SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR NOVEMBER 24, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR NOVEMBER 24, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 422 to page 504 (Rule on Adoption [A.M. 02-6-02-SC] up to Rule 101 of the Rules of Court) s well as the following:

Santos v. Aranzanso, G.R. No. L-23828 February 28, 1966

Malkinson v. Agrava, G.R. No. L-36309 November 26, 1973

Bobanovic v. Montes, G.R. No. 71370 January 3l, 1987

Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992

Republic v. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147 June 8, 1994

  • Section 33, Article VI, Rules and Regulations to Implement the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998
  • Article 174, Family Code
  • Section 34, Article VI, Rules and Regulations to Implement the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.
  • Article 195, Family Code
  • Section 18, Article V, RA 8552

Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209 February 09, 1996

Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996

Republic v. Vergara, G.R. No. 95551 March 20, 1997

Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, September 25, 1998

Republic v. Miller, G.R. No. 125932 April 21, 1999

Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, and its Amended IRR which took effect on April 16, 2007

Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998

Republic Act No. 9523

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005

Reyes v. Sotero, G.R. No. 167405 February 16, 2006

Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948. June 27, 2006

In Re: Petition for adoption of Michelle P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93. May 21, 2009

Rule 101 – Proceedings for Hospitalization of Insane Persons

Advertisements

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 331 to page 421 (Rule 92 up to Rule 98 of the Rules of Court).

Cases:

Alamayri v. Pabale, GR 151243. Apr. 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 146

Viloria v. Administrator of Veteran Affairs, GR L-9620. June 28, 1957, 101 Phil. 762

Paciente v. Dacuycuy, GR L-58319. June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 924

Oropesa v. Oropesa, GR 184528. Apr. 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 174

Francisco v. CA, GR L-57438. Jan. 3, 1984, 212 Phil. 346

Cabales v. CA, GR 162421. Aug. 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 691

Laforga v. Laforga, GR 7165. Mar. 26, 1912, 22 Phil., 374

Tavera v. El Hogar Filipino, Inc., GR L-5893. Feb. 28, 1956, 98 Phil. 481

Soriano v. Latoño, GR L-3408. Dec. 23, 1950, 87 Phil. 757

Lopez v. Teodoro, GR L-3071. May 29, 1950, 86 Phil. 499

Margate v. Rabacal, GR L-14302. Apr. 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 894

Stegner v. Stegner, GR L-8532. Oct. 11, 1957, 102 Phil. 131

Cabales v. CA, GR 162421. Aug. 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 691

Nery v. Lorenzo, GR L-23096. Apr. 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 431

 

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR OCTOBER 20, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR OCTOBER 20, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 316 to page 421 (Rule 91 up to Rule 98 of the Rules of Court).

Cases:

Municipal Council of San Pedro Laguna v. Colegio de San Jose, 65 Phil. 318

RCBC v. H-Tri Development Corp., GR 192413, 672 SCRA 514

Republic v. CA, 375 SCRA 484

City of Manila v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 36 Phil. 815

Go Poco Grocery v. Pacific Biscuit Co., 65 Phil. 443

Lee v. Republic, 418 Phil. 793

Republic v. CA, 426 Phil. 177

Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 617 SCRA 1

Negros Occidental Municipalities v. Bezore, 109 Phil. 829

Francisco v. CA, 212 Phil. 346

Alamayri v. Pabale, 553 SCRA 146

Caballes v. CA, 531 SCRA 691

Soriano v. Latoño, 87 Phil. 757

Viloria v. Administrator of Veteran Affairs, 101 Phil. 762

Santo Domingo v. Santo Domingo, 103 Phil. 73

 

 

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR OCTOBER 13, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR OCTOBER 13, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 147 to page 315 (Rule 79 up to Rule 90 of the Rules of Court).

Cases:

Diaz v. Serra, GR 27650, Dec. 24, 1927, 51 Phil. 283

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, GR L-44888, Feb. 7, 1992, 206 SCRA 40

Tayag v. Tayag-Gallor, GR 174680, Mar. 24. 2008, 549 SCRA 68

Lopez v. Gonzaga, GR L-18788, Jan. 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 167

Fule v. CA, GR L-40502, Nov. 29, 1976, 74 SCRA 189

De Guzman v. Guadiz, GR L-48585, Mar. 31, 1980, 96 SCRA 938

Ozaete v. Pecson, GR L-5436, June 30, 1953, 93 Phil. 416

Heirs of Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel, GR 162934, Nov. 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 747

Ocampo v. Ocampo, GR 187879, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 559

Manungas v. Loreto, GR 193161, Aug. 22, 2011, 655 SCRA 734

Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Quebrar, GR L-40517, Jan. 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 296

Eugenio v. Tiangco. GR L-2804, Sept. 20, 1949, 84 Phil. 565

Aranas v. Mercado, GR 156407, Jan. 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 194

Siy Chong Keng v. Collector og Internal Revenue, GR L-40921, Aug.  31, 1934, 60 Phil. 493

Vazquez v. Garcia, GR L-45430, April 15, 1939, 67 SCRA 353

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 86 to page 145 (Rule 75 up to Rule 76 of the Rules of Court). Cases with double asterisk (**) are for recitation.

RULE 76. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL

SECTION 1, RULE 76. WHO MAY PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF WILL

Who may petition for the probate of a will

Sec. 1, Rule 76, RoC

Person interested in the estate or interested party defined

**Teotico v. Del Val, GR L- 18753, Mar. 26, 1965

Indirectly interested person cannot interfere in probate

Paras v. Narciso, GR 10959. Nov. 2, 1916, 35 Phil. 244

When is jurisdiction acquired by the probate court

Mere copy of the will attached to the petition deemed sufficient

Delivery of the will to the court sufficient even if no petition filed yet

Rodriguez v. De Borja, GR L-21993. June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 41

Effect of probate of a will

Mercado v. Santos, GR 45629. Sept. 22, 1938

SECTION 2, RULE 76. CONTENTS OF PETITION

Contents of the petition for probate

Jurisdictional facts

**Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011

When the probate court may rule on issues other than the intrinsic validity of a will; case laws

Nepomuceno v. CA, GR L-62952. Oct. 9, 1985. 139 SCRA 206

Nuguid v. Nuguid (GR L-23445, June 23, 1966. 17 SCRA 449

Saguinsin v. Lindayag (GR L-17759, Dec. 17, 1962. 6 SCRA 874

Cayetano v. Leonidas (GR L-54919, May 30, 1984. 129 SCRA 522

Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, (GR 72706. Oct. 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 100       

Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity defined

**Pastor, Jr. v. CA, GR L-56340 June 24, 1983, 207 Phil. 758

Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code

Baltazar v. Laxa, GR 174489, Apr. 11, 2012               

SECTION 3, RULE 76. COURT TO APPOINT TIME FOR PROVING WILL. NOTICE THEREOF TO BE PUBLISHED

 Notice of time and place for proving the will

 Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

 When may the court act on a will delivered to it

 **Rodriguez v. De Borja, GR L-21993, June 21, 1966

 Notice required to be personally given only to known heirs, legatees, and devisees; case law

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

Alaban v. CA, GR 156021, Sept. 23, 2005

Publication not required for testator filing the petition himself

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

Service of notice upon the heirs a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite

Abut v. Abut, GR L-26743 May 31, 1972

Perez v. Perez, GR L-14781 July 15, 1959. 105 Phil. 1132

Publication and notice requirement for ante mortem probate

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

Sec. 4, Rule 76, RoC)

Three weeks successively construed

Basa v. Mercado, GR L-42226, July 26, 1935

SECTION 4, RULE 76. HEIRS, DEVISEES, LEGATEES, AND EXECUTORS TO BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL OR PERSONALLY

Notice of the time and place of hearing

Sec. 4, Rule 76, RoC

Persons to be given notice

Modes and periods of notification

Probate of a will a proceeding in rem; notice by publication a constructive notice to the whole world

Mercado v. Santos, GR 45629. Sept. 22, 1938

Where notice not necessary

Joson v. Nable, GR L-3450, Sept. 19, 1950. 87 Phil. 337

SECTION 5, RULE 76. PROOF AT HEARING. WHAT SUFFICIENT IN ABSENCE OF CONTEST

Publication and notice must be shown first

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Uncontested will; how proved

Unson v. Abella, GR 17857, June 12, 1922. 43 Phil. 494

Uncontested notarial wills

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Sec. 7, Rule 76, RoC

Sec. 8, Rule 76, RoC

Uncontested holographic wills

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Contested notarial will; an instance where a party may impeach own witness

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

Contested holographic will

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

Lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be probated; exception

Gan v. Yap, GR L-12190. Aug. 30, 1958. 104 Phil. 509

Proof of will

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 6, RULE 76. PROOF OF LOST OR DESTROYED WILL. CERTIFICATE THEREUPON

Facts that should be proved to allow a lost or destroyed will

Lost or destroyed will not proved by bare testimony; exception

Gan v. Yap, GR L-12190. Aug. 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 509

Rodelas v. Aranza, GR L-58509. Dec. 7, 1982

SECTION 7, RULE 76. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DO NOT RESIDE IN PROVINCE

Proof when the witnesses are not residents of the province

SECTION 8, RULE 76. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DEAD OR INSANE OR DO NOT RESIDE IN THE PHILIPPINES

 Proof when the witnesses are dead, insane or do not reside in the Philippines

 Sec. 8, Rule 76, RoC

 SECTION 9, RULE 76. GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWING WILL

 Grounds for disallowing a will under the Rules of Court

 Sec. 9, Rule 76, RoC

 Grounds for disallowing a will under the Civil Code

 Art. 839, CC

Lists exclusive; no other grounds that would disallow a will

**Pecson v. Coronel, GR L-20374, Oct. 11, 1923. 45 Phil. 216

Substantial compliance rule

Rey v. Cartagena, GR 34288, Nov. 10, 1931. 56 Phil. 282).

Joint probate of separate wills executed by spouses who died simultaneously

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714 June 2, 1994

Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR 72706. Oct. 27, 1987. 155 SCRA 100

Art. 818, CC

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714 June 2, 1994

Laws governing the validity of a will as to its execution and form

In the matter of probation of the will of Riosa, GR L-14074, Nov. 7, 1918. 39 Phil. 23

Article 795 of the Civil Code

SECTION 10, RULE 76. CONTESTANT TO FILE GROUNDS OF CONTEST

Contestant to file opposition stating his grounds therefor

Sec. 10, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 11, RULE 76. SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES PRODUCED OR ACCOUNTED FOR WHERE WILL CONTESTED

Contested notarial wills

Contested holographic wills                                                                        

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 12, RULE 76. PROOF WHERE TESTATOR PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

Proof necessary if the testator himself files the petition for probate

Sec. 12, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 13, RULE 76. CERTIFICATE OF ALLOWANCE ATTACHED TO PROVE WILL. TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF REGISTER OF DEEDS

Certificate of allowance of the will to be issued by the court

Sec.13, Rule 76, RoC

Probate order is final and appealable

**Fernandez v. Dimagiba, GR L-23638. Oct. 12, 1967

 RULE 77. ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE THEREUNDER

 Reprobate distinguished from probate in the first instance

 **Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011

 SECTION 1, RULE 77. WILL PROVED OUTSIDE PHILIPPINES MAY BE ALLOWED HERE

 Reprobate of will proved outside of the Philippines

 Sec. 1, Rule 77, RoC

Reprobate defined

Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011

Reprobate; requisites before a will proved in a foreign country may be allowed in the Philippines; effects of probate

Sec. 1, Rule 77, RoC

Sec. 3, Rule 77, RoC

Sec. 4, Rule 77, RoC).

Sec. 13, Rule 76, RoC

Leon v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co., GR L-3677. Nov. 29, 1951

Principal and ancillary administration

Johannes v. Harvey, GR 18600. Mar. 9, 1922

Evidence necessary for reprobate

Suntay v. Suntay, GR L-3087 and L-3088, July 31, 1954. 95 Phil. 500

Duty to introduce in evidence the pertinent foreign law: case law

Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon, GR 139868, June 8, 2006

Power of an administrator over property in another country

Leon v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co., GR L-3677. Nov. 29, 1951

Venue for reprobate

Rule 73 of the Rules of Court

SECTION 2, RULE 77. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR ALLOWANCE

Types of estate proceedings

Johannes v. Harvey, GR 18600. Mar. 9, 1922

Sec. 2, Rule 77, RoC

Requisites of ancillary administration

Notices to be given as if the will probated abroad was an “original will”

Sec. 2, Rule 77, RoC

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714, June 2, 1994

Evidence needed for reprobate

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714 June 2, 1994

SECTION 3, RULE 77. WHEN WILL ALLOWED, AND EFFECT THEREOF

Effect of reprobate

Sec. 3, Rule 77, RoC

Sec. 4, Rule 77, RoC

Doctrine of processual presumption or presumed-identity approach

Philippine Export and Loan Guarantee Corp. v. V. P. Eusebio Construction Inc., GR 140047, July 14, 2004

Foreign laws must be alleged and proven in the Philippines

Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

SECTION 4, RULE 77. ESTATE, HOW ADMINISTERED

Court to grant letters testamentary or letters of administration with the will annexed

Sec. 4, Rule 77, RoC

Law that governs the intrinsic validity of a foreigner’s will

Article 16 of the Civil Code

Article 1039 of the Civil Code

Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court

Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalagon, GR 139868. June 8, 2006

RULE 78. LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED

Letters testamentary and letters of administration defined

SECTION 1, RULE 78. WHO ARE INCOMPETENT TO SERVE AS EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS

Persons who can administer the estate

Rule 80, RoC

Sec. 1, Rule 79, RoC

Distinctions between an executor and an administrator

Persons who can serve as executors or administrators

Persons who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators

Sec. 1, Rule 78, RoC

Drunkenness defined

Improvidence defined

Integrity defined

In re Bauquier’s Estate, 88 Cal. 302, 26 Pac. 178

Moral turpitude defined

Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, GR 121592, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 483

List of crimes or offenses involving moral turpitude

Zari v. Flores, Adm. No. (2170-MC) P-1356, Nov. 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 317

Crimes or offenses not categorized as involving moral turpitude

Teves v. Commission on Elections, GR 180363. Apr. 28, 2009

SECTION 2, RULE 78. EXECUTOR OF EXECUTOR NOT TO ADMINISTER ESTATE

Sec. 2, Rule 78, RoC

SECTION 3, RULE 78. MARRIED WOMEN MAY SERVE

Married woman may serve as executrix or administratrix

Sec. 3, Rule 78, RoC

SECTION 4, RULE 78. LETTERS TESTAMENTARY ISSUED WHEN WILL ALLOWED

Letters testamentary to be issued by the probate court

Sec. 4, Rule 78, RoC

Letters testamentary defined

Sec. 4, Rule 78, RoC

SECTION 5, RULE 78. WHERE SOME COEXECUTORS DISQUALIFIED OTHERS MAY ACT

Letters testamentary may be issued to other coexecutors

Sec. 5, Rule 78, RoC

SECTION 6, RULE 78. WHEN AND TO WHOM LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION GRANTED

To whom letters of administration granted

Sec. 6, Rule 78, RoC

Order of preference

**Uy v. CA, GR 167979. Mar. 15, 2006 519 Phil. 673

Key factor in the appointment of an administrator; rationale for the rule

Vda. de Dayrit v. Ramolete, GR L-59935, 30 Sept. 1982, 117 SCRA 608

Gonzales v. Aguinaldo, GR 74769, Sept. 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 112

**Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, GR 183053. Oct. 10, 2012

Administration of estate; factors considered in the appointment of administrator

Philippine Commercial And Industrial Bank v. Anolin, GR L-27860 and L-27896. Mar. 29, 1974

Preference to the surviving spouse due to her greater interest in the estate

See Articles 91 and 106, FC

Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, GR 183053. Oct. 10, 2012

Surviving spouse preferred over the next-of-kin of the decedent in the appointment of administrator

Section 6(b), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court

“Next-of-kin” defined

Locsin, Sr. v. Locsin, Jr., GR 146737. Dec. 10, 2001, 423 Phil. 192).

Angeles v. Maglaya, GR 153798, Sept. 2, 2005

 “Interested person” defined; extent of interest in the estate

San Luis v. San Luis, GR 133743. Feb. 6, 2007

Practice of court employees being appointed as administrators of estates enjoined

Del Castillo v. Enriquez, GR L-11440. Sept. 30, 1960, 109 Phil. 491

Preference applies only to the appointment of a regular administrator not of a special administrator

Ozaeta v. Pecson, GR L-5436. June 30, 1953, 93 Phil. 416

Pijuan v. De Gurrea, GR L-21917. Nov. 29, 1966, 124 Phil. 1527

Court order appointing a regular administrator final and appealable

De Borja v. Tan, GR L-6476. Nov. 18, 1955, 97 Phil 872

Appointment of a special administrator discretionary and not appealable

Pijuan v. De Gurrea, GR L-21917. Nov. 29, 1966, 124 Phil. 1527

Sec. 6, Rule 79, RoC

Reynoso v. Santiago, GR L-3039. Dec. 29, 1949

Order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators

Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Vda. de Damian, GR 155733. Jan. 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 334

Appointment of co-administrators allowed under certain circumstances

Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, GR 183053. Oct. 10, 2012

Gabriel v. CA, GR 101512, Aug. 7, 1992, 212 SCRA 413

Functions of co-administrator; appointing co-administrators not prohibited

De Borja v. Tan, GR L-6476. Nov. 18, 1955, 97 Phil 872

Uy v. CA, GR 167979. Mar. 15, 2006)

Extent of administration

Leon v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co., GR L-3677. Nov. 29, 1951

Unsuitability for appointment as administrator

Lim v. Diaz-Millarez, GR L-17633, Oct. 19, 1966

Mere indebtedness not a ground for administrator’s removal

Dalisay v. Consolacion, GR L-44702, July 30, 1979

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

Study the notes and cases in the text book (“Special Proceedings: An Exhaustive Exposition”) from page 37 to page 112 (Section 2, Rule 73 up to Section 13, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court).

SECTION 2, RULE 73. WHERE ESTATE SETTLED UPON

DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Conjugal partnership ends upon the death of either spouse

Ventura v. Militante, GR 63145. Oct. 5, 1999, 316 SCRA 226

Methods of liquidating the property of a conjugal partnership if one spouse dies

Death of one spouse terminates the power of management of the surviving spouse; power passed on to the appointed administrator

Cruz v. De Jesus, GR L-30491. Mar. 2, 1929, 52 Phil., 870

Conjugal property and not just decedent’s estate is under administration

Picardal v. Lladas, GR L-21309. Dec. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1438

Claims against the conjugal property should be brought in the probate proceedings

Calma v. Tañedo, GR L-44602. Nov. 28, 1938, 66 Phil. 594

Conveyance made by the surviving spouse of the conjugal property may be void

Corpuz v. Corpuz, GR L-7495. Sept. 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 655

Conjugal partnership of deceased spouses may be settled or liquidated in the probate proceedings of either

PCIB v. Escolin, GR L-27860 and L-27896. Mar. 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 266

SECTION 3, RULE 73. PROCESS

Probate court may issue necessary warrants and processes

Sec. 3, Rule 73 RoC

SECTION 4, RULE 73. PRESUMPTION OF DEATH

Presumptive death

Art. 390, CC

Other persons considered absent for the purpose of opening succession

Article 391 of the Civil Code

Sec. 4, Rule 73, RoC

Presumption of death cannot be the subject of an independent court proceeding

In re Szatraw, GR L-1780. Aug. 31, 1948, 81 Phil. 461

Judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead does not attain finality; no court declaration needed for presumption to arise

Valdez v. Republic, GR 180863. Sept. 8, 2009, 598 SCRA 646

Presumption of death should yield to preponderance of evidence

Lucero v. NLRC, GR 74197. Oct. 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 218).

RULE 74. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

General rule on judicial administration of decedent’s estate; exceptions

SECTION 1, RULE 74. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT BY

AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEIRS

Extrajudicial settlement of the estate; appointment of administrator not necessary

Guico v. Bautista, GR L-14921, Dec. 31, 1960, 110 Phil. 584

Special proceedings can be compelled when estate debts cannot be collected extrajudicially

Cadag v. Treananes, 40 OG 4th supp. 324; Torres v. Torres, GR L-19064, Jan. 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 185

Rationale for the rule on extrajudicial settlement of the estate

Vda. De Rodriguez v. Tan, GR L-6044. Nov. 24, 1952, 92 Phil., 273

Provision not mandatory even though the decedent left no debts

Rodriguez v. Tan, GR L-6044. Nov. 24, 1952, 92 Phil. 273

What constitutes good and compelling reasons

Intestate Estate of Mercado v. Magtibay, GR L-6829. Dec. 29, 1954. 96 Phil, 383

Pereira v. CA, GR L-81147. June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 154).

Some circumstances not considered as good reasons

Substantive requisites of extrajudicial settlement

Rebuttable presumption that decedent left no debts

When bond is required; real property subject to a 2-year lien

Sec. 4, Rule 74, RoC; Rebong v. Ibañez, GR L-1578, Sept. 30, 1947, 79 SCRA 324

Adjudication requisites

Requisites common to the 2 modes of extrajudicial settlement

Affidavit of self-adjudication by sole heir

Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Vda. de Damian, GR 155733. Jan. 27, 2006. 480 SCRA 334

Procedural requisites of extrajudicial settlement between heirs

When the subject of division is a realty; extent of lien

Is the required public instrument under Section 1 of Rule 74 constitutive and not merely evidential of partition?

Hernandez v. Andal, GR L-273. Mar. 29, 1947, 78 Phil. 196

Second sentence of Section 1 of Rule 74 an exception to the general rule

Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, GR 155555, Aug. 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 184

Ex-parte proceeding

Cua v. Vargas, GR No. 156536. Oct. 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 374

Publication requirement only intended to protect creditors and not to deprive heirs of their lawful participation

Cua v. Vargas, GR 156536, Oct. 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 374).

Partition not included in statute of frauds

Application of the statute

Gomez v. Salcedo, GR 7821. Dec. 31, 1913. 26 Phil., 485

Almirol v. Montserrat, GR 23717. Sept. 28, 1925. 48 Phil. 67

Oral partition enforced in equity when performed

Hernandez v. Andal, GR L-273. Mar. 29, 1947, 78 Phil. 196

Section 1 of Rule 74 not constitutive but merely evidential of partition; purpose of the registration requirement

Hernandez v. Andal, GR L-273. Mar. 29, 1947, 78 Phil. 196

Effect of an unregistered extrajudicial settlement

Vda. de Reyes v. CA, GR 92436 July 26, 1991. 199 SCRA 646

Remedies of unpaid creditor and defrauded party after the extrajudicial settlement

Finality of partition

Mendiola v. Mendiola, GR 26977, Nov. 27, 1906. Phil. 71

Remedies of aggrieved parties against the extrajudicial settlement or summary settlement

Remedies for an aggrieved co-heir

Recourse in case of disagreement among co-heirs

Remedy of a non-participating heir

Prescriptive period for non-participating heirs

Sps. Alfredo v. Sps. Borras, GR 144225, June 17, 2003. 404 SCRA 145

Exception to prescription of action for reconveyance

Millena v. CA, GR 127797. Jan. 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126

Rodriguez v. Director of Lands, GR L-9941. Aug. 7, 1915. 31 Phil. 272

SECTION 2, RULE 74. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF SMALL VALUE

Estate of small value

 Summary procedure defined

Abarro v. De Guia, GR L-47317, June 10, 1941. 72 Phil. 245

Requisites for summary settlement

Sampilo v. CA, GR L-10474. Feb. 28, 1958, 103 Phil. 70

Distributees to receive and enter into possession

Claims of heirs adverse to decedent’s; exception

Guzman v. Anog, GR L-10618. Oct. 26, 1917, 37 Phil. 61

Estate of Francisco v. Carreon, GR L-5033. July 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 237

SECTION 3, RULE 74. BOND TO BE FILED BY

DISTRIBUTEES

Bond to be filed; amount

SECTION 4, RULE 74. LIABILITY OF DISTRIBUTEES AND ESTATE

Right to compel judicial settlement

Sec. 4, Rule 74, RoC

Claim against the bond or real estate or both

Domingo v. Roces, GR 147468. Apr. 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 197

When judicial settlement of the estate may be compelled

Two-year prescriptive period

Pedrosa v. CA, GR 118680. Mar. 5, 2001. 353 SCRA 620

Rule covers transfers of real property to any person; effects of the provision

Cancellation of annotation of lien on the title of real property after 2 years

Purpose of the annotation; creation of a legal encumbrance or lien

Tan v. Benolirao, GR 153820. Oct. 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 36

Substitution of a bond for the 2-year lien has no basis in the Rules

Rebong v. Ibañez, GR L-1578, Sept. 30, 1947, 79 Phil. 324

Remedies of the unpaid creditor of an estate summarily settled

Bar against distributees from objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of 2 years

Sampilo v. CA, GR L-10474. Feb. 28, 1958, 103 Phil. 70

Constructive notice vis-à-vis prescription of an action to contest an extrajudicial partition; two-year prescriptive period

PEZA v. Fernandez, GR 138971. June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 489

Buyers bound by annotation per Section 4 of Rule 74

David v. Malay, GR 132644, Nov. 19, 1999

Vazquez v. CA, GR 83759, July 12, 1991, 199 SCRA 102

SECTION 5, RULE 74. PERIOD FOR CLAIM OF MINOR OR INCAPACITATED PERSON

Period to present a claim for a minor, incapacitated person, prisoner or a person out of the country

Sec. 5, Rule 74, RoC

Effect of Section 5, Rule 74 not being annotated on the certificate of title

Estate of Francisco v. Carreon, GR L-5033. June 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 237

RULE 75. PRODUCTION OF WILL. ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY

SECTION 1, RULE 75. ALLOWANCE NECESSARY, CONCLUSIVE AS TO EXECUTION

Will defined

Art. 783, CC

Art. 784, CC

Probate or allowance of will defined

Art. 838, CC

Ajero v. CA, GR 106720, Sept. 15, 1994, 236 SCRA 488

Probate does not deal with the intrinsic validity of the will

Probate of will mandatory

Guevara v. Guevara, GR L-48840. Dec. 29, 1943, 74 Phil. 479

Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Quebrar, GR L-40517. Jan. 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 296

Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity define

Pastor, Jr. v. CA, GR L-56340. June 24, 1983, 207 Phil. 758

Nature and characteristics of a probate proceeding

Nature of action or proceeding; how determined

Vda. de Manalo v. CA, GR 129242, Jan. 16, 2001, 349 SCRA 135

Notice by publication essential to validity of the proceeding

Manalo v. Paredes, GR 24168, Sept. 22, 1925. 47 Phil. 938

Eusebio v. Valmores, GR L-7019, May 31, 1955. 96 Phil. 163

Who may file a petition for probate

Alaban v. CA, GR 156021. Sept. 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697

Venue and jurisdiction; proper court

Probate court bereft of power to adjudicate title to properties 

Nittscher v. Nittscher, GR 160530, Nov. 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 681

Probate concerned only with the determination of the extrinsic validity of a will

Vda. de Ramos v. CA, GR L-40804. Jan. 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 393

Probate of a will conclusive as to its due execution and validity  

Rodriguez v. Borja (GR No.L-21993, June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 418)

Doubts to be resolved in favor of testacy

Rodriguez v. CA, GR L-28734, Mar. 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 546

Testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings  

Sec. 2, Rule 75, RoC

SECTION 3, RULE 75. EXECUTOR TO PRESENT WILL AND ACCEPT OR REFUSE TRUST.

Duty of the executor named in the will

SUBJECT TO FINE FOR NEGLECT

Failure by the custodian or executor to fulfill his duties

SECTION 5, RULE 75. PERSON RETAINING WILL MAY BE COMMITTED

Person failing to deliver a will may be ordered detained  

ALLOWANCE OF WILL

Who may petition for the probate of a will 

Teotico v. Del Val, GR L- 18753. Mar. 26, 1965, 13 SCRA 406

Indirectly interested person cannot interfere in probate 

Rodriguez v. De Borja, GR L-21993. June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 41

Effect of probate of a will   

Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 538

When the probate court may rule on issues other than the intrinsic validity of a will; case lawsDue execution of the will or its extrinsic validity defined

Baltazar v. Laxa, GR 174489. Apr. 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 249

Requisites of due execution

SECTION 3, RULE 76. COURT TO APPOINT TIME FOR PROVING WILL. NOTICE THEREOF TO BE PUBLISHED

Notice of time and place for proving the will 

Rodriguez v. Borja, GR L-21993, June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 418

Notice required to be personally given only to known heirs, legatees, and devisees; case law

Alaban v. CA, GR 156021, Sept. 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697

Publication not required for testator filing the petition himself

Abut v. Abut, GR L-26743. May 31, 1972, 45 SCRA 326 Sec. 4, Rule 76, RoC

Three weeks successively construed

Sec. 4, Rule 76, RoC

Persons to be given notice

Modes and periods of notification

Probate of a will a proceeding in rem; notice by publication a constructive notice to the whole world 

Joson v. Nable, GR L-3450. Sept. 19, 1950. 87 Phil. 337

SECTION 5, RULE 76. PROOF AT HEARING. WHAT SUFFICIENT IN ABSENCE OF CONTEST

Publication and notice must be shown first

Unson v. Abella, GR 17857, June 12, 1922. 43 Phil. 494

Uncontested notarial wills

Sec. 7, Rule 76, RoC Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Contested notarial will; an instance where a party may impeach own witness

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

Lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be probated; exception

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 6, RULE 76. PROOF OF LOST OR DESTROYED WILL. CERTIFICATE THEREUPON

Facts that should be proved to allow a lost or destroyed willLost or destroyed will not proved by bare testimony; exception    

Sec. 8, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 9, RULE 76. GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWING WILL

Grounds for disallowing a will under the Rules of Court 

Art. 839, CC

Lists exclusive; no other grounds that would disallow a will

Rey v. Cartagena, GR 34288, Nov. 10, 1931. 56 Phil. 282

Joint probate of separate wills executed by spouses who died simultaneously

Art. 818, CC

Laws governing the validity of a will as to its execution and form

Article 795 of the Civil Code

SECTION 10, RULE 76. CONTESTANT TO FILE GROUNDS OF CONTEST

Contestant to file opposition stating his grounds therefor   

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 12, RULE 76. PROOF WHERE TESTATOR PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

Proof necessary if the testator himself files the petition for probate

Contested holographic wills

Contested notarial wills

SECTION 11, RULE 76. SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES PRODUCED OR ACCOUNTED FOR WHERE WILL CONTESTED

Sec. 10, Rule 76, RoC

In the matter of probation of the will of Riosa, GR L-14074, Nov. 7, 1918. 39 Phil. 23

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714. June 2, 1994, 232 SCRA 722

Substantial compliance rule

Pecson v. Coronel, GR L-20374, Oct. 11, 1923. 45 Phil. 216

Grounds for disallowing a will under the Civil Code

Sec. 9, Rule 76, RoC

Proof when the witnesses are dead, insane or do not reside in the Philippines

SECTION 8, RULE 76. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DEAD OR INSANE OR DO NOT RESIDE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Proof when the witnesses are not residents of the province

SECTION 7, RULE 76. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DO NOT RESIDE IN PROVINCE

Rodelas v. Aranza, GR L-58509. Dec. 7, 1982, 119 SCRA 16

Proof of will

Gan v. Yap, GR L-12190. Aug. 30, 1958. 104 Phil. 509

Contested holographic will

Sec. 11, Rule 76, RoC

Uncontested holographic wills

Sec. 8, Rule 76, RoC

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Uncontested will; how proved

Sec. 5, Rule 76, RoC

Where notice not necessary

Mercado v. Santos, GR 45629. Sept. 22, 1938, 66 Phil. 215

Notice of the time and place of hearing

SECTION 4, RULE 76. HEIRS, DEVISEES, LEGATEES, AND EXECUTORS TO BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL OR PERSONALLY

Basa v. Mercado, GR 42226. July 26, 1935, 61 Phil. 632

Publication and notice requirement for ante mortem probate

Perez v. Perez, GR L-14781 July 15, 1959. 105 Phil. 1132

Service of notice upon the heirs a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC

When may the court act on a will delivered to it

Sec. 3, Rule 76, RoC       

Pastor, Jr. v. CA, GR L-56340 June 24, 1983, 207 Phil. 758     

Jurisdictional facts

Contents of the petition for probate

SECTION 2, RULE 76. CONTENTS OF PETITION

Mercado v. Santos, GR 45629. Sept. 22, 1938, 66 Phil. 215

Delivery of the will to the court sufficient even if no petition filed yet

Mere copy of the will attached to the petition deemed sufficient

When is jurisdiction acquired by the probate court

Paras v. Narciso, GR 10959. Nov. 2, 1916, 35 Phil. 244

Person interested in the estate or interested party defined

Sec. 1, Rule 76, RoC

SECTION 1, RULE 76. WHO MAY PETITION FOR THE

RULE 76. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL

Sec. 5, Rule 75, RoC 

SECTION 4, RULE 75. CUSTODIAN AND EXECUTOR

Sec. 3, Rule 75, RoC

Duty of the custodian of the will to deliver it to the court or to the executor

SECTION 2, RULE 75. CUSTODIAN OF WILL TO DELIVER

Uriarte v. CFI of Negros, GR L-21938-39. May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 252

Santos v. Manarang, GR L-8235, Mar. 19, 1914. 27 Phil. 209

Intestacy is subordinate to testacy

Imprescriptibility of probate

Procedure after delivery will to court or upon filing of petition for probate

Castañeda v. Alemany, GR 1439. Mar. 19, 1904, 03 Phil. 26

Probate proceedings not adversarial; best evidence to be presented

Pastor, Jr. v. CA, GR L-56340. June 24, 1983, 207 Phil. 758

Probate court’s limited authority

Cuizon v. Ramolete, GR L-51291 May 29, 1984, 129 SCRA 495

SECTION 13, RULE 76. CERTIFICATE OF ALLOWANCE ATTACHED TO PROVE WILL. TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF REGISTER OF DEEDS

Certificate of allowance of the will to be issued by the court

Sec.13, Rule 76, RoC

Probate order is final and appealable

Montañano v. Suesa, GR L-4724, Dec. 24, 1909. 14 Phil. 676

Fernandez v. Dimagiba, GR L-23638. Oct. 12, 1967, 21 SCRA 428

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2017


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEW ERA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW) ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2017
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS
1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons; what it intends to achieve and what it seeks to establish
2. Rights to succession; when transmitted
• Article 777 of the Civil Code
3. Right to the property transmitted from the moment of death; case law
• Bunyi v. Factor. GR 172547. June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 350
4. Intestacy inferior to testacy
• Castro v. Martinez Gallegos, GR L-3880. Mar. 9, 1908, 10 Phil. 307
5. Modes of settlement of the estate of a deceased person
• Rule 69, RoC
• Sec. 1, Rule 74, RoC
• Sec. 3, Rule 74, RoC
• Rules 75 to 79, RoC
• Rule 79, RoC
6. Prompt filing of money claims against the decedent arising from contract
• Secs. 2 and 5, Rule 87, RoC
• Tan Sen Guan v. Go Sui San, GR L-22451. Dec. 22, 1924, 47 Phil. 96
7. Purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of estate in the probate court
• Estate of Olave v. Reyes, GR L-29407. July 29, 1983, 123 SCRA 767
8. Complaint against person/s suspected of keeping properties belonging to the estate; probate court has no authority to decide the issue of ownership
• Modesto v. Modesto, GR L-11801. June 30, 1959, 105 Phil. 1379
• Adapon v. Maralit, GR 46898. Jan. 20, 1940, 69 Phil 383
9. Jurisdiction acquired through publication
• Perez v. Perez, GR L-12359. July 15, 1959, 105 Phil. 1132
10. Service of notice to the heirs not a jurisdictional requirement
• Abut v. Abut, GR L-26743. May 31, 1972, 45 SCRA 326
RULE 73. VENUE AND PROCESS
SECTION 1, RULE 73. WHERE ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS SETTLED
1. Venue for ordinary civil actions and for special proceedings have the same meaning; residence defined
• Jao v. CA, GR 128314. May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 407
2. Distinction between “residence” under election laws and for purposes of fixing the venue of actions under the Rules of Court
• Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, GR 104960, Sept. 14, 1993, 226 SCRA 408
3. What determines venue?
4. Venue distinguished from jurisdiction
• Malig v. Bush, GR L-22761. May 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 449
5. Rule refers to venue and not to jurisdiction
6. Rules on venue and jurisdiction in probate proceedings
• Lim v. CA, GR 124715. Jan. 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 102
• Fule v. CA, GR L-40502. Nov. 29, 1976
7. Court which has jurisdiction over probate cases
• Lim v. CA, GR 124715. Jan. 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 102\
• Mendoza v. Teh, GR 122646. Mar. 14, 1997, 269 SCRA 764
8. Court first taking cognizance excludes all others; Domicile of the testator affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction
• Rodriguez v. De Borja, GR L-21993. June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 41
9. When the administrator cannot enter into any transaction without prior court approval
• Estate of Olave v. Reyes, GR L-29407. July 29, 1983, 123 SCRA 767
10. Instances where two cases are filed, one testate and the other intestate: which courts should exercise jurisdiction; case laws
• Roberts v. Leonidas, GR L-55509. Apr. 27, 1984, 129 SCRA 33
• Cuenco v. CA, GR L-24742. Oct. 26, 1973, 53 SCRA 360
11. Wrong venue in probate a waivable procedural defect
• Uriarte v. CFI of Negros Occidental, GR L-21938. May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 252
12. Jurisdiction over probate proceedings
13. Limited jurisdiction of probate courts
• Coca v. Borromeo, GR L-29545. Jan. 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 278
14. Powers and duties of the probate court
• Sec. 3, Rule 73, RoC
• Sec. 3, Rule 77, RoC
• Sec. 5, Rule 79, RoC
• Sec. 11, Rule 86, RoC
• Sec. 11, Rule 88, RoC
• Sec. 2, Rule 89, RoC
• Sec. 1, Rule 90, RoC
15. Probate court powerless to act on property rights from contracts
• Reyes-Mesugas v. Reyes, GR 174835. Mar. 22, 2010, 616 SCRA 345
16. Probate court as a trustee
• Tambunting De Tengco v. San Jose, GR L-8162. Aug. 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 491
17. Probate courts cannot determine the issue of ownership except provisionally
• Bernardo v. CA, GR L-18148. Feb. 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 367
18. Rationale for the rule
• Agtarap v. Agtarap, GR 177099. June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 455
19. Probate court may pass upon the issue of ownership with the consent of the parties
• Pascual v. Pascual, GR L-48140. May 4, 1942, 73 Phil. 561
• Cunanan v. Amparo, GR L-1313. Feb. 16, 1948, 80 Phil. 229
20. Probate court to distribute the estate and determine the heirs
• Solivio v. CA, GR 83484. Feb. 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 119
• Litam v. Espiritu, GR L-7644. Nov. 27, 1956, 100 Phil. 364
• Pimentel v. Palanca, GR 2108. Dec. 19, 1905, 5 Phil. 436
21. Probate court generally cannot issue a writ of execution; exceptions
• Sec. 6, Rule 88, RoC
• Sec. 3, Rule 90, RoC
• Sec. 13, Rule 142, RoC
• Vda. De Valera v. Ofilada, GR L-27526. Sept. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 96
22. Probate courts vested with jurisdiction to try controversies between heirs regarding ownership of property allegedly belonging to deceased
• Flores v. Flores, GR L-24173. Nov. 24, 1925, 48 Phil. 982
23. Probate court vested with jurisdiction to determine if properties belong to conjugal partnership
• Bernardo v. CA, GR L-18148. Feb. 28, 1963, 117 Phil. 385
• Probate court has no jurisdiction over an encumbrance
• Register of Deeds of Pampanga v. PNB, GR L-1781. Sept. 27, 1949, 47 OG 1157
• Diaz v. Sawamoto, GR L-22085. Apr. 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 937
• Attorney’s fees; against whom chargeable
• Albino v. Borromeo, GR L-19722. Feb. 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 247
24. Exclusionary rule
25. Publication of the filing of the application and of the date of hearing
• Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones, GR 150175. Feb. 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 197
26. Recourse in case the venue is improperly laid
• Eusebio v. Eusebio, GR L-8409. Dec. 28, 1956, 100 Phil. 593