CASE

# 1 estate nevertheless be subjected to an administration proceeding despite the opposition of the

Divina Garcia died intestate on January 1, 2017, survived by her second husband Danny Garcia, majority of the heirs?
her only living daughter Penny Lyson and the descendants of her two deceased daughters – all No, the estate may not be subjected to a subsequent administration proceeding.
three daughters being of the first marriage. Shortly after Divina’s death, these heirs made an The extrajudicial partition executed by the other heirs, sans Penny, is void. A valid extrajudicial
extrajudicial partition of her properties but alleging that there were some properties not proceeding requires the agreement of all heirs. Instead, an ordinary action for partition may be
included in the partition, said Penny Leyson, one of the heirs. resorted to.
In Reillo v. San Jose, G.R. 166393, the Court ruled that "(a) deed of extrajudicial partition
Penny Leyson petitioned the court for letters of administration and the appointment of herself executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the
as administratrix. The other heirs opposed the petition on the ground that there was no same, is fraudulent and vicious." and is therefore "...invalid because it excluded respondents
necessity for subjecting the estate to judicial administration since according to them, the who were entitled to equal shares in the subject property. Under the rule, no extrajudicial
decedent left no debts, all her properties had already been partitioned, and the heirs were all settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice
of age or represented by a guardian. thereof."

Q1. What is the rule on the summary settlement of estate? In Benatira v. Heirs of Cuyos, 560 SCRA 478, the Court even ruled that "the publication of the
GENERAL RULE: When a person dies leaving properties, there must be judicial administration settlement does not constitute knowledge to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take
where the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established part in it because the same is notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of publication
in Section 6 of Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or has made a will without naming an is geared for the protection of the creditors and was never intended to deprive heirs of their
executor lawful participation in the decedent's estate."

EXCEPTION: Rule 74 on Summary Settlement of Estate Q3. Should Penny be granted the letters of administration?
No, Penny should not be granted letters of administration.
First Kind of Summary Settlement:
Extrajudicial settlement As a general rule, when a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially
When: administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator in case the
■ Decedent died intestate deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor.
■ Estate has no outstanding debts
■ All the heirs are of legal age, or the minors are represented by legal representatives An exception to this rule, however, is that if the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs
How: are all of legal age, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate
■ Divide the estate among themselves by means of a public instrument or by among themselves by means of public instrument or by stipulation in pending action for
stipulation in a pending action for partition partition and shall file a bond with the register of deeds in an amount equivalent to the value
■ File a bond with the RD in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property of the personal property involved as certified under oath by the parties concerned.
involved as certified under oath by the parties concerned.
■ The fact of extrajudicial settlement shall be published in a newspaper of general Further, It is a well-settled rule that it shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no
circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks in the province. creditor file a petition for letters of administration within two years after the death of the
decedent.
Second Kind of Summary Settlement:
Summary settlement of estates of small value In the case of Avelino v. CA, G.R. No. 115181, 31 March 2000, the Supreme Court held that
A competent court may proceed summarily in settling the estate of the decedent, whether “When a person dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs are not required to submit
there are existing debts or not, without the appointment of an executor or administrator the property for judicial administration, nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by
When: If gross value of the estate, whether testate or intestate, does not exceed 10,000 pesos. the court.”
How: Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, where the heirs disagree as to the partition of
■ Filing of petition by an interested person in the RTC having jurisdiction of the estate the estate, and no extrajudicial settlement is possible, then ordinary action for partition may
■ Notice which shall be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a be resorted to. (Avelino vs CA)
newspaper of general circulation in the province
■ Notice to interested persons as the court may direct This case falls under the exception. Divina Garcia died intestate leaving property. There are also
■ Hearing which shall be held not less than one month nor more than three months no creditors who filed a petition for letters of administration. Hence, it shall be presumed that
from the date of the last publication Divina Garcia’s estate has no liability.

Q2. In a case like the present where an heir (Penny) has been excluded from the partition, is Therefore, the petition for letters of administration should not be granted.
CASE # 2 residence in one place and domicile in another. As further elucidated in the case of Garcia Fule
This involves the settlement of the estate of Francisco Fernando, who was the former v. CA, 74 SCRA 189, the Court rules:
mayor of Tacloban City. During his lifetime, Francisco contracted 3 marriages. His first marriage
was with Genny Cruz and out of which were born 2 children, namely: Brian and Lovey. On xxx Even where the statute uses the word domicile still it is construed as meaning residence
august 11, 1961, Genny predeceased Francisco. and not domicile in the technical sense xxx In this popular sense, the term means merely
residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile.
A year after, Francisco married Merry Ann West, with whome he had a son, Timmy.
However, on November 1, 1971, Merry Ann, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce Since this involves a petition for letters of administration and deceased Felicisimo was a
before the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of California, United States of America (USA) resident of the Philippines, the venue should be in the place where he resided at the time of
which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December his death or in the RTC of Cebu City not in Leyte.
14, 1973.
2. For purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of Francisco, is
On June 8, 1974, Francisco married respondent Marta Lopez in Los Angeles, residence synonymous with domicile?
California, USA. He had no children with respondent but lived with her for 30 years from the No, for fixing the venue of settlement of estate, residence is not synonymous with
time of their marriage up to his death on July 4, 2004. domicile. “Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence of place of abode. It
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term
and the settlement of Francisco’s estate. On January 1, 2005, she filed a petition for letters of means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile.
administration before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Respondent alleged that she is the
widow of Francisco; that at the time of his death, the decedent was residing at Guadalupe, Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile
Cebu City; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are respondent as legal spouse, his two children requires bodily presence in that particular place and also an intention to make one’s domicile.
by his first marriage, and son by his second marriage; that the decedent left real properties, No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be
both conjugal and exclusive valued at Php 100,301,278.00 more or less; that the decendent more than temporary (Garcia Fule v. CA, 74 SCRA 189). For the purposes of fixing the venue of
does not have any unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be the settlement of the estate of Francisco, the residence of the decedent at the time of his death
liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her. is determinative of the venue of the proceedings.

Petitioner Brian Fernando, one of the children of Francisco by his first marriage, filed 3. Was venue properly laid in this case?
a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action. Yes, venue was properly laid. In the instant case, while petitioners established that
Brian claimed that the petition for letters of administration should have been filed in the Francisco was domiciled in Tacloban City, Leyte, it is also clear in the facts presented that he
Province of Leyte because this was Francisco’s place of residence prior to his death being then also maintained a residence in Guadalupe, Cebu City at the time of his death.
the mayor of Tacloban City. He further claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file
the petition because she was only a mistress of Francisco since the latter, at the time of of his Respondent even submitted documentary evidence showing that while Francisco
death, was still legally married to Merry Ann. To counter the foregoing, respondent submitted exercised the powers of his public office in Tacloban City, he regularly went home to their house
documentary evidence showing that while Francisco execised the powers of his public office in in Guadalupe, Cebu City which they bought sometime in 1997.
Tacloban City, he regularly went home to their house in Guadalupe, Cebu City which they
bought sometime in 1997. Further, she presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the The Supreme Court had acknowledged in the case of San Luis vs San Luis, G.R. No. 133743,
Family Court of the First Circuit, State of California to prove that the marriage of Francisco to February 6, 2007, that it is possible that a person may have his residence in one place and
Merry Ann had already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Francisco had the legal capacity domicile in another, but for purposes of fixing the venue under the Rules of Court for petition
to marry her by virtue of paragraph 2, (13), Article 26, Family Code. for letters of administration and settlement of estate, it is the residence of the decedent at the
time of his death that is controlling. The Rules provides that such petition shall be filed in the
1. Which determines venue? Regional Trial Court in the province in which the decedent resides at the time of his death.
Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court states that the petition for letters of administration “Resides” meaning the decedent personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or
is to be filed in the place where the deceased resides at the time of his death if the deceased place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile, provided, he
was a resident of the Philippines. If the deceased was not a resident of the country, then the resides therein with continuity and consistency.
proper venue would be the province where the deceased had his estate.
Therefore, Francisco was a resident of Guadalupe, Cebu City for purposes of fixing the
For purposes of fixing the venue under the Rules of Court, residence is a person’s actual venue of the settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition for letters of
or physical habitation and not necessarily his legal residence or domicile provided he resides administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City which has territorial
therein with continuity and consistency. In fact, it is even possible that a person may have his jurisdiction over Guadalupe, Cebu City.
 Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of the testator
4. Did respondent have legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
administration?
Yes, Respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration. May a will executed by a foreigner abroad be probated in the Philippines? YES.
Respondent’s legal capacity may arise from her status either as the surviving spouse of In G.R. No. 169144 , RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA
Francisco if sufficiently proven or at best, as his co-owner of the properties involved. PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, the court
said that “Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad
Her legal standing as a surviving spouse would depend on her adequately proving that although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their
first, the divorce between Francisco and Merry Ann is valid and second, the marriage between execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil
herself and Francisco is also valid under Californian Family laws. Merry Ann obtained a decree Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in
of Absolute Divorce issued by the California Family Court dissolving her marriage to Francisco accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
which allowed the latter in turn to remarry. This divorce decree would have properly vested according to the formalities observed in his country”.
Respondent legal standing to file the petition for letters of administration as Francisco’s Article 816 of the New Civil Code provides, “The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
surviving spouse. However, Respondent must first have to comply with sufficiently proving the in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he
validity of the divorce decree and her marriage to Francisco to be recognized as his surviving resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those
spouse. which this Code prescribes.”

Even if Respondent fails to sufficiently prove the foregoing negating her status as a Is the appointment of James as executor valid? YES.
surviving spouse, her legal standing would still be present as a co-owner as derived from having Under the Rules of Court, no person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who:
acquired properties, such as the house in Guadalupe, during her cohabitation with Francisco (a) Is a Minor;
and through their joint efforts. Therefore, Respondent has the legal capacity to file this subject (b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
petition for letters of administration. (c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of
drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of
CASE #3 conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
On November 8, 2011, Mamerta Carlos, a Filipino who became a naturalized United If James satisfies the above-mentioned requisites, then his appointment as executor is valid.
States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in
California, she designated her brother, James Carlos, as the executor of her will for she had left How is the appointment of an executor/administrator contested?
properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. The procedure in opposing an executor or administrator under Rule 79 of the Rules of Court on
On May 19, 2013, respondent Roberto Carlos, another brother of Mamerta, filed with Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary and Petition and Contest for Letters of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, a petition for the probate of Mamerta’s will and for Administration.
his appointment as special administrator of her estate. However, petitioners Manny Carlos and Particularly Sections 1, 4 and 5 of the same rule provides for the opposition to issuance of
Benjie Carlos, nephews of Mamerta, opposed the petition on the ground that Mamerta’s will letters testamentary and simultaneous petition for administration, opposition to petition for
should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it. administration, and hearing and order for letters to issue.
They added that, assuming Mamerta’s will could be probated in the Philippines, it is The sections are reproduced as follows:
invalid nonetheless for having been executed under duress and without the testator’s full SECTION 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for
understanding of the consequences of such act. James, they claimed, is also not qualified to administration. — Any person interested in a will may state in writing the grounds why letters
act as administrator of the estate. testamentary should not issue to the persons named therein as executors, or any of them, and
the court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of such grounds. A petition
What is the purpose of the probate of a will? may, at the same time, be filed for letters of administration with the will annexed.
Probate is the act of proving in court a document purporting to be the last will and testament SECTION 4. Opposition to petition for administration. — Any interested person may, by filing a
of a certain deceased person for the purpose of its (1) official recognition, (2) registration and written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of the incompetency of the person for
(3) carrying out its provision in so far as they are in accordance with the law. whom letters are prayed therein, or on the ground of the contestant’s own right to the
Art. 838 of the New Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property administration, and may pray that letters issue to himself, or to any competent person or
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the rules of court. persons named in the opposition.
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for the SECTION 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. — At the hearing of the petition, it must first
allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the be shown that notice has been given as hereinabove required, and thereafter the court shall
allowance of wills after the testator’s death shall govern. hear the proofs of the parties in support of their respective allegations, and if satisfied that the
The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may be necessary for the decedent left no will, or that there is no competent and willing executor, it shall order the
allowance of his will on petition of the testator. issuance of letters of administration to the party best entitled thereto.

CASE #4 (1) Being the brothers and sisters and the legal and surviving heirs of Dr. Mende Luz, they
Dr. Mende and his wife, Dr. Evelyn, were American citizens and residents of New York. The two had been deliberately excluded in the petition for the probate of the 2 wills;
executed their respective wills containing the following provisions:
(2) Dr. Rafael Jr. (also an heir), the executor of the estate, was not notified of the hearings
(1)That In the event he would survive his wife, he bequeathed in the RTC Cebu City;
all his property to his children and grandchildren with Dr.
Rafael Jr, as trustee; and (3) Appointment of Minda as special administratix should be set aside because of the
misrepresentation and concealment committed by her which rendered her unfit for
(2)That he appointed his wife as executrix of his last will and such role; and
testament and Dr. Rafael Jr. as substitute executor.
(4) By virtue of a verified power of attorney, Dr Rafael authorized his father, Dr Rafael Sr.,
Unfortunately, Dr. Mende and his family perished when they were trapped by fire to be the regular administrator of the estate.
that gutted their house. Dr. Rafael Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two (2) wills (of
the deceased spouses) filed separate proceedings for the probate thereof in Surrogate Court It is thus therefore prayed by the Luz Heirs that: (1) the proceedings in the case be
of New York. The court then admitted to probate the said wills and letters of testamentary declared null and void; (2) the appointment of Minda as special administratrix be set aside;
were issued in favor of Dr. Rafael Jr. and (3) Dr. Rafael Luz, Sr. be appointed the regular administrator of the estate of the deceased
spouses.
A month later, the mother of Dr. Evelyn, Petitioner Gina Minda (Minda for brevity),
who was living in Philippines filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City a petition for
the reprobate of the two (2) wills. She also asked that she be appointed as special On Whether or Not the
administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting primarily of a farm land in Busay Lack of Notice Nullifies
which the trial court granted upon her filing a bond. the Proceedings

Being the administrator, Minda filed a motion (May 19 motion) asking that Dr. Rafael We rule in the affirmative.
be ordered to deliver to her a passbook with P2.5 Million in savings deposit and the Family
savings Bank time deposit with P1.2 Million. Section 2, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court requires that the court having jurisdiction over
the reprobate of a will shall “cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original
1
On the other hand, the counsel of the Luz Heirs (including Dr. Rafael) argued that will presented for allowance" . This means that with regard to notices, the will probated
before the motion was received, Luz heirs were unaware of the filing of the testate estate case. abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for
Hence, he prayed for the deferment of the hearing on the motion. probate for the first time. In relation to this, Section 4, Rule 76 provides that:

Minda countered that following arguments: (1) That Luz heirs being collaterals Sec. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by
relatives are neither heirs nor creditors of the late Dr. Mende Luz and therefore they have no mail or personally. — The court shall also cause copies of the notice of
legal or proprietary interests to protect and had no right to intervene; and (2) the two wills the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the
were executed in accordance with the solemnities and formalities of New York laws, and designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
produced effects in this jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 16 in relation to Art. 816 of the Civil resident in the Philippines at their places of residence, and deposited
Code. in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty (20)
days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. A copy
The probate issued the June 23 order granting Gina Minda’s May 19 motion. of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as
executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to any person named as
Aggrieved by the order, Luz heirs filed the July 21 motion to nullify the proceedings coexecutor not petitioning, if their places of residence be known.
and to set aside the appointment or to disqualify Minda as special administratix of the estates Personal service of copies of the notice at lest (10) days before the day
of the deceased couple. The Luz heirs stating among others that: of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.

1 having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing, and cause
Sec 2. Notice of hearing for allowance- When a copy of such will and of the order or
decree of the allowance thereof, both duly authenticated, are filed with a petition for notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance.
allowance in the Philippines, by the executor or other person interested, in the court
 Furthermore, the Luz heirs were not able to prove their allegation on the
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall misrepresentation of Minda. They failed to provide evidence that there was bad faith on her
be sent only to his compulsory heirs. part so as to tarnish her integrity and make her unfit to be the administrator.

Accordingly, compliance with the abovementioned rule would require publication and Having possessed none of the disqualifications in serving as an executor or
notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator administrator as mentioned above, we rule that the appointment of Minda as the special
resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner. administratrix or ancillary administratrix to administer the property of the deceased spouses
located in the Philippines, particularly the farm land in Busay, is proper.
In the case at bar, the Luz heirs aver that they are entitled to notices of the time and place
for proving the wills. This is tenable. The facts show that Gina Minda has always considered On Whether or Not Dr. Rafael
herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn and failed to consider the heirs of Dr. Mende when Luz, Sr. Should be Appointed
failed to notify them of the reprobate of the wills. As mentioned in the rules stated above, the Regular Administrator of
Minda had the duty to notify the luz heirs of the filing of the proceedings. The Luz heirs the Estate of the Deceased
are the brothers and sisters of Dr. Mende, and as such they are entitled to notices of the time Spouses
and place for proving the wills.
We rule in the negative.
On Whether or Not the
Appointment of Gina Applying the same rule, it is clearly shown that Dr. Rafael Jr. as well as his father Dr.
Minda as Special Rafael Sr are not qualified to be appointed as the administrator since they are not residents of
Administratrix is the Philippines. None of them can, therefore, be appointed as administrator insofar as the
Proper properties located in the Philippines are concerned.

We likewise rule in the affirmative. CASE #5
Section 1, Rule 78 provides for the disqualifications in determining the competency l On July 20, 1995, Roman Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a petition for
of a person who are to serve as executors or administrators, to wit: probate of his will in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, docketed as Sp. Proc.
No. M-4223. In his petition, Roman alleged that:
- he had no compulsory heirs;
Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or - he had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the Roman Santos
administrators. — No person in competent to serve as executor Foundation, Inc.;
or administrator who: - he disposed by his will his properties with an approximate value of not
less than P2,000,000.00; and
(a) Is a minor; - copies of said will were in the custody of the named executrix, private
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and respondent Pacing Philips
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of
the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of l When the case was called for hearing on the date set, no oppositor appeared nor any
understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an written opposition as ever filed and on motion of petitioner Roman, he was allowed to
offense involving moral turpitude. adduce his evidence in support of the petition.

Applying the above rule, Minda does not fall in any of the disqualifications After examination, the Court is convinced that:
mentioned as to bar her from being the administrator of both wills. She is of legal age and a - petitioner is of sound and disposing mind and not acting on duress,
resident of the Philippines. This court, in line with the finding of the trial court which approved menace and undue influence or fraud;
her appointment, finds her fit to execute the duties as an administrator. - that petitioner signed his Last Will and Testament on his own free
and voluntary will and that he was neither forced nor influenced by any other person
She is likewise fit to execute the duties of the trust as there was no evidence of her in signing the petition for the allowance of the Last Will; and Testament of Roman was
drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or conviction of an offense approved and allowed.
involving moral turpitude.
Shortly after probate of his will, Roman died on February 26, 1996.

On April 3, 1996, petitioner Donny Santos filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as the
only child of Alicia de Santos (testator’s sister), he was the sole full blooded nephew and
nearest of kin of Roman Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so
much so that after approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters
Petitioner thus prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance testamentary and settle estate of the testator.
of letters of administration in his name.
On the other hand, private respondent Pacita Philips, the designated executrix of the will, filed However, it is worthy to note that the law allows the testator himself to petition for the
a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61. Later, however, private allowance of his will during his lifetime.
respondent moved to withdraw her motion.
Article 838, NCC provides that:
This was granted, while petitioner Donny Santos was required to file a memorandum of “The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for
authorities in support of his claim that said court branch (Branch 61) still had jurisdiction to the allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the
allow his intervention. allowance of the will after the testator’s death shall govern.”

On the other hand, private respondent, who earlier withdrew her motion for the issuance of Rule 76, Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will, also states that:
letters testamentary in Branch 61, refiled a petition for the same purpose with the Regional “The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition in the court for the allowance of
Trial Court, Makati, which was assigned to Branch 65. his will.”

Upon private respondents motion, Judge Salvador Abad Santos of Branch 65 issued an order, In cases for probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of the court is limited to
dated June 28, 1996, appointing her as special administrator of Dr. De Santos’ estate. ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind,
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities provided by law.
On July 29, 1996, petitioner sought to intervene in Branch 65 and to set aside the appointment
of private respondent as special administrator. He reiterated that: Rule 76, Section 13. Certificate of allowance attached to prove will. To be recorded in the
- he was the sole and full blooded nephew and nearest of kin of the testator; Office of Register of Deeds. —
- he came to know of the existence of the case only by accident; If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed that the will was duly executed, and
- the probate proceedings before Branch 61 of the same court was still that the testator at the time of its execution was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting
pending; under duress, menace, and undue influence, or fraud, a certificate of its allowance, signed by
- private respondent misdeclared the true worth of the testator’s estate; the judge, and attested by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and the will and
- private respondent was not fit to be the special administrator of the estate; certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real estate and
and of certificate of allowance thereof, shall be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in
- petitioner should be given letters of administration for the estate of Roman which the lands lie.
Santos.
2. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court – Makati, Branch 65 acquired
On August 28, 1996, Judge Abad Santos ordered the transfer of the case to Branch 61, on the jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of letters testamentary filed by (private)
ground that “(it) is related to the case before Judge Gorospe of RTC Branch 61.It appears, respondent?
however, that in the said case, Judge Gorospe had denied on August 26, 1996 petitioner’s Ans: YES. The RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, both testate and
motion for intervention. intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Four
Petitioner brought this matter to the Court of Appeals which upheld the denial of petitioner’s Hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
motion for intervention.
In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of the court is limited
1. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court – Makati, Branch 61 has lost jurisdiction to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind,
to proceed with the probate proceedings upon its issuance of an order allowing the will of freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
Roman Santos?
Ans: Yes, upon the issuance of the order allowing the will of Roman Santos, the proceedings Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so
before Branch 61 has been terminated and consequently, it lost jurisdiction to proceed with much so that, after approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters
the probate proceedings. testamentary and settle the estate of the testator.

The principle that proceedings must continue until the estate is finally distributed to the Thus, after the allowance of the will of Roman Santos on February 16, 1996, there was
lawful heirs, devisees, and legatees of the testator cannot apply in view of the facts presented. nothing else for Branch 61 to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will pursuant
to Rule 76, 13 of the Rules of Court. Evidently, RTC Branch 61 cannot proceed with the issuance of the letters testamentary
and distribute properties because the person who executed the will was still alive at that time
There is, therefore, no basis for the ruling of Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 of RTC- when it approved the will. And since the probate by Dr. Santos was no longer pending and
Makati that: already terminated, there is nothing more to consolidate.
- The old Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati having begun the
probate proceedings of the estate of the deceased, it continues and shall The petition for the issuance of letters testamentary before Branch 65 pursuant to Rule
continue to exercise said jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. 78 of the Rules of Court for the purpose of securing authority from the Court to administer the
- It should be noted that probate proceedings do not cease upon the allowance or estate and put into effect the will of the testator is indeed a separate case and RTC Branch 65
disallowance of a will but continues up to such time that the entire estate of the properly took cognizance thereof.
testator had been partitioned and distributed.
- The fact that the will was allowed during the lifetime of the testator meant 4. Whether or not petitioner, being a creditor of the late Roman Santos, has a right to
merely that the partition and distribution of the estate was to be suspended until intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentary?
the latter's death. In other words, the petitioner, instead of filing a new petition for Ans: NO. Rule 79, Section1 provides:
the issuance of letters testamentary, should have simply filed a manifestation for “Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for
the same purpose in the probate court. administration. - Any person interested in a will may state in writing the grounds why letters
testamentary should not issue to the persons named therein as executors, or any of them, and
3. Whether or not the consolidation of the case in RTC Branch 65 with the case in RTC Branch the court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of such grounds. A petition
61 is proper? may, at the same time, be filed for letters of administration with the will annexed. Under this
Ans: No, it is not proper. provision, it has been held that an "interested person" is one who would be benefited by the
Section 1, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Proceedure, to wit: estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor, and whose
interest is material and direct, not merely incidental or contingent.”
“SECTION 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Roman Santos, he cannot be considered
in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning an "heir" of the testator. Under Art. 887 of the NCC, the following are compulsory heirs:
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents

and ascendants;
In the case of Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc., G.R. No.
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to
190462 & G.R. No. 190538, November 17, 2010, the Court held that “it is a time-honored
their legitimate children and descendants;
principle that when two or more cases involve the same parties and affect closely related
(3) The widow or widower;
subject matters, they must be consolidated and jointly tried, in order to serve the best interests
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
of the parties and to settle expeditiously the issues involved.
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.

In other words, consolidation is proper wherever the subject matter involved and relief Clearly, petitioner Donny Santos, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who
demanded in the different suits make it expedient for the court to determine all of the issues may have been preterited in the testator’s will. Nor does he have any right to intervene in the
involved and adjudicate the rights of the parties by hearing the suits together. settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a creditor of the deceased.

In the present case, there is no sufficient justification to support consolidation. The It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one who has no compulsory or
special proceeding before RTC Branch 61 was a petition for the probate of the will during the forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will.
lifetime of the testator initiated by the testator himself Roman Santos pursuant to par.2, Section
1, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, since the testator instituted or named an executor in his will, it is incumbent
upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. The choice of his executor is a precious
As answered in question no. 1, RTC Branch 61 already lost its jurisdiction after it had prerogative of a testator, a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the
approved and allowed the will of Roman Santos for the authority of the court in the probate of manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence,
the wills is limited only to ascertaining the extrinsic validity thereof. one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of his estate. The curtailment of
this right may be considered a curtailment of the right to dispose.
The petition for probate was filed by the testator Santos during his lifetime solely for the
purpose of authenticating his will. Upon the approval and allowance thereof, the proceedings Only if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond
were terminated from Branch 61. may the court appoint other persons to administer the estate. But none of these circumstances
is present in the case.
CASE #6 co-administrator to the estate of the deceased?
Joy Tan - died intestate on August 20, 2006; survived by her spouse, Johnny Tan, and two Ans: No. The trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in appointing private
children: Lilian and Lilly Tan respondent as co-administrator.

Lilian Tan – instituted SP No. 97-241 (Petition for Letters of Administration) on February 18, The trial court did not disregard the order of preference. Instead of removing petitioner, it
2007 where she was appointed as special administrator of the estate of Joy Tan appointed private respondent, a creditor, as co-administrator since the estate was sizeable and
petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it alone.
Lilly Tan – Moved to reconsider the order appointing Lillian as special administrator and prayed
that letters of administration be issued to her instead In fact, petitioner failed to submit any report regarding the estate under his administration.
Lilly Tan failed:
Hence, the Trial Court revoked Lilian’s appointment, and denied her petition to be appointed 1. To submit a true and complete inventory and appraisal of all properties of the deceased
as regular administrator. Letters of Administration was granted to Lilly Tan on June 23, 2008. within 3 months from her appointment as regular administrator; and
2. To render a true and just account of her administration within 1 year from her
Philip Tan – respondent-intervenor; brother and creditor of deceased; has knowledge of the appointment.
properties that should be included in the estate
3. Explain why a co-administrator may be appointed despite the rule on the Order of
The Trial Court initially denied Philip Tan’s motion to intervene, but it reconsidered its earlier Preference?
order and, without removing Lilly Tan, appointed him as co-administrator of the estate. Ans: A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a
Lilly Tan moved to require Philip Tan to bring into the estate properties belonging to the regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration.
deceased, which the Trial Court granted and was thereafter substantially complied by Philip The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not
Tan. prohibited, but it should only be resorted to, as held in Gabriel v Court of Appeals, in
Lilly Tan, unsatisfied by Philip Tan’s compliance, moved for the removal of Philip Tan as co- certain cases when circumstances merit their appointment, to wit:
administrator. a. to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different
The motion was denied as the trial court found no cogent reason to remove Philip Tan as co- interests represented;
administrator. b. where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in
the management of the estate of the deceased;
Subsequently, Lilly Tan appealed to the CA, by way of petition for certiorari, which however c. where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle;
dismissed her petition. d. to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony
After the CA’s denial of Lilly Tan’s motion for reconsideration, she went to the Supreme Court. for the best interests of the estate; and
e. when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another
1. What is the Order of preference in granting the Letters of Administration? competent person associated with him in the office.
Ans: Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the preference to whom letters of
administration may be granted are as follows: The court may appoint a co-administrator despite the rule on the Order of Preference when
the person enjoying preferential right as an administrator is unsuitable.
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in Also, the order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the attendant
the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or facts and circumstances.
a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the In Sioca v. Garcia:
discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, “… a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential
requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve; rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse.
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint
selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, another person.
neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to
request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more The determination of a person's suitability for the office of administrator rests, to a great
of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve; extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and such
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court
other person as the court may select. below was in error.”

2. Did the trial court act with grave abuse of discretion in appointing private respondent as
CASE #7 and in two public places in the municipality where the decedent last resided. (Section
X sued Y for collection of a sum of money. During the trial, but after the presentation of 3, Rule 86)
plaintiff's evidence, Y died. Y's counsel moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of his 2. Filling of printed copy of the notice to the court within 10 days after notice has been
client's death. But was denied. Instead, the court ordered the administrator of the estate of Y published accompanied with an affidavit setting forth the dates of the first and last
to substitute for the latter. publication thereof and the name of the newspaper in which the same is printed.
(Section 4, Rule 86)
After trial, the court rendered a judgment in favor of X. When the decision became final and
executory, X moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the estate of Y to enforce his When must the claim be filed?
judgment claim. The court issued the writ of execution. The court will set the time within which the claim will be filed which shall not be more than
twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after the date of the first publication of the notice.
Was it proper? (Section 2, Rule 86)
No, it is not proper. The court’s issuance of the writ of execution was not proper. Under the Where must the claim be filed?
Rules of Court, a favorable judgment in a contractual money claim shall be enforced in the Clerk of Court of the court where the estate is being settled. (Section 1, Rule 86)
manner especially provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased May the period to file be extended?
person. Under Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, a judgment for money should be file as a money The court may allow a creditor who failed to file his claim at any time before the distribution
claim with the probate court. The Supreme Court has held that a money claim cannot be of the estate for cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed
enforced by a writ of execution but should instead be filed as a money claim in the settlement within a time not exceeding one (1) month. (Section 2, Rule 86)
of the estate, without further need to prove it. It should be filed at any time before an order of
distribution of the estate is entered upon application. Claims not filed will be barred (Section 5, Rule 86)
Exception:
What is the so-called “statute of non-claims”? Counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the
The Statute of Non-claims is the period fixed by Section 2 of Rule 86 for the filing of the claims claimants. (Section 5, Rule 86)
against the estate. It provides that:
In the notice provided in the preceding section, the court shall state the time for the Contents of the Claim
filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) not less than six (6) Section 9. How to file a claim. Contents thereof. Notice to executor or administrator. — A claim
months after the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at any time before an may be filed by delivering the same with the necessary vouchers to the clerk of court and by
order of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim serving a copy thereof on the executor or administrator. If the claim be founded on a bond, bill,
within the previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as are note, or any other instrument, the original need not be filed, but a copy thereof with all
equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one (1) month. indorsements shall be attached to the claim and filed therewith. On demand, however, of the
As declared in the case of Santos v. Manarang, the rule mandates certain creditors of a executor or administrator, or by order of the court or judge, the original shall be exhibited,
deceased person to present their claims for examination and allowance within a specified unless it be list or destroyed, in which case the claimant must accompany his claim with
period, the purpose thereof being to settle the estate with dispatch, so that the residue may affidavit or affidavits containing a copy or particular description of the instrument and stating
be delivered to the persons entitled thereto without their being afterwards called upon to its loss or destruction. When the claim is due, it must be supported by affidavit stating the
respond in actions for claims, which, under the ordinary statute of limitations, have not yet amount justly due, that no payments have been made thereon which are not credited, and that
prescribed. there are no offsets to the same, to the knowledge of the affiant. If the claim is not due, or is
contingent, when filed, it must also be supported by affidavits stating the particulars thereof.
What is the procedure for filing claims against the estate? When the affidavit is made by a person other than the claimant, he must set forth therein
Procedure the reason why it is not made by the claimant. The claim once filed shall be attached to the
Immediately after the granting of letters testamentary or of administration, court will record of the case in which the letters testamentary or of administration were issued, although
issue notices to creditors of the decedent requiring all persons having money claims against the court, in its discretion, and as a matter of convenience, may order all the claims to be
the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of said court. (Section 1, Rule 86) collected in a separate folder.
Publication requirements:
Published three (3) weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation in the What if the obligation of the decedent is SOLIDARY?
province, and to be posted for the same period in four public places in the province and in two The claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, without prejudice
public places in the municipality where the decedent last resided. (Section 3, Rule 86) to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the debtor (Section 6, Rule 86)
What if the obligation of the decedent is JOINT?
Publication requirements: The claim shall be confined to the portion belonging to him. (Section 6, Rule 86)
1. Published three (3) weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province, and to be posted for the same period in four public places in the province Rights of a CREDITOR who has a mortgage claim against the estate (Section 7, Rule 86)
 He has 3 options: ● All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied,
Option 1. He may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner whether the same be due, not due, or contingent;
provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate. ● All claims for funeral expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent;
Consequence: He will be treated as an ordinary creditor who will have no preference in ● Judgment for money against the decedent
case the estate is not enough to settle all of the decedent’s liability.
2. Can PNB still pursue by civil action the recovery of the balance of indebtedness after
Option 2. He may he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by having foreclosed the property securing the same?
action in court making the executor or administrator a party defendant. No, PNB cannot anymore pursue the recovery of the balance. Petitioner herein has
Consequence: He may claim the deficiency should there be a deficiency judgment. (Section 7, chosen the mortgage-creditor's option of extrajudicially foreclosing the mortgaged
Rule 86) property of the Chuas. This choice now bars any subsequent deficiency claim
against the estate of the deceased, Antonio M. Chua. The plain result of adopting
Option 3. He may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose the the last mode of foreclosure is that the creditor waives his right to recover any
same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations. deficiency from the estate.
Consequence: He will not be anymore treated as creditor and shall receive no share in the
distribution of the other assets of estate. 3. What are the remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the mortgage creditor for
the satisfaction of his credit in case the mortgagor dies?
Claim of Executor and Administrator against the Estate (Section 8, Rule 86)
Requirement: Section 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court grants to the mortgagee three distinct,
The Executor or administrator shall give notice thereof, in writing, to the court. independent and mutually exclusive remedies that can be alternatively pursued by the
What will the court do? mortgage creditor for the satisfaction of his credit in case the mortgagor dies, among them:
The court shall appoint a special administrator, who shall, in the adjustment of such
claim, have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator (1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an
or executor in the settlement of other claims. ordinary claim;
Consequence:
The court may order the executor or administrator to pay to the special (2) to foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim; and
administrator necessary funds to defend such claim.
(3) to rely on the mortgage exclusively, foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred by
Judgment of the court on a claim is appealable as in ordinary cases. (Section 13, Rule 86) prescription without right to file a claim for any deficiency.

CASE #8
Spouses Antonio and Asuncion Chua were the owners of a parcel of land covered by a TCT and
registered in their names. Upon the death of Antonio, the probate court appointed his son,
private respondent Allan Chua as special administrator of the intestate estate. The court also
authorized Allan to obtain a loan accommodation from PNB to be secured by a real estate
mortgage over the above-mentioned parcel of land, which Allan did for P450,000 with interest.

For failure to pay the loan in full, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage.
During the auction, PNB was the highest bidder. However, the loan had a payable balance. To
claim this deficiency, PNB instituted an action with the RTC against Asuncion and Allan. The
RTC dismissed PNB’s complaint. The CA affirmed the decision.

PNB appealed contending that under prevailing jurisprudence, when proceeds from an
extrajudicial foreclosure is not enough to pay off the loan, the mortgagee can file a civil case
against the mortgagor to satisfy the deficiency.

1. What are the claims which survive the death of the debtor?

The following are the claims which survive the death of the debtor: