Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Murao he was appointed as special

administrator and as such he

Topic: Validity of a Will
instituted an action against
41. Spouses Pastor v. CA, Reyes, CFI petitioners Spouses Pastor for
Judge, and Quemada reconveyance of properties belonging
Doctrine: For the validity of a legacy to Pastor Sr.’s estate, which included
to be determined vis-à-vis the the legacy supposedly conveyed to
legitime of compulsory heirs, the Quemada. In turn, Petitioners filed
intrinsic validity of the will must first their opposition to the probate of
be decided. Pastor Sr.’s will and Quemada’s
appointment as special administrator.
Quick Notes:
The Probate court allowed the will to
- As a rule, in a special proceeding
probate and the same was affirmed by
for the probate of a will, the issue
the CA and SC. For 2 years, Quemada
by and large is restricted to the
filed pleading after pleading for the
extrinsic validity of the will and the
payment of his legacy and seizure of
issue of ownership may only be
properties in relation to his legacy.
determined provisionally.
- For the validity of a legacy to be While the reconveyance suit was still
determined vis-à-vis the legitime of being litigated with the CFI of Cebu,
compulsory heirs, the intrinsic the Probate Court issued an order to
validity of the will must first be Atlas Consolidated Mining to remit to
decided. Quemada the 42% belonging to Pastor
- Without prior determination of Sr. and is due his estate, of which,
assets belonging to the estate, Quemada was authorized to retain
liquidation of his conjugal 75% as legatee. The Probate Court
partnership, determination and also garnished Pastor Jr.’s 33% share
payment of debts, and payment of in Atlas Consolidated Mining for the
estate tax, intrinsic validity cannot accumulated legacy of Quemada,
be ascertained. which amounted to over 2 Million
pesos. Pending a motion for
Facts: On June 5, 1966, Alvaro Pastor reconsideration filed by Spouses
Sr. died in Cebu and he was survived Pastor on the ground that the Probate
by his Spanish wife Sofia Bossio, their Court gravely abused its discretion in
two legitimate children petitioner prematurely deciding on the
Alvaro Pastor, Jr. and Sofia Pastor de ownership of royalties while the
Midgely, and an illegitimate childe determination of the intrinsic validity
named Lewellyn Quemada. 4 years of the will was still pending, the
after Pastor Sr.’s death, Lewelly Spouses filed a petition for certiorari
Quemada filed a petition for probate and prohibition with the CA.
of Pastor. Sr.’s holographic will, which
The CA initially denied the petition for
contained only 1 testamentary
being premature with a motion for
disposition of 30% of Pastor Sr.’s 42%
reconsideration pending with the
share in Atlas Consolidated Mining to
probate court. Thereafter, the Probate
Quemada. Upon motion of Quemada,
Court denied the Spouses motion for
reconsideration and declared the and delivered to the petitioner
question of intrinsic validity of the does not exceed the free portion of
will and ownership of mining the estate of the testator, but the
claims as finally adjudicated 8 same is subject to the outcome of
years before, in its initial order the reconveyance case.
allowing the will to probate. The Moreover, for the validity of
order rendered the reconveyance Quemada’s legacy to be
suit moot and academic but the determined vis-à-vis the legitime
Probate Court clarified that Pastor of compulsory heirs, the intrinsic
Sr.’s 42% share was just validity of Pastor Sr.’s will must
transferred to Quemada’s custody first be decided. An examination of
as special administrator. The CA the proceedings reveals that there
then denied a motion for had been no definitive
reconsideration on its dismissal of determination of the assets
Spouses Pastor’s petition for belonging to Pastor Sr.’s estate,
certiorari. Hence, this petition for liquidation of his conjugal
review by certiorari. partnership with wife Sofia Bossio,
Issue: W/N the initial Order determination of debts Pastor Sr.,
allowing the will to probate had or payment of estate tax. In fact,
already resolved the issues of only 7 years after the order to
ownership and intrinsic validity of allow the will to probate did the
the will? Probate Court scheduled its first
hearing on the intrinsic validity of
Ruling: NO. As a rule, in a special
the will.
proceeding for the probate of a
will, the issue by and large is Dispositive: CA decision is
restricted to the extrinsic validity REVERSED. The Order of execution
of the will and the issue of issued by the Probate Court as
ownership may only be determined well as all the Orders issued
provisionally. In the instant case, subsequent thereto in alleged
nowhere in the dispositive portion implementation of the initial
of the order allowing the will to Probate Order are hereby SET
probate, is there a declaration of ASIDE; and this case is remanded
ownership of specific properties. to the appropriate Regional Trial
On the contrary, the dispositive Court for proper proceedings.
portion reveal that ownership was
not resolved, as it confined itself
to the question of extrinsic validity
of the win and the need for and
propriety of appointing a special
administrator. The order merely
stated that the legacy to be given