9-13 cases full text

7/25/2019 9-13 Cases Full Text

1/45

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS STUDENTS:Class here's the list of additional cases for yor readin! on settle"ent of estate:##$ %i& s$ (le"er) *GR No$ L+,-./0) 1arch .#) #0,#2#.$ (le"er s$ %i&) *GR No$ L+,.3,3) 1arch #4) #0,52#,$ Ancheta s$ Gersey+Dalay!on *GR No$ #,0636) 7ne 6) .5532

#-$ 8entra s$ 8entra *GR No$ L+.3,,53) A9ril .4) #0662#/$ 8illa"or s$ CA *GR$ No$ L+-#/56) 7ne .4) #0662#3$ Pian s$ Grrea *GR No$ L+.#0#4) No .0) #0332#4$ L;on Srety s$ ala? s$ IAC *GR No$ 4-3#6) Se9t .) #00.2.5$ Paha"otan! s$ O1G *GR No$ #/3-5,) 1arch ,#) .55/2.#$ Rioferio s$ CA *GR No$ #.0556) 7anary #,) .55-2..$ Union @an s$ Randha?a *GR No$ #-00.3) (e= .,) .55/2.,$ PN@ s$ CA *GR No$ #.#/04) 7ne .0) .55#2.-$ Alda"i; s$ C(I 7d!e of 1indoro *GR No$ L+.,35) Dec$ .0) #0-02./$


2/45

A 'ill '(o$ )##$#)#io* +l)!$ %o$ *o# +o*#)i* #($ *!"$r o- p)$ o*

'(i+( #($ 'ill i 'ri##$* i -)#)ll& %$-$+#i/$. A 'ill '(o$ )##$#)#io*

+l)!$ i *o# i*$% "& #($ i*#r!$*#)l 'i#*$$ i -)#)ll& %$-$+#i/$. A*%

p$r()p o# ipor#)*#l&, ) 'ill '(i+( %o$ *o# +o*#)i* )*

)+*o'l$%$*#, "!# ) $r$jurat, i -)#)ll& %$-$+#i/$. A*& o*$ o- #($$

%$-$+# i !+i$*# #o %$*& pro")#$. A *o#)ri)l 'ill 'i#( )ll #(r$$ %$-$+#i !# )+(i* -or !%i+i)l r$$+#io*.

There is a distinct and conseential reason the Ciil Code 9roides aco"9rehensie catalo! of i"9eraties for the 9ro9er e&ection of a notarial ?ill$ (lland faithfl co"9liance ?ith all the detailed reisites nder Article 65/ of the Codeleae little roo" for do=t as to the alidity in the de e&ection of the notarial ?ill$Article 653 lie?ise i"9oses another safe!ard to the alidity of notarial ?ills that they =e acno?led!ed =efore a notary 9=lic =y the testator and the ?itnesses$A notarial ?ill e&ected ?ith indierence to these t?o codal 9roisions o9ens itselfto na!!in! estions as to its le!iti"acy$

The case ste"s fro" a 9etition for 9ro=ate Bled on #5 A9ril #06- ?ith the Re!ionalTrial Cort *RTC2 of 1anila$ The 9etition Bled =y 9etitioner (eli& A;ela so!ht toad"it to 9ro=ate the notarial ?ill of E!enia E$ I!solo) ?hich ?as notari;ed on #5

7ne #06#$ Petitioner is the son of the cosin of the decedent$

The ?ill) consistin! of t?o *.2 9a!es and ?ritten in the ernaclar Pili9ino) read infll:

%ULING %A@ILIN NI EUGENIA E$ IGSOLO

SA NGALAN NG 1AF>APAL) A1EN:

A>O) si EUGENIA E$ IGSOLO) naatira sa /55 San Die!o St$) Sa"9aloc) 1anila)

9iton!9t siya" *402 na !lan!) nasa hston! 9a!i+isi9) 9a!+na?a at "e"oria ayna!+hahaya! na ito na an! ain! hlin! ha=ilin at testa"ento) at =ina=ali ?ala olahat an! nanan! !ina?an! ha=ilin o testa"ento:

Una+%inihilin! o na ao ay "aili=in! sa Se"enterio del Norte) La Lo"a san!+ayon!sa a!alian at 9ataaran n! si"=ahan! atolio at an! ta!a+9a!+in!at *E&ector2n! ha=ilin! ito ay "a!tatayo n! =antayo! 9an! sil=in! ala+ala sa ain n! ain!9a"ilya at ai=i!an

Pan!ala?a+Ain! i9ina!aaloo= at isinasalin an! lahat n! ara9atan sa ain!9a"an!in na si (eli& A;ela) na siyan! na!+ala!a sa ain sa "aha=an! 9anahon)yaon! "!a =ahay na naatiri sa lote n"ero .6) @loc .- at naa9an!alan sa

Pechaten >or9orasyon) !anoon din i=ini=i!ay o an! lahat n! ara9atan sa =ahayna naatiri sa inoo9ahan on! lote) n"ero -,) @loc .- na 9a!+aari n! PechatenCor9oration$ I9ina!aaloo= on! =on! =o an! lahat n! ara9atan sa =ahay atl9a na nasa /55 San Die!o St$) Lot -.) @loc .-) Sa"9aloc) 1anila ay (eli& A;elaat an! 9a!aaloo= on! ito ay ?alan! 9as=aliHt at ondiciones

Pan!atlo+ Na ninn"=rahan o si 8ART PAGUE na siyan! na!9a9at9ad n! hlin!ha=ilin! ito at a!sthan o rin na hindi na ailan"an siyan! "a!+la!a n!9iyansiya$


3/45

Ain! nila!daan an! %lin! %a=ilin na ito dito sa 1aynila ia #5 n! %nyo) #06#$

*S!d$2EUGENIA E$ IGSOLO*Ta!a9a!"ana2

PATUNAF NG 1GA SA>SIAn! aslatan! ito) na =in=o n! dahon 9ati an! hlin! dahon! ito) nai9inahaya! sa a"in ni E!enia E$ I!solo) ta!a9a!"ana na siya niyan! %lin!%a=ilin) n!ayon ia+#5 n! %nyo #06#) ay nila!daan n! nasa=in! ta!a9a!"ana sailali" n! aslatan! na=an!!it at sa ali?an! 9ani! n! lahat at =a?aHt dahon) sahara9 n! lahat at =a?aHt sa a"in) at a"i na"an! "!a sasi ay l"a!da sa hara9n! nasa=in! ta!a9a!"ana at sa hara9 n! lahat at =a?aHt isa sa a"in) sa ilali" n!nasa=in! aslatan at sa ali?an! 9ani! n! lahat at =a?aHt dahon n! aslatan ito$

EUGENIA E$ IGSOLOaddress: /55 San Die!o St$

Sa"9aloc) 1anila Res$ Cert$ No$ A+44#4+,4Issed at 1anila on 1arch #5) #06#$

ahil"Pandacan) 1anila Res$ Cert$ No$ A+-/6,3/Issed at 1anila on 7an$ .#) #06#

LA1@ERTO C$ LEAJOaddress: Aene .) @lco 4)Lot 3#) San Ga=riel) G$1A$) Caite Res$Cert$ No$ A+436.44 issed at Car"ona) Caite on (e=$ 4) #06#

7UANITO ESTRERAaddress: City Cort Co"9ond)City of 1anila Res$ Cert$ No$ A/4-6.0Issed at 1anila on 1arch .) #06#$

Nila!daan o at ninotario o n!ayon! #5 n! %nyo #5) #06# dito sa Ln!sod n!1aynila$

*S!d$2PETRONIO F$ @AUTISTA

Doc$ No$ #.,. NOTARIO PU@LI>O

Pa!e No$ 63 Until Dec$ ,#) #06#@oo No$ -, PTR+#/.5-#+#K.K6#+1anilaSeries of #06# TAN #-,4+044+6#

The three na"ed ?itnesses to the ?ill aM&ed their si!natres on the left+hand"ar!in of =oth 9a!es of the ?ill) =t not at the =otto" of the attestation clase$

The 9ro=ate 9etition aderted to only t?o *.2 heirs) le!atees and deisees of thedecedent) na"ely: 9etitioner hi"self) and one Irene Lynn I!solo) ?ho ?as alle!ed to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt1


4/45

hae resided a=road$ Petitioner 9rayed that the ?ill =e allo?ed) and that letterstesta"entary =e issed to the desi!nated e&ector) 8art Pra!e$

The 9etition ?as o99osed =y Geralda Aida Castillo *Geralda Castillo2) ?hore9resented herself as the attorney+in+fact of the #. le!iti"ate heirs of thedecedent$.Geralda Castillo clai"ed that the ?ill is a for!ery) and that the tre

9r9ose of its e"er!ence ?as so it cold =e tili;ed as a defense in seeral cortcases Bled =y o99ositor a!ainst 9etitioner) 9articlarly for forci=le entry andsr9ation of real 9ro9erty) all centerin! on 9etitionerHs ri!ht to occ9y the9ro9erties of the decedent$,It also asserted that contrary to the re9resentations of9etitioner) the decedent ?as actally sried =y #. le!iti"ate heirs) na"ely her!randchildren) ?ho ?ere then residin! a=road$ Per records) it ?as s=seentlyalle!ed that decedent ?as the ?ido? of @onifacio I!solo) ?ho died in #03/)-and the"other of a le!iti"ate child) Asncion E$ I!solo) ?ho 9redeceased her "other =ythree *,2 "onths$/

O99ositor Geralda Castillo also ar!ed that the ?ill ?as not e&ected and attestedto in accordance ?ith la?$ She 9ointed ot that decedentHs si!natre did not a99earon the second 9a!e of the ?ill) and the ?ill ?as not 9ro9erly acno?led!ed$ Theset?in ar!"ents are a"on! the central "atters to this 9etition$

After de trial) the RTC ad"itted the ?ill to 9ro=ate) in an Order dated #5 A!st#00.$3The RTC faora=ly too into accont the testi"ony of the three *,2 ?itnessesto the ?ill)


5/45

The aforeoted declaration co"9rises the attestation clase and theacno?led!e"ent and is considered =y this Cort as a s=stantial co"9liance ?iththe reire"ents of the la?$

On the o99ositorHs contention that the attestation clase ?as not si!ned =y thes=scri=in! ?itnesses at the =otto" thereof) this Cort is of the ie? that the

si!nin! =y the s=scri=in! ?itnesses on the left "ar!in of the second 9a!e of the?ill containin! the attestation clase and acno?led!"ent) instead of at the =otto"thereof) s=stantially satisBes the 9r9ose of identiBcation and attestation of the?ill$

ith re!ard to the o99ositorHs ar!"ent that the ?ill ?as not n"=eredcorrelatiely in letters 9laced on 99er 9art of each 9a!e and that the attestationdid not state the n"=er of 9a!es thereof) it is ?orthy to note that the ?ill isco"9osed of only t?o 9a!es$ The Brst 9a!e contains the entire te&t of thetesta"entary dis9ositions) and the second 9a!e contains the last 9ortion of theattestation clase and acno?led!e"ent$ Sch =ein! so) the defects are not of aserios natre as to inalidate the ?ill$ (or the sa"e reason) the failre of thetestatri& to aM& her si!natre on the left "ar!in of the second 9a!e) ?hich containsonly the last 9ortion of the attestation clase and acno?led!"ent is not a fataldefect$

As re!ards the o99ositorHs assertion that the si!natre of the testatri& on the ?ill isa for!ery) the testi"onies of the three s=scri=in! ?itnesses to the ?ill areconincin! eno!h to esta=lish the !enineness of the si!natre of the testatri& andthe de e&ection of the ?ill$6

The Order ?as a99ealed to the Cort of A99eals =y Ernesto Castillo) ?ho hads=stitted his since deceased "other+in+la?) Geralda Castillo$ In a Decision dated#4 A!st #00/) the Cort of A99eals reersed the trial cort and ordered thedis"issal of the 9etition for 9ro=ate$0The Cort of A99eals noted that theattestation clase failed to state the n"=er of 9a!es sed in the ?ill) thsrenderin! the ?ill oid and ndeserin! of 9ro=ate$#5

%ence) the 9resent 9etition$

Petitioner ar!es that the reire"ent nder Article 65/ of the Ciil Code that then"=er of 9a!es sed in a notarial ?ill =e stated in the attestation clase is "erelydirectory) rather than "andatory) and ths ssce9ti=le to ?hat he ter"ed as thes=stantial co"9liance rle$##

The soltion to this case calls for the a99lication of Articles 65/ and 653 of the Ciil

Code) ?hich ?e re9licate in fll$

Art$ 65/$ Eery ?ill) other than a holo!ra9hic ?ill) "st =e s=scri=ed at the endthereof =y the testator hi"self or =y the testator's na"e ?ritten =y so"e other9erson in his 9resence) and =y his e&9ress direction) and attested and s=scri=ed =ythree or "ore credi=le ?itnesses in the 9resence of the testator and of one another$

The testator or the 9erson reested =y hi" to ?rite his na"e and the instr"ental?itnesses of the ?ill) shall also si!n) as aforesaid) each and eery 9a!e thereof)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt11


6/45

e&ce9t the last) on the left "ar!in) and all the 9a!es shall =e n"=eredcorrelatiely in letters 9laced on the 99er 9art of each 9a!e$

The attestation shall state the n"=er of 9a!es sed 9on ?hich the ?ill is ?ritten)and the fact that the testator si!ned the ?ill and eery 9a!e thereof) or casedso"e other 9erson to ?rite his na"e) nder his e&9ress direction) in the 9resence of

the instr"ental ?itnesses) and that the latter ?itnessed and si!ned the ?ill and allthe 9a!es thereof in the 9resence of the testator and of one another$

If the attestation clase is in a lan!a!e not no?n to the ?itnesses) it shall =einter9reted to the"$

Art$ 653$ Eery ?ill "st =e acno?led!ed =efore a notary 9=lic =y the testatorand the ?itnesses$ The notary 9=lic shall not =e reired to retain a co9y of the?ill) or Ble another ?ith the oMce of the Cler of Cort$

The a99ellate cort) in its Decision) considered only one defect) the failre of theattestation clase to state the n"=er of 9a!es of the ?ill$ @t an e&a"ination of

the ?ill itself reeals seeral "ore deBciencies$As ad"itted =y 9etitioner hi"self) the attestation clase fails to state the n"=er of9a!es of the ?ill$#.There ?as an inco"9lete atte"9t to co"9ly ?ith this reisite) as9ace hain! =een allotted for the insertion of the n"=er of 9a!es in theattestation clase$ Fet the =lan ?as neer Blled in hence) the reisite ?as leftnco"9lied ?ith$

The Cort of A99eals 9onced on this defect in reersin! the trial cort) citin! in the9rocess Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca#,and In re: Will of Andrada.#-In Uy Coque) theCort noted that a"on! the defects of the ?ill in estion ?as the failre of theattestation clase to state the n"=er of 9a!es contained in the ?ill$#/In rlin! that

the ?ill cold not =e ad"itted to 9ro=ate) the Cort "ade the follo?in!consideration ?hich re"ains hi!hly releant to this day: The 9r9ose of reirin!the n"=er of sheets to =e stated in the attestation clase is o=ios #($%o+!$*# i(# $)il& "$ o pr$p)r$% #()# #($ r$o/)l o- ) ($$# 'o!l%

+opl$#$l& +()*$ #($ #$#)$*#)r& %ipoi#io* o- #($ 'ill )*% i* #($

)"$*+$ o- ) #)#$$*# o- #($ #o#)l *!"$r o- ($$# !+( r$o/)l i(#

"$ $3$+#$% "& #)i* o!# #($ ($$# )*% +()*i* #($ *!"$r )# #($ #op

o- #($ -ollo'i* ($$# or p)$$ If) on the other hand) the total n"=er ofsheets is stated in the attestation clase the falsiBcation of the doc"ent ?illinole the insertin! of ne? 9a!es and the for!in! of the si!natres of the testatorand ?itnesses in the "ar!in) a "atter attended ?ith "ch !reater diMclty$#3

The case of In re Will of Andradaconcerned a ?ill the attestation clase of ?hichfailed to state the n"=er of sheets or 9a!es sed$ This consideration alone ?assMcient for the Cort to declare nani"ityQ 9on the 9oint that the defect9ointed ot in the attestin! clase is fatal$#4It ?as frther o=sered that it cannot=e denied that the & & & reire"ent aords additional secrity a!ainst the dan!erthat the ?ill "ay =e ta"9ered ?ith and as the Le!islatre has seen Bt to 9rescri=ethis reire"ent) it "st =e considered "aterial$#6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt18


7/45

A!ainst these cited cases) 9etitioner cites Singson v. Florentino#0and Taboada v.on. !osal).5?herein the Cort allo?ed 9ro=ate to the ?ills concerned thereindes9ite the fact that the attestation clase did not state the n"=er of 9a!es of the?ill$ Fet the a99ellate cort itself considered the i"9ort of these t?o cases) and"ade the follo?in! distinction ?hich 9etitioner is na=le to re=t) and ?hich ?e

ado9t ?ith a99roal:Een a crsory e&a"ination of the ill *E&hi=it D2) ?ill readily sho? that theattestation does not state the n"=er of 9a!es sed 9on ?hich the ?ill is ?ritten$%ence) the ill is oid and ndeserin! of 9ro=ate$

e are not i"9erios of the Decisions of the S9re"e Cort in 1anel Sin!sonerss E"ilia (lorentino) et al$) 0. Phil$ #3# and A9olonio Ta=oadaQ erss %on$Aelino Rosal) et al$) ##6 SCRA #0/) to the eect that a ?ill "ay still =e alid eenif the attestation does not contain the n"=er of 9a!es sed 9on ?hich the ill is?ritten$ %o?eer) the Decisions of the S9re"e Cort are not a99lica=le in theafore"entioned a99eal at =ench$ This is so =ecase) in the case of 1anel Sin!sonerss E"ilia (lorentino) et al$) s9ra) altho!h the attestation in the s=ect illdid not state the n"=er of 9a!es sed in the ?ill) ho?eer) the sa"e ?as fond inthe last 9art of the =ody of the ill:

& & &

The la? referred to is article 3#6 of the Code of Ciil Procedre) as a"ended =y ActNo$ .3-/) ?hich reires that the attestation clase shall state the n"=er of 9a!esor sheets 9on ?hich the ?ill is ?ritten) ?hich reire"ent has =een held to =e"andatory as an eectie safe!ard a!ainst the 9ossi=ility of inter9olation oro"ission of so"e of the 9a!es of the ?ill to the 9redice of the heirs to ?ho" the9ro9erty is intended to =e =eeathed *In re ill of Andrada) -. Phil$ #65 Uy Coes$ Naas L$ Sioca) -, Phil$) -5/ G"=an s$ Gorcho) /5 Phil$ ,5


8/45

e hae e&a"ined the ?ill in estion and noticed that the attestation clase failedto state the n"=er of 9a!es sed in ?ritin! the ?ill$ This ?old hae =een a fataldefect ?ere it not for the fact that) in this case) it is discerni=le fro" the entire ?illthat it is really and actally co"9osed of only t?o 9a!es dly si!ned =y the testatri&and her instr"ental ?itnesses$ As earlier stated) the Brst 9a!e ?hich contains the

entirety of the testa"entary dis9ositions is si!ned =y the testatri& at the end or atthe =otto" ?hile the instr"ental ?itnesses si!ned at the left "ar!in$ The other9a!e ?hich is "ared as Pa!ina dos co"9rises the attestation clase and theacno?led!"ent$ The acno?led!"ent itself states that this Last ill and

Testa"ent consists of t?o 9a!es incldin! this 9a!e *9a!es .55+.5#) s9ra2*Underscorin! s99lied2$

%o?eer) in the a99eal at =ench) the n"=er of 9a!es sed in the ?ill is not statedin any 9art of the ill$ The ?ill does not een contain any notarial acno?led!"ent?herein the n"=er of 9a!es of the ?ill shold =e stated$.#

@oth Uy Coque andAndrada?ere decided 9rior to the enact"ent of the Ciil Codein #0/5) at a ti"e ?hen the stattory 9roision !oernin! the for"al reire"ent of?ills ?as Section

3#6 of the Code of Ciil Procedre$..Reliance on these cases re"ains a9ro9os)considerin! that the reire"ent that the attestation state the n"=er of 9a!es ofthe ?ill is e&tant fro" Section 3#6$.,%o?eer) the enact"ent of the Ciil Code in#0/5 did 9t in force a rle of inter9retation of the reire"ents of ?ills) at leastinsofar as the attestation clase is concerned) that "ay ary fro" the 9hiloso9hythat !oerned these t?o cases$ Article 650 of the Ciil Code states: In the a=senceof =ad faith) for!ery) or frad) or nde and i"9ro9er 9ressre and inence)defects and i"9erfections in the for" of attestation or in the lan!a!e sed thereinshall not render the ?ill inalid if it is 9roed that the ?ill ?as in fact e&ected and

attested in s=stantial co"9liance ?ith all the reire"ents of article 65/$In the sa"e ein) 9etitioner cites the re9ort of the Ciil Code Co""ission) ?hichstated that the nderlyin! and fnda"ental o=ectie 9er"eatin! the 9roisions onthe la?Q on ?illsQ in this 9roect consists in the li=erali;ationQ of the "anner oftheir e&ection ?ith the end in ie? of !iin! the testator "ore freedo"Q ine&9ressin!Q his last ?ishes$ This o=ectie is in accord ?ith the "odern tendencyQin res9ect to the for"alities in the e&ection of ?ills$.-%o?eer) 9etitionerconeniently o"its the aliBcation oered =y the Code Co""ission in the erysa"e 9ara!ra9h he cites fro" their re9ort) that sch li=erali;ation =e =t ?ithsMcient safe!ards and restrictions to 9reent the co""ission of frad and thee&ercise of nde and i"9ro9er 9ressre and inence 9on the testator$./

Caneda v. Court of A""eals.3featres an e&tensie discssion "ade =y 7sticeRe!alado) s9eain! for the Cort on the conictin! ie?s on the "anner ofinter9retation of the le!al for"alities reired in the e&ection of the attestationclase in ?ills$.4Uy Coque andAndradaare cited therein) alon! ?ith seeral othercases) as e&a"9les of the a99lication of the rle of strict constrction$.6%o?eer)the Code Co""ission o9ted to reco""end a "ore li=eral constrction thro!h the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt28


9/45

s=stantial co"9liance rle nder Article 650$ A cationary note ?as strctho!h =y 7stice 7$@$L$ Reyes as to ho? Article 650 shold =e a99lied:

& & & The rle "st =e li"ited to disre!ardin! those defects that can =e s99lied =yan e&a"ination of the ?ill itself: ?hether all the 9a!es are consectiely n"=ered?hether the si!natres a99ear in each and eery 9a!e ?hether the s=scri=in!

?itnesses are three or the ?ill ?as notari;ed$ All these are facts that the ?ill itselfcan reeal) and defects or een o"issions concernin! the" in the attestation clasecan =e safely disre!arded$ 4!# #($ #o#)l *!"$r o- p)$, )*% '($#($r )llp$ro* r$5!ir$% #o i* %i% o i* #($ pr$$*+$ o- $)+( o#($r !#

!"#)*#i)ll& )pp$)r i* #($ )##$#)#io* +l)!$, "$i* #($ o*l& +($+

))i*# p$r!r& i* #($ pro")#$ pro+$$%i*$.0*E"9hasis s99lied$2

The Cort of A99eals did cite these co""ents =y 7stice 7$@$L$ Reyes in its assaileddecision) considerin! that the failre to state the n"=er of 9a!es of the ?ill in theattestation clase is one of the defects ?hich cannot =e si"9ly disre!arded$In Canedaitself) the Cort refsed to allo? the 9ro=ate of a ?ill ?hose attestationclase failed to state that the ?itnesses s=scri=ed their res9ectie si!natres tothe ?ill in the 9resence of the testator and of each other) ,5the other o"ission cited=y 7stice 7$@$L$ Reyes ?hich to his esti"ation cannot =e li!htly disre!arded$

Canedas!!ested: IQt "ay ths =e stated that the rle) as it no? stands) is thato"ission ?hich can =e s99lied =y an e&a"ination of the ?ill itself) ?ithot theneed of resortin! to e&trinsic eidence) ?ill not =e fatal and) corres9ondin!ly) ?oldnot o=strct the allo?ance to 9ro=ate of the ?ill =ein! assailed$ %o?eer) thoseo"issions ?hich cannot =e s99lied e&ce9t =y eidence aliunde?old reslt in theinalidation of the attestation clase and lti"ately) of the ?ill itself$ ,#Ths) afailre =y the attestation clase to state that the testator si!ned eery 9a!e can =eli=erally constred) since that fact can =e checed =y a isal e&a"ination ?hile a

failre =y the attestation clase to state that the ?itnesses si!ned in one anotherHs9resence shold =e considered a fatal a? since the attestation is the only te&tal!arantee of co"9liance$,.

The failre of the attestation clase to state the n"=er of 9a!es on ?hich the ?ill?as ?ritten re"ains a fatal a?) des9ite Article 650$ The 9r9ose of the la? inreirin! the clase to state the n"=er of 9a!es on ?hich the ?ill is ?ritten is tosafe!ard a!ainst 9ossi=le inter9olation or o"ission of one or so"e of its 9a!es andto 9reent any increase or decrease in the 9a!es$,,The failre to state the n"=erof 9a!es eates ?ith the a=sence of an aer"ent on the 9art of the instr"ental?itnesses as to ho? "any 9a!es consisted the ?ill) the e&ection of ?hich they hadostensi=ly st ?itnessed and s=scri=ed to$ (ollo?in! Caneda) there is s=stantialco"9liance ?ith this reire"ent if the ?ill states else?here in it ho? "any 9a!es itis co"9rised of) as ?as the sitation inSingson and Taboada$ %o?eer) in this case)there cold hae =een no s=stantial co"9liance ?ith the reire"ents nderArticle 65/ since there is no state"ent in the attestation clase or any?here in the?ill itself as to the n"=er of 9a!es ?hich co"9rise the ?ill$

At the sa"e ti"e) Article 650 shold not deiate fro" the need to co"9ly ?ith thefor"al reire"ents as en"erated nder Article 65/$ hateer the inclinations of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt33


10/45

the "e"=ers of the Code Co""ission in incor9oratin! Article 65/) the fact re"ainsthat they sa? Bt to 9rescri=e s=stantially the sa"e for"al reisites asen"erated in Section 3#6 of the Code of Ciil Procedre) coninced that thesere"ained eectie safe!ards a!ainst the for!ery or intercalation of notarial?ills$,-Co"9liance ?ith these reire"ents) ho?eer 9icayne in i"9ression)

aords the 9=lic a hi!h de!ree of co"fort that the testator hi"self or herself haddecided to coney 9ro9erty"ost #orte#in the "anner esta=lished in the?ill$,/T($ #r)*+$*%$*# l$il)#i/$ i*#$*#, $/$* ) $pr$$% i* #($ +i#$%+o$*# o- #($ Co%$ Coiio*, i -or #($ -r!i#io* o- #($ #$#)#or7

i*+o*#$#)"l$ %$ir$, )*% *o# -or #($ i*%!l$*# )%iio* o- 'ill #o

pro")#$$

The Cort cold ths end here and aMr" the Cort of A99eals$ %o?eer) ane&a"ination of the ?ill itself reeals a co9le of een "ore critical defects thatshold necessarily lead to its reection$

For o*$, #($ )##$#)#io* +l)!$ ') *o# i*$% "& #($ i*#r!$*#)l

'i#*$$.hile the si!natres of the instr"ental ?itnesses a99ear on the left+hand "ar!in of the ?ill) they do not a99ear at the =otto" of the attestation clase?hich after all consists of their aer"ents =efore the notary 9=lic$

Cagro v. Cagro,3is "aterial on this 9oint$ As in this case) the si!natres of thethree ?itnesses to the ?ill do not a99ear at the =otto" of the attestation clase)altho!h the 9a!e containin! the sa"e is si!ned =y the ?itnesses on the left+hand"ar!in$,4hile three *,2 7stices,6considered the si!natre reire"ent had =eens=stantially co"9lied ?ith) a "aority of si& *32) s9eain! thro!h Chief 7sticeParas) rled that the attestation clase had not =een dly si!ned) renderin! the ?illfatally defectie$

There is no estion that the si!natres of the three ?itnesses to the ?ill do nota99ear at the =otto" of the attestation clase) altho!h the 9a!e containin! thesa"e is si!ned =y the ?itnesses on the left+hand "ar!in$

e are of the o9inion that the 9osition taen =y the a99ellant is correct$ Theattestation clase is a "e"orand" of the facts attendin! the e&ection of the?ill reired =y la? to =e "ade =y the attestin! ?itnesses) and it "st necessarily=ear their si!natres$ An nsi!ned attestation clase cannot =e considered as anact of the ?itnesses) since the o"ission of their si!natres at the =otto" thereofne!aties their 9artici9ation$

The 9etitioner and a99ellee contends that si!natres of the three ?itnesses on theleft+hand "ar!in confor" s=stantially to the la? and "ay =e dee"ed as theirsi!natres to the attestation clase$ This is ntena=le) =ecase said si!natres arein co"9liance ?ith the le!al "andate that the ?ill =e si!ned on the left+hand"ar!in of all its 9a!es$ If an attestation clase not si!ned =y the three ?itnesses atthe =otto" thereof) =e ad"itted as sMcient) it ?old =e easy to add sch clase toa ?ill on a s=seent occasion and in the a=sence of the testator and any or all ofthe ?itnesses$,0
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt39


11/45

The Cort today reiterates the contined eMcacy of Cagro$ Article 65/ 9articlarlyse!re!ates the reire"ent that the instr"ental ?itnesses si!n each 9a!e of the?ill) fro" the reisite that the ?ill =e attested and s=scri=ed =y theinstr"ental ?itnessesQ$ The res9ectie intents =ehind these t?o classes ofsi!natre are distinct fro" each other$ The si!natres on the left+hand corner of

eery 9a!e si!nify) a"on! others) that the ?itnesses are a?are that the 9a!e theyare si!nin! for"s 9art of the ?ill$ On the other hand) the si!natres to theattestation clase esta=lish that the ?itnesses are referrin! to the state"entscontained in the attestation clase itself$ Indeed) the attestation clase is se9arateand a9art fro" the dis9osition of the ?ill$ An nsi!ned attestation clase reslts inan nattested ?ill$ Een if the instr"ental ?itnesses si!ned the left+hand "ar!in ofthe 9a!e containin! the nsi!ned attestation clase) sch si!natres cannotde"onstrate these ?itnessesH ndertain!s in the clase) since the si!natres thatdo a99ear on the 9a!e ?ere directed to?ards a ?holly dierent ao?al$

The Cort "ay =e "ore charita=ly dis9osed had the ?itnesses in this case si!nedthe attestation clase itself) =t not the left+hand "ar!in of the 9a!e containin!

sch clase$ ithot di"inishin! the ale of the instr"ental ?itnessesHsi!natres on each and eery 9a!e) the fact "st =e noted that it is the attestationclase ?hich contains the tterances redced into ?ritin! of the testa"entary?itnesses the"seles$ It is the ?itnesses) and not the testator) ?ho are reirednder Article 65/ to state the n"=er of 9a!es sed 9on ?hich the ?ill is ?rittenthe fact that the testator had si!ned the ?ill and eery 9a!e thereof and that they?itnessed and si!ned the ?ill and all the 9a!es thereof in the 9resence of thetestator and of one another$ The only 9roof in the ?ill that the ?itnesses haestated these ele"ental facts ?old =e their si!natres on the attestation clase$

Ths) the s=ect ?ill cannot =e considered to hae =een alidly attested to =y theinstr"ental ?itnesses) as they failed to si!n the attestation clase$

Fet) there is another fatal defect to the ?ill on ?hich the denial of this 9etitionshold also hin!e$ The reire"ent nder Article 653 that eery ?ill "st =eacno?led!ed =efore a notary 9=lic =y the testator and the ?itnesses has alsonot =een co"9lied ?ith$ The i"9ortance of this reire"ent is hi!hli!hted =y thefact that it had =een se!re!ated fro" the other reire"ents nder Article 65/ andentrsted into a se9arate 9roision) Article 653$ The non+o=serance of Article 653in this case is eally as critical as the other cited a?s in co"9liance ?ith Article65/) and shold =e treated as of eialent i"9ort$

In lie of an acno?led!"ent) the notary 9=lic) Petronio F$ @atista) ?roteNilagdaan $o at ninotario $o ngayong%& ng unyo %& 'sic() %*+% dito sa Lungsodng ,aynila$-5@y no "anner of conte"9lation can those ?ords =e constred as anacno?led!"ent$ An acno?led!"ent is the act of one ?ho has e&ected a deed in!oin! =efore so"e co"9etent oMcer or cort and declarin! it to =e his act ordeed$-#It inoles an e&tra ste9 ndertaen ?here=y the si!nor actally declares tothe notary that the e&ector of a doc"ent has attested to the notary that thesa"e is hisKher o?n free act and deed$
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt41


12/45

It "i!ht =e 9ossi=le to constre the aer"ent as a-urat) een tho!h it does nothe? to the sal lan!a!e thereof$ A-urat is that 9art of an aMdait ?here thenotary certiBes that =efore hi"Kher) the doc"ent ?as s=scri=ed and s?orn to =ythe e&ector$-.Ordinarily) the lan!a!e of the-uratshold ao? that the doc"ent?as s=scri=ed and s?orn =efore the notary 9=lic) ?hile in this case) the notary

9=lic aerred that he hi"self si!ned and notari;ed the doc"ent$ Possi=lytho!h) the ?ord ninotario or notari;ed enco"9asses the si!nin! of ands?earin! in of the e&ectors of the doc"ent) ?hich in this case ?old inole thedecedent and the instr"ental ?itnesses$

Fet een if ?e consider ?hat ?as aM&ed =y the notary 9=lic as a-urat) the ?ill?old nonetheless re"ain inalid) as the e&9ress reire"ent of Article 653 is thatthe ?ill =e acno?led!ed) and not "erely s=scri=ed and s?orn to$ The ?ill doesnot 9resent any te&tal 9roof) "ch less one nder oath) that the decedent and theinstr"ental ?itnesses e&ected or si!ned the ?ill as their o?n free act or deed$

The acno?led!"ent "ade in a ?ill 9roides for another all+i"9ortant le!alsafe!ard a!ainst s9rios ?ills or those "ade =eyond the free consent of the

testator$ An acno?led!e"ent is not an e"9ty "eanin!less act$-,Theacno?led!"ent coerces the testator and the instr"ental ?itnesses to declare=efore an oMcer of the la? that they had e&ected and s=scri=ed to the ?ill astheir o?n free act or deed$ Sch declaration is nder oath and nder 9ain of 9erry)ths allo?in! for the cri"inal 9rosection of 9ersons ?ho 9artici9ate in thee&ection of s9rios ?ills) or those e&ected ?ithot the free consent of thetestator$ It also 9roides a frther de!ree of assrance that the testator is of certain"indset in "ain! the testa"entary dis9ositions to those 9ersons heKshe haddesi!nated in the ?ill$

It "ay not hae =een said =efore) =t ?e can assert the rle) self+eident as it isnder Article 653$ A *o#)ri)l 'ill #()# i *o# )+*o'l$%$% "$-or$ ) *o#)r&p!"li+ "& #($ #$#)#or )*% #($ 'i#*$$ i -)#)ll& %$-$+#i/$, $/$* i- i# i

!"+ri"$% )*% 'or* #o "$-or$ ) *o#)r& p!"li+$

There are t?o other reire"ents nder Article 65/ ?hich ?ere not flly satisBed =ythe ?ill in estion$ e need not discss the" at len!th) as they are no lon!er"aterial to the

dis9osition of this case$ The 9roision reires that the testator and theinstr"ental ?itnesses si!n each and eery 9a!e of the ?ill on the left "ar!in)e&ce9t the last and that all the 9a!es shall =e n"=ered correlatiely in letters9laced on the 99er 9art of each 9a!e$ In this case) the decedent) nlie the?itnesses) failed to si!n =oth 9a!es of the ?ill on the left "ar!in) her only si!natrea99earin! at the so+called lo!ical end--of the ?ill on its Brst 9a!e$ Also) the ?illitself is not n"=ered correlatiely in letters on each 9a!e) =t instead n"=ered?ith Ara=ic n"erals$ There is a line of tho!ht that has disa=sed the notion thatthese t?o reire"ents =e constred as "andatory$-/Taen in isolation) theseo"issions) =y the"seles) "ay not =e sMcient to deny 9ro=ate to a ?ill$ Fet eenas these o"issions are not decisie to the addication of this case) they need not=e d?elt on) tho!h indicatie as they "ay =e of a !eneral lac of de re!ard forthe reire"ents nder Article 65/ =y ?hoeer e&ected the ?ill$
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt45


13/45

All told) the strin! of "ortal defects ?hich the ?ill in estion sers fro" "aesthe 9ro=ate denial ine&ora=le$

%ERE(ORE) the 9etition is DENIED$ Costs a!ainst 9etitioner$

SO ORDERED$

DANTE O. TINGAAssociate 7stice

SECOND DIISION

CFNT%IA C$ ALA@AN) G$R$ No$ #/35.#

(RANCIS COLLADO) 7OSE

P$ COLLADO) 7UDIT% Present:

PRO8IDO) CLARITA PRO8IDO)

AL(REDO PRO8IDO) 1ANUEL PUNO).)PRO8IDO) 7R$) LORNA DINA C/air#an)

E$ PRO8IDO) SE8ERO ARENGA) AUSTRIA+1ARTINE)

7R$) SERGIO ARENGA) EDUARDO CALLE7O) SR$)

ARENGA) CAROL ARENGA) RUT% TINGA) and

@A@ASA) NOR1A %I7ASTRO) C%ICO+NAARIO).

DOLORES 1$ (LORES) ANTONIO

1ARIN) 7R$) 7OSE 1ARIN) SR$) and

1AT%ILDE 1ARIN) Pro"l!ated:

0etitioners)

Se9te"=er .,) .55/

+ erss +

COURT O( APPEALS and

(RANCISCO %$ PRO8IDO)

!es"ondents.

&+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&


14/45

D E C I S I O N

TINGA).:


15/45

This is a 9etition for reie? of the !esolutions#Qof the Cort of A99eals *CA2 in CA+G$R$ SP No$ 30..#).Qdis"issin! 9etitioners 9etition for annl"ent of d!"ent$

On 6 Noe"=er .555) res9ondent (rancisco Proido *res9ondent2 Bled a 9etition)

doceted as SP Proc$ No$ 55+#,/) for the 9ro=ate of theLast Will and Testa#ent,Q

ofthe late Soledad Proido Eleencionado *decedent2) ?ho died on .3 Octo=er .555 in7aniay) Iloilo$-QRes9ondent alle!ed that he ?as the heir of the decedent and thee&ector of her ?ill$ On ,5 1ay .55#) the Re!ional Trial Cort *RTC2) @ranch 36) inP$D$ 1onfort North) D"an!as) Iloilo) rendered its 1ecision)/Qallo?in! the 9ro=ate ofthe ?ill of the decedent and directin! the issance of letters testa"entary tores9ondent$3Q

1ore than for *-2 "onths later) or on - Octo=er .55#) herein 9etitioners Bled a"otion for the reo9enin! of the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s$4QLie?ise) they Bled an

o99osition to the allo?ance of the ?ill of the decedent) as ?ell as the issance ofletters testa"entary to res9ondent)6Qclai"in! that they are the intestate heirs ofthe decedent$ Petitioners clai"ed that the RTC did not acire risdiction oer the9etition de to non+9ay"ent of the correct docet fees) defectie 9=lication) andlac of notice to the other heirs$ 1oreoer) they alle!ed that the ?ill cold not hae=een 9ro=ated =ecase: *#2 the si!natre of the decedent ?as for!ed *.2 the ?ill?as not e&ected in accordance ?ith la?) that is) the ?itnesses failed to si!n =elo?the attestation clase *,2 the decedent laced testa"entary ca9acity to e&ecteand 9=lish a ?ill *-2 the ?ill ?as e&ected =y force and nder dress and i"9ro9er9ressre */2 the decedent had no intention to "ae a ?ill at the ti"e of aM&in! ofher si!natre and *32 she did not no? the 9ro9erties to =e dis9osed of) hain!inclded in the ?ill 9ro9erties ?hich no lon!er =elon!ed to her$ Petitioners 9rayedthat the letters testa"entary issed to res9ondent =e ?ithdra?n and the estate ofthe decedent dis9osed of nder intestate sccession$0Q

On ## 7anary .55.) the RTC issed an 2rder#5Qdenyin! 9etitioners "otion for=ein! n"eritorios$ Resolin! the isse of risdiction) the RTC held that 9etitioners?ere dee"ed notiBed of the hearin! =y 9=lication and that the deBciency in the9ay"ent of docet fees is not a !rond for the otri!ht dis"issal of the 9etition$ It"erely reired res9ondent to 9ay the deBciency$##Q1oreoer) theRTCs 1ecision?as already Bnal and e&ectory een =efore 9etitioners Blin! of the"otion to reo9en$#.Q

Petitioners thereafter Bled a 9etition#,Q?ith an a99lication for 9reli"inary innction?ith the CA) seein! the annl"ent of the RTCs 1ecisiondated ,5 1ay .55#and 2rderdated ## 7anary .55.$ They clai"ed that after the death of thedecedent) 9etitioners) to!ether ?ith res9ondent) held seeral conferences todiscss the "atter of diidin! the estate of the decedent) ?ith res9ondent a!reein!
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn13


16/45

to a one+si&th *#K32 9ortion as his share$ Petitioners alle!edly drafted a co"9ro"isea!ree"ent to i"9le"ent the diision of the estate$ Des9ite recei9t of thea!ree"ent) res9ondent refsed to si!n and retrn the sa"e$ Petitioners o9ined thatres9ondent fei!ned interest in 9artici9atin! in the co"9ro"ise a!ree"ent so thatthey ?old not ss9ect his intention to secre the 9ro=ate of the ?ill$#-QThey

clai"ed that they learnt of the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s only in 7ly of .55#) as a resltof ?hich they Bled their "otion to reo9en the 9roceedin!s and ad"it theiro99osition to the 9ro=ate of the ?ill only on - Octo=er .55#$ They ar!ed that theRTC 1ecisionshold =e annlled and set aside on the !rond of e&trinsic frad andlac of risdiction on the 9art of the RTC$#/Q

In its !esolution#3Q9ro"l!ated on .6 (e=rary .55.) the CA dis"issed the 9etition$It fond that there ?as no sho?in! that 9etitioners failed to aail of or resort to theordinary re"edies of ne? trial) a99eal) 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent) or othera99ro9riate re"edies thro!h no falt of their o?n$#4Q1oreoer) the CA declared as=aseless 9etitioners clai" that the 9roceedin!s in the RTC ?as attended =y e&trinsicfrad$ Neither ?as there any sho?in! that they aailed of this !rond in a "otionfor ne? trial or 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent in the RTC) the CA added$#6QPetitioners so!ht reconsideration of the !esolution) =t the sa"e ?as denied =ythe CA for lac of "erit$#0Q

Petitioners no? co"e to this Cort) assertin! that the CA co""itted !rae a=se ofdiscretion a"ontin! to lac of risdiction ?hen it dis"issed their 9etition for thealle!ed failre to sho? that they hae not aailed of or resorted to the re"edies ofne? trial) a99eal) 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent or other re"edies thro!h nofalt of their o?n) and held that 9etitioners ?ere not denied their day in cortdrin! the 9roceedin!s =efore the RTC$.5QIn addition) they assert that this Cort hasyet to decide a case inolin! Rle -4 of the Rles of Cort and) therefore) theinstant 9etition shold =e !ien de corse for the !idance of the =ench and =ar$.#Q

(or his 9art) res9ondent clai"s that 9etitioners ?ere in a 9osition to aail of there"edies 9roided in Rles ,4 and ,6) as they in fact did ?hen they Bled a "otionfor ne? trial$..Q1oreoer) they cold hae resorted to a 9etition for relief fro"

d!"ent since they learned of the RTCs d!"ent only three and a half "onthsafter its 9ro"l!ation$.,QRes9ondent lie?ise "aintains that no e&trinsic frade&ists to ?arrant the annl"ent of the RTCs 1ecision) since there ?as no sho?in!that they ?ere denied their day in cort$ Petitioners ?ere not "ade 9arties to the9ro=ate 9roceedin!s =ecase the decedent did not institte the" as her heirs$.-Q@esides) ass"in! arguendothat 9etitioners are heirs of the decedent) lac ofnotice to the" is not a fatal defect since 9ersonal notice 9on the heirs is a "atterof 9rocedral conenience and not a risdictional reisite$./Q(inally) res9ondentchar!es 9etitioners of for"sho99in!) since the latter hae a 9endin! sit inolin!the sa"e isses as those in SP No$ 55+#,/) that is SP No$ ##6# .3QBled =efore @ranch
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn26


17/45

.,) RTC of General Santos City and s=seently 9endin! on a99eal =efore the CAin CA+G$R$ No$4-0.-$.4Q

It a99ears that one of the 9etitioners herein) Dolores 1$ (lores *(lores2) ?ho is a

niece of the decedent) Bled a 9etition for letters of ad"inistration ?ith the RTC ofGeneral Santos City) clai"in! that the decedent died intestate ?ithot any isse)sried =y Be !ro9s of collateral heirs$ (lores) ar"ed ?ith a S9ecial Po?er ofAttorney fro" "ost of the other 9etitioners) 9rayed for her a99oint"ent asad"inistratri& of the estate of the decedent$ The RTC dis"issed the 9etition on the!rond of lac of risdiction) statin! that the 9ro=ate cort in 7aniay) Iloilo has

risdiction since the ene for a 9etition for the settle"ent of the estate of adecedent is the 9lace ?here the decedent died$ This is also in accordance ?ith therle that the Brst cort acirin! risdiction shall contine hearin! the case to thee&clsion of other corts) the RTC added$.6QOn 0 7anary .55.) (lores Bled a Noticeof A""eal.0Qand on .6 7anary .55.) the case ?as ordered for?arded to the CA$,5Q

Petitioners "aintain that they ?ere not "ade 9arties to the case in ?hich thedecision so!ht to =e annlled ?as rendered and) ths) they cold not hae aailedof the ordinary re"edies of ne? trial) a99eal) 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent andother a99ro9riate re"edies) contrary to the rlin! of the CA$ They aer thatres9ondents oer of a false co"9ro"ise and his failre to notify the" of the 9ro=ateof the ?ill constitte e&trinsic frad that necessitates the annl"ent of the RTCs

d!"ent$,#Q

The 9etition is deoid of "erit$

Section ,4 of the Rles of Cort allo?s an a!!rieed 9arty to Ble a "otion for ne?trial on the !rond of frad) accident) "istae) or e&csa=le ne!li!ence$ The sa"e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn31


18/45

Rle 9er"its the Blin! of a "otion for reconsideration on the !ronds of e&cessiea?ard of da"a!es) insMciency of eidence to stify the decision or Bnal order) orthat the decision or Bnal order is contrary to la?$ ,.Q@oth "otions shold =e Bled?ithin the 9eriod for tain! an a99eal) or Bfteen *#/2 days fro" notice of the

d!"ent or Bnal order$

1ean?hile) a 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent nder Section , of Rle ,6 is resortedto ?hen a d!"ent or Bnal order is entered) or any other 9roceedin! is thereaftertaen) a!ainst a 9arty in any cort thro!h frad) accident) "istae) or e&csa=lene!li!ence$ Said 9arty "ay Ble a 9etition in the sa"e cort and in the sa"e case toset aside the d!"ent) order or 9roceedin!$ It "st =e Bled ?ithin si&ty *352 daysafter the 9etitioner learns of the d!"ent and ?ithin si& *32 "onths after entrythereof$,,Q

A "otion for ne? trial or reconsideration and a 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent arere"edies aaila=le only to 9arties in the 9roceedin!s ?here the assailed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn33


19/45

d!"ent is rendered$,-QIn fact) it has =een held that a 9erson ?ho ?as neer a9arty to the case) or een s""oned to a99ear therein) cannot aail of a 9etitionfor relief fro" d!"ent$,/Q

%o?eer) 9etitioners in this case are "istaen in assertin! that they are not or haenot =eco"e 9arties to the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s$

Under the Rles of Cort) any e&ector) deisee) or le!atee na"ed in a ?ill) or anyother 9erson interested in the estate "ay) at any ti"e after the death of thetestator) 9etition the cort hain! risdiction to hae the ?ill allo?ed$ ,3QNotice ofthe ti"e and 9lace for 9roin! the ?ill "st =e 9=lished for three *,2 consectie?ees) in a ne?s9a9er of !eneral circlation in the 9roince) ,4Qas ?ell as frnishedto the desi!nated or other no?n heirs) le!atees) and deisees of the testator$,6QThs) it has =een held that a 9roceedin! for the 9ro=ate of a ?ill is one in re#)sch that ?ith the corres9ondin! 9=lication of the 9etition the cort's risdictione&tends to all 9ersons interested in said ?ill or in the settle"ent of the estate of thedecedent$,0Q

P=lication is notice to the ?hole ?orld that the 9roceedin! has for its o=ect to =arindeBnitely all ?ho "i!ht =e "inded to "ae an o=ection of any sort a!ainst theri!ht so!ht to =e esta=lished$ It is the 9=lication of sch notice that =rin!s in the?hole ?orld as a 9arty in the case and ests the cort ?ith risdiction to hear anddecide it$-5QThs) een tho!h 9etitioners ?ere not "entioned in the 9etition for

9ro=ate) they eentally =eca"e 9arties thereto as a conseence of the9=lication of the notice of hearin!$

As 9arties to the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s) 9etitioners cold hae alidly aailed of there"edies of "otion for ne? trial or reconsideration and 9etition for relief fro"

d!"ent$ In fact) 9etitioners Bled a "otion to reo9en) ?hich is essentially a "otionfor ne? trial) ?ith 9etitioners 9rayin! for the reo9enin! of the case and the settin!of frther 9roceedin!s$ %o?eer) the "otion ?as denied for hain! =een Bled ot ofti"e) lon! after the1ecision=eca"e Bnal and e&ectory$

Concedin! that 9etitioners =eca"e a?are of the 1ecisionafter it had =eco"e Bnal)they cold hae still Bled a 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent after the denial of their"otion to reo9en$ Petitioners clai" that they learned of the 1ecisiononly on -Octo=er .55#) or al"ost for *-2 "onths fro" the ti"e the 1ecisionhad attainedBnality$ @t they failed to aail of the re"edy$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn40


20/45

(or failre to "ae se ?ithot sMcient stiBcation of the said re"edies aaila=leto the") 9etitioners cold no lon!er resort to a 9etition for annl"ent of d!"entother?ise) they ?old =eneBt fro" their o?n inaction or ne!li!ence$ -#Q

Een castin! aside the 9rocedral reisite) the 9etition for annl"ent of d!"ent"st still fail for failre to co"9ly ?ith the s=stantie reisites) as the a99ellatecort rled$

An action for annl"ent of d!"ent is a re"edy in la? inde9endent of the case?here the d!"ent so!ht to =e annlled ?as rendered$-.QThe 9r9ose of schaction is to hae the Bnal and e&ectory d!"ent set aside so that there ?ill =e arene?al of liti!ation$ It is resorted to in cases ?here the ordinary re"edies of ne?trial) a99eal) 9etition for relief fro" d!"ent) or other a99ro9riate re"edies are nolon!er aaila=le thro!h no falt of the 9etitioner)-,Qand is =ased on only t?o!ronds: e&trinsic frad) and lac of risdiction or denial of de 9rocess$ --QA 9ersonneed not =e a 9arty to the d!"ent so!ht to =e annlled) and it is only essentialthat he can 9roe his alle!ation that the d!"ent ?as o=tained =y the se of fradand collsion and he ?old =e adersely aected there=y$-/Q

An action to annl a Bnal d!"ent on the !rond of frad lies only if the frad ise&trinsic or collateral in character$-3Q(rad is re!arded as e&trinsic ?here it 9reentsa 9arty fro" hain! a trial or fro" 9resentin! his entire case to the cort) or ?hereit o9erates 9on "atters 9ertainin! not to the d!"ent itself =t to the "anner in?hich it is 9rocred$ The oerridin! consideration ?hen e&trinsic frad is alle!ed isthat the fradlent sche"e of the 9reailin! liti!ant 9reented a 9arty fro" hain!his day in cort$-4Q

To sstain their alle!ation of e&trinsic frad) 9etitioners assert that as a reslt of

res9ondents deli=erate o"ission or conceal"ent of their na"es) a!es andresidences as the other heirs of the decedent in his 9etition for allo?ance of the ?ill)they ?ere not notiBed of the 9roceedin!s) and ths they ?ere denied their day incort$ In addition) they clai" that res9ondents oer of a false co"9ro"ise een=efore the Blin! of the 9etition 9reented the" fro" a99earin! and o99osin! the9etition for 9ro=ate$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn47


21/45

The Cort is not coninced$

Accordin! to the Rles) notice is reired to =e 9ersonally !ien to no?n heirs)le!atees) and deisees of the testator$-6QA 9ersal of the ?ill sho?s that res9ondent?as institted as the sole heir of the decedent$ Petitioners) as ne9he?s and niecesof the decedent) are neither co"9lsory nor testate heirs-0Q?ho are entitled to =enotiBed of the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s nder the Rles$ Res9ondent had no le!alo=li!ation to "ention 9etitioners in the 9etition for 9ro=ate) or to 9ersonally notifythe" of the sa"e$

@esides) ass"in! arguendothat 9etitioners are entitled to =e so notiBed) the

9r9orted inBr"ity is cred =y the 9=lication of the notice$ After all) 9ersonalnotice 9on the heirs is a "atter of 9rocedral conenience and not a risdictionalreisite$/5Q

The non+inclsion of 9etitioners na"es in the 9etition and the alle!ed failre to9ersonally notify the" of the 9roceedin!s do not constitte e&trinsic frad$Petitioners ?ere not denied their day in cort) as they ?ere not 9reented fro"9artici9atin! in the 9roceedin!s and 9resentin! their case =efore the 9ro=ate cort$

One other ital 9oint is the isse of for"+sho99in! a!ainst 9etitioners$ (or"+sho99in! consists of Blin! "lti9le sits in dierent corts) either si"ltaneosly orsccessiely) inolin! the sa"e 9arties) to as the corts to rle on the sa"e orrelated cases andKor to !rant the sa"e or s=stantially sa"e reliefs) /#Qon thes99osition that one or the other cort ?old "ae a faora=le dis9osition$/.QO=iosly) the 9arties in the instant case) as ?ell as in the a99ealed case =eforethe CA) are the sa"e$ @oth cases deal ?ith the e&istence and alidity of the alle!ed?ill of the decedent) ?ith 9etitioners anchorin! their case on the state of intestacy$In the 9ro=ate 9roceedin!s) 9etitioners 9osition has al?ays =een that the decedentleft no ?ill and if she did) the ?ill does not co"9ly ?ith the reisites of a alid ?ill$Indeed) that 9osition is the =edroc of their 9resent 9etition$ Of corse) res9ondent"aintains the contrary stance$ On the other hand) in the 9etition for letters ofad"inistration) 9etitioner (lores 9rayed for her a99oint"ent as ad"inistratri& of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/156021.htm#_ftn52


22/45

estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate$ The 9etition ?as dis"issedon the !rond of lac of risdiction) and it is this order of dis"issal ?hich is the

s=ect of reie? in CA+G$R$ No$ 4-0.-$ Clearly) therefore) there is for"+sho99in!$

1oreoer) 9etitioners failed to infor" the Cort of the said 9endin! case in theircertiBcation a!ainst for"+ sho99in!$ Neither hae they done so at any ti"ethereafter$ The Cort notes that een in the 9etition for annl"ent of d!"ent)9etitioners failed to infor" the CA of the 9endency of their a99eal in CA+G$R$ No$4-0.-) een tho!h the notice of a99eal ?as Bled ?ay =efore the 9etition forannl"ent of d!"ent ?as institted$

%ERE(ORE) the 9etition is DENIED$ Costs a!ainst 9etitioners$

SO ORDERED$

DANTE O$ TINGAAssociate ustice

E CONCUR:

REFNATO S$ PUNO

Associate ustice


23/45

Chair"an

1A$ ALICIA AUSTRIA+1ARTINE RO1EO 7$ CALLE7O) SR$

Associate ustice Associate ustice

1INITA 8$ C%ICO+NAARIO

Associate ustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclsions in the a=oe Decision ?ere reached in consltation=efore the case ?as assi!ned to the ?riter of the o9inion of the Corts Diision$

REFNATO S$ PUNOAssociate ustice

C/air#an) Second 1ivision


24/45

CERTIFICATION

Prsant to Section #,) Article 8III of the Constittion) and the Diision Chair"ansAttestation) it is here=y certiBed that the conclsions in the a=oe Decision ?erereached in consltation =efore the case ?as assi!ned to the ?riter of the o9inion ofthe Corts Diision$

Re9=lic of the Phili99inesSUPREME COURT

1anila

EN @ANC

G.R. No. L9:;2i.

ANNIE COUSINS >IX,9etitioner+a99ellant)s$A. ?. FLUEMER,o99onent+a99ellee$

arvey and 234rien and 5ibbs and ,c1onoug/ for a""ellant.

C. A. Sobral for a""ellee.

ILLA9REAL,J.:

The 9etitioner) Annie Cosins %i&) a99eals fro" the order issed =y the Cort of

(irst Instance of 1anila in the corse of the intestate 9roceedin!s of E$ Randolf %i&)the dis9ositie 9art of ?hich reads as follo?s:

In ie? of the fore!oin! considerations) the cort holds: *#2 That the diorce decree!ranted =y the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty of the State of est 8ir!iniaa?ardin! the deceased %i& a diorce fro" his ?ife) Annie Cosins %i&) is alid in this

risdiction *.2 that since the latter is le!ally diorced fro" her late hs=and) she isnot entitled to the 9ension she ass as his ?ido? and *,2 that the "otion forreconsideration Bled =y her consel on Se9te"=er .-) #0.0 asin! for an allo?ancefor s99ort "st =e denied$

The a99ellant assi!ns the follo?in! alle!ed errors as co""itted =y the cort =elo?

in said order) to ?it:#$ The trial cort erred in ass"in! that E$ Randol9h %i& ?as a bona 6de resident ofthe State of est 8ir!inia at the ti"e he institted an action for diorce a!ainst his?ife in the Circit Cort of Randolf Conty) est 8ir!inia) in the year #0./$

.$ The trial cort erred in not Bndin! that E$ Randol9h %i& ?as do"iciled in) andresident of) the City of 1anila) Phili99ine Islands) he hain! arried here in #0#5 and


25/45

died here in #0.0) drin! ?hich 9eriod of ti"e he had esta=lished his ho"e and haden!a!ed in =siness here$

,$ The trial cort erred in reco!ni;in! the decree of diorce secred =y E$ Randol9h%i& fro" the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty) est 8ir!inia$

-$ The trial cort erred in refsin! to a99ly to this case the ris9rdence laid do?n=y this %onora=le Cort in the cases of Ra"ire; vs.G"r *-. Phil$) 6//2 andGoraye= vs.%ashi" */5 Phil$) ..2$

/$ The trial cort erred in "isa99lyin! section ,53 of the Code of Ciil Procedre andin not constrin! the sa"e in relation ?ith sections ,50 and ,#. of the sa"e Code$

The releant facts necessary to decide the estions raised in this a99eal are thefollo?in!:

E$ Randol9h %i& ?as =orn in the year #633 in Union) Soth Carolina) ?here he lied?ith his 9arents ntil the a!e of #/$ They then re"oed to Rye) estchester Conty)Ne? For$ A fe? years later) he ?as sent to the Uniersity of Lehi!h) and to the

1assachsetts Institte of Technolo!y) leain! the latter =efore !radatin!) toacce9t e"9loy"ent ?ith the Edison Co"9any ?here he ?ored for a=ot threeyears$ After resi!nin! fro" his 9osition he o9ened an oMce and en!a!ed in 9riate?or as consltin! en!ineer and contractor ntil the year #60/) ?hen he re"oedto heelin!) est 8ir!inia) to en!a!e in the !eneral en!ineerin! =siness as a"e"=er of the Br" of %o!! %i&) sreyors$

After Bfteen years of residence in heelin!) he too an e&a"ination and receiedan a99oint"ent as coal e&9ert for the Phili99ine Goern"ent) arriin! at 1anilaso"e ti"e drin! the year #0#5$ hile E$ Randol9h %i& ?as liin! in 1anila in #0#.)he "et the a99ellant and "arried her in Shan!hai) China) on or a=ot 7ne .-)

#0#,) retrnin! to 1anila ?here they esta=lished their do"icile$ A son ?as =orn ofthis nion in @oston) 1assachsetts) on 7ly #) #0#/) na"ed Preston Randol9h %i&)?hile she ?as in the United States ?here she had !one on the "onth of 1ay of thesa"e year to isit her fa"ily and the "other and sister of her hs=and$ Thea99ellant retrned to 1anila in Noe"=er) #0#3) and contined to lie ?ith thedeceased as hs=and and ?ife$

On 1arch #3) #0#0) the a99ellant left for Canada) ?here she re"ained ?ith theirchild ntil (e=rary) #0.#) ?hen she retrned to 1anila in a ery 9recarioscondition of health and ?as !ien "edical treat"ent in the St$ Pal's %os9ital at thee&9ense of her hs=and$ After she re!ained her health) she lied a9art fro" herhs=and =y "tal consent$

On Dece"=er 4) #0..) the a99ellant institted an action in the Cort of (irstInstance of 1anila a!ainst her hs=and) E$ Randol9h %i&) for the 9r9ose ofco"9ellin! hi" to 9roide adeate s99ort for herself and her son) Preston Randolf%i&$ In that case and in o9en cort the follo?in! sti9lation ?as entered into=et?een the 9arties:

It is sti9lated and a!reed that the defendant and 9lainti are =oth residents of theCity of 1anila that they ?ere "arried on the .-th day of 7ne) #0#,) in Shan!hai)


26/45

China the 9lainti is the la?fl ?ife of defendant that one son na"ed Preston R$%i& ?as =orn on 7ly #) #0#/) of the said "arria!e) ?ho is still liin! the 9laintiand defendant are no? and hae =een) since a=ot the "iddle of Dece"=er) #0.#)liin! se9arate and a9art fro" each other =y "tal consent) tho!h the !reater9art of the ti"e since Dece"=er) #0.#) 9 to Noe"=er) #0..) they too their

"eals to!ether that =y "tal consent they ?ill contine to lie a9art fro" eachother that as lon! as the child ?ill re"ain in the Phili99ine Islands) the father ?illhae the o99ortnity to see hi" t?ice a ?ee) this ?ithot 9redice of 1rs$ %i&tain! the child to the States$ In this case) she ?ill ee9 the father infor"ed as tothe condition of the child =y ?ritin! hi" once a "onth$

The trial cort addicated the case in her faor and ordered the defendant E$Randol9h %i& to 9ay her the s" of P/55 in adance on or =efore the /th day ofeach "onth for the "aintenance of herself and her son$ The case ?as a99ealed tothis cort) and on (e=rary .4) #0.-) the d!"ent of the cort =elo? ?asaMr"ed$#Drin! the "onth of Dece"=er) #0..) ?hile the 9roceedin!s in said case?ere 9endin!) the oMce held =y E$ Randol9h %i& in the Goern"ent ?as a=olished)

and he ?ent into 9riate 9ractice) actin! as coal e&9ert for the 1anila ElectricCo"9any and other 9riate concerns ntil 1arch) #0.-) ?hen he left for est8ir!inia) leain! his ?ife and child in 1anila) and his =siness in the hands of hise"9loyee) A$ $ (le"er) the o99onent and a99ellee) for the 9r9ose of residin!there and sin! for a diorce$

In the "onth of 1ay) #0./) that is) one year after his arrial at Elins) est 8ir!inia)the deceased Bled a co"9laint for a diorce ?ith the Circit Cort of Randol9hConty) est 8ir!inia) alle!in!) a"on! other thin!s) that he ?as a citi;en of theUnited States of A"erica) and of the State of est 8ir!inia) and had =een for "orethan one year 9rior to the date of the instittion of the sit) an actal bona6deciti;en and resident of Randol9h Conty) est 8ir!inia that Annie cosins %i&?as a resident of the City of Pein!) China that on Dece"=er #) #0.#) his ?ife hada=andoned and deserted hi") tain! 9 a se9arate residence and declinin! to lieor hae anythin! to do ?ith hi" that he) %i&) freely) olntarily) and adeatelys99orted his ?ife and child) 9ayin! her the s" of #4/ 9er "onth that heintended to reside 9er"anently in the United States) and that it ?as ?ith schintention that he had retrned to est 8ir!inia that he and his ?ife had =een liin!a9art for three years) and that she had reected his oer of reconciliation$ As thea99ellant ?as not a resident of the State of est 8ir!inia) she ?as s""oned 9onthe co"9laint for diorce =y 9=lication) and not hain! entered an a99earance inthe case) either 9ersonally or =y consel ?ithin the ter" B&ed) the Circit Cort ofRandol9h Conty) est 8ir!inia) rendered d!"ent a!ainst her in #0./ declarin!

her "arria!e ?ith the 9lainti dissoled$ %ain! 9rocred the diorce) E$ Randol9h%i& retrned to 1anila in #0.4) ?here he contined to lie and en!a!ed in =siness9 to the ti"e of his death in the year #0.0$

The Brst estion to decide in this a99eal) raised =y the Brst t?o assi!n"ents oferror is) ?hether the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty in est 8ir!inia acired

risdiction to tae co!ni;ance of the co"9laint for diorce Bled =y E $Randol9h %i&


27/45

and to render a alid and =indin! d!"ent a!ainst the 9etitioner and a99ellant)Annie Cosins %i&$

The 9ertinent 9art of section ,53 of the Code of Ciil Procedre 9roides as follo?s:

SEC$ ,53$ 78ect of udg#ent$ The eect of a d!"ent or Bnal order in an action

or s9ecial 9roceedin! =efore a cort or d!e of the Phili99ine Islands or of theUnited States) or of any State or Territory of the United States) hain! risdiction to9rononce the d!"ent or order) "ay =e as follo?s:

#$ In case of a d!"ent or order a!ainst a s9eciBc thin!) or in res9ect to the9ro=ate of a ?ill) or the ad"inistration of the estate of a deceased 9erson) or inres9ect to the 9ersonal) 9olitical) or le!al condition or relation of a 9articlar 9erson)the d!"ent or order in conclsie 9on the title of the thin!) the ?ill orad"inistration) or the condition or relation of the 9erson: $ $ $ $

Section ,,-) No$ #/) of said Code states:

SEC$ ,,-$ 1is"utable 0resu#"tions$ The follo?in! 9res"9tions are satisfactory)

if ncontradicted) =t they are dis9ta=le) and "ay =e contradicted =y othereidence:

& & & & & & & & &

#/$ That a cort) or d!e actin! as sch) ?hether in the Phili99ine Islands orelse?here) ?as actin! in the la?fl e&ercise of his risdiction$

These 9roisions sho? that in order that a d!"ent of a cort or d!e of any stateof the A"erican Union ?ith res9ect to the 9ersonal or le!al condition of a 9articlar9erson "ay =e conclsie and constitte res -udicata) it is essential that the corthae risdiction) and sch risdiction is 9res"ed in the a=sence of eidence to

the contrary$Section ,#. of the Code of Ciil Procedre 9roides:

SEC$ ,#.$ o9 udicial !ecord ,ay be I#"eac/ed$ Any dicial record "ay =ei"9eached =y eidence of a ?ant of risdiction in the cort or dicial oMcer) ofcollsion =et?een the 9arties) or of frad in the 9arty oerin! the record) in res9ectto the 9roceedin!s$

One of the conditions for the alidity of a decree of a=solte diorce is that thecort !rantin! it has acired risdiction oer the s=ect "atter) and to this endthe 9lainti "st =e do"iciled in !ood faith) and for the len!th of ti"e B&ed =y thela?) in the state in ?hich it ?as !ranted$ E$ Randol9h %i& ?as do"iciled in the Cityof 1anila ?here he lied a9art fro" his ?ife and child) =y "tal consent) and herehe had his =siness$ %e re"oed to the State of est 8ir!inia leain! his aforesaid?ife and child and his =siness =ehind) for the 9r9ose of o=tainin! an a=soltediorce) ?hich he did in #0./) retrnin! in the year #0.4 to reside in the City of1anila) and continin! his =siness$

Altho!h the o99onent and a99ellee atte"9ted to sho? that E$ Randol9h %i& ?entto est 8ir!inia ?ith the intention of residin! there 9er"anently) as alle!e in the


28/45

co"9laint for diorce) sch an intention ?as contradicted =y the fact that =eforeleain! the City of 1anila) he did not liidate his =siness =t 9laced it nder the"ana!e"ent of said o99onent) and once hain! o=tained his diorce) he retrnedto the City of 1anila to tae 9 his residence and to contine his aforesaid =siness)and that his 9r9ose in !oin! to est 8ir!inia ?as to o=tain a diorce$

In Goraye= vs.%ashi" */5 Phil$) ..2 this cort laid do?n the follo?in! doctrine:

,$ ID$ ID$ ID$ ID$ NULLITF O( DI8ORCE$ Doctrine of Ra"ire; vs.G"r *-. Phil$)6//2 follo?ed) to the eect that the cort of a contry in ?hich neither of thes9oses is do"iciled and to ?hich one or =oth of the" "ay resort "erely for the9r9ose of o=tainin! a diorce has not risdiction to deter"ine their "atri"onialstats) and the diorce !ranted =y sch a cort is not entitled to reco!nition here$

-$ ID$ ID$ ID$ ID$ ID$ P%ILIPPINE RESIDENTS %O %A8E @EEN 1ARRIED A@ROAD$ the fore!oin! rle is a99lica=le to "arried 9eo9le ?ho are do"iciled in thePhili99ine Islands altho!h they "ay hae contracted "arria!e else?here$

This rlin! has not =een ?eaened in the 9resent case =y the fact that E$ Randol9h%i& ?as a citi;en of the United States and of the State of est 8ir!inia) since it isnot the citi;enshi9 of the 9lainti for diorce ?hich confers risdiction 9on a cort)=t his le!al residence ?ithin the State ?here he a99lies for a diorce$ That E$Randol9h %i& hi"self =elieed he had relinished his for"er le!al residence inest 8ir!inia) of ?hich he ?as a citi;en) 9on esta=lishin! his "arria!e do"icile inthe City of 1anila) Phili99ine Islands) is sho?n =y the fact that he had to reesta=lishhis residence in said State for the len!th of ti"e B&ed =y the la? in order to =e a=leto Ble his co"9laint for a diorce$

Since E$ Randol9h %i& ?as not a bona 6deresident of the State of est 8ir!inia) thediorce decree he o=tained fro" the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty) is nll and

oid) said cort hain! failed to acire risdiction oer the s=ect "atter$

@t een if his residence had =een taen 9 in !ood faith) and the cort hadacired risdiction to tae co!ni;ance of the diorce sit) the decree issed in hisfaor is not =indin! 9on the a99ellant for the "atri"onial do"icile of the s9oses=ein! the City of 1anila) and no ne? do"icile hain! =een acired in est 8ir!inia)the s""ons "ade =y 9=lication) she not hain! entered an a99earance in thecase) either 9ersonally or =y consel) did not confer risdiction 9on said cortoer her 9erson$

In %addoc vs.%addoc *.5# U$ S$) /3.2) the United States S9re"e Cort laiddo?n the follo?in! doctrine:

The hs=and and ?ife =ein! do"iciled in Ne? For) the hs=and left the ?ife)acired) in !ood faith) after a la9se of years) a do"icile in Connectict) ando=tained in that State) and in accordance ?ith its la?s) a d!"ent of diorce =asedon constrctie) and not actal) serice of 9rocess) on the ?ife) ?ho "ean?hilere"ained do"iciled in Ne? For and neer a99eared in the action$ The ?ifes=seently sed for diorce in Ne? For and o=tained 9ersonal serice in thatState on the hs=and ?ho 9leaded the Connectict d!"ent$ eld)


29/45

ithot estionin! the 9o?er of the State of Connectict to enforce the decree?ithin its o?n =orders) and ?ithot inti"atin! any do=t that the State of Ne? For"i!ht !ie it sch a de!ree of eMcacy that it "i!ht =e entitled to in ie? of the9=lic 9olicy of the State) that the Connectict decree) rendered as it ?as ?ithot=ein! =ased on 9ersonal serice of the 9rocess on) and therefore ?ithot 9ersonal

risdiction of the cort oer) the ?ife) ?as not entitled to o=li!atory enforce"ent inthe State of Ne? For =y irte of the fll faith and credit clase of the (ederalConstittion$

A sit for diorce =ro!ht in a State other than that of do"icile or "atri"onya!ainst a ?ife ?ho is still do"iciled therein is not a 9roceedin! in re" stifyin! thecort to enter a decree as to the res or "arria!e relation entitled to =e enforcedotside of the territorial risdiction of the cort$

ithot decidin! ?hether or not clase I8 of the Constittion of the United States)?ith reference to the fll faith and credit to =e !ien to d!"ents of the corts ofthe States of the A"erican Union is a99lica=le to the Phili99ine Islands) ?e "ay saythat the rlin! has the sa"e force and sco9e as that of international co"ity) ?hich"st in any case =e taen into accont in considerin! the reco!nition to =e !ien inthe Phili99ine Islands to d!"ents of forei!n corts$ *Section ,##) Act No$ #05$2

The diorce decree issed =y the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty) est 8ir!inia)"ay also =e i"9eached =y eidence of frad) accordin! to section ,#. of the Codeof Ciil Procedre) oted a=oe$

E$ Randol9h %i& alle!ed in his co"9laint for a diorce Bled ?ith the afore"entionedcort) that on Dece"=er #) #0.# his ?ife had a=andoned and deserted hi") liin!se9arately and declinin! to lie or hae anythin! to do ?ith hi" that she ?as aresident of the City of Pein!) China and that he freely and olntarily 9roidedadeately for her and their son) 9ayin! her #4/ 9er "onth$ These alle!ations)=ein! false) tended to deceie and did in fact deceie the aforesaid Circit Cort ofRandol9h Conty in est 8ir!inia into !rantin! the decree of diorce a99lied for)=ecase) had he alle!ed in his co"9laint that his ?ife lied a9art fro" hi" =y"tal consent) as ?as a fact) said cort ?old not hae !ranted the diorce) sincein the case of @acon vs.@acon *36 $ 8a$) 4-4 45 S$ E$) 43.2) the S9re"e Cort ofest 8ir!inia laid do?n the doctrine that se9aration =y "tal consent does notconstitte desertion or a=andon"ent =efore the la?$ *See also Cor9s 7ris) ol$ #0)9a!e 3-$2

(or the fore!oin! considerations) ?e are of o9inion and so hold: *#2 That theresidence acired in a state of the A"erican Union =y a hs=and) ?ho) for the

9r9ose of o=tainin! a diorce) a=andons the contry ?herein are his "atri"onialdo"icile and his ?ife) ?ho is liin! a9art fro" hi" =y "tal consent) and thenretrns to said "atri"onial do"icile after o=tainin! a diorce) contines residin!)therein and en!a!in! in =siness) is not bona 6deresidence) and does not confer

risdiction 9on the cort een if he alle!es in the co"9laint for diorce that heintends to reside 9er"anently in said state *.2 that the s""ons =y 9=lication ina co"9laint for diorce) Bled in a state =y the hs=and ?ho has !one to said state)a=andonin! his "atri"onial do"icile ?here his ?ife contines to reside) does not


30/45

confer risdiction 9on the cort oer the 9erson of said ?ife ?hen she has notentered an a99earance in the case) and the decree issed =y said cort dissolin!the "arria!e is not =indin! 9on her and *,2 that a decree of diorce issed =y acort of any state or territory of the A"erican Union) or of a forei!n contry) "ay =ei"9eached in another case for lac of risdiction in said cort oer the s=ect

"atter) or oer the 9erson of the defendant) or for frad in o=tainin! it on the 9artof the 9erson 9rocrin! it$

herefore) the d!"ent a99ealed fro" is reersed) and it is held that the decree ofdiorce issed =y the Circit Cort of Randol9h Conty) est 8ir!inia) is nll andoid in this risdiction) ?ith costs a!ainst the a99ellee$ So ordered$

Avancea) C..) Street) ;illa#or and !o#ualde


31/45

9roided in section ,55 of the Code of Ciil Procedre$ Nor ?as the e&tract fro" thela? attested =y the certiBcate of the oMcer hain! char!e of the ori!inal) nder thesale of the State of est 8ir!inia) as 9roided in section ,5# of the Code of CiilProcedre$ No eidence ?as introdced to sho? that the e&tract fro" the la?s ofest 8ir!inia ?as in force at the ti"e the alle!ed ?ill ?as e&ected$

In addition) the de e&ection of the ?ill ?as not esta=lished$ The only eidence onthis 9oint is to =e fond in the testi"ony of the 9etitioner$ Aside fro" this) there ?asnothin! to indicate that the ?ill ?as acno?led!ed =y the testator in the 9resenceof t?o co"9etent ?itnesses) of that these ?itnesses s=scri=ed the ?ill in the9resence of the testator and of each other as the la? of est 8ir!inia see"s toreire$ On the s99osition that the ?itnesses to the ?ill reside ?ithot thePhili99ine Islands) it ?old then the dty of the 9etitioner to 9roe e&ection =yso"e other "eans *Code of Ciil Procedre) sec$ 3,,$2

It ?as also necessary for the 9etitioner to 9roe that the testator had his do"icile inest 8ir!inia and not esta=lish this fact consisted of the recitals in the CAT>?illand the testi"ony of the 9etitioner$ Also in =e!innin! ad"inistration 9roceedin!sor!inally in the Phili99ine Islands) the 9etitioner iolated his o?n theory =yatte"9tin! to hae the 9rinci9al ad"inistration in the Phili99ine Islands$

hile the a99eal 9endin! s="ission in this cort) the attorney for the a99ellant9resented an neriBed 9etition asin! the cort to acce9t as 9art of the eidencethe doc"ents attached to the 9etition$ One of these doc"ents discloses that a9a9er ?ritin! 9r9ortin! to =e the ?as 9resented for 9ro=ate on 7ne 6) #0.0) to thecler of Randol9h Contry) State of est 8ir!inia) in acation) and ?as dly 9roen=y the oaths of Dana a"sley and 7ose9h L$ 1Adden) the s=scri=in! ?itnessesthereto ) and ordered to =e recorded and Bled$ It ?as sho?n =y another doc"entthat) in acation) on 7ne 6) #0.0) the cler of cort of Randol9h Contry) est

8ir!inia) a99ointed Clade $ 1a&?ell as ad"inistrator) cu# testa#ento anne>o) ofthe estate of Ed?ard Randol9h %i&) deceased$ In this connection) it is to =e notedthat the a99lication for the 9ro=ate of the ?ill in the Phili99ines ?as Bled on(e=rary .5) #0.0) ?hile the 9roceedin!s in est 8ir!inia a99ear to hae =eeninitiated on 7ne 6) #0.0$ These facts are stron!ly indicatie of an intention to "aethe Phili99ines the 9rinci9al ad"inistration and est 8ir!inia the ancillaryad"inistration$ %o?eer this "ay =e) no atte"9t has =een "ade to co"9ly ?ithCiil Procedre) for no hearin! on the estion of the allo?ance of a ?ill said tohae =een 9roed and allo?ed in est 8ir!inia has =een reested$ There is nosho?in! that the deceased left any 9ro9erty at any 9lace other than the Phili99ineIslands and no contention that he left any in est 8ir!inia$

Reference has =een "ade =y the 9arties to a diorce 9r9orted to hae =eena?arded Ed?ard Randol9h %i& fro" Annie Cosins %i& on Octo=er 6) #0./) in theState of est s9eciBc 9rononce"ents on the alidity or alidity of this alle!eddiorce$

(or all of the fore!oin!) the d!"ent a99ealed fro" ?ill =e aMr"ed) ?ith the costsof this instance a!ainst the a99ellant$

FIRST DIISION


32/45

ALONO


33/45

In #06#) Richard "arried Candelaria Gersey+Dalay!on *res9ondent2 ?ith ?ho" hehas t?o children) na"ely) >i"=erly and >ein$

On Octo=er #.) #06.) Adreys ?ill ?as also ad"itted to 9ro=ate =y the then Cortof (irst Instance of Ri;al) @ranch ./) Seenth 7dicial District) Pasi!) in S9ecialProceedin! No$ 03./$-QAs ad"inistrator of Adreys estate in the Phili99ines)9etitioner Bled an inentory and a99raisal of the follo?in! 9ro9erties: *#2 Adreyscon!al share in real estate ?ith i"9roe"ents located at .6 Pili Aene) (or=esPar) 1aati) 1etro 1anila) aled at P43-)63/$55 *1aati 9ro9erty2 *.2 a crrentaccont in Adreys na"e ?ith a cash =alance of P#.)-#4$04 and *,2 3-)--- sharesof stoc in AKG Interiors) Inc$ ?orth P3-)---$55$/Q

On 7ly .5) #06-) Richard died) leain! a ?ill) ?herein he =eeathed his entire

estate to res9ondent) sae for his ri!hts and interests oer the AKG Interiors) Inc$shares) ?hich he left to >yle$3QThe ?ill ?as also ad"itted to 9ro=ate =y theOr9hans Cort of Ann Arndel) 1aryland) U$S$A) and 7a"es N$ Philli9s ?as lie?isea99ointed as e&ector) ?ho in trn) desi!nated Atty$ illia" yle as heirs of Adrey$0QPetitioner also Bled on Octo=er .,)#064) a 9roect of 9artition of Adreys estate) ?ith Richard =ein! a99ortioned thendiided interest in the 1aati 9ro9erty) -6$,,, shares in AKG Interiors) Inc$)and P0),#,$-6 fro" the Citi=an crrent accont and >yle) the ndiided interest inthe 1aati 9ro9erty) #3)### shares in AKG Interiors) Inc$) and P,)#5-$-0 in cash$#5Q

The "otion and 9roect of 9artition ?as !ranted and a99roed =y the trial cort inits Order dated (e=rary #.) #066$##QThe trial cort also issed an Order on A9ril 4)#066) directin! the Re!ister of Deeds of 1aati to cancel TCT No$ 3040. in the na"eof Richard and to isse a ne? title in the oint na"es of the Estate of $ RichardGersey * ndiided interest2 and >yle * ndiided interest2 directin! the Secretaryof AKG Interiors) Inc$ to transfer -6$,,, shares to the Estate of $Richard Gersey and #3$### shares to >yle and directin! the Citi=an to release thea"ont of P#.)-#4$04 to the ancillary ad"inistrator for distri=tion to the heirs$ #.Q
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn13


34/45

Conseently) the Re!ister of Deeds of 1aati issed on 7ne .,) #066) TCT No$#//6., in the na"es of the Estate of $ Richard Gersey and >yle$#,Q

1ean?hile) the ancillary ad"inistrator in S9ecial Proceedin! No$ 1+666 also Bled a9roect of 9artition ?herein .K/of Richards ndiided interest in the 1aati 9ro9erty?as allocated to res9ondent) ?hile ,K/the

9-13 cases full text

Documents