Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

CASE LIST 3

CASE NO. 6
Case Doctrine:
The annexing of the original will to the petition is not a jurisdictional
requireent is clearl! e"ident in Sec # $ule %& which allows the
'ling of a petition for pro(ate (! persons naed therein) regardless of
whether or not he is in possession of the will) or the sae is lost or
destro!ed.
Heirs of Late Jesus Fran vs. Hon. Bernardo Salas
*$ NO. L+,-,.&
/ustice 0a"ide /r.
FACTS: $eedios 1. 2da. de Tiosejo died with neither
descendants nor ascendants. She left real and personal properties
wherein she (equeathed to her collateral relati"es 3(rothers) sisters)
nephews and nieces4 all her properties) and designated $osario Tan or)
upon the latter5s death) /esus 6ran) as executor. /esus 6ran 'led a
petition for the pro(ate of $eedios5 last will and testaent. The
petition alleged that $osario Tan is not ph!sicall! well. The court
appointed petitioner /esus 6ran as special adinistrator.
7ri"ate respondents) 'led a anifestation alleging that the! needed
tie to stud! the petition. 8owe"er) pri"ate respondents did not 'le
an! opposition. Instead) the! 'led a 9:ithdrawal of Opposition to the
Allowance of 7ro(ate 3sic4 of the :ill9 wherein the! expressl!
anifested that the! ha"e no o(jection to the will.
The petition thus (ecae uncontested.
0uring the initial hearing) petitioner 6ran introduced the requisite
e"idence to esta(lish the jurisdictional facts. The pro(ate court
rendered a decision aditting to pro(ate the will of the testatrix and
appointing petitioner 6ran as executor.
Su(sequentl!) a 7roject of 7artition (ased on the dispositions ade in
the will and signed (! all the de"isees and legatees was su(itted)
with the exception of Luis 6ran) $eedios C. 1ejia and respondent
Concepcion 1. Espina. Said legatees and de"isees su(itted
certi'cations wherein the! adit receipt of a cop! of the 7roject of
7artition together with the notice of hearing. After the hearing on the
7roject of 7artition) the court ordered the adinistrator to deli"er to the
said parties their respecti"e shares and decreeing the proceedings
closed.
Thereafter) the aforesaid ;ranch 2III of the Court of 6irst Instance of
Ce(u was con"erted to a /u"enile and 0oestic $elations Court.
;ranch <2II 30a"ao Cit!4 of the Court of 6irst Instance of Ce(u)
presided o"er (! herein respondent /udge) was transferred to Ce(u
Cit! and renu(ered as ;ranch 2III. 3so napalitan !ung judge na
huahawa= ng case then !ung pri"ate respondents (iglang naisipang
=ontrahin !ung unang decision ng court>oppose to the allowance of
the will4
7ri"ate respondents 'led with the new ;ranch 2III an Oni(us 1otion
for $econsideration of the pro(ate judgent and as=ed the court to
declare the proceedings still open and adit their opposition to the
allowance of the will.
Notwithstanding petitioners5 o(jections) respondent /udge issued an
Order setting for hearing the said Oni(us 1otion for $econsideration.
7etitioners 'led a 1otion to 0isiss the Oni(us and to $econsider
the ?& 6e(ruar! #@AB Order setting it for hearing on #% April #@AB) (ut
the respondent /udge denied it for lac= of erit
7etitioners 'led a Suppleental 7etition as=ing this Court to restrain
respondent /udge fro reopening the case.
$espondent /udge issued the ipugned order declaring the
testaentar! dispositions of the will "oid) and con"erting the sae
into an intestate proceeding.
ISSU:
:hether or not it is necessar! that the original cop! of the will (e
presented for the court to acquire jurisdiction for the allowance of the
will.
CLAI!"S #F $TITI#%&:
'a(pri"ate respondents are in estoppel to question the will (ecause
the! 'led their :ithdrawal Of Opposition To The Allowance of :ill
which states that the! ha"e no o(jection to its allowanceC
')(pri"ate respondent 1aria 1. *andiongco signed the 7roject of
7artition and pri"ate respondent Concepcion 1. Espina su(itted a
certi'cation stating therein that she recei"ed the notice of hearing
therefor and has no o(jection to its appro"alC
'c( the pro(ate judgent and the order appro"ing the 7roject of
7artition had long (ecoe 'nal and had in fact (een executed.
7ri"ate respondents had long lost their right to appeal.
CLAI!"S #F &S$#%D%T:
3a4 the! were not furnished with a cop! of the willC
3(4 the! were not noti'ed of an! resolution or order closing the
proceedingsC
3c4 The! were depri"ed of the opportunit! to exaine the will as
petitioner /esus 6ran did not attach it to the petitionC what was
attached was onl! the English translation of the will.
&ULI%*
$espondent /udge coitted gra"e a(use of discretion aounting to
lac= of jurisdiction when he granted the Oni(us 1otion for
$econsideration and ordered the con"ersion of the testate proceedings
into one of intestac!.
pri"ate respondents 'led on the da! of the initial hearing of the
petition their 9:ithdrawal of Opposition To Allowance of 7ro(ate 3sic4
:ill9 wherein the! unequi"ocall! state that the! ha"e no o(jection to
the allowance of the will.
In testate proceedings) a decision logicall! precedes the project of
partition) which is norall! an ipleentation of the will and is aong
the last operati"e acts to terinate the proceedings.
pri"ate respondents clai that the trial court ne"er acquired
jurisdiction o"er the petition (ecause onl! the English translation of the
will > and not a cop! of the sae > was attached to the petitionC
the Court alread! ruled that it is not necessar! that the original of the
will (e attached to the petition. 9The original of said docuent Dthe
willE ust (e presented or sufcient reasons given to justify the
nonpresentation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or
duplicate thereof.9
The annexing of the original will to the petition is not a jurisdictional
requireent is clearl! e"ident in Section #) $ule %& of the $ules of
Court which allows the 'ling of a petition for pro(ate (! the person
naed therein regardless of whether or not he is in possession of the
will) or the sae is lost or destro!ed.
Sec. #. Who may petition for the allowance of will. > An! executor)
de"isee) or legatee naed in a will) or an! other person interested in
the estate) a!) at an! tie after the death of the testator) petition
the court ha"ing jurisdiction to ha"e the will allowed) whether the
sae (e in his possession or not) or is lost or destro!ed.
pri"ate respondents had lost their right to 'le a petition for relief fro
judgent) it appearing that their oni(us otion for reconsideration
was 'led exactl! six 3&4 !ears) ten 3#B4 onths and twent!+two 3??4
da!s after the rendition of the decision) and six 3&4 !ears) one 3#4
onth and thirteen 3#-4 da!s after the court issued the order
appro"ing the 7roject of 7artition) to which the! "oluntaril! expressed
their conforit! through their respecti"e certi'cations) and closing the
testate proceedings.
pri"ate respondents5 contention that the order appro"ing the 7roject of
7artition and closing the proceedings is null and "oid (ecause the
7roject of 7artition did not contain a notice of hearing and that the!
were not noti'ed of the hearing thereon. In truth) in her own
certi'cation
,,
dated , Septe(er #@%-) pri"ate respondent
Concepcion 1. Espina aditted that she 9recei"ed a cop! of the 7roject
of 7artition and the Notice of 8earing in the a(o"e+entitled proceeding)
and that she has no o(jection to the appro"al of the said 7roject of
7artition.9
the instant petition and suppleental petitions are *$ANTE0.