Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

WILLS & SUCCESSION CASE DOCTRINES Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and

legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition although it


1. Hemady vs Luzon Surety should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise or any
other transaction.—It must be stressed that the probate
proceeding had already acquired jurisdiction over all the
properties of the deceased, including the three (3) tractors. To
Contracts; binding effect of contracts upon heirs of deceased dispose of them in any way without the probate court’s approval is
party.—The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the tantamount to divesting it with jurisdiction which the Court cannot
deceased party is not altered by the provision in the Rules of allow. Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-
Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition,
paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever payment is thus compromise, or any other transaction. Thus, in executing any joint
agreement which appears to be in the nature of an extra-judicial
made from the estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs and
partition, as in the case at bar, court approval is imperative, and
distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes the heirs cannot just divest the court of its jurisdiction over that
or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to part of the estate.
receive. The general rule, therefore, is that a party’s contractual
rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors.
Filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in the
2. Alvarez vs IAC probate court is mandatory.—The filing of a money claim against
the decedent’s estate in the probate court is mandatory. As we
The general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations held in the vintage case of Py Eng Chong v. Herrera: . . . This
are transmissible to the successors.—“The binding effect of requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the
contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims
the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to
deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before the determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed.
residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement
that whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the
payment by the heirs or distributees, since the amount of the paid property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. The law strictly
claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims
have been entitled to receive. Under our law, therefore, the against the decedent’s estate in order to settle the affairs of the
general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations are estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the
transmissible to the successors. The rule is a consequence of the residue.
progressive ‘depersonalization’ of patrimonial rights and duties
that, as observed by Victorio Polacco, has characterized the 4. Spouses Santos vs Lumbao
history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation
from person to person, the obligation has evolved into a relation Succession; Heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their
from patrimony to patrimony, with the persons occupying only a predecessors-in-interest—whatever rights and obligations of the
representative position, barring those rare cases where the decedent have over a property are transmitted to the heirs by way
obligation is strictly personal, i.e., is contracted intuitu personae, of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and
obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the
in consideration of its performance by a specific person and by no
inheritance of the heirs.—The general rule that heirs are bound by
other. x x x” contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in
the present case. Article 1311 of the NCC is the basis of this rule.
3. Union Bank vs. Santibanez It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and
obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted
Civil Law; Settlement of Estate; Jurisdictions; Well-settled is the to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the
rule that a probate court has the jurisdiction to determine all the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of
the value of the inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs cannot
properties of the deceased, to determine whether they should or escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by
should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the
administered.—Well-settled is the rule that a probate court has property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor.
the jurisdiction to determine all the properties of the deceased, to Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their
determine whether they should or should not be included in the deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their mother
inventory or list of properties to be administered. The said court is had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and
binding as against them. The death of a party does not excuse
primarily concerned with the administration, liquidation and
nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right and
distribution of the estate. the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal
representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not
Wills; Partition; In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no excused by the death of the party when the other party has a
valid partition among the heirs until after the will has been property interest in the subject matter of the contract.
probated.—In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no valid
partition among the heirs until after the will has been probated: In 5. De Borja vs De Borja
testate succession, there can be no valid partition among the
heirs until after the will has been probated. The law enjoins the Civil law; Wills; Remedial law; Testate and intestate pro.
probate of a will and the public requires it, because unless a will is ceedings; Rule of nullity of extrajudicial settlement prior to probate
probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of of will inapplicable to case at bar.—The doctrine of Guevarra vs.
a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered Guevarra, 74 Phil. 479, which holds that the presentation of a will
nugatory. The authentication of a will decides no other question for probate is mandatory and that the settlement and distribution
than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the of an estate on the basis of intestacy when the decedent left a will
compliance with those requirements or solemnities which the law is against the law and public policy, is not applicable where the
prescribes for the validity of a will. clear abject of the settlement was merely the conveyance by the
heir of any and all her individual share and interest, actual or
eventual, in the estate of the decedent and not the distribution of Assignments or donations which lack this essential formality have
the said estate among the heirs before the probate of the will. no valid effect.

9. Go Ong vs CA
Remedial law; Testate and intestate proceedings; Settlement
entered into by heir in his individual capacity does not need court
Special Proceedings; Mortgages; Where the real estate mortgage
approval.—Where the compromise agreement entered into by
was constituted in petitioner's personal capacity and not in her
and between the various heirs in the personal capacity, the same capacity as administratrix of the estate of her husband, Sec. 7 of
is binding upon them as individuals, upon the perfection of the Rule 89 of the Rules of Court requiring judicial approval of the
contract, even without previous authority of the Court to enter into mortgage is not applicable,—Thus, in confirming the findings of
such agreement. The only difference between an extrajudicial the lower court, as supported by law and the evidence, the Court
compromise and one that is submitted and approved by the of Appeals aptly ruled that Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of
Court, is that the latter can be enforced by execution proceedings. Court is not applicable, since the mortgage was constituted in her
personal capacity and not in her capacity as administratrix of the
estate of her husband.
Civil law; Succession; Heir may sell her hereditary rights to co-
heir.—As owner of her individual share, an heir could dispose of it Fact alone that in the settlement proceedings of the estate of the
in favor of whomsoever she chose, including another heir of the deceased spouse the entire conjugal partnership property of the
same defendant. Such alienation is expressly recognized and marriage is under administration is not sufficient to invalidate the
provided for by Article 1088 of the present Civil Code. whole mortgage; Art 493 of the Civil Code applies where the heirs
as co-owners shall each have the full ownership of his part and he
may alienate, assign or mortgage it; Effect of alienation or
6. Bonilla vs Burcena mortgage with respect to the co-owners.—Nevertheless,
7. Balus vs Balus petitioner, citing the cases of Picardal, et al. vs. Lladas (21 SCRA
1483) and Fernandez, et al. vs. Maravilla (10 SCRA 589), further
Civil Law; Property; Succession; Inheritance; What consists argues that in the settlement proceedings of the estate of the
inheritance; The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted deceased spouse, the entire conjugal partnership property of the
from the moment of his death; The inheritance of a person marriage is under administration, While such may be in a sense
true, that fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate the whole
consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations
mortgage, willingly and voluntarily entered into by the petitioner.
existing at the time of his death as well as those which have An opposite view would result in an injustice. Under similar
accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.—The rights circumstances, this Court applied the provisions of Article 493 of
to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his the Civil Code, where the heirs as co-owners shall each have the
death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining
property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and
time of his death, as well as those which have accrued thereto even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or
since the opening of the succession. In the present case, since mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the
Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of termination of the co-ownership (Philippine National Bank vs.
land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA 207 [1980]).
claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never
inherited the subject lot from their father. 10. Reganon vs Imperial

8. Uson vs Del Rosario Interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased is attachable.—That


the interest of an heir in the estate of a deceased person may be
Descent and distribution; husband and wife; rights of lawful wife attached for purposes of execution, even if the estate is in the
as affected by the new civil code.—The right of ownership of the process of settlement before the courts, is already a settled
lawful wife of a decedent who had died before the new Civil Code matter in this jurisdiction.
took effect became vested in her upon his death, and this is so
because of the imperative provision of the law which commands Civil law; Succession; Rights to the succession of a person are
that the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of
transmitted from the moment of death.—The rights to the
death (Art. 657, old Civil Code; Ilustre vs. Frondosa, 17 Phil.,
321). The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of death,
the illegitimate children of the deceased can not be asserted to and where the heir is of legal age and the estate is not burdened
the impairment of the vested right of the lawful wife over the lands with any debts, said heir immediately succeeds, by force of law, to
in dispute. While article 2253 of the new Civil Code provides that the dominion, ownership, and possession of the properties of his
rights which are declared for the first time shall have retroactive predecessor, and consequently stands legally in the shoes of the
effect even though the event which gave rise to them may have latter (Cuevas v. Abesames, 71 Phil. 147).
occurred under the former legislation, yet this is so only when the
new rights do not prejudice any vested or acquired right of the
same origin. 11. Blas vs Santos

Renunciation of Inheritance Made by Lawful Wife; Future Wills; Succession; Contracts; Compromise; Future
Inheritance, Not Subject to Contract.—Although the lawful wife inheritance; When agreement to transmit one-half of conjugal
has expressly renounced her right to inherit any future property share is a contract as to future inheritance.—-A document signed
that her husband may acquire and leave upon his death, such by the testator's wife, promising that she would respect and obey
renunciation cannot be entertained for the simple reason that all the dispositions in the latter's will, and that she would hold one-
future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be half of her share in the conjugal assets in trust for the heirs and
renounced (1 Manresa, 6th ed., 123; Osorio vs. Osorio, et al., 41 legatees of her husband in his will, with the obligation of
Phil., 531). conveying the same to such of his heirs or legatees as she might
choose in her last will and testament, is a compromise and at the
Donations by Deceased; Essential Formalities of Donation.— same time a contract with sufficient cause or consideration.
Assignments, if any, made by the deceased of real property for
which there was no material consideration, should be made in a Prescription; Actions; Accrual of cause of action upon death.—
public document and must be accepted either in the same The action to enforce the wife's promise to convey in her
document or in a separate one (Art. 633, old Civil Code). testament, upon her death, one-half of the conjugal properties, did
not arise until and after her death when it was found that she did “southern half” of the conjugal lands is contrary to law because,
not comply with her promise. although she was a coowner thereof, her share was inchoate and
proindiviso (Art. 143, Civil Code). But that illegal declaration does
Definition of future inheritance.—Future inheritance is any not nullify the entire will. It may be disregarded.
property or right, not .in existence or capable of determination at
the time of the contract, that a person may in the future acquire by Provision in a will that testator’s estate be kept intact and
succession. legitimes of heirs be paid in cash is contrary to Art. 1080 of Civil
Code where whole estate was not assigned to one or more
12. Nufable vs Nufable heirs.—The provision of the will that the properties of the testatrix
should not be divided among her heirs during her husband’s
Civil Law; Wills; As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings lifetime but should be kept intact and that the legitimes should be
are limited only to passing upon the extrinsic validity of the will paid in cash is contrary to article 1080 of the Civil Code. ... The
testatrix in her will made a partition of the entire conjugal estate
sought to be probated, the due execution thereof, the testator’s
among her six children (her husband had renounced his
testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or hereditary rights and his one-half conjugal share). She did not
solemnities prescribed by law.—As a general rule, courts in assign the whole estate to one or more children as envisaged in
probate proceedings are limited only to passing upon the extrinsic article 1080. Hence, she had no right to require that the legitimes
validity of the will sought to be probated, the due execution be paid in cash. On the other hand, her estate may remain
thereof, the testator’s testamentary capacity and the compliance undivided only for a period of 20 years.
with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. Said court at
Renunciation of inheritance by widower subject to limitation for his
this stage of the proceedings is not called upon to rule on the support and maintenance and preservation of his legitime.—Felix
intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provision of the will. The Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his
question of the intrinsic validity of a will normally comes only after one-half share of the conjugal partnership but insofar as said
the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary rights and his
one-half share in the conjugal estate, it should be subject to the
13. Austria vs Reyes limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A
portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his
support and maintenance. Or at least his legitime should be
Civil law; Succession; Testamentary succession; Institution of
respected.
heir; Requisites for annulment of institution of heir for statement of
a false cause.—Before the institution of heirs may be annulled
Husband’s renunciation of hereditary rights and share in conjugal
under Article 850 of the Civil Code, the following requisites must
estate make these assets part of testator’s estate, but without
concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated
prejudice to creditors and other heirs.—It should be stressed that
in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be false;
by reason of the surviving husband’s conformity to his wife’s will
and third, it must appear from the face of the will that the testator
and his renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one-half conjugal
would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity
share became a part of his deceased wife’s estate. His conformity
of the cause.
had the effect of validating the partition made in paragraph V of
the will without prejudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors
Where will does not state cause for institution of heir.—Where the
and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.
decedent’s will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner
the cause for such institution of heirs, the will cannot be annulled
Preterition of surviving spouse who conformed thereto does not
under Article 850 of the Civil Code. Such institution may be
produce intestacy.—In the instant case, the preterited heir was
annulled only when it is clear, after an examination of the will that
the surviving spouse. His preterition did not produce intestacy.
the testator clearly would not have made the institution if he had
Moreover, he signified his conformity to his wife’s will and
known the cause for it to be false.
renounced his hereditary rights.
Interpretation of will; Testacy favored.—Testacy is favored and
Testacy is prefereable to intestacy.—Testacy is favored. Doubts
doubts are resolved on its side, especially where the will evinces
are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces
an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his
an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his
whole estate, as was done in this case. Moreover, so compelling
whole estate. So compelling is the principle that intestacy should
is the principle that intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of
be avoided and that the wishes of the testator should prevail that
the testator allowed to prevail, that we could even vary the
sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the purpose
language of the will for the purpose of giving it effect.
of giving it effect.
14. Balanay vs Martinez
Probate court should not issue notice to creditors if only special
administrator has been appointed.—A notice to creditors is not in
Special proceedings; Testate succession; Probate court may pass order if only a special administrator has been appointed. Section
upon intrinsic validity of a will before passing upon its formal 1, Rule 86 x x x clearly contemplates the appointment of an
validity.—The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will’s executor or regular administrator and not that of a special
intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been administrator.
established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony
if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical Courts; A court employee should not be appointed as
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be administrator of decedent’s estate.—The probate court’s
passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet appointment of its branch clerk of court as special administrator is
the issue. not a salutary practice because it might engender the suspicion
that the probate Judge and his clerk of court are in cahoots in
Invalidity of one testamentary disposition does not necessarily milking the decedent’s estate. x x x A court employee should
invalidate all other dispositions made therein.—The rule is that devote his official time to his official duties and should not have as
“the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will a sideline the administration of a decedent’s estate.
does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it
is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such 15. Reyes vs Dimagiba
other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been 16. Nazareno vs CA
made” (Art 792, Civil Code).

Statement that testator owns “southern half of conjugal state is


contrary to law because spouses are pro indiviso owners
thereof.—The statement of the testatrix that she owned the
17. Heirs of Ureta vs Ureta vested with the legal title to the stock. Until a settlement and
division of the estate is effected, the stocks of the decedent are
Wills and Succession; Art. 842 of the Civil Code refers to the held by the administrator or executor. Consequently, during such
principle of freedom of disposition by will and has no application time, it is the administrator or executor who is entitled to exercise
the rights of the deceased as stockholder. Thus, even if petitioner
to a disposition by Deed of Sale.—Article 842 of the Civil Code
presents sufficient evidence in this case to establish that he is the
provides: Art. 842. One who has no compulsory heirs may son of Carlos L. Puno, he would still not be allowed to inspect
dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any respondent’s books and be entitled to receive dividends from
person having capacity to succeed. One who has compulsory respondent, absent any showing in its transfer book that some of
heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the shares owned by Carlos L. Puno were transferred to him. This
the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said would only be possible if petitioner has been recognized as an
heir and has participated in the settlement of the estate of the
heirs. This article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition
deceased.
by will. What is involved in the case at bench is not a disposition
by will but by Deed of Sale. Hence, the Heirs of Alfonso need not A determination of whether a person, claiming proprietary rights
first prove that the disposition substantially diminished their over the estate of a deceased person, is an heir of the deceased
successional rights or unduly prejudiced their legitimes. must be ventilated in a special proceeding instituted precisely for
the purpose of settling the estate of the latter.—Corollary to this is
18. Natividad vs Natividad the doctrine that a determination of whether a person, claiming
proprietary rights over the estate of a deceased person, is an heir
of the deceased must be ventilated in a special proceeding
Civil Law; Contracts; Statute of Frauds; Under the Statute of
instituted precisely for the purpose of settling the estate of the
Frauds, an agreement to convey real properties shall be
latter. The status of an illegitimate child who claims to be an heir
unenforceable by action in the absence of a written note or
to a decedent’s estate cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary civil
memorandum thereof and subscribed by the party charged or by
action, as in a case for the recovery of property. The doctrine
his agent.—Suffice it to say that there is no partial execution of any
applies to the instant case, which is one for specific
contract, whatsoever, because petitioners failed to prove, in the
performance—to direct respondent corporation to allow petitioner
first place, that there was a verbal agreement that was entered
to exercise rights that pertain only to the deceased and his
into. Even granting that such an agreement existed, the CA did not
representatives.
commit any error in ruling that the assignment of the shares of
Sergio in the subject properties in petitioners’ favor as payment of
20. Reyes vs RTC
Sergio’s obligation cannot be enforced if there is no written
contract to such effect. Under the Statute of Frauds, an agreement
Jurisdictions; Succession; Probate Proceedings; The status of
to convey real properties shall be unenforceable by action in the
heirs as co-owners of shares of stocks prior to the partition of the
absence of a written note or memorandum thereof and subscribed
decedent’s estate does not immediately and necessarily make
by the party charged or by his agent. As earlier discussed, the
them stockholders of the corporation—unless and until there is
pieces of evidence presented by petitioners, consisting of
compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the
respondents’ acknowledgment of Sergio’s loan obligations with
manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered
DBP as embodied in the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, as
stockholders of the corporation.—Article 777 of the Civil Code
well as the cash voucher which allegedly represents payment for
declares that the successional rights are transmitted from the
taxes and transfer of title in petitioners’ name do not serve as
moment of death of the decedent. Accordingly, upon Anastacia’s
written notes or memoranda of the alleged verbal agreement.
death, her children acquired legal title to her estate (which title
includes her shareholdings in Zenith), and they are, prior to the
Interest Rates; The Supreme Court (SC) finds no error in the ruling
estate’s partition, deemed co-owners thereof. This status as co-
of the Court of Appeals (CA) that such interest should be
owners, however, does not immediately and necessarily make
computed from June 23, 2001, the date when petitioners made a
them stockholders of the corporation. Unless and until there is
written demand for the payment of respondents’ obligation.—As to
compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the
when the interest on the sum due from respondents should be
manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered
reckoned, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that such
stockholders of the corporation. Simply stated, the transfer of title
interest should be computed from June 23, 2001, the date when
by means of succession, though effective and valid between the
petitioners made a written demand for the payment of
parties involved (i.e., between the decedent’s estate and her
respondents’ obligation. There is no merit in petitioners’ contention
heirs), does not bind the corporation and third parties. The
that the reckoning date should have been September 23, 1994,
transfer must be registered in the books of the corporation to
the date when respondents executed the Extrajudicial Settlement
make the transferee-heir a stockholder entitled to recognition as
Among Heirs, because there is nothing therein to prove that
such both by the corporation and by third parties.
petitioners, at that time, made a demand for reimbursement.
Where there is an absence of partition and transfer of shares, an
19. Puno vs Puno
heir cannot yet be considered a stockholder of a corporation, and
the Court, therefore, cannot declare that an intra-corporate
Succession; Upon the death of a shareholder, the heirs do not relationship exists that would serve as basis to bring the case
automatically become stockholders of the corporation and acquire within the special commercial court’s jurisdiction.—Rodrigo must,
the rights and privileges of the deceased as shareholder of the therefore, hurdle two obstacles before he can be considered a
corporation—the stocks must be distributed first to the heirs in stockholder of Zenith with respect to the shareholdings originally
estate proceedings, and the transfer of the stocks must be belonging to Anastacia. First, he must prove that there are
recorded in the books of the corporation; During such interim shareholdings that will be left to him and his co-heirs, and this can
period, the heirs stand as the equitable owners of the stocks, the be determined only in a settlement of the decedent’s estate. No
executor or administrator duly appointed by the court being such proceeding has been commenced to date. Second, he must
vested with the legal title to the stock.—Upon the death of a register the transfer of the shares allotted to him to make it
shareholder, the heirs do not automatically become stockholders binding against the corporation. He cannot demand that this be
of the corporation and acquire the rights and privileges of the done unless and until he has established his specific allotment
deceased as shareholder of the corporation. The stocks must be (and prima facieownership) of the shares. Without the settlement
distributed first to the heirs in estate proceedings, and the transfer of Anastacia’s estate, there can be no definite partition and
of the stocks must be recorded in the books of the corporation. distribution of the estate to the heirs. Without the partition and
Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides that no transfer shall distribution, there can be no registration of the transfer. And
be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is without the registration, we cannot consider the transferee-heir a
recorded in the books of the corporation. During such interim stockholder who may invoke the existence of an intra-corporate
period, the heirs stand as the equitable owners of the stocks, the relationship as premise for an intra-corporate controversy within
executor or administrator duly appointed by the court being the jurisdiction of a special commercial court. In sum, we find
that—insofar as the subject shares of stock (i.e., Anastacia’s
shares) are concerned—Rodrigo cannot be considered a
stockholder of Zenith. Consequently, we cannot declare that an
intra-corporate relationship exists that would serve as basis to
bring this case within the special commercial court’s jurisdiction
under Section 5(b) of PD 902-A, as amended. Rodrigo’s
complaint, therefore, fails the relationship test.

A Regional Trial Court, acting as a special commercial court, has


no jurisdiction to settle, partition, and distribute the estate of a
deceased; Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the
estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the
probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.—More than
the matters of injury and redress, what Rodrigo clearly aims to
accomplish through his allegations of illegal acquisition by Oscar
is the distribution of Anastacia’s shareholdings without a prior
settlement of her estate—an objective that, by law and
established jurisprudence, cannot be done. The RTC of Makati,
acting as a special commercial court, has no jurisdiction to settle,
partition, and distribute the estate of a deceased. A relevant
provision—Section 2 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court—
that contemplates properties of the decedent held by one of the
heirs declares: Questions as to advancement made or alleged
to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard
and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate
proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be
binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.
[Emphasis supplied.] Worth noting are this Court’s statements in
the case of Natcher v. Court of Appeals, 366 SCRA 385
(2001): Matters which involve settlement and distribution of
the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province
of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.