7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

1/6

Cayetano vs. Leonidas

GENERAL RULE: Limited jurisdiction of the probate court

o EXCE!"#N: $here practica% considerations demand that the intrinsic va%idity of the &i%% be passed upon' even before

it is probated' the court shou%d meet the issues.

FACTS:

Adoracion C. Campos died' %eavin( )ermo(enes Campos *father+ and her sisters' Nenita a(uia' Remedios Lope,' and -arieta-edina as the survivin( heirs. As the on%y compu%sory heir is )ermo(enes' he eecuted an A/davit of Adjudication'adjudicatin( unto himse%f the entire estate of Adoracion.

Later that same year' Nenita 0%ed a petition for reprobate of a &i%%' a%%e(in( amon( others that Adoracion &as an Americanciti,en and that the &i%% &as eecuted in teh U1. Adoracion died in -ani%a &hi%e temporari%y residin( in -a%ate.

$hi%e this case &as sti%% pendin(' )ermo(enes died and %eft a &i%%' appointin( o%%y Cayetano as the eecutri. )ence' thiscase.

ISSUEs:

o $hether or not the &i%% &as va%id

o $hether or not the court has jurisdiction over probate proceedin(s

HELD:

As a (enera% ru%e' the probate court2s authority is %imited on%y to the etrinsic va%idity of the &i%%' the due eecution thereof'the testatri2s testamentary capacity and the comp%iance &ith the re3uisites or so%emnities prescribed by %a&. !he intrinsicva%idity norma%%y comes on%y after the court has dec%ared that the &i%% has been du%y authenticated. )o&ever' &here practica%considerations demand that the intrinsic va%idity of the &i%% be passed upon' even before it is probated' the court shou%d meetthe issues.

"n this case' it &as su/cient%y estab%ished that Adoracion &as an American citi,en and the %a& &hich (overns her &i%% is the%a& of ennsy%vania' U1A' &hich is the nationa% %a& of the decedent.

"t is a sett%ed ru%e that as re(ards the intrinsic va%idity of the provisions of the &i%%' the nationa% %a& of the decedent mustapp%y.

As to the issue of jurisdiction 44

!he sett%ement of estate of Adoracion Campos &as correct%y 0%ed &ith the C5" of -ani%a &here she had an estate since it &asa%%e(ed and proven that Adoracion at the time of her death &as a citi,en and permanent resident of ennsy%vania' U1A andnot a usua% resident of Cavite.

-oreover' petitioner is no& estopped from 3uestionin( the jurisdiction of the probate court in the petition for re%ief. "t is asett%ed ru%e that a party cannot invo6e the jurisdiction of a court to secure a/rmative re%ief' a(ainst his opponent and afterfai%in( to obtain such re%ief' repudiate or 3uestion that same jurisdiction.

Lukban vs Republic

L-8492, February 29, 1956

FACTS:

Lourdes Lu6ban and 5rancisco Chuidian (ot married in 7899 and after a vio%ent 3uarre% he %eft Lu6ban and has not been heard

of since then. 1he di%i(ent%y %oo6ed for him as6in( the parents and friends but no one 6ne& his &hereabouts. 1he be%ieves

that husband is a%ready dead since he &as absent for more than ; years and because she intends to marry a(ain' she

desires to have her civi% status put in order to be re%ieved on any %iabi%ity under the %a&.

ISSUE: $hether Lu6ban needs to secure dec%aration of presumptive death before she can remarry.

HELD:

!he court ru%ed that Lu6ban does not need to secure dec%aration of presumptive death of her husband because Civi% Code

prevai%s durin( their marria(e in 7899. "t provides that

7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

2/6

=aybayan vs. A3uinoThis is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the Order issued by the respondent Judge on 4 December 1975, which dismissed, withoutpreudice, the petitioners! complaint filed in "i#il "ase $o% &' 1 () of the then "ourt of *irst +nstance of angasinan, as well as the Order, dated&4 December 1975, which denied petitioners! motion for the reconsideration of said order%

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows-

On 19 January 19./, herein pri#ate respondents $orberto adua, aulina adua, *elisa adua, Dionisia Orpiano, 0aureano Orpiano,0eonardo Orpiano, Josefina Orpiano, alentina Orpiano, 2er#illano Delfin, 3ertrudes Delfin, astors Delfin 0oreno Delf in, *austa Delfin,Dionisio Oria, *austina Oria, mado Oria, and 6enamin Oria, all claiming to be the nephews and nieces of one icente Oria who died intestatesometime in 1945 in 6alungao, angasinan, filed a petition for the summary settlement of the decedent!s estate, the #alue of which did noteceed .,///%//% The petition was filed in the then "ourt of *irst +nstance of angasinan, Tayug 6ranch% The case was doc8eted therein as2pecial roceeding $o% T('//% 1

fter due publication and hearing, the probate court issued an order adudicating the estate to the heirs of the decedent, who were ordered tosubmit a proect of partition% 22ometime in 1971, the case was transferred to the )esales 6ranch of the "ourt of *irst +nstance of angasinanwhere it was doc8eted as 2pec% roc% $o% &4()%

On 1 2eptember 1974, the probate court confirmed the adudication earlier made and ordered :ulalia :#angelista to deli#er the respecti#eshares of her co(heirs; to ma8e an accounting of the produce thereof from 19./; and to deli#er said produce to her co(heirs or pay itse

7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

3/6

@=:):*O):, the petition is 3)$T:D and a writ issued, setting aside the Orders issued by the respondent Judge on 7 December 1975 and&4 December 1975, in "i#il "ase $o% &'1() of the then "ourt of *irst +nstance of angasinan% @ithout costs%

2O O)D:):D%

1untay vs. 1untay

This is an appeal from a decree of the "ourt of *irst +nstance of 6ulacan disallowing the alleged will and testament eecuted in >anila on$o#ember 19&9, and the alleged last will and testament eecuted in Aulangsu, moy, "hina, on 4 January 19'1, by Jose 6% 2untay% The #alue

of the estate left by the deceased is more than 5/,///%

On 14 >ay 19'4 Jose 6% 2untay, a *ilipino citien and resident of the hilippines, died in the city of moy, *oo8ien pro#ince, )epublic of "hina,lea#ing real and personal properties in the hilippines and a house in moy, *oo8ien pro#ince, "hina, and children by the first marriage hadwith the late >anuela T% "ru namely, polonio, "oncepcion, ngel, >anuel, *ederico, na, urora, :miliano, and Jose, Jr% and a child named2il#ino by the second marriage had with >aria $ati#idad 0im 6illian who sur#i#ed him% +ntestate proceedings were instituted in the "ourt of *irst+nstance of 6ulacan Bspecial proceedings $o% 49&C and after hearing letters of administration were issued to polonio 2untay% fter the latter!sdeath *ederico "% 2untay was appointed administrator of the estate% On 15 October 19'4 the sur#i#ing widow filed a petition in the "ourt of*irst +nstance of 6ulacan for the probate of a last will and testament claimed to ha#e been eecuted and signed in the hilippines on $o#ember19&9 by the late Jose 6% 2untay% This petition was denied because of the loss of said will after the filing of the petition and before the hearingthereof and of the insufficiency of the e#idence to establish the loss of the said will% n appeal was ta8en from said order denying the probate ofthe will and this "ourt held the e#idence before the probate court sufficient to pro#e the loss of the will and remanded the case to the "ourt of*irst +nstance of 6ulacan for the further proceedings B.' hil%, 79'C% +n spite of the fact that a commission from the probate court was issued on&4 pril 19'7 for the ta8ing of the deposition of 3o Toh, an attesting witness to the will, on 7 *ebruary 19' the probate court denied a motionfor continuance of the hearing sent by cablegram from "hina by the sur#i#ing widow and dismissed the petition% +n the meantime the acific

@ar super#ened% fter liberation, claiming that he had found among the files, records and documents of his late father a will and testament in"hinese characters eecuted and signed by the deceased on 4 January 19'1 and that the same was filed, recorded and probated in the moydistrict court, ro#ince of *oo8ien, "hina, 2il#ino 2untay filed a petition in the intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will eecutedin the hilippines on $o#ember 19&9 B:hibit 6C or of the will eecuted in moy, *oo8ien, "hina, on 4 January 19'1 B:hibit $C%

There is no merit in the contention that the petitioner 2il#ino 2untay and his mother >aria $ati#idad 0im 6illian are estopped from as8ing for theprobate of the lost will or of the foreign will because of the transfer or assignment of their share right, title and interest in the estate of the lateJose 6% 2untay to Jose 3% 3utierre and the spouses )icardo 3utierre and ictoria 3oo and the subseanuel 2untay, who was bringing along with him certain document and he told us or he was telling us thatit was the will of our father Jose 6% 2untay which was ta8en from 3o Toh% %%%? Bp% 5&4, t% s% n%, hearing of &4 *ebruary 194C; that she saw herbrother polonio 2untay read the document in her presence and of >anuel and learned of the adudication made in the will by her father of his

estate, to wit- one(third to his children, one(third to 2il#ino and his mother and the other third to 2il#ino, polonio, "oncepcion and Jose, Jr% Bpp%5&.(, 5'/(1, 54&, t% s% n% Id%C; that ?after polonio read that portion, then he turned o#er the document to >anuel, and he went away,? Bp% 5&, t%s% n%, Id%C% On cross(eamination, she testifies that she read the part of the will on adudication to 8now what was the share of each heir Bpp%5'/, 544, t% s% n%, Id%C and on redirect she testifies that she saw the signature of her father, 3o Toh, >anuel 0ope and lberto 6arretto Bp% 54., t%s% n%, Id%C%

nastacio Teodoro testifies that one day in $o#ember 19'4 Bp% &7', t% s% n%, hearing of 19 January 194C, before the last postponement of thehearing granted by the "ourt, 3o Toh arri#ed at his law office in the De los )eyes 6uilding and left an en#elope wrapped in red hand8erchiefG:hibit "H Bp% '&, t % s% n%, hearing of 1' October 1947C; that he chec8ed up the signatures on the en#elope :hibit with those on the will placedin the en#elope Bp% '', t% s% n%, Id%C; that the will was eactly the same as the draft :hibit 6 Bpp% '&, 47, 5/, t% s% n%, Id%C%

+f the will was snatched after the deli#ery thereof by 3o Toh to nastacio Teodoro nd returned by the latter to the former because they couldnot agree on the amount of fees, the former coming to the latter!s office straight from the boat Bp% '15, t% s% n%, hearing of 19 January 194C that

7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

4/6

brought him to the hilippines from moy, and that deli#ery too8 place in $o#ember 19'4 Bp% &7', t% s% n%, Id%C, then the testimony of na 2untaythat she saw and heard her brother polonio 2untay read the will sometime in 2eptember 19'4 Bp% 5&4, t% s% n%, hearing of &4 *ebruary 194C,must not be true%

lthough na 2untay would be a good witness because she was testifying against her own interest, st ill the fact remains that she did not readthe whole will but only the adudication Bpp% 5&.(, 5'/(1, 54&, t% s% n%, Id%C and saw only the signature, of her father and of the witnesses 3oToh, >anuel 0ope and lberto 6arretto Bp% 54., t% s% n%,Id%C% 6ut her testimony on cross(eamination that she read the part of the will onadudication is inconsistent with her testimony in chief that after polonio had read that part of the will he turned o#er or handed the documentto >anuel who went away Bp% 5&, t% s% n%, Id%C%

+f it is true that 3o Toh saw the draft :hibit 6 in the office of lberto 6arretto in $o#ember 19&9 when the will was signed, then the part of histestimony that lberto 6arretto handed the draft to Jose 6% 2untay to whom he said- ?Fou had better see if you want any correction? and that?after chec8ing Jose 6% 2untay put the ?:hibit 6? in his poc8et and had the original signed and eecuted? cannot be true, for it was not the timefor correcting the draft of the will, because it must ha#e been corrected before and all corrections and additions written in lead pencil must ha#ebeen inserted and copied in the final draft of the will which was signed on that occasion% The bringing in for the draft B:hibit 6C on that occasionis ust to fit it within the framewor8 of the appellant!s theory% t any rate, all of 3o Toh!s testimony by deposition on the pro#isions of the allegedlost will is hearsay, because he came to 8now or he learned to them from information gi#en him by Jose 6% 2untay and from reading thetranslation of the draft B:hibit 6C into "hinese%

>uch stress is laid upon the testimony of *ederico "% 2untay who testifies that he read the supposed will or the alleged will of his father andthat the share of the sur#i#ing widow, according to the will, is two(thirds of the estate Bp% &&9, t% s% n%, hearing of &4 October 1947C% 6ut thiswitness testified to oppose the appointment of a co(administrator of the estate, for the reason that he had acanuel 0ope calledon him and the former as8ed him to draw up another will fa#oring more his wife and child 2il#ino; that he had the rough draft of the second willtyped Bpp% '95, 449 t% s% n%, Id%C and ga#e it to >anuel 0ope Bp% '9., t% s% n%, Id%C; that he did not sign as witness the second will of Jose 6%2untay copied from the typewritten draft G:hibit 6H Bp% 4&/, t% s% n%, Id%C; that the handwritten insertions or additions in lead pencil to :hibit 6are not his Bpp% 415(7 4'5(., 457, t% s% n%, Id%C; that the final draft of the first will made up of four or fi#e pages Bp% 4//, t% s% n%, Id%C was signedand eecuted, two or three months after 2untay and 0ope had called on him Bpp% '97(, 4/', 449, t% s% n%, Id%C in his office at the "ebu ortland"ement in the "hina 6an8ing 6uilding on Dasmarias street by Jose 6% 2untay, >anuel 0ope and a "hinaman who had all come from=agonoy Bp% '9, t% s% n%, Id%C; that on that occasion they brought an en#elope B:hibit C where the following words were written- ?Testamentode Jose 6% 2untay? Bpp% '99, 4/4, t% s% n%, Id%C; that after the signing of the will it was placed inside the en#elope B:hibit C together with anin#entory of the properties of Jose 6% 2untay and the en#elope was sealed by the signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses Bpp%'9, 4/1, 441, 44', 4.1, t% s% n%, Id%C; that he again saw the en#elope B:hibit C in his house one 2aturday in the later part of ugust 19'4,brought by 3o Toh and it was then in perfect condition Bpp% 4/5(., 411, 44/(&, t% s% n%, Id%C; that on the following >onday 3o Toh went to his lawoffice bringing along with him the en#elope B:hibit C in the same condition; that he told 3o Toh that he would charge &5,/// as fee forprobating the will Bpp% 4/., 44/(&, Id%C; that 3o Toh did not lea#e the en#elope B:hibit C either in his house or in his law office Bp% 4/7, t% s%n%, Id%C; that 3o Toh said he wanted to 8eep it and on no occasion did 3o Toh lea#e it to him Bpp% 4/9, 41/, t% s% n%, Id%C%

The testimony of 3o Toh ta8en and heard by ssistant *iscal *% 6% lbert in connection with the complaint for estafa filed against >anuel 2untayfor the alleged snatching of the en#elope B:hibit C, corroborates the testimony of lberto 6arretto to the effect that only one will was signed byJose 6% 2untay at his office in which he Blberto 6arrettoC, >anuel 0ope and 3o Toh too8 part as attesting witnesses Bp% 15, t% s% n%, :hibit .C%

3o Toh testified before the same assistant fiscal that he did not lea#e the will in the hands of nastacio Teodoro Bp% &., t% s% n%, :hibit .C% =esaid,

7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

5/6

procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the ad#erse party would be depri#ed of his right to confront and cross(eamine thewitness% "onsuls are appointed to attend to trade matters% >oreo#er, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district court ofmoy were for the purpose of ta8ing the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of moydoes not purport to probate the will% +n the absence of proof that the municipal district court of moy is a probate court and on the "hinese lawof procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in the "hinese courts arethe a deposition or to a perpetuation of testimony, and e#en if it were so it does not measure same as those pro#ided for in our laws on thesubect% +t is a proceedings in rem and for the #alidity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all interested parties mustbe made% The interested parties in the case were 8nown to reside in the hilippines% The e#idence shows that no such notice was recei#ed bythe interested parties residing in the hilippines Bpp% 474, 47., 41, 5/'(4, t% s% n%, hearing of &4 *ebruary 194C% The proceedings had in themunicipal district court of moy, "hina, may be li8ened toe or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the hilippines for lac8 of noticeto all interested parties and the proceedings were held at the bac8 of such interested parties%

The order of the municipal district court of moy, "hina, which reads as follows-

O)D:)-

2:: 6:0O@

The abo#e minutes were satisfactorily confirmed by the interrogated parties, who declare that there are no errors, after said minuteswere loudly read and announced actually in the court%

Done and subscribed on the $ineteenth day of the :nglish month of the '5th year of the )epublic of "hina in the "i#il 2ection of the>unicipal District "ourt of moy, "hina%

=I$3 AI$3 "=:$3Clerk of Court

"=+$3 T:$3 =@Judge

B:hibit $(1', p% 9 *older of :hibits%C%

does not purport to probate or allow the will which was the subect of the proceedings% +n #iew thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereofcannot be said to ha#e been done in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate andallowance of wills% "onse

7/23/2019 specpro-12-05-15

6/6

>eantime, since )upertas foreign(based siblings, 3loria illalu and 2ergio, were on separate occasions in the hilippines for a short #isit,respondent :rnesto filed a motion with the )T" for lea#e to ta8e their deposition, which it granted% On pril, 1', &//4 the )T" directed theparties to submit their memorandum on the issue of whether or not )upertas I%2% will may be probated in and allowed by a court in thehilippines%

On June 17, &//4 the )T" issued an order-&BaC admitting to probate )upertas last will; BbC appointing respondent :rnesto as specialadministrator at the reanuel and 6enamin ob#iouslyha#e in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here% 6ut, reprobate or re(authentication of a will already probated andallowed in a foreign country is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court% )eprobate isspecifically go#erned by )ule 77 of the )ules of "ourt% "ontrary to petitioners stance, since this latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will, itcannot be made to apply to the present case% +n reprobate, the local court ac8nowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate courtpro#ided its urisdiction o#er the matter can be established%

6esides, petitioners stand is fraught with impractically%1!p"i1+f the instituted heirs do not ha#e the means to go abroad for the probate of thewill, it is as good as depri#ing them outright of their inheritance, since our law re2 the "ourt of ppeals decision in "(3%)% " '5.4 dated July &9, &//5%

2O O)D:):D%

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html#fnt8