory !Art. #, Civil Code: "uevara vs. "uevara, >8

Phil. 8> and Phil. %8: )ernande4 vs. 0i'a(iba, 5-%#9#, 2ctober $%, $9>, %$ +CRA 8%&.

As aptly stated by Mr. ustice Barredo, and >$,

Civil Code&.

Testacy is favored. 0oubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially here the ill evinces an

intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his hole estate. +o co'pellin( is

the principle that intestacy should be avoided and that the ishes of the testator should prevail

that so'eti'es the lan(ua(e of the ill can be varied for the purpose of (ivin( it effect !Austriavs. Reyes, 5-%#3>, )ebruary %> , $>3, #$ +CRA >/8, >9%&.

As far as is le(ally possible, the e1pressed desire of the testator 'ust be folloed and the

dispositions of the properties in his ill should be upheld !Estor;ue vs. Estor;ue, 5-$/>#, une

#3, $>3, ## +CRA /83, /89&.

The la has a tender re(ard for the ishes of the testator as e1pressed in his ill because any

disposition therein is better than that hich the la can 'a6e !Castro vs. Bustos, 5-%/$#,

)ebruary %, $9, %> +CRA #%>, #8$&.

To other errors of the loer court 'ay be noticed. *t erred in issuin( a notice to creditors

althou(h no e1ecutor or re(ular ad'inistrator has been appointed. The record reveals that it

appointed a special ad'inistrator. A notice to creditors is not in order if only a special

ad'inistrator has been appointed. +ection $, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, in providin( that

8 are set aside and its

order of une $, $>#, settin( for hearin( the petition for probate, is affir'ed. The loer court is

directed to conduct further proceedin(s in +pecial Case No. $3 in consonance ith this

opinion. Costs, a(ainst the private respondents.

+2 2R0ERE0.

'ernando ?C&airman@" Barredo" Antonio and Con%ep%ion" Jr." JJ." %on%ur.

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

15/72

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

)*R+T 0*D*+*2N

G.R. No. L-*63)= (&e 2), 1983

SPOUSES !L4!RO P!STOR, (R. %&' M!. ELEN! !C!4!L DE P!STOR, petitioners,vs.

TE COURT O !PPE!LS, (U!N $. RE$ES, (UDGE O #R!NC I, COURT O IRSTINST!NCE O CE#U %&' LEELL$N #!RLITO UEM!D!, respondents.

(elae!" (elae!" (elae! :a+ /ffi%e for petitioners.

Ceni!a" Rama Asso%iates for private respondents.

PL!N!, J.:

*. )ACT+@

This is a case of hereditary succession.

Alvaro Pastor, +r. !PA+T2R, +R.&, a +panish sub7ect, died in Cebu City on une /, $99,

survived by his +panish ife +ofia Bossio !ho also died on 2ctober %$, $99&, their tole(iti'ate children Alvaro Pastor, r. !PA+T2R, R.& and +ofia Pastor de Mid(e ly !+2)*A&, and

an ille(iti'ate child, not na tural, by the na'e of 5eellyn Barlito Lue'ada LHEMA0A PA+T2R,

R. is a Philippine citi4en, havin( been naturali4ed in $#9. +2)*A is a +panish sub7ect.

LHEMA0A is a )ilipino by his 'others citi4enship.

2n Nove'ber $#, $>3, LHEMA0A filed a petition for the probate and alloance of an alle(ed

holo(raphic ill o f PA+T2R, +R. ith the Court of )irst *nstance of Cebu, Branch * !PR2BATE

C2HRT&, doc6eted as +P No. #$%-R. The ill contained only one testa'entary disposition@ a

le(acy in favor of LHEMA0A consistin( of #3 of PA+T2R, +R.s 8% share in the operation

by Atlas Consolidated Minin( and 0evelop'ent Corporation !AT5A+& of so'e 'inin( clai's in

Pina-Barot, Cebu.

2n Nove'ber %$, $>3, the PR2BATE C2HRT, upon 'otion of LHEMA0A and after an e1

parte hearin(, appointed hi' special ad'inistrator of the entire estate of PA+T2R, +R., hether

or not covered or affected by the holo(raphic ill. e assu'ed office as such on 0ece'ber 8,

$>3 after filin( a bond of P /,333.33.

2n 0ece'ber >, $>3, LHEMA0A as special ad'inistrator, instituted a(ainst PA+T2R, R. and

his ife an action for reconveyance of alle(ed properties of the estate, hich included the

properties sub7ect of the le(acy and hich ere in the na'es of the spouses PA+T2R, R. and

his ife, Maria Elena Achaval de Pastor, ho clai'ed to be the oners thereof in their on

ri(hts, and not by inheritance. The action, doc6eted as Civil Case No. %>8-R, as filed ith the

Court of )irst *nstance of Cebu, Branch *F.

2n )ebruary %, $>$, PA+T2R, R. and his sister +2)*A filed their opposition to the petition for

probate and the order appointin( LHEMA0A as special ad'inistrator.

2n 0ece'ber /, $>%, the PR2BATE C2HRT issued an order alloin( the ill to probate.

Appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-".R. No. /%9$- R, the order as affir'ed in a decision

dated May , $>>. 2n pe tition for revie, the +upre'e Court in ".R. No. 5-8998/ dis'issed

the petition in a 'inute resolution dated Nove'ber $, $>> and re'anded the sa'e to the

PR2BATE C2HRT after denyin( reconsideration on anuary $$, $>.

)or to years after re'and of the case to the PR2BATE C2HRT, LHEMA0A filed pleadin( after

pleadin( as6in( for pay'ent of his le(acy and sei4ure of the properties sub7ect of said le(acy.

PA+T2R, R. and +2)*A opposed these pleadin(s on the (round of pendency of thereconveyance suit ith another branch of the Cebu Court of )irst *nstance. All pleadin(s

re'ained unacted upon by the PR2BATE C2HRT.

2n March /, $3, the PR2BATE C2HRT set the hearin( on the intrinsic validity of the ill for

March %/, $3, but upon ob7ection of PA+T2R, R. and +2)*A on the e (round of pendency of

the reconveyance suit, no hearin( as held on March %/. *nstead, the PR2BATE C2HRT

re;uired the parties to sub'it their respective position papers as to ho 'uch inheritance

LHEMA0A as entitled to receive under the i(. Pursuant thereto, PA+T2R. R. and +2)*A

sub'itted their Me'orandu' of authorities dated April $3, hich in effect shoed that

deter'ination of ho 'uch LHEMA0A should receive as still pre'ature. LHEMA0A

sub'itted his Position paper dated April %3, $3. AT5A+, upon order of the Court, sub'itted a

sorn state'ent of royalties paid to the Pastor "roup of tsn fro' une $99 !hen Pastor, +r.

died& to )ebruary $3. The state'ent revealed that of the 'inin( clai's bein( operated by

AT5A+, 93 pertained to the Pastor "roup distributed as follos@

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

16/72

$. A. Pastor, r. ...................................83./

%. E. Pelae4, +r. ...................................$/.3

#. B. Lue'ada .......................................8./

2n Au(ust %3, $3, hile the reconveyance suit as still bein( liti(ated in Branch *F of the

Court of )irst *nstance of Cebu, the PR2BATE C2HRT issued the no assailed 2rder of

E1ecution and "arnish'ent, resolvin( the ;uestion of onership of the royalties payable by

AT5A+ and rulin( in effect that the le(acy to LHEMA0A as not inofficious. IThere as

absolutely no state'ent or clai' in the 2rder that the Probate 2rder of 0ece'ber /, $>% had

previously resolved the issue of onership of the 'inin( ri(hts of royalties thereon, nor the

intrinsic validity of the holo(raphic ill.J

The order of Au(ust %3, $3 found that as per the holo(raphic ill and a ritten

ac6noled('ent of PA+T2R, R. dated une $>, $9%, of the above 93 interest in the 'inin(

clai's belon(in( to the Pastor "roup, 8% belon(ed to PA+T2R, +R. and only ## belon(ed

to PA+T2R, R. The re'ainin( %/ belon(ed to E. Pelae4, also of the Pastor "roup. The

PR2BATE C2HRT thus directed AT5A+ to re'it directly to LHEMA0A the 8% royalties due

decedents estate, of hich LHEMA0A as authori4ed to retain >/ for hi'self as le(atee and

to deposit %/ ith a reputable ban6in( institution for pay'ent of the estate ta1es and other

obli(ations of the estate. The ## share of PA+T2R, R. and=or his assi(nees as ordered

(arnished to anser for the accu'ulated le(acy of LHEMA0A fro' the ti'e of PA+T2R, +R.s

death, hich a'ounted to over to 'illion pesos.

The order bein( #-R&. They assailed the 2rder dated Au(ust %3, $3 and the rit of e1ecution and

(arnish'ent issued pursuant thereto. The petition as denied on Nove'ber $, $3 on the

(rounds !$& that its filin( as pre'ature because the Motion for Reconsideration of the

;uestioned 2rder as still pendin( deter'ination by the PR2BATE C2HRT: and !%& that

althou(h %, as affir'ed by the Court of Appeals and the +upre'e Court, thereby renderin( 'oot and

acade'ic the suit for reconveyance then pendin( in the Court of )irst *nstance of Cebu, Branch

*F. *t clarified that only the ## share of PA+T2R, R. in the royalties !less than >./ share

hich he had assi(ned to LHEMA0A before PA+T2R, +R. died& as to be (arnished and that

as re(ards PA+T2R, +R.s 8% share, hat as ordered as 7ust the transfer of its possession

to the custody of the PR2BATE C2HRT throu(h the special ad'inistrator. )urther, the 2rder

(ranted LHEMA0A 9 interest on his unpaid le(acy fro' Au(ust $3 until fully paid.J

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.

ence, this Petition for Revie by certiorari ith prayer for a rit of pre y in7unction, assailin( the

decision of the Court of Appeals dated Nove'ber $, $3 as ell as the orders of the Probate

Court dated Au(ust %3, $3, Nove'ber $$, $3 and 0ece'ber $>, $3, Med by petitioners

on March %9, $$, folloed by a +upple'ental Petition ith Hr(ent Prayer for Restrainin(

2rder.

*n April $$, the Court !)irst 0ivision& issued a rit of preli'inary in7unction, the liftin( of hich

as denied in the Resolution of the sa'e 0ivision dated 2ctober $, $%, althou(h the bond of

petitioners as increased fro' P/3,333.33 to P$33,333.33.

Beteen 0ece'ber %$, $$ and 2ctober $%, $%, private respondent filed seven successive

'otions for early resolution. )ive of these 'otions e1pressly prayed for the resolution of the

;uestion as to hether or not the petition should be (iven due course.

2n 2ctober $, $%, the Court !)irst 0ivision& adopted a resolution statin( that , !should be 2ctober %$, $$& and concise 'e'oranda in a'plification of their oral ar(u'ents

on the 'erits of the case ere filed by the parties pursuant to the resolution of 2ctober %$, $$

. . . < and denied in a resolution dated 0ece'ber $#, $%, private respondents % indeed resolved the issues of onership and intrinsic

validity of the ill, and reiteratin( the 2rder of E1ecution dated Au(ust %3, $3: and the 2rder

of 0ece'ber $>, $3 reducin( to P%,%/$,/$9.>8 the a'ount payable to LHEMA0A

representin( the royalties he should have received fro' the death of PA+T2R, +R. in $99 up

to )ebruary $3.

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

17/72

The Probate 2rder itself, insofar as it 'erely alloed the holo(raphic ill in probate, is not

;uestioned. But petitioners denounce the Probate Court for havin( acted beyond its 7urisdiction

or ith (rave abuse of discretion hen it issued the assailed 2rders. Their ar(u'ent runs this

ay@ Before the provisions of the holo(raphic in can be i'ple'ented, the ;uestions of

onership of the 'inin( properties and the intrinsic validity of the holo(raphic ill 'ust first be

resolved ith finality. No, contrary to the position ta6en by the Probate Court in $3 i.e.,

al'ost ei(ht years after the probate of the ill in $>% the Probate 2rder did not resolve the

to said issues. Therefore, the Probate 2rder could not have resolved and actually did not

decide LHEMA0As entitle'ent to the le(acy. This bein( so, the 2rders for the pay'ent of the

le(acy in alle(ed i'ple'entation of the Probate 2rder of $>% are unarranted for lac6 of basis.

Closely related to the fore(oin( is the issue raised by LHEMA0A The Probate 2rder of $>%

havin( beco'e final and e1ecutory, ho can its i'ple'entation !pay'ent of le(acy& be

restrained 2f course, the ;uestion assu'es that LHEMA0As entitle'ent to the le(acy as

finally ad7ud(ed in the Probate 2rder.

2n the 'erits, therefore, the basic issue is hether the Probate 2rder of 0ece'ber /, $>%

resolved ith finality the ;uestions of onership and intrinsic validity. A ne(ative findin( ill

necessarily render 'oot and acade'ic the other issues raised by the parties, such as the

7urisdiction of the Probate Court to conclusively resolve title to property, and the constitutionality

and repercussions of a rulin( that the 'inin( properties in dispute, althou(h in the na'e of

PA+T2R, R. and his ife, really belon(ed to the decedent despite the latters constitutional

dis;ualification as an alien.

2n the procedural aspect, placed in issue is the propriety of certiorari as a 'eans to assail the

validity of the order of e1ecution and the i'ple'entin( rit.

***. 0*+CH++*2N@

$. ssue of /+ners&ip

!a& *n a special proceedin( for the probate of a ill, the issue by and lar(e is restricted to the

e1trinsic validity of the ill, i.e., hether the testator, bein( of sound 'ind, freely e1ecuted the

ill in accordance ith the for'alities prescribed by la. !Rules of Court, Rule >/, +ection $:

Rule >9, +ection .& As a rule, the ;uestion of onership is an e1traneous 'atter hich theProbate Court cannot resolve ith finality. Thus, for the purpose of deter'inin( hether a certain

property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court

'ay pass upon the title thereto, but such deter'ination is provisional, not conclusive, and is

sub7ect to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. I# Moran, Co''ents on the

Rules of Court !$3 ed.&, p. 8/: Dalero Dda. de Rodri(ue4 vs. Court of Appeals, $ +CRA

/83.J

!b& The rule is that e1ecution of a 7ud('ent 'ust confor' to that decreed in the dispositive part

of the decision. !Philippine-A'erican *nsurance Co. vs. onorable )lores, > +CRA $$.&

oever, in case of a'bi(uity or uncertainty, the body of the decision 'ay be scanned for

(uidance in construin( the 7ud('ent. !eirs of Presto vs. "alan(, > +CRA /#8: )abular vs.

Court of Appeals, $$ +CRA #%: Robles vs. Ti'ario. $3> Phil. 3.&

The 2rder sou(ht to be e1ecuted by the assailed 2rder of e1ecution is the Probate 2rder of

0ece'ber /, $>% hich alle(edly resolved the ;uestion of onership of the disputed 'inin(

properties. The said Probate 2rder enu'erated the issues before the Probate Court, thus@

Hn'ista6ably, there are three aspects in these proceedin(s@ !$& the probate

of the holo(raphic ill !%& the intestate estate aspect: and !#& the

ad'inistration proceedin(s for the purported estate of the decedent in the

Philippines.

*n its broad and total perspective the hole proceedin(s are bein(i'pu(ned by the oppositors on 7urisdictional (rounds, i.e., that the fact of

the decedents residence and e1istence of properties in the Philippines have

not been established.

+pecifically placed in issue ith respect to the probate proceedin(s are@ !a&

hether or not the holo(raphic ill !E1hibit

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

18/72

!b& There as a delay in the (rantin( of the letters testa'entary or of

ad'inistration for as a 'atter of fact, no re(ular e1ecutor and=or

ad'inistrator has been appointed up to this ti'e and - t&e appointment of a

spe%ial administrator +as" and still is" *ustified under t&e %ir%umstan%es to

ta#e possession and %&are of t&e estateof the deceased in the Philippines

!particularly in Cebu& until the proble's causin( the delay are decided and

the re(ular e1ecutor and=or ad'inistrator appointed.

!c& -&ere is a ne%essity and propriety of a spe%ial administrator and later on

an exe%utor andor administrator in t&ese pro%eedins , in spite of thisCourts declaration that the oppositors are the forced heirs and the petitioner

is 'erely vested ith the character of a voluntary heir to the e1tent of the

bounty (iven to hi' !under& the ill insofar as t&e same +ill not pre*udi%e

t&e leitimes of t&e oppositorfor the folloin( reasons@

$. To sub'it a co'plete inventory

of the estate of the decedent-

testator Alvaro Pastor, +r.

%. To ad'inister and to continue to

put to prolific utili4ation of the

properties of the decedent:

#. To 6eep and 'aintain the

houses and other structures and

belon(in( to the estate, since the

forced heirs are residin( in +pain,

and prepare the' for delivery to

the heirs in (ood order after

partition and hen directed by the

Court, but only after the pay'ent of

estate and inheritance ta1es:

!d& $ub*e%t to t&e out%ome of t&e suit for re%onveyan%e of o+ners&ip and

possession of real and personal properties in Civil Case No. %>8-T beforeBranch *F of the Court of )irst *nstance of Cebu, t&e intestate estate

administration aspe%t must pro%eed" unless, hoever, it is duly provenby

the oppositors that debts of the decedent have already been paid, that there

had been an e1tra7udicial partition or su''ary one beteen the forced

heirs, t&at t&e lea%y to be iven and delivered to t&e petitioner does not

ex%eed t&e free portion of t&e estate of t&e testator, that the respective

shares of the forced heirs have been fairly apportioned, distributed and

delivered to the to forced heirs of Alvaro Pastor, +r., after deductin( the

property illed to the petitioner, and the estate and inheritance ta1es have

already been paid to the "overn'ent thru the Bureau of *nternal Revenue.

The suitability and propriety of alloin( petitioner to re'ain as special

ad'inistrator or ad'inistrator of the other properties of the estate of thedecedent, hich properties are not directly or indirectly affected by the

provisions of the holo(raphic ill !such as ban6 deposits, land in Mactan

etc.&, ill be resolved in another order as separate incident, %onsiderin t&at

t&is order s&ould &ave been properly issued solely as a resolution on t&e

issue of +&et&er or not to allo+ and approve t&e aforestated +ill. !E'phasis

supplied.&

Nohere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of onership of specific properties. 2n

the contrary, it is 'anifest therein that onership as not resolved. )or it confined itself to the

;uestion of e1trinsic validity of the in, and the need for and propriety of appointin( a special

ad'inistrator. Thus it alloed and approved the holo(raphic in particularly in the City of Toledo: and !#& PA+T2R, R.

as only actin( as du''y for his father because the latter as a +paniard.

Based on the pre'ises laid, the conclusion is obviously far-fetched.

!f& *t as, therefore, error for the assailed i'ple'entin( 2rders to conclude that the Probate

2rder ad7ud(ed ith finality the ;uestion of onership of the 'inin( properties and royalties, and

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

19/72

that, pre'ised on this conclusion, the dispositive portion of the said Probate 2rder directed the

special ad'inistrator to pay the le(acy in dispute.

%. ssue of ntrinsi% Validity of t&e )olorap&i% ill-

!a& ?hen PA+T2R, +R. died in $99, he as survived by his ife, aside fro' his to le(iti'ate

children and one ille(iti'ate son. There is therefore a need to li;uidate the con7u(al partnership

and set apart the share of PA+T2R, +R.s ife in the con7u(al partnership preparatory to the

ad'inistration and li;uidation of the estate of PA+T2R, +R. hich ill include, a'on( others,

the deter'ination of the e1tent of the statutory usufructuary ri(ht of his ife until herdeath. % here the Probate

Court ordered that-

... a notice be issued and published pursuant to the provisions of Rule 9 of

the Rules of Court, re;uirin( all persons havin( 'oney clai's a(ainst the

decedent to file the' in the office of the Branch Cler6 of this Court.%.

!e& The net assets of the estate not havin( been deter'ined, the le(iti'e of the forced heirs in

concrete fi(ures could not be ascertained.

!f& All the fore(oin( deficiencies considered, it as not possible to deter'ine hether the le(acyof LHEMA0A - a fi1ed share in a specific property rather than an ali;uot part of the entire net

estate of the deceased - ould produce an i'pair'ent of the le(iti'e of the co'pulsory heirs.

!(& )inally, there actually as no deter'ination of the intrinsic validity of the ill in other

respects. *t as obviously for this reason that as late as March /, $3 - 'ore than > years after

the Probate 2rder as issued the Probate Court scheduled on March %/, $3 a hearin( on

the intrinsi%validity of the ill.

#. (ropriety of %ertiorari

Private respondent challen(es the propriety of certiorari as a 'eans to assail the validity of the

disputed 2rder of e1ecution. e contends that the error, if any, is one of 7ud('ent, not

7urisdiction, and properly correctible only by appeal, not certiorari.

Hnder the circu'stances of the case at bar, the challen(e 'ust be re7ected. "rave abuse of

discretion a'ountin( to lac6 of 7urisdiction is 'uch too evident in the actuations of the probate

court to be overloo6ed or condoned.

!a& ?ithout a final, authoritative ad7udication of the issue as to hat properties co'pose the

estate of PA+T2R, +R. in the face of conflictin( clai's 'ade by heirs and a non-heir !MA.

E5ENA ACADA5 0E PA+T2R& involvin( properties not in the na'e of the decedent, and in the

absence of a resolution on the intrinsic validity of the ill here in ;uestion, there as no basis for

the Probate Court to hold in its Probate 2rder of $>%, hich it did not, that private respondent is

entitled to the pay'ent of the ;uestioned le(acy. Therefore, the 2rder of E1ecution of Au(ust %3,$3 and the subse;uent i'ple'entin( orders for the pay'ent of LHEMA0As le(acy, in

alle(ed i'ple'entation of the dispositive part of the Probate 2rder of 0ece'ber /, $>%, 'ust

fall for lac6 of basis.

!b& The ordered pay'ent of le(acy ould be violative of the rule re;uirin( prior li;uidation of the

estate of the deceased, i.e., the deter'ination of the assets of the estate and pay'ent of all

debts and e1penses, before apportion'ent and distribution of the residue a'on( the heirs and

le(atees. !Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, > +CRA #9>.&

!c& Neither has the estate ta1 been paid on the estate of PA+T2R, +R. Pay'ent therefore of the

le(acy to LHEMA0A ould collide ith the provision of the National *nternal Revenue Code

re;uirin( pay'ent of estate ta1 before delivery to any beneficiary of his distributive share of the

estate !+ection $3> IcJ&

!d& The assailed order of e1ecution as unauthori4ed, havin( been issued purportedly under

Rule , +ection 9 of the Rules of Court hich reads@

+ec. 9. Court to fi1 contributive shares here devisees, le(atees, or heirs

have been in possession. ?here devisees" leatees, or &eirs have

entered into possession of portions of the estate before the debtsand

e1penses have been settled and paid and have beco'e liable to contribute

for the pay'ent of such debts and e1penses, the court havin( 7urisdiction of

the estate 'ay, by order for that purpose, after hearin(, settle the a'ount of

their several liabilities, and order ho 'uch and in hat 'anner each

person shall contribute, and 'ay issue e1ecution as circu'stances re;uire.

The above provision clearly authori4es e1ecution to enforce pay'ent of debtsof estate. A le(acy

is not a debt of the estate: indeed, le(atees are a'on( those a(ainst ho' e1ecution is

authori4ed to be issued.

... there is 'erit in the petitioners contention that the probate court (enerally

cannot issue a rit of e1ecution. *t is not supposed to issue a rit of

e1ecution because its orders usually refer to the ad7udication of clai's

a(ainst the estate hich the e1ecutor or ad'inistrator 'ay satisfy ithout

the necessity of resortin( to a rit of e1ecution. The probate court, as such,

does not render any 7ud('ent enforceable by e1ecution.

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

20/72

The circu'stances that the Rules of Court e1pressly specifies that the

probate court 'ay issue e1ecution !a& to satisfy !debts of the estate out of&

the contributive shares of devisees, le(atees and heirs in possession of the

decedents assets !+ec. 9. Rule &, !b& to enforce pay'ent of the e1penses

of partition !+ec. #, Rule 3&, and !c& to satisfy the costs hen a person is

cited for e1a'ination in probate proceedin(s !+ec. $#, Rule $8%& 'ay

'ean, under the rule of inclusion unius est e1clusion alterius, that those are

the only instances hen it can issue a rit of e1ecution. !Dda. de Dalera vs.

2filada, / +CRA 9, $3.&

!d& *t is ithin a courts co'petence to order the e1ecution of a final 7ud('ent: but to order the

e1ecution of a final order !hich is not even 'eant to be e1ecuted& by readin( into it ter's that

are not there and in utter disre(ard of e1istin( rules and la, is 'anifest (rave abuse of

discretion tanta'ount to lac6 of 7ur isdiction. Conse;uently, the rule that certiorari 'ay not be

invo6ed to defeat the ri(ht of a prevailin( party to the e1ecution of a valid and final 7ud('ent, is

inapplicable. )or hen an order of e1ecution is issued ith (rave abuse of discretion or is at

variance ith the 7ud('ent sou(ht to be enforced !PDTA vs. onorable "on4ales, % +CRA

$>%&, certiorari ill lie to abate the order of e1ecution.

!e& Aside fro' the propriety of resortin( to certiorari to assail an order of e1ecution hich varies

the ter's of the 7ud('ent sou(ht to be e1ecuted or does not find support in the dispositive part

of the latter, there are circu'stances in the instant case hich 7ustify the re'edy applied for.

Petitioner MA. E5ENA ACADA5 0E PA+T2R, ife of PA+T2R, R., is the holder in her on

ri(ht of three 'inin( clai's hich are one of the ob7ects of conflictin( clai's of onership. +he

is not an heir of PA+T2R, +R. and as not a party to the probate proceedin(s. Therefore, she

could not appeal fro' the 2rder of e1ecution issued by the Probate Court. 2n the other hand,

after the issuance of the e1ecution order, the ur(ency of the relief she and her co-petitioner

husband see6 in the petition for certiorari states a(ainst re;uirin( her to (o throu(h the

cu'berso'e procedure of as6in( for leave to intervene in the probate proceedin(s to enable

her, if leave is (ranted, to appeal fro' the challen(ed order of e1ecution hich has ordered

the immediatetransfer and=or (arnish'ent of the royalties derived fro' 'ineral properties of

hich she is the duly re(istered oner and=or (rantee to(ether ith her husband. +he could not

have intervened before the issuance of the assailed orders because she had no valid (round to

intervene. The 'atter of onership over the properties sub7ect of the e1ecution as then still

bein( liti(ated in another court in a reconveyance suit filed by the special ad'inistrator of theestate of PA+T2R, +R.

5i6eise, at the ti'e petitioner PA+T2R, R. Med the petition for certiorari ith the Court of

Appeals, appeal as not available to hi' since his 'otion for reconsideration of the e1ecution

order as still pendin( resolution by the Probate Court. But in the face of actual (arnish'ent of

their 'a7or source of inco'e, petitioners could no lon(er ait for the resolution of their 'otion

for reconsideration. They needed pro'pt relief fro' the in7urious effects of the e1ecution order.

Hnder the circu'stances, recourse to certiorari as the feasible re'edy.

?ERE)2RE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA ".R. No. +P-$$#>#-R is reversed.

The 2rder of e1ecution issued by the probate Court dated Au(ust %3, $3, as ell as all the

2rders issued subse;uent thereto in alle(ed i'ple'entation of the Probate 2rder dated

0ece'ber /, $>%, particularly the 2rders dated Nove'ber $$, $3 and 0ece'ber $>, $3,

are hereby set aside: and this case is re'anded to the appropriate Re(ional Trial Court for

proper proceedin(s, sub7ect to the 7ud('ent to be rendered in Civil Case No. %>8-R.

+2 2R0ERE0.

-ee&an#ee ?C&airman@" Melen%io8)errera Vasque! and Relova JJ." %on%ur.

9utierre!" J." too# no part.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1218) Se+teber 27, 1917

TE UNITED ST!TES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.

CIU GUIMCO,defendant-appellant.

Jose A. Clarin and rureta 9oyena and Re%to for appellant.

Attorney89eneral Avan%e1a for appellee.

STREET, J.:

This is an appeal brou(ht by the accused Chiu "ui'co to reverse a 7ud('ent of the Court of

)irst *nstance of the Province of Misa'is, sub7ectin( hi' to a fine of P$,33 for a violation of

section 9% of the Code of Civil Procedure and orderin( hi' to be confined in the provincial 7ail

until he should produce the ill of his deceased brother, or until the further order of the court.

*t appears that the testator, oa;uin Cru4, alias Piaua, had for 'any years, resided in the

'unicipality of "in(oo(, Province of Misa'is, here he had lived as a Chinese 'erchant and

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

21/72

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

22/72

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

23/72

!NGEL! RODRIGUE", M!RI! RODRIGUE", ET !L., petitioners,vs.

ON. (U!N DE #OR(!, % ('e o/ te Cort o/ 0rt I&t%&ce o/ #%c%&, #r%&c III,!N!TOLI! P!NGILIN!N %&' !DEL!ID! (!C!L!N,respondents.

:oren!o $omulon for petitioners.

-orres and -orres for respondents.

RE$ES, (.#.L., J.:

Petitioners An(ela, Maria, Abelardo and Antonio, surna'ed Rodri(ue4, petition this Court for a

rit of %ertiorariand prohibition to the Court of )irst *nstance of Bulacan, for its refusal to (rant

their 'otion to dis'iss its +pecial Proceedin( No. $##$, hich said Court is alle(ed to have

ta6en co(ni4ance of ithout 7urisdiction.

The facts and issues are succinctly narrated in the order of the respondent court, dated une $#,

$9# !Petition, Anne1 3&, in this ise@

*t is alle(ed in the 'otion to dis'iss filed by An(ela, Maria, Abelardo and Antonio

Rodri(ue4, throu(h counsel, that this Court entitled *n the 'atter of the *ntestate Estate of the

deceased Rev. )r. Celestino Rodri(ue4 hich as filed ahead of the instant case, 'ovants ere aare of the e1istence of the purported ill of )ather

Rodri(ue4, deposited in the Court of Bulacan, since they filed a petition to e1a'ine the sa'e,

and that 'ovants clearly filed the intestate proceedin(s in Ri4al 9, of the Revised Rules of Court !+ection #, Rule >>, of the old Rules&@

+EC. #. Court to appoint time for provin +ill. ,oti%e t&ereof to be publis&ed. ?hen

a ill is delivered to, or a petition for the alloance of a ill is filed in, the Court havin(

7urisdiction, such Court shall fi1 a ti'e and place for provin( the ill hen all

concerned 'ay appear to contest the alloance thereof, and shall cause notice of

such ti'e and place to be published three !#& ee6s successively, previous to the ti'e

appointed, in a nespaper of (eneral circulation in the province.

But no nespaper publication shall be 'ade here the petition for probate has been

filed by the testator hi'self.

The use of the dis7unctive in the ords

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

24/72

to the Court of Bulacan on March 8, hile petitioners initiated intestate proceedin(s in the Court

of )irst *nstance of Ri4al only on March $%, ei(ht days later, the precedence and e1clusive

7urisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontestable.4t

But, petitioners ob7ect, section # of revised Rule >9 !old Rule >>& spea6s of a ill bein( delivered

to 8 Phil. %#: Reyes vs. 0ia4, ># Phil. 88: Bernabe vs. Der(ara, >#

Phil. 9>9&. Neither party denies that the late )r. Rodri(ue4 is deceased, or that he left personal

property in a(onoy, province of Bulacan !t.s.n. p. 89, hearin( of une $$, $9#, Anne1 # !old Rule >/& of the Rules of

Court, since the sa'e en7oins that@

The Court first ta6in( co(ni4ance of the settle'ent of the estate of a decedent shall

e1ercise 7urisdiction to the e1clusion of all other courts. !+ec. $&

This disposition presupposes that to or 'ore courts have been as6ed to ta6e co(ni4ance of the

settle'ent of the estate. 2f the' only one could be of proper venue, yet the rule (rants

precedence to that Court hose 7urisdiction is first invo6ed, ithout ta6in( venue into account.

There are to other reasons that 'ilitate a(ainst the success of petitioners. 2ne is that their

co''encin( intestate proceedin(s in Ri4al, after they learned of the delivery of the decedents

ill to the Court of Bulacan, as in bad faith, patently done ith a vie to divestin( the latter

court of the precedence aarded it by the Rules. Certainly the order of priority established in

Rule ># !old Rule >/& as not desi(ned to convert the settle'ent of decedents estates into a

race beteen applicants, ith the ad'inistration of the properties as the price for the fleetest.

The other reason is that, in our syste' of civil la, intestate succession is only subsidiary or

subordinate to the testate, since intestacy only ta6es place in the absence of a valid operative

ill. +ays Article 93 of the Civil Code of the Philippines@

ART. 93. 5e(al or intestate succession ta6es place@

!$& *f a person dies ithout a ill, or ith a void ill, or one hich has subse;uently

lost its validity:

!%& ?hen the ill does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all the property belon(in(

to the testator. *n such case, le(al succession shall ta6e place only ith respect to theproperty in hich the testator has not disposed:

!#& *f the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir does not happen or is

not fulfilled, or if the heir dies before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there

bein( no substitution, and no ri(ht of accretion ta6es place:

!8& ?hen the heir instituted is incapable of succeedin(, e1cept in cases provided in

this Code.

Therefore, as ruled in Castro" et al. vs. Martine!, $3 Phil. #3>,

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

25/72

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

26/72

!dem&. 2n the other hand, in $auinsin v. :indaya" et al., 5-$>>/3, 0ece'ber $>, $9%, this

Court said@

Accordin( to +ection %, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, a petition for letters of

ad'inistration 'ust be filed by an

7/24/2019 Rule 76 Cases

27/72

she (ave the ill later to the itnesses to si(n and afterards she (ave it to the notary public:

that on the day of the e1ecution of the ill the testatri1 as in the best of health.

Modesto )or'ille4a also testified that he as as6ed by the testatri1 to be one of the itnesses to

the ill: that he read and understood the attestation clause before he si(ned the docu'ent, and

all the itnesses spo6e either in +panish or in Ta(alo(. e finally said that the instru'ental

itnesses and the testatri1 si(ned the ill at the sa'e ti'e and place and identified their

si(natures.

This evidence hich has not been successfully refuted proves conclusively that the ill as dulye1ecuted because it as si(ned by the testatri1 and her instru'ental itnesses and the notary

public in the 'anner provided for by la.

The clai' that the ill as procured by i'proper pressure and influence is also belied by the

evidence. 2n this point the court a quo'ade the folloin( observation@

The circu'stance that the testatri1 as then livin( under the sa'e roof ith 0r. Rene

Teotico is no proof ade;uate in la to sustain the conclusion that there as i'proper

pressure and undue influence. Nor is the alle(ed fact of isolation of the testatri1 fro'

the oppositor and her itnesses, for their supposed failure to see personally the

testatri1, attributable to the vehe'ence o f 0r. Rene Teotico, to e1clude visitors, too6

place years after the e1ecution of the ill on May $>, $/$. Althou(h those fact 'ay

have so'e ei(ht to support the theory of the oppositor, yet they 'ust perforce yield

to the ei(htier fact that nothin( could have prevented the testatri1, had she really

anted to fro' subse;uently revo6in( her $/$ ill if it did not in fact reflect and

e1press her on testa'entary dispositions. )or, as testified to by the oppositor and

her itnesses, the testatri1 as often seen at the Escolta, in Luiapo and +ta. Cru4,

Manila, al6in( and acco'panied by no one. *n fact, on different occasions, each of

the' as able to tal6 ith her.

?e have e1a'ined the evidence on the 'atter and e are fully in accord ith the fore(oin(

observation. Moreover, the 'ere clai' that osefina Mortera and her husband Rene Teotico had

the opportunity to e1ert pressure on the testatri1 si'ply because she lived in their house several

years prior to the e1ecution of the ill and that she as old and sufferin( fro' hypertension in

that she as virtually isolated fro' her friends for several years prior to her death is insufficient

to disprove hat the instru'ental itnesses had testified that the testatri1 freely and voluntarily

and ith full consciousness of the sole'nity of the occasion e1ecuted the ill under

consideration. The e1ercise of i'proper pressure and undue influence 'ust be supported by

substantial evidence and 'ust be of a 6ind that ould overpoer and sub7u(ate the 'ind of the

testatri1 as to destroy her free a(ency and 'a6e her e1press the ill of another rather than her

on !Coso v. 0e4a, 8% 3. ". /9&. The burden is on the person challen(in( the ill that such

influence as e1erted at the ti'e of its e1ecution, a 'atter hich here as not done, for the

evidence presented not only is insufficient but as disproved by the testi'ony of the

instru'ental itnesses.

#. The ;uestion of hether the probate court could deter'ine the intrinsic validity of the

provisions of a ill has been decided by this Court in a lon( line of decisions a'on( hich the

folloin( 'ay be cited@

2pposition to the intrinsic validity or le(ality of the provisions of the ill cannot be

entertained in Probate proceedin( because its only purpose is 'erely to deter'ine if

the ill has been e1ecuted in accordance ith the re;uire'ents of the la.< !Palacios

v. Palacios, / 3. ". %%3&

... The authentication of a ill decides no other ;uestions than such as touch upon the

capacity of the testator and the co'pliance ith those re;uisites or sole'nities hich

the la prescribes for the validity of ills. *t does not deter'ine nor even by i'plication

pre7ud(e the validity or efficiency of the provisions, these 'ay be i'pu(ned as bein(

vicious or null, notithstandin( its authentication. The ;uestions relatin( to thesepoints re'ain entirely unaffected, and 'ay be raised even after the ill has been

authenticated. ...

)ro' the fact that the le(ali4ation of a ill does not validate the provisions therein

contained, it does not follo that such provision lac6 the efficiency, or fail to produce

the effects hich the la reco(ni4es hen they are not i'pu(ned by anyone. *n the

'atter of ills it is a funda'ental doctrine that the ill of the testator is the la

(overnin( the interested parties, and 'ust be punctually co'plied ith in so far as it is

not contrary to the la or to public 'orals. !Montaano v. +uesa, $8 Phil. 9>9, 9>-

93&

To establish conclusively as a(ainst everyone, and once for all, the facts that a ill

as e1ecuted ith the for'alities re;uired by la and that the testator as in acondition to 'a6e a ill, is the only purpose of the proceedin(s under the ne code

for the probate of a ill. !+ec. 9%/.& The 7ud('ent in such proceedin(s deter'ines

and can deter'ine nothin( 'ore. *n the' the court has no poer to pass upon the

validity of any provisions 'ade in the ill. *t can not decide, for e1a'ple, that a certain

le(acy is void and another one is valid. !Castaeda v. Ale'any, # Phil. 8%9, 8%&

Pursuant to the fore(oin( precedents the pronounce'ent 'ade by the court a quo declarin(

invalid the le(acy 'ade to 0r. Rene Teotico in the ill E1hibit A 'ust be set aside as havin(

been 'ade in e1cess of its 7urisdiction. Another reason hy said pronounce'ent should be set

aside is that the le(atee as not (iven an opportunity to defend the validity of the le(acy for he

as not alloed to intervene in this proceedin(. As a corollary, the other pronounce'ents

touchin( on the disposition of the estate in favor of so'e relatives of the deceased should also

be set aside for the sa'e reason.

?ERE)2RE, ith the e1ce