SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ORDINARY ACTION

To protect or enforce a right, or

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
To establish a status, right, or a
Atty. Nava to prevent or redress a wrong
Governed by ordinary rules
particular fact
Governed by special rules
supplemented by special rules supplemented by ordinary rules
Sources: Ateneo and San Beda Bar Operations Reviewers, Bautista (Special Proceedings); Albano
Initiated by Complaint Initiated by Petition
(Remedial Law Review); Assigned cases in class; Lecture notes; Rules of Court provisions
Based on a cause of action Not based on a cause of action
(EXCEPT for habeas corpus)
RULE 72 Definite Parties Definite petitioner, no definite
adverse party
SPECIAL PROCEEDING Answer is filed Opposition is filed
Is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact. (Rule 1, Sec.3) Heard by courts of general Heard by courts of limited
jurisdiction jurisdiction
Section 1 Adversarial Not adversarial
Private interests Government has an interest
SUBJECT MATTER OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS1 Binds other parties Binds the whole world
1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons Statute of Limitations applies No statute of limitations
2. Escheat 15-day appeal period 30-day appeal period
3. Guardianship and custody of children Single appeal Multiple appeals
4. Trustees
5. Hospitalization of insane patient DIFFERENT MODES OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON:
6. Habeas corpus 1. Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Rule 74, Sec. 1)
7. Change of name i. Extrajudicial partition
8. Declaration of absence and death ii. Self-Adjudication
9. Cancellation of correction of entries in civil registry 2. Summary Settlement of Estate of Small Value (Rule 74, Sec. 2)
3. Judicial Settlement of Estate
OTHER SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS i. Partition (Rule 69)
1. Liquidation proceedings ii. Probate of Will (Rule 75 to 79)
2. Corporate rehabilitation 4. Petition for Letters of Administration in case of Intestacy (Rule 79)
3. Recognition and enforcement of arbitration proceedings
4. Vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award JURISPRUDENCE:
5. Any application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision
6. Writ of Amparo Hagans vs. Wislizenus
7. Writ of Habeas Data  Judge W appointed assessors for the purpose of fixing the amount due to an administrator for
his services and the expenses for the care, management and settlement of the estate of the
Section 2 deceased person.
 Judges of CFI are without authority to appoint assessors.
 In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far
as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. Pacific Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
 P Bank was placed under receivership and liquidation. RTC ordered the liquidator to pay the
claims of a union and preferred creditors.
 A petition for liquidation is a special proceeding.
1 No longer included as part of special proceedings:
1. Adoption; Rescission and revocation of adoption = Now, Inter-Country Adoption Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals
2. Voluntary dissolution of corporations = Now, governed by Sec. 119 of Corp Code  Some children of M filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate. It was opposed on the
3. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children = No more distinction between ground that there was absence of earnest efforts to compromise among members of the
illegitimate children
4. Constitution of family home = Supersede d by Article 100, Family Code
same family (condition precedent).

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 1

 The instant action is an SCA. In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding,
the averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint/petition shall be
controlling. The trial court, sitting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and
cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out
in an ordinary civil action.
 There is no need for it to aver the earnest efforts towards compromise have been exerted as
in a suit between members of the same family.
Natcher vs. Court of Appeals
 G sold to his second wife N a parcel of land which used to form a part of his first wife’s estate.
After G’s death, his children filed an action for reconveyance and annulment of title against N.
 The action for reconveyance and annulment of title 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. 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.
Hernaez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
 H Jr. filed a complaint for compulsory acknowledgement and support against H Sr. RTC
declared Jr. a recognized natural child of Sr. Later on, H Sr.’s wife and children filed a petition
for relief alleging that notice of the action was not given to them.
 An action for compulsory recognition of minor natural children is an ordinary civil action. Said
action shall be brought against the putative parent only.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
 A filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her absentee husband C. RTC
granted the petition. Republic appealed but failed to file a record on appeal.
 An action for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding. There is no need for
a record on appeal to be filed by the Republic.
Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran
 J died intestate. A, J’s child in his first marriage, executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication as Sole
Heir.” P, J’s child in his second marriage, filed a complaint for annulment.
 Where the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the
special proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending, or if there
are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of the case, a need to
file one, then the determination of heirship should be raised and settled in said special
proceedings.
 Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally terminated or if a putative
heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he
can no longer ask for its re-opening, then a ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration
as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition or distribution or adjudication of a
property belonging to the estate of the deceased.
Rebong vs. Ibanez
 After he posted a bond pursuant to Act No. 496, R filed a petition to cancel the annotation on
the certificate of title of a land which he inherited from his parents.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
 Such lien cannot be discharged nor the annotation be cancelled by the register of deeds
within the 2 year period even if the distributees offer to post a bond to answer for contingent
claims from which lien is established.
Torres vs. Torres
 A filed a petition that letter of administration be issued to him AFTER the heirs entered into an
extrajudicial partition and settlement of the estate but failed to agree on the physical division
of the properties.
 If there is an actual necessity for court intervention due to the heirs‟ failure to reach an
agreement as to how the estate would be divided physically, A still has the remedy of an
ordinary action for partition.
Ermac vs. Medelo
 Spouses E died leaving only one parcel of land with an assessed value of P590. Granchild M
filed a petition for summary settlement of the estate. Child E filed a separate civil action
claiming ownership of the lot. While the case was pending, RTC granted approved the project
of partition submitted by M.
 Small estates call for summary proceedings. The probate court is not the forum to resolve
adverse claims of ownership. Such claim must be ventilated in an independent action and the
probate court should proceed to the distribution of the estate. Proper annotation of lis
pendens can protect the claimant.
Pereira vs. Court of Appeals
 A died intestate. His sister N filed for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor. His
wife P opposed the petition alleging that there exists no estate for purposes of administration.
N was appointed administratix.
 GR: When a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially administered and the
competent court should appoint a qualified administrator in case the deceased left no will, or
in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor therein.
 EX: Where all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate, they
may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or
applying for the appointment of an administrator.
 Section 1, Rule 74 does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration proceedings,
even if the estate has no debt or obligations, id they do not desire to resort for good reasons
to an ordinary action for partition. What constitutes “good reason” will depend on the
circumstances of each case.
RULE 73
Section 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons
i. RTC – Gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000/P400,000 (Manila)
ii. MTC – Gross value of the estate does not exceed P300,000/P400,000 (Manila)
 If resident – place where deceased resided at time of death
 If non-resident – place where deceased had estate
Page 2
  NOTE: MTC jurisdiction is exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, RESIDENCE/VENUE
attorney‟s fees, litigation expenses and costs. Fule vs. CA : It means his personal, actual or physical habitation, his actual residence or place of
2. Escheat abode.
i. Ordinary escheat proceedings: RTC
 If resident – place where deceased last resided EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS:
 If non-resident – place where he had estate Probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. It may only determine and rule upon issues relating
ii. Reversion of land to State for violation of Constitution / Laws: RTC where land lies in to the settlement of the estate, namely:
whole or in part 1. Administration of the estate
iii. Unclaimed deposits (for 10 years): RTC of province where bank is located 2. Liquidation of the estate
 all banks located in 1 province where court is located may be made parties 3. Distribution of the estate
defendant in 1 action.
3. Guardianship and custody of children: Family Court GR: Probate court cannot determine issue of ownership.
 If resident – place where minor/incompetent resides EX:
 If non-resident – place where minor/incompetent has property 1. Provisionally, ownership may be determined for the purpose of including property in the
4. Trustees inventory, without prejudice to the final determination of title in a separate action.
i. RTC – Gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000/P400,000 2. Interested parties who are all heirs consents and 3rd parties not prejudiced
ii. MTC – Gross value of the estate does exceed P300,000/P400,000 3. Question is one of collation or advancement
 If will allowed in the Philippines – court where will was allowed
 If will allowed outside the Philippines – court in place where property is situated PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE
5. Adoption: Regional Trial Court The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the decedent shall exercise
 If domestic adoption – place where adopter resides jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
 If inter-country adoption – court who has jurisdiction over the adoptee
6. Rescission and revocation of adoption: Regional Trial Court  The probate court acquires jurisdiction from the moment the petition for the settlement of
7. Hospitalization of insane patient: RTC in place where person alleged to be insane is found estate is filed with said court.
8. Habeas corpus
i. SC (original, concurrent with RTC) Uriarte vs. CFI : Institution in the court where the decedent is neither an inhabitant nor had his
ii. CA (original, concurrent with RTC) estate may be waived.
iii. RTC (within its respective region)
iv. MTC (in absence of RTC judges in province/city) Manzanero vs. CFI of Batangas : The venue of a probate proceeding can be questioned only on
9. Change of name appeal, but certiorari is available if the impropriety of the venue appears on the record.
i. Judicial (Rules of Court): RTC in place where petitioner resides
ii. Administrative (RA 9048): REMEDY IF VENUE IS IMPROPERLY LAID
 Civil registar where entry is located or if applicant migrated: civil registar in place 1. Ordinary appeal
where he resides 2. Certiorari or Mandamus when want of jurisdiction appears on the record of the case
 Consul General: if applicant resides abroad
10. Voluntary dissolution of corporations: SEC  Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same estate.
11. Constitution of family home: under the Family Code, it is deemed constituted on a house and
lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence Section 2
12. Declaration of absence and death: RTC in place where absentee resided before his
disappearance WHERE THE ESTATE SETTLED UPON DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
13. Cancellation of correction of entries in civil registry 1. Death of either husband or wife – Liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
i. Judicial (Rules of Court): RTC in place where the civil registry is located deceased husband of wife
ii. Administrative (RA 1948): 2. Both died – Liquidation may be made in the testate or intestate proceedings of either
 Civil registar where entry is located or if applicant migrated: civil registar in place
where he resides Section 3
 Consul General: if applicant resides abroad
 RTC may issue warrants and processes to compel the attendance of witnesses.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 3

GR: Probate court cannot issue writs of execution.
EX:
1. To satisfy the contributive shares of the devisees, legatees, and heirs in possession of
decedent‟s assets;
2. To enforce payment of expenses in partition;
3. To satisfy costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings.
4. To satisfy the claim in summary settlement proceedings of creditors or heirs who appear
within 2 years from the distribution.
Section 4
 No need for an independent action for Declaration of Presumptive Death for purposes of
succession.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Dinglasan vs. Ang Chia
 A probate court is justified and does not act in excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
a civil case filed against an administratix to recover possession of real property where it
appears that the same property is involved in the intestate estate proceedings pending before
said court and in fact is the only property of the estate left subject of administration and
distribution.
Eusebio vs. Eusebio
 The presumption is that the testator retained such domicile, and hence, residence, in the
absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, for it is well-settled that a domicile once acquired
is retained until a new domicile is gained.
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
 The question of whether certain properties involved in a testate proceeding belong to the
conjugal partnership or to the husband exclusively property is a matter within the jurisdiction
of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to
determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among his heirs who are all
parties to the proceedings.
Rodriguez vs. Borja
 The power to settle decedent‟s estate is conferred by law upon all CFIs and the domicile of
the testator affects only the venue and not the jurisdiction of the court. The law of jurisdiction
confers upon CFIs jurisdiction over all probate cases independently of the place of residence
of the deceased.
Cuenco vs. Court of Appeals
 If during the pendency of intestate proceedings, a will of the decedent is discovered,
proceedings for the probate of the will shall replace the intestate proceedings even if an
administrator had already been appointed therein.
 The residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction
over the subject matter but merely of venue.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
 Under this rule of venue, the court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take
cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the
exclusion of all other courts.
Fule vs. Court of Appeals
 Term “resides” connotes “actual residence” as distinguished from “legal residence or
domicile.” Terms “residence” and “domicile” as generally used in statutes fixing venue, are
synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term “inhabitant.”
 “Resides” should be viewed or understood as the personal, actual, or physical habitation of a
person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and
actual stay thereat. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given
place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it
one‟s domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the
residence must be more than temporary.
 While the probate court has discretion to appoint a special administrator, the exercise of this
discretion should reckon with the preferences established for the choice of a regular
administrator.
Coca vs. Borromeo
 Whether a particular matter should be resolved by the Court of First Instance in the exercise
of its general jurisdiction or of its limited probate jurisdiction us in reality not a jurisdictional
question. In essence, it is a procedural question involving a mode of practice which may be
waived.
Maloles II vs. Phillips
 Although Sec. 1, Rule 73 applies insofar as the venue of the petition for probate of the will is
concerned, it does not bar other branches of the same court from taking cognizance of the
settlement of the estate of the testator after his death.
 Where the testator petitioned for probate of his will during his lifetime and for the issuance of
letters testamentary to his named executrix, his nephew cannot oppose the probate, because
such nephew is not “an interested party,” as he is neither an heir or legatee under the will.
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals
 Upon the death of one spouse, the powers of administration of the surviving spouse ceases
and is passed to the administrator appointed by the court having jurisdiction over the
settlement of the estate proceedings.
Camaya vs. Patulandong
 A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the
estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties.
Pacioles vs. Chuatoco-Ching
 When a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of the
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 question cannot be determined in the course of an intestate or probate
proceedings.
Page 4
San Luis vs. San Luis 2. How the property is to be divided between the plaintiff and the defendants
 For purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the residence of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not CONTENTS OF EFFECT OF JUDGMENT
necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and JUDGMENT
consistency. If actual partition of property is The judgment shall To vest in each party to
made state definitely, by the action, in severalty the
metes and bounds and portion of the estate
RULE 69 adequate description, assigned to him
the particular portion of
PARTITION the estate assigned to
The process of dividing and assigning property owned in common among the various co-owners each party
thereof in proportion to their respective interests in the property. If the whole property is assigned The judgment shall To vest in the party
to one of the parties upon paying state the fact of such making the payment the
COMPLAINT IN ACTION FOR PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE to the others the sum or sums payment and the whole or part of the real
1. Initiated though a complaint ordered by the court assignment of the real estate free from any
2. By a person having the RIGHT to COMPEL PARTITION; estate to the party interest on the part of the
3. Setting forth the NATURE and EXTENT of his TITLE; making the payment other parties to the action
4. And an adequate description of the real estate; If the property is sold and the The judgment shall To vest the real estate in
5. Joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property. sale is confirmed by the court state the name of the the purchaser/s making
purchaser/s and a the payment/s, free from
PARTIES definite description of the claims of any of the
1. All co-owners are indispensable parties the parcels of real parties to the action
2. Creditors or assignees of co-owners may intervene and object to a partition effected without estate sold to each
their concurrence. But they cannot impugn a partition already executed, unless: purchaser
i. There has been fraud, or
ii. In case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it.
 If real estate cannot be divided without prejudice to parties‟ interest, court may:
TWO STAGES OF PARTITION 1. ASSIGN it to ONE of the parties provided he pays to the other parties an amount
1. Determination of W/N a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper deemed equitable by the commissioners; or
 Ends in either: 2. SELL it if ONE of the parties asks that the property be sold instead of being so assigned.
a. Declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to partition because no co-ownership exists
or partition is legally prohibited; or RULE 74
b. Judgment that co-ownership exists and partition is proper
 The order is final and may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby GR: The settlement of the estate of the decedent should be judicially administered through an
2. When the parties are unable to agree upon the partition ordered by the court, the partition is administrator or executor.
effected for the parties by the court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners. EX:
 Deal with the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval by the court after the 1. Extrajudicial settlement;
parties have been accorded the opportunity to be heard 2. Summary settlement of estate of small value (not exceeding P10,000)
 Award for the recovery by the party entitled to their just shares in the rents and profits of
the real estate in question. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT:
 Order is final and appealable. 1. Does not require court intervention
2. Value of estate is immaterial
GR: Partition can be made anytime and the right to demand partition is imprescriptible. 3. Allowed only in intestate succession
EX: If a co-owner asserts adverse title to the property in which case the period of prescription runs 4. Proper only where there are no outstanding debts of the estate at the time of settlement
from such time of assertion of adverse title 5. Can be resorted to only at the instance and by agreement of all heirs. (If heirs do not agree,
they may resort to an action for partition)
ISSUES IN AN ACTION FOR PARTITION
1. Whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 5

Section 1 Amount of bond if equal to the value of personal Amount of bond is to be determined by the
property. court.
REQUISITES OF A VALID EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT:
Substantive: DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT DECEDENT LEFT NO DEBTS:
1. Decedent dies intestate; If no creditor filed a petition for letters of administration within 2 years after the death of the
2. Decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid decedent.
3. Heirs are all of age or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians or legal
representatives; Hernandez vs. Andul : There can be an oral partition of estate. The required public instrument is
4. Partition was made by means of a public instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of not constitutive of the contract of partition but merely an evidence thereof.
Deeds.
Section 2
Procedural
1. Settlement is made in a public instrument duly filed with the register of deeds or by affidavit of SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES WITH SMALL VALUE:
adjudication in the case of a sole heir; 1. Involves judicial adjudication in a summary proceedings
2. Filed with the Register of Deeds; 2. Applies only when gross estate does not exceed P10,000 (Amount is jurisdictional)
3. Published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks; 3. Allowed in both testate and intestate estates;
4. Bond filed equivalent to the value of the personal property. 4. Available even if there are debts as the court will make provisions for the payment thereof

WHEN BOND FILED IS REQUIRED: IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS:

Rebong vs. Ibanez : Bond filed is required only when personal property is involved. If real, it is 1. Application must contain allegation of gross value of estate
subject to a lien in favor of creditor for full period of 2 years from such distribution and such lien 2. Date for hearing
cannot be substituted by a bond i. Set by court not less than 1 month nor more than 3 months from date of last publication
of notice
BOND ii. Order of hearing, published once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
It is the value of the personal property certified by the parties under oath and conditioned upon general circulation
payment of just claims under Sec. 4, Rule 74. 3. Notice shall be served upon such interested persons as the court may direct
4. Bond amount fixed by the court (not value of personal property) conditioned upon payment of
Hernandez vs. Andal : Private instrument/document or oral agreement of partition is valid among just claims under Sec. 4
the heirs who participated in the EJS. The requirement in Rule 74 Sec. 1 that it must be in a public
instrument is NOT constitutive of the validity but is merely evidentiary. Reformation, in this case Section 3
can be compelled.
 Amount of bond is determined by the court.
Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals : A partition agreement is not covered by the Statute of
Frauds because a partition is not exactly a conveyance of real property from one to the other, but Section 4
rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property by the heir renouncing in favor of
another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance. WHEN SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES IN COURT MAY BE COMPELLED:
1. Undue deprivation of lawful participation in the estate
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT SUMMARY SETTLEMENT 2. Existence of debts against the estate
No court intervention. Requires summary adjudication 3. Undue deprivation of lawful participation payable in money
Value of the estate is immaterial Gross estate must not exceed P10,000.
Allowed only in intestate succession. Allowed in both testate and intestate 2 YEAR LIEN, REQUISITES:
succession. 1. Persons have taken part or have notice of extrajudicial partition;
There must be no outstanding debts of the It is available even if there are debts; it is the 2. Compliance with the provisions of Rule 74, Sec. 1
estate at the time of the settlement. court which will make provision for its payment.
Resorted at the instance and by agreement of May be instituted by ANY INTERESTED REMEDIES OF EXCLUDED CREDITORS:
ALL heirs. PARTY even a creditor of the estate without the 1. Compel the settlement of the estate by the courts
consent of all heirs.  Within 2 years from the registration of the deed of EJ partition
2. Ask the probate court to order the payment of the creditor‟s claim
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 6
  Within 2 years from the registration of the deed of EJ partition
 Court may issue execution against the bond or against the real estate of the deceased
or both
REMEDIES OF EXCLUDED HEIR:
1. Same remedies as excluded creditors
2. Sue for rescission or annulment of the EJ partition
 On the ground of lesion/preterition
 In partition tainted with bad faith
 Annulment on the ground of fraud prescribes in 4 years from discovery
3. Sue his co-heirs for recovery of his share in a reivindicatory action
 On the ground of constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud
 Prescribes in 10 years
- From the date of registration, or
- From the date of issuance of certificate of title, or
- From actual discovery of fraud if the registration was made in bad faith.
 Prescribes in 4 years
- From discovery of fraud (Date of registration of the partition agreement)
- When partitioning co-heirs held their shares adversely to the excluded heirs
Villamor vs. Court of Appeals : Where there is no adverse possession among partitioning heirs,
the action for recovery of the excluded heir‟s share does not prescribe.
 After the lapse of 2 years, an ordinary action may be instituted against the distributees within
the statute of limitations but not against the bond.
LRC CIRCULAR 143
The 2-year lien upon the real property distributed by extrajudicial or summary settlement shall be
annotated on the title issued to the distributees and after 2 years will be cancelled by the register of
deeds without need of court order.
Section 5
If on the date of the expiration of the 2-year period, the creditor or heir is:
1. Minor or incapacitated
2. In prison
3. Outside of the Philippines
He may present his claim within one year after such disability is removed (Rule 75, Sec. 5).
JURISPRUDENCE:
Ancog vs. Court of Appeals
 R obtained a loan from a bank, secured by a mortgage on the land that used to form part of
conjugal property with her deceased husband. To better facilitate the loan, R submitted an
extrajudicial settlement signed by her and the other heirs (except minor G). R exercised rights
of ownership over the land. R brought an ejectment case against one of the heirs.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
 The EJ settlement was valid. Under Art. 1082 of the Civil Code, every act which is intended to
put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should
purport to be a sale, an exchange, or any other transaction.
Pada-Kilario vs. Court of Appeals
 Heirs of P executed a private document embodying an extrajudicial partition of the estate,
which was never registered in the ROD. Only A was present while M et al. were represented
by their children without an SPA. 44 years after the EJ, one of the heirs donated the land to
PK. Later, heirs of A & M sold the land to another person.
 No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be valid.
The intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities is not undermined
when no creditors are involved. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a
public document so as to be effective as regards the heirs that participated therein.
Pedrosa vs. Court of Appeals
 M’s widow, R, and his adopted daughter, MA, entered into an EJ settlement of M’s estate. M’s
siblings filed an action to annul MA’s adoption. While the case was on appeal, M’s siblings
and R entered into an EJ settlement and partition (ESP) of the estate of M. MA filed an action
to annul the latter EJ settlement.
 The action to annul a deed of “extrajudicial settlement” upon the ground of fraud may be filed
within 4 years from the discovery of fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place
when said instrument was filed with the ROD and new certificates of title were issued. The 2-
year prescriptive period will not apply when the ground for annulment of ESP is fraud because
a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no
knowledge of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and vicious.
Avelino vs. Court of Appeals
 MS filed a petition for issuance of letter of administration of the estate of A. S, second wife of
A, and her children filed an opposition and a motion to convert the judicial proceedings to an
action for judicial partition.
 When a person dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs are not required to submit
the property for judicial administration nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the
court. Where the more expeditious remedy of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs
or the majority of them may not be compelled to submit to administration proceedings.
PEZA vs. Fernandez
 J et al. executed an EJ partition, in which they declared themselves as the only surviving heirs
of the registered owners of the lot. The lot was subject to expropriation proceedings initiated
by P. RTC partially approved the CA agreement between P and J et al. The other co-heirs
filed a complaint of nullity for having been excluded in the EJ settlement of the estate.
 The 2-year prescription period does not apply, to those who had no part in or had no notice of
the settlement. An extrajudicial partition, being merely an ex parte proceeding, would not
affect third persons who had no knowledge thereof. By its registration in the manner provided
by law, a transaction may be known actually or constructively.
Page 7
Domingo vs. Roces In re Johnson
 G caused the annotation of an adverse claim on L’s title over the land. Later on, M, a nephew  A will which has been probated according to the law and without fraud, cannot be annulled, in
of L, executed an affidavit of self-adjudication over the land. Ownership was awarded in favor any other proceeding whatever, on account of any irregularity or defect in the execution of a
of M. M sold the land to spouses D. will, or on account of any error in the action of the court. The probate of the will does not affect
 Buyers of real property the title of which contains an annotation pursuant to Section 4, Rule the intrinsic validity of its provisions, the decree of probate being conclusive only as regards
74 cannot be considered innocent purchases for value. The presence of an irregularity in the the due execution of the will.
title which excites or arouses suspicion should prompt the buyer to look beyond the certificate  The order admitting a will to probate has the effect of a judgment.
and investigate the title of the vendor.
Avera vs. Garcia
RULE 75  An uncontested will may be proved by the testimony of only one of the attesting witnesses.
But when the will is opposed, all of the attesting witnesses must be examined, if alive and
within the reach of the process of the court.‟
CUSTODIAN
He is a person chosen in advance and entrusted with the custody of the will. It does not refer to a Manahan vs. Manahan
mere possessor of the will.  If the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees desire to make an
extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to the court for probate and
NATURE OF PROBATE PROCEEDINGS: divide the estate in accordance with the will. They may not disregard the provisions of the will
1. In rem unless those provisions are contrary to law. Neither may they do away with the presentation
2. Mandatory of the will to the court for probate because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and
3. Imprescriptible public policy.
4. Estoppel does not apply  Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody 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
PERIOD TO WHOM FINE accordance with that will without first securing its probate by the court.
CUSTODIAN Within 20 days after he He must deliver the Failure to deliver the  The order admitting the will to probate is conclusive in respect to the execution of the will and
learns of the death of will to the court or to will subjects him to the will can no longer be impugned for fraud in a separate and independent action.
the testator. the executor. a fine not exceeding
EXECUTOR Within 20 days after he He shall present the P2,000. Guevara vs. Guevara
knows of the testator‟s will to the court and  Presentation of a decedent‟s will to the court is more of a duty than a right.
death or signify in writing his
After he knows that he acceptance or Palacios vs. Catimbang Palacios
is named an executor refusal of the trust.  One claiming to be a natural daughter of the testator cannot oppose the admission to probate
after the testator‟s of a will because such opposition goes to the validity of the will‟s provisions and this issue
death must be raised in a separate action.

 A person having custody of a will after the death of the testator who neglects without
reasonable cause to deliver the same, when ordered so to do, to the court having jurisdiction,
may be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will. (Sec. 5, Rule 75)
Aldanese vs. Salutillo : The testimony of the photographer as to the identity of the photographic
copy shown to the witnesses, is admissible in the probate of the will.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Cabang vs. Delfinado
 The party opposing the claim of proper execution of the will has a right to the benefit of cross-
examining the attesting witnesses as to fraud, duress, or other matters of defense.
Rodriguez vs. Borja
 Jurisdiction of the probate court becomes vested upon the delivery thereto of the will even if
no petition for its probate was filed until later because upon the will being deposited the court
could, motu proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will and issued
the corresponding notices.
Fernandez vs. Dimagiba
 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.
 The probate order is final and is a proper subject of an appeal.
 Only total and absolute revocation will be a ground for denying probate, and an implied
revocation can affect only the particular devise or legacy.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 8

Maninang vs. Court of Appeals
 Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained
in probate proceedings because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been
executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.
 Disinheritance even though invalid will only result in the nullity of the portion of the estate of
which the disinherited have been illegally deprived, and therefore such invalid disinheritance
is not a ground for denying probate.
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS ALLEGED IN PETITION FOR PROBATE:
1. Person died leaving a will;
2. In case of a resident, that he resided within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; (in the case
of non-resident, that he left an estate within such territorial jurisdiction).
 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.

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals EFFECT OF THE PROBATE OF A WILL

 Since the court has not admitted the last will, petitioner is without any cause of action either to
seek reconveyance of the lots or to enforce an implied trust over such lots.
Alaban vs. Court of Appeals
 It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and
vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
RULE 76
It is conclusive as to the execution and the validity of the will.
GR: The only issue allowed in the probate of a will is the determination of the extrinsic validity, not
the intrinsic validity or validity of testamentary provisions.
EX:
1. Principle of practical consideration (waste of time, effort, expense plus added anxiety)
2. Where the entire or all testamentary dispositions are void and where the defect is
apparent on its face

Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals : Where the parties agree that the intrinsic validity be first
PROBATE determined, the probate court may also do so.
It is the act of proving in a court a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a
deceased person in order that it may be officially recognized, registered and its provisions carried MEANING OF DUE EXECUTION
insofar as they are in accordance with law. 1. Will was executed strictly in accordance with the formalities required by law
2. Testator was of sound mind and disposing mind when he executed the will
Section 1 3. No vitiation of consent though duress, fear or threats
4. Not procured by undue or improper pressure or influence on the part of the beneficiary, or
WHO MAY PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF A WILL: some other person for his benefit
1. Any creditor as preparatory step for filing his claim therein; 5. Signature of the testator is genuine
2. Devisee or legatee named in the will
3. Person interested in the estate (heirs) Section 3
4. Executor
5. Testator himself during his lifetime.
FILED BY THIRD PERSON FILED BY TESTATOR HIMSELF
Notice published once a week for Newspaper publication not
INTERESTED PARTY
3 consecutive weeks required
Sumilang vs. Ramagosa : One who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one
Personal notice given to Personal notice sent only to
who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor.
designated/known heirs, legatees testator‟s compulsory heirs
and devisees
WHO MAY BE A PARTY IN A PROBATE:
Any person having a direct and material interest in the will or estate.
WHEN DOES COURT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION:
Section 2 Upon PUBLICATION for 3 weeks successively of the order setting the case for hearing AND
sending of NOTICES (20 days before hearing by mail, 10 days before by personal notice) to all
CONTENTS OF PETITION FOR PROBATE: persons interested.
1. Jurisdictional facts
2. Names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or deceased Section 4
3. Probable value and character of the property of the estate
4. Name of the person for whom letters are prayed MODES OF NOTIFICATION
5. Name of the person having custody of the will if it has not been delivered to the court 1. By mail – 20 days before hearing
2. By personal service – 10 days before hearing
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 9
Section 5
 At the hearing, compliance of publication and notice must first be shown before introduction of
testimony in support of the will.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
PROBATE OF UNCONTESTED
WILL
NOTARIAL WILL Testimony of at least 1 of the
subscribing witnesses
3. All reside outside the province
– Deposition is allowed
4. Are dead, insane, or none of
them resides in the Philippines
– Admit testimony of other
witnesses to prove the sanity
of testator and the due
execution of the will; and
- Admit proof of the
handwriting of the
testator and of the
subscribing witnesses or
of any of them
HOLOGRAPHIC Testimony of 1 witness who knows
WILL the handwriting and signature of the
testator. In the absence thereof,
testimony of an expert witness
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
PROBATE OF CONTESTED WILL
 All subscribing witnesses and
notary public before whom the
will is acknowledged.
 Will may still 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 EVEN
IF any of the witnesses
- Testify against,
- Do not remember, or
- Of doubtful credibility
Testimony of 3 witnesses
(mandatory, Codoy vs. Calugay)
who knows the handwriting and
signature of the testator. In the
absence thereof, testimony of an
expert witness.
4. Procured by undue and improper influence and pressure on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person for his/her benefit;
5. Signature of testator was procured by fraud/trick and she/he did not intend instrument to be
will.
SUBTANTIAL COMPLIANCE RULE
If the will has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and the
possibility of bad faith and fraud is obviated, said will should be admitted to probate.
Section 10
CONTESTANT TO FILE GROUNDS OF CONTEST
1. State in writing his grounds for opposing the allowance of the will, and
2. Serve a copy thereof to petitioner and other interested parties
Section 12
 If there is NO CONTEST, the fact that the testator affirms that the holographic will and the
signature are in his own handwriting shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due
execution thereof.
 In case of CONTEST, the burden of proof is on the contestant.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Manalo vs. Paredes
 The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, and the court acquires
jurisdiction over all the persons interested through the publication of the notice, and any order
that may be entered is binding against all of them.

GR: If a holographic will is destroyed, it can no longer be probated. Basa vs. Mercado
EX: If there exists a Photostatic or Xerox copy thereof (Gan vs. Yap)  3 weeks successively is NOT strictly 21 days. It is sufficient that publication has been made
once a week successively three times, even if less than 21 days intervened between first and
Section 6 last publication.
 A newspaper is of general circulation where it is published for the dissemination of local news
HOW WILL IS PROVEN AS LOST OR DESTROYED: and general information and it is not devoted to the interest or publication for the
1. Will has been duly executed by the testator entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or religious denomination
2. Prove that will: and is published at regular intervals. The law does not require that publication of the notice
i. Was in existence at time of testator‟s death, OR should be made in the newspaper with the largest numbers is necessary to constitute a
ii. Was fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in testator‟s lifetime without his knowledge; newspaper of general circulation.
3. Provisions of will must be clearly and distinctly proven by at least 2 credible witnesses
Santos vs. Castillo
Section 9  In order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will and for
the administration of the properties left by a deceased person, the application must allege, in
GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL: addition to the residence of the deceased and other indispensable facts or circumstances,
1. Not executed and attested as required by law; that the applicant is the executor in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be
2. Testator was mentally incapacitated to make a will or insane at the time of execution; probated. The original of said document must be presented or sufficient reasons given to
3. Executed under duress, influence of fear, or threats;
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 10
 justify the nonrepresentation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate RULE 77
thereof.

Salazar vs. CFI Section 1

 Jurisdictional allegations must be made in the form of an application and filed with the original
will attached thereto. TWO TYPES OF ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE
 Payment of the fees of the clerk for the services rendered by him is not jurisdictional such that 1. PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATION – Granted in the jurisdiction of the decedent‟s domicile
its omission does not deprive the court of its authority to proceed with the probate. 2. ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION – Instituted where the decedent left his estate

In re Estate of Deceased Jose B. Suntay
 A proceeding for probate is one in rem and for the validity of such proceedings, personal
notice or by publication or both to all interested parties must be made.
Perez vs. Perez
 The court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the
publication of the petition in the newspapers. Service of notice on individual heirs or legatees
or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience.
NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR THE REPROBATE OF WILL:
1. Testator was domiciled in the foreign country;
2. Will has been admitted to probate in such country;
3. Foreign country was, under the laws of such country, a probate court with jurisdiction;
4. Law on foreign probate procedure and proof of compliance therewith;
5. Legal requirements in said country for valid execution of will.
Section 2

Abut vs. Abut REQUISITES FOR ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION:

 Even if the petitioner dies after the filing of the petition, the probate court already has 1. Existence of a will
jurisdiction to entertain the amended petition with another petitioner in lieu of the deceased 2. Filing of:
petitioner and there is no need to dismiss the original petition. i. Copy of the will executed in foreign country
ii. Order/decree of foreign court allowing such will
De Aranz vs. Galing iii. Authentication of requisites of copy and order/decree
 Where the addressees of the heirs and legatees are known, personal and individual notice to 3. Notice of time and place of hearing
them is mandatory. Publication is sufficient and such notice is not necessary only when the 4. Hearing, and
addresses are not known or the address given in the petition is wrong. 5. Certificate of allowance

Solivio vs. Court of Appeals Suntay vs. Suntay : For a will probated abroad to be admitted by our courts to probate, it must be
 It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the residue of the estate to the persons clearly and distinctly established that it was duly admitted to probate in such foreign country.
entitled thereto that brings to a close the intestate proceedings puts an end to the
administration and thus far relieves the administrator from his duties. Section 3

Heirs of Fran vs. Salas  The will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in court of the Phils.
 The decree of probate is conclusive upon the due execution of the will and it cannot be
impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of fraud, in any separate or Section 4
independent action or proceeding.
HOW ESTATE IS ADMINISTERED:
De Perez vs. Tolete 1. Letters testamentary or administration with a will annexed shall extend to all estate of the
 The collateral heirs had a right to intervene as parties interested in the estate. They are Philippines
entitled to notice. 2. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall:
i. Disposed according to the will, so far as such will may operate upon it, and
Ajero vs. Court of Appeals ii. Residue, if any, shall be disposed of as provided by law
 Holographic wills only need to conform with Art. 810 of the NCC. Failure to strictly observe
other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably Related Civil Code Provisions:
handwritten by the testator.
Art. 815.
When a Filipino is in a foreign country

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 11

 - Authorized to make a will 2. Non-resident of Philippines
- In any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be 3. Unfit in the opinion of the court to execute the duties of his trust by reason of:
- May be probated in the Philippines. i. Drunkenness;
ii. Improvidence;
Art. 816. iii. Want of understanding and integrity;
Will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines iv. Conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude.
- 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 REQUISITES FOR A PERSON TO BE APPOINTED EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR:
- In conformity with those which this Code prescribes. 1. Accepts the trust
2. Gives a BOND
Art. 817. 3. Competent
Will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country,
- Executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, Executor Administrator
and Nominated by the testator and Appointed by the court in case the
- Might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, appointed by the court testator did not appoint and executor
- Have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines. or if the executor refused
(administrator with a will annexed) or
JURISPRUDENCE: if the will was disallowed or there is
no will (intestacy)
Fluemer vs. Hix Must present will to the court within No such duty
 The laws of a foreign jurisdiction must be proved as facts. 20 days after knowledge of death or
of such appointment, unless the will
Leon vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. has reached the court in any manner
 The general rule universally recognized is that administration extends only to the assets of a Testator may provide that he may Must always post bond
decedent found within the state or country where it was granted, so that an administrator serve without a bond (Court may still
found in one state or country has no power over property in another state or country. require but conditioned only in
payment of debts)
Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon Compensation may be provided for Governed by Rule 85, Sec. 7
 Once a decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased its binding effect is like any other by testator otherwise, compensation
judgment in rem. As an exception, such judgment may be set aside on grounds of lack of under Rule 85, Sec. 7
jurisdiction or fraud.
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
RULE 78 It is the authority issued to an executor named in the will to administer the estate.

WHO CAN ADMINISTER THE ESTATE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

1. EXECUTOR – One named by the testator in his will for the administration of his property after It is the authority issued by the court to a competent person to administer the estate of the
his death deceased who died intestate.
2. ADMINISTRATOR – One appointed by the Court in accordance with the Rules or governing
statutes to administer and settle the intestate estate LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH A WILL ANNEXED
3. ADMINISTRATOR WITH A WILL ANNEXED – One appointed by the court in cases when, It is the authority issued by the court to a competent person to administer the estate if the executor
although there is a will, the will does not appoint any executor, or if appointed, said person is named in the will refused to accept the office.
either incapacitated or unwilling to serve as such
ORDER OF PREFERENCE IN GRANTING LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION:
 Any COMPETENT person may serve as executor or administrator. 1. Surviving spouse or nominee
i. Surviving spouse or
DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING AS EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS: ii. Next of kin or
1. Minor; iii. Both in the discretion of the court; or

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 12

 iv. Such person as such surviving spouse or next of kin request to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve
2. Principal creditors
 If (1) be incompetent or unwilling or they neglect for 30 days after death to apply for
administration
 Must be competent and willing to serve
3. Stranger
 If (2) be incompetent or unwilling
 Granted to such other person as the court may select
 The Order of Appointment of Regular Administrator is final and appealable.
Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo : The underlying assumption is that those who will reap the benefits of a
wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate or on the other hand, suffer the
consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the higher interest and most
influential motive to administer the estate correctly.
Guzman vs. Lumcolioc : The preference is not absolute if there are strong reasons justifying the
appointment of persons other than the surviving spouse, of if there is another person having more
interest than the surviving spouse.
Torres vs. Sicat : Before the credits of creditors are fully established they are not creditors and so
they are not entitled to priority treatment in the selection of the administrator.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Capistrano vs. Nadurata
 The selection of an administrator of the estate of a deceased lies within the discretion of the
court.
Matute vs. CA
 When two or more administrators are appointed to administer separate parts of a large estate
they are not to discharge their functions in distant isolation but in close cooperation so as to
safeguard and protect the interest of the entire estate. Co-administrators may be appointed
for the benefit of the estate and those interested therein.
 The requirement of a hearing and the notification to all known heirs and other interested
parties as to the date thereof is essential to the validity of the proceeding for the appointment
of and administrator “in order that no person may be deprived of his right or property without
due process of law.” A hearing is necessary in order to fully determine the suitability of the
applicant to the trust, by giving him the opportunity to prove his qualifications and affording
oppositors, if any, to contest the said application.
Medina vs. Court of Appeals
 A person with an adverse conflicting interest is unsuitable for the trust reposed in an
administrator of an estate. An administrator is deemed unsuitable and should be removed
where his personal interests conflict with his official duties, by virtue of the equally established
principle that an administrator is a quasi trustee, disqualified from acquiring properties of the
estate, and who should be indifferent between the estate and claimants of the property except
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
to preserve it for due administration, and who should be removed when his interest conflicts
with such right and duty.
 Probate courts are enjoined to desist from such practice of appointing their clerks of court or
other court employees as administrators or receivers of estates or the like.
Baluyut vs. Paño
 While the surviving spouse enjoys preference in the granting of letters of administration, it
does not follow that she should be named administratix without conducting a full-dress
hearing on her competency.
 Even the directive of the testator in his will designating that a certain person should act as an
executor is not binding on the probate court and does not automatically entitle him to the
issuance of letters testamentary. A hearing has to be held in order to ascertain his fitness to
act as executor.
Gabriel vs. CA
 In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal
consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as
administrator. This is the same consideration in establishing the order of preference in the
appointment of administrators for the estate. There must be a very strong case to justify the
exclusion of the widow from the administration.
 The 30-day period may be waived.
 For the benefit of the estate and those interested therein, more than one administrator may be
appointed.
Gaspay vs. Court of Appeals
 Letters of administration may be given to any person the court may select where the husband,
wife or next of kin neglect to apply for letters of administration within 30 days from the death of
the decedent.
Silverio vs. CA
 The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the attendant facts
and circumstances. The determination of a person‟s suitability for the office of administrator
rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of
appointment and such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears
affirmatively that the court below was an error.
 Special administrator cannot be authorized to sell real property of the estate.
Angeles vs. Maglaya
 When the law speaks of “next of kin”, the reference is to those who are entitled under the
statute of distribution, to the decedent‟s property. In resolving the issue of whether an
applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate
court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation.
Delgado vs. Rustia
 In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate
of the one to be appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-
administrators, especially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
factions be represented in the management of the estates.
Page 13
Uy vs. Court of Appeals 2. In Letters of Administration:
 The court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of i. Incompetence
the surviving spouse to administer the estate of the deceased person. But if the person ii. Preferential right of the heir under Rule 78
enjoying such preference is unsuitable, the court may appoint another. A co-administrator
performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, Section 5
only that he is not alone as an administrator.
 In probate proceedings, probate courts are allowed to modify or revoke their orders as long as WHEN LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION SHALL ISSUE :
the proceedings are pending in the same court and timely applications or motions for such 1. Proved that notice as required in Sec. 3 was given, and
revocation or modification has been made by the interested parties. 2. Proved that decedent left no will, or there is no competent and willing executor.

RULE 79 Section 6

 Letters can be granted to any person or any other applicant even if other competent persons
Section 1 are present if the latter fail to claim their letters when notified by the court.
MAIN ISSUE : Determination of the person who is rightfully entitled to administration JURISPRUDENCE :
PERSON TO OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS : Any person interested in the will Trillana vs. Crisostomo
 In civil actions and special proceedings, unless otherwise provided by law, the interest in
Section 2 order that a person may be a party on appeal must be material and direct and not indrect or
contingent.
CONTENTS OF PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION:  The revoked will may be probated and allowed onluy if the subsequent revoking will is
1. Jurisdictional facts; disallowed.
i. Person on whose estate the letters are prayed is in fact dead,
ii. At the time of the death, he was a resident of the country wherein letters are prayed for, Gutierrez vs. Villegas
or  In this case the deed of assignment was executed during the pendency of the proceedings.
iii. If a non-resident, he left assets in such country.  The transaction or deed of assignemnt is in the nature of an extrajudicial partition, court
2. Names, ages and residences of heirs, and creditors; approval is necesary, and the heirs cannot just divest the court of its jurisdiction over the
3. Probable value and character of property of estate; AND estate and over their persons, by the mere act of assignment. Even if the partition had been
4. Name of person for whom letters are prayed. judicially approved on the basis of the alleged deed of assignment, an aggrieved heir does not
lose her standing in the probate court.
 No defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of the letters of administration.
Duran vs. Duran
NOTE: Essentially the same as contents of petition for probate, EXCEPT: (1) latter has an  In this case the deed of assignment was executed when there was no settlement proceedings
additional requirement (the last; see Rule 76); and (2) in the latter, no need to name creditors in the pending.
petition.  The properties subject matter of the assignemnt were not under the jurisidction of the
settlement court. Allowing that the assignment must be deemed a partition as between the
Section 3 (Jurisdictional) asisgnor and assignee, the same does not need court approval to be effective as between the
parties.
REQUIRED BEFORE HEARING:  The heir is no longer considered „an interested person‟ qualified to file a peition for letters of
1. Publication for 3 weeks adminsitration.
2. Notice to heirs, creditors and other persons believed to have an interest in the estate
Pilipinas Shell vs. Dumlao
Section 4  The allegation that a petitioner seeking letters of administration is an interested person does
not fall within the enumeration of jurisdictional facts.
GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION:  Objection to the capacity of the petitioner to institute the petition can be waived or the
1. In Letters Testamentary: oppositor estopped from raising it where they did not raise it until after letters were already
i. Incompetence issued.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 14
Chua vs. Court of Appeals Section 2
 Since the original petition alleged substantially all the facts required to be stated in the petition
for letters of administration, there was no need to publish the amended petition. POWERS AND DUTIES OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR:
 Only an heir or creditor can oppose the issuance of letters of administration as they are the 1. Take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the
only ones who would be benefited by the estate. deceased
2. Preserve the same for the executor or administrator afterwards appointed
RULE 80 3. Commence and maintain suit for the estate
4. Sell ONLY:
i. Perishable property, and
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
ii. Other property ordered sold by the court
He is appointed when there is a delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any
5. Pay debts ONLY as may be ordered by the court.
cause, including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of the will.
 Liwanag vs. Reyes: Special administrator may be made a defendant in foreclosure suit.
Section 1
Section 3
WHEN MAY A PROBATE COURT APPOINT A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR:
WHEN DOES THE POWER OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR CEASE:
1. Delay in granting of letters by any cause including appeal in the probate of the will
After the questions causing the delay are resolved and letters are granted to regular executor or
2. Executor is a claimant of the estate he represents
administrator.
De Guzman vs. Angeles : Prior to the publication of the notice of hearing on the petition for
 It is possible for the executor or administrator whose appointment is challenged by appeal to
settlement of the estate of the decedent, the probate court cannot appoint a special administrator
be appointed also as the special administrator pending such appeal.
because the court has not acquired jurisdiction over persons interested in the estate.
De La Cavada vs. Butte : It is possible for a legatee to intervene in the appointment of an
ORDER OF APPOINTMENT (Discretionary)
administrator because the legacy gives him sufficient personality to act in protection of his rights
Pijuan vs. De Gurrea :The preference accorded by Sec. 6, Rule 78 to surviving spouse refers to
granted by the will.
the appointment of a regular administrator, NOT to that of special administrator, and that the order
appointing the latter lies within the discretion of the probate court, and is not appealable.
Rule 86, Sec. 6. Solidary obligation of decedent.
Where the obligation of the decedent is solidary with another debtor,
Corona vs. Court of Appeals : The executrix‟s choice of special administrator is entitled to the
- Claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor,
highest consideration.
- Without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the other debtor
In a joint obligation of the decedent,
Administrator Special Administrator - Claim shall be confined to the portion belonging to him.
May be subject of appeal Not subject of appeal; Merely an
interlocutory order JURISPRUDENCE:
One of the obligations is to pay
Cannot pay debts of the estate
the debts of the estate Matias vs. Gonzales
Appointed when deceased died  GR: Only one special administrator may be appointed to administer an estate temporarily.
Appointed when there is delay in
intestate or did not appoint an  EX: If there are two factions among the heirs and the court deems it best to appoint more than
granting letters testamentary or
executor in the will or will was one special administrator, justice and equity demand that both factions be represented in the
administration
disallowed management of the estate of the deceased.

EFFECT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR: Anderson vs. Perkins

De La Cavada vs. Butte : It means or implies a denial of the power to appoint a regular  While the only function of the special administrator is to collect and preserve the property of
administrator during the pendency of the appeal. the deceased until a regular administrator is appointed, it is not alone the specific property of
the estate which is to be preserved, but its value as well.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 15

De Guzman vs. Guadiz Section 4
 A special administrator may be appointed when there is delay in the probate of the will and
the issuance of letters of administration due to any cause. The appointment is justified by the CONDITIONS OF BOND OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR:
need to save the estate from waste and losses in the meantime that a regular administrator is 1. Make and return a true inventory
not appointed. 2. Render accounting when required by court
 When appointed, a special administrator is regarded, not as a representative or the agent of 3. Deliver the estate to the person appointed executor or administrator or other authorized
the parties suggesting the appointment, but as the administrator in charge of the estate, and persons
in fact, as an officer of the court.
Phil Trust Co. vs. Luzon Surety Co : Execution or forfeiture of an administrator‟s bond is deemed
Valarao vs. Pascual to be a necessary part and incident of the administration proceedings, as much as its filing and the
 There is nothing in Sec.2, Rule 80 requiring a special administrator to take possession of the fixing of its amount. The probate court may have the bond executed in the same proceedings. The
estate only upon a prior finding that the heirs have been wasting properties of the estate surety is not entitled to notice of the proceeding against the administrator but he may be allowed to
which are in their possession. The special administrator enjoys not merely subsidiary intervene if he asks for leave to do so in due time.
possession to be carried out when the heirs dissipate the properties but primary and
independent discretion of keeping them so they may be preserved for regular administration. JURISPRUDENCE:
 A special administrator must be able to subject the properties of the estate to his control and
management when in his good judgment such action is needed. Mendoza vs. Pacheco
 The administrator is accountable on his bond along with the sureties for the performance of
Heirs of Castillo vs. Lacuata-Gabriel certain legal obligations.
 The principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it
can pass into the hands of person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors RULE 82
and heirs.
 The issue of heirship is one that will be determined in the decree of distribution. All that the
court determines in the appointment of a special administrator is who is entitled to administer Section 1
the estate until the appointment of a regular administrator.
WHEN LETTERS REVOKED AND POWERS CEASE:
When the decedent‟s will is allowed and proved by the court after the issuance of letters of
RULE 81 administration

Section 1 DUTY OF ADMINISTRATOR UPON REVOCATION OF THE LETTERS:

WHEN FILED: Before and executor or administrator enters upon the execution of his trust
AMOUNT: To be fixed by the court
CONDITIONS OF THE BOND TO BE GIVEN BEFORE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS:
1. Make and return a complete inventory of the property of the estate which has come to his
possession or knowledge, or the possession of any person for him, within 3 months;
2. Administer the property of the estate according to the Rules (if administrator) or according to
the will (if executor); and pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges on the same, or
such dividend thereon as shall be decreed by the court;
3. Render an account within 1 year and at any other time required by the court; AND
4. Perform all orders of the court.
Luzon Surety vs. Quebrar: As long as the probate court retains jurisdiction of the estate, the bond
contemplates a continuing liability.
1. Surrender the letters to the court, and
2. Render his account within such time as the court may direct.
EFFECTS OF THE REVOCATION OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION:
1. All powers of administration shall cease.
2. Exercise of the duties of administrator upon revocation of the letters.
3. Proceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the will shall
be had.
De Parreno vs. Aranzaso : The discovery of a will does not ipso facto nullify the letters of
administration already issued until the will has been proved and allowed.
Section 2
GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS (Not exclusive):
1. Neglects to render account within 1 year and required by the court
2. Neglect to settle the estate according to law;
3. Failure to perform order or judgment of the court or duty prescribed by the rules;

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 16

4. Absconds; because of extensions of time for presenting claims against the estate or for paying the debts
5. Becomes insane; or disposing the assets of the estate.
6. Incapable or unsuitable to discharge trust.  The appellate tribunals are disinclined to interfere with the action taken by a probate court in
the matter of the removal of an executor or administrator unless positive error or gross abuse
DEGREE OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED: of discretion is shown.
An administrator is required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire goods faith in the
performance of that trust. RULE 83
Section 3
Section 1
 Lawful acts of an administrator or executor before the revocation, resignation or removal are
 Inventory and appraisal must be made within 3 months from the grant of letters.
valid unless proven otherwise.
Garcila vs. Martin : Approval of an inventory in not a conclusive determination of what assets
Section 4
constituted the decedent‟s estate and of the valuation thereof. Such determination is only
provisional and a prima facie finding of the issue of ownership.
Borromeo vs. Borromeo : The order of removal is appealable.
Section 2
POWERS OF THE NEW EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR:
1. Collect and settle the estate not administered
PROPERTIES NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN INVENTORY AS ASSETS OF THE ESTATE:
2. Prosecute or defend actions commenced by or against the former executor or administrator,
1. Wearing apparel of surviving spouse and minor children;
and
2. Marriage bed and bedding; AND
3. Have execution on judgments recovered in the name of former executor or administrator.
3. Provisions and articles which will necessarily be consumed in the subsistence of the
deceased‟s family.
 Authority to sell previously given to the former executor or administrator may be renewed
without notice or hearing.
Section 3
JURISPRUDENCE:
ALLOWANCE
Refers to the monetary advances which are subject of collation and are likewise deductible from
Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo
their share in the estate of the decedent.
 While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an
administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal.
WHO ARE ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCE DURING PROCEEDINGS?
There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable
1. Legitimate surviving spouse
to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court, which it deems sufficient or substantial
2. Children of the decedent
to warrant the removal of the administrator.
 Mere disagreements between co-administrators, without misconduct, do not warrant removal
Wagner vs. Moore : When the liabilities exceed the asset of the estate, his widow and children are
of either. Such conflicts, if unresolved by the co-administrators, can be resolved by the
not entitled to support pending the liquidation of the intestate estate, on the ground that such
probate court to the best interest of the estate and its heirs.
support, having the character of an advance payment, to be deducted from the respective share of
 Temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an administrator of the estate.
each heir during distribution.
Mendiola vs. Court of Appeals
Related Family Code Provisions:
 The determination of a person‟s suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests, to a
greater extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and
said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless said court is clearly in error.
PROCEDURE UPON DISSOLUTION
Kalaw vs. Intermediate Appellate Court ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY (Art. 102) CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP (Art. 129)
 The rendering of an accounting by an administrator of his administration within one year from Prepare inventory listing separately
his appointment is mandatory. The only exception is when the Court otherwise directs  All the properties of the absolute community/conjugal property and
 Exclusive properties of each spouse

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 17

 Amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership
 In payment of personal debts and
obligations of either spouse
 Shall be credited to the conjugal
partnership as an asset thereof.
Reimburse each spouse
 For the use of his or her exclusive funds
in the acquisition of property, or
 For the value of his or her exclusive
property
Ownership of which has been vested by law in
the conjugal partnership.
Debts and obligations
 Paid out of its assets
 In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses are solidarily liable for the unpaid balance
with their separate properties
Deliver to each spouse whatever remains of the exclusive properties of each spouse
Loss or deterioration of movables
 Used for the benefit of the family
 Movable belongs to either spouse
 Even if due to fortuitous event
 Paid to said spouse from the conjugal
funds, if any.
 UNLESS the owner had been
indemnified from whatever source
Net remainder of the properties Net remainder of the properties
 Constitute its net assets  Constitute the profits
 Divided equally between husband and  Divided equally between husband and
wife, UNLESS wife, UNLESS
a. Different proportion or division was c. Different proportion or division was
agreed upon in the marriage agreed upon in the marriage
settlements, or settlements, or
b. Voluntary waiver of such share d. Voluntary waiver of such share
For purpose of computing the net profits subject
to forfeiture
 Profits shall be the increase in value
between the market value of the
community property at the time of the
celebration of the marriage and the market
value at the time of its dissolution.
Deliver the presumptive legitimes of the common children upon partition
Conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated
 Adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain
 UNLESS otherwise agreed upon by the parties
 In case there in no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best
interests of said children.
Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
 UNLESS the court has decided otherwise
UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE BY DEATH:
Applicable to both ACR (Art. 103) and CPR (Art. 130):
1. Liquidate property in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
2. If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted,
 Surviving spouse liquidate property either judicially or extra-judicially within 6 months
from the death of the deceased spouse
 If upon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is made, any disposition or
encumbrance involving the community property of the terminated marriage shall be
VOID.
3. Surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing
requirements
 Mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations
of the subsequent marriage
Art. 131.
Liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties
- Of two or more marriages
- Contracted by the same person
- Before the effectivity of this Code
- Carried out simultaneously,
- Respective capital, fruits and income of each partnership determined upon such proof as
may be considered according to the rules of evidence.
In case of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties belong,
- Divide between the different partnerships
- In proportion to the capital and duration of each
Art. 133.
From the common mass of property
- Give support to the surviving spouse and to the children
- During the liquidation of the inventoried property and
- Until what belongs to them is delivered;
- Deduct amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them
JURISPRUDENCE:
Sebial vs. Sebial
 The 3-month period is not mandatory. The fact that an inventory was filed after the 3-month
period would not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction to approve it. However, an
administrator‟s unexplained delay in filing the inventory may be a ground for his removal.
Santero vs. Court of First Instance
 Children need not be minors or incapacitated to be entitled to allowance.
Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals
 Grandchildren are not entitled to allowance.
Page 18
Chua vs. Absolute Management Corp.
 Trial court has the inherent duty to see to it that the inventory of the administrator lists all the
properties, rights and credits which the law requires the administrator to include in his
inventory. Court also has the inherent power to determine what properties, rights and credits
of the deceased the administrator should include or exclude in the inventory.
 Trial court has no authority to decide whether the properties belong to the estate or to the
persons examined. If after such examination there is good reason to believe that the person
examined is keeping properties belonging to the estate, then the administrator should file an
ordinary action in court to recover the same.
Heirs of Franco vs. Court of Appeals
 While the intestate court does not have the authority to rule with finality on questions of
ownership over the property of the decedent, it is not precluded from making a provisional
determination over such questions for purposes relevant to the settlement of the estate, such
as ruling whether or not to include properties in the inventory of the estate.
RULE 84
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS:
1. Have access to partnership books and property;
2. Examine and make invoices of partnership property;
3. Maintain in tenantable repair the houses and other structures and fences belonging to the
estate and deliver the same to the heirs and devisees when directed to do so by the court;
4. Make improvements on the properties under administration with the necessary court approval
EXCEPT for necessary repairs; AND
5. Right to the possession and management of the real and personal estate so long as it is
necessary:
i. For the payment of debt and
ii. For payment expenses of administration.
HOW RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO PARTNERSHIP BOOKS AND PROPERTY ENFORCED:
1. On the written application of executor or administrator
2. Court having jurisdiction of the estate may
3. Order any such surviving partner or partners to:
i. Freely permit the exercise of the rights
ii. Exhibit the books, papers, and property
4. Court may also punish any partner failing to do so for contempt
JURISPRUDENCE:
De Hilado vs. Nava
 Administratix entered into a contract of lease with N, without the intervention of the court
acting in the intestate proceedings. The Court subsequently annulled the contract.
 The contract being a mere act of administration could be validly entered into by the
administratix within her powers of administration, even without the court‟s previous authority.
The court had no power to annul or invalidate the contract in the intestate proceedings
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
wherein it had no jurisdiction over the person of the less. A separate ordinary action is
necessary to that effect.
Mananquil vs. Villegas
 M, representing the partnership, entered into a lease contract with L. When M died, V was
appointed manager of the partnership. Renewals of the lease contracts were executed
between L and the partnership, with V signing as representative without securing the approval
of the court.
 An administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the
estate even without prior judicial authority and approval.
RULE 85
ACCOUNTABILITIES OF AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR:
1. Accountable for the whole estate of the deceased which has come into his possession
2. Not profit by the increase or lose by the decrease in value, without his fault, of any part of the
estate
3. Account for the excess when he sells any part of the estate for more than its appraisement,
he is not liable for the loss if the sale has been justly made
4. 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.
5. Not be accountable for debts due the deceased which remain uncollected without his fault
6. Account for the income from the realty used by him
7. Accountable for waste
Section 1
GR: The executor or administrator is accountable for the whole estate of the deceased.
EX: He is not accountable for properties which never came to his possession
EX TO EX: When through untruthfulness to the trust or his own fault or for lack of necessary
action, the executor or administrator failed to recover part of the estate which came to his
knowledge
Section 5
WHEN ACCOUNTABLE:
1. If an executor or administrator:
i. Neglects or unreasonably delays to raise money, by collecting the debts or selling the
real or personal estate of the deceased, or
ii. Neglects to pay over the money he has in his hand, and
2. Value of the estate is lessened, or
3. Unnecessary cost or interest accrues, or
4. Persons interested suffer loss
Page 19
Section 7
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION
Refers to those necessary for the management of the property, for protecting it against destruction
or deterioration, and possibly for the production of fruits
NOT PROPER EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO
ESTATE:
1. Services rendered by administrator which are not beneficial to the estate in favor of an heir
2. Premiums for her/his bond
3. Expenses for repair of property of the estate being used and occupied by him
4. Expenses for keeping ordinary records and receipts involved in his administration
5. Losses incurred in conduct of business with use of funds of the estate
COMPENSATION IF THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE WILL:
1. P4 a day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or
2. Commission, or
3. A greater sum may be allowed if:
i. Estate is large
ii. Settlement has been attended with greater difficulty
iii. Settlement has required a high degree of capacity of the executor or administrator.
OPTIONS OF ATTORNEY TO COLLECT ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM ESTATE:
1. Sue administrator/executor in the latter‟s personal capacity (who may then include any fees
so paid in his account); OR
2. File a petition in the testate/intestate proceedings asking the court, after notice to all
interested persons:
i. To allow his claim and
ii. To direct the executor/administrator to pay it as an expense of administration.
Section 8
GR: Executor/administrator must render an account within 1 year from the time of receiving the
letters testamentary or letters of administration.
EX: An extension of time is allowed by the court 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.
 The fact that the final accounts had been approved does not divest the court of jurisdiction to
require supplemental accounting.
Section 9
WHEN EXAMINATION MAY BE DISPENSED WITH:
1. No objection is made to the allowance of the account, and
2. Its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011
JURISPRUDENCE:
Tioco vs. Imperial
 GR: The attorney cannot hold the estate directly liable for his fees. The liability for the
payment rests on the executor or administrator.
 EX: If the fees paid are beneficial to the estate and reasonable, he is entitled to the
reimbursement from the estate.
Sison vs. Teodoro
 The expenses incurred by the executor or the administrator to produce the bond are not a
proper charge against the estate. A person may accept the position of executor or
administrator with all the incident pertaining thereto having in mind the compensation which
the law allows for that purpose but he may waive such compensation in the same manner that
he may refuse to serve without it.
Tumang vs. Laguio
 An executor or administrator who receives assets of the estate after he has filed an account
should file a supplementary account thereof, and he may be compelled to do so, but that it is
only with respect to matters occurring after the settlement of final account that representatives
will be compelled to file supplementary account.
 The fact that the final account had been approved does not divest the court of jurisdiction to
require supplemental accounting.
Binamira vs. Ogan-Occena
 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 or terminated.
Intestate Estate of De Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
 A wide latitude, leeway, or discretion if therefore given to the trial court to grant a greater sum,
and the determination of whether the administration and liquidation of an estate have been
attended with greater difficulty and have required a high degree of capacity on the part of the
executor or administrator rests on the sound discretion of the court which took cognizance of
the estate.
Lacson vs. Reyes
 A lawyer of an administrator or executor may not charge the estate for his fees, but rather, his
client. Mutatis mutandis, where the administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs, it is the
latter who must pay therefor.
 Attorney‟s fees are in the nature of actual damages, which must be duly proved in the trial.
Salonga vs. Pascual
 If the executor or administrator refuses to pay the attorney‟s fees, the lawyer has two modes
of recourse. First, the lawyer may file an action against the executor or administrator, but in
his/her personal capacity and not as administrator or executor. Second, the lawyer may file a
petition in the testate or intestate proceedings, asking the court to direct the payment of
attorney‟s fees as an expense of administration. If the second mode is resorted to, it is
Page 20
 essential that notice to all the heirs and interested parties be made so as to enable these
persons to inquire into the value of the services of thee lawyer and on the necessity of his
employment. The failure to give such notice renders the claim inefficacious.

Quasha vs. LCN Construction Corp.

 The appointment of a lawyer as an administrator of an estate did not extend to his law office.
A law office cannot claim attorney‟s fees when it was not appointed as administrator.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / ATENEO LAW 3A 2011 Page 21