SPECIAL

PROCEEDINGS
 SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to

establish a status, a right, or a particular fact
(Sec 3(c), Rule 1, Rules of Court)
Special Proceeding
RULE 72
Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. — Rules of special proceedings are provided
for in the following cases:
(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
(b) Escheat;
(c) Guardianship and custody of children;
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
(h) Habeas corpus;
(i) Change of name;
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
(k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
(l) Constitution of family home;
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
(n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry.
Special Proceeding

Q(2012): Which of the following is not a Special Proceeding?

a) Absentees;
b) Escheat;
c) Change of First Name;
d) Constitution of Family Home;

Alternative Answer

All the above-mentioned actions are considered Special Proceedings because they are
remedies which seek to establish a status, right or a particular fact. (Rule 1, Sec. 2 (c),
Rules of Court).
Special Proceeding – What Rules Govern them?

• Governing Rules (Bar 2008, application of modes of discovery)

• Rule 1, Sec 3 - The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions civil or criminal, and special
proceedings
• Rule 72, Sec 3 - In the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable,
applicable in special proceedings i.e. explanation of non forum
shopping, payment of filing fees, motion, subpoena, computation of
time
Special Proceeding – Other Rules Govern them?

Other Governing Rules

 A.M. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages)
 A.M. 02-01-19-SC (Rule on Commitment of Children)
 A.M. 03-02-05-SC (Rule on Guardianship of Minors)
 A.M. 07-09-12-SC (Rule on Writ of Amparo)
 A.M. 08-01-16-SC (Rule on Habeas Data)
 RA 8043 (Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995)
 RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act)
 RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172 (Clerical Error Act)
Special Proceeding
ORDINARY ACTION SPECIAL PROCEEDING
to protect or enforce a right or prevent or redress a  
wrong involves the establishment of the right, status or
fact
   
involves two or more parties may involve only one party
 
   
governed by ordinary rules governed by special rules supplemented
   
supplemented by special rules by ordinary rules
   
heard by courts of general jurisdiction heard by courts of limited jurisdiction
   
Initiated by a complaint and parties respond Initiated by means of a petition and parties respond
through an answer by means of an opposition
  Does not pray for an affirmative relief that is why
  generally does not issue writs of execution
In Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Organization v. Court of Appeals,71 the Court made the crucial
distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding:
Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one seeks
to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Hence, action is distinguished from
special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the
latter is but a petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party-litigant seeks to recover
property from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the appointment
of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of
insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship.72
Hence, the main point of differentiation between a civil action and a special proceeding is that in the
former, a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right which the party claims
he/she is entitled to,73 such as when a party-litigant seeks to recover property from another,74 while in
the latter, a party merely seeks to have a right established in his/her favor.

(Dr. Treyes v. Larlar, et al., G.R. No. 232579, September 08, 2020)
Settlement of the Estate of Deceased
Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Person

RULE 73
Venue and Process
Section 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedents 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 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 of any province in which he had estate.
The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent,
shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. xxx
Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Person
• Jurisdiction (BP 129, as amended by RA 11576, Sec. 1 and 2)

Jurisdiction of MTC
Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings,
testate and intestate, including grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed Php2,000,000, exclusive of DIALEC, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged.
RTC – exceeds Php2M.
Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Person
Venue – Determine first whether Resident or Non-Resident

• Resident – venue is place of residence

• Non-resident – venue is place where estate or portion
thereof is situated
Quizon v. Belen (July 31, 2013)
 

Lourdes, the common law wife of Eliseo filed a petition for letters of
administration in Las Pinas. The alleged wife of Eliseo move to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the death certificate of Eliseo shows that he is a
resident of Capas Tarlac.
 
The SC held that the entry in the death certificate is not binding. Both
trial court and CA found that Eliseo had been living with Lourdes since 1972
until his death.
 
In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular
sense, meaning, 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. In this popular sense, the term means merely
residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile.
Different Modes of Settlement of the Estate

1. Extrajudicial Settlement of the

Estate (Sec. 1, Rule 74)
2. Partition (Rule 69)
3. Summary Settlement of the Estate
of Small Value (Sec. 3, Rules 74)
4. Probate of Will (Rule 75 to 79)
5. Petition for Letters of Administration
(Rule 79)
 RULE 74
Summary Settlement of Estate
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts
and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration, divide the estate
among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds,
and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir,
he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the office of the register of
deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending
action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall
file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or
stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the
said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as
certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may
be filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a
petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the manner provided in the nest succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be
binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE

Substantive Requirements Procedural Requirements

1. NO WILL 1. PUBLIC INSTRUMENT

2. NO DEBT – if no creditor files for petition
for LA within 2 yrs after death of the 2. FILED WITH RD
decedent, there is disputable presumption
that decedent left no debt 3. PUBLICATION
3. HEIRS OF LEGAL AGE, if not they are
duly represented 4. BOND = value of personal
property if personal property
is involved
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE

What is the effect of EJS executed without the knowledge and consent of the
other co-heirs?
No EJS shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or
had no notice there (Rule 74, Sec 1)
Note: Publication not notice to the whole world (Bar 2009) – Notice after the
Fact
• Exception: it was made in accordance with the intestate shares under the
law
Summary settlement of the estate of Affidavit of self-adjudication
small value
1. Affidavit of sole adjudication
1. gross value of the estate not 2. Filed with the Registry of
exceed 10k Deeds
2. Publication of once a week for 3 3. Publication
consecutive weeks
3. Hearing not less than 1m not more
than 3 months from date of last
publication of notice
4. No need appointment of
administrator
5. Order to pay debt
6. identify the heirs
7. Distribute
Liabilities of Distributees – if it appears within 2 years after settlement and distribution
that an heir or person is deprived of his lawful heir, such person may compel the settlement of the estate in
court. The court may issue execution against the bond or the real estate belonging to the deceased or
both.

The bond and the real estate shall remain charged with liability to creditors, heirs for a full period of 2 yrs after
distribution notwithstanding any transfer of real property has been made (Rule 74, Sec. 4)

If on the date of expiration of 2 years the creditor or heir is (minor, incapacitated, in prison, outside of the
Philippines) he may present his claim within one (1) year from the time the disability is removed (R74, S5)

Presumption of Death – a person is presumed dead if absent or unheard of for the

period fixed in the Civil Code (Art. 390-391). If the person proves to be alive he shall be entitled to the balance of
his estate

7 years – presumed dead for all purposes except opening of succession

10 years – succession, 5 years if disappear after age of 75 y/o
4 years – if the person disappeared while in plane, sea vessel, or had taken part in war or in danger of death
Dr. Nixon Treyes v. Anthony Larlar et al.,
 G.R. No. 232579, September 08, 2020 
 
Rosie Larlar Treyes (Rosie), the wife of petitioner Treyes, passed away.9 Rosie, who did not bear any
children with petitioner Treyes, died without any will.10 Rosie also left behind seven siblings, i.e., the private
respondents Antonio, Emilio, Heddy, Rene, Celeste, Judy, and Yvonne.
At the time of her death, Rosie left behind 14 real estate properties,11 situated in various locations in the
Philippines, which she owned together with petitioner Treyes as their conjugal properties (subject properties).
private respondents then alleged that sometime during the latter part of 2012, they discovered to their shock
and dismay that the TCTs previously registered in the name of their sister and petitioner Treyes had already
been cancelled, and new titles had been issued in the name of petitioner Treyes  on the basis of the
Affidavit of Self Adjudication.
 
private respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint18 dated July 12, 2013 (Complaint) for annulment
of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession,
partition, and damages against petitioner Treyes and the RD. They claim that being brothers and
sisters they are entitled to the share of their sister’s estate.  
They prayed for the cancellation of all the TCTs issued in favor of petitioner Treyes, the reconveyance
to the private respondents of their successional share in the estate of Rosie, the partition of the estate
of Rosie.
 
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of (1) improper venue (2) prescription (3) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter
 
RTC denied for lack of merit petitioner Treyes' second Motion to Dismiss. Nevertheless, the RTC held
that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the Complaint's third cause of action, i.e., partition: so it was
ordered dropped from the complaint.
 
The CA, affirmed.
ON PRESCRIPTION

Petitioner Treyes also argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the
Complaint since the period for the filing of the Complaint had already supposedly prescribed.
The Court likewise finds this argument to be without merit.

The basis of petitioner Treyes in arguing that the Complaint is already barred by prescription is Rule
74, Section 4 of the Rules,44 which states that an heir or other persons unduly deprived of lawful
participation in the estate may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts at any time within two
years after the settlement and distribution of an estate.

The Court stresses that Rule 74 pertains exclusively to the settlement of estates, which is a special proceeding
and NOT an ordinary civil action.45
ON PRESCRIPTION

As well, this argument of petitioner Treyes invoking prescription on the basis of Rule 74 is again wholly
inconsistent with his main theory that the instant Complaint is not a special proceeding but an ordinary civil
action for annulment of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and
possession, and damages.46

Moreover, as clarified by the Court in Sampilo, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,47 the provisions of Rule 74,
Section 4 barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two years
from such extrajudicial partition is applicable only: (1) to persons who have participated or taken part or had
notice of the extrajudicial partition, and (2) when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly
complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or
are represented by themselves or through guardians.

Both requirements are absent here as it is evident that not all the legal heirs of Rosie participated in the
extrajudicial settlement of her estate as indeed, it was only petitioner Treyes who executed the
Affidavits of Self-Adjudication.
Procedure in JUDICIAL Settlement
Of an Estate
Probate of
Will if any Procedure in Settlement (Judicial)

Issuance of
LT or LA
Filing of
Claims
Payment of Claims/
Sale of Property

Distribution
 • Cannot issue WE
1. If within 2 yrs after settlement and
Probate Court distribution that the estate has unpaid
outstanding debt, or that a person or
• Limited Jurisdiction heir has been unduly deprived of his
participation, the court my issue
• Administration execution to order the payment thereof
(Rule 74, Sec. 4) Liability of Distributee
• Liquidation
2. Satisfy share of heirs when the latter
• Distribution entered prior possession over the estate
(S6, R88)
3. Enforce payment of expenses of
partition (S3, R90)
Probate Court

Cannot Resolve Ownership Issue

• Provisional
• When all heirs agree (Bernardo v. CA, Feb 28, 1963)

• Principle of Exclusionary Rule

The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts
PROBATE - an act of proving before a court a document purporting to be a
will and testament of a deceased person in order to be registered, recognized, and its
provisions carried in accordance with law

Will

A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with all the formalities prescribed by law, to control
to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death.

• Nature (Mandatory, In Rem, Imprescriptible)

• Stage
Probate Proper – Extrinsic (due execution of the will)

Second Stage – Resolving issues which the probate court can determine
a. Who are heirs
b. Status of heirs
c. Validity of waiver or disinheritance
GR. Only in special proceeding that the issue as to who are the heirs may be resolved.

Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made
in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and
ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in
the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. xxxIt is
then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch
as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.

In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Court ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made
in a special proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v.
Court of Appeals x x x[.]

In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Court reiterated its ruling that
matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a
special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. Citing the case
of Agapay v. Palang, this Court held that the status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a
decedent's estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in this case, was for the
recovery of property (Dr. Treyes v. Larlar, et al., )
By way of exception:

Nevertheless, the Court likewise added in Ypon that there are circumstances wherein a
determination of heirship in a special proceeding is not a precondition for the institution of an
ordinary civil action for the sake of practicality, i.e., (1) when the parties in the civil case had
voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the
issue of heirship, and (2) when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally
terminated and cannot be re-opened:
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of
heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had
voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the
issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special
proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be
re-opened. (Dr. Treyes v. Larlar, et al.,)
Probate Court’s Scope of Authority in Probate of Will

The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the scope of the court's
inquiry is limited to questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the
probate court will only determine the will's formal validity and due
execution.8 However, this rule is not inflexible and absolute. 9 It is not
beyond the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of
the will when so warranted by exceptional circumstances.10 When practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon
even before it is probated, the probate court should meet the issue.

The decedent's will does not contain specific legacies or devices and the
preterition annulled the institution of heirs. The annulment effectively
caused the total abrogation of the will, resulting in total intestacy of the
inheritance. The decedent's will, no matter how valid it may appear
extrinsically, is null and void. The conduct of separate proceedings to
determine the intrinsic validity of its testamentary provisions would be
superfluous. (Morales v. Olondriz, 3 February 2016)
 RULE 75
Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary
Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. — No will shall pass either real or personal
estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the
will shall be conclusive as to its due execution.

Time to Submit to Court

Within 20 days from knowledge of the death of the testator, the custodian shall deliver
the will to the court having jurisdiction or to the executor named in the will (R75, s 2)
the executor has 20 days from knowledge of death or the fact that he is named
executor to signify if he accepts or refuses the trust (Sec. 3)
The custodian or executor who neglects these duties may be fined not exceed 2k (Sec.
4) or committed
to prison and kept there until he delivers the will (Sec. 5)
Section 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. — When a will is delivered to,
or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in, the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and
place for proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and shall cause
notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively, previous to the time appointed, in
a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for probate has been filed by the
testatorhimself.

Section 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally. — The court shall also
cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or
other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of
residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before
the hearing, if such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the
person named as executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to any person named as coexecutor not
petitioning, if their places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at lest (10) days
before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.

If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
MIGDONIO RACCA and MIAM GRACE DIANNE RACCA v. MARIA LOLITA A. ECHAGUEG.R. No. 237133,
20 January 2021, (Gesmundo, J.)
Under Section 3, publication of the notice of hearing shall be done upon the delivery of the will, or filing of
the petition for allowance of the will in the court having jurisdiction. On the other hand, personal notice
under Section 4 shall be served to the designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees, and the executor
or co-executor, at their residence, if such are known. Here, the notice sent to Migdonio and Miam fell short
of the procedural requirements laid down by Section 4.

FACTS: Maria Lolita A. Echague (Echague) filed a Petition for the allowance of the will of the late Amparo
Ferido Racca (Amparo) and issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. She averred that Amparo
executed a notarial will before her death and bequeathed an undivided portion of a parcel of land in favor of
her grandnephew Migdon Chris Laurence Ferido (Migdon). She also named Migdonio Racca (Migdonio)
and Miam Grace Dianne Ferido Racca (Miam), Amparo's husband and daughter, respectively, as Amparo's
known heirs. The hearing for the petition proceeded but Migdonio and Miam failed to appear, hence, they
were declared in default. Subsequently, Migdonio and Miam filed a Motion to Lift Order of General Default
on the ground of excusable negligence. They alleged that Migdonio received a copy of the Notice of
Hearing only two days beforethe scheduled hearing. Since Migdonio is already 78 years old, and not in
perfect health, he could not immediately act on the notice within such a short period of time. Miam, on the
other hand, did not receive any notice. Due to their ignorance of procedural rules and financial constraints,
they were not immediately able to secure a counsel to represent their interest. They also manifested in the
motion that Amparo was mentally incapable to make a will based on the medical certificate issued by her
attending physician.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) released an Order denying the motion. It held that the jurisdictional
requirements of publication and posting of notices had been substantially complied with. A Motion for
Reconsideration was then filed but the RTC denied the same. Hence, the present appeal by
Certiorari under Rule 45.ISSUEAre Migdonio and Miam still entitled to notice under Section4 of Rule
76 despite the publication of the notice of hearing?

RULING: YES. Notice to the designated and known heirs, devisees and legatees under Section 4,
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. Publication of notice of hearing is not sufficient when the
places of residence of the heirs, legatees and devisees are known .Notable that Sections3 and 4
prescribe two (2) modes of notification of the hearing:(a) by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation or the Official Gazette; and(b) by personal notice to the designated or known heirs,
legatees and devisees
Under the provision abovequoted, individual notice upon heirs, legatees and devisees is necessary
only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In other instances, such
notice is not necessary and the court may acquire and exercise jurisdiction simply upon the
publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation . 

In Re: Testate Estate of Suntay, the Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Sabino Padilla, said:
x x x It is a proceedings in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by
publication or both to all interested parties must be made. 

It should be emphasized that De Aranz does not disregard the rule in proceedings in rem that
publication serves as constructive notice to the whole world.62 De Aranz merely upholds the
additional requirement under Sec. 4 that personal notice be served to the interested parties to the will
on the condition that their places of residence are known. Otherwise, personal notification is not
required even though the oppositors to the will are the compulsory heirs or named legatees and
devisees.
Furthermore, De Aranz affirms the obligatory language of Sec. 4 as it used the word "shall." It bears
emphasis that the use of the word "shall" in a statute or rule expresses what is mandatory and
compulsory.63 Thus, Sec. 4 provides that the court "shall" also cause copies of the notice of the time and
place of the hearing to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident
in the Philippines at their places of residence, if such places of residence be known. The mandatory
language of Sec. 4 indicates that the trial court has the duty to strictly comply with the procedures laid
therein.

To reiterate, the court has the obligation to serve personal notices to petitioners under Sec. 4 of Rule 76
because they are known heirs of Amparo and their places of residence were made known in the petition
for probate. Verily, it was erroneous of the RTC to rule that petitioners had been sufficiently notified by the
publication of the notice under Sec. 3. The trial court cannot simply abdicate the mandatory duty under
Sec. 4 by indiscriminately applying the rule on publication. To do so would render nugatory the procedure
laid down in Sec. 4 and the purpose for which the Court had intended it.
he notice sent to Migdonio failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Section 4 of Rule 76
As regards the notice sent to Migdonio, the Court also finds that the same fell short of the procedural
requirements laid down by Sec. 4.

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 76, personal notice must either be (1) deposited in the post office with the postage
thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing, or (2) personally served at least ten (10) days
before the day of hearing.

ln Migdonio's case, there was no evidence that the notice of hearing addressed to him was deposited in the
post office at least 20 days before June 21, 2017. Even if it were assumed that the notice of hearing was
personally served to Migdonio, the same cannot be said to be substantial compliance. Based on records,
Migdonio received a copy of the notice on June 19, 2017 or two (2) clays prior to the hearing on June 21,
2017. This is short of the 10-day period fixed by Sec. 4. Hence, the notice served to Migdonio did not satisfy
the requirement provided by Sec. 4.

The SC found that the RTC incorrectly declared petitioners in default. It ordered the case remanded back to
RTC for further proceeding
The RTC incorrectly declared Petitioners in default.

It should be emphasized that in probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination
and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will.36 By extrinsic validity, the testamentary capacity and the
compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the only questions presented for
the resolution of the court.37 Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator,
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by Articles 805 and
806 of the New Civil Code.38 These matters do not necessitate the issuance of an order of default against
parties who failed to appear in the proceedings despite the publication of the notice of hearing. After all, the
probate of a will is mandatory39 and cannot be left to the discretion of the persons interested in the estate of
the deceased.

Moreover, Rule 76 does not expressly provide for the issuance of a default order in the absence of persons
contesting the will. In the event that no persons appear to contest the will, Sec. 540 thereof only directs the
court to grant allowance of the will based on the testimony of a witness that it was executed pursuant to law,
or in the case of holographic will, that the handwriting and signature were those of the testator.

Without legal support, the RTC cannot validly issue an order of default in probate proceedings. Hence, the
RTC palpably erred in issuing the order of general default due to the non-appearance of petitioners in the
June 21, 2017 hearing.
It should be stressed that the rule on personal notice was instituted in Section4 to safeguard the right to due
process of unsuspecting heirs, legatees,or devisees who, without their knowledge, were being excluded from
participating in a proceeding which may affect their right to succeed in the estate

.Here, Miam was indicated as a known heir of Amparo in the petition filed by Echague.While her status as a
compulsory heir may still be subject to confirmation, the petition, on its face, had already informed the probate
court of the existence of Miam as one of Amparo’s heirs.

The petition also provided Miam’s residence. By Echague’s own averments, Miam is entitled to the notice of
hearing under Section 4.As regards the notice sent to Migdonio, the Court also finds that the same fell short of the
procedural requirements laid down by Section 4.There was no evidence that the notice of hearing addressed to
him was deposited in the post office at least 20 days before June 21, 2017. Even if it were assumed that the
notice of hearing was personally served to Migdonio, the same cannot be said to be substantial compliance.
Based on records, Migdonio received a copy of the notice on June 19, 2017 or two (2) days prior to the hearing.

This is short of the 10-day period fixed by Section4. Hence, the notice served to Migdonio did not satisfy the
requirement provided by Section 4.Moreover, the Court cannot expect Migdonio, an ailing 78-year-old who is not
knowledgeable of legal procedures, to intelligently and promptly act upon receiptof the notice of hearing.
• Evidence in support of hearing
• Contested (notarial: all subscribing and notary
public; holographic at least 3)
• Uncontested (1 subscribing or 1 witness who
knows the handwriting of the testator)
Content of the Petition for Probate
1. Jurisdictional facts – death of the testator and his residence at the time of death or the province where he
left his estate (non-resident)
2. Name, age, residences of H, L, D
3. Probable value and character of the property of the estate
4. Name of the person for whom letters are prayed for
5. Custodian of the will if it has not been delivered

Note: no defect in the petitions hall render void the allowance of will or the issuance of letters testamentary or
administration
Who may petition for allowance of will? (Sec.1)
1. any creditor - as preparatory step for filing of his claim therein (Regalado, p.26)
2. devisee or legatee named in the will
3. person interested in the will (e.i., heirs)
4. testator himself – during his lifetime the possession of the will is not necessary
 
Who may be a party in probate?
Generally, any person having a direct and material interest in the will or estate.
EFFECT OF THE PROBATE OF A WILL
 
BAR: It is conclusive as to the EXECUTION and the VALIDITY of the will
(even against the state). Thus, a criminal case against the forger may not lie after the will has
been probated.
 
BAR: INCLUDES FINDING THAT WILL IS GENUINE AND NOT FORGERY
 
DUE EXECUTION: Testator is of sound mind; execution in accordance with the formalities of the law

 
ISSUE IN THE PROBATE OF A WILL GENERAL RULE:
Only determination of the extrinsic validity not the intrinsic validity or testamentary dispositions.
 
BAR: DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR PROBATE ON THE GROUND THAT ADOPTED IS DEPRIVE
OF HIS LEGITIME IS VOID IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT INVOLVES INTRINSIC VALIDITY
 
EXCEPTION: Where the entire or all testamentary dispositions are void and where the defect is apparent
on its face. (Acain vs. IAC GR No. 72706, Oct. 27, 1987; Nepumuceno vs. CA, 139 SCRA 206)
 
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY - means due execution of the will. (determined by the law at the time executed)
 
INSTRINSIC VALIDITY – law at the time of death
 
MEANING AND EXTENT DUE EXECUTION
Due execution means that:
1. the testator is of sound and disposing mind when he executed the will;
2. the will was NOT executed under duress, fraud or other circumstances that vitiates consent;
3. the required formalities have been strictly complied with; and
4. the consent was not vitiated
5. the will is genuine and not a forgery.
PROBATE - Lost or Destroyed Will (Rule 76, Sec. 6)

No will shall be proved as lost or destroyed unless:

1. The execution and validity of the same be established; and

2 The will is proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is
shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed during the lifetime of the
testator without his knowledge; nor

3 Unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible
witnesses.
PROBATE - Will allowed in foreign country
Reqts: To be attached to the Petition
1. Authenticated copy of the will
2. Authenticated Order or decree of allowance

Must prove the following:

1. foreign court must have jurisdiction over the proceeding;

2. domicile of testator/decedent in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
3. that the will has been admitted to probate in such country;
4. it was made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which the
decedent resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity
with the formalities prescribed by our Civil Code; and
 
 
RULE: Administration extends only to assets found in the country granted, so that
administrator appointed in 1 estate has no power over property in another estate. When
a person dies intestate owning property in country of residence as well as foreign country,
administration shall be had in both:

Rule 77, Sec 4 – When a will is allowed in the foreign country is reprobated here, the
letters of testamentary or administration shall now extend to all the estate in the
Philippines
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION Persons considered Incompetent
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY to serve as E/A
• Executor 1. Minor
• Administrator 2. Non-resident
• Administrator with a will annexed 3. One who is unfit to
WHO MAY SERVE AS EXECUTOR/ ADMINISTRATOR?
exercise the duties of the
Any COMPETENT person may serve as executor or
trust due to:
administrator.
drunkenness,
 
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR LETTERS OF improvidence, want of
ADMINISTRATION
Any interested person: PERSON TO BE BENEFITTED understanding and
 
BAR: Common Law wife yes (article 147 148 FC) integrity, conviction
(moral turpitute)
Priority in Appointment of Administrator (Rule 78, Sec 6)

• SS/Next of Kind or those they request to be appointed (if competent and

willing to serve)
• If SS etc. is unwilling or incompetent, or neglects to apply for administration
within 30 days after death - One or more of the Principal Creditors (if
competent and willing to serve)
• Other persons court may select
 
BASIS FOR THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT
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.
Can the court set aside the preferential right?
Regular Administrator v. Special Administrator
REGULAR SPECIAL

Appointed in case executor is incompetent, refuse to When there is delay in granting letters including appeal
accept, no bond, and decedent died without a will in the probate of will or when executor is claimant of
the estate he represents

Oblige to pay debt Not unless court orders

Appointment APPEALABLE NOT APPEALABLE
Bond of Administrator (APAI) conditioned on the ff:
a) Make a complete inventory, within 3 months, of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the
deceased, which shall come to his possession or knowledge; and
b) Administer the estate according to the rules and will of the testator;
c) Render a true account within 1 year and such other time the court requires; and
d) Perform all orders of the court

GENERAL POWER AND DUTIES (Rule 84)

1. To have access to, and examine and take copies of books and papers relating to the partnership in case of
a deceased partner;
2. To examine and make invoices of the property belonging to the partnership in case of a deceased partner;
3. To make improvements on the properties under administration with the necessary court approval except
for necessary repairs;
4. To possess and manage the estate when necessary:
a. for the payment of debts; and
b. for payment of expenses of administration;
5. To maintain in tenantable repairs houses and other structures and fences and to deliver the same in such
repair to the heirs or devisees when directed so to do by the court.
Restrictions on the Power of E/A

• 1. Cannot acquire by purchase the property under administration;

• 2. cannot borrow money without court approval
• 3. cannot speculate with the fund under administration
• 4. Cannot lease the property for more than one year
• 5. Cannot continue the business unless so authorized
• 6. Cannot profit by the increase or decrease in the value of the property under
administration
Claims against the Estate
Only MONEY CLAIMS

• Claims that do not survive

• Contractual money claim
• Funeral and last sickness expenses
• Monetary judgment

• Period to file
• Statute of Non-Claims - In said notice, the court shall state the time for the filing of
claims against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six
(6) months after the date of the first publication of the notice. However, before an
order of distribution is issued, the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as
are equitable, allow a claim to be filed within a time not exceeding one (1) month.
• Belated Claim
Only MONEY CLAIMS

• Filing of claim is requisite for adjudication and payment

• Remedy against the order adjudicating the claim

ACTIONS BY OR AGAINST EA (Rule 87)

• Claims that survived
• Recover property or interest therein
• Recover damage sustained by person or property
• Enforce a lien on the property of the deceased i.e. mortgage
CAN THE CREDITOR INITIATE THE ACTION (S10,R87)
 
When creditor may bring action. Lien for costs (Sec.10)
When a grantee in a fraudulent conveyance is OTHER THAN THE EXECUTOR OR
ADMINISTRATOR, a creditor may commence and prosecute the action if the following requisites
are present:
 
• That the executor or administrator has shown to have no desire to file the action or failed to
institute the same within the reasonable time;
• Leave is granted by court to creditor to file the action;
• Bond is filed by creditor as prescribed in this provision; and
• Action by creditor is in the name of the executor or administrator.
 
 These requisites need not be complied with if the grantee of the fraudulent
conveyance is the executor or administrator himself, in which event the action should
be in the name of all creditors.
PAYMENT OF DEBTS (Rule 88)
• The EA shall pay the money claims against estate approved by the court if there
are sufficient assets
• Rule: The personal estate of the deceased not disposed of by will shall be first
chargeable with the payment of debts and expenses (Rule 88, Sec. 3)
11.3 Preference of payment if estate insolvent [Rule 88, Section 7]
If the assets are not sufficient for the payment of debts, they shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of
Articles 1059 and 2239 to 2251 of the Civil Code on concurrence and preference of credits.
 
When the will provides for payment of debts, Section 2 must be followed.
Although testator acknowledged a specific debt on his will, the creditor must still file his claim in the testate or
intestate proceedings, otherwise his claim will be barred.
 
Estate to be retained to meet contingent claims (Sec.4)
If the court is satisfied that contingent claim duly filed is valid, it may order the executor or administrator to retain
in his hands sufficient estate to pay a portion equal to the dividend of the creditors.
 
REQUISITES
1. contingent claim is duly filed;
2. court is satisfied that the claim is valid; and
3. The claim has become absolute.
 
Is execution a proper remedy to satisfy an approved claim?
NO, because:

1. Payment approving a claim does not create a lien upon a property of the estate.
2. Special procedure is for the court to order the sale to satisfy the claim.
 

How contingent claim becoming absolute in two years allowed and paid (Sec.5)
If such contingent claim becomes absolute and is presented to the court, or to the executor or administrator,
within two years from the time limited for other creditors to present their claims. The residual funds within the
estate, although already in the possession of the universal heirs, are funds of the estate. The Court has
jurisdiction over them and it could compel the heirs to deliver to the administrator of the estate the necessary
portion of such funds for the payment of any claims against the estate. (In re Testate Estate of Margarita David,
Sison vs. Teodoro, 98 Phil 680)
 
If the contingent claim matures after the expiration of the two years, the creditors may sue the distributees, who
are liable in proportion to the shares in the estate respectively received by them. (Jaucian vs. Querol, supra)
 
It has been ruled that the only instance wherein a creditor can file an action against a distributee of the debtor’s
assets is under Sec. 5, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court. The contingent claims must first have been established
and allowed in the probate court before the creditors can file an action directly against the distributees. (De
Bautista vs. De Guzman, 125 SCRA 682)
Sec.6 – The court may issue writ of execution against H,L, D who has entered
possession of portions of the estate before the debts and expenses have been paid.

Sec .10 – Claims proved outside the Philippines against insolvent resident

If the EA has knowledge of the presentation of such claim in the other country and
had an opportunity to contest the same, the court shall receive a certified list of
such claims and add the same to the list of approved claims.

This will not benefit foreign creditors if the property of the deceased in abroad is not
equally apportioned to the creditors in the Philippines.

Sec. 12 – If an appeal has been taken from an order denying a claim, the court may:
1. Suspend the order of payment of debt
2. Order the distribution among creditors whose claims are approved.
3. Disputed claims finally settled on appeal shall be paid out of the retained assets
Time for Payment of Debt (Sec. 15)
• Not exceed one (1) year
• May be extended on the following terms
• 1. there is application, notice and hearing given to all persons interested
• 2. single extension not to exceed 6 months
• 3. Whole period allowed shall not exceed 2 years
SALE, MORTGAGE, ENCUMBRANCE OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT – Rule 89

The need for approval by the probate court exists only where specific properties of the
estate are sold and not when only ideal and indivisible shares of an heir are disposed of.
[Heirs of Pedro Escanlar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119777, October 23, 1997]

The sale or mortgage of specific estate property may be approved by the court under the
following circumstances:
1. Necessary for the purpose of paying debts, expenses of administration, legacies, or
preservation of property
2. Beneficial to heirs, d, l, and interested persons (this will not be allowed if the will does
not allow it (Sec. 4)

• Requirement
• Application of E/A
• Notice to all persons interested
SALE, MORTGAGE, ENCUMBRANCE OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT – Rule 89

Court may authorize the S, M, E of RP even when there are still personal properties if:
1. When personal estate is not sufficient to pay debts, L, exp. Of adm
2. The sale of personal estate will injure the business or interests of those interested in the
estate
3. Testator did not make sufficient provision for the payment of debts, L, exp. Adm

Remedy of Person Interested to Prevent the Sale – BOND (Sec. 3)

 
 Without notice and hearing, the sale, mortgage or encumbrance is void. Notice is
 mandatory. Noncompliance therewith under the sale is null and void.
 
Reason: The reason behind this requirement is that the heirs are the presumptive owner. Since they
succeed to all the rights and obligation of the deceased from the moment of the latter’s death, they are
the person directly affected by the sale or mortgage and therefore cannot be deprived of the property,
except in the manner provided by law. (Maneclang vs. Baun, 208 SCRA 179)
 
NOTE: NOTICE TO FATHER IS NOT NOTICE TO CHILDREN

Application for authority to sell, mortgage or encumber property of the estate may be denied by
the court if:
1. the disposition is not for any of the reasons specified by the rules; OR
2. under Section 3 Rule 89, any person interested in the estate gives a bond conditioned to pay
the debts, expenses of administration and legacies.
 
NOTE: Hereditary rights can be validly sold without court approval during period of indivision
being a co-heir has full ownership of his part and may alienate it. But alienation is limited only
to portion allotted to him upon division.
DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION OF ESTATE (RULE 90)
The distribution of the estate can only be made after strict compliance with the provisions in Rule 90.
 
 
In these proceedings, the court shall:
1. collate;
2. determine heirs; (Sec 1: if there is controversy as to who are lawful heirs or as to distributive shares, it shall be
heard and decided as in ordinary cases.)
3. determine the share of each heir.
A separate action for the declaration of heirs is not necessary.
 
When order for distribution of residue made (Sec.1)
 
BAR: ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION shall be made AFTER payments of all
a. debts,
b. funeral expenses,
c. expenses for administration,
d. allowance of widow
e. tax estate
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the foregoing obligations have been made, unless the
distribute gives a bond in the sum fixed by the court conditioned for the payment of obligation.
Section 3, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court45 provides for the allowance granted to
the widow and family of the deceased person during the settlement of the estate.
This allowance is rooted on the right and duty to support under the Civil Code.
The right to support is a purely personal right essential to the life of the recipient,
so that it cannot be subject to attachment or execution.  Neither can it be
renounced or transmitted to a third person. Being intransmissible, support cannot
be the object of contracts. Nonetheless, it has also been held that support in
arrears is a different thing altogether. It may be compensated, renounced and
transmitted by onerous or gratuitous title (Siguion Reyna v. Chionglo-Sia, 3
February 2016)

A probate court may not order a bank to release the proceeds of Foreign Currency Deposit
without consent of the co-depositor as it would violate the Foreign Currency Deposit Act
which states that foreign Currency deposit are exempt from court processes (Pacioles v.
Pacioles, 15 October 2018)
DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION OF ESTATE (RULE 90)
Section 2: Questions as to the advancement made shall be heard and determined by same court. And final order of
the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the issue and on the heir
 
When is title vested?
From FINALITY of order of distribution.
 
Only after partition is approved and not before, the court may order the delivery to the heirs of their respective
shares except when the heir file a bond conditioned to pay the debts.
 
Court is enjoined from assigning or distributing the residue BEFORE THE OBLIGATIONS ARE FIRST
PAID, unless there is a BOND POSTED to conditioned for the payment of the obligation
An order which determines the distributive shares of heirs is appealable. If not appealed, it becomes final.
Contrary to the erroneous conclusion of the Court of Appeals, this Court finds no need for a separate proceeding for a declaration of heirship in order to resolve
petitioner's action for cancellation of titles of the property.

The dispute in this case is not about the heirship of petitioner to Norberto but the validity of the sale of the property in 1939 from Pedro to Faustina, from which
followed a series of transfer transactions that culminated in the sale of the property to Norberto. For with Pedro's sale of the property in 1939, it follows that
there would be no more ownership or right to property that would have been transmitted to his heirs.

Petitioner's claim is anchored on a sale of the property to her predecessor-in-interest and not on any filiation with the original owner. What petitioner is pursuing
is Norberta's right of ownership over the property which was passed to her upon the latter's death. 46

This Court has stated that no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the
deceased.47 In Marabilles v. Quito:48
The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been judicially declared to be so, if duly proven, is well settled in this jurisdiction. This is
upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor
in interest, and as such he can deal with it in precisely the same way in which the deceased could have dealt, subject only to the limitations which by law or by
contract may be imposed upon the deceased himself. Thus, it has been held that "[t]here is no legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of
a previous legal declaration regarding their status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity, consider themselves the legal
heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a right which belonged to their ancestor" ... A recent case wherein this principle was
maintained is Cabuyao vs. [C]aagbay. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals' reliance on the ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario 50 was misplaced. In that case, the motion to dismiss was filed immediately
after the second Amended Complaint was filed. 51 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the Heirs of Yaptinchay "have not shown any proof
or even a semblance of it-except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the above-named Yaptinchays-that they have been declared the legal heirs of
the deceased couple."5

Capablanca vs Bas, 28 June 2017