A Selection of Jurisprudence

1. A signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his
counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the
signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert
a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsels
authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not
delegate it to just any person. Republic v. Kendrick

2. Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases.

Courts and litigants alike are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules.
And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application
of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation
and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable
causes and circumstances. Republic v. Kendrick

3. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural
rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Substantial
compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance such as the
requirement on non-forum shopping, as well as verification. Utter disregard of
the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal
construction. San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. v. CIR

4. The doctrine that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters
neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below but
ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal,
is subject to exceptions, such as when:
(a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
(b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within contemplation of law;
(c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case
or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal
justice;
(d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial
court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court
ignored;
(e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned; and
(f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the
determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent. Acapulco v.
Austria-Martinez

5. Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a

previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the
subsequent marriage, the prior spouses had been absent for four consecutive
years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent
 spouses was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of
death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the
Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose
pf contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the
spouses present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this
Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse. Republic v.
CA and Jomoc

6. Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on Modes of Appeal, invoked
by the trial court in disapproving petitioners Notice of Appeal, provides: Sec.
2. Modes of appeal. - (a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except
in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where
the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner. Republic v. CA and Jomoc

7. There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is,
therefore, a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special
proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the
filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the
filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed. Republic v. CA
and Jomoc

8. The heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without

requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor. However, if within
the specified period a legal representative fails to appear, the court may
order the opposing counsel, within a specified period, to process the
appointment of an administrator or executor who shall immediately appear
for the estate of the deceased. x x x The heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do
not need to first secure the appointment of an administrator of his estate,
because from the very moment of his death, they stepped into his shoes and
acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San Juan. Thus,
a prior appointment of an administrator or executor of the estate of Oscar
Casa is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be substituted
as representatives of the estate. Said heirs may designate one or some of
them as their representative before the trial court. San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz

9. Barcelona, et al. vs. Barcelona, et al., supra, provides the reason why oral
partition is valid and why it is not covered by the Statute of Frauds: partition
among heirs or renunciation of an inheritance by some of them is not exactly
a conveyance of real property for the reason that it does not involve transfer
of property from one to the other, but 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. Reyes v. CA
10.Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be
discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should
be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion
of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any heirs
or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing is at stake on this phase of
the controversy. Reynoso v. Santiago

11.The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is

delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an
appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. The
Court of Appeals having decreed the probate of the will and the appointment
of an albacea, there is no valid reason for the further retention of a special
administrator. Reynoso v. Santiago

12.But whether or not Victorio Reynoso should be appointed as administrator we

do not and cannot of course decide in a petition for mandamus. While the
surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment, circumstances
might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. Mandamus
lies where the duty is specific and ministerial. It does not lie where judgment
or discretion is exercised in the performance of the act. Applying the rule to
this case, it is proper to command the court below to appoint a regular
administrator, but it is not proper to tell it whom to appoint. Reynoso v.
Santiago

13.Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The following
provision is therefore also available to the private respondent in proving his
illegitimate filiation: Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established
by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register
or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws. While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of
the documents mentioned in the first paragraph (which are practically the
same documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil Code except for the
"private handwritten instrument signed by the parent himself'''), he insists
that he has nevertheless been "in open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child," which is now also admissible as evidence of
filiation. Cited in Cristobal v. Cristobal

14.The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in

a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next
succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any
person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof (Rule 74,
Sec. 1). without the participation of all persons involved in the proceedings,
the extrajudicial settlement is not binding on said persons. In the case at bar,
since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is composed solely
of the subject property, the partition thereof by the private respondents
 already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura Cristobals
estate. The Deed of Partition excluded four of the eight heirs of Buenaventura
Cristobal who were also entitled to their respective shares in the subject
property. Since petitioners were not able to participate in the execution of the
Deed of Partition, which constitutes as an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate of the late Buenaventura Cristobal by private respondents, such
settlement is not binding on them. Cristobal v. Cristobal

15.In Budlong v. Bondoc, this Court has interpreted said provision of law to mean
that the action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be barred by
prescription. For Article 494 of the Civil Code explicitly declares: "No
prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly
or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. Cristobal v. Cristobal

16.Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable

time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not involve mere lapse or
passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or
enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances
inequitable or unfair to permit. absence any strong or compelling reason, this
Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or defeat
the rights of an owner. Laches is a creation of equity and its application is
controlled by equitable considerations. Laches cannot be used to defeat
justice or perpetuate an injustice. Neither should its application be used to
prevent the rightful owners of a property from recovering what has been
fraudulently registered in the name of another. Cristobal v. Cristobal

17.The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The

rule plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no
notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. It
contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of
settlement and/or partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested
parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and
partition), and not after such an agreement has already been executed as
what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of
extrajudicial settlement among heirs.

18.The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to

the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same
was notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of publication is
geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive
heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. In this connection,
the records of the present case confirm that respondents never signed either
of the settlement documents, having discovered their existence only shortly
before the filing of the present complaint. Following Rule 74, these
extrajudicial settlements do not bind respondents, and the partition made
without their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned.
Cua v. Vargas
19.This is not to say, though, that respondents' co-heirs cannot validly sell their
hereditary rights to third persons even before the partition of the estate. The
heirs who actually participated in the execution of the extrajudicial
settlements, which included the sale to petitioner of their pro indiviso shares
in the subject property, are bound by the same. Nevertheless, respondents
are given the right to redeem these shares pursuant to Article 1088 of the
Civil Code. The right to redeem was never lost because respondents were
never notified in writing of the actual sale by their co-heirs. Based on the
provision, there is a need for written notice to start the period of redemption,
thus: Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the
partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the
purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so
within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of
the sale by the vendor. It bears emphasis that the period of one month shall
be reckoned from the time that a co-heir is notified in writing by the vendor of
the actual sale. Written notice is indispensable and mandatory, actual
knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner
notwithstanding. Cua v. Vargas

20.ART. 2010. By an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally

bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other
shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain, or which
is to occur at an indeterminate time. Under the aforequoted provision, the
fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends on either the happening of an
event which is (1) "uncertain," (2) "which is to occur at an indeterminate
time." A survivorship agreement, the sale of a sweepstake ticket, a
transaction stipulating on the value of currency, and insurance have been
held to fall under the first category, while a contract for life annuity or
pension under Article 2021, et sequentia, has been categorized under the
second. In either case, the element of risk is present. In the case at bar, the
risk was the death of one party and survivorship of the other. But although
the survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law its operation or
effect may be violative of the law. For instance, if it be shown in a given case
that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation, to
transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legitime of a forced
heir, it may be assailed and annulled upon such grounds. No such vice has
been imputed and established against the agreement involved in this case.
There is no demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had been
executed for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by the respondent court, in
order to frustrate our laws on wills, donations, and conjugal partnership.
Vitug v. CA

21.The general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testator's
testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities
prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally come only after
the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. 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 rule, however, is not
inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court is
 not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon
certain provisions of the will. x x x Where circumstances demand that
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions be passed upon even before the
extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the probate court should meet the
issue. Acain v. CA

22.The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation

clause is obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the removal
of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions of the will
and in the absence of a statement of the total number of sheets such
removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the numbers
at the top of the following sheets or pages. Azuela v. CA

23.The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause
must contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages composing the
will and that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of
invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence
aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the will itself. Azuela v. CA

24.An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed.41 It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually
declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed. It might be possible to
construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual
language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies
that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the
executor. Azuela v. CA

25.The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied
by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively
numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether
the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All these are
facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning
them in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total
number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did so in the
presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation clause,
being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings. Azuela v. CA

26.The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from
each other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify,
among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing
forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation
clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained
in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and
apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in
an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand
margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such
signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause,
 since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a
wholly different avowal. Azuela v. CA

27.A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to
before a notary public. Azuela v. CA

28.It is not proper to make a finding in an intestate estate proceeding that the
discovered will has been revoked. The more appropriate remedy of the
petitioners in the premises stated in the petition is for petitioners to initiate a
separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged with in question. Maloto-
Casiano v. Maloto

29.The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have
been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution
of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his
domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has
been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign
tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure
and allowance of wills. Teodoro Vda. De Perez v. Tolete

30.Under the Section 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rules shall be
"liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties
in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding." A literal application of the Rules should be avoided if they would
only result in the delay in the administration of justice. In the case at bench,
the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills. Since the two wills contain
essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all
probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations dictate their joint
probate. As this Court has held a number of times, it will always strive to
settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch
to bear the seeds of future litigation. Teodoro Vda. De Perez v. Judge Tolete

31.The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall
"cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for
allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with
regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an
"original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time.
Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require
publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees,
and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor,
if he is not the petitioner, are required. Teodoro Vda. De Perez v. Judge Tolete

32.