:0/'%1+%,+4!!
F+1'0!#)!+!(+81'!#*!+(&,#)!!
!
"#!$%#&'(&!#%!')*#%('!+!%,-.&!
#%!$%'/')&!#%!%'0%'11!+!
2%#)-!!
3)/#4/'!=!#%!6#%'!$+%&,'1!>!
$4+,)&,**!+)0!0'*')0+)&!!
A#/'%)'0!5@!#%0,)+%@!%84'17!
18$$4'6')&'0!5@!1$'(,+4!
%84'1!!
3),&,+&'0!5@!+!(#6$4+,)&7!+)0!
$+%&,'1!%'1$#)0!&.%#8-.!+)!
+)12'%!!
D'+%0!5@!(#8%&1!#*!-')'%+4!
;8%,10,(&,#)!!
3118'1!#%!0,1$8&'1!+%'!1&+&'0!
,)!&.'!$4'+0,)-1!#*!&.'!
) * $ # # + % , - !
$+%&,'1!!
!"#$%&"'()*+$,%-(
"
./0*$&1(2",*00#$%3-(
./0*$&1(4$5$1()*+$,%-(
3)/#4/'1!&.'!'1&+54,1.6')&!
#*!+!%,-.&7!1&+&817!#%!*+(&!!
9,/,4!:(&,#)!185;'(&!&#!
1$'(,*,(!%84'1<!!
?+@!,)/#4/'!#)4@!#)'!$+%&@!>!
&.'!$'&,&,#)'%!!
A#/'%)'0!5@!1$'(,+4!%84'17!
18$$4'6')&'0!5@!#%0,)+%@!
%84'1!!
3),&,+&'0!5@!+!$'&,&,#)!+)0!
$+%&,'1!%'1$#)0!&.%#8-.!+)!
#$$#1,&,#)!!
D'+%0!5@!(#8%&1!#*!4,6,&'0!
;8%,10,(&,#)!!
3118'1!+%'!0'&'%6,)'0!5@!
4+2!!
3)/#4/'1!&2#!#%!6#%'!$+%&,'1!!
B%0,)+%@!%84'1!+$$4@!
$%,6+%,4@!58&!185;'(&!&#!
1$'(,*,(!%84'1!!
C#6'!+%'!,),&,+&'0!5@!
(#6$4+,)&7!2.,4'!1#6'!+%'!
,),&,+&'0!5@!$'&,&,#)!!
!
!
E#&!+0/'%1+%,+4!!
E#&!5+1'0!#)!+!(+81'!#*!
+(&,#)!G'H('$&!.+5'+1!
9#%$81I!!
!
C#6'!1$'(,+4!(,/,4!+(&,#)1!
.+/'!!"#$%&'(#")#%$*+"!!!
Q: What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a probate court
in special proceedings?
A: The Court of First Instance [now RTC], as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the petition for reconveyance. The remedy sought by petitioner
for the reconveyance to her of her share in the Hacienda upon the ground that the
same was acquired by respondent through fraud or misrepresentation cannot be
obtained by a mere petition in the probate proceedings.
The court of first instance, acting as a probate court, has limited jurisdiction and can
take cognizance only of "matters of probate, both testate and intestate estates, xxx
and all such special cases and proceedings are not otherwise provided for." The
jurisdiction of a probate court is limited and special, and this should be understood
to comprehend only cases related to those powers specified in the law, and cannot
extend to the adjudication of collateral matters. The petition for reconveyance has
given rise to a controversy involving rights over a real property which would require
the presentation of evidence and the determination of legal questions that should be
ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction. (Mangaliman vs. Gonzales)
It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated in a long line of
decisions, that "when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a
part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his
property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title
adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be
determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance,
acting, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which
must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction as a court of first instance." (Baybayan vs. Aquino)
Natcher vs. CA - An action is a formal demand of ones right in a court of justice
in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying
legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term special
proceeding may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status
or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal
pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special
proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action;
matters relating to settlement of the estate such as advancement of property made
by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding.
Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a
deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake
of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application
of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. Clearly, matters which involve
settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive
province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Article 222 of the Civil Code applies only to civil actions which are essentially
adversarial and involve members of the same family.
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same
family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise
have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in
Article 2035.
The above provision of the law is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is
clear from the term suit, it refers to an action by one person or persons against
another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy
which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right,
whether at law or in equity. An excerpt from the Report of the Code Commission
unmistakably reveals the intention to make that legal provision applicable only to
civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the same
family.
JURISDICTION
Changes under B.P. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
Section 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction; . . .
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction.
xxx
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One hundredthousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters
inMetro Manila, where such gross value exceeds TwoHundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage andmarital relations;
xxx
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law;
Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions;. . .
Sec. 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land
reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and
agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in
the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged:
Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees:
Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions
Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In the absence of all the
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal
Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where
the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
Sec. 39. Appeals.
[The regular period of 15 days] shall not apply in appeals in special proceedings and
in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under applicable provisions of
the Rules of Court.
NOTE: The period of appeal is still 30 days, and a record on appeal is still required
to be filed, as the original record should remain with the trial court.
- In habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (48) hours from
the notice of the judgment appealed from.
Extent of Jurisdiction
1. Concurrent jurisdiction over adoption and guardianship cases was
eliminated; exclusive jurisdiction is now vested with the RTC.
2. MTCs can also appoint guardians ad litem in proper cases, and where said
minor is not represented by his parents or judicial guardian.
3. MTCs have exclusive jurisdiction over probate cases involving estate
whose gross value does not exceed P300,000 and P400,000 in Metro
Manila.
4. The writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued by the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.
5. Special jurisdiction is conferred on Municipal Trial Court judges in the
absence of any RTC judge.
6. Family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
guardianship, custody, habeas corpus in relation to the latter, and
adoption of children and revocation thereof.
7. Publication of judicial orders and notices is often required in special
proceedings for jurisdictional purposes.
Fernandez vs. Maravilla Under Sec. 2, Rule 75, the property to be
administered and liquidated in testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased
spouse is, not only that part of the conjugal estate pertaining to the deceased
spouse, but the entire conjugal estate. This Court has already held that even if the
deceased had left no debts, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the
husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
%"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
of
special
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
prescribes that any person interested in the estate may, at any time after the death
of the testator, petition the Court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed.
Q: Is there a pre-trial in special proceedings?
A: YES. Pre-trial is applicable since there is no provision in the Rules of Court
limiting its applicability to civil actions.
Q: Is judgment by default applicable to proceedings for the probate of a
will?
A: NO. Default can only arise in contentious litigation, where a party who has been
pleaded is a defendant and, being properly served with process, fails to appear at
the time required in the summons or to answer at the time required.
The proceeding for probate is NOT a contentious litigation in any sense because
nobody is impleaded or served with process. It is a special proceeding and although
notice of the application is published, nobody is bound to appear, and no order of
judgment by default id ever entered.
If the application is not opposed, the court may allow the will on the testimony of
one of the subscribing witnesses only, provided none of the reasons for disallowance
of the will are found to exist. Although the action taken by the court in allowing or
disallowing a will is properly denominated as a judgment, it is not a judgment
rendered upon default even though no person appears to oppose the probate.
Q: What is the procedure of appeal in special proceedings?
A: In appeals in special proceedings and other cases where multiple appeals are
allowed, Rule 109 governs. The record of appeal is required to be submitted within
30 days.
- If a MNT/MR is filed and denied, the remaining period within which to file a record
on appeal may be too short; hence, a motion for extension of time to file the record
on appeal may be granted.
Fernandez vs. Maravilla
The procedure of appeal is the same in civil actions as in special proceedings
It has never been decided that a special proceeding is not a "civil case." On the
other hand, it has been held that the term "civil case" includes special proceedings.
Section 2, Rule 73, [now Rule 72] of the Rules of Court provides that the rules on
ordinary civil actions are applicable in special proceedings where they are not
inconsistent with, or when they may serve to supplement the provisions relating to
special proceedings. Consequently, the procedure of appeal is the same in civil
actions as in special proceedings. (See Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol.
II, 1957 Ed., p. 326.)
The cases cited by respondent where this Court ruled that the separate total claim of
the parties and not the combined claims against each other determine the appellate
jurisdictional amount, are not applicable, because Section 2, Rule 75 of the [Old]
Rules of Court is explicit that the amount or value involved or in controversy in
probate proceedings is that of the entire estate. Assuming, arguendo, that the rule
in the cases cited by respondent is here applicable, it should be noted that
respondent claims the whole estate of at least more than 3/4 thereof. Said claim,
reduced to a pecuniary standard, on the basis of the inventory, would amount to
more than P200,000.00 and, consequently, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court [under the old rules on appellate jurisdiction].
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Venue
Resident: where residing;
Non-resident:
property is
where
Reglementary period
Record on appeal 30
days
Publication rule
EJ settlement: 3 weeks
pub
(of
fact
of
settlement)
Summary settlement: 3
weeks pub (of time and
date of hearing)
[3 weeks successively for
proving
will]
Postal
service 20 days before
hearing, personal service
10 days before hearing
Claims:
3
weeks
successively, posted: 4
public places in province,
2 in municipality
Q: What are the steps in determining which court has jurisdiction over the
probate of a will?
A: The following must first be determined:
1. WON the decedent is a resident of the Philippines;
2. Gross Value of the estate [determines whether MTC/RTC and whether it
could be subject to summary settlement];
3. Residence of the decedent to determine the venue;
4. WON the decedent left any debt;
5. WON the decedent left a will.
Q: What is the nature of the jurisdiction of a probate court?
A: It is purely statutory; therefore, it is limited and special, and all acts in excess of
the statutory power conferred are nugatory and do not bind those who have invoked
its authority or submitted to its decisions. Authority/jurisdiction cannot expand to
collateral matters not arising out of/in any way related to the settlement and
adjudication of the properties of the deceased.
Q: When does the court acquire jurisdiction in the settlement of the estate
of a deceased person who died with a will?
A: Jurisdiction of a probate court over the estate of the testator attaches when its
limited jurisdiction is invoked by the presentation to the court a proper petition by
some person entitled to take such action.
Evidence must be presented:
1. That a person died leaving a will;
2. In case of a resident, that he died in the province where the court
exercises territorial jurisdiction;
3. In case of a non-resident, that he has left an estate/property in the
province where the court is situated;
4. That the testament or last will of the deceased has been delivered to the
court and is in the possession thereof. (Salazar vs. CFI)
- The law is silent as to the specific manner of bringing the jurisdictional
allegations before the court but practice and jurisprudence have established that
they should be made in the form of an application and filed with the original of the
will attached thereto. It has been the practice in some courts to permit attachment
of a mere copy of the will to the application, without prejudice to producing the
original at the hearing or when the court so requires.
NOTE: The payment of the fees of the clerk of court for all services to be rendered
by him in connection with the probate of the second will and for the successive
proceedings and orders to be issued, is not jurisdictional in the sense that its
omission does not deprive the court of its authority to proceed with the probate of a
will. It is the inevitable duty of the court, when a will' is presented to it, to appoint
hearing for its allowance and to cause notices thereof to be given by publication.
The duty imposed by said section is imperative and noncompliance therewith would
be a mockery at the law and the last will of the testator.
Salazar vs. CFI - When the court ordered that the second will be set for hearing,
that publication be made thereof and that said will be heard in the same proceeding
jointly with the first will, it merely ordered the consolidation of the two applications
and the two hearings on the probate of both wills, instead of conducting separate
hearings.
The court acquired jurisdiction from the moment the counter-petition was presented
and the second will came to its possession and under its control and, consequently,
it likewise had full discretion to order the probate thereof in the proceeding already
instituted in order to later render only one decision. The consolidation so ordered
was the form most convenient for and beneficial to the parties as well as to the
court, because if the first will were opposed on the ground that it was revoked by
the second will, the best evidence of the revocation would be the second will, and
once the publications are made, if the second will was executed with the formalities
prescribed by law, the court could order the probate thereof, without the necessity
of multiplying the proceedings.
Q: State the rule on venue in judicial settlement of estate of deceased
persons.
Resident Decedent
Court of the province/city where the
deceased resided at the time of death,
whether a citizen or alien
Non-Resident Decedent
Court of the province/city in which he
had an estate.
Q: What is venue?
("#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
A: Under the Rules of Court, venue is the province where the estate of the deceased
shall be settled.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the settlement of the
estate of a non-resident?
A: The settlement of the estate of Adoracion Campos was correctly filed with the
Court of First Instance of Manila where she had an estate since it was alleged and
proven that Adoracion at the time of her death was a citizen and permanent resident
of Pennsylvania, United States of America and not a usual resident of Cavite as
alleged by the petitioner.
Moreover, petitioner is now estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
probate court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a party cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief, against his opponent and after
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
(Cayetano vs. Leonidas)
Q: Is the residence of the deceased in probate proceedings jurisdictional?
A: NO. The question of residence is determinative only of the venue and does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, institution of the proceeding in a province
wherein the decedent neither has residence nor estate does not vitiate the action of
the probate court. As venue is waivable, the submission of all affected parties to the
said proceeding amounts to a waiver of any objections to this error.
NOTE: Jurisdiction under Rule 73 does not relate to jurisdiction per se but to venue.
Hence institution in the court where the decedent is neither an inhabitant nor had
his estate may be waived (Uriarte v. CFI), as in where the defendant, knowing from
the very beginning that venue was improperly laid, allows the trial to be held
against him, cannot, after the rendition of an unfavorable judgment, validly question
the courts jurisdiction on appeal.
Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same estate.
If in the course of the intestate proceeding, it is found that the decedent had left a
last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate
proceedings even if at that state, an administrator had already been appointed.
(Uriarte vs. CFI)
[Sy Oa vs. Co Ho] In the Matter of the Estate of the Late Kaw Singco Section 600 of Act No. 190, providing that the estate of a deceased person shall be
settled in the province where he had last resided, could not have been intended as
defining the jurisdiction of the probate court over the subject matter, because such
legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merely with procedural
matters, and procedure is one thing and jurisdiction over the subject matter is
another.
The law of jurisdiction confers upon Court of First Instance jurisdiction over all
probate cases independently of the place of residence of the deceased. Since,
however, there are many courts of first instance in the Philippines, the law of
procedure, Act No. 190, section 600, fixes the venue or the place where each case
shall be brought. Thus, the place of residence of the deceased is not an element of
jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue. And it is upon this ground
that in the new Rules of Court the province where the estate of a deceased person
shall be settled is properly called "venue."
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
6.
7.
Q: Upon the death of one of the spouses, where should the liquidation of
the conjugal partnership be made? Who is charged with such liquidation?
A: When a conjugal partnership is dissolved by the death of the husband (or wife), it
must be liquidated in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the
husband. The administrator appointed in such proceedings is charged with such
liquidation under the direction of the court and may maintain an action against a
third person to recover possession of property belonging to the dissolved conjugal
partnership. (Alfonso v Natividad, et. al)
Q: Must liquidation always be made in a special proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased?
A: NO. When there are no debts to pay, the liquidation and partition of the property
of the conjugal partnership, dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, may be
made in an ordinary action instituted for that purpose. (Cruz vs. De Jesus)
Q: In liquidating the conjugal partnership, what is the basis in making an
inventory of the conjugal property?
A: In liquidating a conjugal partnership an inventory of the actual property
possessed by the spouses at the time of the dissolution must be made. It is error to
determine the amount to be divided by adding up the profits, which had been made
in each year of its continuance and saying that the result is that amount. (De la
Rama vs. De la Rama)
Q: is inventory and liquidation always necessary?
A: NO. Where the interested parties (i.e., the children of the deceased and the
widow) had already reached a compromise whereby for valuable consideration the
widow renounced in favor of the children all her interest and rights in the estate of
the deceased as well as her participation in the conjugal partnership, it is no longer
necessary to prepare an inventory of the conjugal properties and make a liquidation.
(Villacorte vs. Mariano)
Q: Upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership by reason of the death of
one spouse, from whom may conjugal deabts be recovered?
A: The husband, having ceased as legal administrator of the conjugal property had
with his wife upon the latters demise; no complaint can be brought against him in
an ordinary action for the recovery of a debt chargeable against the conjugal
property, and the action for this purpose should have been instituted in the
testamentary proceedings of the deceased wife in the manner provided by law, by
filing the claim with the committee on claims and appraisal. (Calma vs. Toledo)
The Court of Appeals held that the mortgage contract was superseded, through
novation, by the option agreement for the repurchase of the property mortgaged,
which the appellants contend was error because the Husband had no authority to
enter into that agreement after the death of his wife. To this contention the SC
agreed.
The decisions laying down the rule that, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the
death of the wife, the husband must liquidate the partnership affairs, are now
obsolete. The present rule is that when the marriage is dissolved by the death of
either husband or wife, the partnership affairs must be liquidated in the testate or
intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse (Rule 75, sec. 2; 2 Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed., p. 324). (Ocampo vs. Potenciano)
Q: What is the basis in the appraisal of real property?
A: In appraising the real property of the conjugal partnership, it is not the purchase,
but the market, or in default thereof, the assessed, value at the time of the
liquidation that must be taken into account. (Art. 1428, in connection with art. 1367,
of the Civil Code)
(Prado vs. Natividad)
Q: Who determines the sufficiency of the evidence of the value of the
conjugal property?
A: The admission in evidence, without objection, of an inventory purporting to set
forth the amount and value of certain property, does not bind the trial court to
accept as true the contents of such inventory in a case wherein the amount and
value of the property in question is at issue, and where other evidence as to its
amount and value has been submitted.
In such a case the document is admitted for what it is worth as evidence, and is not
to be held as conclusive of the truth of its contents if there is other evidence in the
record disclosing its inaccuracy or failure truly to set forth the value and quantity of
the property. (De la Rama vs. De la Rama, 1913)
Q: When can a claim for segregation of a spouses separate property be
made?
A: When the wife's own private property or that brought by her to marriage, of the
nature of paraphernalia, has been included among the property of the conjugal
partnership, a claim or demand for its segregation on the part of its legitimate
owner can only be properly made after the making of the inventory of the property
which forms the assets of the partnership dissolved by the death of the husband.
If it be not conclusively proven that certain property is paraphernal, or that it
belongs exclusively to a widow, the same must be deemed to be conjugal
partnership property and liable for the debts and obligations of the partnership,
saving always the right of the said widow to have her own personal property of
every kind excluded. (Fulgencio vs. Gatchalian)
SEC. 3. Process.In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Regional Trial Court may
issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses or to
carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by
law. If a person does not perform an order or judgment rendered by a court in the
exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and
imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is
released.
Q: Can probate courts issue writs of execution?
A:
General Rule: NO, because its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims
against the estate which the executor or administrator may satisfy without the
necessity of resorting to a writ of execution.
Except:
!,"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
1.
2.
3.
4.
To satisfy the contributive share of the devisees, legatees and heirs when
the latter had entered prior possession over the estate (Sec. 6, Rule 88);
To enforce payment of the expenses of partition (Sec. 3, Rule 90); and
To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate
proceedings (Sec. 13, Rule 142; De Valera v. Hon. Ofilada, G.R. No. L27526, Sept. 19, 1974).
To satisfy the claim in a summary proceedings of creditors or heirs who
appear within two years from distribution.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
3.
4.
5.
no debts, and heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the
estate, they must first present the will to the court for probate and divide the estate
in accordance with the will.
The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it; because unless
the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of the
person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory. Absent legatees
or devisees or such of them as may have no knowledge of the will, could be cheated
of their inheritance through collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the
partition of the estate among themselves to the exclusion of all others.
Q: Distinguish Extrajudicial settlement from Summary settlement of estates
Extrajudicial
Settlement
agreement among heirs
No court intervention required
by
and
by
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
According to the second, if the property left does not exceed six thousand pesos,
the heirs may apply to the competent court, after the required publications, to
proceed with the summary partition and, after paying all the known obligations, to
partition all the property constituting the inheritance among themselves pursuant to
law, without instituting the judicial administration and the appointment of an
administrator. [Summary Settlement of estates of small value]
Said section is not mandatory or compulsory as may be gleaned from the use made
therein of the word may. If the intention were otherwise the framer of the rule
would have employed the word shall as was done in other provisions that are
mandatory in character. Note that the word may is used not only once but in the
whole section which indicates an intention to leave the matter entirely to the
discretion of the heirs. (Arcillas vs. Montejo)
Even if unpaid debts are later discovered, such discovery does not destroy the
partition made. It simply furnishes ground for the application by the creditor for the
appointment of an administrator or for the payment of his credit, as provided for in
4 or Rule 74. Further, 1 provides that: It shall be presumed that the decedent
left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2)
years after the death of the decedent.
Q: What is the remedy of the aggrieved party after an extrajudicial
settlement is approved by the court?
A: The aggrieved party has the alternative remedy of either filing a [1] Petition for
Relief from Judgment under Rule 38; or [2] a new action to annul the settlement
within the period established by the Statute of Limitations.
NOTE: The action to annul a deed of extrajudicial settlement on the ground of fraud
should be filed within 4 years from discovery of the fraud.
SEC. 2. Summary settlement of estates of small value.Whenever the gross
value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or intestate, does
not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact if made to appear to the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and
upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three
(3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the province, and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may
direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executor or
administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any
there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the
estate and to apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts
of the estate as the court shall then find to be due; and such persons, in their own
right, if they are lawful age and legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees
legally appointed and qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to receive
and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so awarded to them
respectively. The court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of
the proceedings, and all orders and judgments made or rendered in the course
thereof shall be recorded in the office of the clerk, and the order of partition or
award, if it involves real estate, shall be recorded in the proper registers office.
Q:
What
is
the
nature
of
a
summary
settlement?
A: Summary settlement or distribution is a procedure by which, in a summary
manner, the estate of the deceased is valued, his debts if any, are paid, his will, if
any, is allowed, heirs and legatees are declared, and distribution is made; all in a
single hearing and in a single order, as far as this is practicable, without the
appointment of any executor or administrator. This is done with the least possible
delay, though not necessarily in one hearing.
Q: What are the requisites for a valid summary settlement of estate of
small value?
A: The requisites for a valid summary settlement of an estate of small value are:
1. The allegation of the complaint must contain an allegation of the gross
value of the estate of the deceased [must not exceed P10,000];
2. That there are no existing debts;
3. That a bond has been duly filed [in an amount fixed by the court]; and
4. A proper hearing is held
a. The hearing shall be set by the court not less than 1 month nor
more than 3 months from date of last publication of notice.
Q: When is summary settlement proper?
A: Summary settlement may be resorted to regardless of whether the deceased
person died intestate or testate, as long as the gross value does not exceed P10,000.
Q: Where is the petition for the summary settlement of an estate of small
value filed?
A: BP 129 has conferred exclusive jurisdiction in the inferior courts [the MTC, MCTC,
MTCC], in all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value
does not exceed 20,000. This has resulted in investing inferior courts with
exclusive jurisdiction in the summary settlement of estates of small value.
Q: What are the steps for the summary settlement of estates of small
value?
A:
1. Determine the gross value of the estate [if the gross value is less than
P10,000];
2. Hearing is set to determine the existence of debts [if debts exist, the court
shall order the payment of debts];
3. If the deceased died with a will, it should be presented for probate; and
4. Distribute the estate in accordance with the will or the rules on intestacy,
as the case may be.
PROCEDURE IN SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF SMALL VALUE
Application for Summary Settlement alleging that the gross value of
the estate does not exceed P10,000
!
Publication of notice of the fact of summary settlement once a week
for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation [the
court may also order notice to be given to other interested persons as
such court may direct]
!
Hearing held not less than 1 month not later than 3 months from the
date of the last publication of notice
!
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
(
Court to proceed summarily, and make such orders as may be
necessary such as:
Grant the allowance of a will, if any;
Determine the persons entitled to the estate;
Pay the debts of the estate that are due;
!
Filing of a bond fixed by the court
!
Partition of the estate
Q: What happens after the court issues an order granting the allowance of a
will?
A: The distributees in their own right if they are of age, or by their guardians and
trustees legally appointed, shall be entitled to receive and enter into possession of
the portions awarded to them.
Q: Can a claim of ownership of property, adverse to that of the decedent, be
adjudicated
in
a
summary
settlement?
A: The policy of the law is to terminate proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of deceased persons with the least loss of time. This is specially true with small
estates for which the rules provide precisely a summary procedure dispensing with
the appointment of an administrator together with the other involved and
cumbersome steps ordinarily required in the determination of the assets of the
deceased and the persons entitled to inherit therefrom and the payment of his
obligations.
Definitely, the probate court is not the best forum for the resolution of adverse
claims of ownership of any property ostensibly belonging to the decedents estate.
While there are settled exceptions to this rule as applied to regular administrations
proceedings, it is not proper to delay the summary settlement of a deceased person
just because an heir or a third person claims that certain properties do not belong to
the estate but to him. Such claim must be ventilated in an independent action, and
the probate court should proceed to the distribution of the estate, if there are no
other legal obstacles to it, for after all, such distribution must always be subject to
the results of the suit. For the protection of the claimant, the appropriate step is to
have the proper annotation of his lis pendens entered. (Ermac vs. Medelo)
Q: What happens if no appeal is taken from the order of summary
settlement?
A: When no appeal is taken from the order of summary settlement, which declares
that the dispositions in the will, insofar as the shares of the heirs, devisees and
legatees are concerned, are in accordance with law; it will no longer be disturbed if
there is no showing that procedural requirements laid down under 2 Rule 74 have
not been followed.
Q: What is the remedy of a person unduly deprived of his lawful
participation in the estate?
A: The summary distribution of the estate of a deceased person ordered by the
competent court is final and definitive, unless, within 2 years after the distribution of
the estate it appears that there are outstanding debts, or that an heir or other
person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation from the estate. In
which case, any creditor, heir or interested person may compel the judicial
distribution and partition of the said estate in the ordinary manner.
Other Notes on Summary Settlement of estates of small value:
1. Instituted by any interested party and even by a creditor of the estate,
without the consent of all the heirs.
2. The date for hearing, shall be set by court not less than 1 month nor more
than 3 months from date of publication of last notice and the order of
hearing be published once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation.
3. Notice shall be served upon such interested persons as the court may
direct.
4. Bond in an amount fixed by the court (not value of the personal property)
conditioned upon payment of just claims under sec. 4.
SEC. 3. Bond to be filed by distributees.The court, before allowing a partition
in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, may require the
distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a bond in an
amount to be fixed by court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which
may be filed under the next succeeding section.
Q: Compare the bond required to be filed under 1 of the Rule for
extrajudicial settlement with the bond required for summary settlement
A:
Summary settlement proceedings
Extrajudicial settlement
The amount of the bond required to be The amount of the bond is equal to the
filed by the distributees of personal value of the personal property as
property
in
summary
settlement established by the instrument of
proceedings are determined by the court
adjudication.
BUT in both cases, the bond cannot replace the lien on real property.
Q:
When
is
the
bond
required
under
3
Rule
74?
A: Although the section requires the filing of a bond in connection with summary
administration and distribution of the estate of a decedent, the same may be
required only where personal property is distributed and not where realty is the
subject of partition.
Q: Why is a bond required for personalty and not realty?
A: No bond is necessary in real estate, for the lien as recorded is sufficient security
for any claim which may be filed under 4 Rule 74.
SEC. 4. Liability of distributees and estate.If it shall appear at any time within
two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with
the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other
person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir
or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the
manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation.
And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts
outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other
person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the
court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing,
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in
what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may
issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the
preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both.
Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors,
heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution,
notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.
Q: What is the rationale behind the rule that the property shall be subject
to an encumbrance of 2 years?
A: 2 years is believed to be a reasonable time for creditors and other interested
parties to be on notice of the extrajudicial settlement.
Q: When can settlement of estates in the court be compelled?
A:
1. If there is undue deprivation of lawful participation in the estate
2. The existence of debts against the estate
3. If there is an undue deprivation of lawful participation payable in money
Q:
Must
the
lien
be
annotated
in
the
certificate
of
title?
A: YES. The lien must be annotated in the certificate of title for the protection of
unpaid creditors and heirs unlawfully deprived of their participation. Otherwise, a
purchaser in good faith of the property may defeat the lien constituted for their own
protection.
Q: What is the effectivity of the lien created in favor of unpaid creditors or
heirs unduly deprived of lawful participation?
A: The lien, established in section 4 of Rule 74 of the Old and Revised Rules of Court,
in case of summary settlement of a decedent's estate, is effective only for a period
of two years, After the two-year period, such lien becomes functus oficio1 and it may
be cancelled at the instance of the transferee of the land involved. (Carreon vs.
Agcaoili)
Q: When is the 2 year effectivity period of the lien reckoned?
A: It is valid from the date and time the inscription is placed on the title.
Q: Must you go to court to have the annotation in the certificate of title
cancelled
after
the
lapse
of
2
years?
A: NO. The lien annotated therein becomes functus officio, which means it has
already performed its function.
Q: May the lien be substituted by a bond?
A: NO. Such lien cannot be discharged nor the annotation cancelled within the 2
year period even if the distributees offer to post a bond to answer for the contingent
claims for which the lien is established.
Q: What is the remedy if fraud is alleged?
A: If annulment of a deed of extrajudicial settlement is sought on the ground of
fraud in the execution thereof, the action may be field within 4 years from the
discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place when the
instrument was filed with the Register of Deeds and a new certificate of title was
issued; for such registration constitutes constructive notice to the whole world.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
1
When the instrument has fulfilled the power of its creation/having served its purpose.
Q: What is the effect of the discovery of unpaid debts after the extrajudicial
settlement has been effected?
A: The partition provided for in these sections is binding and valid even though not
all of the debts actually outstanding were paid before the partition was made. The
discovery of an unpaid obligation after partition does not destroy the partition. It
simply furnishes ground for the application of the creditor for the appointment of an
administrator. (McMicking vs. Sy Conbieng)
Q: What are the remedies under 4 Rule 74 when a creditor or heir is
excluded?
Excluded creditor
claim against the bond or real estate (brought within 2 years after
settlement and distribution of the estate)
GROUNDS: (Section 4, Rule 74)
a. If there is undue deprivation of lawful participation in the estate;
b. Existence of debts against the estate.
Letters for administration compel the settlement of the estate in
court (brought within 2 years after settlement and distribution of the
estate)
o
o
o
o
o
Excluded heir
Petition for Relief from Judgment (Summary Settlement) Rule 38
on the fround of FAME (within 60 days after petitioner learns of the
judgment, and not more than 6 months from its entry).
Reopening by Intervention anytime prior to rendition of judgment, so
long as it is within the 2-year period
Petition for probate of estate compel the settlement of the estate in
court (brought within 2 years after settlement and distribution of the
estate)
Rescission 4 years [in the case of preterition of a compulsory heir in a
partition tainted with bad faith (Art. 1104, NCC)]
Action to annul a deed of Extrajudicial settlement on the ground of
fraud filed within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud
Action reivindicatoria Independent civil action by an heir deprived of
his share, based on an implied or constructive trust (10 years from
registration/discovery of fraud).
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
A: NO. Even after the discovery of a debt subsequent to partition, the partitioning
persons may prevent any administration whatever by paying the debt discovered,
thereby preserving the partition intact in all its parts.
Q: What is the effect of an extrajudicial partition after an administrator has
already been appointed?
A: Where, after the appointment of an administrator with the will annexed of a
deceased person and the due making of the inventory of the property and the taking
possession thereof by such administrator, and agreement is made between the
owners thereof; the delivery of the property to such partitioning owners by such
administrator, under proper proceedings and order of court and after compliance
with the provisions, is, in effect, a discharge of such administrator as to all future
obligations and responsibilities in relation to said property.
Q: What is the effect of the reopening of the partition after the discovery of
unpaid debts?
A: While at any time within two years after such partition the property, or a portion
thereof, then in possession of the partitioning parties, may be placed again in
administration in the event of the discovery of unpaid debts "within two years after
such settlement and distribution of the estate," it would not be the same estate
represented by the prior administrator, and he would not be the administrator of the
new estate by virtue of his appointment in the old. It would be necessary to appoint,
upon proper application and notice, another administrator for the purposes set forth
in said sections. (McMicking vs. Sy Conbieng)
SEC. 5. Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person.If on the date of
the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section the
person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison
or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after such
disability is removed.
Q: What does 5 provide?
A: The section provides for the exception to the rule that unpaid creditors and heirs
unlawfully deprived of their participation in the estate have 2 years within which to
file a claim. If on the date of the expiration of the period of two years prescribed,
the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in
prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one year after
such disability is removed.
NOTE: This is subject to the proviso that the disability existed during the 2 year
period. Moreover, the disability must exist at the expiration of the 2 year period.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
A: A probate decree finally and definitively settles all questions concerning capacity
of the testator and the proper execution and witnessing of his last will and
testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or
otherwise.
As such, the probate order is final and appealable; and it is so recognized by
express provisions of Section 1 of Rule 109, that specifically prescribes that any
interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment xxx
where such order or judgment: (a) allows or disallows a will. (Fernandez v.
Dimagiba)
Q: What is the effect of the allowance of a will?
A: "The probate of a will by the probate court having jurisdiction thereof is usually
considered as conclusive as to its due execution and validity, and is also conclusive
that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time when he executed the
will, and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, and that
the will is genuine and not a forgery."
It cannot be impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of
fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding. Criminal action will not
lie in this jurisdiction against the forger of a will which had been duly admitted to
probate by a court of competent jurisdiction since it is clear that a duly probated will
cannot be declared a forgery without disturbing in some way the decree allowing the
will to probate.
The allowance of the will creates a conclusive presumption as to its due execution
and validity. Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so
peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof
however strong. The will in question having been probated by a competent court the
law -will not admit any proof to overthrow the legal presumption that it is genuine
and not a forgery. (Mercado vs. Santos)
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE- because of the public policy to obey the will of the testator.
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY- the probate of the will is mandatory.
The presentation and probate of the will is required by public policy. It involves
public interest. (Fernandez v. Dimagiba)
Q: What sort of instruments must be probated?
A: All instruments of a testamentary character must be probated in order to become
operative to transfer title to either real or personal property. An instrument which
neither disposes of property nor appoints an executor is not testamentary in
character, and consequently is not entitled to probate, although it may have been
executed with all the formalities provided by law. An instrument which makes no
disposition of property but appoints an executor is entitled to probate. A codicil
should be probated although it contains nothing but the revocation of a former will.
The revoked will however, cannot be probated.
Q: When must a will be presented for probate?
A: Under 1 Rule 76, a will may be probated:
1. At a reasonable time after the death of the testator;
2. During the lifetime of the testator, upon petition by him to the court
having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will.
Q: What is the extent of the courts jurisdiction in the probate of a will?
!)"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
Q: Does the probate court have jurisdiction to inquire into the intrinsic
validity of the will?
A: In petitions for probate, the Courts area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic
validity of the will, as the testamentary capacity and the compliance with the formal
requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the only questions presented for the
resolution of the court. Any inquiry into the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the
provisions thereof or the legality of any devise or legacy is premature.
An alleged disposal by testator prior to his death of the properties involved in his will
is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for probate. Probate is one thing; the
validity of the testamentary provisions is another. The first decides the execution of
the document and the testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to
descent and distribution. (Sumilang vs. Ramagosa)
Q: Is the probate court absolutely precluded from passing upon the intrinsic
validity of the will?
A: NO. In certain cases where the provisions of a will are of dubious legality, the
probate court may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will even before its formal
validity had been established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony
if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations
demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the court should meet the issue. (Balanay vs. Martinez citing Nuguid
vs. Nuguid)
Q: Does the probate court look into the intrinsic validity of the will?
A:
General Rule: The jurisdiction of probate court is limited to the examination and
resolution of the extrinsic validity of a will.
Exception: Principle of practical considerations wherein the court may pass upon
the intrinsic validity of the will:
1. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, it will result to
waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety; as in the case of
absolute preterition (Nuguid v. Nuguid).
2. Where the entire or all testamentary dispositions are void and where the
defect is apparent on its face (Nepomuceno v. CA).
NOTE: Principle does not apply where the meat of the controversy is not the intrinsic
validity of the will.
Q: Can the probate court pass upon questions of ownership with respect to
properties allegedly forming part of the estate?
A: In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is
restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of
sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
law. As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate
Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, 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 thereto, but such
determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
separate action to resolve title. (Pastor Jr. vs. CA)
SEC. 2. Custodian of will to deliver.The person who has custody of a will shall,
within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will
to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named In the will.
Q: Who is a custodian?
A: In order to hold one liable as custodian of a will under a rule which requires the
production of a will by the person having it in custody, it must be shown that he
received the will with knowledge, or under such circumstances that he ought to have
known he was receiving custody of a will. By accepting the custody of a will of
another, a person does not obligate himself to exercise diligence to discover the
death of the testator, so as to disclose possession of the will and to produce it for
probate within a reasonable time after such death, unless he agreed to perform such
obligation or else made representation that he was well-equipped to obtain
information as to the death of the maker of the will in his custody.
Q: Suppose X works as a secretary of his father. One day, he sees his
fathers will on the floor. X takes the will and keeps it on his table. Is X a
custodian of his fathers will?
A: X in this case is NOT a custodian. Mere possession of a will does not constitute
custody of the instrument within the meaning of this rule. A custodian is a person
chosen in advance and entrusted with the custody of a will. One becomes a
custodian by agreement between the testator and the person to whom the will is
entrusted.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: What is the nature of such agreement between the testator and the
custodian?
A: The delivery and acceptance of the will for safekeeping constitutes a bailment
which terminates on the death of the testator or bailor. One accepting custody of a
will for safekeeping accepts the responsibilities of such custodianship to preserve the
will safely for the testator until his death and not to reveal its contents, or return it
to its maker on demand.
NOTE: Generally there is no required form for the acceptance of the custody of a will,
but it is recommended that the acceptance be in writing.
Q: What is the duty of a custodian of a will?
A: It is the duty of the person who has custody of a will to deliver the same within
20 days after he knows of the death of the testator, to the court having jurisdiction
or to the executor named in the will. Violation of this duty is made punishable by 4
Rule 75.
Q: To whom is the delivery of the will made?
A: Delivery is made to the clerk of the trial court having jurisdiction over the estate
or to the executor named in the will.
Q: What if the custodian is also the executor named in the will, does he still
have to produce the will?
A: The rule making it the duty of the custodian to deliver a will to the court after the
death of the testator is designed to exact the discovery of wills and to discourage
their concealment. Thus, the custodian of a will must comply with the statute even if
he is named the executor.
Q: Suppose the custodian refuses or fails to deliver the will within the
reglamentary period?
A: Under 2 and 3 of this Rule, the fact that a will is not presented to the court after
the specified 20-day period therein does not prevent it from being probated. On the
contrary Rule 76 1 provides that [a]ny executor, devisee, or legatee named in a
will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death
of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed,
whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed. In such a
case probate will proceed through secondary evidence.
Q: Is probate of a will mandatory?
A: YES. The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because
unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a
person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory, as is attempted
to be done in the instant case. Absent legatees and devisees, or such of them as
may have no knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their inheritance thru the
collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among
themselves to the exclusion of others.
Even if the decedent left no debts and nobdy raises any question as to the
authenticity and due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the
partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing its
allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that "no
will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in
rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial. (Guevara vs. Guevara and Buison)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: When can the court commit a person to prison for retaining will?
A: A court cannot make a valid order committing a person to jail for failure to
produce the will of a deceased person, pursuant to this section, except when acting
in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons.
NOTE: The remedy in 4 is different from that provided in 5. Accordingly, in a
prosecution under 4, it is not permissible to superimpose upon the penalty of fine
therein prescribed the additional penalty of imprisonment imposed by 5.
Before any person may intervene in the proceedings for the probate of a will,
he would be required to show an interest in the will or in the property
affected thereby, as executor or otherwise. It is sufficient if he
shows/produces prima facie his/her relationship to the testator or his rights
to the latter/s estate.
In applying the remedy provided in section 629 in a prosecution under section 628,
to enforce the production of the will by the accused, would virtually compel him to
convict himself, since his production of the will would be conclusive that he had
possession of it as charged in the criminal complaint. (UNS vs. Chui Guimco)
A: The mere fact that the share, title and interest of the estate pertaining to one of
the heirs have already been assigned to another doesnt estop the said heir from
asking for the probate of the will of the deceased testator.
Q: WHEN must a will be presented for probate?
1. Anytime after the death of the testator
2. During the lifetime of the testator.
Can Estoppel apply to probate proceedings?
Yes. A person by his conduct may estop himself and his privies from subsequently
procuring the probate of a will. Long delay in propounding the will for probate during
which delay, the property of the estate might have been transferred to subsequent
purchasers for value and without notice of the will may be taken as estoppel to
apply for probate. BUT to raise estoppel on the ground of delay in propounding the
will, it must be shown that no obstacle to the assertion of the right to have the will
probated existed.
Q: Jongko made a will naming R as his voluntary heir. Can R, during
Jongkos lifetime file a petition to have the will probated?
A: NO. Since the will is to be probated during the lifetime of the testator, only the
testator himself can file the petition.
Probate of a will during the lifetime of the testator is allowed:
1. To avoid fraud
2. The testamentary capacity of the testator is easily proved if he personally
appears before the court.
3. Any defects in the formalities can be corrected
4. Oppositions are minimized.
SEC. 2. Contents of petition.A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so
far as known to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees
of the testator or decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;
(e) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person
having custody of it.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will, or the
issuance of letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
5.
The name of the person having custody of the will [if it has not been
delivered to the court].
NOTE: No defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will or the
issuance of letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed.
-
Fernando v. Crisostomo - Respondent judge had jurisdiction and did not exceed it
in appointing the other respondent, who are the brother and sister or nearest of kin
of the decedent, as administrators of the latter's estate. The jurisdictional facts
referred to in section 2 (a) Rule 80, are the death of the decedent, his having left
his estate in such province were probate court is sitting, or life he is an inhabitant of
a foreign country, his having left his estate in such province. The name or
competency of the person or persons for whim letters of administration are prayed
is not a jurisdictional fact, it is another additional fact to be alleged in the petition
(d); but "no defect in the petition shall render void the issue of letters of
administration" that is, shall divest the court of its jurisdiction to appoint the
administrator.
Salazar v. CFI - The payment of the fees of the clerk of court for all services
to be rendered by him in connection with the probate of the second will and for the
successive proceedings to be conducted and others to be issued, in accordance with
section 788, as amended, is not jurisdiction in the sense that its omission does
not deprive the court of its authority to proceed with the probate of a will, as
expressly provided for by section 630. It is the inevitable duty of the court, when a
will is presented to it, to appoint hearing for its allowance and to cause notice
thereof to be given by publication. The duty imposed by said section is imperative
and noncompliance therewith would be a mockery at the law and at last will of the
testator.
Q: Why is it necessary to state the name and residence of each heir etc. in
the petition for probate?
A: In order that the persons entitled to notice AND the manner of such notice may
be determined by the court.
Q: What is the effect of omission of any of the contents enumerated by this
section?
The omission from the petition of a statement of the names etc. cannot render the
order void for want of jurisdiction, any more that the omission from the petition of a
statement as to the proper value and character of the estate.
SEC. 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be
published.When a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance of a will is
filed in, the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for
proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof,
and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks
successively, previous to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general circulation
in the province.
But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for probate has been
filed by the testator himself.
Q: When does jurisdiction over the probate of the will become vested in the
court?
A:
1. Upon the filing of a petition for the proving of a will
2. Upon the delivery of a will to the court (even without an accompanying
petition)
NOTE: Upon the will being deposited, the court could, motu propio have taken steps
to fix the time and place for proving the will and issue the corresponding notices.
Where the petition for probate is made AFTER deposit of a will, the petition is
deemed to relate back to the time when the will was delivered.
Q: What are the jurisdictional requirements?
A:
1. Publication for 3 weeks successively of the order setting the case for
hearing; and
2. Notice to all persons interested
If the petition was initiated by the Testator himself (ante mortem probate)
1. No publication is necessary
2. Notice only to the compulsory heirs
Q: Once jurisdiction vests in the RTC, what must the Court do?
A: It is the duty of the court motu propio to appoint hearing for the wills allowance
and to cause notices thereof to be given to participants. The duty given is
IMPERATIVE. Consequently, the court can motu propio set the time and place for
proving the will delivered to it.
SEC. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or
personally.The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place
fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of
residence, and deposited 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 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 co-executor not petitioning, if their
places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at least ten
(10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his
compulsory heirs.
Q: Who are the people entitled to notice in a probate hearing?
A:
1. Designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator resident in the
Philippines at their places of residence, at least 20 days before the hearing, if such
places of residence be known.
NOTE: only if the residences of the abovementioned are known.
2. Person named executor, if he is not the petitioner.
3. To any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their places of residence
be known.
4. If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to
his compulsory heirs. (Sec. 4, Rule 76)
Q: What if the petition is filed by the testator himself, is the rule the same?
$!"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
A: NO. If the testator himself asks for the allowance of the will, notice shall be sent
only to his compulsory heirs.
Q: What is the MODE of service and how do you prove them?
1. Registered Mail proven by the registry return card (sent at least 20 days
prior to the hearing).
2. Personal Service proven by the receipt of notice signed by the person
who received such. (at least 10 days prior to the hearing).
Q: Would the probate court lose jurisdiction over the case if the person who
filed the petition for probate withdraws from the case?
A: NO. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the proceeding and over
all other persons interested therein. The proceeding for probate is in rem and the
court acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested.
Q: Is service of notice on individual heirs jurisdictional?
A: NO. It is merely a matter of procedural convenience, so much so that even if the
names of some of the legatees or heirs have been omitted, and were therefore not
given notice, the decree allowing the will does not ipso facto become void for want
of jurisdiction. Indispensable to the jurisdiction of the court is the
PUBLICATION requirement.
Q: What should the notice of publication contain?
A:
1. Time of hearing
2. Place of hearing
3. Order of persons who have interest in the will to appear and show cause
why the petition should/should not be granted.
Q: What is the requirement of publication for three weeks successively?
A: Since a petition for probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, notice to the whole
world must be given in order to acquire jurisdiction. This is done through the
publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for
three consecutive weeks.
This does not mean that the notice referred to therein should be published
for three full weeks prior to the date set for hearing. The first publication of
the notice need not be made 21 days before the hearing date
NOTE: Shortest possible amount of time to fulfill the 3 week requirement? 9 days.
Illustration:
January 21 (Saturday) 1st publication
January 22 (Sunday) 2nd publication
January 29 (Sunday) 3rd publication
Total number of days elapsed: 9
Q: What is a newspaper of general circulation?
A: If it is published for the local dissemination of local news and general information,
if it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and if its published a
regular intervals. No fixed number of subscribers is necessary to constitute a
newspaper of general circulation.
Q: How is notice by publication proved?
A: By presenting in court the affidavit of the publisher to such effect, as well as the
clippings of publication as it appeared in the newspaper.
Q: Is publication still required if it was the testator himself who applied for
the probate of his will?
A: NO. As stated in para.2 3 of Rule 76.
SEC. 5. Proof at hearing. What sufficient in absence of contest.At the hearing
compliance with the provisions of the last two preceding sections must be shown
before the introduction of testimony in support of the will. All such testimony shall
be taken under oath and reduced to writing. If no person appears to contest the
allowance of the will, the court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of one
of the subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the will was executed
as is required by law.
In the case of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will
and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of any such
competent witness, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be
resorted to.
Q: What is the effect of the probate courts failure to require proof of
publication and/or service?
A: it is NOT a ground for dismissal and is a reversible error for the probate court to
hear the application without such proof of publication and/or notice.
Q: What must be introduced as evidence at the hearing on the petition for
the allowance of the will?
A:
1. Evidence that the order of the court fixing the time and place for proving
the will has been published for 3 successive weeks prior to the time
appointed.
2. Evidence that a notice of such hearing has been served upon the known
heirs, legatees, devisees of the resident testator at least 20/10 days prior.
3. If the petitioner is not the executor, evidence that notice has been served
upon the executor, if his/her place of residence is known.
4. Testimony of the subscribing witnesses in support of the will.
Notarial will
Uncontested Will
The court may grant
allowance thereof on the
testimony of one of the
subscribing witnesses only, if
such witness testifies that
the will was executed as is
required by law. (Sec. 5,
Rule 76)
Contested Will
All the subscribing witnesses
and the notary public must
testify as to due execution
and attestation of the will.
(Sec. 11, Rule 76)
(
(
Uncontested Will
Contested Will
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Holographic
Will
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
No testimonies of witnesses is allowed because the will was made entirely by the
testator himself. (Bonilla vs. Aranz, G.R. No. L-58509, Dec. 7, 1982)
the testator. The probate court would be able to determine the authenticity of the
handwriting of the testator.
In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and
the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare
testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be
presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself
as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that
"Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a
mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before
the probate court."
NOTE: The first and third facts constitute secondary evidence in lieu of the original.
The provision demand that the witnesses be both competent as well as
credible. Testifying from hearsay is neither.
It is not necessary to prove the contents of the last will literally, but
substantial proof of such is all that is required; if only a part of the lost will
can be proved, such part may be admitted to probate.
Q: Secondary evidence NOT admitted in lieu of the original will?
A: The loss of the alleged will had not been sufficiently proven. The principal witness,
testified that he never saw the original of the will, as the same was retained by the
notary, and that and that he only saw a copy of the original. Further, the witness
also testified that the will contained only 2 signatures of witnesses.
As to the allegation that the same was burned by insurgents, no evidence was
presented to show that at the time the courthouse burned, there was in fact a
record of the alleged will. When the evidence presented is insufficient to establish in
a satisfactory manner the loss of the alleged will, secondary evidence to prove the
contents of the will can therefore NOT be allowed, as such is in violation of the best
evidence rule. (Araujo v. Celis)
Lim Billian v. Suntay - In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to establish the
loss of the document contained in the envelope. Oppositors' answer admits that,
according to Barretto, he prepared a will of the deceased to which he later became a
witness together with Go Toh and Manuel Lopez, and that this will was placed in an
envelope which was signed by the deceased and by the instrumental witnesses. In
court there was presented and attached to the case an open and empty envelope
signed by Jose B. Suntay, Alberto Barretto, Go Toh and Manuel Lopez. It is thus
undeniable that this envelope Exhibit A is the same one that contained the will
executed by the deceaseddrafted by Barretto and with the latter, Go Toh and
Manuel Lopez as attesting witnesses. These tokens sufficiently point to the loss of
the will of the deceased, a circumstance justifying the presentation of secondary
evidence of its contents and of whether it was executed with all the essential and
necessary legal formalities.
Rodelas v. Aranza - If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other
copy is available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is
the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a
comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will.
But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed
because comparison can be made by the probate court with the standard writings of
Q: What is the effect of a lost will said to be seen last in the possession of
the testator?
A: Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of
the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent
evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises
where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be
found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by
any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. (Gago v.
Mamuyac)
Q: Who has the burden of proof to establish the existence and due
execution of the will?
A: In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proof is upon the proponent
clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence. Having proved its
execution by the proponents, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has
been revoked. (Gago v. Mamuyac)
Q: What happens after the due execution and contents of a lost will are
duly proved?
A: expressly states When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be
distinctly stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the
certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded.
SEC. 7. Proof when witnesses do not reside in province.If it appears at the
time fixed for the hearing that none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the
province, but that the deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere,
the court may, on motion, direct It to be taken, and may authorize a photographic
copy of the will to be made and to be presented to the witness on his examination,
who may be asked the same questions with respect to it and to the handwriting of
the testator and others, as would be pertinent and competent if the original will
were present.
Q: What is the remedy if none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the
province where probate is being conducted?
A: A motion for taking of deposition of one or more of them. (Sec. 7, Rule 76)
Q: In such case, how may the will be proved?
A: The Court may also authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made and to
be presented to the witness on his examination, who may be asked questions with
respect to matters pertaining to the will. (Sec. 7, Rule 76)
The deponents may be asked the same questions with respect to the will,
and the handwriting of the testator and others, as would be pertinent and
competent if the original of the will were present.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
section 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree does not conclusively show
that the testamentary capacity of a person under guardianship is entirely destroyed.
The presumption created by the appointment of a guardian may be overcome by
evidence proving that such person at the time he executed a will was in fact of
sound and disposing mind and memory.
Q: What is undue influence?
A: Undue influence as used in connection with the law of wills, may be defined as
that which compels the testator to do that which is against the will from fear, the
desire of peace, or from other feeling which he is unable to resist.
[N.B. All of the Q&A for 9 cited above are from the case of Torres and Lopez v.
Lopez]
SEC. 10. Contestant to file grounds of contest.Anyone appearing to contest
the will must state in writing his grounds for opposing its allowance, and serve a
copy thereof on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate.
Q: If someone wants to oppose probate, what must he do?
A: He should:
1. File an opposition in the court handling the probate, stating his objections
and the grounds therefore;
2. As well as serve a copy of the same to the proponent.
SEC. 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will
contested.If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in
the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the
Philippines, and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death,
absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If all
or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province
where the will has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any or all of them
testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to
it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if
the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the
evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required
by law.
If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3)
witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the will
and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any
competent witness, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be
resorted to.
Q: What if one of the witnesses oppose probate?
A: The court may still allow probate of the will if there are other evidence sufficient
to prove the same.
Q: Is the proponent bound to present all the witnesses?
A: YES, especially if the will is contested. If the proponent presents only one
witness, while the opposition present s the other 2, and the proponent himself fails
to oppose, it would clearly weaken the case for the wills allowance.
Aldanese v. Salutillo - The rule prevails that when a will is contested the attesting
witnesses must be called to prove the will or a showing must be made that they
cannot be had.
$'"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Cabang v. Delfinado - In proving a contested will at Tayug only one attestor was
presented, although the record showed that the other two were living, one in Manila
and the other in Nueva Ecija. It was an error to admit the will to probate without
calling all the attesting witnesses or requiring a showing that they could not be
obtained.
Avera v. Garcia - When the petition for probate of a will is contested the proponent
should introduce all three of the attesting witnesses, if alive and within reach of the
process of the court; and the execution of the will cannot be considered sufficiently
proved by the testimony of only one, without satisfactory explanation of the failure
to produce the other two.
Nevertheless, in a case where the attorney for the contestants raised no
question upon this point in the court below, either at the hearing upon the
petition or in the motion to rehear, it is held that an objection to the
probate of the will on the ground that only one attesting witness was
examined by the proponent of the will, without accounting for the absence
of the others, cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
SEC. 12. Proof where testator petitions for allowance of holographic will.
Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will and no
contest is filed, the fact that he affirms that the holographic will and the signature
are in his own handwriting, shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due
execution thereof. If the holographic will is contested, the burden of disproving the
genuineness and due execution thereof shall be on the contestant The testator may,
in his turn, present such additional proof as may be necessary to rebut the evidence
for the contestant.
Q: What happens if after due execution, loss has been established?
A: The court will certify that the provisions of the lost will have been duly proved.
SEC. 13. Certificate of allowance attached to proved will. To be recorded in
the Office of Register of Deeds.If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and
filed, that the will was duly executed, and that the testator at the time of its
execution was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace,
and undue influence, or fraud, a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge,
and attested by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and the will and
certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real
estate and of certificate of allowance thereof, shall be recorded in the register of
deeds of the province in which the lands lie.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
6.
7.
The lack of objection to the probate of a lost will does not relieve the proponent
thereof or the party interested in its probate from establishing its due execution and
proving clearly and distinctly the provisions thereof by at least two credible
witnesses, as provided for in section 6, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.
Q: What law governs testamentary dispositions?
A: The Civil Code provides that the national law of the testator will govern.
Miciano v. Brimo - Article 10 of the Civil Code which, among other things, provides
the following:
"Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of
succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic
validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the
country in which it may be situated."
But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary dispositions
are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any
evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of
evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the
Philippines.
SEC. 4. Estate, how administered.When a will is thus allowed, the court shall
grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and
such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the
testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and
expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as
such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is
provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are
inhabitants of another state or country.
Q: What is the extent of the power of administration of the estate granted
by a court?
A: The general rule universally recognized is that administration extends only to the
assets of a decedent within the state or country where it was granted (Domiciliary
Administrator), so that an administrator appointed in one state or country has no
power over property located in another state or country (Leon and Ghezzi v.
Manufacturers Life Ins. Co.)
Q: What are the effects of reprobate?
A:
1. The will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in
the Philippines (Sec. 3, Rule 77);
2. Letters testamentary or administration with a will annexed shall extend to
all estates of the testator in the Philippines (Sec. 4, Rule 77); and
3. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
administration, shall be disposed of according to the will, so far as such will,
may operate upon it, and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as
provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons
who are inhabitants of another country (Sec. 4, Rule 77).
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Administrator
Appointed by the court in case the will
did not appoint an executor, or if he
refused appointment, or if the will was
disallowed or if the deceased died
without a will.
none
REQUIRED
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
does not authorize him to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes
prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. There is no reason why the
same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular
administrator should not be taken into account in the appointment of the
special administrator. (Ozaeta v. Pecson and BPI)
SEC. 5. Where some coexecutors disqualified others may act.When all of
the executors named in a will can not act because of incompetency, refusal to
accept the trust, or failure to give bond, on the part of one or more of them, letters
testamentary may issue to such of them as are competent, accept and give bond,
and they may perform the duties and discharge the trust required by the will.
Q: What is the nature of the act of the executors in 5?
A: The act of one is the act of all. There is an equality of authority amongst
executors.
Q: What is the nature of liability of coexecutors?
A: Their liability is solidary or joint and several.
Q: May the court appoint more than one executor or administrator?
A: YES. More than one executor may be issued letters testamentary in accordance
with the nomination in the will. Also, while as a rule the court appoints only one
administrator in intestate estates, more than one MAY be appointed by the court.
Q: When there is more than one executor or administrator, what is the
extent of their authority?
A: The general practice is that each one exercises joint administration over the
estate. They have equal authority among themselves, since under the law they are
one person in representation of the testator. An agreement between the executors
or administrators that one of them alone shall manage the estate is VOID.
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted.If no executor
is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust,
or fail to give bond, or 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 discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife,
or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the
person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow,
or next of kin, 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 of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to
serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to
such other person as the court may select.
Q: What are the instances wherein letters of administration are granted?
A: 1. Decedent WITH a will.
a. without appointing an executor
b. appoints an executor who is incompetent
c.
the appointed executor refuses
d. the appointed executor fails to give a bond.
2. Decedent without a will
%,"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: Does 6 require that the estate of a person who died leaving property in
the Philippines, must always be judicially administered?
A: Rule 74 establishes two exceptions [extra-judicial and summary settlement]
Q: What is required for the validity of the appointment of the
administrator?
A: A hearing of the petition for administration must be conducted and notices sent
to the other heirs and interested parties. The hearing and notification is essential to
the validity of the proceeding for the appointment of an administrator in order that
no person may be deprived of his rights or property without due process.
Moreover, a hearing is necessary to determine the suitability of the
applicant to the trust by giving him the opportunity to prove his qualifications and
affording oppositors, opportunity to contest.
Q: State the order of preference in granting letters of administration. (to
whom letters are granted)
A: If no executor is named in the will, or the executors are incompetent, refuse the
trust, or fail to give the bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be
granted to:
1. The surviving spouse or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court,
or to such person as such surviving spouse or next of kin, requests to have
appointed, if competent and willing to serve
[NOTE: Next of Kin persons entitled by law to receive the decedents
property.]
2. The principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve, if the surviving
spouse or next of kin, or the person selected by them be incompetent or
unwilling or if the surviving spouse or next of kin neglects for 30 days after
the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other person
3. Such other person as the court may select if there is no such creditor
competent and willing to serve. (Sec. 6)
NOTE: Order of preference may be disregarded for a valid cause.
Q: What is the basis or primary consideration in appointing an
administrator?
A: The principal consideration reckoned in the appointment of the administrator of
the estate is the interest in said estate, of the one to be appointed as such
administrator. This is the same consideration taken into account in establishing the
order of preference in the appointment of administrators for the estate (Nicolasa
De Guzman v. Angela Limcolioc)
Q: What is the rational behind the order of preference in appointing an
administrator?
The underlying assumption behind the rule is that those who will reap the benefit of
a wise, speedy, economical administration of the estate, or on the other hand, suffer
the consequences of waste, improvidence of mismanagement, have the highest
interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly. (Gonzales v.
Aguinaldo)
NOTE: Co-executors may be appointed for the benefit of the estate and those
interested therein.
Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the appointment of coadministrators has been upheld for various reasons:
(1) To have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have
different interests represented;
(2) Where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be
represented in the management of the estate of the deceased;
(3) Where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing
one to settle;
(4) To have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in
harmony for the best interests of the estate; and
(5) When a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have
another competent person associated with him in the office. (Gonzales v.
Aguinaldo, Gabriel v. CA)
Q: Why is the Surviving Spouse preferred above all others?
A: Since the principal consideration in appointing an administrator is the interest in
the estate, the surviving spouse is preferred since the law, takes in to account the
interest of the surviving spouse as a partner in the conjugal partnership.
Q: What is the effect of the invalidity of the marriage upon the surviving
spouses right to b appointed an administrator?
A: It is not affected by the fact that the marriage is VOIDABLE. But where the
marriage is VOID, the surviving spouses prior right is not recognized.
Q: Is preference of the surviving spouse a hard and fast rule?
A: NO. If the interest in the estate is what determines the preference in the
appointment of an administrator, and if, under the circumstances, it develops that
there is another who has more interest than the surviving spouse, the preference is
inapplicable.
An example would be if the whole/majority of the estate was acquired by
the decedent during his first marriage, children of the first marriage shall be
preferred to the childless widow of the second marriage in the selection of an
administrator. The order of preference established in 6 Rule 78 is founded on the
assumption that the persons preferred are suitable. If they are not, the court may
entirely disregard the preference thus provided.
NOTE: This only applies when the reasons for NOT appointing those stated in the
order of preference are positive and clear.
Q: What is meant by the term next of kin?
A: It means heirs under our laws of succession.
Q: Why are the next of kin preferred over the surviving spouse?
A: Because compulsory heirs are entitled to the decedents property. The nearest of
kin, whose interest is most preponderant, is preferred.
Q: Who are the creditors that may be appointed administrator?
A: One is a creditor within the rule if the decedent was indebted to him personally,
or by operation of law he becomes a legal owner of a claim against a decedent.
Moreover, when those to whom the estate would go under the law offer to pay the
claim and tender the same, all reasons for giving the creditor a preference for
appointment as an administrator ceases.
Q: What is the extent of the grant of letters of administration?
A: Extends only to the assets of the decedent found within the state or country
where it was granted.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: What kind of notices are required to be made before the hearing of the
petition for letters of administration?
A: The requirements are the same as the ones needed in the petition for the
probate of a will under Rule 76. Hence there must be:
1. Notice of the time and place of the hearing published for three weeks
successively prior to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general
jurisdiction in the province where the court has jurisdiction.
2. Notice of such must also be given to:
a. Known heirs
b. Creditors
c.
Any other person who has an interest in the estate
How? Registered mail or Personal service.
Q: Why is there a need for such notice?
A: To bring ALL interested persons within the jurisdiction of the court, so that the
judgment therein becomes binding on all the world. Where no notice has been given
to people believed to have an interest in the said estate, the proceeding for the
settlement of the estate is VOID and should be annulled. Notice is essential to the
validity of the proceeding in order that no person may be deprived of his right to
property without due process of law. Notice through publication is jurisdictional,
the absence of which makes court orders affecting other persons, subsequent to the
petition, VOID. (De Guzman v. Angeles)
Q: What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the probate court over
the proceedings for the administration of the estate and its jurisdiction
over persons who are interested in the settlement?
A: For a court to acquire jurisdiction over the persons interested in the settlement of
the estate, notices by publication are essential.
Q: Is the order of Appointment of Regular Administrator final?
A: NO. The order of appointment of a regular administrator is appealable. Where no
notice is required by 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been given to persons
believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the proceeding for
the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled. The requirement as to
notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding in order that no person may be
deprived of his right to property without due process of law.
Q: May the order FIXING THE DATE FOR HEARING appealable?
A: NO. It is merely an interlocutory order, deciding no controversy, affects no rights
and determines nothing. It simply gives the parties an opportunity to be heard, and
the court an occasion for action.
SEC. 4. Opposition to petition for administration.Any Interested person may,
by filing a written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of the
incompetency of the person for whose letters are prayed therein, or on the ground
of the contestants own right to the administration, and may pray that letter issue to
himself, or to any competent person or persons named In the opposition.
Q: What are the grounds for opposing a petition for administration?
A: Any interested person may by filing a written opposition, contest the petition on
the ground of the:
1. Incompetency of the person for whom letters are prayed therein; or
2. Contestant's own right to the administration (Sec. 4, Rule 79).
SEC. 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue.At the hearing of the petition,
it must first be shown that notice has been given as hereinabove required, and
thereafter the court shall hear the proofs of the parties in support of their respective
allegations, and if satisfied that the decedent left no will, or that there is no
competent and willing executor, it shall order the issuance of letters of
administration to the party best entitled thereto.
Q: What is the duty of the court?
A: If the court is satisfied that:
1. The notice requirements under 3 have been duly complied with; and
2. The decedent left no will, and that there is no competent and willing
executor
It shall order the issuance of letters of administration to the person entitled thereto.
SEC. 6. When letters of administration granted to any applicant.Letters of
administration may be granted to any qualified applicant, though it appears that
there are other competent persons having better right to the administration, if such
persons fail to appear when notified and claim the issuance of letters to themselves.
Q: TO whom may letters of administration be granted?
A: Under 6 of this rule it may be granted to any qualified applicant.
Q: Suppose Y, after filing a petition for letters of administration, was
named the administrator of As estate by the probate court because X, who
was named executor and who was more qualified, did not know of the
petition filed by Y and/or he did not know he was named as such. What is
the remedy of X?
A: File a motion to revoke in the same proceeding [if X had ben notified, he would
be bound by the order of the court appointing Y].
NOTE: The appointment of an administrator of an estate is not void because
another person seeking appointment has a better right to such.
So, the acts of the person erroneously appointed as the administrator remain
VALID, although the order appointing such person may be voidable in a direct
proceeding instituted by those having a superior right. [In this case, the
appointment of the wrong person is an irregularity, subjecting the order to direct
attack, but not the invalidation of acts done in pursuance of the law in the course of
the administration by him who has been erroneously appointed.]
Q: May a creditor be appointed an administrator?
A: YES. If the heirs of the debtor do not institute an estate proceeding to settle his
estate and fails to apply for letters of administration in order that the creditors claim
for money may be settled.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
REGULAR
ADMINISTRATOR
Order of Appointment may be
the subject of an appeal
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
Order of Appointment is
interlocutory and hence not
appealable
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
from the proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges on the
same, or such dividends thereon as shall be decreed by the court;
(c) To render a true and just account of his administration to the court within one
(1) year, and at any other time when required by the court;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.
Q: Why is the bond required before and executor or administrator enters
upon the execution of the trust?
A: This is intended as an indemnity to the heirs, creditors and the estate. The court
shall fix the amount thereof and hold it accountable for breach of duty on the part of
the administrator or executor. In other words, the bond is answerable for any failure
on the part of the executor or administrator to fulfill any of the conditions imposed
upon him in the execution of his trust.
Q: What is the effect of a failure to give a bond?
A: The standard of responsibility given to an executor or administrator is best
measured in relation to the responsibility of the bailee. Like the bailee, he must
pursue his discretion in honesty and good faith, or he will become personally liable
to those interested in the estate for waste, conversion or embezzlement. But where
an administrator or executor, entrusted with carrying on a an estate, acts in good
faith and in accordance with the usual rules and methods obtaining in such
business; he will not be held liable for any losses incurred. (Schouler on Wills,
Executors and Administrators, Chapter III; Allen and Hill vs. Shanks [1891],
90 Tenn., 359.)
- The general rule is that a personal representative will be protected in the
payment of a claim which has been duly allowed or ordered paid by the court,
although it should not have been paid in full, unless it is made to appear that such
allowance of the claim, or order for the payment thereof, was obtained through his
collusion or bad faith. (Tan v. Go Chiong)
Q: What are the duties or conditions imposed on the executor or
administrator?
A: To make and return to the court, within 3 months, a true and complete
inventory of all goods, chattel, rights, credits and estate of the deceased which shall
come to his possession or knowledge, or the possession of any other person for him:
1. To administer all goods, chattel, rights, credits and estate which shall at any
time come to his possession or to the possession of any other person for him
in accordance with the RoC, and in case of an executor, in accordance with the
will of the testator;
2. To pay and discharge all debts, legacies and charges upon the estate, or
such dividends thereon as shall be declared by the court from the proceeds of
the administration;
3. To render a true and just account of his administration within 1 year and at
any other time required by the court, and;
4. To perform all the orders of the court.
NOTE: The law does not impose upon an administrator a high degree of care in the
administration of the estate, but it does impose upon him ordinary and usual care,
for the want of which he is personally liable.
Q: What must an inventory made by the executor or administrator contain?
A: The inventory to be made and returned by an executor or administrator must
contain, not only a statement of all the properties of the deceased which have come
into his possession, but also such other property as may have come to his
%("#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: May the bond be bound for the return of the money which the
administrator spent in good faith, and which he is unable to pay?
A: A surety upon an administrators bond is bound only for the faithful
administration of the estate, and not for the return of the money which the
administrator, in good faith, spent and which he is unable to repay. (Montemayor
v. Heirs of Gutierrez)
entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court (Reynoso
vs. Santiago)
Q: Does the mere discovery of a document purporting to be a will ipso facto
authorize the revocation of the letters of administration?
A: NO. Mere discovery of a document purporting to be a will and testament of the
decedent after appointment of an administrator upon the assumption that the
decedent died without a will, does not, in view of 1 Rule 82 ipso facto nullify the
letters already issued, or even authorize their revocation, until the will has been
proved and allowed.
SEC. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or
administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal.If an
executor or administrator neglects to render his account and settle the estate
according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty
expressly provided by these rule., or absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise
incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or, in its
discretion, may permit him to resign. When an executor or administrator dies,
resigns, or is removed, the remaining executor. or administrator may administer the
trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no
remaining executor or administrator, administration may be granted to any suitable
person.
Q: Distinguish revocation from removal
A: Strictly speaking, letters of administration are revoked where it is shown that
they should not have been issued, or were improperly issued due to grounds
existing before or at the time of the issuance, while the removal of an executor or
administrator should be for grounds which have arisen after the letters were issued.
Another distinction is that in removing an administrator, the law provides 6 grounds
as provided for in 2 Rule 72, while revocation arises when a will is proved and
allowed by the court.
Q: What are the grounds for the removal of an executor or administrator?
A:
1. Neglect to render an account and settle the estate according to law;
2. Neglect to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly
provided by the Rules;
3. Absconds;
4. Becomes insane; or
5. Becomes incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust (Sec. 2, Rule 82).
Note: These grounds are not exclusive. False misrepresentation by an administrator
in securing his appointment is a ground for his removal. This is so because the
position of administration is one of confidence. Once the court finds the appointee to
the position not entitled to such confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the
appointment and in giving no valid efficacy thereto. (Cobarrubias v. Dizon, G.R.
No. L-225, Feb. 26, 1946).
- The removal of the administrator lies within the sound discretion of the court
appointing him. The sufficiency of any ground for removal should thus be
determined by said court, whose sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any
act/omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to/in disregard of the
rules or orders of the court.
%*"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
protect and serve the interests of said heirs and other interested parties, she was
bound to comply with her duties. If later on she found it difficult or impossible to
continue with her administration, at least she should have filed an inventory of the
properties she had administered and render an accounting of her administration,
particularly of the produce, fruits and income of the properties under administration,
and then ask the court that she be relieved of her duties. (Ledesma vs. Enriquez)
Q: What is the rule on proceedings upon death, resignation or removal of an
executor or administrator?
A: When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining
executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court grants
letters to someone to act with him. If there is no remaining executor or
administrator, the administration may be granted to any suitable person.
Q: In cases where there are 2 administrators of the state, what is the effect
when 1 administrator is removed?
A: The remaining administrator becomes the administrator of the whole estate,
unless a new co-administrator is appointed.
SEC. 4. Powers of new executor or administrator. Renewal of license to
sell real estate.The person to whom letters testamentary or of administration are
granted after the revocation of former letters, or the death, resignation, or removal
of a former executor or administrator, shall have the like powers to collect and settle
the estate not administered that the former executor or administrator had, and may
prosecute of defend actions commenced by or against the former executor or
administrator, and have execution on judgments recovered in the name of such
former executor or administrator. An authority granted by the court to the former
executor administrator for the sale or mortgage of real estate may be renewed in
favor of such person without further notice or hearing.
Q: What does 4 of Rule 82 provide?
A:
1. The power to collect and settle the estate not administered that the former
executor or administrator had;
2. To prosecute or defend actions commenced by or against the former executor
or administrator; and
3. To recover execution on judgments in the name of former executor or
administrator.
However, before a new executor or administrator may exercise the power to sell or
mortgage real estate, which power had been granted to the former executor or
administrator, the same must be renewed in favor of the new executor or
administrator. In renewing such power, further notice or hearing is no longer
necessary.
Q: With respect to the right of the administrator to dispose of the real
properties of the estate [assuming the administrator is removed], what is
the right of the new administrator to continue the transaction?
A: The new administrator, upon securing the proper authority from the court, will
continue the negotiations initiated by the former administrator.
- NO hearing is required if the new administrator merely continues the acts of
administration, but he must always first secure authority from the court to continue
the negotiations.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
considered as assets, nor administered as such, and shall not be included in the
inventory.
Q: What should NOT be included in the inventory?
A:
1. Wearing apparel of the surviving spouse
2. Wearing apparel of the minor children
3. Marriage bed and bedding
4. Other provisions and articles as will necessarily be consumed in the
subsistence of the family of the deceased.
SEC. 3. Allowance to widow and family.The widow and minor or incapacitated
children of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate, shall receive
therefrom, under the direction of the court, such allowance as are provided by law.
Q: May allowance be granted when the liabilities of the estate exceed the
assets of the estate of the decedent?
A: NO. When the liabilities exceed the assets of the deceased husband's intestate
estate and that his widow had not contributed any property to the marriage, she
cannot be granted support [not for herself] nor the minor children for that matter,
pending the liquidation of the intestate estate, because said support, having the
character of an advance payment to be deducted from the respective share of each
participant is without legal basis under Article 1430 of the Civil Code when there is
no property to be partitioned. (Moore & Sons Mercantile Co. vs. Wagner)
Q: Can children of the deceased who are not minors, nor incapacitated, be
granted allowance or support during the settlement of the estate?
A: YES. The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or
married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of
their right to allowance under Art. 188 [now Art. 1332 of the Family Code]. While the
Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of
the deceased, the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children
without distinction.
Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse
and to the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of
the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court
which is a procedural rule. Be it noted however that with respect to "spouse," the
same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common-law spouses who are the
mothers of the children here). (Santero vs. CFI of Cavite)
Q: Are grandchildren entitled to such allowance pending the settlement of
the estate?
A: Neither the RoC nor the New Civil Code or the Family Code include grandchildren
among those who may be granted an allowance pending the settlement of the
estate.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
2
Art. 133. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the
surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried
property and until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be
deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents
pertaining to them. (188a)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
7.
He cannot exercise the right of legal redemption over a portion of the property
owned in common sold by one of the other co-owners. (Herrera, Vol. III-A, pp.
116-117, 2005 ed.)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
jurisdiction over the real property, but the annotation of lis pendens serve as
further protection.
SEC. 2. Not to profit by increase or lose by decrease in value.No executor
or administrator shall profit by the increase, or suffer loss by the decrease or
destruction, without his fault, of any part of the estate. He must account for the
excess when he sells any part of the estate for more than the appraisement, and if
any is sold for less than the appraisement, he is not responsible for the loss, if the
sale has been justly made. If he settles any claim against the estate for less than its
nominal value, he is entitled to charge in his account only the amount he actually
paid on the settlement.
Q: What is the extent of the accountability of the executor or
administrator?
A: He is chargeable with the estate in such condition as it is found and not in that
as the heirs and creditors desire it to be. While on the other hand he shall not profit
by the increase of the estate, on the other hand he shall not be held liable for any
decrease the estate, without his fault, might have sustained.
In addition, it is the duty of the executor or administrator to handle and marshal
the assets of the estate in a business-like manner, and he is responsible for any
unreasonable or unnecessary delay in the settlement and closing of the estate.
Q: Is the administrator liable for the loss, of personal properties under his
administration, through a fortuitous event?
A: NO. The administrator in an administration proceeding is not responsible for the
loss, by a fortuitous event, of the personal properties under administration in the
absence of proof that said loss was due to his negligence.
Taking into account the fact that that fire occurred in a calamitous time, for, as
appears from the evidence, it was caused by the North American forces who
were fighting the Philippine revolutionists, we find that the disaster could not
have been prevented by the defendant. It might be said that he could have
foreseen it, but it does not appear just how and where those properties could
have been kept absolutely safe by the defendant, it not having been proven
that the town of San Pablo, the place of residence of the defendant, was any
safer than that of Santo Nino. It was not shown that such properties were
destroyed through the negligence of the defendant. (Garcia vs. Escudero)
One could go against the bond by applying to the court, which granted the letters
administration/testamentary, for the application of the bond.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
3
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
4
Art. 1646. The persons disqualified to buy referred to in Articles 1490 and 1491,
are also disqualified to become lessees of the things mentioned therein. (n)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
charged and allowed against him in his account, and he shall be liable therefor on
his bond.
Q: What is the liability of an executor or administrator who neglects or
incurs delay in raising money?
A: 1. When an executor or administrator:
a.
neglects or unreasonably delays to raise money, by collecting
debts or selling the real or personal estate of the deceased, or
b.
neglects to pay over the money he has in his hands, and
2. The value of the estate is thereby lessened, or
3. Unnecessary cost or interest accrues, or
4. The persons interested suffers loss,
The same shall be deemed waste and the damage sustained may be charged and
allowed against him, and he shall be liable therefor on his bond.
Q: Who has the right to run after the executor or administrator?
A: The heirs, devisees, legatees, creditors and other persons interested in the
estate of the deceased.
SEC. 6. When allowed money paid as costs.The amount paid by an executor
or administrator for costs awarded against him shall be allowed in his administration
account, unless it appears that the action or proceeding in which the costs are taxed
was prosecuted or resisted without just cause, and not in good faith.
Q: What costs may the executor or administrator charge against the
estate?
A: Generally, costs charged or allowed against an executor or administrator in
actions brought or prosecuted by or against him should be paid out of the estate of
the deceased, unless he did not act in good faith. In other words, they are
considered costs of litigation.
Q: What costs MAY NOT be charged by the executor or administrator
against the estate?
A: Actions brought by the executor or administrator which is:
1. More for his personal benefit than for that of the estate;
2. When he contests the allowance of a will;
3. Sues for attorneys fees; or
4. Brings litigation for the deliberate purpose of defrauding the heirs for his own
benefit;
Costs should be personally borne by him.
Q: How would money paid as costs be allowed?
A: To be allowed, costs must have been incurred in good faith.
Q: Are attorneys fees paid by the administrator to his own lawyer, who is
acting in behalf of the administrator, chargeable as costs of administration?
A: NO, because attorneys fees are considered part of the administration itself. The
yare incurred in the natural course of administration.
Q: Could it be argued that the services of an attorney are a necessary
expense?
A: It depends. If the services of counsel were incurred for collecting debts, or to
assist him in the execution of his trust, then it could be considered a necessary
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
the favor of an administrator who brings litigation for his own benefit and for the
purpose of defrauding the heirs. (Dacanay vs. Hernandez)
- an administrator may employ competent counsel on questions which affect his
duties as administrator and on which he is in reasonable doubt, and reasonable
expenses for such services may be charged against the estate subject to the
approval of the court.
Q: What is the amount of the compensation of an executor if there is
nothing provided for in the will?
A:
1. Php 4/day for the time actually and necessarily employed
2. Commission
3. A greater sum may be allowed if:
a. The estate is large
b. The settlement has been attended with great difficulty
c.
The settlement has required a high degree of capacity of the
executor.
NOTE: The executor or administrator is entitled to the per diem of Php 4 OR to a
commission. He is entitled to either but not both. However, he may be denied
compensation for his services where the prolongation of the settlement of the estate
was due entirely to the efforts of the administrator to defraud the legitimate heirs.
Moreover, his services for the period in question would have been unnecessary if he
had not, by his fraudulent acts, prevented the settlement of the estate. The rule is
that the per diem compensation of an administrator can only be allowed for
necessary services. (Dacanay vs. Hernandez)
Q: What is the basis of the per diem compensation?
A: The rules allow the executor or administrator to collect the sum of Php 4/day for
every day actually and necessarily spent by him in the administration and care of
the estate, NOT for every act or task he might perform, even if it were to take only
a few minutes to do so.
Q: What is the basis of the commission?
A: The commission is based upon the value of so much of the estate as comes to his
possession, and is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses,
legacies or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees.
The amount of commission is as follows:
1. 2% for the first P5,000;
2. 1% of more than P5,000 but less than P30,000;
3. ! % of more than P30,000 but less than P100,000;
4. " % of more than P100,000
Q: If the executor or administrator is a lawyer, would it be sufficient
ground to increase his compensation?
A: NO. Under 7 Rule 85, When the executor or administrator is an attorney, he
shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered
by him. An administrator or executor may be allowed fees for the necessary
expenses he has incurred as such, but he may not recover attorneys fees from the
estate. His compensation is fixed by the rule, but such is in the nature of executors
or administrators commissions, and never as attorneys fees. (Lacson vs. Reyes)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Q: What is the rule when the testator makes provisions for how the
executor should be compensated in his will?
A: When the deceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of
his executor, that provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services, unless by a
written instrument filed in the court the latter renounces all claim to the
compensation provided by the will. (Lacson vs. Reyes)
Q: What is the effect of an agreement between the executor or
administrator and the interested parties as to the formers compensation?
A: Where at the time of his appointment, all of the parties in interest stipulated that
R should have a compensation of P1,000 per month for his services as executor of
the estate of E, and the court approved the stipulation, such facts do not constitute
a valid and binding contract which runs throughout the whole administration of the
estate, and in such a case, the court, on a proper showing of changed conditions,
may increase or decrease the monthly compensation of the executor.
NOTE: The amount of an executor's fee allowed by the Court of First Instance in
"any special case" is a matter largely in the discretion of the probate court, which
will not be disturbed on appeal, except for an abuse of discretion. (Rosenstock vs.
Elser)
SEC. 8. When executor or administrator to render account.Every executor
or administrator shall render an account of his administration within one (1) year
from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless the court
otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims against, or
paying the debts of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he shall render
such further accounts as the court may require until the estate is wholly settled.
Q: Is the period of 1 year mandatory?
A: The provision in the rule is merely directory, but all courts should exert
themselves to close up the estate within 12 months from the time they are
presented. Furthermore, when there have been extensions of time for presenting
claims against, paying debts of the estate, or in disposing of the same, the court
may direct a period longer than 1 year.
NOTE: The fact that the final accounts had been approved does not divest the
courts of jurisdiction to require supplemental accounting for, aside from the initial
accounting; the Rules provide that he shall render such further accounts as the
court may require until the estate is wholly settled.
Q: If the administration of the estate has ceased as the heirs have agreed
to a partition of the estate, is the administrator still bound to render an
accounting?
A: YES. The duty of an administrator to render an account is not a mere incident of
an administration proceeding which can be waived or disregarded when the same is
terminated, but that it is a duty that has to be performed and duly acted upon by
the Court before the administration is finally ordered closed and terminated.
The fact that all the heirs of the estate have entered into an extrajudicial settlement
and partition in order to put an end to their differences cannot in any way be
interpreted as a waiver of the objections of the heirs to the accounts submitted by
the administrator not only because to so hold would be a derogation of the pertinent
provisions of our rules but also because there is nothing provided in said partition
that the aforesaid accounts shall be deemed waived or condoned. (Joson vs.
Joson)
SEC. 9. Examinations on oath with respect to account.The court may
examine the executor or administrator upon oath with respect to every matter
relating to any account rendered by him, and shall so examine him as to the
correctness of his account before the same is allowed, except when no objection is
made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established
by competent proof. The heirs, legatees, distributees, and creditors of the estate
shall have the same privilege as the executor or administrator of being examined on
oath on any matter relating to an administration account.
Q: What can the court do to verify the accounting done by the executor or
administrator?
A: The court may examine the executor or administrator under oath in order to
verify the accounting he has done. The same privilege shall be extended to the heirs,
legatees, distributes and creditors.
Q: Who will conduct the examination?
A: The probate court
Q: When may the examination be dispensed with?
A: Examination may be dispensed with when:
1. No objection is made to the allowance of the account; and
2. Its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof.
SEC. 10. Account to be settled on notice.Before the account of an executor or
administrator is allowed, notice shall be given to persons interested of the time and
place of examining and allowing the same; and such notice may be given personally
to such persons interested or by advertisement in a newspaper or newspapers, or
both, as the court directs.
Q: How will the court call the executor or administrator?
A: Notice may be sent to the executor or administrator or to the interested parties.
SEC. 11. Surety on bond may be party to accounting.Upon the. settlement
of the account of an executor or administrator, a person liable as surety in respect
to such account may, upon application, be admitted as party to such accounting.
Q: May the surety be part of the proceedings?
A: YES, but only in the settlement of the account of executors or administrators,
and not in the settlement proceedings.
Q: Is the surety privy to the proceedings against the executor or
administrator?
A: From the very nature of the obligation entered into by the surety on an
administrators bond, he (surety) is bound and concluded, in the absence of fraud
and collusion, by a judgment against his principal, even though said surety was not
a party to the proceedings against the administrator, nor notified in connection
therewith prior to the issuance of the court order for the confiscation of the bond.
(Phil. Trust Co. vs. Luzon Surety Inc.)
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
Similarly, claims for taxes due and assessed after the death of the decedent need
NOT be presented in the form of a claim. The court, in the exercise of its
administrative control over the executor or administrator, may direct him to pay
such taxes. And the heirs, even after distribution, are liable for such tax.
Q: What other claims are NOT included in this section?
A: Claims other than for money, debt, or interest thereon cannot be presented. Thus,
the court cannot entertain claims for title to a right of possession of personal or real
property, made by the heirs themselves by title adverse to that of the deceased, or
made by 3rd persons.
NOTE: However, for the purpose merely of inclusion in or extension from the
inventory, the probate court may pass upon a question of title in real or personal
property without prejudice to a final determination of the same question in a
separate action.
Q: What is the remedy of a creditor having a debt chargeable against the
conjugal property upon the death of one of the spouses?
A: Upon the death of the wide no action may be brought against the husband for
the recovery of a debt chargeable against the conjugal property, and any judgment
rendered against him in such action is void. The proper action should be in the form
of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased wife.
(Calma vs. Toledo)
Q: Is execution a proper procedure to enforce a claim against the estate?
A: The ordinary procedure by which to settle claims of indebtedness against the
estate of a deceased person, as an inheritance tax, is for the claimant to present a
claim before the probate court so that said court may order the administrator to pay
the amount thereof.
The legal basis for such a procedure is the fact that in the testate or intestate
proceedings to settle the estate of a deceased person, the properties belonging to
the estate are under the jurisdiction of the court and such jurisdiction continues until
said properties have been distributed among the heirs entitled thereto. During the
pendency of the proceedings all the estate is in custodia legis and the proper
procedure is not to allow the sheriff, in case of the court judgment, to seize the
properties but to ask the court for an order to require the administrator to pay the
amount due from the estate and required to be paid. (Domingo vs. Garlitos and
Price)
Q: May a testator provide in his will for claims against his estate to be
settled in a manner other than that provided by 1, Rule 86?
A: NO. Directions in the testators will that such claims and debts, or any of them,
shall be settled in some manner other than that provided by law are void for being
against public policy, at least where the heirs are by force of law [compulsory].
Q: A deceased testator expressly acknowledged a debt in his will and
specifically directed his executor to pay that debt after his death. Is the
claimant still obliged to file a claim under 1 Rule 86?
A: A creditor's claim against the estate of a deceased person, admitted by the
committee on appraisal and claims, whose report has been approved by the court,
without any appeal having been taken from said approval, is a lawful [equitable] lien
on the estate of said decedent. And such lien continues until the debts are
extinguished by payment, prescription or satisfaction of the claim by one of the
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
modes recognized by law. His representatives or successors are bound to pay said
claim with the property they have inherited from him. (Montinola vs. Villanueva)
SEC. 2. Time within which claims shall be filed.In the notice provided in the
preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the
estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after
the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at any time before an order
of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim
within the time previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such
terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one
(1) month.
Q: What should the notice contain?
A: The rule provides that: In the notice provided in the preceding section, the
court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the estate, which shall not
be more than twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after the date of the first
publication of the notice.
Q: Is the period prescribed under 2 Rule 86 mandatory?
A: NO. The period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; that money
claims against the estate may be allowed at any time before an order of distribution
is entered, at the discretion of the court for the cause and upon such terms as are
equitable. (Quisumbing vs Guison)
Q: What is the period within which the creditors may file a claim against
the estate?
A: The range of period specified in Sec.2 of Rule 86 is intended to give the court
the discretion to fix the period for the filing of the claims. The probate court is
permitted by the rule to set the period as long as it is within the limitation provided
[not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months from the first publication of the
notice thereof]. Such period once fixed by the courts is mandatory. (Heirs of
Pizzaro Sr. vs. Consolacion)
Q: What is the object of the law in fixing a time within which a claim shall
be filed?
A: The object of the law, in fixing a period within which claims against an estate
must be presented, is to insure a speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased
person and the early delivery of the property, to the persons entitled to receive it.
The speedy settlement of the estate and the early distribution of the estate of
deceased persons should not be unnecessarily delayed by the lethargy and
negligence of those who have a direct interest in the same.
The purpose of the rule is to settle the affairs of the estate with dispatch, so that the
residue may be delivered top the persons entitled thereto without their being
afterwards called upon to respond in actions for claims, which under the ordinary
statute of limitations, have not yet prescribed. (Tan Se Guan vs. Ga Siu San
citing In re Estate of Tangco)
Q: What is the statute of non-claims?
A: It is a definite period fixed by the rules for the filing of claims against the estate
of the decedent; and such claims, if not filed within said period, are barred.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
the hearing in order to present rebuttal evidence. In the latter case, she is not only
estopped by her conduct, but laches also bar her claim.
This does not mean that the lower courts interpretation of the setting of the period
in the Danan case is correct. It was just that the lower court accepted the claim in
the Danan case in contrast to the refusal in the Pizarro case, that is why the court
did not dwell on the issue of whether the period set in Danan was proper.
NOTE: The Pizarro case is a later case than Danan, and the proper interpretation
for setting the period was squarely raised in the Pizarro.
2.
Where the estate filed a claim against the creditor or claimant who failed to
present his claim against the estate within the period fixed by the probate
court for the settlement of such claims, the creditor will be allowed to set up
the same as a counterclaim to the action filed by the estate against him.
In the case of Danan, although the lower court set the period for filing of claims
within 6 months after publication of the 1st notice, in the same manner as in the
case of Pizzaro, the SC made no comment about it.
Q: When may the extension of the period for filing claims be granted by the
court?
A: The period prescribed in the notice to creditors is not exclusive; that money
claims against the estate may be allowed any time before an order of distribution is
entered, at the discretion of the court, for cause and upon such terms as are
equitable. This extension of the period shall not exceed one month from the
issuance of the order authorizing such extension.
In this case, when the claimant could not have filed a money claim against the
estate of a deceased person before the promulgation of the decision of the Court of
Appeals because although the lower court in that case upheld her right to the
ownership and possession of the building subject thereof, no damages were
adjudged in claimants favor until after the decision of the said appellate court, it is
held that the action taken by the lower court, before an order of distribution has
been made, granting an extension of the period within which to file her claim,
cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. (De Rama vs. Palileo)
Q: From what time is the one month extension period counted from in case
of Belated Claims?
A: Under the De Rama case, the SC held that the 1 month extension period is
counted from the time an extension has been authorized by the lower court.
Although the SC held in the Danan case, which was promulgated later than De Rama,
that the 1 month was counted from the expiration of the period previously fixed by
the court, this was a mere obiter, and so the De Rama case is still controlling.
The case of Quisumbing vs. Guison decides the issue similarly to De Rama,
stating that the 1 month period for filing belated claims is the same granted
claimants, which begins from the order authorizing the filing of the claims. It does
not mean that the extension of 1 month begins from the expiration of the original
period fixed by the court for the presentation of claims. The reason is that under the
aforementioned rule, there is no limitation as to the time within which a creditor
who has failed to file his claim within the time previously limited, may file an
application for extension of time within which to file his claim, nor is there a
limitation as to the time within which such may be granted, provided the application
is presented before the order of distribution is entered.
Q: What are the conditions for the filing of a belated claim?
A: The rule clothes the court with authority to permit the filing of a claim after the
lapse of 12 months, or at any time before the order of distribution is entered,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim
2.
3.
Just cause [showing why permission for the belated claim should be
granted]
The extension of time granted for filing the claim must not exceed one
month.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
impliedly granted the creditor an extension within which to file said claim. (Ignacio
vs. Pampanga Bus Co., Inc.)
In Echaus vs. Blanco, a civil case for a money claim, was instituted during the
lifetime of C. N. Hodges. During its pendency and before a decision could be
rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Hodges died. Upon his death, he was
substituted by PCIB as administrator of his estate. Being a money claim, the civil
case should have been dismissed and instituted as a money claim in the intestate
estate of the deceased.
However, citing Ignacio, the case held that: Whether the original suit for the
recovery of moneyas hereproceeds to its conclusion, or is dismissed and the
claim covered thereby filed with the probate court, one thing is certain: no
substantial rights of the parties are prejudiced. Therefore, the court held that the
pendency of that [civil] case, is a good excuse for tardiness in the filing of the claim.
(In pari materia: De Rama v. Palileo). And the order of the final distribution is still to
be given. (Ignacio v. Pambusco)
SEC. 3. Publication of notice to creditors.Every executor or administrator
shall, immediately alter the notice to creditors is issued, cause the same to be
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,
and in two public places in the municipality where the decedent last resided.
Q: What is the duty of the executor or administrator under 3, Rule 86?
A: It is the duty of the executor or administrator to give notice to the creditors of
the decedent and cause such notice to be:
Published 3 weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province where the decedent last resided; and
Posted for the same period in:
o
4 public places in the province; and
o
2 public places in the municipality where the deceased last resided.
NOTE: The statutory requirements of such notice should be substantially complied
with in order for the notice to be sufficient.
Q: What is the effect of failure on the part of the executor or administrator
to publish the statutory notice to the creditors?
A: It will afford additional time for the presentation of claims. This seems to be the
case where the statute in direct terms allows a designated period for presenting
claims after the publication of the notice.
Q: What is a newspaper of general circulation?
A: If it is published for the local dissemination of local news and general information,
if it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and if its published a
regular intervals. No fixed number of subscribers is necessary to constitute a
newspaper of general circulation.
Q: What is the requirement of publication for three weeks successively?
A: This does not mean that the notice referred to therein should be published for
three full weeks prior to the date set for hearing. The first publication of the notice
need not be made 21 days before the hearing date. When notice was made on Dec.
4, 11 and 18, and the hearing was on the 19th, the requirement would have been
satisfied.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
SEC. 4. Filing copy of printed notice.Within ten (10) days after the notice has
been published and posted n accordance with the preceding section, the executor or
administrator shall file or cause to be filed in the court a printed copy of the notice
accompanied with an affidavit setting forth the dates of the first and last publication
thereof and the name of the newspaper in which the same is printed.
Q: Does the court have jurisdiction to order the payment of a debt for
which no claim has been filed?
A: In the instant case, there was no claim made, filed or presented to the probate
commissioners by anyone, and for such reason, the allowance of an alleged claim by
them on their own volition was null and void ab initio.
SEC. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred;
exceptions.All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract,
express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for
funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment
for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice;
otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as
counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the
claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes
an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set
forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them
independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off
against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the
defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against
the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the
administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at
their present value.
Q: What are the claims which must be filed within the time limited in the
notice?
A: Only claims which survive such as:
1. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or
implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent;
2. All claims for funeral expenses;
3. Expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; or
4. Judgment for money against the decedent. (Sec. 5, Rule 86)
NOTE: Action on contractual claims such as favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff in an action for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied,
and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment may be filed against the
estate of the decedent. (Sec. 20, Rule 3)
Action which survives like an action to recover real or personal property or an
interest therein from the estate may be commenced against the executor or
administrator under Rule 87.
Q: What if the effect of claims not filed?
A: As expressly provided by the rule, all claims not presented within the time
herein provided are barred.
Except they may be set up as counterclaims in any action that the executor or
administrator may bring against the claimants.
'!"#". / 0 1 2 / ( $ 3 ( $ / 4 5 2 6 ( ) 7 8 ( ' / 9 ( : ; < < = : ; < : (
& 5 5 > 3 ( ) 6 0 / ? 1 ( $ @ A / (
Q: What alternative does a claimant against the estate have within the
period fixed in the notice to creditors?
A: The claims may also be set forth by answer where the executor or administrator
commences an action or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased
in his lifetime, when the period for filing has not yet expired. The answer shall have
the same effect as a filing of claims under the notice to creditors. In such actions,
mutual claims are allowed to be set-off against each other. If final judgment is
rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered
the true balance against the estate as though the claim has been presented directly
before the court in the administration proceedings.
Q: Does the expression must be filed within the time on the notice
include the extension of time granted in accordance with 2?
A: YES. 2 was incorporated for the purpose of affording a chance to those who, for
good cause shown and for equitable reasons, before an order of distribution of the
decedents estate is entered, failed to file just claims. If the creditor, after having
ben granted the opportunity as specified in the second part of 2 still failed to file
his claim, then it is barred forever. This must be so since the law does not give a
premium on the negligence and lack of interest of the creditor.
Q: What is the purpose of presentation of claims against the decedents
estate?
A: Presentation is required in order to protect the estate of the deceased by
informing the executor or administrator of claims against it, thus enabling him to
examine which ones are proper and should be allowed. The provision requiring
presentation is primarily to apprise the administrator and the court of the claim, so
a proper and timely arrangement for payment can be made; in full or pro rata in the
course of administration.
Q: Why are claims that are not filed barred forever?
A: The statute on non-claims and limitations have been set up since it is a matter of
public policy that estates should be speedily determined.
Q: Must a claim be filed even if there is a direction in the will for the
payment of debts?
A: It is generally held that such direction, which does not create an express trust
does not obviate he necessity on the part of the creditor of presenting, probating or
prosecuting his claim within the period fixed. Where however the direction in the
will is specific as to the debt to be paid, or the property wherefrom the payment is
to be made, it may create an express trust; and it has been held that there is no
necessity for the creditor to present, probate, prove or prosecute his claim within
the time designated by the non-claim statute. The will furnished the evidence of
indebtedness incurred during the lifetime of the decedent.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
final. No writ of execution should issue against the properties of the deceased. The
claim for satisfaction of the money judgment should be presented in the probate
court for payment by the administrator. (Paredes vs. Moya)
Py eng Chong vs. Herrera - Had the levy been made before the death of the
judgment debtor, the sale on execution could have been carried to completion in
accordance with Section 7(c) of Rule 39 which provides that in case the judgment
debtor dies after execution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same
may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment.
Q: What are claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last illness of
the decedent?
A: These are legal and proper expenses of administration. They are also required to
be filed within the time specified. Claims for funeral expenses are the only ones
arising after the death of the decedent that can be allowed against the estate.
On the other hand, Section 5 of Rule 86 provides that a judgment for money against
the decedent must be filed with the court in the proceeding for the settlement of the
estate. In other words, the cut-off date is the date of actual levy of execution. If the
judgment debtor dies after such levy, the property levied upon may be sold; if
before, the money judgment must be presented as a claim against the estate,
although of course the same need no longer be proved, the judgment itself being
conclusive. But the judgment creditor will share the estate with other creditors,
subject only to such preferences as are provided by law. (Evangelista vs.
Proveedora)
an absolute claim
Absolute Claim
Is not subject to any contingency and
would be the proper subject of
immediate legal action if contested
between living persons.
+80(;,"=(,;(&(*1&$=>(!
)7( E#<! ".'! (#8%&! ,)! &.'! 'H'%(,1'! #*! ,&1! +06,),1&%+&,/'! (#)&%#4! #/'%! &.'! 'H'(8&#%! #%!
+06,),1&%+&#%!6+@!0,%'(&!.,6!&#!$+@!18(.!&+H'1!2.'&.'%!#%!)#&!+11'11'0!5'*#%'!#%!+*&'%!
&.'! 0'+&.! #*! &.'! 0'('0')&<! ?#%'#/'%7! &.'! +6#8)&! 6+@! 5'! (#44'(&'0! '/')! +*&'%!
0,1&%,58&,#)7!*%#6!&.'!.',%1!,)!$%#$#%&,#)!&#!&.',%!,).'%,&+)('<
SEC. 6. Solidary obligation of decedent.Where the obligation of the decedent
is solidary with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he
were the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover
contribution from the other debtor. In a joint obligation of the decedent, the claim
shall be confined to the portion belonging to him.
Q: What does 6 Rule 86 provide?
A: This rule requires a solidary obligation to be filed against the estate as if he were
the only debtor. If he estate pays, it can recover contribution from the other solidary
debtor. However, if the obligation is joint, the claim should be confined to the
portion belonging to him.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
third alternative under Section 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. (Vda. De Jacob vs.
CA)
Q: What is the effect of abandonment by the creditor of his security?
A: A person holding a mortgage against the estate of a deceased person may
abandon such security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided by this Rule
and share in the distribution of the general assets. But if he thus abandons his
claims on the mortgage, he cannot later maintain an action upon the mortgage to
foreclose it.
Q: Who is the party defendant in an action by the mortgage creditor to
foreclose his mortgage?
A: In such action, the executor or administrator should be made a party defendant.
Where real property registered under the Torrens system is mortgaged, with the
approval of the court, the administrator or his successor is the sole indispensable
party defendant in a proceeding to foreclose the mortgage. The heirs of the
decedent, even supposing them to be proper parties, are not indispensable parties
in such a case.
Q: What if the mortgage creditor has a deficiency judgment?
A: He may claim his deficiency judgment against the estate.
Q: State the nature of a judgment allowing a claim?
A: The judgment allowing the claim shall direct the executor or administrator to pay,
in due course of administration, the amount ascertained to be due, and it shall not
create a legal lien upon the property of the estate or give to the judgment creditor
any priority payment. All claimants shall share pro rata in the liquidation of the
estate of the deceased.
SEC. 8. Claim of executor or administrator against an estate.If the
executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he shall give
notice thereof, in writing, to the court, and 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 or executor in the
settlement of other claims. The court may order the executor or administrator to
pay to the special administrator necessary funds to defend such claim.
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
substance of the matters which are relied upon to support the admission or denial.
If he has no knowledge sufficient to enable him to admit or deny specifically, he
shall state such want of knowledge. The executor or administrator in his answer
shall allege in offset any claim which the decedent before death had against the
claimant, and his failure to do so shall bar the claim forever. A copy of the answer
shall be served by the executor or administrator on the claimant. The court in its
discretion may extend the time for filing such answer.
Q: What is the period for filing an answer to the claim?
A: Within 15 days after service of a copy of the claim on the executor or
administrator, he shall file his answer to the claim. The court, in its discretion, may
extend the time for filing such answer.
Q: Why must an answer be filed?
A: The claim filed may be considered equivalent to an action against the executor or
administrator and therefore, the latter must file an answer.
Q: What are the contents of the answer?
a. Admit or deny the claim specifically, and set forth the substance of the matters
which are relied upon to support the admission or denial. If he has no
knowledge sufficient to enable him to admit or deny specifically, he shall state
such want of knowledge;
b. The executor or administrator in his answer must allege in offset any claim
which the decedent before death had against the claimant
NOTE: A copy of the answer must be served upon the claimant.
SEC. 11. Disposition of admitted claim.Any claim admitted entirely by the
executor or administrator shall immediately be submitted by the clerk to the court
who may approve the same without hearing; but the court, in its discretion, before
approving the claim, may order that known heirs, legatees, or devisees be notified
and heard. If upon hearing, an heir, legatee, or devisee opposes the claim, the court
may, in its discretion, allow him fifteen (15) days to file an answer to the claim in
the manner prescribed in the preceding section.
Q: May a claim be admitted without hearing?
A: Any claim admitted entirely by the executor or administrator shall be
immediately submitted by the clerk of court to the court who may approve such
claim without hearing; but the court in its discretion before approving such claim,
may order that known heirs, legatees and devisees be notified and heard.
Q: What is the amount of claim that the court may allow?
A: The court can allow less but not more than the amount of the claim presented
against the estate of the deceased.
Q: Do the heirs have the right to intervene in the administration of the
estate?
A: The intervention of heirs is permitted in the discretion of the court for the
purpose of preventing any possible collusion between the claimant and the executor
or administrator.
SEC. 12. Trial of contested claim.Upon the filing of an answer to a claim, or
upon the expiration of the time for such filing, the clerk of court shall set the claim
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
for trial with notice to both parties. The court may refer the claim to a
commissioner.
Q: When does the duty of the clerk of court to set the claim for trial arise?
A: The duty of the clerk of court to set the claim for trial arises upon:
1. The filing of an answer to the claim
2. The expiration of time for such filing
NOTE: The clerk of court must also notify both parties of the trial.
SEC. 13. Judgment appealable.The judgment of the court approving or
disapproving a claim, shall be filed with the record of the administration proceedings
with notice to both parties, and is appealable as in ordinary cases. A judgment
against the executor or administrator shall be that he pay, in due course of
administration, the amount ascertained to be due, and it shall not create any lien
upon the property of the estate, or give to the judgment creditor any priority of
payment.
Q: What shall be the judgment of the court upon allowance of the claim?
A: A judgment against the executor or administrator shall be that he pay, in due
course of administration, the amount as ascertained to be due. The judgment
approving s claim shall NOT create a lien, or give to the judgment creditor any
priority of payment.
Q: Is the administrator personally liable for the payment of a claim?
A: A personal representative will be protected in the payment of a claim which has
been duly allowed or ordered by the court, although it should not have been paid in
full, unless it its made to appear that such allowance of the claim, or order for
payment thereof was obtained through his collusion or bad faith.
Q: May a judgment allowing/rejecting a disputed claim be appealed?
A: YES. Appeal may be taken as in ordinary cases.
SEC. 14. Costs.When the executor or administrator, in his answer, admits and
offers to pay part of a claim, and the claimant refuses to accept the amount offered
in satisfaction of his claim, if he fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, he
cannot recover costs, but must pay to the executor or administrator costs from the
time of the offer. Where an action commenced against the deceased for money has
been discontinued and the claim embraced therein presented as in this rule
provided, the prevailing party shall be allowed the costs of his action up to the time
of its discontinuance.
Q: What does 14 Rule 86 provide?
A: It provides for a case where the claimant is not entitled to recover costs from
the executor or administrator. It further provides for an instance when the
prevailing party may be allowed the costs of his action.
Q: When is the claimant NOT entitled to recover costs?
A: When an executor or administrator, in his answer, admits and offers to pay part
of a claim, and the claimant refuses to accept the amount offered in satisfaction of
his claim. If he fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, he cannot recover costs,
but must pay the executor or administrator the costs. The liability of the claimants
for costs in this case starts from the time the executor or administrator made the
offer to pay.
+ VCNFS
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
"
) * $ # # + % , - !
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The heirs of the deceased are Arman Galang (39 years old, resident of
1 Pilar Ave., Las Pinas City) and Bagong Silang (18 years old, resident
of 1 Pilar Ave., Las Pinas City).
The deceased left real property (house and lot) at 2 Pilar Ave, Las
Pinas, valued at P960,000,000.
(Sgd.)
Counsel for the Plaintiff
23 Pilar Street, BF Homes
Las Pinas
+ VCNFS