SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129505. January 31, 2000]

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. ACITA !E LOS RE"ES #ILLI S, respondent.
[G.R. No. 133359. January 31, 2000]

OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. CO$RT O% A EALS, #ON. %ERNAN!O V. GOROS E, JR., &n '&( O))&*&a+ Ca,a*&-y a( r.(&/&n0 Ju/0. o) RTC1Ma2a-&, 3ran*' 41, an/ ACITA #ILLI S a( -'. a++.0./ .5.*u-r&5 o) -'. a++.0./ 6&++ o) -'. +a-. !r. Ar-uro /. San-o(, respondents. !ECISION
MEN!O7A, J.8 These are petitions for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Thirteenth and the Special Eighth Divisions of the Court of Appeals which ruled that petitioner has no right to intervene in the settlement of the estate of Dr. Arturo de Santos. The cases were consolidated considering that the involve the same parties and some of the issues raised are the same. The facts which gave rise to these two petitions are as follows! On "ul #$% &''(% Dr. Arturo de Santos% )ilipino and a resident of *a+ati Cit % filed a petition for pro,ate of his will -&. in the /egional Trial Court% 0ranch 1&% *a+ati% doc+eted as Sp. 2roc. No. *34##5. In his petition% Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no compulsor heirs6 that he had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos )oundation% Inc.6 that he disposed , his will his properties with an appro7imate value of not less than 2#%$$$%$$$.$$6 and that copies of said will were in the custod of the named e7ecutri7% private respondent 2acita de los /e es 2hillips. A cop of the will -#. was anne7ed to the petition for pro,ate.
& #

On )e,ruar &1% &''1% "udge )ernando V. 8orospe% "r. of /TC3*a+ati% 0ranch 1& issued an order granting the petition and allowing the will. The order reads! On $5 August &''(% the Court issued an Order setting the hearing of the petition on &# Septem,er &''(% at 9!5$ o:cloc+ in the morning% copies of which were served to Arturo de Santos )oundation% Inc. and *s. 2acita de los /e es 2hillips ;Officer:s /eturn% dated $4 Septem,er &''( attached to & #

the records<. =hen the case was called for hearing on the date set% no oppositor appeared nor an written opposition was ever filed and on motion of petitioner% he was allowed to adduce his evidence in support of the petition. 2etitioner personall appeared ,efore this Court and was placed on the witness stand and was directl e7amined , the Court through >free wheeling> ?uestions and answers to give this Court a ,asis to determine the state of mind of the petitioner when he e7ecuted the su,@ect will. After the e7amination% the Court is convinced that petitioner is of sound and disposing mind and not acting on duress% menace and undue influence or fraud% and that petitioner signed his Aast =ill and Testament on his own free and voluntar will and that he was neither forced nor influenced , an other person in signing it. )urthermore% it appears from the petition and the evidence adduced that petitioner in his lifetime% e7ecuted his Aast =ill and Testament ;E7hs. >A>% >A3&>% >A3#>% >A34>% >A3(>< at his residence situated at ' 0auhinia corner Intsia Streets% )or,es 2ar+% *a+ati Cit 6 said Aast =ill and Testament was signed in the presence of his three ;5< witnesses% namel % to wit! Dr. Elpidio Valencia ;E7hs. >A31>% >A3B>% >A39>% >A3&1>% >A3&13 A><% Att . Edward ". 0erenguer ;E7hs. >A35>% >A353A>% >A3'>% >A3&$>% C >A3&&><% and Att . Victoria C. delos /e es ;E7hs. >A3&#>% >A3&5>% >A3 &4>% >A3&B>% C >A3&9><% who in turn% in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of the witnesses signed the said Aast =ill and Testament and dul notariDed ,efore Notar 2u,lic Anna *elissa A. /osario ;E7h. >A3&(><6 on the actual e7ecution of the Aast =ill and Testament% pictures were ta+en ;E7hs. >0> to >035><. 2etitioner has no compulsor heirs and Arturo de Santos )oundation% Inc.% with address at No. ' 0auhinia corner Intsia Streets% )or,es 2ar+% *a+ati Cit has ,een named as sole legatee and devisee of petitioner:s properties% real and personal% appro7imatel valued at not less than 2# million% *s. 2acita de los /e es 2hillips was designated as e7ecutor and to serve as such without a ,ond. )rom the foregoing facts% the Court finds that the petitioner has su,stantiall esta,lished the material allegations contained in his petition. The Aast =ill and Testament having ,een e7ecuted and attested as re?uired , law6 that testator at the time of the e7ecution of the will was of sane mind andEor not mentall incapa,le to ma+e a =ill6 nor was it e7ecuted under duress or under the influence of fear or threats6 that it was in writing and e7ecuted in the language +nown and understood , the testator dul su,scri,ed thereof and attested and su,scri,ed , three ;5< credi,le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of another6 that the testator and all the attesting witnesses signed the Aast =ill and Testament

freel and voluntaril and that the testator has intended that the instrument should ,e his =ill at the time of affi7ing his signature thereto. =FE/E)O/E% as pra ed for , the petitioner ;testator himself< the petition for the allowance of the Aast =ill and Testament of Arturo de Santos is here, A22/OVED and AAAO=ED. Shortl after the pro,ate of his will% Dr. De Santos died on )e,ruar #1% &''1. On April 5% &''1% petitioner Octavio S. *aloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that% as the onl child of Alicia de Santos ;testator:s sister< and Octavio A. *aloles% Sr.% he was the sole full3,looded nephew and nearest of +in of Dr. De Santos. Fe li+ewise alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. 2etitioner thus pra ed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of letters of administration in his name. On the other hand% private respondent 2acita de los /e es 2hillips% the designated e7ecutri7 of the will% filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentar with 0ranch 1&. Aater% however% private respondent moved to withdraw her motion. This was granted% while petitioner was re?uired to file a memorandum of authorities in support of his claim that said court ;0ranch 1&< still had @urisdiction to allow his intervention. -5.
5

2etitioner filed his memorandum of authorities on *a &5% &''1. On the other hand% private respondent% who earlier withdrew her motion for the issuance of letters testamentar in 0ranch 1&% refiled a petition for the same purpose with the /egional Trial Court% *a+ati% which was doc+eted as Sp. 2roc. No. *34545 and assigned to 0ranch 1(. Gpon private respondent:s motion% "udge Salvador A,ad Santos of 0ranch 1( issued an order% dated "une #9% &''1% appointing her as special administrator of Dr. De Santos:s estate. On "ul #'% &''1% petitioner sought to intervene in Sp. 2roc. No. *34545 and to set aside the appointment of private respondent as special administrator. Fe reiterated that he was the sole and full ,looded nephew and nearest of +in of the testator6 that he came to +now of the e7istence of Sp. 2roc. No. *34545 onl , accident6 that the pro,ate proceedings in Sp. 2roc. No. *34##5 ,efore 0ranch 1& of the same court was still pending6 that private respondent misdeclared the true worth of the testator:s estate6 that private respondent was not fit to ,e the special administrator of the estate6 and that petitioner should ,e given letters of administration for the estate of Dr. De Santos. On August #9% &''1% "udge A,ad Santos ordered the transfer of Sp. 2roc. No. *34545 to 0ranch 1&% on the ground that >-it. is related to the case ,efore "udge 8orospe of /TC 0ranch 1& . . .>

It appears% however% that in Sp. 2roc. No. *34##5% "udge 8orospe had denied on August #1% &''1 petitioner:s motion for intervention. 2etitioner ,rought this matter to the Court of Appeals which% in a decision -4. promulgated on )e,ruar &5% &''9% upheld the denial of petitioner:s motion for intervention.
4

*eanwhile% "udge 8orospe issued an order% dated Septem,er 4% &''1% returning the records of Sp. 2roc. No. *34545 to 0ranch 1( on the ground that there was a pending case involving the Estate of Decedent Arturo de Santos pending ,efore said court. The order reads! Acting on the O/DE/ dated #9 August &''1 of 0ranch 1(% this Court% transferring this case to this 0ranch 1& on the ground that this case is related with a case ,efore this Court% let this case ,e returned to 0ranch 1( with the information that there is no related case involving the ESTATE O) DECEDENT A/TG/O DE SANTOS pending ,efore this 0ranch. There is% however% a case filed , A/TG/O DE SANTOS% as petitioner under /ule B1 of the /ules of Court for the Allowance of his will during his lifetime doc+eted as S2. 2/OC. NO. *34##5 which was alread decided on &1 )e,ruar &''1 and has ,ecome final. It is noted on records of Case No. *34##5 that after it ,ecame final% herein 2etitioner 2acita de los /e es 2hillips filed a *OTION )O/ TFE ISSGANCE O) AETTE/S TESTA*ENTA/H% which was su,se?uentl withdrawn after this Court% during the hearing% alread ruled that the motion could not ,e admitted as the su,@ect matter involves a separate case under /ule B9 of the /ules of Court% and movant withdrew her motion and filed this case ;No. 4545<. Octavio de Santos *aloles -II. filed a *OTION )O/ INTE/VENTION ,efore Case No. *34##5 and this motion was alread DENIED in the order ;0ranch 1&< of #1 August &''1 li+ewise for the same grounds that the matter is for a separate case to ,e filed under /ule B9 of the /ules of Court and cannot ,e included in this case filed under /ule B1 of the /ules of Court. It is further noted that it is a matter of polic that consolidation of cases must ,e approved , the 2residing "udges of the affected 0ranches. Initiall % in his decision dated Septem,er #5% &''1% -(. "udge A,ad Santos appeared firm in his position that > . . . it would ,e improper for ;0ranch 1(< to hear and resolve the petition ;Sp. 2roc. No. *34545<%> considering that the pro,ate proceedings were commenced with 0ranch 1&. Fe thus ordered the transfer of the records ,ac+ to the latter
(

4 (

,ranch. Fowever% he later recalled his decision and too+ cogniDance of the case >to e7pedite the proceedings.> Thus% in his Order% dated Octo,er #&% &''1% he stated! Considering the refusal of the Fon. )ernando V. 8orospe% "r. of 0ranch 1& to continue hearing this case notwithstanding the fact that said ,ranch ,egan the pro,ate proceedings of the estate of the deceased and must therefore continue to e7ercise its @urisdiction to the e7clusion of all others% until the entire estate of the testator had ,een partitioned and distri,uted as per Order dated #5 Septem,er &''1% this ,ranch ;/egional Trial Court 0ranch 1(< shall ta+e cogniDance of the petition if onl to e7pedite the proceedings% and under the concept that the /egional Trial Court of *a+ati Cit is ,ut one court. )urnish a cop of this order to the Office of the Chief @ustice and the Office of the Court Administrator% of the Supreme Court6 the Fon. )ernando V. 8orospe% "r.6 2acita De Aos /e es 2hillips% 2etitioner6 and Octavio de Santos *aloles% Intervenor. On Novem,er 4% &''1% "udge A,ad Santos granted petitioner:s motion for intervention. 2rivate respondent moved for a reconsideration ,ut her motion was denied , the trial court. She then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which% on )e,ruar #1% &''B% rendered a decision -1. setting aside the trial court:s order on the ground that petitioner had not shown an right or interest to intervene in Sp. 2roc. No. *34545.
1

Fence% these petitions which raise the following issues! &. =hether or not the Fonora,le /egional Trial Court 3 *a+ati% 0ranch 1& has lost @urisdiction to proceed with the pro,ate proceedings upon its issuance of an order allowing the will of Dr. Arturo de Santos #. =hether or not the Fonora,le ;/egional Trial Court 3 *a+ati% 0ranch 1(< ac?uired @urisdiction over the petition for issuance of letters testamentar filed , ;private< respondent. 5. =hether or not the petitioner% ,eing a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos% has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentar filed , the respondent. 4. =hether or not ;private< respondent is guilt of forum shopping in filing her petition for issuance of letters testamentar with the /egional Trial Court 3 *a+ati% 0ranch 1( +nowing full well that the pro,ate proceedings involving the same testate estate of the decedent is still pending with the /egional Trial Court 3 *a+ati% 0ranch 1&.

First. 2etitioner contends that the pro,ate proceedings in 0ranch 1& of /TC3*a+ati did not terminate upon the issuance of the order allowing the will of Dr. De Santos. Citing the cases of Santiesteban v. Santiesteban -B. and Tagle v. Manalo% -9. he argues that the proceedings must continue until the estate is full distri,uted to the lawful heirs% devisees% and legatees of the testator% pursuant to /ule B5% I& of the /ules of Court. Conse?uentl % petitioner contends that 0ranch 1( could not lawfull act upon private respondent:s petition for issuance of letters testamentar .
B 9

The contention has no merit. In cases for the pro,ate of wills% it is well3settled that the authorit of the court is limited to ascertaining the e7trinsic validit of the will% i.e.% whether the testator% ,eing of sound mind% freel e7ecuted the will in accordance with the formalities prescri,ed , law. -'.
'

Ordinaril % pro,ate proceedings are instituted onl after the death of the testator% so much so that% after approving and allowing the will% the court proceeds to issue letters testamentar and settle the estate of the testator. The cases cited , petitioner are of such nature. In fact% in most @urisdictions% courts cannot entertain a petition for pro,ate of the will of a living testator under the principle of am,ulator nature of wills. -&$.
&$

Fowever% Art. 959 of the Civil Code authoriDes the filing of a petition for pro,ate of the will filed , the testator himself. It provides! Civil Code% Art. 959. No will shall pass either real or personal propert unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the /ules of Court. The testator himself ma % during his lifetime% petition the court having @urisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case% the pertinent provisions of the /ules of Court for the allowance of wills after the testator:s death shall govern. The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional /ules of Court as ma ,e necessar for the allowance of wills on petition of the testator. Su,@ect to the right of appeal% the allowance of the will% either during the lifetime of the testator or after his death% shall ,e conclusive as to its due e7ecution. /ule B1% I& li+ewise provides! Sec. & Who may petition for the allowance of will. 3 An e7ecutor% devisee% or legatee named in a will% or an other person interested in the B 9 ' &$

estate% ma % at an time after the death of the testator% petition the court having @urisdiction to have the will allowed% whether the same ,e in his possession or not% or is lost or destro ed. The testator himself ma % during his lifetime% petition in the court for the allowance of his will. The rationale for allowing the pro,ate of wills during the lifetime of testator has ,een e7plained , the Code Commission thus! *ost of the cases that reach the courts involve either the testamentar capacit of the testator or the formalities adopted in the e7ecution of wills. There are relativel few cases concerning the intrinsic validit of testamentar dispositions. It is far easier for the courts to determine the mental condition of a testator during his lifetime than after his death. )raud% intimidation and undue influence are minimiDed. )urthermore% if a will does not compl with the re?uirements prescri,ed , law% the same ma ,e corrected at once. The pro,ate during the testator:s life% therefore% will lessen the num,er of contest upon wills. Once a will is pro,ated during the lifetime of the testator% the onl ?uestions that ma remain for the courts to decide after the testator:s death will refer to the intrinsic validit of the testamentar dispositions. It is possi,le% of course% that even when the testator himself as+s for the allowance of the will% he ma ,e acting under duress or undue influence% ,ut these are rare cases. After a will has ,een pro,ated during the lifetime of the testator% it does not necessaril mean that he cannot alter or revo+e the same ,efore his death. Should he ma+e a new will% it would also ,e allowa,le on his petition% and if he should die ,efore he has had a chance to present such petition% the ordinar pro,ate proceeding after the testator:s death would ,e in order. -&&.
&&

Thus% after the allowance of the will of Dr. De Santos on )e,ruar &1% &''1% there was nothing else for 0ranch 1& to do e7cept to issue a certificate of allowance of the will pursuant to /ule B5% I&# of the /ules of Court. There is% therefore% no ,asis for the ruling of "udge A,ad Santos of 0ranch 1( of /TC3*a+ati that 3 0ranch 1& of the /egional Trial Court of *a+ati having ,egun the pro,ate proceedings of the estate of the deceased% it continues and shall continue to e7ercise said @urisdiction to the e7clusion of all others. It should ,e noted that pro,ate proceedings do not cease upon the allowance or disallowance of a will ,ut continues up to such time that the entire estate of the testator had ,een partitioned and distri,uted.

&&

The fact that the will was allowed during the lifetime of the testator meant merel that the partition and distri,ution of the estate was to ,e suspended until the latter:s death. In other words% the petitioner% instead of filing a new petition for the issuance of letters testamentar % should have simpl filed a manifestation for the same purpose in the pro,ate court. -&#.
&#

2etitioner% who defends the order of 0ranch 1( allowing him to intervene% cites /ule B5% I& which states! Where estate of deceased persons settled. 3 If the decedent is an inha,itant of the 2hilippines at the time of his death% whether a citiDen or an alien% his will shall ,e proved% or letters of administration granted% and his estate settled% in the Court of )irst Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death% and if he is an inha,itant of a foreign countr % the Court of )irst Instance of an province in which he had estate. The court first ta+ing cogniDance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent% shall e7ercise @urisdiction to the e7clusion of all other courts. The @urisdiction assumed , a court% so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent% or of the location of his estate% shall not ,e contested in a suit or proceeding% e7cept in an appeal from that court% in the original case% or when the want of @urisdiction appears on the record. The a,ove rule% however% actuall provides for the venue of actions for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. In Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals% it was held! -&5.
&5

The afore?uoted Section &% /ule B5 ;formerl /ule B(% Section &<% specificall the clause >so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent% or of the location of the state%> is in realit a matter of venue% as the caption of the /ule indicates! >Settlement of Estate of Deceased 2ersons. Venue and 2rocesses.> It could not have ,een intended to define the @urisdiction over the su,@ect matter% ,ecause such legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merel with procedural matters. 2rocedure is one thing% @urisdiction over the su,@ect matter is another. The power or authorit of the court over the su,@ect matter >e7isted was fi7ed ,efore procedure in a given cause ,egan.> That power or authorit is not altered or changed , procedure% which simpl directs the manner in which the power or authorit shall ,e full and @ustl e7ercised. There are cases though that if the power is not e7ercised conforma,l with the provisions of the procedural law% purel % the court attempting to e7ercise it loses the power to e7ercise it legall . Fowever% this does not amount to a loss of @urisdiction over the su,@ect matter. /ather% it means that the court ma there, lose @urisdiction over the person or that the @udgment ma there, ,e rendered defective for lac+ of something essential to sustain it. The appearance of this provision in the procedural law at once raises a &# &5

strong presumption that it has nothing to do with the @urisdiction of the court over the su,@ect matter. In plain words% it is @ust a matter of method% of convenience to the parties. Indeed% the @urisdiction over pro,ate proceedings and settlement of estates with appro7imate value of over 2&$$%$$$.$$ ;outside *etro *anila< or 2#$$%$$$.$$ ;in *etro *anila< ,elongs to the regional trial courts under 0.2. 0lg. &#'% as amended. The different ,ranches comprising each court in one @udicial region do not possess @urisdictions independent of and incompati,le with each other. -&4.
&4

It is noteworth that% although /ule B5% I& applies insofar as the venue of the petition for pro,ate of the will of Dr. De Santos is concerned% it does not ,ar other ,ranches of the same court from ta+ing cogniDance of the settlement of the estate of the testator after his death. As held in the leading case of acalso v. !amolote! -&(.
&(

The various ,ranches of the Court of )irst Instance of Ce,u under the )ourteenth "udicial District% are a coordinate and co3e?ual courts% and the totalit of which is onl one Court of )irst Instance. The @urisdiction is vested in the court% not in the @udges. And when a case is filed in one ,ranch% @urisdiction over the case does not attach to the ,ranch or @udge alone% to the e7clusion of the other ,ranches. Trial ma ,e held or proceedings continue , and ,efore another ,ranch or @udge. It is for this reason that Section (B of the "udiciar Act e7pressl grants to the Secretar of "ustice% the administrative right or power to apportion the cases among the different ,ranches% ,oth for the convenience of the parties and for the coordination of the wor+ , the different ,ranches of the same court. The apportionment and distri,ution of cases does not involve a grant or limitation of @urisdiction% the @urisdiction attaches and continues to ,e vested in the Court of )irst Instance of the province% and the trials ma ,e held , an ,ranch or @udge of the court. Necessaril % therefore% 0ranch 1( of the /TC of *a+ati Cit has @urisdiction over Sp. 2roc. No. *34545. Second. 2etitioner claims the right to intervene in and oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentar filed , private respondent. Fe argues that% as the nearest ne7t of +in and creditor of the testator% his interest in the matter is material and direct. In ruling that petitioner has no right to intervene in the proceedings ,efore 0ranch 1( of /TC3*a+ati Cit % the Court of Appeals held! The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will of the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsor heir of the latter. As the onl and nearest collateral relative of the decedent% he can inherit from the latter onl in case of intestac . Since the decedent has left a will &4 &(

which has alread ,een pro,ated and disposes of all his properties the private respondent can inherit onl if the said will is annulled. Fis interest in the decedent:s estate is% therefore% not direct or immediate. Fis claim to ,eing a creditor of the estate is a ,elated one% having ,een raised for the first time onl in his repl to the opposition to his motion to intervene% and% as far as the records show% not supported , evidence. . . . . -T.he opposition must come from one with a direct interest in the estate or the will% and the private respondent has none. *oreover% the ground cited in the private respondent:s opposition% that the petitioner has deli,eratel misdeclared the truth worth and value of the estate% is not relevant to the ?uestion of her competenc to act as e7ecutor. Section #% /ule B1 of the /ules of Court re?uires onl an allegation of the pro,a,le value and character of the propert of the estate. The true value can ,e determined later on in the course of the settlement of the estate. -&1.
&1

/ule B'% I& provides! "pposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for administration. 3 An person interested in a will ma state in writing the grounds wh letters testamentar should not issue to the persons named therein as e7ecutors% or an of them% and the court% after hearing upon &1 *AAOAES VS. 2FIAAI2S "anuar 5&% #$$$ )acts! A% during his lifetime% filed a petition for pro,ate of his will in 0ranch 1&% claiming that he had no compulsor heirs and left all his properties to a foundation. Fe named D as e7ecutri7. The will was allowed and A su,se?uentl died. 2 filed a motion for intervention claiming to ,e A:s nephew while D filed a motion for issuance of letters testamentar which D later withdrew. D refiled her motion with 0ranch 1(. 0ranch 1( appointed D as special administrator ,ut later ordered the transfer of D:s case to 0ranch 1&. Fowever% 0ranch 1& remanded the second case ,ac+ to 0ranch 1(. Issue! =hether 0ranch 1( has @urisdiction. Feld! Hes. After 0ranch 1& allowed the will of A% it had nothing else to do e7cept to issue a certificate of allowance of the will pursuant to /ule B5 I&# of the /ules of Court. After A:s death% insofar as the venue of the petition for pro,ate of the will of A is concerned% it does not ,ar other ,ranches of the same court from ta+ing cogniDance of the settlement of the estate of the testator after his death. Thus% 0ranch 1( has @urisdiction.

notice% shall pass upon the sufficienc of such grounds. A petition ma % at the same time% ,e filed for letters of administration with the will anne7ed. Gnder this provision% it has ,een held that an >interested person> is one who would ,e ,enefited , the estate% such as an heir% or one who has a claim against the estate% such as a creditor% and whose interest is material and direct% not merel incidental or contingent.
&B

-&B.

Even if petitioner is the nearest ne7t of +in of Dr. De Santos% he cannot ,e considered an >heir> of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentar succession that one who has no compulsor or forced heirs ma dispose of his entire estate , will. Thus% Art. 94# of the Civil Code provides! One who has no compulsor heirs ma dispose , will of all his estate or an part of it in favor of an person having capacit to succeed. One who has compulsor heirs ma dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of said heirs. Compulsor heirs are limited to the testator:s 3 ;&< Aegitimate children and descendants% with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants6 ;#< In default of the foregoing% legitimate parents and ascendants% with respect to their legitimate children and descendants6 ;5< The widow or widower6

;4< Ac+nowledged natural children% and natural children , legal fiction6 ;(< Other illegitimate children referred to in Article #9B of the Civil Code. -&9.
&9

2etitioner% as nephew of the testator% is not a compulsor heir who ma have ,een preterited in the testator:s will. Nor does he have an right to intervene in the settlement proceedings ,ased on his allegation that he is a creditor of the deceased. Since the testator instituted or named an e7ecutor in his will% it is incum,ent upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. As we stated in "#aeta v. $ecson! -&'.
&'

&B &9 &'

The choice of his e7ecutor is a precious prerogative of a testator% a necessar concomitant of his right to dispose of his propert in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence% one who can ,e trusted to carr out his wishes in the disposal of his estate. The curtailment of this right ma ,e considered a curtailment of the right to dispose. Onl if the appointed e7ecutor is incompetent% refuses the trust% or fails to give ,ond ma the court appoint other persons to administer the estate. -#$. None of these circumstances is present in this case.
#$

Third. 2etitioner contends that private respondent is guilt of forum shopping when she filed the petition for issuance of letters testamentar ;Sp. 2roc. No. *34545< while the pro,ate proceedings ;Sp. 2roc. No. *34##5< were still pending. According to petitioner% there is identit of parties% rights asserted% and reliefs pra ed for in the two actions which are founded on the same facts% and a @udgment in either will result in res %udicata in the other. This contention has no merit. As stated earlier% the petition for pro,ate was filed , Dr. De Santos% the testator% solel for the purpose of authenticating his will. Gpon the allowance of his will% the proceedings were terminated. On the other hand% the petition for issuance of letters testamentar was filed , private respondent% as e7ecutor of the estate of Dr. De Santos% for the purpose of securing authorit from the Court to administer the estate and put into effect the will of the testator. The estate settlement proceedings commenced , the filing of the petition terminates upon the distri,ution and deliver of the legacies and devises to the persons named in the will. Clearl % there is no identit ,etween the two petitions% nor was the latter filed during the pendenc of the former. There was% conse?uentl % no forum shopping. 9#ERE%ORE% the petition is DENIED and the decisions of the Court of Appeals are here, A))I/*ED. SO OR!ERE!. ellosillo& 'Chairman(& )uisumbing& uena& and *e +eon& ,r.& ,,.& concur.

#$