Preliminaries: kamusta midterms, some guesses what may be included in the MCQs
-exhaust all the possible issues
In short: PATAY!!!
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
-problem: rules are so long, but you'll get lost in the objective
e.g. Rules on settlement of estate - few principles you should bear in mind. The rest, you'll just file something in court:
- If there's a will, (there's a way) there should be probate.
- There are only two ways of settling an estate: judicial or extrajudicial
- judicial
- Summary settlement
- Partition
- Petition for settlement of the estate/probate of the will/petition for appointment of special administration/petition for letters of administration/petition to determine whether the advances have been made, whether legitime has been impaired
- For every property that belongs to the estate, you have to file a motion for authority to sell the property - even if you are an heir of the decedent (you have interest, but you're not an owner of the property)
- Re claims of other people:
- If money claims, already liquid: could just file a notice of claim with the estate
- If actions that survive: should be brought by the administrator/executor on behalf of the estate or against the administrator/executor
*note when the decedent is a party to a pending action - what would happen to the action, what are needed for the case to continue...
- Re: Administrator: many qualifications
-but usually, there is a special administrator, appointment and removal of whom is purely discretionary.
-there are actually only 3 duties:
- Inventory
- Accounting
- Distribution?
-why take long?
- Multiple appeals allowed
- Parties do not agree
- Probate of the will is just extrinsic validity - there are probably other issues also with intrinsic validity
- Inventory of property pa lang, problematic na!
Rule 72 Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
Distinction between “civil action” and “special proceeding” - Natcher v. CA 366 SCRA 385
Distinction:
| Civil action | Special proceedings |
| Enforcement or protection of a right or ...lof a wrong | Petitioner wants to establish a status, right or a particular fact |
| Requires pleadings | No formal pleadings are required, unless required |
| Remedy prescribed by the rules | Remedy granted by motions |
Determination of heirship – Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran GR 155555 Aug 16, 2005
F: 1 decedent who married twice. His daughter with first wife who also died already made an affidavit of adjudication by the sole heir and was able to acquire a TCT in her name over the sole property of the estate. The son and the second wife filed an ORDINARY ACTION For annulment of the affidavit and the TCT, arguing that the daughter perjured her affidavit. During pre-trial conference, one of the issues presented was with regards which of the marriages were valid and who were the heirs of the deceased. Evidence were presented before the TC but TC dismissed the action on the ground of lack of COA (no determination yet of the rights of the second family as heirs) and lack of jurisdiction (a TC in an ordinary civil action cannot rule on the issue of determination of heirship). CA affirmed TC judgment.
H: GR is that a TC in the ordinary action does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of heirship, which must be determined in a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased. However, exceptional cases, under which this case falls, would exist where the court would still allow the TC to determine heirship issue.
Termination of proceeding – Tabuada v. Ruiz GR 168799 Jun 27, 2008
Sec 2 – Hilado v. CA GR 164108 May 8, 2009
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons
Rule 73 Venue and Process- -
Residence: something permanent physical presence, but not necessarily the domicile of the decedent
Limited jurisdiction of probate court - Camaya v. Patulandon, GR 144915 23 Feb 2004;
F: Reyes made an notarized will, had the will probated, the sole heir was grandson. Codicil made, now dividing the property to her children plus grandson. But codicil not probated. So grandson was able to transfer property to his name, innocent purchasers were able to buy the property. Probate court held that the sale and the title were null and void.
H: probate court's limited jurisidction to determining WON properties should be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered
-cannot declare title to a property void - should bring in separate ordinary civil action
*what if a property alleged to be the decedent's is in the name of another, should it be included - no. But should manifest that there is such a property, and if later proven that the property belonged to the decedent, and should be included in the inventory
*what if husband dies, what happens to the conjugal properties: should be decided in the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse
Could the other surviving spouse sell properties, alleging one half is hers/his? Not the property, but can sell the right. Should wait for the settlement of the estate
Pacioles v. Chuatoco-Ching GR 127920 Aug 9, 2005;
Heirs of Doromio v. Heirs of Doromio GR 169454; 541 SCRA 479;
Reyes v. Sotero, et al., GR No. 167405, Feb 16, 2006
Termination of the special proceeding - Munsayac-De Villa, v. CA 414 SCRA 436
Meaning of residence – San Luis v. San Luis Feb 6, 2007
Rule 74 Summary Settlement of Estates- -
-actually encompasses extrajudicial mode of settlement of estate
-no will + no debts + all heirs agree = extrajudicial settlement
*the two year period: present publication, plus extrajudicial partition, then give titles with annotation that those who are claiming these properties has 2 years to claim so
*bond: with registry of deeds: not going to answer for wrongful transfer of real properties, but only for personal property which is difficult to track once wrongfully disposed. As to the real properties, the 2 year prescription period and annotation on the title is sufficient protection.
Two year prescriptive period - Pedrosa v. CA, 353 SCRA 620
F: Adopted daughter not included in the extrajudicial settlement so she filed an action before the court, saying that she has the right to be included. Issue is the prescription period for her action - whether the period should be 2 years (R74) or 4 years (NCC, on the ground of fraud)
H: Adopted daughter has 4 years from which to file: fraudulently not included in the extrajudicial settlement
Extrajudicial partition - Pada-Kilario, et al. vs. CA et al., GR 134329, 19 Jan 2000
F: heirs executed an agreement dividing estate among themselves, failed to notarize it
H: Still valid. Registration requirements just for the protection of creditors. Since no creditors, then valid.
*but ma'am wonders how it was transferred since it is required that before doing so, transfer taxes should first be paid
Rule 75 Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary- -
Probate mandatory - Pascual v. CA, 409 SCRA 105
F: three siblings...one sold share to consolacion, the other to remedios....
H: until the will admitted in probate, no transfer of ownership
-so can't claim yet that she was a devisee
Probate proceeding in rem – Alaban v. CA GR 156021 Sept 23, 2005
False will – Obando v People GR 138696 July 7, 2010
F: Jose Figueras died intestate, survived by wife and sons in first marriage. Those heirs filed intestate proceedings, wife made administratrix. Wife died pending the proceedings, stepson made the administrator. Nephew of wife filed petition for probate for will of wife which allegedly bequeathed to Obando some properties of the conjugal property. Stepsons opposed, saying it was forged. Intestate proceedings of husband and wife consolidated. RTC denied Obando's application to be made administrator; CA reversed, named him co-administrator. By reason of forged will, Obando was able to take possession of the properties named in the will. Later on, when asked for accounting, Obando failed to present accounting.
-Later on, the stepsons sued Obando for estafa through falsification of public document. Stipulated that whatever documentary evidence used in specpro would be utilized in criminal case. Expert witnesses presented from NBI and PNB as to authenticity of will. RTC, CA and SC all ruled that Obando falsified the will.
-No express mention that the falsified will was probated.
H: Specpro could still proceed even if the will is subject to a criminal case for falsification in another case.
*but ma'am said that in another case, one could make the special proceeding dependent on the judgment in the criminal case for falsification
*in case involving same parties, same issues, and SC makes conflicting decision, which of the two cases would prevail?
Rule 76 Allowance or Disallowance of Will - -
-same as in the civil code
-more important is how to prove the will when contested or not contested (fertile ground for mcqs)
- Number of witnesses, depending on the kind of will
- When expert witness required
- When other witnesses allowed
-but overriding rule is that respect the will of the testator. Mere deficiencies should be overlooked if it would still show the intent of the testator
*Jurisdictional facts
- Death of testator
- Residence of the testator at the time of death
- If resident of a foreign country: that he left his estate in the province where the court sits
Grounds – Azuela v. CA, GR No. 122880, April 12, 2006
F: Really defective will!
Defects:
Defects:
- AC did not state number of pages
- Witnesses did not sign the AC
- No acknowledgment by a notary
- No signature of the testator in each and every page
- Pages were not numbered consecutively...
H: Will so defective!!! (see case for the reasons, review succession!)
Rule 77 Allowance of Will Proved Outside of Philippines and Administration of Estate –
Procedure:
If you have a foreign will, but affects the properties in RP: probated outside, but then allowed in RP to affect the properties in the RP
Ancheta v. Guersay-Dalaygon; GR No. 139868, June 8, 2006
H: National law of the decedent should have been followed
-on processual presumption: lawyer/administrator presumed that processual presumption applies. Court held that he should have known that the law of the foreign state would apply since he is a national of another country.
Rule 78 Letters Testamentary and of Administration, When and to Whom Issued
Letters of administration: no will, for administrator
Letters testamentary: w/ will, for executor
Failure to attend hearings of applicant - Silverio v. CA, 304 SCRA 541
F: Son and father fighting over who should be the adminiH: The order of preference is discretionary upon the court - the court determines who should be competent
-in this case, the surviving spouse is a resident of Australia!
Intestate estate of Cristina suntay v Isabel Cojuangco GR 183053 June 16, 2010
F: Surviving spouse vs. Illegitimate grandson
H: Co-administration
-federico was adopted son...as adoptewd son, also had interest in the estate
-order of preference not mandatory - left to the discretion of the court.
-here, both were appointed to protect both interest
*cannot do 2 specpro in one proceeding.
*cannot appoint same administrator in 2 proceedings
*as to special administrators, not appealable - exercise of discretion of the court
Rule 79 Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary. Petition and Contest for Letters of Administration
Justification for appointment of an administrator - Avelino v CA, GR 115181, 31 Mar 2000
H: no need for administration of the estate if the heirs all agree to an extrajudicial partition and that there are no debts and no will
Rule 80 Special Administrator
Duties:
- Take charge of the estate
- Turn it over to regular administrator
Qualifications - Valarao v. Pascual 392 SCRA 695; Vilma Tan et al v. Hon Gedonio GR 166520 Mar 14, 2008
Justification for special administrator - De Guzman vs. Guadiz Jr., et al., L-48585, 31 Mar 1980
Appointment of special administrator discretionary - Jamero v. Melicos, GR 140929, 26 May 2005; Heirs of Castillo v. Gabriel GR 162934 Nov 11, 2005 474 SCRA
Removal – Co v. Rosario et al GR No. 160671 Apr 30, 2008
F: Special administrator was appointed, but was later charged with several complaints for crimes of moral turpitude so was removed
H: ground for removal also subject to the court's sound discretion
Rule 81 Bonds of Executors and Administrators
Rule 82- Revocation of Administration, Death, Resignation, and Removal of Executors and Administrators
Ocampo v Ocampo GR 187879 Jul 2 , 2010
F: 2 groups for administrator:
- Leonardo initially administered the estate. Initially received 1/3 of income of the estate
- After his death, the wife and kids did not receive 1/3 of the income of the estate
- So they filed intestate estate of both the proceedings...
- Counterpetition...wife did not take care of her husband, what more of his estate?
H:
Removal of special administrator: discretionary, not limited to the grounds of removing the regular administrator
Appointment as regular administrator: although appointment was mentioned in the motion for termination of special administration, and respondents filed comment, no full-blown hearing where her competence and capacity has been threshed out. Theoretically, enough to revoke her appointment. But here, already protracted proceeding + already posted a bond, the appointment should just be converted to one of special administrator
Re Bond: RTC's denial was valid, but never exempted from filing a bond unless the testator says so (but if circumstances change, could still be required to post a bond)
Application of grounds for revocation to special administrator: nasa taas, not applicable. Discretionary upon the court
On 2 estates being settled: not possible to do that.
Rule 83 Inventory and Appraisal. Provision for Support of Family
*allowance: surviving WIFE only mentioned. What about the husband?
Provisional inclusion in inventory -
Heirs of Miguel Franco v. CA, 418 SCRA 60;
F: Claimant of half of estate took 4 years to claim half of the estate, after he, as special administrator, that the same property was part of the estate of the deceased in the inventory
H: the inclusion of a property in the inventory of the deceased is provisional only. However, experience shows that whoever claims the property would claim it instantly after finding it out. Here 4 years!
*if administrator claims against the estate, special administrator only as to that property
Chua v. Absolute Management Corp. 413 SCRA 547
F: Administratrix failed to include shares of stocks in the inventory so claimants creditors contested the inventory. Administratrix said these properties were already assigned to other persons, attaching deeds of assignments. Creditors filed a motion for examination of these persons to whom the shares were assigned.
H: Can exanine 3P to determine WON fraudulent assignment
-determination of ownership provisional
-inclusion in inventory would not deprive assignees of claim
-separate action for ownership needed
Rule 84 General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators
*if you're one of the heirs, you're also the administrator. You're staying in the house. Are you supposed to pay rents?
Ma'am: if heirs do not ask for rents, then stay rent free; but if no, then entitled to rents.
Conflict of interest - Mananquil v. Villegas, GR 2430, 30 Aug 1990
F: lawyer was leasing property from the estate
H: Renewal of lease contracts are allowed, since it was just an act of administration; however, lawyer violated NCC. Lawyers should not get interested in property subject to litigation
Rule 85 Accountability and Compensation of Executors and Administrators
-accounting: should be done annually, but usually done at the end of the estate
Duty to account - Tumang v. Laguio GR 50277 14 Feb 1980;
Charges and expenses of the administrator – Quasha Pena v. LCN Const GR 174873 Aug 26, 2008
F: action to recover attorney's fees.
H: there was no proof that there was substitution of atty. Quasha as administrator so their role were just as attorneys. Get attorney's fees from clients - the heirs, and not from the estate
*cf Salonga vs. Hernandez
No comments:
Post a Comment