8/13/2019 Spec Pro- Digested Matute, Etc.- Nia

1/1

Matute vs. Court of Appeals

26 SCRA 768G.R. No. L-26751, G.R. No. L-26085, G.R. No. L-26106January 31, 1969(L-26751)

Facts: On August 20, 1965 when Carlos S. Matute, one of the Matute heirsand a full-blood brother of both the petitioner and the herein respondent

Matias S. Matute, filed in Special Proceeding (settlement of the Matute

estate) a petition praying for the removal of Matias as co-administratorand his appointment in such capacity. Carlos alleged that for a period of

more than two years from the date of his appointment, saidMa tias S.

Matute has neglected to render a true, just and complete account of his

administration and that he is not only incompetent but also negligent in hismanagement of the estate under his charge consisting of five haciendas.

The respondent Matias opposed the allegation that it is completely without

basis and false. Records show that he made an accounting and the same

was submitted to the court. That his competence to act as administratorhas been established to the satisfaction of the court.It appears that duringthe reception of evidence conducted on December 29, 1965 by the probate

court, Carlos S. Matute and the other heirs submitted their respective lists

of exhibits in support of their motion to ousts Matias. On January 8, 1966

Matias filed a written objection to the admission of he movants exhibits

on the ground that the same were hearsay, self-serving, irrelevant and/ormerephotostatic copies of supposed originals which never properly

dentified nor shown in court. four days later, the Counsel for Matias filedwith leave of Court a Motion to Dismiss and/or Demurrer toEvidence

which avers that there is no sufficient evidence on record to justify and

support the motions for the removal of the herein co-administrator Matias

S. Matute.The probate court issued an order removing Matias S. Matute asco-administrator. Hence, the certiorari. The respondent contends that the

disputed order removing him as co-administrator is a patent nullity. Upon

the other hand, the petitioner advances the reason in support of the order

of removal that the probate judge accorded the respondent all the

opportunity to adduce his evidence but the latter resorted to dilatory

tactics such as filing a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence.

Issue: Whether or not Rule 33 regarding judgment on demurrer to

evidenceis applicable to special proceedings such that its disregard by the

probate court amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

Held: Yes. Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that in the

absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil

actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.

The application of the above cited Rule in special proceedings, like the caseat bar, is authorized by the Rules. Instead of resolving the foregoingmotion, the probate judge issued the controverted order removing the

respondent as co-administrator without giving him the opportunity to

adduce his own evidence despite his explicit reservation that he be

afforded the chance to introduce evidence in his behalf in the event of

denial of his motion to dismiss and/or demurrer to evidence. The Courtview that the above actuation of the probate judge constituted grave

abuse of discretion which dooms his improvident order as nullity.

ANCHETA V. GUERSEY-DALAYGON (Succession)

Binding Effect of Judgments490 SCRA 140

June 8, 2006

Facts: Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were

American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have anadopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). Audrey died in 1979. She left a will

wherein she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard consisting of Audreys conjugal

share in real estate improvements at Forbes Park, current account with cash balance

and shares of stock in A/G Interiors. Two years after her death, Richard marriedCandelaria Guersey-Dalaygon. Four years thereafter, Richard died and left a will

wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, except for his shares in A/G,

which he left to his adopted daughter.

Petitioner, as ancillary administrator in the court where Audreys will was admitted to

probate, filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a project of

partition of Audreys estate. The motion and project of partition were granted.Meanwhile, the ancillary administrator with regards to Richards will also filed a project

of partition, leaving 2/5 of Richards undivided interest in the Forbes property wasallocated to respondent Candelaria, while 3/5 thereof was allocated to their three

children. Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of

Maryland, where Richard was a native of, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire

nterest of the testator in the property subject to the legacy.

Issue: Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled under the

circumstances.

Held: A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the

title to the land of the estate in the distributees, which, if erroneous may

be corrected by a timely appeal. Once it becomes final, its binding effect is

ike any other judgment in rem.

However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be set

aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Further, in Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court ruledthat a party interested in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside

when he is left out by reasonof circumstances beyond his control or through

mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence.

Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audestate according to the terms of her will and as dictated by the applic

law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA Decision annulling the

Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, must be uph

Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon 490 SCRA 140Austria-Martinez, J:Facts: Audrey and Richard were married. They had a son, Kyle. They are Ame

Citizens, domiciled therein but has been residing in the Philippines for 30 years. W

Audrey died she left a will bequeathing ALLHER PROPERTIES (including the Mproperty, shares in a company and savings account) to her husband. Richard rema

to herein respondent. When Richard died, he left a will bequeathing also, a

properties to respondent except the shares which he gave to his son. The will of Au

was duly probated in Maryland. The same is true with that of Richard. Anchetaappointed as the anciliary administrator of the estate. The latter filed pro

proceedings here in the Philippines and filed a PROJECT PARTITION whereby he di

apply the LAW OF MARYLAND but instead applied the Philippine Law. Hence, instebequeathing all the Makati property to respondent, he only awarded thereo

gave the to Kyle. Respondent alleged that the latter violated his fiduciary because he did not apply the Maryland Law and also, he disregarded the wi

Richard and AudreyDefense of petitioner: He did not act in bad faith as executor

respondent cannot anymore asked for the setting aside of the PROJECT OF PARTI

because it has already become FINAL. Petitioner also contended that the actionalready prescribed since respondent already knew of the distribution of the estate

1984 but no action was made thereon Respondents allegations: That petitioner comEXTRINSIC FRAUD because he did not perform his fiduciary duty in upholding the w

Audrey. Hence, such EXTRINSIC FRAUD is sufficient to set aside thedecRespondent replied that he was not able to question the distribution because he

not aparty to it The CA found merit in respondents cause and found that petitioners failure to

the terms of Audreys will, despite the latters declaration of good faith, amounted to extrinsic fraUd

Issue:

1.WON the State of Maryland Law shall apply in this case2.WON the defense of GF in applying Philippine law may be accepted in this case

3.WON the judgment may still be set aside on the ground of FRAUD even if it is al

final4.WON the action for annulment has already prescribed

Guy v. CA (Court of Appeals) Digest

Facts:

1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estatSima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy Susim). Private-respondents Karen Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged illegitimate childre

Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors were represented by

mother Remedios Oanes who filed a petition for the issuance of lette

administration before the RTC of Makati City.

2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surv

spouse, filed for the dismissal of the petition alleging that his father le

debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of le

administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging the certification of non-forum shopping should have been signedRemedios and not by counsel.

3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waive

reason of a Release of Claim or waiver stating that in exchange

financial and educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios andminor children discharged the estate of the decedent from any an

liabilities.

4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as

supplemental motion ruling that the mother is not the duly constitguardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed

waiver. It also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of

forum shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lo

court. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate

inheritance the wards

RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and par

and guardians must necessarily obtain judicial approval. repudiatio

inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the ward. Not having been authorized by the court, the rele

or waiver is therefore void. Moreover, the private-respondents could

have waived their supposed right as they have yet to prove their statu

illegitimate children of the decedent. It would be inconsistent to rule

they have waived a right which, according to the petitioner, the lattenot have.

As to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the heirs

The court is not precluded to receive evidence to determine the filiatiothe claimants even if the original petition is for the issuance of let

administration. Its jurisdiction extends to matters collateral and incide

to the settlement of the estate, with the determination of heir

included. As held in previous decision, two causes of action may

brought together in one complaint, one a claim for recognition, andother to claim inheritance. (Briz v. Briz)

http://hopefulivy.blogspot.com/2010/07/ancheta-v-guersey-dalaygon-succession.htmlhttp://hopefulivy.blogspot.com/2010/07/ancheta-v-guersey-dalaygon-succession.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/guy-v-ca-court-of-appeals-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/guy-v-ca-court-of-appeals-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/guy-v-ca-court-of-appeals-digest.htmlhttp://hopefulivy.blogspot.com/2010/07/ancheta-v-guersey-dalaygon-succession.html