Jurado, Ralph E.

Special Proceedings

Alfredo Hilad Lopez Sugar Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 164108; May 8, 2009)

Facts:

Herein Private Respondent was the wife of the herein decedent surviving together
with her were their only daughter. At the time of death of herein decedent two civil
cases were pending.

Preceding to the said facts herein private respondents was appointed as

administrator of the estate of herein decedent, subsequently after the submission of
the inventory of the lists of the liabilities and properties of the estate, herein petitioner
filed a motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, praying they be furnished all the process and
orders pertaining to the intestate proceedings but such was opposed by private
respondent on the ground that the said petitioners have no right to intervene on the
intestate proceedings.

The RTC then decided on the said motion and thereafter denied the motion of the
herein petitioner them being not an interested parties in the said proceedings, upon
raising the said decision on appeal the CA also denied the said appeal. Thus leading to
the question at hand.

Issue:

Whether or Not Petitioners should be permitted in intervening on the said

proceedings under the Rules on Special Proceedings.

Held:

The court answered on the negative stating that the claims of herein petitioners
against the decedent should be settled in a separate civil case and not in the present
intestate proceedings.

The argument of herein petitioners should have been given enough merit under
the raised Rules on Special Proceedings had it been based on contract, whether express
or implied they should have filed their claims even if contingent under the aegis of the
notice to creditors be issued by the court immediately after the issuance of such notice.
However, it appears that the claims against the decedent were based on tort and such
does not fall under the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required
under Rule 86.

The petitioner’s reliance on the case of Dinglasan is worth of merit as the court
cited “the rulings of this court have always been to the effect that in the special
proceeding for the settlement of estate of a deceased person, persons, not heirs,
intervening therein to protect their interests are allowed to do so to protect the same
but not for a decision on their action.”

The Rules on Special proceedings do not provide a creditor or any person

interested in the estate, the right to participate in every aspect of the testate or
intestate proceedings, but instead provides for specific instances when such person
may accordingly act in those proceedings, the court deemed that while there is no
general right to intervene on the part of the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek
certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the
Rules, if the prayer or reliefs sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate
and there is no other modality under the Rules by which such interest can be protected.
 Advincula vs. Teodoro

(G.R. No. L-9282; May 31,1956)

Facts:

Josef Lacson Advincula allegedly died intestate and so her husband herein
petitioner Emilio initiated a Special Proceeding for the settlement of her intestate
estate and was appointed as regular administrator. Subsequent to such appointment
brothers of the deceased submitted an alleged will of Josefa and petitioned for the
probate of the said will.

The said probate was then contested by herein petitioner alleging that the will was
a forgery. One of the brothers then filed a motion that he be appointed administrator
of the estate, he being appointed the executor in the will and the petitioner is
“incompetent, incapable and unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being foreign
to the estate and without changing or removing him as such would be disastrous to the
estate and to the heirs named in the will of the decedent”

The said motion was opposed by herein petitioner but upon hearing the main
counsel of the petitioner was not present and such led to the appointment of the said
brother and the court stated that the allegations as to the competence of herein
petitioner was “well-founded”

Issue:

Whether or Not the writ of Certiorari filed by herein petitioner for Grave Abuse of
Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction be granted.

Held

The court held on the affirmative stating that although the private respondent was
appointed in the alleged will as executor, it is not sufficient ground to annul petitioner’s
appointment as administrator as the provision in the will cannot be enforced until the
said document has been allowed probate (citing rule 79.4).

The discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of the
deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon
the assumption that he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters
of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the
alleged will has been “proved and allowed by the court” (citing rule83.1).

Herein petitioner has not been found guilty of any specific act or omission
constituting one of the legal grounds enumerated in Rule 83 Sec. 2, of the Rules of
Court for the Removal of an executor or administrator.
 Azuela v. Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 122880; April 12 2006)

Facts:

Herein petitioner sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo.
However, this was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who was Attorney-In-Fact of the “12
legitimate heirs” of the decednt. According her the will was forged and imbued wit
several fatal defects.

One of the defects was one mainly about the will not being properly acknowledged.
The notary public only affixed or stated “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong ika-10 ng
Hunyo 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila” such does not appear to be an
acknowledgment but a mere jurat.

On the defense of herein petitioner he raised that the requirement under Article
805 of the Civil Code is merely directory and that is susceptible to the “substantial
compliance rule”

Issue:

Whether or Not the will is fatally defective

Held:

The High Court ruled in the affirmative stating that, the will is fatally defective
because by no manner of contemplation such could be construed as an
acknowledgement.

An acknowledgment is an act of one who has executed a deed in going before

some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involnes an
extra step undertaken whereby the signore actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act
and deed.

It might be possible to construe the averment as ajurat, even though it does not
hew to the usual language thereof, A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary
certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the
executor.

Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will
would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Art. 806 and 805 is
that the will is acknowledged and not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does
not present any textual proof, much less on under oath, that the decedent and the
instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The
acknowledgment made in a will provides for another all-important legal safeguard
against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator.