specpro- compiled case digest batch 1

8/13/2019 SpecPro- Compiled Case Digest Batch 1

1/25

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1(Meeting2)

Eusebio v Eusebio, et al.

Facts:

Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that hisfather, who died on Noember !", #$%!, resided in &uezon Cit'. Eugenio(s siblings )Amanda, *irginia, +uan, elfin, *i-ente and Carlos, stating that the' areillegitimate -hildren of Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that Andres was domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga. 0he' pra'ed that the -ase be dismissedupon the ground that enue had been improperl' laid.0he CFI of Rizal granted Eugenio(s petition and oerruled his siblings( ob1e-tion.

Issue:2hether enue had been properl' laid in Rizal3

Held:No. on Andres Eusebio up to 4-tober !$, #$%!, was and had alwa's been domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga. He onl' bought a house and lot at ""$5A Espana E6tension, &uezon Cit' be-ause his son, r. +esus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at No. 7# P. Florentino /t., &uezon Cit'. Een before he wasable to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered a stro8e and was for-ed to lie in his son(s residen-e. It is well settled that 9domi-ile is not -ommonl'-hanged b' presen-e in a pla-e merel' for one own(s health: een if -oupled with 98nowledge that one will neer again be able, on a--ount of illness, to returnhome. Haing resided for oer seent' 'ears in Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained su-h domi-ile.

Andres had no intention of sta'ing in &uezon Cit' permanentl'. 0here is no dire-t eiden-e of su-h intent ; Andres did not manifest his desire to lie in &uezonCit' indefinitel'< Eugenio did not testif' thereon< and r. +esus Eusebio was not presented to testif' on the matter. Andres did not part with, or alienate, his housein /an Fernando, Pampanga. /ome of his -hildren remained in that muni-ipalit'. In the deed of sale of his house at ""$ ; A Espana E6t., Andres gae /anFernando, Pampanga, as his residen-e. 0he marriage -ontra-t signed b' Andres when he was married in arti-ulo mortis to Con-ep-ion *illanuea two da's priorto his death stated that his residen-e is /an Fernando, Pampanga.

0he re=uisites for a -hange of domi-ile in-lude )# -apa-it' to -hoose and freedom of -hoi-e, )! ph'si-al presen-e at the pla-e -hosen, )> intention to sta'therein permanentl'. Although Andres -omplied with the first two re=uisites, there is no -hange of domi-ile be-ause the third re=uisite is absent.

Anent the -ontention that appellants submitted themseles to the authorit' of the CFI of Rizal be-ause the' introdu-ed eiden-e on the residen-e of the de-edent,it must be noted that appellants spe-ifi-all' made of re-ord that the' were N40 submitting themseles to the 1urisdi-tion of the -ourt, e6-ept for the purpose onl' ofassailing the same.

In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga< that the CFI of Rizal had no authorit', therefore, toappoint an administrator of the estate of the de-eased, the enue haing been laid improperl'.

o-trine? omi-ile on-e a-=uired is retained until a new domi-ile is gained. It is not -hanged b' presen-e in a pla-e for one(s own health.

VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, and HONORABLE EVERO A. !ALVAR, "#esidin$ %ud$e, Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& La$una, B#anc' Vl, petitioners,s.

(HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL, ) "RECIOA B. GARCIA and AGU(INA B. GARCIA, respondents.

Baliao.Barretto.Delos Trinos.Hirang.Juan.Lumbres.Mejia.Molato.Petrache.Piaroc.Puyat.Salvador


2/25


FAC(:

#. 4n @a' !, #$>, *irginia Fule, -reditor, filed with CFI of Baguna, at Calamba presided oer b' +udge @alar, a petition for letters of administration alleging

that Amado ar-ia, a propert' owner of Calamba, Baguna died intestate in the Cit' of @anila, leaing real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Baguna andin other pla-es, within the 1urisdi-tion of this Court. /he also moed e6 parte to be appointed as spe-ial administratri6 oer the estate. /he was appointed as su-h

b' +udge @alar.

!. A motion for re-onsideration was filed b' Pre-iosa ar-ia on @a' ", #$> -ontending that the order appointing *irginia was issued without 1urisdi-tion sin-e no

noti-e of the petition for letter of administration has been sered upon all persons interested in the estate. As the suriing spouse of Amado, she -laimed that she

should be preferred in the appointment as spe-ial administratri6. /he filed a petition for letters of administration before the CFI of Rizal, &C bran-h oer the same

intestate estate of Amado.

>. As -laimed b' Fule in her 9supplemental petition for the appointment of regular administration: the original petition was modified in these respe-t?

a. that Amado was ele-ted as Constitutional delegate to the first distri-t of Baguna and his last pla-e of residen-e was Calamba, Baguna

b. the deletion of the names of Pre-iosa ar-ia and Agustina ar-ia )-hild as legal heirs of Amado

-. that Carolina Carpio, who was simpl' listed as heir in the original petition, is the suriing spouse of Amado and that she has e6pressl' renoun-ed her

preferential right to the administration of the estate in faor of *irginia

d. 0hat *irginia be appointed as regular administratri6.

0his supplemental petition was opposed b' Pre-iosa sin-e it attempts to -onfer 1urisdi-tion on the CFI of Baguna. Pre-iosa then filed an opposition to the original

and supplemental petitions for letters of administration raising the issue of 1urisdi-tion, enue, la-8 of interest of *irginia in the estate and her dis=ualifi-ation as

spe-ial administratri6.

IUE* HEL+:

. -'e#e is t'e #oe# venue &o# t'is action, in /ue0on Cit1 2'e#e A3ado died o# in Cala3ba, La$una 2'e#e 'e 'as #oe#ties3

Dnder /e-. #, Rule >, it is proided that?

ection .Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the de-edents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a -itizen oran alien, his will shall be proed, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instan-e in the #ovince in 2'ic' 'e #esides att'e ti3e o& 'is deat',and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign -ountr', the Court of First Instan-e of an' proin-e in whi-h he had estate. 0he -ourt first ta8ing-ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate of a de-edent, shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts. 0he 1urisdi-tion assumed b' a -ourt, so far

as it depends on the pla-e of residen-e of the de-edent, or of the lo-ation of his estate, shall not be -ontested in a suit or pro-eeding, e6-ept in an appeal from

that -ourt, in the original -ase, or when the want of 1urisdi-tion appears on the re-ord.



3/25


a. 0he submitted death -ertifi-ate shows that Amado resided in &C at the time of his death.

b. Amado(s residen-e -ertifi-ate whi-h was ta8en three months before his death showed his residen-e as &C.

-. 0he @ar8eting Agreement and Power of Attorne' dated No. #!, #$# turning oer the administration of his two par-els of sugar land to Calamba /ugar

Planters Cooperatie and the eed of onation dated +an. ", #$> transferring part of his interest in -ertain par-els of land to Agustina ar-ia )-hild showed his

residen-e as &C.

0hese do-uments all showed his residen-e as &C. 0hus, the proper enue is &C.

4. -'o is t'e #oe# adn3inist#at#i5 o& t'e estate6

0he -onsideration that oerrides is the benefi-ial interest of the appointee of the Court in the estate of the de-edent. 0he Court ruled that Pre-iosa is prima fa-ie

entitled to the appointment as spe-ial administratri6, being the wife of Amado. *irginia, who is the illegitimate sister of Amado is in-apable of an' su--essional

right. In the donation inter ios in faor of the -hild, Amado indi-ated Pre-iosa as his wife. Also in his -ertifi-ate of -andida-' as -onstitutional delegate, Pre-iosa

was indi-ated as the wife.

It needs to be emphasized that the appointment is merel' temporar' and subsists onl' until a regular administrator is appointed b' the Court.

ROE BUH !ALIG and %OE, (HO!A, and %OHN all su#na3ed BUH, #e#esented in t'is suit b1 t'ei# atto#ne17in7&act, ROE BUH !ALIG,plaintiffs5appellants,s.!ARIA AN(O BUH,defendant5appellee.

FAC(:

Plaintiffs filed a -omplaint alleging the' are the onl' dire-t and natural heirs of +ohn ush under a -ommon law relationship with Apolonia Perez.

o Plaintiffs allege that their parents were not suffering from an' disabilit' to marr' ea-h other.

o 0hat during +ohn(s lifetime, the' were -onsidered and treated as natural -hildren.

o Dpon +ohn(s death, he left seeral real and personal properties.

o @aria /antos5ush falsel' -laims that she was the legal wife so she was appointed as administratri6 b' the CFI.



4/25


o @aria filed for partition of the said properties of +ohn, -laiming that +ohn left a will to be=ueath his estate to @aria ush, Anita ush and Anna

erger.

o @aria 8new er' well that the plaintiffs are the a-8nowledged natural -hildren.

o Plaintiffs dis-oered the fraud and misrepresentation of @aria and pra'ed for annulment of the partition, an inentor' and a--ounting of all

properties, et-.

efendant @aria moed to dismiss, alleging la-8 of Cause of A-tion, res 1udi-ata and statute of limitation. ENIE.

4n the hearing, defendant -hallenged the 1urisdi-tion of the -ourt, stating that the a-tion was to annul a partition approed b' the probate -ourt, ma8ing

the probate -ourt the one whi-h should hear the -ase, -iting Rule %, /e-tion #. APPR4*E Gnot be-ause of defendant(s argument but be-ause thea-tion had pres-ribedG.

IUE: 2hether the lower -ourt -an dismiss a -ase on a ground not alleged in the motion to dismiss3

RULING: NO888

In dismissing the -omplaint upon a ground not relied upon, the lower -ourt did so motu proprio. 0he -ourt did not een state wh' the a-tion had pres-ribed, andwh' in effe-t, without an' eiden-e or new arguments on the =uestion, it reersed its preious ruling that the ground of pres-ription was not indubitable. 0hedefendant insists Rule >, /e-. #, where the rule fi6es 1urisdi-tion for purposes of the spe-ial pro-eeding for the settlement of the estate of a de-eased person, sofar as it depends on the pla-e of residen-e of the de-edent, or of the lo-ation of his estate. 0he matter reall' -on-erns enue, as the -aption of Rule -itedindi-ates, and in order to pre-lude different -ourts whi-h ma' properl' assume 1urisdi-tion from doing so, the Rule spe-ifies that the -ourt first ta8ing -ognizan-eof the settlement of the estate of a de-edent, shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts.

In the final anal'sis this a-tion is not ne-essaril' one to annul the partition alread' made and approed b' the probate -ourt, and to reopen the estatepro-eeding so that a new partition ma' be made, but for re-oer' b' the plaintiffs of the portion of their alleged inheritan-e of whi-h, through fraud, the' hae been

depried.

2herefore, the -ase is remanded for further pro-eedings.

ANGELA RO+RIGUE9, !ARIA RO+RIGUE9, E( AL.,petitioners,s.HON. %UAN +E BOR%A, as %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Bulacan, B#anc' III,ANA(OLIA "ANGILINAN and A+ELAI+A %ACALAN,respondents.

FAC(:



5/25


Petitioners Rodriguez petition this Court for a writ of certiorariand prohibition to the CFI ula-an, for its refusal to grant their motion to dismiss its /pe-ial

Pro-eeding No. #>>#, whi-h said Court is alleged to hae ta8en -ognizan-e of without 1urisdi-tion.

Alleged in @otion to dismiss, CFI ula-an has no 1urisdi-tion to tr' the aboe5entitled -ase in iew of the penden-' of another a-tion for the settlement of

the estate of the de-eased Re. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez in the CFI Rizal. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died on Feb #!, #$> in @anila. Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida +a-alan deliered to the Cler8 of Court of ula-an the last will

and testament of Fr. Rodriguez. Petitioners Rodriguez filed petition for leae of -ourt to allow them to e6amine alleged will. efore the -ourt -ould a-t onthe petition )e6amination of will it was withdrawn. Petitioners Rodriguez filed before CFI Rizal a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr.Rodriguez alleging that he was a resident of Parana=ue, Rizal and pra'ing that @aria Rodriguez be appointed as /pe-ial Administratri6 of the estate.Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida +a-alan filed a petition in this Court for the probation of the will deliered b' them.

It was stipulated b' the parties that Fr. Rodriguez was born in ParaJa=ue, Rizal< that he was Parish priest of the Catholi- Chur-h of Hagono', ula-an,

from the 'ear #$>K up to the time of his death in #$>< that he was buried in ParaJa=ue, and that he left real properties in Rizal, Caite, &uezon Cit' andula-an.

Petitioners Rodriguez -ontend that sin-e the intestate pro-eedings in the CFI Rizal was filed at "?KK A.@. on @ar-h #!, #$> while the petition for probate

was filed in the CFI ula-an at ##?KK A.@. on the same date, the latter Court has no 1urisdi-tion to entertain the petition for probate, -iting as authorit' insupport thereof the -ase of 4ngsing-o *da. de or1a s. 0an and e or1a, .R. No. $!, +ul' !, #$%%.

0he petitioners Pangilinan and +a-alan, on the other hand, ta8e the stand that the CFI ula-an a-=uired 1urisdi-tion oer the -ase upon delier' b' them

of the will to the Cler8 of Court on @ar-h 7, #$>, and that the -ase in this Court therefore has pre-eden-e oer the -ase filed in Rizal on @ar-h #!, #$>.

IUE: 24N the domi-ile of the testator affe-ts the 1urisdi-tion of the Court.

HEL+: No. 0he power to settle de-edentsL estates is -onferred b' law upon all -ourts of first instan-e, and the domi-ile of the testator onl' affe-ts the enue butnot the 1urisdi-tion of the Court.

CFI ula-an was entitled to priorit' in the settlement of the estate in =uestion, and that in refusing to dismiss the probate pro-eedings, said -ourt did not -ommitan' abuse of dis-retion. It is the pro-eedings in the Rizal Court that should be dis-ontinued.

0he estate pro-eedings haing been initiated in the ula-an Court of First Instan-e ahead of an' other, that -ourt is entitled to assume 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusionof all other -ourts, een if it were a -ase of wrong enue b' e6press proisions of Rule > )old Rule % of the Rules of Court, sin-e the same en1oins that?

0he Court first ta8ing -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate of a de-edent shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts. )/e-. #

0his disposition presupposes that two or more -ourts hae been as8ed to ta8e -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate. 4f them onl' one -ould be of properenue, 'et the rule grants pre-eden-e to that Court whose 1urisdi-tion is first ino8ed, without ta8ing enue into a--ount.

0he 1urisdi-tion of the Court of First Instan-e of ula-an be-ame ested upon the delier' thereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on @ar-h 7, #$>, een ifno petition for its allowan-e was filed until later, be-ause upon the will being deposited the -ourt -ould, motu proprio, hae ta8en steps to fi6 the time and pla-e forproing the will, and issued the -orresponding noti-es -onformabl' to what is pres-ribed b' se-tion >, Rule , of the Reised Rules of Court

/EC. >. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. 2hen a will is deliered to, or a petition for the allowan-e of a will is filedin, the Court haing 1urisdi-tion, su-h Court shall fi6 a time and pla-e for proing the will when all -on-erned ma' appear to -ontest the allowan-e thereof,



6/25


and shall -ause noti-e of su-h time and pla-e to be published three )> wee8s su--essiel', preious to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general-ir-ulation in the proin-e.ut no newspaper publi-ation shall be made where the petition for probate has been filed b' the testator himself.

0he use of the dis1un-tie in the words when a will is deliered to 4R a petition for the allowan-e of a will is filed plainl' indi-ates that the -ourt ma' a-t upon themere deposit therein of a de-edentLs testament, een if no petition for its allowan-e is as 'et f iled. 2here the petition for probate is made after the deposit of thewill, the petition is deemed to relate ba-8 to the time when the will was deliered. /in-e the testament of Fr. Rodriguez was submitted and deliered to the Court ofula-an on @ar-h 7, while petitioners initiated intestate pro-eedings in the Court of First Instan-e of Rizal onl' on @ar-h #!, eight da's later, the pre-eden-e ande6-lusie 1urisdi-tion of the ula-an -ourt is in-ontestable.0here are two other reasons that militate against the su--ess of petitioners. 4ne is that their -ommen-ing intestate pro-eedings in Rizal, after the' learned of the

delier' of the de-edentLs will to the Court of ula-an, was in bad faith, patentl' done with a iew to diesting the latter -ourt of the pre-eden-e awarded it b' the

Rules. Certainl' the order of priorit' established in Rule > )old Rule % was not designed to -onert the settlement of de-edentLs estates into a ra-e between

appli-ants, with the administration of the properties as the pri-e for the fleetest.

ROA CAE(ANO CUENCO, etitione#s, vs. (HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL, (HIR+ +IVIION, !ANUEL CUENCO, LOUR+E CUENCO,CONCE"CION CUENCO !ANGUERRA, CAR!EN CUENCO, CONUELO CUENCO REE, and (EREI(A CUENCO GON9ALE9, #esondents.

FAC(:

/enator @ariano +esus Cuen-o died in @anila. He was suried b' his widow)petitioner and two minor sons, residing in &.C. and -hildren of the first

marriage, residing in Cebu. Bourdes, one of the -hildren from the first marriage, filed a petition for letter of administration with the CFI Cebu, alleging thatthe senator died intestate in @anila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and &.C. 0he petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Ca'etanoCuen-o, the se-ond wife)widow, filed a petition with CFI Rizal &.C. for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named e6e-utri6.

Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but the said -ourt held in abe'an-e resolution oer the opposition until CFI &uezon Cit'

shall hae a-ted on the probate pro-eedings. CFI Cebu, in effe-t deferred to the probate pro-eedings in the &uezon Cit' -ourt. Bourdes filed anopposition and motion to dismiss in CFI &uezon Cit', on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue,-onsidering that CFI Cebu alread' a-=uirede6-lusie 1urisdi-tion oer the -ase. 0he opposition and motion to dismiss were both denied. Bourdes filed spe-ial -iil a-tion of -ertiorari and prohibitionwith preliminar' in1un-tion with respondent CA. CA faored Bourdes holding that CFI Cebu had first a-=uired 1urisdi-tion.

IUE*

24N CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition against &.C. ordering it to refrain from pro-eeding with the testate pro-eedings

.24N CFI &uezon Cit' a-ted without 1urisdi-tion or grae abuse of dis-retion in ta8ing -ognizan-e and assuming e6-lusie 1urisdi-tion oer the probate

pro-eedings in pursuan-e to CFI CebuLs order e6pressl' -onsenting in deferen-e tot he pre-eden-e of probate oer intestate pro-eedings.HEL+:

es. /C ruled that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the &uezon Cit' -ourt from pro-eeding with the testate pro-eedings andannulling and setting aside all its orders and a-tions, parti-ularl' its admission to probate of the last will and testament of the de-eased and appointingpetitioner5widow as e6e-utri6 thereof without bond pursuant to the de-eased testatorLs wish.

Dnder Rule ;u#isdiction to t'e e5clusion o& allot'e# cou#ts. 0he residen-e of the de-ent or the lo-ation of his estate is not an element of 1urisdi-tion oer the sub1e-t matter but merel' of enue. /u-h



7/25


-ourt, ma' upon learning a petition for probate of the de-edentLs last will has been presented in another -ourt where the de-edent obiousl' had his-on1ugal domi-ile and resided with his suriing widow and their minor -hildren, and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that thede-edent died intestate ma' be a-tuall' false, ma' de-line to ta8e -ognizan-e of the petition and hold the petition before it in abe'an-e, and instead defer

to the se-ond -ourt whi-h has before it the petition for probate of the de-edentLs alleged last will. Impli-it in the Cebu -ourtLs order was that if the will was dul' admitted to probate, b' the &.C. -ourt, then it would definitel' de-line to ta8e -ognizan-e of

BourdesL intestate petition whi-h would be shown to be false and improper,and leae the e6er-ise of 1urisdi-tion to the .&.C. -ourt to the e6-lusion of allother -ourts.

No. Dnder the fa-ts, the Cebu -ourt -ould not be held to hae a-ted without 1urisdi-tion or with grae abuse of 1urisdi-tion in de-lining to ta8e -ognizan-eof the intestate petition and deferring to the &uezon Cit' -ourt. Ne-essaril', neither -ould &.C. -ourt be deemed to hae a-ted without 1urisdi-tion inta8ing -ognizan-e of and a-ting on the probate petition sin-e under Rule 7, section !, the Cebu court must first take cogni"ance over the estate of thedecedent and must e#ercise jurisdiction to e#clude all other courts, which the Cebu court declined to do.It is undisputed, said rule onl' la's down a ruleof enue and the &uezon Cit' -ourt undisputabl' had at least e=ual and -oordinate 1urisdi-tion oer the estate.

Dnder Rule 7, section ! itself, $.C. court%s assumption of jurisdiction over the decedent%s estate on the basis of the will dul& presented for probate b&

petitioner'widow and finding that $.C. was the first choice of residence of the decedent, who had his conjugal home and domicile ( with the deference incomit& dul& given b& the Cebu court ( could not be contested e#cept b& appeal from said court in the original case e#cept when want of jurisdictionappears on the record.

2hen pro-eedings for settlement of estate will not be annulled een if -ourt had improper enue the mis-hieous effe-t in the administration of 1usti-e of-onsidering the =uestion of residen-e as affe-ting the 1urisdi-tion of the trial -ourt and annulling the whole pro-eedings onl' to start all oer again thesame pro-eedings before another -ourt of the same ran8 in another proin-e is too obious to re=uire -omment.

It would be an unfair to petitioner as the one named and entitled to be e6e-utri6 of the de-edentLs last will and settle his estate in a--ordan-e and a

disregard of her rights under the rule on enue and the law on 1urisdi-tion to re=uire her to spend mu-h more time, mone' and effort to hae to go from&uezon Cit' to the Cebu -ourt eer'time she has an important matter of the estate to ta8e up with the probate -ourt.

+E BOR%A, E(C V. (AN, E(C. AN+ +E BOR%A

FAC(:

Petitioner Fran-is-o filed a petition for probate of the 2ill of his de-eased wife.

In #$7#, 0he will was probated and named Fran-is-o as the e6e-utor.

In #$%#, due to the ph'si-al inabilit' of Fran-is-o to full' administer the estate and upon petition of @atilde, one of the heirs,

the lower -ourt appointed Crisanto, another heir, as -o5administrator.

Howeer, the trial -ourt a--ording to petitioner, without petition of or noti-e to an'one appointed +ose as a -o5administrator.



8/25


Petitioners moed for re-onsideration but respondent 1udge denied su-h motion and reo8ed the appointment of Crisanto as

-o5administrator.

Petitioners filed a noti-e of appeal from the order appointing +ose as -o5administrator and the order den'ing the @otion for

Re-onsideration.

Respondent 1udge disapproed the re-ord on appeal and refused to gie due -ourse to the appeal on the ground that the

appointment of +ose as -o5administrator was interlo-utor' and was not appealable.

Hen-e this petition for mandamus to -ompel respondent 1udge to approe the re-ord on appeal and to gie due -ourse to the

appeal.

IUE:

24N a -o5administrator -onstitutes a regular or general administrator3 E24N an order appointing a regular administrator is appealable3 E

HEL+:

A co7ad3inist#ato# e#&o#3s all t'e &unctions and duties and e5e#cises all t'e o2e#s o& a #e$ula# ad3inist#ato#, onl1 t'at'e is not alone in t'e ad3inist#ation.

Hence, an o#de# aointin$ a co7ad3inist#ato# is aealable.

On t'e ot'e# 'and, acco#din$ to RULE ?@, sec. e, an o#de# aointin$ a secial ad3inist#ato# is not aealable becausea secial ad3inist#ato# is aointed &o# a li3ited ti3e and &o# a seci&ic u#ose onl1.

A spe-ial administrator is appointed onl' when there is a dela' in granting letters testamentar' or of administration o--asioned b' anappeal from allowan-e or disallowan-e of a will or from an' other -ause, and su-h spe-ial administrator is authorized to -olle-t andta8e -harge of the estate until the =uestions -ausing the dela' are de-ided and an e6e-utor or administrator thereon appointed.



9/25


In addition, a spe-ial administrator is also appointed when the regular e6e-utor or administrator has a -laim against the estate herepresents and said spe-ial administrator shall hae the same power and sub1e-t to the same liabilit' as a regular e6e-utor oradministrator.

2herefore, Petition formandamus is granted and respondent +udge is hereb' dire-ted to approe the re-ord on appeal and to giedue -ourse to the appeal.

!acias vs U1 i3 et al c*o C'a#3aine !e>ia

In t'e !atte# o& t'e u33a#1 ettle3ent o& t'e Estate o& "at#icio anc'e0, +eceased. VicentaFalcatan,petitioner and appellant,vs.Anastacio anc'e0 and%ose&a !i$uel, t'e latte# in 'e# o2n be'al& and as t'e 3ot'e# o& t'e 3ino#s BEN%A!IN, ALFRE+O, +ELFIN and 9ENAI+A, all su#na3edANCHE9,oppositors and appellees.

Facts:

0his an appeal from a de-ision of the Court of First Instan-e of the Cit' of Mamboanga proiding for the summar' settlement of the estate of Patri-io

/an-hez, de-eased.

Appellant assails the de-ision upon the ground that in pro-eedings for the summar' settlement of the estate of a de-eased person, under /e-tion !, Rule

7 of the Rules of Court, the -ourt has no 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the =uestion of title to real propert'.

Issue: -*N t'e #oceedin$s &o# t'e su33a#1 settle3ent o& t'e estate o& a deceased e#son, t'e cou#t 'as no >u#isdiction to ass uon t'e Duestion o&title to #eal #oe#t1.

Held:

0his is true onl' where the title is disputed b' a third person, not b' the suriing spouse or heirs of the de-eased, as su--essors of the latter. 0here are two

-on1ugal partnership inoled here. Dnder the -ir-umstan-es, it would be fair to hold that the propert' in =uestion belongs to the two -on1ugal partnership, share

and share ali8e.

LEONOR ". REE, assisted b1 'e# 'usband, AGU(IN ARCON,petitioner,s.(HE HONORABLE BONIFACIO I", %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Bulacan, and +#. AURELIO CRIO(O!O, ecial Ad3inist#at#i5 in ecial"#oceedin$s No. @


10/25


FAC(:

0his is a petition for a writ of -ertiorari and mandamus to -ompel +udge sip to allow petitioner to submit eiden-e on her -laim of filiation to +uan Re'es

Panlilio.

Prior to the aboe -ase, there was a spe-ial pro-eeding wherein a petition was presented for the probate of the last will and testament of +uan Re'es

Panlilio.

o Petitioner filed an opposition to this.

o /pe-ial Administratri6 ob1e-ted to the personalit' and right of petitioner to oppose and -ontest the will. 0hereafter, the administratri6 as8 the

-ourt to resole the right of petitioner to -ontest the will.

o 0he -ourt permitted the petitioner to appear and interene in the spe-ial pro-eedings.

o Petitioner offered eiden-e on her filiation. 0his was ob1e-ted b' the administratri6.

o +udge sip held that the onl' issue in this -ase is the probate of the will and that the presentation of eiden-e for filiation was out of pla-e.

o /o petitioner instituted this present petition for a writ of -ertiorari and mandamus.

Petitioner -laims that it is the poli-' of the -ourt to allow a dul' a-8nowledged natural -hild to interene in the pro-eedings for the probate of the will and

establish her status as su-h.

IUE: In a hearing for the probate of a will, is petitioner allowed to present eiden-e of her filiation and oppose the probate3

RULING:

0he determination of the persons entitled to inherit should onl' be made after pa'ment of all debts, funeral -harges, et-. is effe-ted. As proided in the Rules of

Court, the submission of eiden-e to determine the persons entitled to inherit is in the last stage of the pro-eedings. 0o allow petitioner to present eiden-e to

proe her filiation would be in1e-ting issues that are reall' not part of the -ase for probate of the will. @oreoer, if petitioner was allowed to do su-h a thing, the

nature of the eiden-e submitted would onl' be prima fa-ie, wherein it would onl' 1ustif' her right to interene and not her right to inherit.

asi-all', for the sa8e of aoiding -onfusion of issues in a petition for the probate of the will of +uan Re'es Panlilio, petitioner is not allowed to present eiden-e

not be-ause she was being depried of her right but to aoid multipli-it' of issues.

(ORRE V %AVIER



11/25


Facts: 0C? refused to appoint @arta 0orres who -laimed to be the lawful wife of the de-eased, and, instead, appointed +uan B. +aier administrator. 0he appeal

is ta8en b' @arta 0orres from that order of appointment.

It appears that two women are -laiming to be the legal wife of 0an Po Pi-, de-eased, @arta 0orres and a Chinese woman named u 0eng New. @arta 0orres ob1e-ted to the appointment of an' one e6-ept herself, while +uan Cailles 0an Poo, on behalf of the Chinese woman, opposed the

appointment of @arta 0orres.

0he probate -ourt being unable to determine who, if either, was the lawful wife of the de-eased, appointed a disinterested third person to a-t as

administrator.

Issue/Held: 24N the probate -ourt(s de-ision must be affirmed5E

Ratio:

/e-tion 7! of the Code of Ciil Pro-edure re=uires that letters of administration should be granted, first, to the suriing husband or wife< se-ond, to

other relaties in the order named< third, in -ase the suriing wife or ne6t of 8in or person sele-ted b' them be unsuitable, the administration ma' begranted to some other person, su-h as one of the prin-ipal -reditors< and fourth, if there is no su-h -reditor -ompetent and willing to sere, theadministration ma' go to su-h person as the -ourt ma' appoint.

It appears that 0an . /o- was appointed administrator of the said 0an Po Pi-, de-eased, the Court of First Instan-e of @anila under the

misapprehension that 0an Po Pi- was a resident of the -it' of @anila at the time of his death.

After it had been as-ertained that the de-eased was a resident of the Proin-e of Rizal, the Court of First Instan-e of @anila transferred the -ase to the

Court of First Instan-e of Rizal. In that -ourt, as we hae alread' seen, the appointment b' the Court of First Instan-e of @anila was disregarded thepro-eedings were begun for the appointment of an administrator b' the Court of First Instan-e of Rizal.

It must be remembered that the probate -ourt did not find as a fa-t that there was a wife in China< nor does his appointment of a third person determine

the fa-t of the e6isten-e of another wife in China.

0he -ourt -onsidered the fa-ts and -ir-umstan-es as the' were presented in the pro-eedings and upon the whole belieed it for the best interest of all

-on-erned to appoint as administrator a disinterested third person, parti-ularl' in iew of the fa-t that there was li8el' to be litigation between @arta0orres and the Chinese wife as to whi-h is in fa-t his legal wife and entitled to an interest in the estate of the de-eased 0an Po Pi-.

2e do not find the errors assigned suffi-ient to warrant an' a-tion on the part of this -ourt.

0he -ourt had a right in iew of the -ontroers' between the women to name a disinterested third person as administrator and leae the -ontroers' between them

to be settled in the administration pro-eedings at the proper time.

IN(E(A(E E(A(E OF (HE LA(E VI(O BORRO!EO, "A(ROCINIO BORRO!EO7HERRERA,petitioner,s.FOR(UNA(O BORRO!EO and HON. FRANCICO ". BURGO, %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Cebu, B#anc' II, respondents.

Facts:

*ito orromeo, a widower and permanent resident of Cebu Cit', died in Parana=ue, Rizal at the age of "" 'ears, without for-ed heirs but leaing e6tensie



12/25


properties in the proin-e of Cebu.

+ose +un=uera filed with the Court of First Instan-e of Cebu a petition for the probate of a one page do-ument as the last will and testament left b' the said

de-eased, deising all his properties to 0omas, Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed orromeo, in e=ual and undiided shares, and designating +un=uera ase6e-utor thereof. 0he do-ument, drafted in /panish, was allegedl' signed and thumbmar8ed b' the de-eased in the presen-e of Cornelio andion-o, EusebioCabiluna, and Feli6berto Beonardo who a-ted as witnesses.

4ppositions to the probate of the will were filed. After due trial, the probate -ourt held that the do-ument presented as the will of the de-eased was a forger'.

0he testate pro-eedings was -onerted into an intestate pro-eedings. /eeral parties -ame before the -ourt filing -laims or petitions alleging themseles as heirsof the intestate estate of *ito orromeo.

0he -ourt also ordered that the assets of the intestate estate of *ito orromeo shall be diided into 7O$ and %O$ groups and distributed in e=ual and e=uitableshares among the $ de-lared intestate heirs.

Respondent Fortunato orromeo, who had earlier -laimed as heir under the forged will, filed a motion before the trial -ourt pra'ing that he be de-lared as one ofthe heirs of the de-eased *ito orromeo, alleging that he is an illegitimate son of the de-eased and that in the de-laration of heirs made b' the trial -ourt, he wasomitted, in disregard of the law ma8ing him a for-ed heir entitled to re-eie a legitime li8e all other for-ed heirs. As an a-8nowledged illegitimate -hild, he statedthat he was entitled to a legitime e=ual in eer' -ase to four5fifths of the legitime of an a-8nowledged natural -hild.

Finding that the motion of Fortunato orromeo was alread' barred b' the order of the -ourt de-laring the persons named therein as the legal heirs of the de-eased*ito orromeo, the -ourt dismissed the motion.

Fortunato orromeo filed a motion for re-onsideration. In the memorandum he submitted to support his motion for re-onsideration, Fortunato -hanged the basisfor his -laim to a portion of the estate. He asserted and in-orporated a 2aier of Hereditar' Rights. In the waier, fie of the nine heirs relin=uished to Fortunatotheir shares in the disputed estate. 0he motion was opposed on the ground that the trial -ourt, a-ting as a probate -ourt, had no 1urisdi-tion to ta8e -ognizan-e ofthe -laim< that respondent Fortunato orromeo is estopped from asserting the waier agreement< that the waier agreement is oid as it was e6e-uted before thede-laration of heirs< that the same is oid haing been e6e-uted before the distribution of the estate and before the a--eptan-e of the inheritan-e< and that it isoid ab initioand ine6istent for la-8 of sub1e-t matter.

After due hearing, the t rial -ourt -on-luding that the fie de-lared heirs who signed the waier agreement assigning their hereditar' rights to Fortunato orromeohad lost the same rights, de-lared the latter as entitled to %O$ of the estate of *ito orromeo.

In the present petition, the petitioner see8s to annul and set aside the trial -ourtLs order de-laring respondent Fortunato orromeo entitled to %O$ of the estate of*ito orromeo.

0he petitioner argues that the trial -ourt had no 1urisdi-tion to ta8e -ognizan-e of the -laim of respondent Fortunato orromeo be-ause it is not a mone' -laimagainst the de-edent but a -laim for properties, real and personal, whi-h -onstitute all of the shares of the heirs in the de-edentLs estate, heirs who allegedl'



13/25


waied their rights in his faor. 0he -laim of the priate respondent under the waier agreement, a--ording to the petitioner, ma' be li8ened to that of a -reditor ofthe heirs whi-h is improper.

Respondent orromeo asserts that sin-e the waier or renun-iation of hereditar' rights too8 pla-e after the -ourt assumed 1urisdi-tion oer the properties of theestate it parta8es of the nature of a partition of the properties of the estate needing approal of the -ourt be-ause it was e6e-uted in the -ourse of the pro-eedings.He further maintains that the probate -ourt loses 1urisdi-tion of the estate onl' after the pa'ment of all the debts of the estate and the remaining estate isdistributed to those entitled to the same.

Held:

2ith respe-t to the issue of 1urisdi-tion, we hold that the trial -ourt had 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the alidit' of the waier agreement. It must be noted that in/pe-ial Pro-eedings No. $#5R the lower -ourt disallowed the probate of the will and de-lared it as fa8e. Dpon appeal, this Court affirmed the de-ision of the lower-ourt on @ar-h >K, #$, in .R. No. B5#"7$". /ubse=uentl', seeral parties -ame before the lower -ourt filing -laims or petitions alleging themseles as heirs ofthe intestate estate of *ito orromeo. 2e see no impediment to the trial -ourt in e6er-ising 1urisdi-tion and tr'ing the said -laims or petitions. @oreoer, the1urisdi-tion of the trial -ourt e6tends to matters in-idental and -ollateral to the e6er-ise of its re-ognized powers in handling the settlement of the estate.

In iew of the foregoing, the =uestioned order of the trial -ourt dated e-ember !7, #$7, is hereb' /E0 A/IE.

In .R. No. 7###, the order of the respondent 1udge dated e-ember !7, #$7, de-laring the respondent entitled to %O$ of the estate of the late *itoorromeo and the order dated +ul' , #$%, den'ing the petitionerLs motion for re-onsideration of the aforementioned order are hereb' /E0 A/IE forbeing NDBB and *4I$>K>. 0he spouses hae seen -hildren, namel'? 4s-ar, Ara-eli, Herminia, Aurora, Emmanuel, Cesar and Rodrigo, all surnamedRe'es.

4n April #", #$>, Ismael Re'es died intestate. Prior to his death, Ismael Re'es was notified b' the IR of his in-ome ta6 defi-ien-' whi-h arose out of

his sale of a par-el land lo-ated in 0andang/ora, &uezon Cit'. For failure to settle his ta6 liabilit', the amount in-reased to about P#!,!7.7K and sin-eno pa'ment was made b' the heirs of de-eased Ismael Re'es, the propert' -oered b' 0C0 No. 7$"> was leied,sold and eentuall' forfeited b' the IRin faor of the goernment.

In #$, 4s-ar Re'es aailed of the IR(s ta6 amnest' and he was able to redeem the propert' -oered b' 0C0 No. 7$"> upon pa'ment of the redu-ed

ta6 liabilit' amounting to P#",KKK.

4n @a' #", #$"!, the 4ffi-e of the Cit' 0reasurer of &uezon Cit' sent a noti-e to FelisaReita Re'es informing her that the Ara'at properties will be sold

at publi- au-tion on August !%, #$"! for her failure to settle the real estate ta6 delin=uen-' from #$75#$"#.

4n e-ember #%, #$", petitioners( prede-essor 4s-ar Re'es entered into an amnest' -ompromise agreement with the Cit' 0reasurer and settled the

a--ounts of Felisa R. Re'es.

4n @a' #K, #$"$, priate respondent Cesar Re'es, filed a petition for issuan-e of letters of administration with the R0C of &uezon Cit' pra'ing for his

appointment as administrator of the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es whi-h estate included @?of the Ara'at properties -oered b' 0C0 Nos. 7$">and >%$".

o 4s-ar Re'es filed his -onditional opposition thereto on the ground that the Ara'at properties do not form part of the estate of the de-eased as

he )4s-ar had a-=uired the properties b' redemption and or pur-hase.



17/25


o Court RAN0E the petition D0 stated that Jt'is dete#3ination is #ovisional in c'a#acte# and s'all be 2it'out #e>udice to t'eoutco3e o& an1 action to be b#ou$'t 'e#ea&te# in t'e #oe# Cou#t on t'e issue o& o2ne#s'i o& t'e #oe#tiesK

o

4s-ar Re'es filed his ob1e-tion to the inentor' reiterating that the Ara'at properties had been forfeited in faor of the goernment and he wasthe one who subse=uentl' redeemed the same from the IR using his own funds.

4s-ar Re'es filed a motion demanding for a--ounting to be done b' oppositor is5ENIE

o @R5ENIE

o He then filed his appeal with the CA. 2hile the appeal was pending, 4s-ar died and he was substituted b' his heirs, herein petitioners.

CA ;affirmed probate -ourt(s order. @R ENIE

I//DE? )#24N respondent Court erred in ruling that the -ourt a =uo -orre-tl' in-luded one half )#O! of the Ara'at properties -oered b' 0C0 Nos. 7$"> and>%$" )>$>K> in the inentor' of the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es

)!24N respondent Court erred in upholding that the -ourt a =uo has no 1urisdi-tion to determine the issue of ownership.

HEB?

NO. 0he 1urisdi-tion of the probate -ourt merel' relates to matters haing to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of de-eased persons,and the appointment and remoal of administrators, e6e-utors, guardians and trustees. ('e Duestion o& o2ne#s'i is as a #ule, an e5t#aneous 3atte# 2'ic't'e "#obate Cou#t cannot #esolve 2it' &inalit1.0hus, for the purpose of determining whether a -ertain propert' should or should not be in-luded in the inentor'of estate pro-eeding, the probate -ourt ma' pass upon the title thereto, but su-h determination is proisional, not -on-lusie, and is sub1e-t to the final de-ision ina separate a-tion to resole title.

2e find that the respondent Court did not err in affirming the proisional in-lusion of the sub1e-t properties to the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es withoutpre1udi-e to the out-ome of an' a-tion to be brought thereafter in the proper -ourt on the issue of ownership -onsidering that the sub1e-t properties are still titledunder the torrens s'stem in the names of spouses Ismael and FelisaReita Re'es whi-h under the law is endowed with in-ontestabilit' until after it has been setaside in the manner indi-ated in the law. 0he de-laration of the proisional -hara-ter of the in-lusion of the sub1e-t properties in the inentor' as stressed in theorder is 2it'in t'e >u#isdiction o& t'e "#obate Cou#t.

4 NO. /ettled is the rule that the R0C a-ting as a probate -ourt e6er-ises but limited 1urisdi-tion, thus it 'as no o2e# to ta=e co$ni0ance o& and dete#3ine t'eissue o& title to #oe#t1 clai3ed b1 a t'i#d e#son adve#sel1 to t'e decedent ,UNLEthe -laimant and all other parties haing legal interest in the propert'-onsent, e6pressl' or impliedl', to the submission of the =uestion to the Probate Court for ad1udgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereb' pre1udi-ed.



18/25


0he fa-ts howeer, do not -all for the appli-ation of the e6-eption to the rule. 0he purpose wh' the probate -ourt allowed the introdu-tion of eiden-e onownership was for the sole purpose of determining whether the sub1e-t properties should be in-luded in the inentor' whi-h is within the probate -ourt(s-ompeten-e.

In fa-t, the probate -ourt in its 4rder stated that for resolution is the matter of the inentor' of the estate, mainl' to -onsider what properties should be in-luded in

the inentor' and what should not be in-luded. 0here was nothing on re-ord that both parties submitted the issue of ownership for its final resolution. 0hus the

respondent Court did not err in ruling that the trial -ourt has no 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the issue of ownership -on-lusiel'.

CUNANAN vs A!"ARO

Fa-ts?

0he petitioner, Rosalina Cunanan, in her -apa-it' as administratri6 of the Intestate Estate of Isaa- Cunanan and Candida +oa=uin. /ee8s

a reiew of two orders of the respondent +udge, Honorable Rafael Amparo, alleging that these orders were made without andOor in

e6-ess of his 1urisdi-tion, with grae abuse of dis-retion.

/oriano, one of the present respondents, under date of /eptember !, #$7K, filed a mone' -laim for P""K against the de-edentsL estate.

He alleged that, the de-eased re-eied from him dierse sums of mone' aggregating P""K.

Rosalina Cunanan, the administratri6, filed a motion setting out onifa-io /orianoLs -laim and two others totalling P!,K%7, besides a debt

of P#,KK in faor of one Filomeno /antos bearing #! per -ent interest per 'ear. 0o pa' these obligations, and be-ause funds were

needed to defra' the e6penses on the farm, she as8ed the -ourt for authorit' to negotiate a loan in su-h amount or to sell so mu-h of the

propert' des-ribed in the inentor' as might be suffi-ient to satisf' the said obligations. 0he Honorable /otero Rodas, granted the motion.

Cunanan manifested to the -ourt that she had tendered to onifa-io /oriano in @ar-h of that 'ear P""K but that /oriano refused to

a--ept it on the ground that the mone' she offered was +apanese notes and had no alue. /he pra'ed that the -reditor be ordered to

a--ept the amount tendered, to e6e-ute the ne-essar' deed of -an-ellation, and to return the possession of two par-els of land whi-h had

been -one'ed to him.

Honorable &uintin Paredes, +r., authorized the administratri6 to deposit with the -ler8 of -ourt P""K in full pa'ment of the obligation in

faor of onifa-io /oriano and ordered /oriano to delier the propert' in his possession to the administratri6. 0his order was not appealed

nor was an' motion for its re-onsideration filed, so far as the pleadings would reeal.

5the administratri6 filed a -omplaint against /oriano for -ontempt of -ourt, alleging that she had -omplied with the -ourtLs order , but that



19/25


/oriano disobe'ed that part of it whi-h -ommanded him to return the two par-els of land to the estate of Isaa- Cunanan and Candida

+oa=uin.

After hearing, +udge Paredes, found /oriano not guilt' of -ontempt, haing granted him the benefit of doubt on the strength of /orianoLsdefense that he, in the words of the de-ision, misunderstood, or mis-onstrued, the order of this -ourt, Howeer, +udge Paredes

reiterated his order that /oriano delier the propert' in =uestion to the administratri6 Rosalina Cunanan for the benefit of the Intestate

Estate. He also dire-ted the -ler8 of -ourt to turn oer to /oriano the P""K whi-h had been deposited with him, upon proper proof that

the possession of the propert' has been a-tuall' deliered to the Intestate Estate.

onifa-io /oriano filed a motion for re-onsideration of the order, that is, the last order of +udge Paredes. /oriano stated as grounds of his

motion, first, that the title to those lots had been -onsolidated in his and his wifeLs names b' irtue of a deed of sale e6e-uted in their

faor b' Isaa- Cunanan and Rosalina Cunanan , whi-h was later on amended b' another instrument, and, se-ond, that under the terms

of the sale, the endors were gien the option to repur-hase the said lots not later than April , #$77. /oriano also alleged that a transfer

-ertifi-ate of title to the two lots had been issued to him and his wife b' the Register of eeds of Nuea E-i1a.

4n August #, #$7, the Honorable Rafael Amparo, who now was presiding oer the Court of First Instan-e of Nuea E-i1a, in a length'

order granted /orianoLs motion, and on /eptember # following he -onfirmed that order. He 1ustified the refusal of onifa-io /oriano to

a--ept +apanese militar' notes and /orianoLs insisten-e on being paid in the same -urren-' whi-h he had paid for the land. In fine, he set

aside the order of +udge Paredes of August 7, #$77 and denied the petition of the administratri6 dated +ul' !%, #$7, pra'ing, in effe-t,

that said order be enfor-ed.

Issue?

2ON 0he -ourt has +urisdi-tion3

2e do not agree with the respondents that the -ourt la-8ed 1urisdi-tion to order the delier' of the possession of the lots to the estate. 0his

power is a mere -onse=uen-e of the power to approe /orianoLs -laim< a power whi-h the -ourt undoubtedl' had and whi-h /oriano

himself ino8ed with full 8nowledge of the fa-ts. As a general rule, with the -onsent of the parties matters affe-ting propert' under 1udi-ial

administration ma' be ta8en -ognizan-e of b' the -ourt in the -ourse of the intestate pro-eeding proided the interests of third persons

are not pre1udi-ed. etermination of title to propert' is within the 1urisdi-tion of Courts of First Instan-e. 0he respondent /orianoLs

ob1e-tion relates e6-lusiel' to the pro-edure, whi-h is distin-t from 1urisdi-tion. It affe-ts onl' personal rights to a mode of pra-ti-e whi-h



20/25


ma' be waied. Certainl', there is waier where, as here, and as has been pointed out, the part' who raises the ob1e-tion was the one

who set the -ourt in motion, and who, b' failing to dis-lose the e6isten-e of a sale under pa-to de retro, suppressed 1urisdi-tional fa-ts that

might be in the wa' of his -laimLs su--ess.

VALERA et al vs INER(O et al c*o Eloisa Ba##etto

G.R. No. L7@@? !a1 ;, ;

"O!"ILLO VALERA and EU!ELIA VALERA CABA+O, etitione#s,vs.HON. %U+GE ANCHO . INER(O, in 'is caacit1 as "#esidin$ %ud$e, Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Iloilo, B#anc' , and !ANUEL R.FABIANA, #esondents

FAC(:

. In t'e #oceedin$s &o# t'e settle3ent o& t'e intestate estate o& t'e decedent souses, Ra&ael Vale#a and Consolacion a##osa s. Vale#a, in 2'ic'Eu3elia Cabado and "o3illo Vale#a 'ad been aointed ad3inist#ato#s, t'e 'ei#s o& t'e deceased dau$'te# o& t'e s. Vale#a,(e#esa, &iled a 3otionas=in$ t'at t'e Ad3inist#at#i5 Cabado be decla#ed in conte3t &o# 'e# &ailu#e to #ende# an accountin$ o& 'e# ad3inist#ation.

4. Cabado stated t'at no accountin$ could be sub3itted unless %ose Ga#in, 'usband o& (e#esa delive#ed to 'e# t'e 'a. &is'ond in Iloilo belon$in$to t'e estate so t'at a a#tition could be 3ade a3on$ t'e decedents o& t'e s. Vale#a.


21/25


;. !anuel Fabiana, t'e ca#eta=e# &iled a co3laint in inte#vention 2it' t'e "#obate Cou#t see=in$ vindication o& 'is #i$'t based on a cont#act o& leasebet2een 'i3sel& and %ose Ga#in. %ud$e Adil dis3issed 'is co3laint since >ud$3ent 'ad been #ende#ed and t'e t#ans&e# o& ossession 'ad al#ead1ta=en lace and t'at t'e lease cont#act 'ad not been #e$iste#ed, 'ence not bindin$ on t'e estate.

. Fabiana &iled a sea#ate action &o# in>unction and da3a$es, 2it' CFI7Iloilo and suc' 2as assi$ned to Hon. Inse#to. ('e ad3inist#ato#s contendedt'at %ud$e Inse#to could not and s'ould not inte#&e#e 2it' t'e "#obate Cou#t unde# %ud$e Adil in t'e le$iti3ate e5e#cise o& its >u#isdiction ove# t'e#oceedin$s &o# t'e ettle3ent o& t'e estate o& t'e s. Vale#a

IUE and HEL+:

. -ON t'e "#obate Cou#t can decide on t'e issue o& title to t'e #oe#t1 clai3ed b1 a t'i#d e#son %ose Ga#in adve#sel1 to t'e decedent7 NO

ettled is t'e #ule t'at t'e CFI no2 R(C actin$ as a #obate cou#t, e5e#cises li3ited >u#isdiction and t'us 'as no o2e# to ta=e co$ni0ance o& anddete#3ine t'e issue o& title to #oe#t1 clai3ed b1 t'i#d e#sons. ('e Cou#tMs #onounce3ent #e$a#din$ t'e estateMs title to t'e &is'ond 2as 3e#el1#ovisional in c'a#acte#, 3ade solel1 to dete#3ine 2'et'e# o# not t'e &is'ond s'ould be included in t'e invento#1 o& t'e estate assets. It is neve# t'e

intention o& t'e cou#t to 2#ite a J&inisK to t'e o2ne#s'i o& t'e &is'ond in disute. ('e 3ovants 3a1 u#sue t'ei# clai3 o& o2ne#s'i ove# t'e sa3e inan o#dina#1 civil action. !ean2'ile, it is t'e &indin$ o& t'is #obate cou#t t'at t'e &is'ond 3ust be delive#ed to t'e estate.

4. -ON t'e &is'ond can be sub>ect o& e5ecution7 NO

ince t'e dete#3ination b1 t'e "#obate Cou#t o& t'e Duestion o& title to t'e &is'ond 2as 3e#el1 #ovisional, it cannot and s'ould not be t'e sub>ect o&e5ecution, as a$ainst its ossesso# 2'o 'as set u title in 'i3sel& o# in anot'e# adve#sel1 to t'e decedent and 2'ose #i$'t to ossess 'as not beenventilated and ad>udicated in an a#o#iate action. ('e ce#ti&icate o& title is not in t'e na3e o& s. Vale#a but in ot'e#s. ('e #esu3tiveconclusiveness o& suc' title s'ould be $iven due 2ei$'t and in t'e absence o& st#on$ co3ellin$ evidence to t'e cont#a#1, t'e 'olde# s'ould beconside#ed as t'e o2ne# o& t'e #oe#t1 until 'is title is nulli&ied o# 3odi&ied in an a#o#iate o#dina#1 action.

u#isdiction ove# t'e Duestion o& o2ne#s'i involvin$ estate #oe#t1clai3ed b1 t'e estate, t'e1 3ust be dee3ed sue#io# to ot'e#2ise cont#a#1 o#de#s issued b1 t'e #obate cou#t in t'e e5e#cise o& 2'at 3a1 be #e$a#dedas 3e#el1 seconda#1 o# #ovisional, >u#isdiction ove# t'e sa3e Duestion.

Rulin$: ('e etition o& Fabiana is dis3issed &o# lac= o& 3e#it. ('e secial actions &o# ce#tio#a#i, #o'ibition and 3anda3us initiated b1 %ose Ga#in2e#e denied. ('e >ud$3ent o& t'e Cou#t o& Aeals is a&&i#3ed.



22/25


Intestate Estate o& t'e deceased Lee Lion$. RAFAEL A. +INGLAAN, E( AL., s.

ANG CHIA, as Ad3inist#at#i5 o& t'e above intestate, LEE BING HOO alias CLARO LEE, and LEE BUN (ING

FAC(:Rafael inglasan et al. filed a -ase in the Court of First Instan-e of Capiz on Februar' #, #$7", against Ang Chia, her son Claro Bee and one Bee un0ing to re-oer the ownership and possession of a par-el of land lo-ated at Capiz, Capiz, and damages. /ubse=uentl', the plaintiffs dis-oered that there waspending in the same -ourt a -ase -on-erning the intestate estate of Bee Biong. 0he plaintiffs then filed an amended -omplaint see8ing the in-lusion as part'5defendant of the administratri6 of the estate, who is the same widow Ang Chia, who was alread' a part'5defendant in her personal -apa-it'. 0he plaintiffs also filedin the intestate pro-eedings a erified -laim in interention and a motion pra'ing that a -o5administrator of the estate be appointed and the bond of theadministratri6 be in-reased. ' their -laim in interention, the plaintiffs made of re-ord the penden-' of the aforesaid -iil -ase and pra'ed that the intestatepro-eedings be not -losed until said -iil -ase shall hae been terminated.

0he -ourt granted the par'er to in-rease the administrati6(s bond but howeer too8 -ognizan-e of the penden-' of said -iil -ase. 0he administratri6 did not appealfrom said order nor file a new bond and instead moed for the -losing of the pro-eedings and her dis-harge as administratri6 on the ground that the heirs hadalread' entered into an e6tra1udi-ial partition of the estate.

IUE:2hether it was proper for the Probate Court to ta8e -ognizan-e of the -iil -ase.

0he a-t of the lower -ourt in ta8ing -ognizan-e of -iil -ase is not tantamount to assuming 1urisdi-tion oer said -ase nor does it iolate the ruling of this -ourtwhi-h sa's that when =uestions arise as to the ownership of propert', alleged to be part of the estate of a de-eased person, but -laimed b' some other person tobe his propert', not b' irtue of an' right of inheritan-e from the de-eased, but b' title aderse to that of the de-eased and his estate, su-h =uestions -annot bedetermined in the -ourse of administration pro-eedings. 0he Court of First Instan-e, a-ting as probate -ourt, has no 1urisdi-tion to ad1udi-ate su-h -ontentions,whi-h must be submitted to the -ourt in the e6er-ise of its general 1urisdi-tion as a Court of First Instan-e to tr' and determine ordinar' a-tions. . . .

0he -ourt is 1ustified in ta8ing -ognizan-e of said -iil -ase be-ause of the unaoidable fa-t that whateer is determined in said -iil -ase will ne-essaril' refle-tand hae a far rea-hing -onse=uen-e in the determination and distribution of the estate. In so ta8ing -ognizan-e of -iil -ase the -ourt does not assume general1urisdi-tion oer the -ase but merel' ma8es of re-ord its e6isten-e be-ause of the -lose interrelation of the two -ases it -annot be branded as haing a-ted in

e6-ess of its 1urisdi-tion.

/e-tion #, Rule "", of the Rules of Court, e6pressl' proides that a-tion to re-oer real or personal propert' from the estate or to enfor-e a lien thereon, anda-tions to re-oer damages for an in1ur' to person or propert', real or personal, ma' be -ommen-ed against the e6e-utor or administrator. 0his rule is but a-orollar' to the ruling whi-h de-lares that =uestions -on-erning ownership of propert' alleged to be part of the estate but -laimed b' another person should bedetermined in a separate a-tion and should be submitted to the -ourt in the e6er-ise of its general 1urisdi-tion. 0hese rules would be rendered nugator' if we are tohold that an intestate pro-eedings -an be -losed b' an' time at the whim and -apri-e of the heirs.

Another rule of -ourt proides that after a part' dies and the -laim is not thereb' e6tinguished, the -ourt shall order, upon proper noti-e, the legal representatie of

the de-eased to appear and to be substituted for the de-eased, within a period of thirt' )>K da's, or within su-h time as ma' be granted. If the legal

representatie fails to appear within said time, the -ourt ma' order the opposing part' to pro-ure the appointment of a legal representatie of the de-eased within



23/25


a time to be spe-ified b' the -ourt, and the representatie shall immediatel' appear for and on behalf of the interest of the de-eased. )/e-tion #, Rule >. 0his

rule also implies that a probate -ase ma' be held in abe'an-e pending determination of an ordinar' -ase wherein an administrator is made a part'.

!A. +IVINA OR(AE97EN+ERE, &o# 'e#sel& and as t'e %udiciall1 Aointed ecial Ad3inist#at#i5 o& t'e "'ilinte#li&e 'a#es o& toc=s o& +R.%UVENCIO ". OR(AE9, %OE N. OR(AE9, RO!EO %OVEN N. OR(AE9, ENRICO N. OR(AE9, CEAR N. OR(AE9 and LIGAA . NOVICIO,petitioners,s.(HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL, ECURI(IE AN+ ECHANGE CO!!IION, %OE C. LEE, CARLO LEE, ANGEL ONG, CAR!ENCI(A .(AN, BEN%A!IN C. LEE, !A. "A9 C. LEE and AL!A AGGABAO, respondents.

FAC(: Petitioners filed before the /EC a -ase for the annulment of transfer of shares of sto-8s to priate respondents, annulment of sale of -orporate properties

authorized b' priate respondents who -ompose the management of the -orporation, annulment of subs-riptions on in-reased -apital sto-8s, a--ountingand inspe-tion of -orporate boo8s and re-ords, and damages. Petitioners also pra'ed for the issuan-e of a writ of preliminar' in1un-tion and temporar'restraining order against priate respondents to en1oin them from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders of Philinterlife on the ground that their shares ofsto-8 were a-=uired through illegal and fraudulent s-hemes.

Petitioners alleged that Philinterlife is a registered -orporation founded in #$%7 b' the late r. +uen-io 4rtaJez< that at the time of his death in #$"K, r.

4rtaJez owned at least fift'5one per-ent )%# of the -apital sto-8 of the -ompan'< that spe-ial pro-eedings were pending with the Regional 0rial Courtof &uezon Cit', ran-h "%, for the settlement of the intestate estate of the de-eased r. 4rtaJez, where Rafael /. 4rtaJez and +ose /. 4rtaJez were1ointl' appointed as spe-ial administrators.

Petitioners further stated that after the death of r. 4rtaJez and without the prior authorization of the intestate -ourt, one5half )#O! of the shares of sto-8

of r. 4rtaJez were transferred in the names of priate respondents through the manipulations, dei-es and ma-hinations of the latter< that the shares ofsto-8s of priate respondents lawfull' belonged to the estate of r. 4rtaJez and hen-e, the' are not entitled to en1o' and e6er-ise their rights andpriileges as sto-8holders of the -ompan'.

Contrar' to the -ontentions of petitioners, priate respondents +ose Bee, Carlos Bee, en1amin Bee and Alma Aggabao be-ame sto-8holders of

Philinterlife on @ar-h !>, #$"> when +ose /. 4rtaJez, the prin-ipal sto-8holders at that time, e6e-uted a deed of sale of his shares of sto-8 to the priaterespondents< and that the right of petitioners to =uestion the @emorandum of Agreement and the a-=uisition of shares of sto-8 of priate respondents isbarred b' pres-ription.

Case ruled b' /EC Hearing 4ffi-er, then /EC en ban-, then CA. In all leels, petitioners were denied and petition dismissed.

0he assailed de-ision of the Court of Appeals as well as that of the /EC En an- and /EC Hearing 4ffi-er denied the pra'er of petitioner for theissuan-e of a writ of preliminar' in1un-tion to restrain priate respondents from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders on re-ord of PhilippinesInternational Bife Insuran-e Co., In-. )Philinterlife, for breit'.

IUE:24N the whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the /EC when it ruled that petitioners had not established -lear e6isting legal rights to entitlethem to a writ of in1un-tion to en1oin priate respondents from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders on re-ord of Philinterlife.

HEL+: No.In1un-tion ma' issue pendente lite onl' in -ases of e6treme urgen-', where the right to the possession, during the penden-' of the main -ase, of the propert'inoled is er' -lear< where -onsiderations of relatie in-onenien-e bear strongl' in faor of the -omplainant see8ing the possession of the propert' pendentelite< where there was willful and unlawful inasion on plaintiffLs right, oer his protest and remonstran-e, the in1ur' being a -ontinuing one. efore an in1un-tion -an



24/25


be issued, it is essential that the following re=uisites be present? )# there must be a right in esse or the e6isten-e of a right to be prote-ted< and )! the a-t againstwhi-h in1un-tion is to be dire-ted is a iolation of su-h right.

2e agree with the findings of the /EC as affirmed b' the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed not onl' to establish a threatened iolation of a right but the' alsofailed to dis-harge the burden of -learl' showing the right to be prote-ted. ## 4n the mere -ontention that the shareholdings of priate respondents belong to theestate of the late r. 4rtaJez whi-h is still the sub1e-t of settlement before the Regional 0rial Court of &uezon Cit', petitioners had not established their -lear legalrights to obtain in1un-tie relief against priate respondents. In1un-tion, whether preliminar' or final, is not designed to prote-t -ontingent or future rights.

Petitioners -ited in their repl' the issuan-e of an 4rder b' the intestate -ourt de-laring that the shares of sto-8 of Philinterlife belong to the estate. It is admittedthat the spe-ial pro-eedings are still pending before the -ourt and the estate had not been partitioned and distributed. Notwithstanding the pro-eedings being-ondu-ted b' the intestate -ourt, the petitionersL rights or interests oer the estate or oer the assailed shareholdings in the name of priate respondents are stillfuture and unsettled rights whi-h -annot be prote-ted b' the writ of in1un-tion.

0he rule is well settled that the 1urisdi-tion of the regional trial -ourt as a probate or intestate -ourt relates onl' to matters haing to do with the settlement of theestate and probate of will of de-eased persons but does not e6tend to the determination of =uestions of ownership that arise during the pro-eedings. 0he intestate-ourt ma' pass upon the title to a -ertain propert' for the purpose of determining whether the same should or should not be in-luded in the inentor' but su-h

determination is not -on-lusie and is sub1e-t to final de-ision in a separate a-tion regarding ownership whi-h ma' be -onstituted b' the parties. 0he -ourt in-harge of the intestate pro-eedings -annot ad1udi-ate or determine title to properties -laimed to be a part of the estate and whi-h are e=uall' -laimed to belong tooutside parties. 0herefore, the possibilit' of irreparable damage without proof of iolation of an a-tuall' e6isting right of petitioners oer the shareholdings presentl'in the possession of priate respondents is no ground for an in1un-tion being a mere damnum abs)ue injuria.Contrar' to the -ontentions of petitioners, the /EC found that priate respondents are bona fideowners of shares of sto-8 in Philinterlife -onstituting the ma1orit'

thereof or $7 of the outstanding -apital sto-8 of the -ompan'. Re-ords show that the' hae been sto-8holders of Philinterlife sin-e #$"> up to the present. It was

onl' in #$$7 that petitioners sought the annulment of the shareholdings of priate respondents before the /EC. 0he grant of the writ of in1un-tion against priate

respondents b' restraining them from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders would in effe-t dispose of the main -ase without a trial. 0he /EC a-ted -orre-tl' in

den'ing the issuan-e of the writ until the merits of the -ase -an be heard. Further, it is a basi- pro-edural postulate that a preliminar' in1un-tion is not proper

where its purpose is to ta8e the propert' out of -ontrol or possession of one part' and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not hae su-h -ontrol at

the in-eption of the -ase and whose title has not been -learl' established b' law

An$elita Valde0 v. Reublic o& t'e "'iliines

FAC(:

Petitioner married /ofio in +an ##,#$# wherein the former gae birth to their onl' -hild , Nan-'. Petitioner states that she and /ofio argue -onstantl'

be-ause of the latter(s unemplo'ment and did not bring home an' mone'. Eentuall', /ofio left their -on1ugal dwelling. > 'ears hae passed thatpetitioner did hae an' 8nowledge of /ofios whereabouts until 4-t, #$% , /ofio showed up and the' tal8ed and agreed to separate and e6e-uted ado-ument to that effe-t. 0he' didn(t see ea-h other an'more after that.

petitioner belieing that /ofio was dead, married *irgilio Re'es on +une !K, #$"%. ue to the denial of *irgilio(s appli-ation for naturalization in the D/

department of Homeland /e-urit' be-ause of the subsisting marriage of petitioner with /ofio, Petitioner filed a petition before R0C see8ing de-laration ofpresumptie death.



25/25


R(C? dismissed petition for la-8 of merit and held that Angelita was not able to proe a well grounded belief that /ofio was alread' dead )Art 7#, FC.Further stating that she did not e6ert an' effort in finding her husband an'more.

Petitioner filed a motion for re-on arguing that Ciil Code proisions appl' in this -ase and not Famil' Code. e-ause marriage was -elebrated on +an ##,

#$# long before Famil' Code too8 effe-t. Further arguing that she a-=uired a ested right under the Ciil Code and stri-ter proisions in the FC shouldnot applied against her ) Art. >"7 and >$K 0o appl' it would impair petitioner rights a-=uired under the Ciil Code. R0C denied @otion for Re-on. Hen-ethis petition.

IUE:24N R0C erred in appl'ing FC and holding that petitioner needed to proe a well5 founded belief that /ofio was alread' dead3

HEL+:E/. R0C is wrong. Petitioner was -apa-itated to marr' *irgilio at the time their marriage was -elebrated in #$"% and said marriage is legal and alid.

Court dismissed the petitioner sin-e no de-ree of presumption of /ofio(s death -an be granted under the Ciil Code. /in-e death is presumed to hae

ta8en pla-e b' the seenth 'ear of absen-e. /ofio is to be presumed dead starting 4-tober #$"!.

Conse=uentl', at the time of petitioner(s marriage to *irgilio, there e6isted no impediment to petitioner(s -apa-it' to marr', and the marriage is alid underparagraph ! of Arti-le "> of the Ciil Code. Petitioner -ould not hae been e6pe-ted to -ompl' with this re=uirement sin-e the Famil' Code was not 'et ineffe-t at the time of her marriage to *irgilio. 0he ena-tment of the Famil' Code in #$"" does not -hange this -on-lusion. 0o re-troa-tiel' appl' proisionof the Famil' Code would go against the ob1e-ties that Famil' Code wishes to a-hiee.


specpro- compiled case digest batch 1

Documents