03 Santos v. Castillo (D)
2
Special Proceedings No. L-45463 Date: 03/18/1937 EMERITA SANTOS V. MODESTO CASTILLO Jurisdiction over probate of a will Facts: Peti tion had been filed by the petitioner Emerita Sant os, in her behalf and as guardian of the minor acknowl edge natural children of the deceas ed Nicolas Azores, for the purpose of applying for the probate of the will. Two days after the petition in question had been docketed, the petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of a special administrator and commissioners on appraisal, of the properties of the deceased Nicolas Azores. The respondents Jose, Sinforosa and Antonio Azores, legitimate children of said deceased, opposed the court's taking action thereon on the ground that it had not acquired jurisdiction over the case, the allegations made in the petition being insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon said court, because the petitioner did not allege that she had the custody of the will and, therefore, was not entitled to present it for probate; and furtherance because the will that should be probate is the original and not a copy thereof, as the one presented by the petitioner. In said amended petition, the petitioner prayed that Jose Azores and Manuel Azores Concordia be required to present immediately, in said case No. 3101, the copies of the will in their possession as well as any alleged codicil claimed by them to have been made by the testator. The Trial Court denied the petition for the appointment of and Jose Azores under whose custody the last will and testament and all other document having relation thereto are opposed to be, is hereby ordered to deliver said papers to the court within ten (10) days from notice hereof. Petitioner filed a motion praying that her amended petition be admitted, that a special administrator and commissioners on appraisal be appointed and that Jose Azores and Manuel Azores Concordia be required to present in said case the copies of the will and the codicil that they had in their possession. 16 days after their father's death, presented the original of the will and codicil made by the deceased Nicolas Azores, with a petition docketed as case No. 3140, praying for the probate of said will and codicil. It was opposed by the respondents Azores on the ground that as the jurisdiction of the court to pass upon the original petition for probate filed by the petitioner is questioned, the amendment thereto could not legally be considered until the previous question is decided by the court. The respondents prayed that said original petition of the petitioner be dismissed on the ground that as the originals of the will and codicil of the deceased Azores had been presented together with a petition for the probate thereof, the petitioner's defective petition was unfounded. Judge Modesto Castillo issued order in question, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner which gave rise to the proceeding docketed as case No. 3101 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The day following the issuance of said order, the petition excepted thereto and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court. Issue: W/N the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily and irregularly in dismissing the petition for probate filed by her in case No. 3110 as well as in ordering the publication of the notice of the hearing of the probate of the will in case No. 3104 instituted by the Azores brothers and sister before the order of January 26, 1937, issued in said No. 3101 became final. Held: Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no will pass either the real or personal state, unless it is proved and allowed. For this purpose, section 626 provides that the person who was the custody of a will shall, within thirty days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will into the court which has jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will, and sections 628 and 629 prescribed coercion means to compel a person having the custody of a will to deliver it to the court having jurisdiction. The petitioner alleges that the deceased Azores designated nobody as custodian of his will but that he directed his nephew Manuel Azores Concordia to deliver a copy thereof to the petitioner, to preserve the other copy in his (Manuel Azores Concordia's) possession, and to turnover the two copies to his son Jose Azores, with instructions to the effect that if the petitioners or his son Jose Azores failed to present said will for probate, he (Manuel Azores Concordia) should take charge of presenting it to the court for said purpose. One of the two copies of the will turned over to Jose Azores must be the original because the respondents had the original of the will as well as the codicil. Taking this into account, we may conclude that it was Jose Azores, the son of the deceased, who had the custody of the will because the original thereof was turned over to him. If in addition of the foregoing it is considered that the respondents Azores also had the original of the codicil, it necessarily follows that, by provision of the testator, it was said respondents who had the custody of his will and of his codicil. Therefore, as the legitimate children of the deceased had custody of the originals of the will and of the codicil, they alone could, have had the right and were bound by law to apply for the proba te of their father 's last will. Conseq uentl y, the resp onden t judge , in dismissi ng the applicat ion prosecut ed arbitrarily of irregularly, but reasonably made use of his bound discretion. The petitioner contends that instead of dismissing her application, the respondents judge should have compelled the respondents Azores to present the copy of the will and the alleged codicil in case No. 3101. The court could not prudently to do so: first, because in said case the (1) petitioner applied for the probate of the will and nothing more: and (2) because the petitioner has clearly stated that even if she had the codicil n her possession, she would not have presented it to the court because said codicil was allegedly "marked", not signed, by the testator about 15D before his death, that is, on a date when, according to the medial opinion he was physically and mentally incapacitated to govern his properties, thereby making it clearly understood that she would oppose the probate of the codicil in question. If such is the petitioner' s attitude and intention, were the codicil attached to case No. 3101,there would be the anomaly of her being applicant and at the same time oppositor therein. With respect to the court's jurisdiction, this court finds that it is a fact impliedly admitted by the petitioner, from the time she presented an amended petition for the probate of curing the deficiencies of her application, that the allegations of said application were insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. As said amendment had not been admitted by the court, the lack of jurisdiction continued to be manifest upon the face of the proceedings. Wherefore, this court holds in conclusion that in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will and for the administration of the properties left by a deceased person, the application must allege, in addition to the residence of the deceased and other indispensable facts or circumstances, that the applicant is the executor in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be probated. The original of said document must be presented or sufficient reasons given to justify the non-representation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate thereof. Inasmuch as these requisites had not been complied within the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent judge did not exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the application in question. Gen Endaluz (3A) December 6, 2010
-
Upload
gen-endaluz -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 03 Santos v. Castillo (D)
8/6/2019 03 Santos v. Castillo (D)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/03-santos-v-castillo-d 1/1
Special Proceedings
No. L-45463
Date: 03/18/1937
EMERITA SANTOS V. MODESTO CASTILLO
Jurisdiction over probate of a will
Facts:
Petition had been filed by the petitioner Emerita Santos, in her behalf and as guardian of the minor acknowledge natural children of the deceasedNicolas Azores, for the purpose of applying for the probate of the will. Two days after the petition in question had been docketed, the petitioner filed amotion for the appointment of a special administrator and commissioners on appraisal, of the properties of the deceased Nicolas Azores. Therespondents Jose, Sinforosa and Antonio Azores, legitimate children of said deceased, opposed the court's taking action thereon on the ground that ithad not acquired jurisdiction over the case, the allegations made in the petition being insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon said court, because thepetitioner did not allege that she had the custody of the will and, therefore, was not entitled to present it for probate; and furtherance because the wilthat should be probate is the original and not a copy thereof, as the one presented by the petitioner.In said amended petition, the petitioner prayed that Jose Azores and Manuel Azores Concordia be required to present immediately, in said case No3101, the copies of the will in their possession as well as any alleged codicil claimed by them to have been made by the testator. The Trial Court deniedthe petition for the appointment of and Jose Azores under whose custody the last will and testament and all other document having relation thereto areopposed to be, is hereby ordered to deliver said papers to the court within ten (10) days from notice hereof.Petitioner filed a motion praying that her amended petition be admitted, that a special administrator and commissioners on appraisal be appointed andthat Jose Azores and Manuel Azores Concordia be required to present in said case the copies of the will and the codicil that they had in theirpossession.16 days after their father's death, presented the original of the will and codicil made by the deceased Nicolas Azores, with a petition docketed as caseNo. 3140, praying for the probate of said will and codicil.It was opposed by the respondents Azores on the ground that as the jurisdiction of the court to pass upon the original petition for probate filed by the
petitioner is questioned, the amendment thereto could not legally be considered until the previous question is decided by the court. The respondentsprayed that said original petition of the petitioner be dismissed on the ground that as the originals of the will and codicil of the deceased Azores hadbeen presented together with a petition for the probate thereof, the petitioner's defective petition was unfounded.Judge Modesto Castillo issued order in question, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner which gave rise to the proceeding docketed as case No.3101 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The day following the issuance of said order, the petition excepted thereto and filed a motion forreconsideration which was denied by the court.
Issue:
W/N the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily and irregularly in dismissing the petition for probate filed by her in case No. 3110 as well asin ordering the publication of the notice of the hearing of the probate of the will in case No. 3104 instituted by the Azores brothers and sister before theorder of January 26, 1937, issued in said No. 3101 became final.
Held:
Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no will pass either the real or personal state, unless it is proved and allowed. For this purposesection 626 provides that the person who was the custody of a will shall, within thirty days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will intothe court which has jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will, and sections 628 and 629 prescribed coercion means to compel a person having
the custody of a will to deliver it to the court having jurisdiction.The petitioner alleges that the deceased Azores designated nobody as custodian of his will but that he directed his nephew Manuel Azores Concordia todeliver a copy thereof to the petitioner, to preserve the other copy in his (Manuel Azores Concordia's) possession, and to turnover the two copies to hisson Jose Azores, with instructions to the effect that if the petitioners or his son Jose Azores failed to present said will for probate, he (Manuel AzoresConcordia) should take charge of presenting it to the court for said purpose. One of the two copies of the will turned over to Jose Azores must be theoriginal because the respondents had the original of the will as well as the codicil. Taking this into account, we may conclude that it was Jose Azores,the son of the deceased, who had the custody of the will because the original thereof was turned over to him. If in addition of the foregoing it isconsidered that the respondents Azores also had the original of the codicil, it necessarily follows that, by provision of the testator, it was saidrespondents who had the custody of his will and of his codicil.Therefore, as the legitimate children of the deceased had custody of the originals of the will and of the codicil, they alone could, have had the right andwere bound by law to apply for the probate of their father's last will. Consequently, the respondent judge, in dismissing the application prosecutedarbitrarily of irregularly, but reasonably made use of his bound discretion.The petitioner contends that instead of dismissing her application, the respondents judge should have compelled the respondents Azores to present thecopy of the will and the alleged codicil in case No. 3101. The court could not prudently to do so: first, because in said case the (1) petitioner applied forthe probate of the will and nothing more: and (2) because the petitioner has clearly stated that even if she had the codicil n her possession, she wouldnot have presented it to the court because said codicil was allegedly "marked", not signed, by the testator about 15D before his death, that is, on a datewhen, according to the medial opinion he was physically and mentally incapacitated to govern his properties, thereby making it clearly understood tha
she would oppose the probate of the codicil in question. If such is the petitioner' s attitude and intention, were the codicil attached to case No. 3101,therewould be the anomaly of her being applicant and at the same time oppositor therein.With respect to the court's jurisdiction, this court finds that it is a fact impliedly admitted by the petitioner, from the time she presented an amended
petition for the probate of curing the deficiencies of her application, that the allegations of said application were insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon thecourt. As said amendment had not been admitted by the court, the lack of jurisdiction continued to be manifest upon the face of the proceedings.Wherefore, this court holds in conclusion that in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will and for theadministration of the properties left by a deceased person, the application must allege, in addition to the residence of the deceased and otherindispensable facts or circumstances, that the applicant is the executor in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be probated. Theoriginal of said document must be presented or sufficient reasons given to justify the non-representation of said original and the acceptance of the copyor duplicate thereof. Inasmuch as these requisites had not been complied within the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent judge did notexceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the application in question.
Gen Endaluz (3A)December 6, 2010
