Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Ermac, et. al. v. Medelo, et. al., 64 SCRA 358, G.R. No. L32281,
The policy of the law is to terminate proceedings for the settlement
of the estate of deceased persons with the least loss of time. it is
not proper to delay the summary settlement of a deceased
person just because an heir or a third person claims that
certain properties do not belong to the estate but to
him. Such claim must be ventilated in an independent action, and
the probate court should proceed to the distribution of the
estate, if there are no other legal obstacles to it, for after
all, such distribution must always be subject to the results
of the suit. For the protection of the claimant the appropriate step
is to have the proper annotation of lis pendens entered.
ALABAN v. CA
1. Probate of a will is considered action in rem
a. Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or
legatee named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate may, at any time after the death of the
testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have
the will allowed. Notice of the time and place for proving
the will must be published for three (3) consecutive
weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province as well as furnished to the designated or other
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
b. Petitioners became parties due to the publication of the
notice of hearing
2. Petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure
to comply with the substantive requisites,
a. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law
independent of the case where the judgment sought to
be annulled was rendered
b. PURPOSE: to have the final and executory judgment set
aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation.
DE GUZMAN v. ANGELES DOCTRINE: The requirement of a
hearing and the notification to all the known heirs and other
interested parties as to the date thereof is essential to the validity
of the proceeding for the appointment of an administrator "in order
that no person may be deprived of his right or property without due
process of law.
CAYETANO v. CA
Saludo vs Amex
REP. OF THE PHIL v. CA and HON. JUDGE MADRONA There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required,
and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the Family Code,
not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal
for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a
summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from
the trial courts order sufficed.
Socorros
Avelino vs. Ca
Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court which allows heirs to
divide the estate among themselves without the need of delay and
risks of being dissipated. Where the more expeditious remedy
of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs or the
majority of them may not be compelled to submit to
administration proceedings. In this case, all the heirs, with
the exception of Socorro, agreed to judicial partition as
they see it to be the more convenient method. There is no
merit to the contention of Socorro that a partition cannot
be had because the extent of the estate is not yet
determined. The extent of the estate can actually be
determined during the partition proceedings. Therefore,
SEBIAL v. SEBIAL
Indeed, one of the lower court's omissions was its failure to
ascertain by preponderance of evidence the actual value of the
estate, if there was still an estate to be administered. The approval
of the amended inventory was not such a determination.
No useful purpose would be served by dismissing the petition
herein and ordering that a new petition for summary settlement be
filed. Inasmuch as a regular administrator had been appointed and
a notice to creditors had been issued and no claims were filed, the
PEREIRA v. CA
GENERAL RULE:
when a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially
administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified
administrator
EXCEPTION:
when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from
the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property
without instituting the judicial administration or applying for
the appointment of an administrator.
ANCOG vs. CA
Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. No
extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has
not participated therein or had no notice thereof
ACAIN v. CA
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the
forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not
mentioned therein, or though mentioned, they are neither
Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental
Testate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. In
accordance with the settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction,
testate proceedings for the Settlement of the estate of a deceased
person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same
purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of
intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is
found that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the
probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even
if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the
latter being required to render final account and turn over the
estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed.
This, however, is understood to be without prejudice, that should
the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding
shall continue as an intestacy.
Garcia v. Vasquez
The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New
Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or
incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the contents
of the will for him to be able to have the opportunityto
object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with
his wishes.
BUENAVENTURA v .RAMOS
a.
b.