Fernandez v. Dimagiba the fourth time, Mercado was arrested.

The
reinvestigation dragged on for almost a year…
Mercado v. Santos
Mercado moved to dismiss the case, claiming
Facts:
again that the will alleged to have been forged
May 28, 1931, Petitioner Antilano Mercado filed had already been probated and, further, that
a petition for the probate of the will of his the order probating the will is conclusive as to
deceased wife, Ines Basa, with the Pampanga the authenticity and due execution thereof. The
CFI. CFI overruled the motion. Mercado thus filed a
petition for certiorari with preliminary
On June 31, 1931, the will was admitted to injunction with the Court of Appeals, which
probate. promptly denied same.
On October 27, 1932, Intervenor Rosario Basa Issue:
de Leon filed a complaint against Mercado for
falsification/forgery of the will probated. WON the probate of Ines Basa’s will is a bar to
Mercado was arrested and afterwards the Mercado’s criminal prosecution for the alleged
complaint was subsequently dismissed at the forgery of said will.
instance of de Leon herself.
Held:
On March 2, 1933, the same intervenor charged
Yes, In view of the provisions of Secs. 306, 333
Mercado with the same offense which led to
and 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a
Mercado being arrested again. The complaint
criminal action will not lie against the forger of a
was likewise dismissed, again at de Leon’s
will which had been duly admitted to probate
instance.
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
On February 2, 1934, another case of
Ratio:
falsification/forgery was filed by the same
intervenor and upon due investigation, the case Said the Supreme Court of Vermont in the case
was dismissed on the ground that the will of Missionary Society vs. Eells (68 Vt., 497, 504):
alleged to have been falsified had already been "The probate of a will by the probate court
probated and that there was no evidence that having jurisdiction thereof, upon the due notice,
Mercado had forged the signature of the is conclusive as to its due execution against the
testatrix but that, on the contrary, satisfactory whole world.
evidence was presented that established the
The probate of a will in this jurisdiction is a
authenticity of said signature.
proceeding in rem. The provision of notice by
Rosario Basa de Leon and other intervenors Publication as a prerequisite to the allowance of
moved ex parte to reopen the probate a will is constructive notice to the whole world,
proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction to and when probate is granted, the judgment of
probate the will and to close the proceedings. the court is binding upon everybody, even
This motion was denied, having been filed ex against the State.
parte.
Section 333, paragraph 4, of the Code of Civil
The provincial fiscal moved for reinvestigation Procedure establishes an incontrovertible
of the criminal case for forgery before the presumption in favor of judgments declared by
Pampanga CFI. The motion was granted, and for it to be conclusive.
SEC. 333. Conclusive Presumptions. — The they are bereft of personality to oppose the
following presumptions or deductions, which probate of the last will and testament of the
the law expressly directs to be made from testators; and b.) that oppositors have no valid
particular facts, are deemed conclusive. claim and interest in the distribution of (the)
estate of the aforesaid testator and no existing
xxx xxx xxx
valid right whatsoever.
4. The judgment or order of a court, when
Issue:
declared by this code to be conclusive.
Whether or not the probate of the will Hilarion
The will in question having been probated by a
Ramagosa be denied.
competent court, the law will not admit any
proof to overthrow the legal presumption that Held:
it is genuine and not a forgery.
No.
Sumilang v. Ramagosa
Ratio:
Facts:
The petition below being for the probate of a
On July 5, 1960, Mariano Sumilang filed for the will, the court's area of inquiry is limited to the
probate of the alleged will of Hilarion extrinsic validity thereof. The testator's
Ramagosa, who died on December 26, 1949, in testamentary capacity and the compliance with
the Court of First Instance of Quezon. The will the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed
was written in Tagalog, dated February 26, 1949 by law are the only questions presented for the
and institutes Sumilang as the sole heir. resolution of the court. Any inquiry into the
intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of
The petition was opposed by 2 oppositors who
the will or the legality of any devise or legacy is
questioned the due execution of the will. They
premature.
contend that the will was made under duress
and was not intended to be the last will and To establish conclusively as against everyone
testament of the testator and the first set of and once for all, the facts that a will was
oppositors namely Saturnino and Santiago executed with the formalities required by law
Ramagosa further claimed that they were and that the testator was in a condition to make
entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased a will, is the only purpose of the proceedings . . .
instead of Sumilang. for the probate of a will. The judgment in such
proceedings determines and can determine
During the hearings, oppositors moved for the
nothing more.
dismissal of the petition for probate of the will
on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction Balanay v. Martinez
over the subject-matter alleging that the will
Facts:
was impliedly revoked by the testator himself
when he sold the subject parcels of land in the 1. Leodegaria Julian (mother of the petitioner)
will to the petitioner Mariano Sumilang and his died at the age of 67. She was survived by her
brother Mario six years before his death. husband, Felix Balanay Sr., and by their six
legitimate children (including the petitioner,
Petitioner then filed an opposition to the
Felix Balanay Jr.)
motion for dismissal stating that: a.) that
oppositors have no legal standing in court and
2. The petitioner filed in the lower court a on the grounds: a. That the testatrix illegally
petition for probate of his mother’s notarial will. claimed that she was the owner of the
In the will, it was declared by his mother that: a) “southern half” of the conjugal lots. b. That she
She was the owner of the “southern half” of could not partition the conjugal estate by
nine (9) conjugal lots. b) She was the absolute allocating portions of the nine lots to her
owner of two (2) parcels of land inherited from children.
her father c) It was her desire that her
7. Meanwhile, another lawyer (David Montaña
properties should not be divided among her
Sr.) who claims to be the lawyer of the
heirs during her husband’s lifetime and that
petitioner file a motion to withdraw probate of
their legitims should be satisfied out of the
alleged will of the testator, requested authority
fruits of her properties.
to proceed by intestate estate proceeding, and
3. Also, in the will, she stated that after her that the corresponding notice to creditors be
husband’s death her paraphernal lands and all issued.
the conjugal lands should be divided and
RTC: Dismissed the petition for the probate,
distributed in the manner set forth in her will.
converted the testate proceeding into an
She devised and partitioned the conjugal lands
intestate proceeding, ordered the issuance of a
as if they were all owned by her since it
notice to creditors and set the intestate
included the husband’s one-half share of the
proceeding for hearing.
conjugal assets.
8. The petitioner, through a new counsel, asked
4. The father (Felix Balanay Sr.) and one of the
for a reconsideration of the lower court’s order
children (Avelina Antonio) opposed the probate
on the ground that the said lawyer had no
of the will on the grounds of: a) Lack of
authority to withdraw the petition for the
testamentary capacity b) Undue influence c)
allowance of the will because they have already
Preterition of the husband d) Improper partition
terminated Montaña’s services and informed
of conjugal estate
him that his withdrawal of the petition was
5. The petitioner, in his reply, attached an without their consent and was contrary to the
affidavit of Felix Balanay Sr. wherein he repeated reminder that their mother’s will was
withdrew his opposition to the probate of the “very sacred” to them
will and affirmed that he was interested in its
Issue:
probate. The father also signed an instrument
captioned “Conformation of Division and 1. Whether the probate court erred in passing
Renunciation of Hereditary Rights” which upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before
contains manifestations that: a. He has waived ruling on its allowance or formal validity. – No.
and renounced his hereditary rights in her
estate in favor of their six children and; b. He 2. Whether the probate court erred in declaring
confirmed the agreement between him and his the will void. – Yes.
wife which they had perfected before her Ratio:
death. (Conjugal properties would be
partitioned in the manner indicated in her will 1. The Supreme Court opined that in view
of certain unusual provisions of the will,
6. Avelina B. Antonio (the oppositor earlier and which are of dubious legality
one of the children of Sps. Balanay) contended (disposition of southern half of the
that the affidavit and conformation were void conjugal lands is illegal since her share
 was inchoate and proindiviso) and made.” The statement of the testatrix
because of the motion to withdraw the that she owned the “southern half” of
petition for probate (which the lower the conjugal lands is contrary to law
court assumed to have been filed with because, although she was a co-owner
the petitioner's authorization), the trial thereof,
court acted correctly in passing upon
the will's intrinsic validity even before
Pastor v. Quemada
its formal validity had been established.
The probate of a will might become an Facts:
idle ceremony if on its face it appears to
be intrinsically void. Where practical Sps pastor, Sr. and his wife were survived by
considerations demand that the their two legitimate children, Alvaro Pastor, Jr.
intrinsic validity of the will be passed and Sofia Pastor de Midgely, as well as an
upon, even before it is probated, the illegitimate child Lewellyn Barlito Quemada.
court should meet the issue. Quemada filed a petition for the probate and
allowance of an alleged holographic will of
The statement of the testatrix that she Pastor, Sr. which contained the lone
owned the "southern half of the testamentary disposition in favor of Quemada
conjugal lands is contrary to law consisting of 30% of Pastor, Sr.’s 42% share in
because, although she was a co-owner the operation of Atlas Consolidated Mining and
thereof, her share was inchoate and Development Corporation. As such, the probate
proindiviso. But That illegal declaration court appointed Quemada as a special
does not nullify the entire will. It may administrator of the estate.
be disregarded.
Quemada further instituted against Pastor, Jr.
2. The probate court erred in declaring and his wife an action for reconveyance of
that the will was void and in converting alleged properties of the estate which the both
the testate proceeding into an intestate Pastor, Jr. and his wife claimed to have
proceeding because of the fact that ownership over through their own right and not
they gave effect to the surviving by inheritance.
husband’s conformity to the will and to The probate court issued an order allowing the
his renunciation of his hereditary rights, probate of the will. Quemada, as a result, asked
which presumably included his one-half for payment of his legacy and seizure of the
share. properties of said legacy. Pastor, Jr. and Sofia
opposed these pleadings on the grounds of
Also, because of the provisions under pendency of the reconveyance suit, which was
Art. 792 of the New Civil Code, which at the time still unacted upon by the probate
states that: “The invalidity of one of court.
several dispositions contained in a will
does not result in the invalidity of the On Aug 20, 1980, while the reconveyance suit
other dispositions, unless it is to be was still being litigated, the probate court
presumed that the testator would not issued the assailed order of execution and
have made such other dispositions if garnishment, resolving the question of
the first invalid disposition had not been ownership of the royalties payable by Atlas and
ruling in effect that the legacy to Quemada was administration aspect must proceed “subject to
not inofficious. The oppositors opposed this on the outcome of the suit for reconveyance of
the grounds that the probate court gravely ownership and possession of real and personal
abused its discretion when it resolved the properties.”
question of ownership of the royalties and
The Probate Order did not resolve the
ordering the payment of Quemada’s legacy
question of ownership of the properties
after prematurely passing upon the intrinsic
listed in the estate inventory, considering that
validity of the will.
the issue of ownership was the very subject of
Issue: controversy in the reconveyance suit that was
still pending.
WON the question of ownership and the
intrinsic validity of the holographic will were It was, therefore, error for the assailed
resolved with finality by the probate court. implementing Orders to conclude that the
Probate Order adjudged with finality the
Held:
question of ownership of the mining properties
No, it was not resolved by the probate court in and royalties, and that, premised on this
the case at bar. conclusion, the dispositive portion of the said
Probate Order directed the special
Ratio: administrator to pay the legacy in dispute.
In a special proceeding for the probate of a will,
the issue by and large is restricted to the
extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the US VS. CHIU GUIMCO
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed
Facts:
the will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law. Joaquin Cruz, a Chinese merchant living for
many years in the municipality of Gingoog,
As a rule, the question of ownership is an
Province of Misamis, died while visiting China.
extraneous matter which the Probate Court
Before his departure from the Philippines he
cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the
had executed a will before Anastacio Servillon, a
purpose of determining whether a certain
notary public, in which Chiu Guimco, his
property should or should not be included in
brother, and Co-Iden were named as executors.
the inventory of estate properties, the Probate
Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such Guimco, as attorney in fact and manager of the
determination is provisional, not conclusive, estate of his deceased brother, entered into an
and is subject to the final decision in a separate agreement with his brothers Filipina wife,
action to resolve title. whereby she relinquished her claims to the
estate for a consideration. He also entered into
Nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a
an agreement with Uy Cuan, his brother’s
declaration of ownership of specific properties.
Chinese wife, for the distribution of the estate
It confined itself to the question of extrinsic
and for the payment of rentals on her interest
validity of the will, and the need for and
in the real estate. No payments have, however,
propriety of appointing a special administrator.
been made by Guimco.
It allowed and approved the holographic will
with respect to its extrinsic validity and Ramon Contreras, acting on behalf of Uy Cuan,
declared that the intestate estate wrote a letter to Guimco urging him to produce
the will of the decedent for the institution of permissible in a prosecution under Sec. 628 to
lawful proceedings in accordance therewith. superimpose upon the penalty of fine therein
Guimco replied that the will in question had prescribed the additional penalty of
never been in his possession and that he had imprisonment prescribed under Sec. 629. To
never seen it. enforce the production of the will by the
accused at a trial under Sec. 628 would virtually
A complaint was filed under section 628 of the
compel him to convict himself, since the mere
Code of Civil Procedure charging Guimco with
production of the will by him would be
the failure to produce the will within the time
conclusive that he had possession of it as
required by law. The court found the accused
charged in the criminal complaint. This would
guilty and imposed upon him a fine of P1800.
constitute an infringement of the provision of
Subsequently, the court, believing that the will law which says that in a criminal action the
was in his possession, ordered him to produce it defendant shall be exempt from testifying
but Guimco still failed to do so. The court against himself.
ordered the confinement of Guimco in the
Rodriguez v. Borja
provincial jail.
Facts:
Issue:
Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died on Feb 12, 1963
Whether the judge was acting within his power
and Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan
when he ordered the commitment of Guimco to
delivered to the Clerk of Court of Bulacan on
the provincial jail?
March 4, 1963 a purported last will and
Held: testament of Fr. Rodriguez. On March 8, 1963,
petitioners filed before the court a petition to
No. allow them to examine the alleged will, which
Ratio: was subsequently withdrawn.

Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now On March 12, 1963, petitioners submitted a
section 5 of Rule 75), which allows petition for settlement of the intestate estate of
imprisonment of a person who neglects to Rodriguez alleging that he was a resident of
deliver a will after the death of the testator Paranaque, Rizal and had died intestate, all the
without reasonable cause, can only be applied while praying that Maria Rodriguez be
when a court is acting in the exercise of its appointed as administratrix of the estate. On
jurisdiction over the administration of the the exact same day, Pangilinan and Jacalan filed
estates of deceased persons. Where a petition for the probate of the will that they
administration proceedings are not already delivered way back on March 4, 1963.
pending, the court, before taking action under The movants contend that since the intestate
this section, should require that there be before proceeding was filed at 8:00am on March 12
it some petition, information, or affidavit of while the petition for probate was filed at
such character as to make action by the court 11:00am on the same date, the CFI had no
under this section appropriate. The remedy jurisdiction to entertain the petition for
provided in section 629 of the Code of probate. Petitioners, on the other hand,
Procedure is clearly a totally different remedy, contend that the CFI acquired jurisdiction over
having no relation with that provided in section the case upon the delivery of the will to the
628 (now section 4 of Rule 75). It is not clerk of court.
Issue: he left personal property in Hagonoy, province
of Bulacan. That is sufficient in the case before
Whether or not the will should be probated for
us.
being submitted after a petition for settlement
of intestate estate. Teotico v. Del Val

Held: Facts:

The will should be probated. Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre

died on July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila
Ratio:
leaving properties worth P600,000.00. She left a
The use of the disjunctive in the words "when a will written in Spanish which she executed at
will is delivered to OR a petition for the her residence at No. 2 Legarda St., Quiapo,
allowance of a will is filed" plainly indicates that Manila.
the court may act upon the mere deposit
In said will the testatrix made the following
therein of a decedent's testament, even if no
preliminary statement: that she had neither
petition for its allowance is as yet filed. Where
ascendants nor descendants of any kind such
the petition for probate is made after the
that she could freely dispose of all her estate.
deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to
relate back to the time when the will was On July 17, 1955, Vicente B. Teotico filed a
delivered. Since the testament of Fr. Rodriguez petition for the probate of the will before the
was submitted and delivered to the Court of Court of First Instance of Manila which was set
Bulacan on March 4, while petitioners initiated for hearing on September 3, 1955 after the
intestate proceedings in the Court of First requisite publication and service to all parties
Instance of Rizal only on March 12, eight days concerned.
later, the precedence and exclusive jurisdiction
Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be an adopted
of the Bulacan court is incontestable.
child of Francisca Mortera, a deceased sister of
But, petitioners object, section 3 of revised Rule the testatrix, as well as an acknowledged
76 (old Rule 77) speaks of a will being delivered natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased
to "the Court having jurisdiction," and in the brother of the same testatrix, filed on
case at bar the Bulacan court did not have it September 2,1955 an opposition to the probate
because the decedent was domiciled in Rizal of the will alleging the following grounds: (1)
province. We cannot disregard Fr. Rodriguez's said will was not executed as required by law;
33 years of residence as parish priest in (2) the testatrix was physically and mentally
Hagonoy, Bulacan (1930-1963); but even if we incapable to execute the will at the time of its
do so, and consider that he retained throughout execution; and (3) the will was executed under
some animus revertendi to the place of his birth duress, threat or influence of fear.
in Parañaque, Rizal, that detail would not imply
Vicente B. Teotico, filed a motion to dismiss the
that the Bulacan court lacked jurisdiction. As
opposition alleging that the oppositors had no
ruled in previous decisions, the power to settle
legal personality to intervene. The probate
decedents' estates is conferred by law upon all
court, after due hearing, allowed the oppositor
courts of first instance, and the domicile of the
to intervene as an adopted child of Francisca
testator only affects the venue but not the
Mortera
jurisdiction of the Court. Neither party denies
that the late Fr. Rodriguez is deceased, or that Issue:
Does Ana del Val Chan, oppositor, have the either as testamentary or as legal heir in the
right to intervene? probate proceeding.

Held: The claim that the will was procured by

improper pressure and influence is also belied
No
by the evidence.
Ratio:
The exercise of improper pressure and undue
It is a well-settled rule that in order that a influence must be supported by substantial
person may be allowed to intervene in a evidence and must be of a kind that... would
probate proceeding is that he must have an overpower and subjugate the mind of the
interest in the estate, will or in the property to testatrix as to destroy her free agency and make
be affected by either as executor or as a her express the will of another rather than her
claimant of the estate and be benefited by such own. The burden is on the person challenging
as an heir or one who has a claim against it as the will that such influence was... exerted at the
creditor. Under the terms of the will, defendant time of its execution, a matter which here was
has no right to intervene because she has no not done, for the evidence presented not only is
such interest in the estate either as heir, sufficient but was disproved by the testimony of
executor or administrator because it did not the instrumental witnesses.
appear therein any provision designating her as
The pronouncement by the court a quo
heir/ legatee in any portion of the estate.
declaring invalid the legacy made Dr. Rene
She could have acquired such right if she was a Teofico in the will Exhibit A must be set aside as
legal heir of the deceased but she is not under having been made in excess of its jurisdiction.
the CIVIL CODE. And this is so because being an Another reason why said pronouncement...
illegitimate child she is prohibited by... law from should be set aside is that the legatee was not
succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her given an opportunity to defend the validity of
natural father. Thus, Article 992 of our Civil the legacy for he was not allowed to intervene
Code provides: "An illegitimate child has no in this proceeding. As a corollary, the other
right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate pronouncements, touching on the disposition of
children and relatives of his father or... mother; the estate in favor of some relatives of the...
x x x." deceased should also be set aside for the same
reason.
Even if her allegations were true, the law does
not give her any right to succeed the estate of Fernando v. Crisostomo
the deceased sister of both Jose and Francisca
Facts:
because being an illegitimate child she is
prohibited by law from succeeding to the Hermogenes C. Fernando was appointed on
legitimate relatives of her natural father and August 14, 1945, guardian of Rufino Crisostomo
that relationship established by adoption is and his minor children. Rufino Crisostomo, Sr.,
limited solely to the adopter and adopted and died, leaving his four minor children under the
does not extend to the relatives of the adopting guardianship of said Hermogenes.
parents except only as expressly provided by
On June 12, 1948, Hermogenes filed a motion
law. As a consequence, she is an heir of the
with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.
praying for the approval of an extrajudicial
Hence, defendant has no right to intervene
settlement of the estate of the deceased “inasmuch as the brothers of the
parents of the minors who died intestate. The deceased have interest, as next of kin,
court appointed guardian filed an opposition to to petition for letters of administration,
said motion. the heirs of the deceased being minors,
and the respondent judge acted within
On July 23, 1948, Hermogenes filed in the
his jurisdiction in appointing the
guardianship proceedings a petition praying the
petitioners as administrators under
court to punish for contempt German
section 6, Rule 79. The guardian of the
Crisostomo (one of the administrators of the
minor children of the deceased is not,
estate of the deceased spouses appointed in
as such, administrator of the estate of
the intestate proceedings above mentioned)
the deceased until and after said estate
and one Victor Dimagiba, alleging that they had
has been acquired by or adjudicated to
illegally taken possession of certain properties
the minors by proper proceedings”
belonging to the minors. The Court denied the
petition on the ground that German Crisostomo This Court, after giving due consideration to all
had the right to possess those properties in his the facts and arguments appearing in the
capacity as co-administrator of the estate of the original petition and in the motion for
deceased spouses and that Victor Dimagiba was reconsideration, passed the resolution of June
only his overseer. 11, 1948, which reads as follows:

On June 21, 1948, Hermogenes filed a motion "In G.R. No. L-2172, Fernando v. Judge of First
for the closing, termination, and filing in the Instance of Bulacan, Et Al., the motion for
archives of the record of the intestate reconsideration is denied. Respondent judge
proceedings on the ground that the properties had jurisdiction and did not exceed it in
involved therein had already been appointing the other respondents, who are the
extrajudicially partitioned. the court issued an brother and sister or nearest of kin of the
order declaring null and void the extrajudicial decedent, as administrators of the latter’s
partition made by the guardian and denied said estate. The jurisdictional facts referred to in
motion. section 2(a) Rule 80, are the death of the
decedent, his residence at the time of his death
Hermogenes appealed the above order, hence
in the province where probate court is sitting, or
this petition.
if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, his
Issue: having left his estate in such province. The
name or competency of the person or persons
WON the court should have denied the petition for whom letters of administration are prayed is
for the opening of the intestate proceedings. – not a jurisdictional fact, it is another additional
No. fact to be alleged in the petition (d); but ’no
Ratio: defect in the petition shall render void the issue
of letters of administration ’that is, shall divest
It will be seen from the above that the principal the court of its jurisdiction to appoint the
issue in this case as to whether the intestate administrator. A petition for certiorari does not
proceedings should be dismissed has already lie to correct errors; if the lower court has
been decided by this Court in the certiorari committed any error, the proper remedy would
proceedings as far back as July 2, 1948, where be appeal. The guardian of the minors has no
the court denied Hermogenes petition to wit: right to administer the properties of the minors’
father who died after the guardian had been Ratio:
appointed, until said properties have been
The defendant, introduced no will in evidence
adjudicated or awarded to them either by
and offered secondary parol evidence as to the
extrajudicial or judicial partition. No partition
contents, claiming that the original was lost in a
either judicial or extra judicial having as yet
fire started by insurgents. The court allowed
been made adjudicating the said properties to
this evidence over the objection of the
the minors, the properties of the deceased have
plaintiffs, and this is one of the errors assigned
never been placed under the administration of
by them on this appeal.
the guardian of his minor children."
The loss of the alleged original will has not been
Araujo v. Celis
sufficiently established. The principal witness,
Facts: Calixto Delgado, who testified as to this point,
stated that he had acted as procurador for the
Asuncion Araujo y Belen died and left a
defendant in this case about the year 1889 in
hacienda known as Pangpang to her daughter
action brought against her by one Jose Araujo in
Rosario Darwin Araujo. She subsequently
the justice’s court of Pototan involving the
married Jose Araujo Y Celis, the son of the
hacienda of Pangpang, and that as such
defendant and died in 1888, leaving no
procurador or solicitor there came into his
descendants or ascendants but only collateral
possession a copy of the will of Rosario Darwin,
relatives.
duly recorded and probated, which was
These relatives alleged that they should succeed introduced in evidence in that action. He further
Rosario’s estate and asked that the property testified that he never saw the original of that
that she inherited from her mother, which is will because the same was retained by the
now in the possession of the defendant, notary.
Georgia, who took possession of it after the
This was all the more important as the witness
death of Jose, be transferred over to them as
further testified that the will, a copy of which he
Rosario’s heirs.
saw and had in his possession, was signed by
The defendant contends that although the two witnesses only. A will signed by two
parcel of land did belong exclusively to Rosario, witnesses only could not under any
the land was inherited by Jose by virtue of a will circumstances be valid under the law in force at
and after Jose died intestate, Georgia inherited the time referred to by the witness, and legally
all of his property under the law. speaking such will could not then have been
probated or recorded.
The court decided in favor of Georgia and a
motion for new trial was made by the plaintiff The testimony of the witnesses presented by
on the grounds that the judgment was plainly the defendant upon this point is absolutely
and manifestly against the weight of the insufficient to establish in a satisfactory manner
evidence. the loss of the alleged will of Rosario Darwin,
and the court below should not have, therefore,
Issue: allowed the secondary evidence introduced by
WON Rosario executed a legal and valid will in her as to the contents of the will, particularly in
the form and manner alleged by the defendant. view of the fact that, as it appears from the
– No. record, there had been pending since 1889 an
action to declare this very will null and void. The
undue allowance of such evidence by the court court there was presented and attached to the
was a violation of the provision of section 321 case an open and empty envelope signed by
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Jose B. Suntay, Alberto Barretto, Go Toh and
Manuel Lopez. It is thus undeniable that this
Lim Billian v. Suntay
envelope Exhibit A is the same one that
Facts: contained the will executed by the deceased —
drafted by Barretto and with the latter, Go Toh
Jose Suntay died in the City of Amoy, China. and Manuel Lopez as attesting witnesses. These
On May 14, 1934, his eldest son from his first tokens sufficiently point to the loss of the will of
marriage, Apolonio, petitioned for the intestate the deceased, a circumstance justifying the
proceedings in the CFI of Manila. presentation of secondary evidence of its
contents and of whether it was executed with
On October 15, 1934, Jose’s second wife, Maria, all the essential and necessary legal formalities.
also instituted a petition for the probate of a
will allegedly left by the deceased. The trial of this case was limited to the proof of
loss of the will, and from what has taken place
According to her, before Jose died in China, he we deduce that it was not petitioner’s intention
had left with her a sealed envelope containing a to raise, upon the evidence adduced by her, the
will along with a true copy of said will. other points involved herein, namely, as we
The petitioners, in response, are asking the have heretofore indicated, whether Exhibit B is
children of the first marriage, who allegedly a true copy of the will and whether the latter
have the will contained in an envelope, to was executed with all the formalities required
present said will in court. by law for its probate. The testimony of Alberto
Barretto bears importantly in this connection.
In their answer, the children state that they no
longer have the will and have denied snatching Basa v. Mercado
it from Go Toh, the deceased attorney-in-fact, Facts:
and throwing away the envelope after acquiring
its contents. Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga, allowed
Issue: and probated the last will and testament of Ines
WON the will is valid and was executed with all Basa, deceased. On January 30, 1932, the same
the essential and necessary formalities required judge approved the account of the
by law for its probate. – No. administrator of the estate, declared him the
only heir of the deceased under the will and
Ratio: closed the administration proceedings. On April
11, 1934, the herein petitioners-appellants filed
The court opined that the evidence is sufficient
a motion in which they prayed that said
to establish the loss of the document contained
proceedings be reopened and alleged that the
in the envelope. Oppositors’ answer admits
court lacked jurisdiction to act in the matter
that, according to Barretto, one of the attesting
because there was a failure to comply with
witnesses, he prepared a will of the deceased to
requirements as to the publication of the notice
which he later became a witness together with
of hearing prescribed in the following section of
Go Toh and Manuel Lopez, and that this will was
the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants claim
placed in an envelope which was signed by the
that the provisions of section 630 of the Code of
deceased and by the instrumental witnesses. In
Civil Procedure have not been complied with in publication of the notice, referred to in the
view of the fact that although the trial judge, on Code of Civil Procedure, should be made in the
May 29, 1931, ordered the publication of the newspaper with the largest numbers is
required notice for "three weeks successively" necessary to constitute a newspaper of general
previous to the time appointed for the hearing circulation.
on the will, the first publication was on June 6,
De Aranz v. Galing
1931, the third on June 20, 1931, and the
hearing took place on the 27th of that month, FACTS:
only twenty-one days after the date of the first
publication instead of three full weeks before Private respondent Joaquin Infante filed before
the day set for the hearing. The appellants also the RTC Pasig a petition for the probate and
contend that the trial court erred in ruling that allowance of the last will and testament of
the weekly newspaper, Ing Katipunan, in which Montserrat Infante.
the notice of hearing was published, was a The RTC issued an order setting the petition for
newspaper of general circulation in the Province hearing on May 5, 1986 at 8:30AM which was
of Pampanga. published in the Nueva Era, a newspaper of
Issues: general circulation, once a week for 3
consecutive weeks.
Whether the 21 days requirement for
publication be followed pursuant to the sec. The hearing was reset for May 12, 1986 and on
630 of Code of Civil Procedure? the same day, Joaquin presented his evidence
ex-parte and placed Arturo Arceo (one of his
Whether the said Ing Katipunan newspaper testamentary witnesses) on the witness stand.
considered a newspaper of general circulation? ● During the proceedings, Joaquin was
appointed as executor. ● Then 2 days later,
Ratio:
herein petitioners (Joaquin’s relatives whose
In view of the foregoing, it is held that the names are listed in the Other Notes) filed an MR
language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil of the order on May 12 (Fact #5;stating that
Procedure does not mean that the notice, Joaquin can present evidence ex-parte) ○
referred to therein, should be published for Alleged that no notices were sent to them as
three full weeks before the date set for the required by Sec. 4, Rule 76.1 ○ Prayed to be
hearing on the will. In other words, the first given 10 days to file their opposition to the
publication of the notice need not be made probate of the will ● MR denied. ○ They filed a
twenty-one days before the day appointed for pet. for certiorari and prohibition w/ the SC
the hearing. The record shows that Ing (w/c referred it to the CA) ○ The CA dismissed
Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation their petition. 1
in view of the fact that it is published for the
dissemination of local news and general
information; that it has a bona fide subscription Sec. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors
list of paying subscribers; that it is published at to be notified by mail or personally. – The court
regular intervals and that the trial court ordered shall also cause copies of the notice of the time
the publication to be made inIng Katipunan and place fixed for proving the will to be
precisely because it was a "newspaper of addressed to the designated or other known
general circulation in the Province of heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
Pampanga." The law does not require that
resident in the Philippines at their places of notice of hearing for 3 weeks in a newspaper of
residence, and deposited in the post office w/ general circulation in the province. (Note)
the postage thereon prepaid at least 20 days CASES CITED BY THE CA: ● Joson vs. Noble- not
before the hearing, if such places of residence applicable cos in that case, the petition included
be known. A copy of the notice must in like the residence of the other legatees/devisees
manner be mailed to the person named as but it was the WRONG address. So, it’s as good
executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to as their (correct) residence is NOT known to the
any person named as coexecutor not court. Thus, there’s no need for personal service
petitioning, if their places of residence be w/c is only required if the address of the
known. Personal service of copies of the notice legatees/devisees is known. ● In Re: Estate of
at least 10 days before the day of hearing shall Suntay–It’s a proceedings in rem and for the
be equivalent to mailing. If the testator asks for validity of such proceedings personal notice or
the allowance of his own will, notice shall be by publication or both to all interested parties
sent only to his compulsory heirs. must be made. (Dunno how CA used this case to
support its theory) DISPOSITION: a) CA decision
annulled and set aside b) Remand to RTC Pasig
Hence, this case (45 petition) before the SC. for further proceedings

ISSUES + RULING: W/N PERSONAL NOTICE of

probate proceedings to the known legatees and
devisees is a jurisdictional requirement in the
probate of a will? - YES ● CA: The requirement
of notice on individual heirs, legatees and
devisees is merely a matter of procedural
convenience to better satisfy the requirements
of due process. ● PETITIONERS: Under Sec. 4,
Rule 76, the personal notice requirement is
mandatory and its omission constitutes a
reversible error as grave abuse of discretion. ●
SC: Petitioners are correct. It’s clear from Sec. 4,
Rule 76 that notice of the time and place of
hearing for the allowance of a will shall be
forwarded to the designated or other known
heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the
Philippines if their residence be known. ○
Residences of petitioners were known to the
probate court (RTC Pasig). ○ The petition for the
allowance of the will itself indicated the names
and addresses of the legatees & devisees of the
testator. ○ But still the RTC didn’t cause copies
of the notice to be sent to petitioners. ○ The
requirement of the law for the allowance of the
will was not satisfied by mere publication of the