Facts: Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left reasonable properties in the Philippines.

Vicente Uriarte, who, alleging that, as a natural son of the latter, he was his sole heir, and that, during the lifetime of said decedent, he had instituted Civil case in the same Court for his compulsory acknowledgment as such natural son. However, at the time he filed the action, he had not yet been acknowledged as nor any decision rendered that he is the natural son of the decedent. Petitioner filed a petition for the intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, which was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating that there is a valid will left by the deceased in Spain, a copy of which is being requested. The opposition further questioned petitioner's capacity and interest to commence the intestate proceeding, he not being an acknowledged natural son of the decedent. Later, the same respondents filed a petition for probate in CFI Manila using the alleged last will of the decedent, and then filed a motion to dismiss the special proceedings in CFI Negros Oriental. The CFI Manila allowed the petition for probate, and the CFI Negros dismissed the intestate proceeding. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration in CFI Negros which was denied. He also filed an omnibus motion in CFI Manila asking for the dismissal of the probate proceeding on the ground that it was the CFI Negros that took first cognizance of the case. Said motion was denied by CFI Manila. Hence this petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion of the two courts the CFI Manila and Negros Oriental.

Facts: Petitioner was appointed, special administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, Josefa Lacson Advincula. However, the brothers of the deceased opposed his appointment on the basis of the alleged last will and testament. One of the brothers of the deceased, filed a motion that he be appointed administrator, in lieu of Petitioner, for the reason that he is the executor named in the aforementioned alleged will. Petitioner opposed the probate thereof upon the ground that it did not bear the signature of the deceased; that the signature thereon, if hers, was secured through fraud and duress; and that, the instrument had not been executed with the requisite formalities. The court found on the basis of the alleged will that Petitioner incompetent, incapable and unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being foreign to the estate, appointed the brother as administrator and revoked the appointment of the husband of the decedent. Hence the Petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the special proceedings in CFI Negros was proper; and whether or not CFI Manila has jurisdiction to probate the alleged will. RULING: Testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Thus it was proper that the intestate proceeding in Negros CFI be discontinued because of the fact that the decedent had left a will. However, the proper thing the private respondents should have done was to file the petition for probate in CFI Negros which was already hearing the intestate proceeding. The issue now is improper venue, not jurisdiction. Unfortunately for petitioner, he is now guilty of laches for failing to timely object to the filing of the petition for probate in CFI Manila. It is settled that questions of venue may be waived when not timely objected to. Hence, the CFI Manila may continue with the probate case, without prejudice to petitioners successful action for his compulsory recognition as heir.

Issue: Whether or not Respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in removing the decedents husband and appointing its brother as administrator of its estate upon relying on the alleged will. RULING: Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides: When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules. The discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been proved and allowed by the court. Rule 82, section 1, of the Rules of Court, is plain and explicit on this point. If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent as if he had died intestate,

VICENTE URIARTE vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

EMILIO ADVINCULA vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE A. LACSON May 31, 1956

OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, THE COURT OF FIRST

Petition for certiorari was denied.

his will is proved and allowed by the court, the letters of administration shall be revoked and all powers thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrender the letters to the court, end render his account within such time as the court directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore provided.

At any rate, Advincula is not a stranger, either to her or to her estate, he bring her surviving spouse and, as such, one of her forced heirs (Arts. 887, 888, 892, 893, 894, 897 to 900, and 995 to 1001, Civil Code of the Philippines), whether she died testate or intestate. What is more, he is prima facie entitled to one-half of all property subject to the authority of the administrator of said estate, apart from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the deceased, for all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of which he is its administrator (Article 165, Civil Code of the Philippines) unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife (See Articles 160 and 185, Civil Code of the Philippines). Advincula has not been found guilty of any specific act or omission constituting one of the legal grounds, enumerated in Rule 83, section 2, of the Rules of Court, for the removal of an executor or administrator.

INSTANCE OF MANILA, JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA and HIGINIO URIARTE May 29, 1970

Comparative Analysis: The two cases initially commenced as an intestate proceeding where rights are claimed as compulsory heirs to the estate of the decedent. But as the case progresses the involvement of an alleged wills wherein the interests and capacities as heirs of an estate of a son, who has a pending petition for a compulsory acknowledgement, and a surviving spouse, are questioned on the basis of a will purportedly made by the decedent. Both cases emphasized the settled jurisprudence that testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Thus in Uriarte case it was proper that the intestate proceeding in Negros CFI be discontinued because of the fact that the decedent had left a will; while in the case of Advincula, the court takes cognizance of the will produced by the brothers of the decedent, although it has already appointed the husband as the administrator. However, both cases at the same time stressed that questions as to the right and interest of an heir despite the presence of the will shall be given due determination before a final judgment can be had based solely on a will. The will, as provided for in Rule 82 and as reiterated in Advincula, must be proved and allowed in court. That is, in Uriarte the civil case in compulsory acknowledgement which has a bearing on the determination of his rights as a son of the decedent may be continued while the probate proceedings instituted at the Negros CFI is held in abeyance. As much as in Advincula, the Court held that the discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been proved and allowed by the court.