I.

ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS

Guevara vs. Guevara

G.R. No. L-48840, 29 December 1943
Facts:

Victorino L. Guevara executed a will, apparently with all the formalities of the
law. 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. His only legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara appears to
have possessed the land adjudicated to him in the registration proceeding and to
have disposed of various portions thereof for the purpose of paying the debts left
by his father.

In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father's last will and
testament in her custody, presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of
having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victirino L. Guevara 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.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition for probate of the will is barred by the statute of
limitations.

Ruling:
No. 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 accordance with that will without first securing its
allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that "no
will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in
rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial, without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the
testator's right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to
protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means provided
by law, among which are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of
said heirs and legatees.
Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an
action for partition, which is one in personam, any more than it could decree the
registration under the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for
reinvindicacion or partition.

Ventura, et. al vs. Ventura

Facts:

Appellant is the illegitimate daughter of the deceased Gregorio Ventura while

Miguel Ventura and Juana Cardona are his son and saving spouse who are also the
brother and mother of Maria Ventura. While , appellees are the deceased's
legitimate children with his former wife, the late Paulina Simpliciano the paternity of
appellees was denied by the deceased in his will.
Gregorio Ventura filed a petition for the probate of his will which did not include the
appellees. In the said will, the appellant Maria Ventura, although an illegitimate
child, was named and appointed by the testator to be the executrix of his will and
the administratrix of his estate. On October 22, 1963, Mercedes Ventura and
Gregoria Ventura filed a motion to remove the executrix Maria Ventura Hence, the
probate court removed Maria Ventura as executrix and administratrix of the estate
and in her place Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura are appointed joint
administratrix of the estate upon filing by each of them of a bond of P 7,000.00.
Issue:

Whether or not the removal of Maria Ventura as executrix is valid.

Ruling:
Yes. Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, if no executor is named in the will, or the executor
or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, a
petition shall be granted.
The SC ruled that the surviving spouse of the deceased Gregorio Ventura is Juana Cardona while the
next of kin are: Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura and Maria and Miguel Ventura. The "next of kin" has
been defined as those persons who are entitled under the statute of distribution to the decedents. It is
generally said that "the nearest of kin, whose interest in the estate is more preponderant, is preferred
in the choice of administrator. As decided by the lower court and sustained by the Supreme Court,
Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the legitimate children of Gregorio Ventura and his wife, the late
Paulina Simpliciano.
 Therefore, as the nearest of kin of Gregorio Ventura they are entitled to preference over the
illegitimate children of Gregorio Ventura, namely: Maria and Miguel Ventura.

II. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE: EXTRINSIC VALIDITY

Dorotheo vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta
Reyes. Aniceta died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro died
thereafter. After Alejandro's death, petitioner, who claims to have taken care of
Alejandro before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latter's
last will and testament. In 1981, the court issued an order admitting Alejandro's
will to probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said order. In 1983,
they filed a "Motion to Declare the Will Intrinsically Void." The trial court
granted the motion.

Issue:

Whether or not the will can still be given effect.

Ruling:

No. Under the law, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is
always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for dispositions
that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws
on succession, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. This is specially so
when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically
void.
In this case, the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but the intrinsic
provisions thereof were void. Thus, the rules of intestacy apply as correctly held by the trial court. But
it should be noted that in the same Order, the trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses
be distributed according to the laws of intestacy. Accordingly, it has no option but to implement that
order of intestate distribution and not to reopen and again re-examine the intrinsic provisions of the
same will.
Palacios vs. Palacios

Facts:

Juan Palacio executed his last will and testament and availing himself of the
provisions of the new Civil Code, he filed before the CFI of Batangas a petition for
its approval. In said will, he instituted as his sole heirs his natural children
Antonio Palacio and Andrea Palacio. Maria Catimbang filed an opposition to the
probate of the will alleging that she is the acknowledged natural daughter of
petitioner but that she was completely ignored in said will thus impairing her
legitimate.
After the presentation of petitioner’s evidence relative to the essential requisites
and formalities provided by the Law for the validity of a will, the court issued an
order admitting the will to probate. The court, however, set a date for the hearing of
the opposition relative to the intrinsic validity of the will and after proper hearing
concerning this incident, the court issued another order declaring opposition to be
the natural child of petitioner and annulling the will in so far as it impairs her
legitimate.
Issue:
Whether or not the opposition to the intrinsic validity of the will is proper.

Ruling:

No. Opposition to the intrinsic validity or to the legality of the provisions of the will
cannot be entertained in probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely to
determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the
law, much less if the purpose of the opposition is to show that the oppositor is an
acknowledged natural child who allegedly has been ignored in the will for such issue
cannot be raised here but in a separate action. This is especially so when the
testator, as in the present case, is still alive and has merely filed a petition for the
allowance of his will leaving the effects thereof after his death.
It is clear that the trial court erred in entertaining the opposition and in annulling the
portion of the will which allegedly impairs the legitime of the oppositor on the
ground that, as it has found, she is an acknowledged natural daughter of the
testator. This is an extraneous matter which should be threshed out in a separate
action.
 II. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS

Austria vs. Reyes

Facts:

Basilia Austria vda. De Cruz filed a petition for probate, ante mortem
of her last will and testament. However, the probate was opposed by
petitioners and others nephews and nieces of Basilia . Their opposition
was dismissed by the CFI and the probate was allowed. The trial court
decided that as per provisions in the will, the estate shall pass on to
Basilia’s adopted children. After two years from the probate of the will,
Basilia died, and Perfecto was appointed as executor. Petitioners filed
an Intervention to Partition, contending that they are the nearest of
kin to the decedent, that Perfecto Cruz and siblings were not adopted
in accordance with law, thus, they are mere strangers and without
right to succeed as heirs.The trial court allowed the intervention.

Issue:
Whether or not the institution of heirs made by Basili should be
annulled

Ruling:

No, the institution is valid and is not based on false cause. Under
Article 850 of the Civil Code, it provides for the Annulment of a Will
based on a false cause. It can be inferred from the Will of Basilia that
when she instituted her heirs, she was possessed of testamentary
capacity and the will was free from falsification, fraud, trickery or
undue influence.

Also, in her will, she does not specifically state the cause of her
institution. Therefore, in the absence of proof that there exists false
cause in the institution of heirs, testacy must be favored from
intestacy, and the will must be given full express.
Gabriel vs. Mateo

Facts:
Florencia Mateo executed her last will and testament on two used
sheets of paper and the same was signed by her and three attesting
witnesses. She bequeathed all her properties to her instituted heir,
Tomasa Mateo, a niece. Nothing was instituted for her only sister, Rita
Mateo and to her other nephews and nieces. Accordingly, Rita Mateo
opposed the probate of the will, interposing that the testator was
affectionate to all her nieces and nephews during her lifetime, and that
she, Rita Mateo, was in good terms with her sister, thus must be
instituted in the will.

Issue:

Whether or not the testator was absolutely free in making all those
provisions in favor of Tomasa Mateo, and nothing for her sister,
nephews and nieces.

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing strange in the
wishes of the testator not to leave anything for her sister. It is
reasonable that the entirety of her estate was left to Tomasa since
according to evidence, Tomasa was taken by the testator when the
former was only three years old and had never been separated from
her ever since. In addition, as can be inferred, Florencia Mateo has no
compulsory heirs; thus, she is free to dispose of her property.
Collateral relatives are merely intestate heirs.
 IV. FORCED SUCCESSION/ LEGITIME

Milagros Manongsong v. FelomenaJumaquio Estimo

FACTS:

Agatona Guevarra inherited a property from Justina Navarro, which is now under

possession of the heirs of Guevarra. Guevarra had six children, one of them is Vicente
Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong.

Respondents, claimed that the property was actually sold to them by Justina Navarro prior
to her death and presented a did of sale to prove their claim. Petitioner filed a Complaint
on praying for the partition and award to them of an area equivalent to one-fifth (1/5), by
right of representation. The RTC ruled that the conveyance made by Justina Navarro is
subject to nullity because the property conveyed had a conjugal character and that Agatona
Guevarra as her compulsory heir should have the legal right to participate with the
distribution of the estate under question to the exclusion of others. The Deed of Sale did
not at all provide for the reserved legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has no force and
effect against AgatonaGuevarra and should be declared a nullity ab initio.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the rights of the compulsory heirs were impaired.

RULING:

No. The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public
document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. There is no basis
for the trial court’s declaration that the sale embodied in the Kasulatan deprived the
compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a disposition inter vivos by
lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable consideration does not diminish the
estate of the seller. When the disposition is for valuable consideration, there is no
diminution of the estate but merely a substitution of values, that is, the property sold is
replaced by the equivalent monetary consideration. The Property was sold in 1957 for
P250.00.

The trial court’s conclusion that the Property was conjugal, hence the sale is void ab initio
was not based on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension. The presumption under
Article 160 of the Civil Code applies only when there is proof that the property was
acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an
essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal
partnership. There was no evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired the
Property during her marriage.
Sps. Joaquin v. CA

FACTS:

Defendant spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are

the parents of plaintiffs as well as of defendants. The married
Joaquin children are joined in this action by their respective
spouses. Sought to be declared null and void ab initio are certain
deeds of sale covering 6 parcels of land executed by defendant
parents Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito in favor of their
co-defendant children and the corresponding certificates of title
issued in their names.

In seeking the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale

and certificates of title, plaintiffs, in their complaint, aver that the
purported sale of the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate
conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory
heirs (plaintiffs herein) of their legitime.

Issue: WON the petitioners are deprived of their legitime from the
purported sale.

Held:

No. Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of
the Deeds of Sale. As the appellate court stated, petitioners’ right to their
parents’ properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon their parents’
death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime,
petitioners forget that theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does
not affect the value of their parents’ estate. While the sale of the lots reduced
the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the estate.

V. INTANGIBLE RIGHT TO THE LEGITIME

BLAS VS. SANTOS

FACTS:

Simeon Blas contracted a first marriage with Marta Cruz and had three children, only one of whom,
Eulalio, left children namely: Maria Gervacio Blas (one of the plaintiffs), Marta Gervacio Blas (one
of the defendants), and Lazaro Gervacio Blas. Lazaro died and is survived by three legitimate
children who are plaintiffs herein namely, Manuel, Leoncio and Loid. Subsequently after Marta’s
death, Simeon contracted a second marriage with Maxima Santos. At the time of second marriage,
no liquidation of the properties of Simeon and Marta was made. A week before Simeon’s death, he
executed a last Will and Testament, and he also ordered a preparation of a document (Exhibit A)
because the properties he had acquired during his first marriage with Mart had not been liquidated
and were not separated from those acquired during the second marriage. Such document contains
promises by Maxima to respect the disposition of said will and to give one-half (1/2) of the
properties she and her husband will leave to the heirs, legatees or beneficiaries named in the will.
Pursuant to this document, the plaintiffs instituted an action against the administration of the estate
of Maxima Santos to secure a judicial declaration that one-half (1/2) of the properties left by
Maxima be adjudicated to them. Upon filing of opposition by the administratix, the trial court
dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.

GR No. 165300 Ferrer vs Diaz

FACTS: 

Comandante, daughter of spouses Diaz’s represented the latter to

obtain a loan to Ferrer. The loan was secured by a Real
Estate Mortgage Contract. Petitioner claims that prior to
said loan, Comandante executed an instrument in his favor entitled
Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property.

Diaz, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by

Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated
demands, the respondents failed to settle the loan. Thus,
petitioner filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured
by Real Estate Mortgage Contract against the Diaz’ and Comandante.

ISSUE: Whether or not waiver of hereditary rights in favor of

another by an heir for a future inheritance valid?
HELD: No the waiver is not valid. Article 1347 of the Civil Code
provides that no contract may be entered into upon a future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. For the
inheritance to be considered “future”, the succession must not have
been opened at the time of the contract.

In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of

Comandante’s Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest over a Real
Property , succession to either of her parent’s properties has not
yet been opened since both of them are still living. It is
clear that Comandante and petitioner entered into a contract
involving the former’s future inheritance as embodied in the Waiver
of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property executed by
her in petitioner’s favor. Hence, the waiver could not be
considered as a valid waiver of future inheritance.