Hi guys!

1. Please check​ this for the NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS

​ :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t4Qqm_Rqek20V3w62_8HxKjSrfgnSXDJa4DSe
oEMKrs/edit?usp=sharing

​
2. Please check ​
this for the TEMPLATE / INSTRUCTIONS WE AGREED UPON:
3. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLi1mi2iBmwIdxyBr9xB_Le6uGebZ8SbMozrNG84
O4s/edit?usp=sharing
​
4. Please start pasting your digests ​in the NEXT PAGE. THANKS!!
 36. Lopez vs. Gonzaga

Failure to register is kinda fine: The failure Luis Gonzaga to file with the Register of Deeds a certified
copy of his letters of administration and the will and to record the attested copies of the will and of the
allowance thereof by the court does not negate the validity of the judgment or decree of probate nor the
rights of the devisees under the will.

FACTS:

● Soledad Gonzaga Vda. de Ferrer died intestate on 11 April 1935 without any issue and leaving
real and personal properties worth P400,000.00 It was alleged that she was survived by the
plaintiffs (her brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces).
● Plaintiffs alleged that during the lifetime of the deceased, she expressed that as long as her
brother, Luis Gonzaga (principal defendant), was engaged in coconut oil experimentation, he
could use the products and rentals of her properties to fund his experiments. However, the
defendant became totally blind and the experiments were terminated.
● By virtue of which, the plaintiffs asks to partition the estate and the cancellation of titles of lands
that were allegedly fraudulently transferred in the name of the defendant. The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and non-inclusion of indispensable parties. The
plaintiffs amended their petition to include the omitted parties.
● The court denied the said motion. Thereupon, the defendants filed their answer repleading a
denial as to the intestacy of the deceased.
● The court records of Iloilo were destroyed as a result of the last war. The Clerk of Court then
attested that no will or probate order was produced, and neither were attested copies registered
other than those previously copied in this case. Nonetheless, the testimony of appellee and the
copies of judicial pleadings and orders he obtained from the Registry of Deeds of Negros
Occidental show that Doña Soledad Gonzaga died leaving a will.
● Said will was duly probated in 1935 or 1936 by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Special
Proceeding No. 2163 and that the net residue of the estate was adjudicated by the court to said
appellee, subject only to a claim of Consolacion G. de Lopez for P1,000.00.
● Thereafter, upon sworn petition of appellee, through his counsel, Francisco S. Hortillas, the
Courts of First Instance of Iloilo and Occidental Negros ordered the respective Provincial
Registers of Deeds to cancel the Certificates of Title to issue new ones in the Luis’ name.

ISSUE:

● W/N the failure of the defendant heir to file with the Register of Deeds a certified copy of his
letters of administration and the will, and to record the attested copies of the will and of the
allowance thereof by the court negates the validity of the decree of probate nor the rights of the
devises under the will
● W/N defendant-appellee, having been appointed administrator, must be deemed a trustee

HELD:

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 1

 ● The failure Luis Gonzaga to file with the Register of Deeds a certified copy of his letters of
administration and the will and to record the attested copies of the will and of the allowance
thereof by the court does not negate the validity of the judgment or decree of probate nor the
rights of the devisees under the will.
- His dealings with the lands, if any, during his tenure as an administrator are not here in
question. That the defendant sought judicial orders to effect the transfers to his name of
the certificates of title after the will was probated and succeeded.
- Although the step taken is not exactly what Section 624 of Act 190 directs, the same
purpose was achieved — that of notice to all strangers of the cause and nature of the
transfers.
● The contention that defendant-appellee must be deemed a trustee up to the present is
premature. No administration could continue to exist after the order of February 8, 1936 had
approved the final account, adjudicated the property to the only heir, cancelled the bond of the
administrator, and ordered the case "archivado el mismo por terminado."
- No proof exists that the proceedings were ever reopened. Secondly, the transfer of the
certificates of title to Luis Gonzaga constitutes an open and clear repudiation of any
trust, and the lapse of more than twenty years' open and adverse possession as owner
suffices to vest title by prescription in the appellee.
- The lame explanation that Doña Soledad Gonzaga expressed the wish that all the
income should go to Luis while he conducted experimental studies is unconvincing as an
excuse for laches; his right to the income could not have blocked a partition of the capital
assets among appellants, if they had been at all entitled to them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. Guerrero v. Teran

Mahirap maging guardian ang non-resident : There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to
appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are
no statutory requirements upon this question, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting
the estates of deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with this
duty by appointing administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the
appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the
jurisdiction of our courts here.

FACTS:

● The case concerns the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz and the qualifications for guardianship
○ (The main case dealt with the liability of Terran as administrator. He was adjudged liable
only for the amounts he thus admitted as there were no material dates in the allegations
of Guerrero , present guardians of the Munoz children. The dates are material as the
liability of Terran is only for the periods where Maria Munoz y Gomez was ​not ​the
guardian)
● On March 18, 1902, the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay appointed Maria Munoz
y Gomez as guardian for the said Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen Sanchez Munoz
○ She was removed on October 6, 1906 by the CFI of the Province of Albay because at
the time of her appointment she was not a resident of the Philippines

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 2

ISSUE:​ W/N residency is a requirement for appointment as guardian? -- No. But courts should only
appoint those within its jurisdiction

HELD:

● There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators
or guardians
● However notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon this question,
the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons,
wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with the appointing administrators
in guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction
● Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement the courts should not consent to the
appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the
jurisdiction of our courts here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. Maloles II vs Philips

Pamangkin ka lang, wag ka nang umepal: The different branches comprising each court in one
judicial region do not possess jurisdictions independent of and incompatible with each other. | Only if
the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the court appoint
other persons to administer the estate.

FACTS:

● In July 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos (testator), Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a
petition for probate of his will in the RTC of Makati, Branch 61. A copy of the will was annexed to
the petition.
● In his petition, the testator alleged, among others that:
○ He had no compulsory heirs;
○ He named the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. as sole legatee and devisee;
○ The copies of said will were in the custody of the named executrix, private respondent
Pacita de los Reyes Phillips
● In Feb 1996, Branch 61 issued an order granting the petition and allowing the will. In the said
order it was stated that no oppositor appeared during the hearing. Ten days later, the testator
died.
● In April 1996, petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention, claiming:
○ That as the only child of Alicia de Santos, testator’s sister, and Octavio Maloles, Sr., he
was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest kin of the testator; and
○ That he was a creditor of the testator.
○ Maloles thus prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and issuance of
letters of administration in his name.
● Pacita, who earlier withdrew her motion for the issuance of letters testamentary in Branch 61,
filed a similar petition with the RTC, and the case was assigned to Branch 65.
● Branch 65 issued an order appointing Pacita as special administrator of the estate.

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 3

 ● Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 then issued an order transferring the motion filed by Pacita to
Branch 61.
○ The order said reasoned since the probate proceeding started in Branch 61, then it
should be the same court which should hear Pacita’s motion.
○ Branch 61 however refused to consolidate and referred the case back to Branch 65.
○ Branch 65 subsequently consolidated the case per refusal of Branch 61.
○ Eventually, Branch 65 allowed the motion for intervention filed by Octavio.

ISSUE: WON petitioner Maloles has the right to intervene in the probate proceedings? NO RIGHT TO
INTERVENE.

HELD:

● FIRST (Specpro), the probate of will filed in Branch 61 has already terminated upon the
allowance of the will. Hence when Pacita filed a motion with Branch 65, the same is already a
separate proceeding and not a continuance of the now concluded probate in Branch 61. There
is therefore no reason for Branch 65 to refer back the case to Branch 61 as it initially did.
○ Further, under Rule 73 of the Rules of Court concerning the venue of settlement of
estates, it is provided that when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case
does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of the other branches.
○ In other words, the different branches comprising each court in one judicial region do not
possess jurisdictions independent of and incompatible with each other.

● SECOND (Succession), with regard the issue of Octavio being an heir, such contention has no
merit. He is not an heir. The testator died testate! The next of kin may only inherit if a person
dies intestate. In this case, Arturo left a valid will which expressly provided that the Arturo de
Santos Foundation, Inc. was the sole legatee and devisee of his estate.
○ Moreover, once the testator institutes or names an executor in his will, it is incumbent
upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. Only if the appointed executor is
incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the court appoint other persons
to administer the estate. None of these circumstances is present in this case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. Fernandez vs. Dimagiba (1967)

Oppositors ni Dimagiba sabi estopped na sya to file probate: Presenting wills before the courts
for probate is a duty on the part of the guardian which cannot be evaded by estoppel by laches.

FACTS:
● Ismaela Dimagiba, submitted to the CFI a petition for the probate (1955) of the purported will
(1930) of the late Benedicta de los Reyes
● The will instituted the petitioner as the sole heir of the estate of the deceased.
● The petitioners Fernandez et al, filed oppositions in the probate claiming to be the heirs

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 4

 ● Their grounds were forgery, vitiated consent, estoppel by laches of Dimagiba and revocation of
the will by 2 deeds of conveyance (1944 &11945) made by the testatrix in favour of the
Dimagiba (but the conveyances were set aside by the SC in a separate case)
● CFI found that the will was genuine and properly executed
● But the lower court deferred resolution on the questions of estoppel and revocation until such
time when they will pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will or when the question of
adjudication of properties is opportunely presented
● Petitioners file for MR and/or NT, insisting that the issues of estoppel and revocation be
resolved
● The court rules that Dimagiba was not in estoppel to ask for probate of the will but reserved the
issue of revocation at the opportune time
● The trial court subsequently ruled that the will of de los Reyes “unaffected and unprovoked by
the deeds of dale”
● Fernandez et al appealed with CA which affirmed the CFI

ISSUES:
● w/n the decree of CFI allowing the will to probate has been final for lack of appeal
● w/n the order of the court overruling estoppel has become final
● w/n the 1930 will of De los Reyes has been impliedly revoked by the execution of deeds
of conveyance

HELD:
1. YES. 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 the provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise. As such, probate order is final
and appealable; the rule also provides that any interested person may appeal in special
proceedings from an order or judgement… where such order or judgement (a) allows or
disallows a will. Fernandez was wrong in contending that they still have to await the resolution
of the court on estoppel and revocation before they appeal the decision. There being no
controversy that the Court below was not appealed on time, the same had become final and
conclusive. Hence, the CA cannot revoke the decree or review the facts.
2. YES. As to the issue of estoppel, we have already ruled in Guevara vs. Guevara, that the
presentation and probate of a will are requirements of public policy, being primarily
designed to protect the testator's, expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a
consequence of the decedent's ownership and right of disposition within legal limits.
Evidence of it is the ​duty imposed on a custodian of a will to deliver the same to the
Court, and the fine and imprisonment prescribed for its violation (Revised Rule 75). It
would be a ​non sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the pretext of estoppel.
Whether or not the order overruling the allegation of estoppel is still appealable or not,
the defense is patently unmeritorious and the Court of Appeals correctly so ruled.
3. NO. the existence of any such change or departure from the original intent of the testatrix,
expressed in her 1930 testament, is rendered doubtful by the circumstance that the subsequent
alienations in 1943 and 1944 were executed in favor of the Dimagiba. In fact, as found by Court
in a previous case annulling these conveyances, "no consideration whatever was paid by
respondent Dimagiba" on account of the transfers, thereby rendering it even more doubtful

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 5

 whether in conveying the property to Dimagiba, the testatrix merely intended to comply in
advance with what she had ordained in her testament, rather than an alteration or departure
therefrom. Revocation being an exception, we believe, with the Courts below, that in the
circumstances of the particular case, Article 957 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, does not
apply to the case at bar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40. Nittscher v. Nittscher

Dr. asked for the allowance of his own will: If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will,
notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.

FACTS:

● Four years before his death, Dr. Werner Karl Johann Nittscher himself filed with the RTC of
Makati City a petition for the probate of his holographic will and for the issuance of letters
testamentary to herein respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales.
○ the probate court issued an order allowing the said holographic will
● When Dr. Nittscher died, Atty. Nogales filed a petition for issuance of letters testamentary for the
administration of the estate of the deceased.
○ Surviving spouse Cynthia Nittscher moved to dismiss said petition.
■ MTD denied. MR denied.
■ Appeal to CA dismissed. MR denied.
○ In the meantime, Atty. Nogales was issued letters testamentary and was sworn in as
executor.
● Arguments of Cynthia Nittscher (Petitioner):
● Petition lacked a certification against forum-shopping.
● RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case because Dr. Nittscher was
allegedly not a resident of the Philippines; neither did he leave real properties in the
country.
● The properties listed for disposition in her husband’s will actually belong to her.
● She was denied due process of law because she did not receive by personal service the
notices of the proceedings.

ISSUES​:

1) WON a petition for the issuance of letters testamentary requires a certification against forum
shopping. - NO
2) WON RTC has jurisdiction. - YES
3) WON petitioner was deprived of due process. - NO

HELD:

1) Revised Circular No. 28-91 ​and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the Court require a certification
against forum-shopping for all initiatory pleadings filed in court.
● The petition for the issuance of letters testamentary is not an initiatory pleading, but a mere
continuation of the original petition for the probate of Dr. Nittschers will.

2) Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court provides:

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 6
 ● SECTION 1​. ​Where estate of deceased persons settled.
○ If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death​, whether
a citizen or an alien, ​his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted,
and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in
the province in which he resides at the time of his death​, and if he is an inhabitant of
a foreign country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province
in which he had estate.
● Both RTC and CA found that Dr. Nittscher was a resident of Las Pinas, Metro Manila (under
territorial jurisdiction of RTC Makati) at the time of his death.
○ Such factual finding, which we find supported by evidence on record, should no longer
be disturbed.
3) ​Dr. Nittscher asked for the allowance of his own will.
● Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court applies.
○ SEC. 4​. ​Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally.
■ If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, ​notice shall be sent only to
his compulsory heirs.
● Records show that petitioner and Dr. Nittscher’s children from his previous marriage were all
duly notified, by registered mail, of the probate proceedings.
○ Petitioner even appeared in court to oppose respondents petition for the issuance of
letters testamentary, filed MTD, MR etc.
○ Court is convinced that petitioner was accorded every opportunity to defend her cause.
4) The allowance of Dr. Nittscher’s will is conclusive only as to its due execution.
● The authority of the probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
● Petitioner’s claim of title to the properties forming part of her husband’s estate should be
settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41. Aluad vs. Aluad

Void yung Donation ni Lola kay [now dead] adopted Mommy, so di sya iyo: As a general rule,
points of law, theories, and issues not brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal. For a contrary rule would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no
opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been
aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial.

FACTS:

● Maria Aluad (Maria) and Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childess spouses Matilde and
Crispin Aluad.
● Crispin owned 6 lots. When he died, Malitde adjudicated the lots to herself.
● Matilde executed a Deed on Donation covering all 6 lots in favor of Maria, saying that in the
event Matilde dies ahead of Maria, the donation shall be deemed rescinded.
● Later, Matilde sold 1 of the lots to Zenaido (take note: na-donate na nya ‘tong lot na ‘to kay
Maria).
○ The lot now is in his possession and would not return it to the heirs to Maria, who claim
to initially possess it.

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 7

 ● Matilde then executed a will disposing the remaining 5 lots to Maria.
● The heirs of Maria are claiming to succeed by inheritance by right of representation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Donation is donation inter vivos? and whether or not such deed is
valid?

HELD:

· ​The Court finds the donation to Maria Aluad (petitioner’s mother) one of mortis causa, it having the

following characteristics:
1. ​It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor, or
what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or
naked) and control of the property while alive;
2. ​That before the death of the transferor, the transfer should be revocable, by the

transferor at will, ad nutum, but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a
reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; and
3.​ ​That the transfer should be void of the transferor should survive the transferee.
● It is void for not having followed the formalities of a will, and transmitted no right to petitioners’
mother.
○ Court referred to Article 805. Witnesses did not sign the attestation clause.
○ Even if the formalities were observed, no right over the lots in question would be
transmitted since it was not probated.
● Petitioners (heirs of Maria) argue that assuming that the donation is indeed mortis causa, the lot
should nevertheless have been awarded to them because they had acquired it by acquisitive
prescription, they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, open and public possession
of it in good faith and in the concept of an answer.
○ Refer to doctrine above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Nuguid v. Nuguid

For practical reasons, the probate court can rule on intrinsic validity of the will
FACTS:
● Rosario Nuguid died single and was only survived by her parents Felix and Pax and six brothers
and sisters all surnamed Nuguid
● Petitioner Remedios, sister of deceased, filed in CFI RIzal a holographic will allegedly made by
the deceased to which the parents opposed. ​Ground therefor, ​inter alia, is that by the institution
of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are
compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and
that in consequence the institution is void.
● The court ordered the will in question nullity and perforced create intestacy of the estate

ISSUE: ​Whether or not the will should be allowed probate?

HELD: Yes

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 8

 ● The case is for the probate of a will. The court's area of inquiry is limited — to an examination
of, and resolution on, the ​extrinsic validity of the will.
○ The due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary capacity, and the compliance
with the requisites or solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions ​solely to be
presented, and to be acted upon, by the court.
○ Said court at this stage of the proceedings — is not called upon to rule on the ​intrinsic
validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or legacy therein
● HOWEVER, for ​practical reasons ​the court may decide to meet head on the issue of the
validity of the will in question
○ If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. On the
contrary, this litigation will be protracted.
○ in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will
come up once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the
will.
○ Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety
● The will is a complete nullity as per Article 854 of the CIvil Code
○ ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of
the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid
insofar as they are not inofficious. ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Ajero vs. CA

Exclusive ang list, labas ang di pasok: The requirements of authentication of changes and signing
and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which
provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). This
separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of
the New Civil Code — and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code — are essential
to the probate of a holographic will.

FACTS:

● Will of Anne Sand, decedent, named the following as devisees:

○ Petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente and others
● Petitioners instituted special proceeding for allowance of decedent’s holographic will
○ Decedent: sound mind; capacitated to dispose estate; no fraud, undue influence
● Private respondent opposed petition on the grounds:
○ Alterations and corrections not duly signed by decedent; pressure and undue influence
on the part of the petitioner
● Trial Court: ​admitted will to probate
● CA: ​reversed; petition for probate was dismissed
○ Failed to meet requirements of Arts 813 (signed but not dated) and 814 (erasures,
cancellations, alteration not authenticated by signature)

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 9

ISSUE:​ W/N the will can still be admitted to probate despite non-compliance of Arts. 813 and 814?

HELD:​ ​YES.

● Non-compliance of Art. 813 and 814 of NCC would not render the will void
○ Results:
■ Failure to sign and authenticate dispositions means it cannot be effectuated;
disallowance of changes
■ Decedent’s will can still be admitted to probate
● Only the requirements of Article 810 are essential to the probate
○ “Entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself” (Art. 810)
○ Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in its disallowance
● Grounds for disallowance of wills are ​EXCLUSIVE​ as seen in ROC and Art. 839 of NCC
○ Sec. 9, Rule 76 of ROC​: (a) Not executed and attested as required by law; (b) Testator
was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
(c) Executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (d) Procured by undue
and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other
person for his benefit; (e) Signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he
did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature
thereto.
■ None of the grounds were present.
○ Abangan v. Abangan: “​not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of
the right to make a will…any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's
last will, must be disregarded.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44. Alaban v. CA

“MR, MNT and petition for relief are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings. Contrary
to petitioners’ claim, they are parties to the probate proceedings. Proceeding for the probate of a
will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction
extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent. Thus,
even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became
parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing. As such petitioners
could have validly availed of the remedies of motion for new trial or reconsideration and petition
for relief from judgment.”

FACTS: ​Respondent ​Provido filed petition for ​probate of ​Will of ​Soledad Provido Elevencionado
(decedent) ​alleging he was heir of decedent and executor of her will.

RTC: Allowed probate of the will and directed for issuance of ​letters testamentary​ to respondent.

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 10

More than 4 months later, petitioners filed ​motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings and
an ​opposition to the ​allowance of the will of the decedent claiming they are intestate heirs of
decedent.

PETITIONERS’ CLAIM​: RTC ​did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to, non-payment of the
correct docket fees, defective publication, ​lack of ​notice to the other heirs (I THINK MOST
IMPORTANT)

RTC:​ DENIED PETITIONERS’ MOTION.

1. Petitioners deemed notified of the hearing ​by publication and deficiency in the payment of
docket fees is ​not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition​. It merely ​required
respondent to pay the deficiency
2. Decision was ​already final and executory​ even before petitioners filing of the motion to reopen

CA dismissed appeal because they failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief from judgment or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own. MR denied.

ISSUE: WON CA committed GADALEJ ​when it dismissed their petition for the alleged failure to
avail of the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief​ from judgment or ​other remedies​.

HELD: NO. Section 37 of the ​Rules of Court ​allows an aggrieved party to file a ​MNT (Motion for New
Trial) ​on the ground of ​fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence or ​MR ​on the grounds of
excessive award of damages, insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision or final order, or that
the decision or final order is ​contrary to law within ​filed within ​15 days from ​notice of the judgment
or final order​.

A ​petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 is resorted to when a ​judgment or final
order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken, against a party in any court through
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and may be filed ​within 60 days after the
petitioner learns of the judgment​ but ​within 6 months after entry thereof​.

MR, MNT and petition for relief are remedies available ​only to parties in the proceedings​. Contrary to
petitioners’ claim, ​they are parties to the probate proceedings​.

Under the ROC, any ​executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person
interested in the estate may​, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having
jurisdiction to ​have the will allowed​. Notice of the ​time and place for proving the will must be
published for ​three (3) consecutive weeks​, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province as
well as furnished to the designated or ​other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.

A proceeding for the probate of a will is ​one ​in rem, such that with the corresponding
publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction ​extends to all persons interested in said will or in
the settlement of the estate of the decedent. Thus, even though petitioners ​were not mentioned in the
petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 11

of the notice of hearing. As such petitioners could have ​validly availed of the remedies of motion
for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment​. In fact, petitioners ​filed a
motion to reopen​, which is essentially a ​motion for new trial but ​was denied for ​having been filed
out of time.

Conceding that petitioners became aware of the ​Decision after it had become final, they could have still
filed a petition for relief​ from judgment after the ​denial of their ​motion to reopen​.

An ​action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of
new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are ​no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner​, and is based on only two grounds: ​extrinsic fraud​, and
lack of jurisdiction​ or ​denial of due process​.

Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it ​prevents a party from having a trial or from
presenting his entire case to the court. ​The ​fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant must have
prevented a party from having his day in court. The non-inclusion of petitioners names in the petition
and the alleged ​failure to personally notify them of the proceedings ​do not constitute extrinsic
fraud​. ​Respondent was instituted as the ​sole heir of the decedent​. Petitioners, as ​nephews and
nieces of the decedent, are ​neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of
the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent ​had no legal obligation to mention
petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same. Even assuming
that they are entitled to be notified, the alleged infirmity ​is cured by the publication of the notice​.
After all, ​personal notice upon the heirs is a ​matter of procedural convenience and ​not a
jurisdictional requisite​.

On the issue of ​forum-shopping against petitioners​. Forum-shopping consists of ​filing

multiple suits in different courts​, either simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to
ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially same
reliefs, on the supposition that one or the other court would ​make a favorable disposition​. Obviously,
the ​parties in the instant case​, as well as in the ​appealed case before the CA, are the same. ​Both
cases deal with the ​existence and validity of the alleged will of the decedent, with petitioners
anchoring their cause on the ​state of intestacy​.
1. In the ​probate proceedings​, petitioners position has always been that the decedent left no will
and if she did, the will does not comply with the requisites of a valid will.
2. In the ​petition for letters of administration​, petitioner ​Flores prayed for her appointment as
administratrix of the estate ​on the theory that the decedent died intestate. The petition ​was
dismissed on the ​ground of lack of jurisdiction​, and it is this order of dismissal which is the
subject of review in CA-G.R. No. 74924. Clearly, therefore, ​there is forum-shopping.

Petitioners failed to inform the Court of the ​said pending case ​in their certification against forum-
shopping. Neither have they done so at any time thereafter.

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 12

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45. Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon

All real properties should belong to the second asawa: When a will is thus allowed in a court
outside the Philippines, such estate should be distributed strictly according to the terms of the same
will.

FACTS:
● Spouses Audrey and Richard Guersey were American citizens who have resided in the
Philippines for many years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle.
● Audrey died leaving a will. Will bequeathed her entire estate to Richard
● Audrey’s Will was admitted to probate before the Orphan's Court Maryland, U.S.A. Court named
Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitioner) as ancillary administrator. Will was also admitted to probate
by the Court of First Instance of Pasig.
● Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent) with whom he has two children:
Kimberly and Kevin
● Richard died leaving a will. Will bequeathed his entire estate to respondent except rights and
interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares which he left to Kyle.
● Richard’s will also admitted to probate by the Orphan's Court Maryland, U.S.A. then submitted
for probate before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
● Petitioner also filed in Philippines project of partition of Richard’s properties.
○ Partition: Makati real estate property divided into: 2/5 to respondent; 3/5 to three children
(Kimberly, Kevin, and Kyle)
○ Petitioner applied Philippine law and considered the three children as compulsory heirs
● Partition was opposed by respondent. Grounds for opposition:
○ under the law of the State of Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the ​entire
interest​ of the testator in the property subject of the legacy."
○ Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent, except for his rights and interests over
the A/G Interiors, Inc, shares, Richard’s entire interest in the Makati real estate property
should be given to respondent.
● Lower courts (RTC & CA) court found merit in respondent's opposition and disapproved the
project of partition.

ISSUE: ​Whether or not petitioner’s proposed partition should be disallowed? – YES, it should be
disallowed

HELD:
● As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Will Proved
Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder, states: ​When a will is thus
allowed outside Philippines​, ​such estate​, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
administration, ​shall be disposed of according to such will​.
● Petitioner admitted that he failed to introduce in evidence the law of the State of Maryland on
Estates and Trusts, and merely relied on the presumption that such law is the same as the
Philippine law on wills and succession.

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 13

 ● In this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of Maryland has been brought to record
before the lower courts in special proceeding, the lower courts appropriately took note of the
same in disapproving the proposed project of partition of Richard's estate
● Petitioner or any other interested person for that matter, does not dispute the existence or
validity of Maryland’s law, then Audrey's and Richard's estate should be distributed according to
their respective wills, and not according to the project of partition submitted by petitioner.
● Consequently, the entire Makati property belongs to respondent. Honorable as it seems,
petitioner's motive in equitably distributing Audrey's estate cannot prevail over Audrey's and
Richard's wishes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATCH 2 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 14