CÉLULAS HUMANAS

testator is still alive. What he seeks from the court is a mere declaration that the will has been executed in accordance with the formalities of the NCC. When the will is admitted to probate, where the petitioner is the testator himself, the admission to probate will mark the end of the special proceedings. No settlement of estate will follow.

Q: What is probate?

A: Probate is the act of proving before a competent court the due execution of a will by a

person possessed of

testamentary capacity, as well as the approval thereof by said court, (also known as Allowance of Will).

Q: Why is probate necessary?

A: To settle all questions concerning the capacity of the testator and the proper execution of his will, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable. (Fernandez v.

Dimagiba, G.R. No. L-23638, Oct.

12, 1967)

Q: What is the nature of a probate proceeding?

A: 1. IN REM- It is binding upon the whole world.

2. MANDATORY- No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.

Note: However, a will may be sustained on the basis of Article 1080 of the NCC which states that, “if the testator should make a partition of his property by an act inter vivos or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heir. (Mang-Oy v. CA, L-27421, 1986) 3. IMPRESCRIPTIBLE- because of the public policy to obey the will of the testator

4. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY- the probate of the will is mandatory. The presentation and probate of the will is required by public policy. It involves public interest.

(Fernandez v. Dimagiba, L-23638, 1967)

Q: Does the probate court look into the intrinsic validity of the will?

A:

GR: The jurisdiction of probate court is limited to the examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of a will.

XPNS: Principle of practical considerations wherein the court may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will:

1. If the case where to be remanded for probate of the will, it will result to waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety; as in the case of absolute preterition (Nuguid v.

Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966).

2. Where the entire or all testamentary dispositions are void and where the defect is apparent on its face (Nepomuceno v. CA, G.R. No. L-62952, Oct. 9, 1985).

Note: Principle does not apply where the meat of the controversy is not the intrinsic validity of the will.

NOTE: The decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution of the will and it cannot be impugned on any of

the grounds authorized by law, except by fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding.

WHO MAY PETITION FOR PROBATE

Q: Who may file petition for allowance of will?

A:

1. Executor (Sec. 1, Rule 76);

2. Devisee or legatee named in the will (Sec. 1, Rule 76);

3. Person interested in the estate; e.g. heirs

Note: An interested party is one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate such as a creditor.

(Sumilang v. Ramagosa, G.R. No.

L-23135, Dec. 26, 1967)

4. Testator himself during his lifetime (Sec. 1, Rule 76); or 5. Any creditor – as preparatory step for filing of his claim therein.

Q: Who are the people entitled to notice in a probate hearing?

A:

1. Designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of residence, at least 20 days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known.

2. Person named executor, if he not the petitioner.

3. To any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their places of residence be known.

4. If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs. (Sec. 4, Rule 76)

We compare that to a probate of a will where the testator is already dead. Since the testator is already dead, the petitioner could be somebody else interested in his estate, like an heir, devisee, legatee or creditor of the decedent. In this second kind of probate of a will where the testator has died, when the will is admitted to probate, that

will not be the end of the proceedings. In fact, that will mark the beginning of the settlement of estate of the deceased person. That is the time when we apply the rules in special proceedings in settlement of estate of deceased person.

You should be wary about the differences between probate of a will when the testator is still alive, and the probate of a will when the testator has already died. When the testator has already died, the admission to probate of that will not be the proceedings, it will be the start the settlement of estate.

We should also relate settlement of estate of decease persons to Rule 107, the Rule on Absentees.

When the law speaks about settlement of estates of deceased persons, the inference that we derive is that the fact that is sought to be established is that a person is dead. That is not necessarily true insofar as probate of will or intestacy is concerned. We have to relate it to the provisions of the NCC and FC on absentees, and also the provisions of special proceedings on absentees in Rule 10.

Even if the testator is not in fact dead, even if the problem is that the heirs, legatees, devisees and creditors are not certain whether or not the testator is dead, therefore, the court cannot simply issue an order declaring he is dead. Under our present rules, if there are antecedent facts that are proven by clear and convincing evidence, we can apply the presumption of death under the NCC, then we can commence a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate. If we go through the provisions of Rule 107 on absentees, the first essential is that a person has left properties without somebody in charge or without an administrator, and that his whereabouts are unknown. And then, he has disappeared for at least 2 years. On the second year of his absence, there could be a petition for the declaration of his

absence. In other words, being absent is a status under our procedural laws.

This person who has been declared an absentee cannot be an absentee forever. So there must come a time when the said status as an absentee could be utilized in order to settle his estate, and this is the situation contemplated in Rule 107. If there is enough proof of facts that will allow the court to conclude that the absentee is already dead, although he is not actually dead, we can commence proceedings. But the court will not issue an order declaring the absentee as presumptively dead.

A court does not have any authority at all to issue an order declaring a person dead by presumption. We just capitalize on the presumption given in the NCC, that under circumstances, a person is presumably dead.

Using that presumption, the remedy of the spouse, heirs, or any interested person is to file a petition for the settlement of the estate.

So, there could be a petition for the settlement of estates of a person who is certainly dead. The court will declare that this person is actually dead, and this can be easily proven by submission of a certificate of death. But if a certificate of death cannot be issued or the civil registrar is unwilling to issue a certificate of death because there is no certainty of the person’s death, but the antecedent facts proven before the courts show that we can now make a disputable presumption that the person is dead, the remedy is to file a petition for the settlement of his estate.

So it is not always correct to say that in settlement of estates of deceased persons, that person must be proven to have really died. That is not what the law requires. What the law requires is simply the demonstration or proof of certain facts upon which this disputable presumption of

death will be used in order to settle his estate.

Supposing there are certain facts which will lead to the conclusion that this person is presumably dead. There are proceedings initiated for the settlement of his estate.

While the proceedings are going on, or even after the closure of the settlement proceedings, the person suddenly reappears. Will the settlement of his estate be negated?

Not so. He can recover what is left of his properties. Because in settlement proceedings, we always involve the payment of his indebtedness to his creditors.

If the debts has already been paid, this person is not allowed to file for the recovery of the money or other properties that may have been delivered to the creditors or to the heirs of his estate.

But the procedure that is outlined in our Rules is about settlement of estate of deceased persons.

So that is the first particular fact that will be established in settlement of estate of deceased persons. The court will issue an order, let us say, in admitting the will to probate, the court will make a finding that the testator is already dead. Then, there will also be a finding as to the formal validity of the will.

With respect to the jurisdiction, the RoC is not expected to give us the standard in determining the jurisdiction of courts in settlement proceedings. The courts will rely on what BP 129 provides. In BP 129, there are 2 courts which are given authority to take cognizance of estate proceedings, the MTC and the RTC, depending upon the gross value of the estate, the same amount used as a standard in ascertaining the jurisdiction of MTC or RTC in money claims. But it is the gross value of the estate that will be the principal factor. Unlike in action reinvindicatoria, the assessed value of the property will be the

standard that will be determining the jurisdiction of court.

Which court has jurisdiction over the estate of the deceased?

A:

Regional Trial Court

Gross value of the estate exceeds 500,000 (within Metro Manila) or 400,000 (outside Metro Manila) State the rule on venue in

judicial settlement of estate of deceased persons.

A:

Resident

Court of the province/city where the deceased resided at the time of death, whether a citizen or alien

In special proceedings, one Rule that you should always bear in mind is that when a court entertains a special proceeding, that court, RTC or MTC, acts with a very limited jurisdiction. So, if the settlement is in the RTC, although the RTC is characterized as a court of general jurisdiction under BP 129, when an RTC tries a proceeding for settlement of the estate, the RTC acts with a limited jurisdiction. The same is true with the rest of special proceedings. When the RTC acts as a habeas corpus or amparo or habeas data court, the RTC acts with a very limited jurisdiction. In other words, what can be resolved by the RTC in these special proceedings will only be the issue that is raised in the petition. It cannot be expanded.

For instance, when the RTC acts as a settlement court, and there is a dispute between a stranger and the executor, concerning the ownership of a piece of land which the executor claims to be owned by the estate of the deceased, and which according to the stranger is owned by him, the settlement court has no authority to rule on that issue.

Title of this real property has to be resolved in an independent proceeding, an ordinary action of accion reinvindicatoria.

To illustrate why a habeas corpus, amparo or habeas data court has limited jurisdiction, in a

petition for habeas corpus, if the habeas corpus court makes a finding that the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of his liberty by the respondent, the habeas corpus court cannot award damages for unlawful deprivation of liberty. It is enough for the habeas corpus court to say that there was unlawful deprivation of liberty. But the court cannot go further by awarding damages in favor of the petitioner. That is always the rule that we follow in special proceedings. Any court in a special proceeding acts within a limited jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is limited to the issue that should be resolved by the special proceeding involved.

Q: May probate courts

determine issues of

ownership in a proceeding for the settlement of estate of decedent? Explain.

A:

GR: No, because probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

XPNS:

1. Provisionally, for the sole purpose of including the property in the inventory, without

prejudice to its final

determination in a separate action;

2. When all the parties are heirs of the decedent and they agreed to submit the issue of ownership to the probate court, provided that no rights of third persons are prejudiced;

3. If the question is one of collation or advancement; or 4. If the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and no rights of third parties are prejudiced.

(Agpalo, Handbook on Special Proceedings, pp. 10-12, 2003 ed.)

Q: The probate court ordered the inclusion of a parcel of land registered in the name of Richard in the inventory of the properties of the deceased Anna. Richard opposed the inclusion arguing that the probate court cannot determine the

issue of the ownership of the parcel of land inasmuch as the same was registered in his name. Is Richard correct?

A: Yes. In probate proceedings, if a property covered by Torrens title is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action, particularly, when as in the case at bar, possession of the property itself is in the persons named in the title (Luy Lim v. CA, G.R. No.

124715, Jan. 24, 2000).

It is not also correct to assume that when a person dies, his estate can be settled only through this special proceeding of settlement of estate. It is very clear from the Rules that if a person dies, the heirs can agree among themselves to settle his estate without going to court through the scheme of extra-judicial partition. They can agree to divide among themselves what has been left by the decedent. They can do so voluntarily. But there are certain essentials like there must be no will that has been left by the decedent, that there are no creditors, and that all heirs are of age, or if some are minors or incapacitated, they are properly represented properly by a guardian.

If a person dies, he has left sizable properties, and the spouse and the children are in good terms, there is no will, and there are no creditors, then the surviving spouse and the children can simply execute what is called a deed of extra-judicial partition.

If there is one heir, then he will just institute a document called an affidavit of self-adjudication.

The deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication will have to be registered with the Office of the

Registry of Property, especially when there are properties involved, in order to enable the parties or the only heir to get a title in their or his own name. By virtue of the presentation of the deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication, if there are titled properties that have been left, the title of the deceased will be cancelled, and a new one will be issued in the name of his heirs or only case, as the case may be.

What protection do we give to the creditors, if there are any, or even to the Republic of the Philippines?

Insofar as the Republic of the Philippines, the interest of the state will be in recovering taxes arising from the death of the person if he left sizable properties. Insofar as creditors are concerned, they are interested in getting full payment of their respective claims. The protection given by our Rules is that when it comes to taxes due, the RoD will not accept for registration an deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication unless the interested parties present to the civil registrar a certification from the BIR that taxes have been paid. So that solves the problem of the state. It may always be able to recover the taxes due, because if the BIR does not issue this certification, the civil registrar also will not accept for registration the deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication.

The situation of the creditors, if there are any, entails a bigger problem, because the RoD has the ministerial duty to accept a deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication for registration. The RoD simply cannot compel the parties to that deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of self-adjudication to present proof that there are really no creditors of the estate.

The RoD will have to rely on the say so of the parties who have signed the deed of extra-judicial partition or affidavit of

self-adjudication. And in that deed or affidavit, the parties are required to state that there is no will, and that there are no debts. So if these parties are telling a lie, they know that there are creditors but they state otherwise, then the creditors will be at the losing end. They need protection for their claims.

What the law provides is that if the estate settled consists of both personal and real properties, before the RoD will accept these documents for registration, the interested parties must file a bond equivalent to the value of the personal properties. Again, the parties can easily avoid this requirement by simply stating in the deed that there are no personal properties involved, so they need not pay the bond. If there are no personal properties of the estate, then there is no requirement for the interested parties to submit a bond to the RoD.

So if the estate consists purely of real titled properties, the RoD will admit the documents for the registration, he will cancel the title of the decedent and issue new ones in the name of the interested parties. But at the back of the title of the new owners, there is annotated a lien, that the property is subject to the claims of any creditors within a