SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS

1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE (2009)

Pinoy Died without a will. His wife, Rosie and three children executed a
deed of extrajudicial settlement of his estate. The deed was properly published
and registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. Three years thereafter,
Suzy appeared, claiming to be illegitimate child of Pinoy. She sought to annul the
settlement alleging that she was deprived of her rightful share in the estate.

Rosie and the three children contended that (1) the publication of the deed
constituted constructive notice to the whole world, and should therefore bind
Suzy; and (2) Suzy’s action had already prescribed.

Are Rosie and the Three Children Correct? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the contention is not correct. Suzy can file a complaint to annul the
extrajudicial settlement and she can recover what is due her as such her if her
status as an illegitimate child of the deceased has been established. The publication
of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no
knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of
execution. The requirement of publication is intended to for the protection of
creditors and never intended to deprive the heirs of their lawful participation in
the decedent’s estate. She can file the action therefor within four (4) years after the
settlement was registered.

2. PROBATE OF WILL (2007)

The heirs of H agree among themselves that they will honor the division of
the H’s estate as indicated in her Last Will and Testament. To avoid the expense of
going to court in a Petition for Probate of the Will, can they instead execute an
Extrajudicial Settlement Agreement among themselves? Explain briefly.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The heirs of H cannot validly agree to resort to extrajudicial settlement of

his estate and do away the probate of H’s last will and testament. Probate of will
is mandatory. The policy of the law is to respect the will of the testator as
manifested in the other disposition of his will, insofar as they are not contrary to
law, public morals, and public policy. Extrajudicial settlement of an estate is
allowed only when the deceased left no last will and testament and all debts, if
any, are paid.

3. PROBATE OF WILL; JURISDICTIONAL FACTS (2012)

What are the jurisdiction facts that must be alleged in a petition for probate
of will? How do you bring before the court these jurisdictional facts?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The jurisdiction facts in a petition for probate are: (1) that a person died
leaving a will; (2) in case of resident, that he resided within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court; and (3) in case of non-resident, that he left an estate within
such territorial jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional facts shall be contained in a petition for allowance of will.

4. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE (2012)

Anna filed a petition for appointment as regular administratrix of her

fathers' estate. Her sister Sophia moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the parties, as members of the same family, have not exerted earnest effort toward
a compromise prior to the filing of the petition. Should the petition be dismissed?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, earnest efforts towards a compromise is not a prerequisite to the filing of a

petition for appointment of an administrator.

5. In what Court may the settlement of estate of a deceased person be filed?

 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The jurisdiction of settlement of estate of a deceased person depends on the value

of the gross estate of the decedent. Under B.P. 129, as amended by RA, 7691,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts
shall exercise the exclusive original jurisdiction of probate proceedings, testate or
intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed Php300,000.00 or in Metro
Manila where such estate does not exceed Php400,000.00. the Regional Trial Court
has exclusive and original jurisdiction on probate proceedings if the gross value of
the estate exceeds Php300,000.00, or in Metro Manila, the gross value of the
decedent’s estate exceeds Php400,000.00

6. Is the venue in ordinary civil action the same as in special proceedings?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and
the same meaning, venue means nothing more than a person’s actual residence or
place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

7. What are the requisites for a valid extrajudicial settlement?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The decedent died intestate;

b. The estate has no outstanding debts at the time of the settlement;
c. The heirs are of all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial
guardians or legal representative;
d. The settlement is made in a public instrument, stipulation or affidavit duly
filed with the register of deed;
e. The fact of such judicial settlement must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the province once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks;
and
f. In case of personal property, a bond equivalent to the value of personal
property posted with the Register of Deeds is required.
8. LIABILITY OF EXECUTOR AND CUSTODIAN
Rob Stark, executed a last will and testament disposing of his estate consisting of
a parcel of land in Barangay Winterfell and cash deposit at Iron Bank of Bravos in
the sum of P500 Million. He bequeathed P100 Million each to his three daughters
and P200 Million to his favorite sister, Arya Stark in whom he also entrusted the
custody of the said will. He named his best friend Theon Greyjoy, as the executor
of the will without bond. Rob died on December 1, 2017; thus, Theon gave his
heartfelt goodbye to his best friend in the Obituaries of Raven News, a newspaper
of general circulation. At the time of Rob’s death, Arya was in another place and
she only came to know of the death of his brother through the obituary in
December 25, 2017.

In a probate proceeding filed by Rob’s heirs on January 5, 2018, the Court fined
Arya Stark as custodian at P2, 500 for failing to produce the will in court despite
the lapse of twenty days from Rob’s Death.

Is the Court correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the court is not Correct.

Section 2 of Rule 75 provides that the person who has custody of a will shall, within
20 days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to the court
having jusrisdiction or to the executor named in the will. Moreover, the neglect of
this duty would subject the custodian to a fine not exceeding P2,000.

In this case, Arya Stark, the custodian, only came to know of Rob’s death on
December 25, 2017. She has until January 15, 2018 to produce the will. It is
premature for the Court to fine her as the reckoning point of the 20-day period is
counted from the time of the custodian’s knowledge and not from the time of
death of the Testator. Furthermore, Granting arguendo that the imposition of the
fine was correct, it is nonetheless unlawful because it exceeds P2,000.

9. Under what circumstances may the heirs extra judicially settle the estate of the
deceased during the pendency of judicial settlement proceeding.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If they submit the extrajudicial partition to the court for verification that it does
not prejudicially affect the rights of third persons, and is approved, the
proceedings would be terminated. (McMicking vs. Sy Conbieng, 21 Phil 211)

10. AFFIDAVIT OF SELF-ADJUDICATION; BOND

In 2010, Roose Bolton died without a will, leaving a House and Lot, with a
value of Php 50,000,000.00. His illegitimate child Ramsay Bolton, filed an affidavit
of self-adjudication with the register of deeds and simultaneously filed a bond in
the amount of Php 5,000.00. Under the affidavit, he stated that has no knowledge
of the debts of his father. On 2012, Edward Stark, a creditor of Roose, arrived from
King’s Landing. He was informed of the death of Roose and the filing of the
affidavit of self adjudication of Ramsay. He then filed for the annulment of the
extrajudicial settlement contending that, under the rules, a bond shall be paid in
the amount equivalent to the property adjudicated. In this case he alleged that
Ramsay only paid Php 5,000.00

Is the contention of Edward Stark correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the contention of Edward Stark is not correct.

Under the Rules the parties to an extrajudicial settlement or the sole heir
must file a bond with the office of the register of deeds, in an amount equivalent
to the personal property. The bond requirement is only available to personal
property subject to extrajudicial settlement of estate.

In regards to real property, the property registration decree provides that

when a deed of extrajudicial settlement has been duly registered, the Register of
Deeds shall annotate on the proper title the two-year lien mentioned in Section 4
of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. Upon the expiration of the two-year period and
presentation of a verified petition by the registered heirs, devisees or legatees or
any other party in interest that no claim or claims of any creditor, heir or other
person exist, the Register of Deeds shall cancel the two-year lien noted on the title
without the necessity of a court order.
Therefore, bond is not necessary for the extrajudicial settlement of the house
and lot of Roose Bolton. In fact, the payment of P5,000 made by Ramsay Bolton is
not necessary as the subject of the Affidavit of Self Adjudication was a real
property. What Edward Stark could have done is to secure the annotation of the
two year lien to the certificate of title of the House and Lot until his claim is paid.

Prepared by:

Fernandez, Diyosa Anjenel

Talib, Elvie Palatic
Tudayan, Vincent Jan N.
3-A Group 1