01 Guevarra v.

Guevarra
No. 4480 (29 December 1943)
Guillen, J. / titaK

Subject Matter: Testamentary Succession; Allomand and disallowance of wills

Summary:
Deceased Victorino Guevarra exectued a will naming Ernesto (son) and Rosario (natural daughter) as legatees and
devisees. When Victorino died, Rosario who was in custody of the will, was never presented it to the court for probate.
Four years after Victorino’s death, Rosario filed a case against Ernesto to recover her legitime from him. She presented
the will in court to substantiate her claim that her father acknowledged her as a natural daughter, hence entitled to a
legitime. However, the SC ruled that the procedure adopted by Rosario was in violation of procedural law and an
attempt to circumvent and disregard the last will and testament of the decedent. It ruled that the probate of a will is
mandatory.

Doctrines:
 Probate of a will is mandatory.

Parties:
Petitioner Ernesto M. Guevarra (Ernesto)
Rosario Guevarra (Rosario) and
Respondent
Her husband, Pedro Buison

Facts:
August 26, 1931 - Ernesto is the legitimate son of the deceased, Victorino Guevarra (Victorino).

Rosario is the natural daughter of Victorino.

Victorino executed a will, with all formalities required by law, wherein he made the following bequests:

 Ernesto Guevarra (son) – gold ring, furniture, pictures, statues, religious objects
 Rosario Guevarra – a pair of earrings
 Candida Guevarra (step daughter) – a pair of earrings and gold chain
 Pio Guevarra (step son) - ring
 Angustia Posadas (second wife) – various pieces of jewelry

He also made the following devise:

 Rosario, Ernesto, Vicencio, Eduviges, Dionisia, Candida and Pio – 960 sq. m residential lot in Pangasinan
with its improvement
 Angustia Posadas – he confirmed the donation propter nuptias of 25 ha. of a 259 ha.parcel of land (large
parcel of land); additional 5 ha. of the same parcel of land.

July 12, 1933 - Subsequently, Victorino executed a deed of sale in favor of Ernesto, whereby Victorino conveyed to
Ernesto the southern half of the large parcel of land, in consideration of P1 and other valuable considerations (e.g
payment of all his debts and obligataions, his maintenance up to his death, and expenses of his last illness and
funeral expenses).

A title to the said lot was issued in the name of Ernesto.

September 27, 1933 – Victorino died. However, his last will and testament was never presented to the court for
probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate.

There was no record on whether the legatees received their respective legacies.
 But, it was known that Ernesto possessed the adjudicated land and had disposed of portions thereof to pay off debts
left by his father.

On the other hand, Rosario, who was in custody of her father’s last will and testament, did nothing judicially to
invoke the testamentary dispositions made in her favor.

However, four years after her father’s death, Rosario commenced an action against Ernesto to recover from the
latter what she claims to be her strict legitime as an acknowledged daughter of the deceased (i.e a portion of the
large parcel of land).

It was only during the trial that she presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of having it probated, but to
prove that Victorino had acknowledges her as his natural daughter.

In claiming her share of inheritance from Ernesto, her theory was that Victorino died intestate. She claimed that she
was acknowledged as a natural daughter, and because Victorino’s will was not probated, the assumption is that he
died intestate. Hence, the betterment (the sale?) made by the testator in favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.

Trial court and CA ruled in favor of Rosario.

Issues:

1. WON the procedure adopted by Rosario was proper. (NO)

2. WON the deed of sale and issuance of certificate of titled issue to Ernesto was valid and binding. (YES)

Ratio:

No – The procedure adopted by Rosario was in violation of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and
disregard the last will and testament of the decedent.

 Presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and
indispensable to its efficacy.
 Under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to Rule 76 (Civil Procedure), if the decedent left a will and no debts arid
the heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to
the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will.
 The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because unless the will is probated and
notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered
nugatory.
 Absent legatees and devisees, or such of them as may have no knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their
inheritance thru the collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among
themselves to the exclusion of others.

 In other words, even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and due
execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will
without first securing its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that "no
will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court"; and, second,
because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with and substituted by any
other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the
testator's right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and
legatees under the will thru the means provided by law, among which are the publication and the personal
notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees.
o Nothing shows that the legatees had received their respective legacies or that they had knowledge of
the existence and of the provisions of the will.
o Their rights under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on account of the
failure or refusal of the custodian (Rosario) of the will to present it to the court for probate.
 o Ernesto, who was named executor in the said will, did not take any step to have it presented to the
court for probate and did not signify his acceptance of the trust or refusal (formerly section 627 of the
Code of Civil Procedure), because according to him, the said will, insofar as the large parcel of land in
litigation is concerned, has been superseded by the deed of sale.

Yes - the deed of sale is valid.

Thus, one half of the land described in said certificate of title belongs to the estate of Victorino L. Guevara and the
other half to Ernesto M. Guevara in consideration of the latter's assumption of the obligation to pay all the debts of
the deceased.

o The SC did not find the conveyance of the southern portion of the land to Ernesto Anomalous. The
conveyance of the southern half of the hacienda to in consideration of the latter's assumption of the
obligation to pay all the debts of the deceased is valid and efficacious because: " (a) it has not been proven
that the charges imposed as a condition is [are] less than the value of the property; and (b) neither has it
been proven that the defendant did not comply with the conditions imposed upon him in the deed of
transfer.
o As to the northern portion, it was found the money with which Ernesto repurchased the northern half of the
large parcel of land from Rafael Puzon was not his own but his father's, it being the proceeds of the sale of a
parcel of land made by the Ernesto.
o The interested parties consented to the registration of the land in question in the name of Ernesto alone
subject to the implied trust on account of which he is under obligation to deliver and convey to them their
corresponding shares after all the debts of the original owner of said land had been paid.

Wherefore, that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which declares in effect that notwithstanding exhibit 2 and
the issuance of original certificate of title No. 51691 in the name of Ernesto M. Guevara, one half of the land described in
said certificate of title belongs to the estate of Victorino L. Guevara and the other half to Ernesto M. Guevara in
consideration of the latter's assumption of the obligation to pay all the debts of the deceased, is hereby affirmed; but
the judgment of said court insofar as it awards any relief to the respondent Rosario Guevara in this action is hereby
reversed and set aside, and the parties herein are hereby ordered to present the document exhibit A to the proper court
for probate in accordance with law, without prejudice to such action as the provincial fiscal of Pangasinan may take
against the responsible party or parties under section 4 of Rule 76. After the said document is approved and allowed by
the court as the last will .and testament of the deceased Victorino L. Guevara, the heirs and legatees therein named may
take such action, judicial or extrajudicial, as may be necessary to partition the estate of the testator, taking into
consideration the pronouncements made in part II of this opinion. No finding as to costs in any of the three instances.