1. PASTOR v.

CA

As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with
finality. For the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the
inventory of estate properties, the probate court may pass upon the title but such determination is provisional,
not conclusive, since it is subject to the final determination in a separate action to resolve title.

2. MANINANG v. CA

As a rule, the probate of a will is mandatory. It decides no other question than those that touch upon the capacity
of the testator, compliance with the solemnities prescribed by law, and its due execution. The probate does not
look into the intrinsic validity of the will unless it is apparent on its face. A court may then be guilty of having
exercised a function in excess of its jurisdiction by not allowing probate of a will that is not invalid on its face.

3. CEASE v. CA

Although a corporation is vested with a personality distinct from its incorporators, this rule may be set aside
when it has been used to circumvent the law. When this happens, corporation becomes an association of
persons. As such, the corporation’s properties are treated as properties of the incorporators. When an
incorporator dies, the corporation’s properties can be included in the judicial administration of the estate.

4. MARQUEZ v. CA and Amerol v. Bagumbaran

As a rule, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.

In reconveyance, the registration with the Bureau of Lands is respected. The decree of registration is
incontrovertible. What is sought is the transfer of the title of the property.

5. RODRIGUEZ v. CA

Two instances:

 Petition for the dismissal of an administration proceeding – court will not dismiss because the
administrator is qualified and heirs are not precluded from this course of action:

Under Section 1 of Rule 74, Rules of Court, when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from
the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting a judicial administration. They
may also choose to file for an administration proceeding if they do not want to partition the property without the
court’s intervention. As long as the administrator is qualified, the appointment of an administrator will be
honored by the court, and a subsequent petition for the dismissal of the proceeding will be dismissed.

 Petition for an administration proceeding – court cannot grant the petition for valid grounds:

Under Section 1 of Rule 74, Rules of Court, when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from
the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting a judicial administration. They
may also choose to file for an administration proceeding if they do not want to partition the property without the
court’s intervention. The court, however, may grant a petition for judicial administration when it will find a
compelling reason to necessitate the judicial administration of the estate.

(Example minor premise: In this instance, there was no compelling reason to convince the court that judicial
administration is necessary. In fact, judicial administration will only necessitate unnecessary costs and may
delay the disposition of the estate.

6. SAMPILO v. CA

The law allows for extra-judicial settlement of a decedent’s estate provided that all the heirs have knowledge or
have taken part in the proceedings. In case an heir is deprived of his right, he may file a claim to assert his right
within two years from the settlement and distribution of the estate. However, this rule is only applicable to those
who participated in the proceedings and does not prejudice those who did not have the chance to participate.

7. NUFABLE v. NUFABLE

* Whether the probate of the will is important to the question of ownership

Article 777 of the New Civil Code states that the rights to the succession are transmitted to the heirs from the
moment of death of the decedent. In short, right of ownership is automatically transferred to the heirs upon the
testator’s death. Accordingly, for the purpose of transmission of rights, it does not matter whether the Last Will
and Testament of the late Esdras Nufable was admitted on March 30, 1966 or thereafter or that the Settlement of
Estate was approved on June 6, 1966 or months later.

8. NUGUID v. NUGUID

As a rule, the probate court will only examine the extrinsic validity of a will during probate proceedings. It will
not go beyond the formalities required by law. However, this rule admits to an exception, such as when practical
considerations require it, or when there is an apparent preterition of heirs.

9. REPUBLIC v. CA

I. Civil action v. Special Proceeding

A civil action is one where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a
particular fact.

II. Under Art. 238 of the Family Code, a declaration of presumptive death for purposes of remarriage is a
summary proceeding, which is an ordinary civil action and not a special proceeding. The reglamentary
period for filing an ordinary appeal is 15 days, while the reglamentary period for filing an appeal in a
special proceeding is 30 days.

Important:
- Ordinary appeal: notice of appeal + lower court sends case record to higher court
- Special proceeding appeal: notice of appeal + losing party submits specific record to higher court
- In Cease v. CA: an appeal will not lie until the partition or distribution proceedings are terminated.

10. NATCHER v. CA

- 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 shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.
 - A regional trial court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction, is not allowed by law to adjudicate on
matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person even if the court is the one hearing
an action for reconveyance of title to a property that is part of the decedent’s estate.

11. Vda. De Manalo

Earnest efforts toward compromise among family members is a condition precedent that may be used as a
ground for dismissing a complaint. This condition, however, is only applicable to ordinary civil actions and not
to special proceedings.

12. Lee v. CA

Rule 108 is the appropriate proceeding to effect substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil
register. This is accordance to the objective of a special proceeding, which is to establish the status, a right, or a
particular fact.

13. Republic v. Sagun

There is no proceeding established by law or the Rules of Court for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of
an individual. This means that a regular court has no jurisdiction to make specific pronouncements with regard
to citizenship.

14. Vda. De Reyes v. CA

- A special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the
deceased, not just a partial settlement of the estate. The court explained in one of its decisions that it is
absurd for the heirs to intentionally exclude or leave certain properties undistributed or undivided
because the proceeding is designed to end the community of interests held by co-partners.

- The partition of an estate, as held in one case, does not need to be in writing. An oral agreement among
the heirs is considered valid and binding. The requirement that the partition should be in a public
document is only for the purpose of convenience; meaning, it is to serve as a constructive notice to
others.

15. Uriarty v. CFI

The principle of the Primacy of Cognizance requires that the first court that took cognizance of the settlment of
the estate should excluded all other courts. This extends to instances where a testate proceeding is filed in a
court different from the one where an intestate proceeding was initiated.

16. Roberts v. Leonidas

Under the principle of the primacy of testate proceedings, an intestate proceeding can be set aside when a party
presents to the court a will for probate. It also means that the Will should be proved (extrinsic validity) first
before its dispositions can be given effect (intrinsic validity).

17. Consolidated
Venue v. Jurisdiction

Venue is procedural in nature rather than substantive. It establishes the relation between the plaintiff and the
dependant, and the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case. Jurisdiction, on the other
hand, is conferred by law. It relates to the relation between the court and the subject matter.

18. PCIB

The general rule is that the Probate Court cannot determine title of property. Exceptions to this rule are:

- the claimant and all other other parties having legal interest consent, or the interests of third persons
are not prejudiced;

- determination of title for purposes of determining the gross estate is provisional;

- In Cortes v. CA: If all parties are heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the
probate court the question of title to the property. Here the probate court is competent to decide the
question of ownership.

19. Fule

- Under the Rules of Court, if a decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, his
will shall be proved in the CFI of the province where he resides at the time of his death. But if the
decedent is not a residence of the Philippines, the venue of the proceedings can be in any CFI where the
decedent owns property. A death certificate is admissible to prove his residence at the time of death.

- Residence is the actual residence of place of abode of a person. No particular length of time is required
but it must be more than temporary.

- In Jao v. CA, the court upheld Quezon City as the proper venue because it is the residence shown in the
death certificate. The other documents point to the decedent’s legal residence, which is not how
“residence” is defined for purposes of determining the venue of the estate proceeding.

20. UY v. Capulong

The validity of one’s title to property cannot be the proper subject in an estate proceeding. This should be
directly attacked in a separate action, not collaterally during probate. If a judge disregards this basic rule, he
may properly be considered grossly ignorant of the law.

21. Pacific Banking

A special proceeding is one where a party seeks to establish a right, a status, or a particular fact. A liquidation
proceeding partakes the nature of a special proceeding because it only seeks a declaration from the court that the
corporation is insolvent so that the corporation may proceed to the settlement of its debts and obligations.

23. Advincula

It is settled that the issuance of a Letter of Administrator, through an intestate proceeding, is not ipso facto
nullified when a Will is subsequently presented to the court for probate. The Administrator remains until such
time that the Will has been proved and allowed.
24. Solivio

1. For an heir who has not received his share, the better practice is to:

- Demand his share through a proper motion in the same proceeding; or

- Reopen the probate or administrative proceeding.

2. Probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Time and place of hearing are published in a newspaper of
general circulation. The publication of the notice serves as constructive notice to the whole world.

25. Mang-Oy v. CA

Under Art. 1056 of the Old Civil Code, if the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter
vivos or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs.

26. Alvarado v. Gaviola

A notarial will should be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in its execution. The spirit of the law
should prevail over irregularities or defects that do not materially affect the substance of the will to ensure that
the will of the testator will not be defeated.

27. Coronado

No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to the
right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. But, when a will was
made applying the provisions of the Old Civil Law, Art. 1056 is controlling, such that a partition inter vivos or
by will is valid as long as it does not prejudice the legitime of an heir.

28. Balanay

A will that is intrinsically valid can be given force and effect, including the partition therein as long as it does
not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitime. The preterition of the surviving spouse does not invalidate
the will because preterition only applies to compulsory heirs in the direct line.

29. Ajero

The probate of a holographic will can be allowed even when there are non-compliance in terms of formalities
that affect the dispositions contained therein. The probate will only determine the identity of the testator, the due
execution, and the testamentary capacity.

30. Acain

- Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either
because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are
expressly disinherited.

- Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from
the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is
no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.
 - The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia, whose legal adoption by the testator has
not been questioned by petitioner. Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if
he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It
cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both
adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they
were not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.

- Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire
inheritance. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in
the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.

31. Manahan

- A person who is not an interested party does not have the right to be notified of the probate of the will.
One who is not a forced heir has no successional right unless that person is instituted as an heir.

- Due execution - it refers to the voluntariness of the testator

- If preterited - can file for reconveyance from the date of the issuance of certificte of title

32. Heirs of Fran

- Settled is the rule that the decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution of the will
and it cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of fraud, in any separate
or independent action or proceeding.

- Re-opening of the estate proceeding is not the proper remedy for non-distribution. Motion for Execution
is the proper one.

- The original of said document must be presented or sufficient reasons given to justify the
nonrepresnetation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate thereof.

33. Leviste v. CA

One who is only indirectly interested in a Will may not interfere in its probate.

34. Rodriguez v. Borja

The juridisction of the court is vested once a Will is delivered thereto even if no petition is filed for its
allowance. The court may, motu propio, set the time and place for its probate. This is in accordance to Section 3,
Rule 76, stating that “ when a Will is delivered OR a petition for the allowance of the will is filed.”

35. Maravilla v. Maravilla

A will may be allowed even if some witnesses could not remember having attested it, if other evidence
satisfactorily show due execution. The failure of the witness to identify the testator’s signature does not bar
probate because the test is not whether a witness did see the signing but whether he was in a position to see if he
chose to do so.

36. Labrador v. CA
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.

37. In re De Jesus v. De Jesus

As a general rule, the date should include day, month, year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar,
there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure, and the authenticity of the Will is
established, then, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial
compliance.

38. Ajero

The grounds for the disallowance of a will are (LEFT):

(1) whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament;
(2) whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law;
(3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed; and,
(4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent.

39. Kalaw v. Relova

In a holographic Will, if there is only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original
heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of
the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing
remains in the Will after that which could remain valid.

40. Vda. de Perez v. Tolete

- Reprobate is needed. The will of an alien who is abroad produced effect in the Philippines if made with
the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities
observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

- Joint probate may be allowed for two separate wills containing essentially the same provisions
pertaining to the same property, due to practical considerations.