SpecPro - Compiled Case Digest Batch 1

Special Proceedings (Atty.
Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Eusebio v Eusebio, et al. Facts: Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who died on No ember !", #$%!, resided in &uezon Cit'. Eugenio(s siblings )Amanda, *irginia, +uan, ,elfin, *i-ente and Carlos., stating that the' are illegitimate -hildren of Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that Andres was domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga. 0he' pra'ed that the -ase be dismissed upon the ground that enue had been improperl' laid. 0he CFI of Rizal granted Eugenio(s petition and o erruled his siblings( ob1e-tion. Issue: 2hether enue had been properl' laid in Rizal3 Held: No. ,on Andres Eusebio up to 4-tober !$, #$%!, was and had alwa's been domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga. He onl' bought a house and lot at ""$5 A Espana E6tension, &uezon Cit' be-ause his son, ,r. +esus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at No. 7# P. Florentino /t., &uezon Cit'. E en before he was able to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered a stro8e and was for-ed to li e in his son(s residen-e. It is well settled that 9domi-ile is not -ommonl' -hanged b' presen-e in a pla-e merel' for one own(s health: e en if -oupled with 98nowledge that one will ne er again be able, on a--ount of illness, to return home. Ha ing resided for o er se ent' 'ears in Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained su-h domi-ile. Andres had no intention of sta'ing in &uezon Cit' permanentl'. 0here is no dire-t e iden-e of su-h intent ; Andres did not manifest his desire to li e in &uezon Cit' indefinitel'< Eugenio did not testif' thereon< and ,r. +esus Eusebio was not presented to testif' on the matter. Andres did not part with, or alienate, his house in /an Fernando, Pampanga. /ome of his -hildren remained in that muni-ipalit'. In the deed of sale of his house at ""$ ; A Espana E6t., Andres ga e /an Fernando, Pampanga, as his residen-e. 0he marriage -ontra-t signed b' Andres when he was married in arti-ulo mortis to Con-ep-ion *illanue a two da's prior to his death stated that his residen-e is /an Fernando, Pampanga. 0he re=uisites for a -hange of domi-ile in-lude )#. -apa-it' to -hoose and freedom of -hoi-e, )!. ph'si-al presen-e at the pla-e -hosen, )>. intention to sta' therein permanentl'. Although Andres -omplied with the first two re=uisites, there is no -hange of domi-ile be-ause the third re=uisite is absent. Anent the -ontention that appellants submitted themsel es to the authorit' of the CFI of Rizal be-ause the' introdu-ed e iden-e on the residen-e of the de-edent, it must be noted that appellants spe-ifi-all' made of re-ord that the' were N40 submitting themsel es to the 1urisdi-tion of the -ourt, e6-ept for the purpose onl' of assailing the same. In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domi-iled in /an Fernando, Pampanga< that the CFI of Rizal had no authorit', therefore, to appoint an administrator of the estate of the de-eased, the enue ha ing been laid improperl'. ,o-trine? ,omi-ile on-e a-=uired is retained until a new domi-ile is gained. It is not -hanged b' presen-e in a pla-e for one(s own health. VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, and HONORABLE EVERO A. !ALVAR, "#esidin$ %ud$e, Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& La$una, B#anc' Vl, petitioners, s. (HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL , ) "RECIO A B. GARCIA and AGU (INA B. GARCIA, respondents.
Baliao.Barretto.Delos Trinos.Hirang.Juan.Lumbres.Mejia.Molato.Petrache.Piaroc.Puyat.Salvador
Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

FAC( : #. 4n @a' !, #$A>, *irginia Fule, -reditor, filed with CFI of Baguna, at Calamba presided o er b' +udge @al ar, a petition for letters of administration alleging that Amado Car-ia, a propert' owner of Calamba, Baguna died intestate in the Cit' of @anila, lea ing real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Baguna and in other pla-es, within the 1urisdi-tion of this Court. /he also mo ed e6 parte to be appointed as spe-ial administratri6 o er the estate. /he was appointed as su-h b' +udge @al ar. !. A motion for re-onsideration was filed b' Pre-iosa Car-ia on @a' ", #$A> -ontending that the order appointing *irginia was issued without 1urisdi-tion sin-e no noti-e of the petition for letter of administration has been ser ed upon all persons interested in the estate. As the sur i ing spouse of Amado, she -laimed that she should be preferred in the appointment as spe-ial administratri6. /he filed a petition for letters of administration before the CFI of Rizal, &C bran-h o er the same intestate estate of Amado. >. As -laimed b' Fule in her 9supplemental petition for the appointment of regular administration: the original petition was modified in these respe-t? a. that Amado was ele-ted as Constitutional delegate to the first distri-t of Baguna and his last pla-e of residen-e was Calamba, Baguna b. the deletion of the names of Pre-iosa Car-ia and Agustina Car-ia )-hild. as legal heirs of Amado -. that Carolina Carpio, who was simpl' listed as heir in the original petition, is the sur i ing spouse of Amado and that she has e6pressl' renoun-ed her preferential right to the administration of the estate in fa or of *irginia d. 0hat *irginia be appointed as regular administratri6. 0his supplemental petition was opposed b' Pre-iosa sin-e it attempts to -onfer 1urisdi-tion on the CFI of Baguna. Pre-iosa then filed an opposition to the original and supplemental petitions for letters of administration raising the issue of 1urisdi-tion, enue, la-8 of interest of *irginia in the estate and her dis=ualifi-ation as spe-ial administratri6. I UE * HEL+:
,. -'e#e is t'e .#o.e# venue &o# t'is action, in /ue0on Cit1 2'e#e A3ado died o# in Cala3ba, La$una 2'e#e 'e 'as .#o.e#ties 3 Dnder /e-. #, Rule A>, it is pro ided that? ection ,.Where estate of deceased persons settled. E If the de-edents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a -itizen or an alien, his will shall be pro ed, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instan-e in the .#ovince in 2'ic' 'e #esides at t'e ti3e o& 'is deat', and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign -ountr', the Court of First Instan-e of an' pro in-e in whi-h he had estate. 0he -ourt first ta8ing -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate of a de-edent, shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts. 0he 1urisdi-tion assumed b' a -ourt, so far as it depends on the pla-e of residen-e of the de-edent, or of the lo-ation of his estate, shall not be -ontested in a suit or pro-eeding, e6-ept in an appeal from that -ourt, in the original -ase, or when the want of 1urisdi-tion appears on the re-ord.

a. 0he submitted death -ertifi-ate shows that Amado resided in &C at the time of his death. b. Amado(s residen-e -ertifi-ate whi-h was ta8en three months before his death showed his residen-e as &C. -. 0he @ar8eting Agreement and Power of Attorne' dated No . #!, #$A# turning o er the administration of his two par-els of sugar land to Calamba /ugar Planters Cooperati e and the ,eed of ,onation dated +an. ", #$A> transferring part of his interest in -ertain par-els of land to Agustina Car-ia )-hild. showed his residen-e as &C. 0hese do-uments all showed his residen-e as &C. 0hus, the proper enue is &C. 4. -'o is t'e .#o.e# adn3inist#at#i5 o& t'e estate6 0he -onsideration that o errides is the benefi-ial interest of the appointee of the Court in the estate of the de-edent. 0he Court ruled that Pre-iosa is prima fa-ie entitled to the appointment as spe-ial administratri6, being the wife of Amado. *irginia, who is the illegitimate sister of Amado is in-apable of an' su--essional right. In the donation inter i os in fa or of the -hild, Amado indi-ated Pre-iosa as his wife. Also in his -ertifi-ate of -andida-' as -onstitutional delegate, Pre-iosa was indi-ated as the wife. It needs to be emphasized that the appointment is merel' temporar' and subsists onl' until a regular administrator is appointed b' the Court.
RO E BU H !ALIG and %OE, (HO!A , and %OHN all su#na3ed BU H, #e.#esented in t'is suit b1 t'ei# atto#ne17in7&act, RO E BU H !ALIG, plaintiffs5 appellants, s. !ARIA AN(O BU H, defendant5appellee. FAC( : Plaintiffs filed a -omplaint alleging the' are the onl' dire-t and natural heirs of +ohn Fush under a -ommon law relationship with Apolonia Perez. o Plaintiffs allege that their parents were not suffering from an' disabilit' to marr' ea-h other. o o o 0hat during +ohn(s lifetime, the' were -onsidered and treated as natural -hildren. Dpon +ohn(s death, he left se eral real and personal properties. @aria /antos5Fush falsel' -laims that she was the legal wife so she was appointed as administratri6 b' the CFI.

o @aria filed for partition of the said properties of +ohn, -laiming that +ohn left a will to be=ueath his estate to @aria Fush, Anita Fush and Anna Ferger. @aria 8new er' well that the plaintiffs are the a-8nowledged natural -hildren. Plaintiffs dis-o ered the fraud and misrepresentation of @aria and pra'ed for annulment of the partition, an in entor' and a--ounting of all properties, et-.
o o
,efendant @aria mo ed to dismiss, alleging la-8 of Cause of A-tion, res 1udi-ata and statute of limitation. ,ENIE,. 4n the hearing, defendant -hallenged the 1urisdi-tion of the -ourt, stating that the a-tion was to annul a partition appro ed b' the probate -ourt, ma8ing the probate -ourt the one whi-h should hear the -ase, -iting Rule A%, /e-tion #. APPR4*E, Gnot be-ause of defendant(s argument but be-ause the a-tion had pres-ribedG.
UE: 2hether the lower -ourt -an dismiss a -ase on a ground not alleged in the motion to dismiss3
RULING: NO888 In dismissing the -omplaint upon a ground not relied upon, the lower -ourt did so motu proprio. 0he -ourt did not e en state wh' the a-tion had pres-ribed, and wh' in effe-t, without an' e iden-e or new arguments on the =uestion, it re ersed its pre ious ruling that the ground of pres-ription was not indubitable. 0he defendant insists Rule A>, /e-. #, where the rule fi6es 1urisdi-tion for purposes of the spe-ial pro-eeding for the settlement of the estate of a de-eased person, Hso far as it depends on the pla-e of residen-e of the de-edent, or of the lo-ation of his estate.H 0he matter reall' -on-erns enue, as the -aption of Rule -ited indi-ates, and in order to pre-lude different -ourts whi-h ma' properl' assume 1urisdi-tion from doing so, the Rule spe-ifies that Hthe -ourt first ta8ing -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate of a de-edent, shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts.H In the final anal'sis this a-tion is not ne-essaril' one to annul the partition alread' made and appro ed b' the probate -ourt, and to reopen the estate pro-eeding so that a new partition ma' be made, but for re-o er' b' the plaintiffs of the portion of their alleged inheritan-e of whi-h, through fraud, the' ha e been depri ed. 2herefore, the -ase is remanded for further pro-eedings. ANGELA RO+RIGUE9, !ARIA RO+RIGUE9, E( AL., petitioners, s. HON. %UAN +E BOR%A, as %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Bulacan, B#anc' III, ANA(OLIA "ANGILINAN and A+ELAI+A %ACALAN, respondents. FAC( :

Petitioners Rodriguez petition this Court for a writ of certiorari and prohibition to the CFI Fula-an, for its refusal to grant their motion to dismiss its /pe-ial Pro-eeding No. #>>#, whi-h said Court is alleged to ha e ta8en -ognizan-e of without 1urisdi-tion. Alleged in @otion to dismiss, CFI Fula-an has no 1urisdi-tion to tr' the abo e5entitled -ase in iew of the penden-' of another a-tion for the settlement of the estate of the de-eased Re . Fr. Celestino Rodriguez in the CFI Rizal. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died on Feb #!, #$I> in @anila. Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida +a-alan deli ered to the Cler8 of Court of Fula-an the last will and testament of Fr. Rodriguez. Petitioners Rodriguez filed petition for lea e of -ourt to allow them to e6amine alleged will. Fefore the -ourt -ould a-t on the petition )e6amination of will. it was withdrawn. Petitioners Rodriguez filed before CFI Rizal a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. Rodriguez alleging that he was a resident of Parana=ue, Rizal and pra'ing that @aria Rodriguez be appointed as /pe-ial Administratri6 of the estate. Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida +a-alan filed a petition in this Court for the probation of the will deli ered b' them. It was stipulated b' the parties that Fr. Rodriguez was born in ParaJa=ue, Rizal< that he was Parish priest of the Catholi- Chur-h of Hagono', Fula-an, from the 'ear #$>K up to the time of his death in #$I>< that he was buried in ParaJa=ue, and that he left real properties in Rizal, Ca ite, &uezon Cit' and Fula-an. Petitioners Rodriguez -ontend that sin-e the intestate pro-eedings in the CFI Rizal was filed at "?KK A.@. on @ar-h #!, #$I> while the petition for probate was filed in the CFI Fula-an at ##?KK A.@. on the same date, the latter Court has no 1urisdi-tion to entertain the petition for probate, -iting as authorit' in support thereof the -ase of 4ngsing-o *da. de For1a s. 0an and ,e For1a, C.R. No. AA$!, +ul' !A, #$%%. 0he petitioners Pangilinan and +a-alan, on the other hand, ta8e the stand that the CFI Fula-an a-=uired 1urisdi-tion o er the -ase upon deli er' b' them of the will to the Cler8 of Court on @ar-h 7, #$I>, and that the -ase in this Court therefore has pre-eden-e o er the -ase filed in Rizal on @ar-h #!, #$I>.
UE: 24N the domi-ile of the testator affe-ts the 1urisdi-tion of the Court.
HEL+: No. 0he power to settle de-edentsL estates is -onferred b' law upon all -ourts of first instan-e, and the domi-ile of the testator onl' affe-ts the enue but not the 1urisdi-tion of the Court. CFI Fula-an was entitled to priorit' in the settlement of the estate in =uestion, and that in refusing to dismiss the probate pro-eedings, said -ourt did not -ommit an' abuse of dis-retion. It is the pro-eedings in the Rizal Court that should be dis-ontinued. 0he estate pro-eedings ha ing been initiated in the Fula-an Court of First Instan-e ahead of an' other, that -ourt is entitled to assume 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts, e en if it were a -ase of wrong enue b' e6press pro isions of Rule A> )old Rule A%. of the Rules of Court, sin-e the same en1oins that? 0he Court first ta8ing -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate of a de-edent shall e6er-ise 1urisdi-tion to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts. )/e-. #. 0his disposition presupposes that two or more -ourts ha e been as8ed to ta8e -ognizan-e of the settlement of the estate. 4f them onl' one -ould be of proper enue, 'et the rule grants pre-eden-e to that Court whose 1urisdi-tion is first in o8ed, without ta8ing enue into a--ount. 0he 1urisdi-tion of the Court of First Instan-e of Fula-an be-ame ested upon the deli er' thereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on @ar-h 7, #$I>, e en if no petition for its allowan-e was filed until later, be-ause upon the will being deposited the -ourt -ould, motu proprio, ha e ta8en steps to fi6 the time and pla-e for pro ing the will, and issued the -orresponding noti-es -onformabl' to what is pres-ribed b' se-tion >, Rule AI, of the Re ised Rules of Court /EC. >. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. E 2hen a will is deli ered to, or a petition for the allowan-e of a will is filed in, the Court ha ing 1urisdi-tion, su-h Court shall fi6 a time and pla-e for pro ing the will when all -on-erned ma' appear to -ontest the allowan-e thereof,

and shall -ause noti-e of su-h time and pla-e to be published three )>. wee8s su--essi el', pre ious to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general -ir-ulation in the pro in-e. Fut no newspaper publi-ation shall be made where the petition for probate has been filed b' the testator himself. 0he use of the dis1un-ti e in the words Hwhen a will is deli ered to 4R a petition for the allowan-e of a will is filedH plainl' indi-ates that the -ourt ma' a-t upon the mere deposit therein of a de-edentLs testament, e en if no petition for its allowan-e is as 'et filed. 2here the petition for probate is made after the deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate ba-8 to the time when the will was deli ered. /in-e the testament of Fr. Rodriguez was submitted and deli ered to the Court of Fula-an on @ar-h 7, while petitioners initiated intestate pro-eedings in the Court of First Instan-e of Rizal onl' on @ar-h #!, eight da's later, the pre-eden-e and e6-lusi e 1urisdi-tion of the Fula-an -ourt is in-ontestable. 0here are two other reasons that militate against the su--ess of petitioners. 4ne is that their -ommen-ing intestate pro-eedings in Rizal, after the' learned of the deli er' of the de-edentLs will to the Court of Fula-an, was in bad faith, patentl' done with a iew to di esting the latter -ourt of the pre-eden-e awarded it b' the Rules. Certainl' the order of priorit' established in Rule A> )old Rule A%. was not designed to -on ert the settlement of de-edentLs estates into a ra-e between appli-ants, with the administration of the properties as the pri-e for the fleetest. RO A CA:E(ANO CUENCO, .etitione#s, vs. (HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL , (HIR+ +IVI ION, !ANUEL CUENCO, LOUR+E CUENCO, CONCE"CION CUENCO !ANGUERRA, CAR!EN CUENCO, CON UELO CUENCO RE:E , and (ERE I(A CUENCO GON9ALE9, #es.ondents. FAC( : /enator @ariano +esus Cuen-o died in @anila. He was sur i ed b' his widow)petitioner. and two minor sons, residing in &.C. and -hildren of the first marriage, residing in Cebu. Bourdes, one of the -hildren from the first marriage, filed a petition for letter of administration with the CFI Cebu, alleging that the senator died intestate in @anila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and &.C. 0he petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Ca'etano Cuen-o, the se-ond wife)widow., filed a petition with CFI Rizal &.C. for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named e6e-utri6. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but the said -ourt held in abe'an-e resolution o er the opposition until CFI &uezon Cit' shall ha e a-ted on the probate pro-eedings. CFI Cebu, in effe-t deferred to the probate pro-eedings in the &uezon Cit' -ourt. Bourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI &uezon Cit', on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue, -onsidering that CFI Cebu alread' a-=uired e6-lusi e 1urisdi-tion o er the -ase. 0he opposition and motion to dismiss were both denied. Bourdes filed spe-ial -i il a-tion of -ertiorari and prohibition with preliminar' in1un-tion with respondent CA. CA fa ored Bourdes holding that CFI Cebu had first a-=uired 1urisdi-tion.
UE* 24N CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition against &.C. ordering it to refrain from pro-eeding with the testate pro-eedings .24N CFI &uezon Cit' a-ted without 1urisdi-tion or gra e abuse of dis-retion in ta8ing -ognizan-e and assuming e6-lusi e 1urisdi-tion o er the probate pro-eedings in pursuan-e to CFI CebuLs order e6pressl' -onsenting in deferen-e tot he pre-eden-e of probate o er intestate pro-eedings.
HEL+: :es. /C ruled that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the &uezon Cit' -ourt from pro-eeding with the testate pro-eedings and annulling and setting aside all its orders and a-tions, parti-ularl' its admission to probate of the last will and testament of the de-eased and appointing petitioner5widow as e6e-utri6 thereof without bond pursuant to the de-eased testatorLs wish. Dnder Rule ;<, t'e cou#t &i#st ta=in$ co$ni0ance o& t'e settle3ent o& t'e estate o& a decedent, s'all e5e#cise >u#isdiction to t'e e5clusion o& all ot'e# cou#ts. 0he residen-e of the de-ent or the lo-ation of his estate is not an element of 1urisdi-tion o er the sub1e-t matter but merel' of enue. /u-h

-ourt, ma' upon learning a petition for probate of the de-edentLs last will has been presented in another -ourt where the de-edent ob iousl' had his -on1ugal domi-ile and resided with his sur i ing widow and their minor -hildren, and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that the de-edent died intestate ma' be a-tuall' false, ma' de-line to ta8e -ognizan-e of the petition and hold the petition before it in abe'an-e, and instead defer to the se-ond -ourt whi-h has before it the petition for probate of the de-edentLs alleged last will. Impli-it in the Cebu -ourtLs order was that if the will was dul' admitted to probate, b' the &.C. -ourt, then it would definitel' de-line to ta8e -ognizan-e of BourdesL intestate petition whi-h would be shown to be false and improper,and lea e the e6er-ise of 1urisdi-tion to the .&.C. -ourt to the e6-lusion of all other -ourts. No. Dnder the fa-ts, the Cebu -ourt -ould not be held to ha e a-ted without 1urisdi-tion or with gra e abuse of 1urisdi-tion in de-lining to ta8e -ognizan-e of the intestate petition and deferring to the &uezon Cit' -ourt. Ne-essaril', neither -ould &.C. -ourt be deemed to ha e a-ted without 1urisdi-tion in ta8ing -ognizan-e of and a-ting on the probate petition sin-e under Rule 7 , section !, the Cebu court must first take cogni"ance over the estate of the decedent and must e#ercise jurisdiction to e#clude all other courts, which the Cebu court declined to do. It is undisputed, said rule onl' la's down a rule of enue and the &uezon Cit' -ourt undisputabl' had at least e=ual and -oordinate 1urisdi-tion o er the estate. Dnder Rule 7 , section ! itself, $.C. court%s assumption of jurisdiction over the decedent%s estate on the basis of the will dul& presented for probate b& petitioner'widow and finding that $.C. was the first choice of residence of the decedent, who had his conjugal home and domicile ( with the deference in comit& dul& given b& the Cebu court ( could not be contested e#cept b& appeal from said court in the original case e#cept when want of jurisdiction appears on the record. 2hen pro-eedings for settlement of estate will not be annulled e en if -ourt had improper enue the mis-hie ous effe-t in the administration of 1usti-e of -onsidering the =uestion of residen-e as affe-ting the 1urisdi-tion of the trial -ourt and annulling the whole pro-eedings onl' to start all o er again the same pro-eedings before another -ourt of the same ran8 in another pro in-e is too ob ious to re=uire -omment. It would be an unfair to petitioner as the one named and entitled to be e6e-utri6 of the de-edentLs last will and settle his estate in a--ordan-e and a disregard of her rights under the rule on enue and the law on 1urisdi-tion to re=uire her to spend mu-h more time, mone' and effort to ha e to go from &uezon Cit' to the Cebu -ourt e er'time she has an important matter of the estate to ta8e up with the probate -ourt.
+E BOR%A, E(C V . (AN, E(C. AN+ +E BOR%A FAC( : Petitioner Fran-is-o filed a petition for probate of the 2ill of his de-eased wife. In #$7#, 0he will was probated and named Fran-is-o as the e6e-utor. In #$%#, due to the ph'si-al inabilit' of Fran-is-o to full' administer the estate and upon petition of @atilde, one of the heirs, the lower -ourt appointed Crisanto, another heir, as -o5administrator. Howe er, the trial -ourt a--ording to petitioner, without petition of or noti-e to an'one appointed +ose as a -o5administrator.

I Petitioners mo ed for re-onsideration but respondent 1udge denied su-h motion and re o8ed the appointment of Crisanto as -o5administrator. Petitioners filed a noti-e of appeal from the order appointing +ose as -o5administrator and the order den'ing the @otion for Re-onsideration. Respondent 1udge disappro ed the re-ord on appeal and refused to gi e due -ourse to the appeal on the ground that the appointment of +ose as -o5administrator was interlo-utor' and was not appealable. Hen-e this petition for mandamus to -ompel respondent 1udge to appro e the re-ord on appeal and to gi e due -ourse to the appeal.
UE: :E :E
24N a -o5administrator -onstitutes a regular or general administrator3 24N an order appointing a regular administrator is appealable3 HEL+:
A co7ad3inist#ato# .e#&o#3s all t'e &unctions and duties and e5e#cises all t'e .o2e#s o& a #e$ula# ad3inist#ato#, onl1 t'at 'e is not alone in t'e ad3inist#ation. Hence, an o#de# a..ointin$ a co7ad3inist#ato# is a..ealable. On t'e ot'e# 'and, acco#din$ to RULE ,?@, sec. , AeB, an o#de# a..ointin$ a s.ecial ad3inist#ato# is not a..ealable because a s.ecial ad3inist#ato# is a..ointed &o# a li3ited ti3e and &o# a s.eci&ic .u#.ose onl1. A spe-ial administrator is appointed onl' when there is a dela' in granting letters testamentar' or of administration o--asioned b' an appeal from allowan-e or disallowan-e of a will or from an' other -ause, and su-h spe-ial administrator is authorized to -olle-t and ta8e -harge of the estate until the =uestions -ausing the dela' are de-ided and an e6e-utor or administrator thereon appointed.

In addition, a spe-ial administrator is also appointed when the regular e6e-utor or administrator has a -laim against the estate he represents and said spe-ial administrator shall ha e the same power and sub1e-t to the same liabilit' as a regular e6e-utor or administrator. 2herefore, Petition for mandamus is granted and respondent +udge is hereb' dire-ted to appro e the re-ord on appeal and to gi e due -ourse to the appeal.
!acias vs U1 Ci3 et al Ac*o C'a#3aine !e>iaB In t'e !atte# o& t'e u33a#1 ettle3ent o& t'e Estate o& "at#icio anc'e0, +eceased. VicentaFalcatan, petitioner and appellant,vs.Anastacio anc'e0 and %ose&a !i$uel, t'e latte# in 'e# o2n be'al& and as t'e 3ot'e# o& t'e 3ino#s BEN%A!IN, ALFRE+O, +ELFIN and 9ENAI+A, all su#na3ed ANCHE9,oppositors and appellees. Facts: 0his an appeal from a de-ision of the Court of First Instan-e of the Cit' of Mamboanga pro iding for the summar' settlement of the estate of Patri-io /an-hez, de-eased.
Appellant assails the de-ision upon the ground that in pro-eedings for the summar' settlement of the estate of a de-eased person, under /e-tion !, Rule A7 of the Rules of Court, the -ourt has no 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the =uestion of title to real propert'.
Issue: -*N t'e .#oceedin$s &o# t'e su33a#1 settle3ent o& t'e estate o& a deceased .e#son, t'e cou#t 'as no >u#isdiction to .ass u.on t'e Duestion o& title to #eal .#o.e#t1. Held: 0his is true onl' where the title is disputed b' a third person, not b' the sur i ing spouse or heirs of the de-eased, as su--essors of the latter. 0here are two -on1ugal partnership in ol ed here. Dnder the -ir-umstan-es, it would be fair to hold that the propert' in =uestion belongs to the two -on1ugal partnership, share and share ali8e. LEONOR ". RE:E , assisted b1 'e# 'usband, AGU (IN ARCON, petitioner, s. (HE HONORABLE BONIFACIO : I", %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Bulacan, and +#. AURELIO CRI O (O!O, .ecial Ad3inist#at#i5 in .ecial "#oceedin$s No. @E<, respondents.

FAC( : 0his is a petition for a writ of -ertiorari and mandamus to -ompel +udge Nsip to allow petitioner to submit e iden-e on her -laim of filiation to +uan Re'es Panlilio. Prior to the abo e -ase, there was a spe-ial pro-eeding wherein a petition was presented for the probate of the last will and testament of +uan Re'es Panlilio. o o Petitioner filed an opposition to this. /pe-ial Administratri6 ob1e-ted to the personalit' and right of petitioner to oppose and -ontest the will. 0hereafter, the administratri6 as8 the -ourt to resol e the right of petitioner to -ontest the will. 0he -ourt permitted the petitioner to appear and inter ene in the spe-ial pro-eedings. Petitioner offered e iden-e on her filiation. 0his was ob1e-ted b' the administratri6. +udge Nsip held that the onl' issue in this -ase is the probate of the will and that the presentation of e iden-e for filiation was out of pla-e. /o petitioner instituted this present petition for a writ of -ertiorari and mandamus.
o o o o
Petitioner -laims that it is the poli-' of the -ourt to allow a dul' a-8nowledged natural -hild to inter ene in the pro-eedings for the probate of the will and establish her status as su-h.
UE: In a hearing for the probate of a will, is petitioner allowed to present e iden-e of her filiation and oppose the probate3
RULING: 0he determination of the persons entitled to inherit should onl' be made after pa'ment of all debts, funeral -harges, et-. is effe-ted. As pro ided in the Rules of Court, the submission of e iden-e to determine the persons entitled to inherit is in the last stage of the pro-eedings. 0o allow petitioner to present e iden-e to pro e her filiation would be in1e-ting issues that are reall' not part of the -ase for probate of the will. @oreo er, if petitioner was allowed to do su-h a thing, the nature of the e iden-e submitted would onl' be prima fa-ie, wherein it would onl' 1ustif' her right to inter ene and not her right to inherit. Fasi-all', for the sa8e of a oiding -onfusion of issues in a petition for the probate of the will of +uan Re'es Panlilio, petitioner is not allowed to present e iden-e not be-ause she was being depri ed of her right but to a oid multipli-it' of issues. (ORRE V %AVIER

Facts: 0C? refused to appoint @arta 0orres who -laimed to be the lawful wife of the de-eased, and, instead, appointed +uan B. +a ier administrator. 0he appeal is ta8en b' @arta 0orres from that order of appointment. It appears that two women are -laiming to be the legal wife of 0an Po Pi-, de-eased, @arta 0orres and a Chinese woman named Nu 0eng New. @arta 0orres ob1e-ted to the appointment of an' one e6-ept herself, while +uan Cailles 0an Poo, on behalf of the Chinese woman, opposed the appointment of @arta 0orres. 0he probate -ourt being unable to determine who, if either, was the lawful wife of the de-eased, appointed a disinterested third person to a-t as administrator.
Issue/Held: 24N the probate -ourt(s de-ision must be affirmed5 :E Ratio: /e-tion I7! of the Code of Ci il Pro-edure re=uires that letters of administration should be granted, first, to the sur i ing husband or wife< se-ond, to other relati es in the order named< third, in -ase the sur i ing wife or ne6t of 8in or person sele-ted b' them be unsuitable, the administration ma' be granted to some other person, su-h as one of the prin-ipal -reditors< and fourth, if there is no su-h -reditor -ompetent and willing to ser e, the administration ma' go to su-h person as the -ourt ma' appoint. It appears that 0an N. /o- was appointed administrator of the said 0an Po Pi-, de-eased, the Court of First Instan-e of @anila under the misapprehension that 0an Po Pi- was a resident of the -it' of @anila at the time of his death. After it had been as-ertained that the de-eased was a resident of the Pro in-e of Rizal, the Court of First Instan-e of @anila transferred the -ase to the Court of First Instan-e of Rizal. In that -ourt, as we ha e alread' seen, the appointment b' the Court of First Instan-e of @anila was disregarded the pro-eedings were begun for the appointment of an administrator b' the Court of First Instan-e of Rizal. It must be remembered that the probate -ourt did not find as a fa-t that there was a wife in China< nor does his appointment of a third person determine the fa-t of the e6isten-e of another wife in China. 0he -ourt -onsidered the fa-ts and -ir-umstan-es as the' were presented in the pro-eedings and upon the whole belie ed it for the best interest of all -on-erned to appoint as administrator a disinterested third person, parti-ularl' in iew of the fa-t that there was li8el' to be litigation between @arta 0orres and the Chinese wife as to whi-h is in fa-t his legal wife and entitled to an interest in the estate of the de-eased 0an Po Pi-. 2e do not find the errors assigned suffi-ient to warrant an' a-tion on the part of this -ourt.
0he -ourt had a right in iew of the -ontro ers' between the women to name a disinterested third person as administrator and lea e the -ontro ers' between them to be settled in the administration pro-eedings at the proper time. IN(E (A(E E (A(E OF (HE LA(E VI(O BORRO!EO, "A(ROCINIO BORRO!EO7HERRERA, petitioner, s. FOR(UNA(O BORRO!EO and HON. FRANCI CO ". BURGO , %ud$e o& t'e Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Cebu, B#anc' II, respondents. Facts: *ito Forromeo, a widower and permanent resident of Cebu Cit', died in Parana=ue, Rizal at the age of "" 'ears, without for-ed heirs but lea ing e6tensi e

properties in the pro in-e of Cebu. +ose +un=uera filed with the Court of First Instan-e of Cebu a petition for the probate of a one page do-ument as the last will and testament left b' the said de-eased, de ising all his properties to 0omas, Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed Forromeo, in e=ual and undi ided shares, and designating +un=uera as e6e-utor thereof. 0he do-ument, drafted in /panish, was allegedl' signed and thumbmar8ed b' the de-eased in the presen-e of Cornelio Candion-o, Eusebio Cabiluna, and Feli6berto Beonardo who a-ted as witnesses. 4ppositions to the probate of the will were filed. After due trial, the probate -ourt held that the do-ument presented as the will of the de-eased was a forger'. 0he testate pro-eedings was -on erted into an intestate pro-eedings. /e eral parties -ame before the -ourt filing -laims or petitions alleging themsel es as heirs of the intestate estate of *ito Forromeo. 0he -ourt also ordered that the assets of the intestate estate of *ito Forromeo shall be di ided into 7O$ and %O$ groups and distributed in e=ual and e=uitable shares among the $ de-lared intestate heirs. Respondent Fortunato Forromeo, who had earlier -laimed as heir under the forged will, filed a motion before the trial -ourt pra'ing that he be de-lared as one of the heirs of the de-eased *ito Forromeo, alleging that he is an illegitimate son of the de-eased and that in the de-laration of heirs made b' the trial -ourt, he was omitted, in disregard of the law ma8ing him a for-ed heir entitled to re-ei e a legitime li8e all other for-ed heirs. As an a-8nowledged illegitimate -hild, he stated that he was entitled to a legitime e=ual in e er' -ase to four5fifths of the legitime of an a-8nowledged natural -hild. Finding that the motion of Fortunato Forromeo was alread' barred b' the order of the -ourt de-laring the persons named therein as the legal heirs of the de-eased *ito Forromeo, the -ourt dismissed the motion. Fortunato Forromeo filed a motion for re-onsideration. In the memorandum he submitted to support his motion for re-onsideration, Fortunato -hanged the basis for his -laim to a portion of the estate. He asserted and in-orporated a 2ai er of Hereditar' Rights. In the wai er, fi e of the nine heirs relin=uished to Fortunato their shares in the disputed estate. 0he motion was opposed on the ground that the trial -ourt, a-ting as a probate -ourt, had no 1urisdi-tion to ta8e -ognizan-e of the -laim< that respondent Fortunato Forromeo is estopped from asserting the wai er agreement< that the wai er agreement is oid as it was e6e-uted before the de-laration of heirs< that the same is oid ha ing been e6e-uted before the distribution of the estate and before the a--eptan-e of the inheritan-e< and that it is oid ab initio and ine6istent for la-8 of sub1e-t matter. After due hearing, the trial -ourt -on-luding that the fi e de-lared heirs who signed the wai er agreement assigning their hereditar' rights to Fortunato Forromeo had lost the same rights, de-lared the latter as entitled to %O$ of the estate of *ito Forromeo. In the present petition, the petitioner see8s to annul and set aside the trial -ourtLs order de-laring respondent Fortunato Forromeo entitled to %O$ of the estate of *ito Forromeo. 0he petitioner argues that the trial -ourt had no 1urisdi-tion to ta8e -ognizan-e of the -laim of respondent Fortunato Forromeo be-ause it is not a mone' -laim against the de-edent but a -laim for properties, real and personal, whi-h -onstitute all of the shares of the heirs in the de-edentLs estate, heirs who allegedl'

wai ed their rights in his fa or. 0he -laim of the pri ate respondent under the wai er agreement, a--ording to the petitioner, ma' be li8ened to that of a -reditor of the heirs whi-h is improper. Respondent Forromeo asserts that sin-e the wai er or renun-iation of hereditar' rights too8 pla-e after the -ourt assumed 1urisdi-tion o er the properties of the estate it parta8es of the nature of a partition of the properties of the estate needing appro al of the -ourt be-ause it was e6e-uted in the -ourse of the pro-eedings. He further maintains that the probate -ourt loses 1urisdi-tion of the estate onl' after the pa'ment of all the debts of the estate and the remaining estate is distributed to those entitled to the same. Held: 2ith respe-t to the issue of 1urisdi-tion, we hold that the trial -ourt had 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the alidit' of the wai er agreement. It must be noted that in /pe-ial Pro-eedings No. $#I5R the lower -ourt disallowed the probate of the will and de-lared it as fa8e. Dpon appeal, this Court affirmed the de-ision of the lower -ourt on @ar-h >K, #$IA, in C.R. No. B5#"7$". /ubse=uentl', se eral parties -ame before the lower -ourt filing -laims or petitions alleging themsel es as heirs of the intestate estate of *ito Forromeo. 2e see no impediment to the trial -ourt in e6er-ising 1urisdi-tion and tr'ing the said -laims or petitions. @oreo er, the 1urisdi-tion of the trial -ourt e6tends to matters in-idental and -ollateral to the e6er-ise of its re-ognized powers in handling the settlement of the estate. In iew of the foregoing, the =uestioned order of the trial -ourt dated ,e-ember !7, #$A7, is hereb' /E0 A/I,E. In C.R. No. 7##A#, the order of the respondent 1udge dated ,e-ember !7, #$A7, de-laring the respondent entitled to %O$ of the estate of the late *ito Forromeo and the order dated +ul' A, #$A%, den'ing the petitionerLs motion for re-onsideration of the aforementioned order are hereb' /E0 A/I,E for being NDBB and *4I,< /4 4R,ERE,. LEO"OL+O !ORALE and "RINCE I(A AN(ERO !ORALE , petitioners. s.COUR( OF FIR ( IN (ANCE OF CAVI(E, BR. V, A((:. ROLAN+O +IA9, in 'is ca.acit1 as Ad3inist#ato# o& t'e Intestate Estate o& I!ONA "A!U(I, ROBER(O !ELGAR and FELI A %AR+IN, respondents. Fa-ts? 4n Februar' #!, #$I", /imonaPamuti mortgaged a saltbed fishpond )propert'. lo-ated in Ca ite in fa or of her grand-hild, petitioner Prin-esita/antero @orales for P#%,KKK.KK. 0he propert' was e6tra1udi-iall' fore-losed in fa or ofPrin-esita for P#%,7%!.KK.
/imona sur i ed both her husband Pas-ual and son Pablo. Petitions for letters of administration of the intestate estate of Pas-ual/antero and Pablo /antero in /pe-ial Pro-eedings Nos. N5!KI# and N5!KI! were filed b' +uanito/antero, PabloLs eldest natural -hild with his !nd wife.

o Prin-esita was an oppositor in these pro-eedings. Cler8 of Court, Att'. Rolando ,iaz, was appointed, as spe-ial administrator and later as regular administrator
,uring the penden-' of the pro-eedings for the settlement of the intestate estates of Pas-ual and Pablo, +uanito filed a petition for guardianship o er the properties of /imonaPamuti)/P. Pro-. No. N5!KI".. Att'. Rolando ,iaz was appointed legal guardian of /imonaPamuti. He filed a motion to use the funds of the estates of Pas-ual and Pablo /antero to redeem /imonaLs propert' that had been sold at au-tion to petitioner Prin-esita. ; CRAN0E, in an order dated +ul' ##, #$A%
on August 7, #$A%, the respondent -ourt, on the finding that /imona is a for-ed heir of both Pablo /antero and Pas-ual/antero, reiterated its 4rder of +ul' ##, #$A% and ordered the respondent Cler8 of Court Hto redeem the propert' -o ered b' 0a6 ,e-laration No. %7I$ immediatel'.H 0he date of the 4rder, August 7, #$A%, is the same date on whi-h the redemption period was set to e6pire.
4n August I, #$A%, the ,eput' /heriff of Ca ite tendered to petitionerOs Prudential Fan8 Che-8 No. #7K"IA dated +ul' #A, #$A% in the sum of P#I, >7!.KK b' wa' of redemption of the propert' in =uestion. o 0he tender was not a--epted b' the petitionerOs on the ground that the -he-8 was not a -ertified -he-8, that the amount tendered was insuffi-ient and that the tender was made after the lapse of the redemption period. o 4n August ", #$A%, the petitionerOs e6e-uted an affida it of Consolidation and re=uested the Pro in-ial /heriff of Ca ite to e6e-ute the final deed of -on e'an-e. 0he pro in-ial sheriff did not issue the final deed re=uested b' the petitionerOs. Neither did he issue an' -ertifi-ate of redemption in fa or of the legal guardian of /imona.
/imonaPamuti died intestate. In the spe-ial pro-eeding for the settlement of the estate of /imona, one FelisaPamuti5+ardin -laimed to be /imonaLs sole sur i ing heir. o Petitioner Prin-esita/antero was allowed to inter ene not as 'ei# but as H-reditors of the intestate estate of the late /imonaPamuti, o# as co7 o2ne#s, to$et'e# 2it' said intestate estates, o& ce#tain .#o.e#ties as t'e inte#ests o& said o..osito#s 3a1 a..ea# H. o 0he same respondent Cler8 of Court was appointed Administrator and e entuall', the three spe-ial pro-eedingOs for the settlement of the intestate estates of Pas-ual/antero, Pablo /antero and /imonaPamuti were -onsolidated.

4n +une #%, #$AI, the respondent Cler8 of Court, in his -apa-it' as administrator of the intestate estate of /imonaPamuti, filed a H@otion to 4rder the Pro in-ial /heriff of Ca ite 0o Issue Certifi-ate of RedemptionH F GRAN(E+ on %anua#1 ,<, ,G;;. o Court ruled that the administrator herein has -omplied with the re=uirements of law for the redemption of mortgaged properties. o the petitioners filed a @otion for Re-onsideration on the grounds that the respondent probate -ourt does not ha e 1urisdi-tion to resol e the alidit' of the redemption of the propert' in =uestion< that there was no alid redemption and that the motion was resol ed without gi ing the herein petitioners a -han-e to be heard ;,ENIE,
In the !a1 ,;, ,G;; O#de#, the administrator was temporaril' en1oined from ta8ing o er possession of the propert', from disposing of its produ-e and was re=uired to surrender possession of the propert'.
0o implement the 1ust -ited order, the respondent -ourt, on %une ,E, ,G;;, ordered the administrator to brea8 open the bodega standing on the propert'. 0he petitionerOs allegeOs that on +une #", #$AA, the respondent sheriff @elgar together with two poli-emen entered the premises, for-ed his wa' in, opened the bodega b' for-e, hauled the salt from the bodega. 0hus, the instant petition.
I//DE? 24N the 4rders on +anuar' #>, #$AA, @a' #A, #$AA and +une #I, #$AA were *4I,on the prin-ipal ground that the issue regarding the alidit' of the redemption in ol es a =uestion of ownership whi-h is outside the 1urisdi-tion of the respondent -ourt as a probate -ourt and that the petitioners ma' be depri ed of possession of the propert' onl' through a separate -i il a-tion3 HEB,? NE/, the =uestioned orders were *4I,. 0he -ontro ers' was not whether or not the redemption ordered b' the respondent -ourt was done, but whether or not su-h redemption, as done, was alid. Acco#din$ to settled >u#is.#udence, suc' cont#ove#s1 is outside t'e >u#isdiction o& t'e .#obate cou#t . Parentheti-all', it must be mentioned that the respondent -ourt itself had, at that time, alread' determined that the petitioners are inter enors in the settlement pro-eedings of /imonaLs estate not as heirs but as H-o5ownersH with the intestate estates, and the respondent -ourt in fa-t would later state in the +anuar' #>, #$AA order that the petitioners ha e Hnot been -alled to parti-ipate in the pro-eedings.H 0he petitioners are, therefore, outside .a#ties clai3in$ title to .#o.e#t1 included in t'e invento#1 o& .#o.e#ties unde# ad3inist#ation. IN *IE2 4F 0HE F4REC4INC, the =uestioned 4rders of +anuar' #>, #$AA, @a' #A, #$AA and +une #I, #$AA are de-lared *4I, for ha ing been issued be'ond the 1urisdi-tion of the probate -ourt. G.R. No. ,<G@H; Nove3be# 44, 4???

IN (HE !A((ER OF (HE IN(E (A(E E (A(E OF +ECEA E+ I !AEL RE:E , (HE HEIR OF O CAR R. RE:E , petitioners, s.CE AR R. RE:E , respondent. Fa-ts? /pouses Ismael Re'es and FelisaRe ita Re'es are the registered owners of par-els of land in Ara'at /treet, Cubao, &uezon Cit' -o ered b' 0C0 Nos. 7$"> and >%$" )>$>K>.. 0he spouses ha e se en -hildren, namel'? 4s-ar, Ara-eli, Herminia, Aurora, Emmanuel, Cesar and Rodrigo, all surnamed Re'es.
4n April #", #$A>, Ismael Re'es died intestate. Prior to his death, Ismael Re'es was notified b' the FIR of his in-ome ta6 defi-ien-' whi-h arose out of his sale of a par-el land lo-ated in 0andang/ora, &uezon Cit'. For failure to settle his ta6 liabilit', the amount in-reased to about P#A!,A!7.7K and sin-e no pa'ment was made b' the heirs of de-eased Ismael Re'es, the propert' -o ered b' 0C0 No. 7$"> was le ied,sold and e entuall' forfeited b' the FIR in fa or of the go ernment.
In #$AI, 4s-ar Re'es a ailed of the FIR(s ta6 amnest' and he was able to redeem the propert' -o ered b' 0C0 No. 7$"> upon pa'ment of the redu-ed ta6 liabilit' amounting to P#",KKK.
4n @a' #", #$"!, the 4ffi-e of the Cit' 0reasurer of &uezon Cit' sent a noti-e to FelisaRe ita Re'es informing her that the Ara'at properties will be sold at publi- au-tion on August !%, #$"! for her failure to settle the real estate ta6 delin=uen-' from #$A75#$"#.
4n ,e-ember #%, #$"I, petitioners( prede-essor 4s-ar Re'es entered into an amnest' -ompromise agreement with the Cit' 0reasurer and settled the a--ounts of Felisa R. Re'es.
4n @a' #K, #$"$, pri ate respondent Cesar Re'es, filed a petition for issuan-e of letters of administration with the R0C of &uezon Cit' pra'ing for his appointment as administrator of the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es whi-h estate included @?I of the Ara'at properties -o ered b' 0C0 Nos. 7$"> and >%$". o 4s-ar Re'es filed his -onditional opposition thereto on the ground that the Ara'at properties do not form part of the estate of the de-eased as he )4s-ar. had a-=uired the properties b' redemption and or pur-hase.

o o Court CRAN0E, the petition FD0 stated that Jt'is dete#3ination is .#ovisional in c'a#acte# and s'all be 2it'out .#e>udice to t'e outco3e o& an1 action to be b#ou$'t 'e#ea&te# in t'e .#o.e# Cou#t on t'e issue o& o2ne#s'i. o& t'e .#o.e#tiesK 4s-ar Re'es filed his ob1e-tion to the in entor' reiterating that the Ara'at properties had been forfeited in fa or of the go ernment and he was the one who subse=uentl' redeemed the same from the FIR using his own funds.
4s-ar Re'es filed a motion demanding for a--ounting to be done b' oppositor is5,ENIE, o @R5,ENIE, o He then filed his appeal with the CA. 2hile the appeal was pending, 4s-ar died and he was substituted b' his heirs, herein petitioners.
CA ;affirmed probate -ourt(s order. @R ,ENIE,
I//DE? )#.24N respondent Court erred in ruling that the -ourt a =uo -orre-tl' in-luded one half )#O!. of the Ara'at properties -o ered b' 0C0 Nos. 7$"> and >%$" )>$>K>. in the in entor' of the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es )!.24N respondent Court erred in upholding that the -ourt a =uo has no 1urisdi-tion to determine the issue of ownership. HEB,? ,B NO. 0he 1urisdi-tion of the probate -ourt merel' relates to matters ha ing to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of de-eased persons, and the appointment and remo al of administrators, e6e-utors, guardians and trustees. ('e Duestion o& o2ne#s'i. is as a #ule, an e5t#aneous 3atte# 2'ic' t'e "#obate Cou#t cannot #esolve 2it' &inalit1.0hus, for the purpose of determining whether a -ertain propert' should or should not be in-luded in the in entor' of estate pro-eeding, the probate -ourt ma' pass upon the title thereto, but su-h determination is pro isional, not -on-lusi e, and is sub1e-t to the final de-ision in a separate a-tion to resol e title. 2e find that the respondent Court did not err in affirming the pro isional in-lusion of the sub1e-t properties to the estate of the de-eased Ismael Re'es without pre1udi-e to the out-ome of an' a-tion to be brought thereafter in the proper -ourt on the issue of ownership -onsidering that the sub1e-t properties are still titled under the torrens s'stem in the names of spouses Ismael and FelisaRe ita Re'es whi-h under the law is endowed with in-ontestabilit' until after it has been set aside in the manner indi-ated in the law. 0he de-laration of the pro isional -hara-ter of the in-lusion of the sub1e-t properties in the in entor' as stressed in the order is 2it'in t'e >u#isdiction o& t'e "#obate Cou#t. 4B NO. /ettled is the rule that the R0C a-ting as a probate -ourt e6er-ises but limited 1urisdi-tion, thus it 'as no .o2e# to ta=e co$ni0ance o& and dete#3ine t'e issue o& title to .#o.e#t1 clai3ed b1 a t'i#d .e#son adve#sel1 to t'e decedent ,UNLE the -laimant and all other parties ha ing legal interest in the propert' -onsent, e6pressl' or impliedl', to the submission of the =uestion to the Probate Court for ad1udgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereb' pre1udi-ed.

0he fa-ts howe er, do not -all for the appli-ation of the e6-eption to the rule. 0he purpose wh' the probate -ourt allowed the introdu-tion of e iden-e on ownership was for the sole purpose of determining whether the sub1e-t properties should be in-luded in the in entor' whi-h is within the probate -ourt(s -ompeten-e. In fa-t, the probate -ourt in its 4rder stated that Hfor resolution is the matter of the in entor' of the estate, mainl' to -onsider what properties should be in-luded in the in entor' and what should not be in-luded.H 0here was nothing on re-ord that both parties submitted the issue of ownership for its final resolution. 0hus the respondent Court did not err in ruling that the trial -ourt has no 1urisdi-tion to pass upon the issue of ownership -on-lusi el'. CUNANAN vs A!"ARO
Fa-ts?
0he petitioner, Rosalina Cunanan, in her -apa-it' as administratri6 of the Intestate Estate of Isaa- Cunanan and Candida +oa=uin. /ee8s a re iew of two orders of the respondent +udge, Honorable Rafael Amparo, alleging that these orders were made Hwithout andOor in e6-ess of his 1urisdi-tion, with gra e abuse of dis-retion.H /oriano, one of the present respondents, under date of /eptember !I, #$7K, filed a mone' -laim for P""K against the de-edentsL estate. He alleged that, the de-eased re-ei ed from him di erse sums of mone' aggregating P""K. Rosalina Cunanan, the administratri6, filed a motion setting out Fonifa-io /orianoLs -laim and two others totalling P!,K%7, besides a debt of P#,IKK in fa or of one Filomeno /antos bearing #! per -ent interest per 'ear. 0o pa' these obligations, and be-ause funds were needed to defra' the e6penses on the farm, she as8ed the -ourt for authorit' to negotiate a loan in su-h amount or to sell so mu-h of the propert' des-ribed in the in entor' as might be suffi-ient to satisf' the said obligations. 0he Honorable /otero Rodas, granted the motion. Cunanan manifested to the -ourt that she had tendered to Fonifa-io /oriano in @ar-h of that 'ear P""K but that /oriano refused to a--ept it on the ground that the mone' she offered was +apanese notes and had no alue. /he pra'ed that the -reditor be ordered to a--ept the amount tendered, to e6e-ute the ne-essar' deed of -an-ellation, and to return the possession of two par-els of land whi-h had been -on e'ed to him. Honorable &uintin Paredes, +r., authorized the administratri6 to deposit with the -ler8 of -ourt P""K in full pa'ment of the obligation in fa or of Fonifa-io /oriano and ordered /oriano to deli er the propert' in his possession to the administratri6. 0his order was not appealed nor was an' motion for its re-onsideration filed, so far as the pleadings would re eal. 5the administratri6 filed a -omplaint against /oriano for -ontempt of -ourt, alleging that she had -omplied with the -ourtLs order , but that

/oriano disobe'ed that part of it whi-h -ommanded him to return the two par-els of land to the estate of Isaa- Cunanan and Candida +oa=uin. After hearing, +udge Paredes, found /oriano not guilt' of -ontempt, ha ing Hgranted him the benefit of doubtH on the strength of /orianoLs defense that he, in the words of the de-ision, Hmisunderstood, or mis-onstrued, the order of this -ourt,H Howe er, +udge Paredes reiterated his order that /oriano Hdeli er the propert' in =uestion to the administratri6 Rosalina Cunanan for the benefit of the Intestate Estate.H He also dire-ted the -ler8 of -ourt to turn o er to /oriano the P""K whi-h had been deposited with him, Hupon proper proof that the possession of the propert' has been a-tuall' deli ered to the Intestate Estate.H
Fonifa-io /oriano filed a motion for re-onsideration of the order, that is, the last order of +udge Paredes. /oriano stated as grounds of his motion, first, that the title to those lots had been -onsolidated in his and his wifeLs names Hb' irtue of a deed of sale e6e-uted in their fa or b' Isaa- Cunanan and Rosalina Cunanan , whi-h was later on amended b' another instrument,H and, se-ond, that under the terms of the sale, the endors were gi en the option to repur-hase the said lots not later than April A, #$77. /oriano also alleged that a transfer -ertifi-ate of title to the two lots had been issued to him and his wife b' the Register of ,eeds of Nue a E-i1a.
4n August #I, #$7I, the Honorable Rafael Amparo, who now was presiding o er the Court of First Instan-e of Nue a E-i1a, in a length' order granted /orianoLs motion, and on /eptember #I following he -onfirmed that order. He 1ustified the refusal of Fonifa-io /oriano to a--ept +apanese militar' notes and /orianoLs insisten-e on being paid in the same -urren-' whi-h he had paid for the land. In fine, he set aside the order of +udge Paredes of August 7, #$77 and denied Hthe petition of the administratri6 dated +ul' !%, #$7I, pra'ing, in effe-t, that said order be enfor-ed.H Issue? 2ON 0he -ourt has +urisdi-tion3
2e do not agree with the respondents that the -ourt la-8ed 1urisdi-tion to order the deli er' of the possession of the lots to the estate. 0his power is a mere -onse=uen-e of the power to appro e /orianoLs -laim< a power whi-h the -ourt undoubtedl' had and whi-h /oriano himself in o8ed with full 8nowledge of the fa-ts. As a general rule, with the -onsent of the parties matters affe-ting propert' under 1udi-ial administration ma' be ta8en -ognizan-e of b' the -ourt in the -ourse of the intestate pro-eeding pro ided the interests of third persons are not pre1udi-ed. ,etermination of title to propert' is within the 1urisdi-tion of Courts of First Instan-e. 0he respondent /orianoLs ob1e-tion relates e6-lusi el' to the pro-edure, whi-h is distin-t from 1urisdi-tion. It affe-ts onl' personal rights to a mode of pra-ti-e whi-h

ma' be wai ed. Certainl', there is wai er where, as here, and as has been pointed out, the part' who raises the ob1e-tion was the one who set the -ourt in motion, and who, b' failing to dis-lose the e6isten-e of a sale under pa-to de retro, suppressed 1urisdi-tional fa-ts that might be in the wa' of his -laimLs su--ess.
VALERA et al vs IN ER(O et al Ac*o Eloisa Ba##ettoB G.R. No. L7@E@?L !a1 ;, ,GH; "O!"ILLO VALERA and EU!ELIA VALERA CABA+O, .etitione#s, vs. HON. %U+GE ANCHO :. IN ER(O, in 'is ca.acit1 as "#esidin$ %ud$e, Cou#t o& Fi#st Instance o& Iloilo, B#anc' ,, and !ANUEL R. FABIANA, #es.ondents FAC( : ,. In t'e .#oceedin$s &o# t'e settle3ent o& t'e intestate estate o& t'e decedent s.ouses, Ra&ael Vale#a and Consolacion a##osa A .s. Vale#aB, in 2'ic' Eu3elia Cabado and "o3.illo Vale#a 'ad been a..ointed ad3inist#ato#s, t'e 'ei#s o& t'e deceased dau$'te# o& t'e .s. Vale#a,(e#esa, &iled a 3otion as=in$ t'at t'e Ad3inist#at#i5 Cabado be decla#ed in conte3.t &o# 'e# &ailu#e to #ende# an accountin$ o& 'e# ad3inist#ation. 4. Cabado stated t'at no accountin$ could be sub3itted unless %ose Ga#in, 'usband o& (e#esa delive#ed to 'e# t'e ,H 'a. &is'.ond in Iloilo belon$in$ to t'e estate so t'at a .a#tition could be 3ade a3on$ t'e decedents o& t'e .s. Vale#a. <. %ose Ga#in asse#ted t'at t'e .#o.e#t1 2as o2ned b1 'e# c'ild#en and t'is 2as 2'1 it 'ad neve# been included in an1 invento#1 o& t'e estate. L. ('e Cou#t, .#esided ove# b1 %ud$e Adil, a&te# .#esentation o& evidence b1 bot' .a#ties co33anded t'e 'ei#s o& (e#esa Ga#in to #econve1 t'e &is'.ond to t'e intestate estate o& .s. Vale#a. @. ('e &is'.ond o#i$inall1 belon$ed to t'e GovMt but 'ad been $iven in lease to Ra&ael Vale#a in 'is li&eti3e. Vale#a ostensibl1 sold t'e lease'old #i$'ts to 'is dau$'te#, (e#esa Ga#in, but t'e sale 2as &ictitious, 'avin$ been #eso#ted to so t'at (e#esa could su..o#t t'e education o& 'e# c'ild#en and a&te# suc' 'as been done, t'e &is'.ond 2as to be #etu#ned to Vale#a. -it' t'e inco3e $ene#ated b1 t'e &is'.ond, t'e .#o.e#t1 2as eventuall1 .u#c'ased &#o3 t'e GovMt b1 t'e 'ei#s o& (e#esa Ga#in, collectivel1 na3ed as suc' in t'e O#i$inal Ce#ti&icate o& (itle. E. %ud$e Adil #uled t'at t'e#e 2as an i3.lied t#ust and t'at t'e &is'.ond s'ould be #etu#ned to t'e Estate o& .s. Vale#a. He $#anted t'e ad3inist#ato#Ms 3otion &o# e5ecution o& t'e o#de# .endin$ a..eal and di#ected t'e s'e#i&& to en&o#ce t'e di#ection &o# t'e Ga#in 'ei#s to #econve1 t'e &is'.ond to t'e estate.

;. !anuel Fabiana, t'e ca#eta=e# &iled a co3.laint in inte#vention 2it' t'e "#obate Cou#t see=in$ vindication o& 'is #i$'t based on a cont#act o& lease bet2een 'i3sel& and %ose Ga#in. %ud$e Adil dis3issed 'is co3.laint since >ud$3ent 'ad been #ende#ed and t'e t#ans&e# o& .ossession 'ad al#ead1 ta=en .lace and t'at t'e lease cont#act 'ad not been #e$iste#ed, 'ence not bindin$ on t'e estate. H. Fabiana &iled a se.a#ate action &o# in>unction and da3a$es, 2it' CFI7Iloilo and suc' 2as assi$ned to Hon. Inse#to. ('e ad3inist#ato#s contended t'at %ud$e Inse#to could not and s'ould not inte#&e#e 2it' t'e "#obate Cou#t unde# %ud$e Adil in t'e le$iti3ate e5e#cise o& its >u#isdiction ove# t'e .#oceedin$s &o# t'e ettle3ent o& t'e estate o& t'e .s. Vale#a I UE and HEL+:
,. -ON t'e "#obate Cou#t can decide on t'e issue o& title to t'e .#o.e#t1 clai3ed b1 a t'i#d .e#son A%ose Ga#inB adve#sel1 to t'e decedent7 NO ettled is t'e #ule t'at t'e CFI Ano2 R(CB actin$ as a .#obate cou#t, e5e#cises li3ited >u#isdiction and t'us 'as no .o2e# to ta=e co$ni0ance o& and dete#3ine t'e issue o& title to .#o.e#t1 clai3ed b1 t'i#d .e#sons. ('e Cou#tMs .#onounce3ent #e$a#din$ t'e estateMs title to t'e &is'.ond 2as 3e#el1 .#ovisional in c'a#acte#, 3ade solel1 to dete#3ine 2'et'e# o# not t'e &is'.ond s'ould be included in t'e invento#1 o& t'e estate assets. It is neve# t'e intention o& t'e cou#t to 2#ite a J&inisK to t'e o2ne#s'i. o& t'e &is'.ond in dis.ute. ('e 3ovants 3a1 .u#sue t'ei# clai3 o& o2ne#s'i. ove# t'e sa3e in an o#dina#1 civil action. !ean2'ile, it is t'e &indin$ o& t'is .#obate cou#t t'at t'e &is'.ond 3ust be delive#ed to t'e estate. 4. -ON t'e &is'.ond can be sub>ect o& e5ecution7 NO ince t'e dete#3ination b1 t'e "#obate Cou#t o& t'e Duestion o& title to t'e &is'.ond 2as 3e#el1 .#ovisional, it cannot and s'ould not be t'e sub>ect o& e5ecution, as a$ainst its .ossesso# 2'o 'as set u. title in 'i3sel& Ao# in anot'e#B adve#sel1 to t'e decedent and 2'ose #i$'t to .ossess 'as not been ventilated and ad>udicated in an a..#o.#iate action. ('e ce#ti&icate o& title is not in t'e na3e o& .s. Vale#a but in ot'e#s. ('e .#esu3.tive conclusiveness o& suc' title s'ould be $iven due 2ei$'t and in t'e absence o& st#on$ co3.ellin$ evidence to t'e cont#a#1, t'e 'olde# s'ould be conside#ed as t'e o2ne# o& t'e .#o.e#t1 until 'is title is nulli&ied o# 3odi&ied in an a..#o.#iate o#dina#1 action. <. -ON a se.a#ate action is #eDui#ed to dete#3ine t'e title o& t'e .#o.e#t17 :E :es, suc' se.a#ate action is #eDui#ed. Resultin$ &#o3 t'e e5e#cise o& .#i3a#1 >u#isdiction ove# t'e Duestion o& o2ne#s'i. involvin$ estate .#o.e#t1 clai3ed b1 t'e estate, t'e1 3ust be dee3ed su.e#io# to ot'e#2ise cont#a#1 o#de#s issued b1 t'e .#obate cou#t in t'e e5e#cise o& 2'at 3a1 be #e$a#ded as 3e#el1 seconda#1 o# .#ovisional, >u#isdiction ove# t'e sa3e Duestion. Rulin$: ('e .etition o& Fabiana is dis3issed &o# lac= o& 3e#it. ('e s.ecial actions &o# ce#tio#a#i, .#o'ibition and 3anda3us initiated b1 %ose Ga#in 2e#e denied. ('e >ud$3ent o& t'e Cou#t o& A..eals is a&&i#3ed.
Intestate Estate o& t'e deceased Lee Lion$. RAFAEL A. ANG CHIA, as Ad3inist#at#i5 o& t'e above intestate, LEE BING HOO alias CLARO LEE, and LEE BUN (ING
+INGLA AN,
E(
AL .,
s.
FAC( : Rafael ,inglasan et al. filed a -ase in the Court of First Instan-e of Capiz on Februar' #I, #$7", against Ang Chia, her son Claro Bee and one Bee Fun 0ing to re-o er the ownership and possession of a par-el of land lo-ated at Capiz, Capiz, and damages. /ubse=uentl', the plaintiffs dis-o ered that there was pending in the same -ourt a -ase -on-erning the intestate estate of Bee Biong. 0he plaintiffs then filed an amended -omplaint see8ing the in-lusion as part'5 defendant of the administratri6 of the estate, who is the same widow Ang Chia, who was alread' a part'5defendant in her personal -apa-it'. 0he plaintiffs also filed in the intestate pro-eedings a erified -laim in inter ention and a motion pra'ing that a -o5administrator of the estate be appointed and the bond of the administratri6 be in-reased. F' their -laim in inter ention, the plaintiffs made of re-ord the penden-' of the aforesaid -i il -ase and pra'ed that the intestate pro-eedings be not -losed until said -i il -ase shall ha e been terminated. 0he -ourt granted the par'er to in-rease the administrati6(s bond but howe er too8 -ognizan-e of the penden-' of said -i il -ase. 0he administratri6 did not appeal from said order nor file a new bond and instead mo ed for the -losing of the pro-eedings and her dis-harge as administratri6 on the ground that the heirs had alread' entered into an e6tra1udi-ial partition of the estate. I UE: 2hether it was proper for the Probate Court to ta8e -ognizan-e of the -i il -ase.
0he a-t of the lower -ourt in ta8ing -ognizan-e of -i il -ase is not tantamount to assuming 1urisdi-tion o er said -ase nor does it iolate the ruling of this -ourt whi-h sa's that Hwhen =uestions arise as to the ownership of propert', alleged to be part of the estate of a de-eased person, but -laimed b' some other person to be his propert', not b' irtue of an' right of inheritan-e from the de-eased, but b' title ad erse to that of the de-eased and his estate, su-h =uestions -annot be determined in the -ourse of administration pro-eedings. 0he Court of First Instan-e, a-ting as probate -ourt, has no 1urisdi-tion to ad1udi-ate su-h -ontentions, whi-h must be submitted to the -ourt in the e6er-ise of its general 1urisdi-tion as a Court of First Instan-e to tr' and determine ordinar' a-tions. . . .H 0he -ourt is 1ustified in ta8ing -ognizan-e of said -i il -ase be-ause of the una oidable fa-t that whate er is determined in said -i il -ase will ne-essaril' refle-t and ha e a far rea-hing -onse=uen-e in the determination and distribution of the estate. In so ta8ing -ognizan-e of -i il -ase the -ourt does not assume general 1urisdi-tion o er the -ase but merel' ma8es of re-ord its e6isten-e be-ause of the -lose interrelation of the two -ases it -annot be branded as ha ing a-ted in e6-ess of its 1urisdi-tion. /e-tion #, Rule "", of the Rules of Court, e6pressl' pro ides that Ha-tion to re-o er real or personal propert' from the estate or to enfor-e a lien thereon, and a-tions to re-o er damages for an in1ur' to person or propert', real or personal, ma' be -ommen-ed against the e6e-utor or administratorH. 0his rule is but a -orollar' to the ruling whi-h de-lares that =uestions -on-erning ownership of propert' alleged to be part of the estate but -laimed b' another person should be determined in a separate a-tion and should be submitted to the -ourt in the e6er-ise of its general 1urisdi-tion. 0hese rules would be rendered nugator' if we are to hold that an intestate pro-eedings -an be -losed b' an' time at the whim and -apri-e of the heirs. Another rule of -ourt pro ides that Hafter a part' dies and the -laim is not thereb' e6tinguished, the -ourt shall order, upon proper noti-e, the legal representati e of the de-eased to appear and to be substituted for the de-eased, within a period of thirt' )>K. da's, or within su-h time as ma' be granted. If the legal representati e fails to appear within said time, the -ourt ma' order the opposing part' to pro-ure the appointment of a legal representati e of the de-eased within

a time to be spe-ified b' the -ourt, and the representati e shall immediatel' appear for and on behalf of the interest of the de-eased.H )/e-tion #A, Rule >.. 0his rule also implies that a probate -ase ma' be held in abe'an-e pending determination of an ordinar' -ase wherein an administrator is made a part'. !A. +IVINA OR(ANE97EN+ERE , &o# 'e#sel& and as t'e %udiciall1 A..ointed .ecial Ad3inist#at#i5 o& t'e "'ilinte#li&e 'a#es o& toc=s o& +R. %UVENCIO ". OR(ANE9, %O E N. OR(ANE9, RO!EO %OVEN N. OR(ANE9, ENRICO N. OR(ANE9, CE AR N. OR(ANE9 and LIGA:A . NOVICIO, petitioners, s. (HE HONORABLE COUR( OF A""EAL , ECURI(IE AN+ EOCHANGE CO!!I ION, %O E C. LEE, CARLO LEE, ANGEL ONG, CAR!ENCI(A :. (AN, BEN%A!IN C. LEE, !A. "A9 C. LEE and AL!A AGGABAO, respondents. FAC( : Petitioners filed before the /EC a -ase for the annulment of transfer of shares of sto-8s to pri ate respondents, annulment of sale of -orporate properties authorized b' pri ate respondents who -ompose the management of the -orporation, annulment of subs-riptions on in-reased -apital sto-8s, a--ounting and inspe-tion of -orporate boo8s and re-ords, and damages. Petitioners also pra'ed for the issuan-e of a writ of preliminar' in1un-tion and temporar' restraining order against pri ate respondents to en1oin them from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders of Philinterlife on the ground that their shares of sto-8 were a-=uired through illegal and fraudulent s-hemes. Petitioners alleged that Philinterlife is a registered -orporation founded in #$%7 b' the late ,r. +u en-io 4rtaJez< that at the time of his death in #$"K, ,r. 4rtaJez owned at least fift'5one per-ent )%#P. of the -apital sto-8 of the -ompan'< that spe-ial pro-eedings were pending with the Regional 0rial Court of &uezon Cit', Fran-h "%, for the settlement of the intestate estate of the de-eased ,r. 4rtaJez, where Rafael /. 4rtaJez and +ose /. 4rtaJez were 1ointl' appointed as spe-ial administrators. Petitioners further stated that after the death of ,r. 4rtaJez and without the prior authorization of the intestate -ourt, one5half )#O!. of the shares of sto-8 of ,r. 4rtaJez were transferred in the names of pri ate respondents through the manipulations, de i-es and ma-hinations of the latter< that the shares of sto-8s of pri ate respondents lawfull' belonged to the estate of ,r. 4rtaJez and hen-e, the' are not entitled to en1o' and e6er-ise their rights and pri ileges as sto-8holders of the -ompan'. Contrar' to the -ontentions of petitioners, pri ate respondents +ose Bee, Carlos Bee, Fen1amin Bee and Alma Aggabao be-ame sto-8holders of Philinterlife on @ar-h !>, #$"> when +ose /. 4rtaJez, the prin-ipal sto-8holders at that time, e6e-uted a deed of sale of his shares of sto-8 to the pri ate respondents< and that the right of petitioners to =uestion the @emorandum of Agreement and the a-=uisition of shares of sto-8 of pri ate respondents is barred b' pres-ription. Case ruled b' /EC Hearing 4ffi-er, then /EC en ban-, then CA. In all le els, petitioners were denied and petition dismissed. 0he assailed de-ision of the Court of Appeals as well as that of the /EC En Fan- and /EC Hearing 4ffi-er denied the pra'er of petitioner for the issuan-e of a writ of preliminar' in1un-tion to restrain pri ate respondents from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders on re-ord of Philippines International Bife Insuran-e Co., In-. )Philinterlife, for bre it'.. I UE: 24N the whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the /EC when it ruled that petitioners had not established -lear e6isting legal rights to entitle them to a writ of in1un-tion to en1oin pri ate respondents from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders on re-ord of Philinterlife. HEL+: No. In1un-tion ma' issue pendente lite onl' in -ases of e6treme urgen-', where the right to the possession, during the penden-' of the main -ase, of the propert' in ol ed is er' -lear< where -onsiderations of relati e in-on enien-e bear strongl' in fa or of the -omplainant see8ing the possession of the propert' pendente lite< where there was willful and unlawful in asion on plaintiffLs right, o er his protest and remonstran-e, the in1ur' being a -ontinuing one. Fefore an in1un-tion -an

be issued, it is essential that the following re=uisites be present? )#. there must be a right in esse or the e6isten-e of a right to be prote-ted< and )!. the a-t against whi-h in1un-tion is to be dire-ted is a iolation of su-h right. 2e agree with the findings of the /EC as affirmed b' the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed not onl' to establish a threatened iolation of a right but the' also failed to dis-harge the burden of -learl' showing the right to be prote-ted. ## 4n the mere -ontention that the shareholdings of pri ate respondents belong to the estate of the late ,r. 4rtaJez whi-h is still the sub1e-t of settlement before the Regional 0rial Court of &uezon Cit', petitioners had not established their -lear legal rights to obtain in1un-ti e relief against pri ate respondents. In1un-tion, whether preliminar' or final, is not designed to prote-t -ontingent or future rights. Petitioners -ited in their repl' the issuan-e of an 4rder b' the intestate -ourt de-laring that the shares of sto-8 of Philinterlife belong to the estate. It is admitted that the spe-ial pro-eedings are still pending before the -ourt and the estate had not been partitioned and distributed. Notwithstanding the pro-eedings being -ondu-ted b' the intestate -ourt, the petitionersL rights or interests o er the estate or o er the assailed shareholdings in the name of pri ate respondents are still future and unsettled rights whi-h -annot be prote-ted b' the writ of in1un-tion. 0he rule is well settled that the 1urisdi-tion of the regional trial -ourt as a probate or intestate -ourt relates onl' to matters ha ing to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of de-eased persons but does not e6tend to the determination of =uestions of ownership that arise during the pro-eedings. 0he intestate -ourt ma' pass upon the title to a -ertain propert' for the purpose of determining whether the same should or should not be in-luded in the in entor' but su-h determination is not -on-lusi e and is sub1e-t to final de-ision in a separate a-tion regarding ownership whi-h ma' be -onstituted b' the parties. 0he -ourt in -harge of the intestate pro-eedings -annot ad1udi-ate or determine title to properties -laimed to be a part of the estate and whi-h are e=uall' -laimed to belong to outside parties. 0herefore, the possibilit' of irreparable damage without proof of iolation of an a-tuall' e6isting right of petitioners o er the shareholdings presentl' in the possession of pri ate respondents is no ground for an in1un-tion being a mere damnum abs)ue injuria. Contrar' to the -ontentions of petitioners, the /EC found that pri ate respondents are bona fide owners of shares of sto-8 in Philinterlife -onstituting the ma1orit' thereof or $7P of the outstanding -apital sto-8 of the -ompan'. Re-ords show that the' ha e been sto-8holders of Philinterlife sin-e #$"> up to the present. It was onl' in #$$7 that petitioners sought the annulment of the shareholdings of pri ate respondents before the /EC. 0he grant of the writ of in1un-tion against pri ate respondents b' restraining them from e6er-ising their rights as sto-8holders would in effe-t dispose of the main -ase without a trial. 0he /EC a-ted -orre-tl' in den'ing the issuan-e of the writ until the merits of the -ase -an be heard. Further, it is a basi- pro-edural postulate that a preliminar' in1un-tion is not proper where its purpose is to ta8e the propert' out of -ontrol or possession of one part' and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not ha e su-h -ontrol at the in-eption of the -ase and whose title has not been -learl' established b' law An$elita Valde0 v. Re.ublic o& t'e "'ili..ines FAC( : Petitioner married /ofio in +an ##,#$A# wherein the former ga e birth to their onl' -hild , Nan-'. Petitioner states that she and /ofio argue -onstantl' be-ause of the latter(s unemplo'ment and did not bring home an' mone'. E entuall', /ofio left their -on1ugal dwelling. > 'ears ha e passed that petitioner did ha e an' 8nowledge of /ofios whereabouts until 4-t, #$A% , /ofio showed up and the' tal8ed and agreed to separate and e6e-uted a do-ument to that effe-t. 0he' didn(t see ea-h other an'more after that. petitioner belie ing that /ofio was dead, married *irgilio Re'es on +une !K, #$"%. ,ue to the denial of *irgilio(s appli-ation for naturalization in the D/ department of Homeland /e-urit' be-ause of the subsisting marriage of petitioner with /ofio, Petitioner filed a petition before R0C see8ing de-laration of presumpti e death.

R(C? dismissed petition for la-8 of merit and held that Angelita was not able to pro e a well grounded belief that /ofio was alread' dead )Art 7#, FC.. Further stating that she did not e6ert an' effort in finding her husband an'more. Petitioner filed a motion for re-on arguing that Ci il Code pro isions appl' in this -ase and not Famil' Code. Fe-ause marriage was -elebrated on +an ##, #$A# long before Famil' Code too8 effe-t. Further arguing that she a-=uired a ested right under the Ci il Code and stri-ter pro isions in the FC should not applied against her ) Art. >"7 and >$K. 0o appl' it would impair petitioner rights a-=uired under the Ci il Code. R0C denied @otion for Re-on. Hen-e this petition.
UE: 24N R0C erred in appl'ing FC and holding that petitioner needed to pro e a well5 founded belief that /ofio was alread' dead3
HEL+: NE/. R0C is wrong. Petitioner was -apa-itated to marr' *irgilio at the time their marriage was -elebrated in #$"% and said marriage is legal and alid. Court dismissed the petitioner sin-e no de-ree of presumption of /ofio(s death -an be granted under the Ci il Code. /in-e death is presumed to ha e ta8en pla-e b' the se enth 'ear of absen-e. /ofio is to be presumed dead starting 4-tober #$"!. Conse=uentl', at the time of petitioner(s marriage to *irgilio, there e6isted no impediment to petitioner(s -apa-it' to marr', and the marriage is alid under paragraph ! of Arti-le "> of the Ci il Code. Petitioner -ould not ha e been e6pe-ted to -ompl' with this re=uirement sin-e the Famil' Code was not 'et in effe-t at the time of her marriage to *irgilio. 0he ena-tment of the Famil' Code in #$"" does not -hange this -on-lusion. 0o re-troa-ti el' appl' pro ision of the Famil' Code would go against the ob1e-ti es that Famil' Code wishes to a-hie e.

SpecPro - Compiled Case Digest Batch 1

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SpecPro - Compiled Case Digest Batch 1

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Special Proceedings (Atty.

Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

CA ;affirmed probate -ourt(s order. @R ,ENIE,

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

Special Proceedings (Atty. Claudette Dela Cerna) Batch 1 (Meeting 2)

También podría gustarte