Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    SpecPro - (13) - (G.R.No.L-48840) - Guevarra vs. Guevarra

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    1) Ernesto Guevara and Rosario Guevara were disputing the inheritance from their deceased father Victorino L. Guevara. 2) Victorino had executed a will in 1931 leaving property to various people, including 100 hectares of land to Ernesto, but the will was never probated after his death in 1933. 3) Rosario claimed a share of the inheritance as Victorino's acknowledged natural daughter, arguing the estate should be treated as intestate since the will was not probated, but the Court held that the procedure adopted by Rosario to circumvent the will was not legal and that the parties must present the will for proper probate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SpecPro - (13) - (G.R.No.L-48840) - Guevarra vs. Guevarra

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    137 views2 pages
    1) Ernesto Guevara and Rosario Guevara were disputing the inheritance from their deceased father Victorino L. Guevara. 2) Victorino had executed a will in 1931 leaving property to various people, including 100 hectares of land to Ernesto, but the will was never probated after his death in 1933. 3) Rosario claimed a share of the inheritance as Victorino's acknowledged natural daughter, arguing the estate should be treated as intestate since the will was not probated, but the Court held that the procedure adopted by Rosario to circumvent the will was not legal and that the parties must present the will for proper probate.

    Original Title

    SpecPro_[13]_[G.R.No.L-48840]_Guevarra vs. Guevarra

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ernesto Guevara and Rosario Guevara were disputing the inheritance from their deceased father Victorino L. Guevara. 2) Victorino had executed a will in 1931 leaving property to various people, including 100 hectares of land to Ernesto, but the will was never probated after his death in 1933. 3) Rosario claimed a share of the inheritance as Victorino's acknowledged natural daughter, arguing the estate should be treated as intestate since the will was not probated, but the Court held that the procedure adopted by Rosario to circumvent the will was not legal and that the parties must present the will for proper probate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views2 pages

    SpecPro - (13) - (G.R.No.L-48840) - Guevarra vs. Guevarra

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    1) Ernesto Guevara and Rosario Guevara were disputing the inheritance from their deceased father Victorino L. Guevara. 2) Victorino had executed a will in 1931 leaving property to various people, including 100 hectares of land to Ernesto, but the will was never probated after his death in 1933. 3) Rosario claimed a share of the inheritance as Victorino's acknowledged natural daughter, arguing the estate should be treated as intestate since the will was not probated, but the Court held that the procedure adopted by Rosario to circumvent the will was not legal and that the parties must present the will for proper probate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ERNESTO GUEVARA vs.

    ROSARIO GUEVARA and her husband PEDRO BUISON


    (G.R. No. L-48840| December 29, 1943 | Ozaeta, J.)

    FACTS: Ernesto and Rosario, legitimate son and natural daughter of the deceased Victorino L.
    Guevara, are litigating here over their inheritance from the latter. The action was commenced by
    Rosario to recover from Ernesto what she claims to be her strict legitime as an acknowledged
    natural daughter of the deceased.

    It appears that in 1931, their father executed a will wherein he made bequests and devises to
    various persons and he set aside 100 hectares of a land he owns to be disposed of either by him
    during his lifetime or by his attorney-in-fact. Ernesto in order to pay all his pending debts and to
    defray his expenses and those of his family us to the time of his death. Subsequently, a deed was
    executed by their father selling, conveying and transferring to Ernesto the entire parcel of land.

    In 1933, Victorino died. His last will and testament, however, was never presented to the court
    for probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his
    estate. In the meantime, Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father's last will and
    testament in her custody, did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions made
    therein in her favor. But a little over four years after the testor's demise, she commenced the
    present action and it was only during the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court,
    not for the purpose of having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victorino had
    acknowledged her as his natural daughter. Upon that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her
    share of the inheritance from him, but on the theory or assumption that he died intestate, because
    the will had not been probated, for which reason, she asserted, the betterment therein made by
    the testator in favor of his legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara should be disregarded. Both the
    trial court and the Court of appeals sustained that theory.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the procedure adopted by Rosario was legal (the probate of a will can be
    dispensed with)

    HELD: No. The Court cannot sanction the procedure adopted by the respondent Rosario
    Guevara, it being in our opinion in violation of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and
    disregard the last will and testament of the decedent. 

    The proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, with notice by publication to the whole
    world and with personal notice to each of the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
    (section 630, C. c. P., and sections 3 and 4, Rule 77). Altho not contested (section 5, Rule 77),
    the due execution of the will and the fact that the testator at the time of its execution was of
    sound and disposing mind and not acting under duress, menace, and undue influence or fraud,
    must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, and only then may the will be legalized and given
    effect by means of a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge and attested by the seal of
    the court; and when the will devises real property, attested copies thereof and of the certificate of
    allowance must be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in which the land lies.
    (Section 12, Rule 77, and section 624, C. C. P.)
    It will readily be seen from the above provisions of the law that the presentation of a will to the
    court for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and indispensable to its
    efficacy. To assure and compel the probate of will, the law punishes a person who neglects his
    duty to present it to the court with a fine not exceeding P2,000, and if he should persist in not
    presenting it, he may be committed to prision and kept there until he delivers the will.

    Wherefore, that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which awards any relief to
    the respondent Rosario Guevara in this action is hereby reversed and set aside, and the parties
    herein are hereby ordered to present the document exhibit A to the proper court for probate in
    accordance with law, without prejudice to such action as the provincial fiscal of Pangasinan may
    take against the responsible party or parties under section 4 of Rule 76. After the said document
    is approved and allowed by the court as the last will and testament of the deceased Victorino L.
    Guevara, the heirs and legatees therein named may take such action, judicial or extrajudicial, as
    may be necessary to partition the estate of the testator, taking into consideration the
    pronouncements made in part II of this opinion. 

    You might also like