ARMANDO BERNARDO V.
COURT OF APPEALS MANALO VS CA
GR No. 18148 February 28, 1963
FACTS:
Capili died in 1958, testate in which he disposed his properties in favor of his wife,
cousins all surnamed Capili and Arturo, Deogracias (petitioner) and Eduardo, all surnamed
Bernardo. Reyes (wife) died the following year. Upon petition of Deogracias Bernardo,
executor of the estate of Capili, she (Reyes) was substituted by her collateral relatives and
intestate heirs, namely, Marcos, Vicente, Francisco and Dominga, all surnamed Reyes; and
Jose, Constancia, Raymunda and Elena, all surnamed Isidoro. The executor filed a project of
partition in the estate proceedings in accordance with the terms of the will, adjudicating the
estate of Capili among the testamentary heirs with the exception of Reyes, whose share was
allotted to her collateral relatives.
These relatives filed an opposition to the executor’s project of partition and
submitted a counter-projection of their own claiming ½ of the properties mentioned in the
will of the deceased Capili on the theory that they belong not to the latter alone but to
the conjugal partnership of the spouses.
The probate court issued an order declaring the donation void for the reason that
it falls under Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donation between spouses during
the marriage. In the same order, the court disapproved both project of partitions and
directed the executor to file another, dividing the property mentioned in the last will and
testament of Capili and the properties mentioned in the deed of donation, between the
instituted heirs of Capili and Reyes, upon the basis that the said properties were conjugal
properties of the deceased spouses.
ISSUE: Whether or not a probate court in a special proceeding had jurisdiction to determine
the validity of the deed of donation in question and pass upon the question of title or
ownership of the properties mentioned in the will.
HELD: YES
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The Court held that the determination of
title to property is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The probate court has
the jurisdiction since there is a necessity to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to
determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among heirs who are all
parties to the proceedings, including the widow, now represented because of her death, by
her heirs who have been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who
appeared voluntarily. The petitioners, by presenting their project of partition including
therein the disputed lands (upon the claim that they were donated by the wife to her
husband) put in question the issue of ownership of the properties is within the competence
of the probate court.
GR No. 129242, January 16, 2001
FACTS:
Troadic Manalo who died on February 1992, was survived by his Pilar and his 11
children. The deceased left several real properties in Manila and a business in Tarlac. In
November 1992, herein respondents, 8 of the surviving children, filed a petition with RTC
Manila for the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father and for appointment of
their brother Romeo Manalo as administrator thereof. Hearing was set on February 11, 1993
and the herein petitioners were granted 10 days within which to file their opposition to the
petition.
There was publication; TC issued ordered the whole world in default except the
govt; but petitioners opposed; TC admitted oppositors but denied their prayer; CA affirmed
ISSUE: WON the case at bar is covered under Article 151 where earnest efforts toward
compromise should first be made prior the filing of the petition.
HELD:
It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding,
the averments and the character of the relief were sought in the complaint or petition, shall
be controlling. The careful scrutiny of the petition for the issuance of letters of
administration, settlement and distribution of the estate belies herein petitioners’ claim that
the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The provision of Article 151 is applicable
only to ordinary civil actions. It is clear from the term “suit” that it refers to an action by one
person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues
the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or enforcement of a right. It
is also the intention of the Code Commission as revealed in the Report of the Code
Commission to make the provision be applicable only to civil actions. The petition for
issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and distribution of estate is a special
proceeding and as such a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact. Hence, it must be emphasized that herein petitioners are not
being sued in such case for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was pronounced
therein.
VDA DE RAMOS vs CA
FACTS:
The late Eugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others Adelaida Nista as
one of the instituted heirs. Nista petitioned before the court to admit the will to probate.
The petition was opposed by Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina Guerra. The two
oppositors claimed that they were the legally adopted children of Danila; that the said will
sought to be probated by Nista was obtained through fraud.
The two parties talked and they came up with a compromise agreement which
essentially stated that Nista is admitting the invalidity of the will. The
compromise agreement was approved by the trial court BUT Rosario de Ramos et al
– the other instituted heirs and devisees – intervened. The trial court allowed the
intervention and set aside the compromise agreement. Rosario de Ramos et al
alleged that the Guerras repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and
committed acts of ingratitude against her.
Eventually, the probate court admitted the will to probate. The decision was appealed by
the Guerras. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the probate court. The CA ruled
that there was a failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses when she signed the will – this was because two of the instrumental
witnesses (Sarmiento and Paz) testified in court that the will was already signed by Danila
when they affixed their signatures.
However, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public before whom the will was
executed and who assisted in the execution, vehemently assailed the testimony of the
two witnesses. He affirmed Danila and the three instrumental witnesses were in each
other’s presence when the will was signed by them. Another lawyer, who was also present
during the execution of the will, corroborated the testimony of Atty. Barcenas.
ISSUE:
WON the last testament and its accompanying codicil were valid, considering the
complicated circumstances that two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due
execution while other non-subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary.
RULING: YES.
There is ample and satisfactory evidence to prove that the will and codicil were executed in
accordance with the formalities required by law. It appears positively and convincingly that
the documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero The execution of the same
was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas and before whom
the deeds were also acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is
attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of an ordinary layman.
The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of the will
and testament, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. The attestation clause was
signed by the instrumental witnesses. This serves as their admissions of the due execution
of the will and thus preventing them from prevaricating later on by testifying against the
will’s due execution.
ALABANVS.COURTOFAPPEALSG.R.No. 156021 September 23,2005(SpecPro 2016)
FACTS:
Petitioners maintain that they were not made parties to the case in which the decision
sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus, they could not have availed of the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment and other appropriate
remedies, contrary to the ruling of the CA.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioners were made parties in the proceedings
HELD:
Petitioners in this case are mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not become
parties to the probate proceedings.
Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that
with the corresponding publication of the petition the court’s jurisdiction extends to all
persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent.
Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they
eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of
hearing.
On the other hand, according to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.
Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate
heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the
Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for
probate, or to personally notify them of the same.
Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported
infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice.
PALAGANAS V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 157057
 This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by a
foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of execution.
 Ruperta (decedent), US citizen, died childless
 Sergio (brother) as the executor; done in California
 Ernesto (brother) as administrator; done in Bulacan
 Manuel and Benjamin (Nephews) as oppositors; should not be probated in the PH
 TC allowed probate of will
 Oppositors argued that an unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the U.S.
cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines. However, CA affirmed. - Section
2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance of the will
in the country of its execution, before it can be probated in the Philippine.
ISSUE: whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the
Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where
it was executed
HELD: YES
A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code
states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country.
Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will
In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate
court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be established.
PECSON vs. CORONEL 45 Phil 216
FACTS: On November 28, 1922, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga probated as the
last will and testament of Dolores Coronel (testatrix) who named as her sole heir Lorenzo
Pecson, the husband of her niece. The relatives of testatrix by consanguinity questioned the
genuineness of the will on the following grounds: First, that it was improbable and
exceptional that Dolores Coronel should dispose of her estate by excluding her blood
relatives; and second, that if such will was not expressed in fact, it was due to extraneous
illegal influence.
ISSUE: Whether the decedent can exclude her blood relatives in the disposition of her
estate.
HELD: YES. It is true that the ties of relationship in the Philippines are very strong but we
understand that cases of preterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The
liberty to dispose of one’s estate by will when there are no forced (compulsory) heirs is
rendered sacred by the Civil Code in force in the Philippines since 1989.
The SC held that nothing is strange in the preterition made by Dolores Coronel of her blood
relatives, nor in the designation of Lorenzo Pecson as her sole beneficiary. Furthermore,
although the institution of the beneficiary here would not seem the most usual and
customary, still this would not be null per se.
“In the absence of any statutory restriction every person possesses absolute dominion over
his property, and may bestow it upon whomsoever he pleases without regard to natural or
legal claim upon his bounty. If the testator possesses the requisite capacity to make a will,
and the disposition of his property is not affected by fraud or undue influence, the will is
not rendered invalid by the fact that it is unnatural, unreasonable, or unjust. Nothing can
prevent the testator from making a will as eccentric, as injudicious, or as unjust as caprice,
frivolity, or revenge can dictate. X X X ” (40 Cyc., 1079.)
FLEUMER v. HIX
4 Phil 610
FACTS:
The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the
latter’s will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his
residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the
petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, as found in West Virginia Code
and as certified to by the Director of National Library. The Judge of the First Instance
however denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and 301 of the Code of
Civil Procedure were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not it is necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of such law
in West Virginia as a prerequisite to the allowance and recording of said will.
RULING: Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The
courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the
various states of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the
requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an
extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state of West
Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the
law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal
of the State of West Virginia as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing
that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the
time alleged will was executed. The court therefore did not err in denying the probate
of the will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must be proved.
Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete
G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994
FACTS:
Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens
and residents of New York, each executed a will also in New York, containing provisions on
presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not known which one of the spouses
died first, the husband shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire
family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was named trustee in
Jose’s will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the wills.
Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael
opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir according to New York law. He contended
that since the wills were executed in New York, New York law should govern. He further
argued that, by New York law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as such
entitled to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.
For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and that the two
wills were in accordance with New York law. But before she could present evidence to
prove the law of New York, the reprobate court already issued an order, disallowing the
wills.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed
HELD:
Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens
The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be
effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of
the Philippines:
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with
the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or by
Philippine laws is imperative.
Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated
outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance
with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the
Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the
foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and
allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429;
Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except for the
first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence.
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the
foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice
of them.
On Lack of Notice to Jose’s Heirs
This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact -
petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan and
because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed
to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus, even in the instant petition, she
only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is being assailed is
merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876 [1992]).
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice
thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of
Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated abroad
should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for
the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require
publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and devisees of
the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are
required.
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are entitled
to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the
Revised Rules of Court, 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, . . . "
WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow petitioner reasonable
time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint probate of the wills of the Cunanan
spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and
copies of all pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings.