10.

MARGARITA SALVADOR vs. THE HON. JUDGE ANDRES STA. MARIA

20 SCRA 603

FACTS:
Seven parcels of land were owned by Celestino Salvador.

In 1941, he executed a deed of sale over them in favor of the spouses Alfonso and Anatolia.

In 1955, Celestino Salvador filed a suit for reconveyance of said parcels of land, alleging that the sale was void for
lack of consideration.

While the case was still pending, Celestino Salvador died, testate.

His 21 heirs substituted as plaintiffs in the action for reconveyance.

Meanwhile, special proceedings for the probate of his will was instituted in RTC Bulacan.

In the suit for reconveyance, the court rendered judgment, ordering the spouses Alfonso and Anatolia, to reconvey the
parcels of land to the 21 heirs.

About three years later, pursuant to an order of the RTC Bulacan, in the testacy proceedings, one of the parcels of land
involved, Lot 6, should be sold so that the proceeds will be use to pay the debtors of the decedent. The PNB bought
the Lot 6 at P41,184.00. Said amount was then deposited in the same bank by the administrator, subject to Court order.

The 21 heirs contend that the properties involved having been ordered by final judgment reconveyed to them, not to
the estate the same are not properties of the estate but their own, and thus, not liable for debts of the estate.

ISSUE: Whether or not the properties should be distributed to the heirs in accordance with the final judgment in the
reconveyance suit, without the debts of the estate being first satisfied.

HELD: No. The right of the heirs to specific, distributive shares of inheritance does not become finally determinable
until all the debts of the estate are paid. Until then, in the face of said claims, their rights cannot be enforced, are
inchoate, and subject to the existence of a residue after payment of the debts.

Therefore, they cannot distribute said properties among themselves as substituted heirs without the debts of the estate
being first satisfied.
43.

JOSE RIVERA vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J. RIVERA

182 SCRA 322

FACTS: Venancio Rivera, a prominent and wealthy resident of Pampanga, died. Jose Rivera, claiming to
be the only surviving legitimate son of the deceased, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration over Venancio's estate. Adelaido J. Rivera opposed and denied that Jose was the son of the
decedent. Adelaido contended that Venancio was his father and did not die intestate but in fact left two
holographic wills. Adelaido also then filed a petition for the probate of the holographic wills, to which Jose
also opposed. The trial court found that Jose was not the son of the decedent but of a different Venancio
Rivera hence, Jose had no claim to the estate because the decedent was not his father. The holographic wills
were also admitted to probate. On appeal, the IAC affirmed the same. The IAC considered the holographic
wills valid because it found them to have been written, dated and signed by the testator himself in
accordance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. It also held there was no necessity of presenting the three
witnesses required under Article 811 because the authenticity of the wills had not been questioned. The
existence and therefore also the authenticity of the holographic wills were questioned by Jose. He opposed
the holographic wills submitted by Adelaido and claimed that they were spurious.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was no necessity of presenting the three witnesses required under Article 811
because the authenticity of the wills had not been questioned.

HELD: Yes. The Court held that Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate
is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no personality to contest the wills and his opposition
thereto did not have the legal effect of requiring the three witnesses. The testimony of Zenaida and Venancio
Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the wills as having been written and signed by their father, was sufficient.