1. Give the nature of probate proceedings and
deposits or withdrawals were made for the
explain each of them. Give the basis why
probate of will is said to be imprescriptible
A:
1. Probate proceedings are in rem in nature which
means that any decision rendered thereon binds
the whole world. Thus, all persons who have an
interest in the estate whether notified or not are
bound by any decision rendered thereon.
2. It is mandatory because under the Rules, no will
shall pass either personal or real property the
without the will being probated
3. It is imprescriptible because the probate of a will
can be done at any time by the executor, devisee
or legatee or any person interested in the estate.
4. It is imbued with public policy because unless
the will is probated and notice thereof is given to
the whole world, the right of the person to
dispose of his property by will after his death
shall be rendered nugatory.
The basis for the imprescriptibility of probate proceedings
is found in Rule 75 which states that any executor,
devisee, legatee or any party interested in the will may
petition the court may for its allowance. Moreover, the
testator is also given the right to probate his will during his
lifetime.
2. On June 12, 1947. X died intestate. She was
survived by her husband Y and 9 children (A-I).
C-I are all minors when a petition for
settlement of X’s estate was filed. No guardian
ad litem was appointed by the court for C-I. X
left several parcels of land. J the administrator
of X’s estate filed a petition asking the court to
give him authority to dispose of so much of the
estate that is necessary to meet its debts.
Notice thereof was given to the surviving
spouse Y, through his counsel, Atty. Teofilo
Guadiz. On September 9, 1949, the intestate
court issued an Order authorizing the
administrator to sell so much of the properties
of the estate for the purpose of paying of the
obligation. A parcel of land was sold to K. In
1965, C, the new administrator filed a petition
to annul the sale of the land.
Rule on the petition.
A: The petition should be granted
Rule 89 requires that before the court may authorize the
sale of realty by the deceased, a written notice to heir,
devisees or legatees must be given and that the court shall
give a time and place for hearing. The requirements set
forth in Rule 89 are mandatory and essential. Non-
compliance with these requirements will render the sale of
any property void.
In this case, only the surviving spouse Y was given notice
but not the 9 children. Hence, the petition for the
annulment of the sale should be granted.
3. A, B, and C, the only heirs in D’s intestate
proceedings, submitted a project of partition. In
the partition, two lots were assigned to C, who
immediately entered into possession of the
lots. Thereafter, C died and proceedings for the
settlement of his estate were filed in the RTC-
QC. D’s administrator then filed a motion in the
probate court (RTC-Manila), praying that one of
the lots assigned to C in the project of partition
to be turned over to him to satisfy debts
corresponding to C’s portion. The motion was
opposed by the administrator of C’ estate. How
should the RTC-Manila resolve the motion of
D’s administrator
A: The RTC-Manila should grant the motion
Under Rule 90, when the debts of the estate has not yet
been settled no distribution of the estate shall be made.
In this case, the assignment of two lots to C was
premature because there is nothing in the facts that show
that the estate of D is free from debts and can be
distributed to the heirs.
Hence, the RTC should grant the motion
4. A maintains a bank account with XYZ Bank. The
account was opened in Jan. 1995 and a year
later A left for PNG. In March 29, 2005, however
the account was included in the report of
unclaimed deposits submitted by the bank with
the Bureau of Treasury considering that no
preceding 10 years. At that time A has P76,000
in XYZ Bank. When A came back to the
Philippines in Mar. 30, 2010, he wished to
recover his money with the bank. May A still
recover his P76,000 with XYZ Bank, what is the
remedy if there be any.
A: Yes, A may still recover from XYZ bank the said amount.
Under the Bureau of Treasury Circular 01-2010, a
depositor who wants to recover the unclaimed balances
may request for the re-activation of his account with the
Bank. The Bank will then ask for authority with the Bureau
of Treasury, which upon satisfaction of the requirement
set forth in the circular, will issue an authorization to the
bank allowing the re-activation of his account.
Assuming that all above requirements are followed, A may
still recover the P76,000 from said bank.
5. X filed an appeal from the said order and urged
that the lower court erred in denying her
petition for appointment as administratrix, for,
as widow of the deceased, she claim a right of
preference under the rules. Decide the appeal.
A: Pijuan v. Gurrea. The appeal should be denied.
Under Rule 78, the appointment of an administrator shall
be allowed only when there is no will (intestate), or if
there is a will but none is named as executor or there is a
will appointing an executor but the same is incompetent
to discharge the duties, refuse the trust or fails to give
bond.
In this case, none of the circumstances in Rule 78 would
warrant the appointment of X as administrator. Hence, the
appeal should be denied.
6. Rule 89, Sec. 9. When court may authorize
conveyance of lands which deceased held in
trust — Where the deceased in his lifetime held
real property in trust for another person, the
court may after notice given as required in the
last preceding section (personally or by mail),
authorize the executor or administrator to deed
such property to the person, or his executor or
administrator, for whose use and benefit it was
 so held; and the court may order the execution A: A special administrator may be appointed when there is
of such trust, whether created by deed or by a delay in the granting of letters testamentary or letters of
law. administration by any cause including an appeal from the
allowance or disallowance of the will.
7. X filed a claim in the intestate proceedings of D.
D’s administrator denied liability and filed a
counterclaim against X. X’s claim was
disallowed

(a) Does the probate court still have jurisdiction to

allow the claim of D’s administrator by way of
offset? Why?
(b) Suppose D’s administrator did not allege any
claim against X by way of offset, can D’s
administrator prosecute the claim in an
independent proceeding

A:

(a) No, because since the claim of X was disallowed,

there is no amount against which to offset the
claim of D’s administrator.

(b) Yes, D’s administrator can prosecute the claim in

an independent proceeding since the claim of X
was disallowed.

If X had a valid claim and D’s administrator did

not allege any claim against X by way of offset,
his failure to do so would bar his claim forever.

8. What are the instances when realty may be

conveyed before personalty?

A:
1. When the personal estate of the deceased is not
sufficient to pay the debts, expenses of
administration and legacies
2. When the sale of personalty may injure the
business or other interests of those interested in
the estate
3. Where the testator has not otherwise made
sufficient provision for the payment of such
debts, expenses and legatees

9. In what instances may a special administrator

be appointed?