Estate of Ruiz v. CA | G.R. No. 118671 | January 29, 1996 | Puno, J.

Facts:

 June 27, 1987 – Hilario Ruiz executed a holographic will bequeathing substantial cash, personal, and real properties,
naming the following as his heirs:
- Edmond Ruiz, only son (named as executor of his estate)
- Respondent Maria Montes, adopted daughter
- Respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine, Maria Angelina, granddaughters
 April 12, 1988 – Hilario Ruiz died
- Cash component of the estate was distributed among Edmond and respondents
- Edmond did not take any action for probate of his father’s will
 June 29, 1992 – Respondent Maria Montes filed before RTC Pasig a petition for probate of the will and issuance of
letters testamentary to Edmond
- Edmond opposed the petition; will was executed under undue influence
 November 2 – one of the properties of the estate (house and lot) which testator bequeathed to his granddaughters
was leased out by Edmond to third persons
 January 19, 1993 – probate court ordered Edmond to deposit the rental deposit and payments representing the lease
- Edmond turned over the balance of the amount after deducting repair and maintenance expenses
 March – Edmond moved for release of P50,000 to pay real estate taxes
- Probate court approved release of P7,722
 May 14 – Edmond withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will
- Probate court admitted the will and issued letters testamentary to Edmond
 July 28 – Petitioner estate filed an ex-parte motion for Release of Funds
- Prayed for release of rent payments deposited
- Respondent Montes opposed, and filed a Motion for Release of Funds to Certain Heirs and Motion for Issuance
of Certificate of Allowance of Probate Will
 August 26 – Probate court denied petitioner’s motion but granted respondent’s motion in view of petitioner’s lack of
opposition
 November 23 – Petitioner manifested that he was withdrawing his motion for release of funds since the lease
contract had been renewed for another year
- Despite such, probate court ordered release of funds to Edmond but only such amount as may be necessary to
cover expenses of administration and allowance for support of the granddaughters (subject to collation,
deductible from their share)
- Court held in abeyance release of titles until 6 months after first publication of notice to creditors
 Petitioner assailed the order before CA
- Denied.

ISSUES: W/N probate court, after admitting the will into probate but before payment of estate debts and obligations, has the
authority to:

1. …grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for support of the testator’s grandchildren – NO
 Court: Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedents estate. The law (Sec 3,
Rule 83, ROC) clearly limits the allowance to widow and children and does not extend it to the deceaseds
grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity

2. …order the release of the titles to certain heirs – NO

 Court: An order releasing titles to properties of the estate amounts to an advance distribution of the estate which is
allowed only under the following conditions:
- Sec. 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. - Nothwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in
proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may
 deem proper and just, permit that such part of the estate as may not be affected by the controversy or appeal be
distributed among the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth in Rule 90 of these Rules.
- Rule 90, Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. - … No distribution shall be allowed until the
payment of the obligations above-mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of
them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within
such time as the court directs.
- In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the
debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; or
(2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the
court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs, or when provision
is made to meet those obligations.
 Probate court ordered the release of the titles to the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge apartments to the
private respondents after the lapse of six months from the date of first publication of the notice to creditors. The
estate tax is one of those obligations that must be paid before distribution of the estate. If not yet paid, the rule
requires that the distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said tax obligation in proportion to
their respective shares in the inheritance.
 Too early for the probate court to order the release of the titles six months after admitting the will to probate. The
probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution and extrinsic validity. Questions as to the intrinsic validity and
efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or legacy may be raised even after the will has been
authenticated.

- The intrinsic validity of Hilarios holographic will was controverted by petitioner before the probate court in his
Reply to Montes Opposition to his motion for release of funds and his motion for reconsideration. If there is a
controversy as to who are the lawful heirs of the decedent and their distributive shares in his estate, the probate
court shall proceed to hear and decide the same as in ordinary cases.

3. …to grant possession of all properties of the estate to the executor of the will – YES

 Petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order deprived him of his right to take possession of all the real and
personal properties of the estate.

- Right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal properties of
the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts
and expenses of administration
- When petitioner moved for further release of the funds deposited with the clerk of court, he had been
previously granted by the probate court certain amounts for repair and maintenance expenses on the properties
of the estate, and payment of the real estate taxes thereon. But petitioner moved again for the release of
additional funds for the same reasons he previously cited. It was correct for the probate court to require him to
submit an accounting of the necessary expenses for administration before releasing any further money in his
favor.

DISPOSITIVE: The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with the modification that those portions of
the order granting an allowance to the testator’s grandchildren and ordering the release of the titles to the private respondents
upon notice to creditors are annulled and set aside.