TESTATETE ESTATE OF TANGCO VS TIASIAN VDA.

When the Jose submitted the agreement for its

DE BORJA approval to CFI rizal and nueva ecija Tasiana opposed
GR NO L-28040 AUG 18 1972 both. She filed an appeal to Rizal which approved the
compromise agreement on the grounds that a)heirs
JBL REYES J
cannot enter into such kind of agreement without
FACTS probating the will b) the same involves a compromise
Francisco de Borja and her wife was the owner of on the validity of the marriage between Francisco and
jalajala property. Upon the death of her wife Josefa Tasiana;c) even if was valid it has ceased to have force
Tangco , Francisco filed a petition for probate of the and effect. And rely to case of Guevara that the
will, the will was probated and Francisco was presentation of a will fro probate is mandatory, and
appointed as executor and administrator, when settelement and distribution of an estate on the basis
Francisco died he become the sole administrator of the of intestacy despite the will is againsts the law and
testate estate of the mother. Tasiana second wife of public policy.
Francisco instituted testate proceedings and she was
appointed as special administratrix. The testate estate
of Josefa tangco has been unsettled for morethan a On the other hand Jose streses that at the time it was
quarter of century in order to put an end the litigation entered 10/12/63 the governing provision was sec 1 r
they had entered into a compromise agreement. In the 74 roc allowed extrajudicial settlement of the estate of
said ageement the parties agreed to sell the Jalajala a deceased person regardless whether he left a will or
properties; That jose should pay Tasiana amounting to not; Dissenting of Justice Moran in Guevara case
800k and 200 pro-rata as full payment of her wherein if the parties have already divided the estate
hereditary share in the estate of the spouses.; That the in accordance with the will probate of the will is a
buyer directly pay to Tasiana. And renounces her right useless ceremony;
over any hereditary share. Non fulfilment of the sale CFI RIZAL- ruling in Guevara case is not
will the agreement null and void; applicable to cases at bar. There is no attempt settle or
distribute the estate of Francisco among the heirs but HELD
was merely a conveyance. ART 777. Tasiana
a) YES, art 160 of the NCC all properties of the
was a compulsory heir as such her rights over the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
property is absolute even the will were not probated. partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or the wife
b) the point is without merit for the very opening of the
paragraph of the agreement with Jose de Borja In this case it was held that the property was
describes her as “ the heir and surviving spouses of concededly acquired during the marriage and
Francisco de borja by his second marriage Tasiana vda part of conjugal property of the spouses when
de Borja. Agreemet was only made in consideration of Francisco admitted two time in the reamended
the cession of her hereditary rights. inventory that, as executor of the estate of his
deceased wife and remended accounting of the
c) Jose de Borja sought to reach a new settlement
same. BY Tasiana- submitted the inventory as
before seeking judicial sanction and enforcement but
oppositor listing the jalajala properties “Conjugal
the inability to reach a novatory accord cannot
properties of the spouses Francisco de Borja and
invalidate the original compromise and justifies the act
Josefa tangco” In CFI Nueva Ecija Heading “
of jose de Borja in finally seeking the court for its
Conjugal property of the deceased spouses
approval.
Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco,
ISSUE
a) WON Hacienda Jalajala concededly acquired
b) The testimony of Gregorio de Borja showed that
by Francisco during his marriage to his first
the deceased de Borja acquired his share of the
wife Josefa it the husband’s private property?
hacienda with his own private funds was plain
hearsay hence inadmissible and of no probative
b) WON it forms part of the conjugal conjugal
values since he was merely repeating what
partnership with Josefa Tangco?
Marcelo de Borja had told to him. It is improbable
since there was no need or occasion for marcel to respondent to occupy the lot in question and
explain to Gregorio how and when Francisco had promise that would vacate upon demand.
earned the 17000 entrusted to Marcelo. However respondent refused despite written
notices and demand by the petitioner. The
DOCTRINE: ALL PROPERTIES OF THE MARRIAGE respondent countered that the said lots was
PRESUME TO BELONG TO CONJUGAL inherited by his father together with the other
PARTNERSHIP UNLESS IT PROVE THAT IT siblings from her grandmother though intestate
PERTAINS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE HUSBAND AND succession. Further stated that her father abdon
WIFE. brought the respective 1/6 share in the lots of his
siblings Maria and Sado evidence by DOS. Also
HEIRS OF LASAM VS UMENGAN Rufo her uncle sold his 1/6 share in the lot to the
GR 168156 DEC 8 2006 respondent evidence by DOS. Her father abdon
CALLEJO SR
donated his share to her.
FACTS
There are two lots in dispute herein, owned
MTC- ruled in favor of Rosendo Lasam. Directed
by the spouses Pedro Cuntapay and Leona
the ejectment of vicenta. It gave credence to the
Bunagan. The spouses conveyed the ownership of
newly discovered LW&T where Isabel bequeathed
said lots in favor of their two children Irene and
the lots to the Rosendo.
Isabel by through deed of confirmation before
-Cited the art 1080 NCC the testacy was favored
notary public. Isabel had 4 children by her first
and that intestacy should be avoided and the
husband Domingo, and remarried Mariano
wishes of the testator should prevail. Nonetheless
Lasam when the latter had passed away and had
the will was not yet probated, institution of the
2 children by him Trinidad and Rosendo.
same was not barred by prescription.
Later the heirs of Rosendo filed with
RTC- affirmed in toto. The LW&T should be
unlawful detainer against the respondent.
respected.
Rosendo Lasam claimed temporarily allowed the
-UMENGAN APPEAL TO CA in 1997 but on the last page of the will the date
MTCC had no jurisdiction over the case as is ws may 19,1956 if this was the date of execution
involved a recovery of ownership instead merely the will was spurious. )Also if it this was the date
of possession or unlawful detainer. of discovery why the petitioners through their
- Holding that purported LW&T prevails over her mother, declared in partition agreement date
title and petitioners had better right over her. 1979 that Isabel died instestate.
CA- primarily upheld the jurisdiction of MTCC -reversed and set aside, complaint of UD against
Vicenta was dismissed for lack of merit.
-allegation in the complaint made out a case of
UD. The petitioners only sought for respondent
to vacate and surrender possession of the lot. ISSUE
a)WON the CA erred when rule that
-rejected the contention of the petitioner the
Vincenta has a better right over the property?
issue of ownership of the lots had already been
b) WON MTCC has a jurisdiction over
settled in this case, TC ordered the dismissal the
issues on ownership?
said case was not judgment on the merits. As to
c) The CA erred when it consider in
constitute res judicata.
vicenta’s favour the deed of sale and donation
-rule that the lower courts erred when it decided over subj lot when the same was already
by in favor of the Heirs of Rosendo based on the decided and therefore it constitute res
will because the said will did not comply with judicata?
formalities of the law on wills. ( were not
numbered; did not contain the requisite on the
attestation clause; testator and witnesses did not HELD
affix signatures on the 2nd ;page not acknowledge a)YES. Because the newly discovered LW&T
before notary public by the testator and wherein the Heirs of lasam relied has not been
witnesses. The will was spurious only discovered probated as such has no force and effect. Art 838
 No will shall pass either real or personal unless it Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for
is proved and allowed in accordance with ROC. respondents.
Therefore the LW&T cannot be source of any PROBLEM: A will already probated in Utah was filed
right. before Manila CFI Branch 38 while intestate
b) Yes the issues on ownership may provisionaly proceedings for the same estate were ongoing in
ruled for the purpose of determining who entitle Manila CFI Branch 20.
HELD: The two proceedings must be consolidated and
to the possession de facto.
the testate proceeding should be continued. It would
be anomalous to undergo intestate proceedings when
c) NO. to be ruled as res judicata all elements the deceased died with two wills.
should be present. In this case the “judgment on FACTS:
the merits” was absent because the RTC did not  EDWARD Grimm, an American citizen residing in
declared the Heirs of lasam to be the owner of the the Philippines, was married twice.
property it simply ordered them to petition the o FIRST MARRIAGE (divorced) = Juanita
court for allowance of will to determine the Kegley Grimm (MRS. GRIMM). Children:
legitime of heirs prior to the partition. JUANITA Grimm Morris and ETHEL Grimm
Morris.
DOCTRINE: THE ISSUES ON OWNERSHIP MAY o SECOND MARRIAGE = MAXINE Tate
PROVISIONALLY RULED FOR THE PURPOSE OF Grimm. Children: Edward Miller Grimm II
DETERMINING WHO ENTITLE TO THE (PETE) and LINDA Grimm.
POSSESSION DE FACTO BY THE MTCC  Jan. 23, 1959 – Edward executed 2 wills, one
for his Philippine properties (PH WILL) and one
for his properties abroad (FOREIGN WILL).
ROBERTS VS LEONIDAS o Edward described his Philippine properties
GR 55509(April 27, 1984) as conjugal property of his second marriage.
Ramon Aquino, J.:
o In the PH will, Juanita and Ethel were given
their legitimes.
N. J. Quisumbing and Associates for petitioners.
 o They were not given anything in the foreign o made in Utah with knowledge of the intestate
will, because according to Edward he had proceedings before the Manila CFI
already given them their legitimes in the PH o signed by David E. Salisbury and Donald B.
will. Holbrook, as lawyers of the parties, by Pete
o The rest of the 2 wills favored Maxine and and Linda and the attorney-in-fact of
her children Maxine and by the attorney-in-fact of Ethel,
 Nov. 27, 1977 – Edward died in the Makati Juanita and Mrs. Grimm
Medical Center. o STIPULATIONS
 Jan. 9, 1978 – Ethel instituted intestate  Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be
proceedings for Edward’s estate before Manila CFI designated as administrators of
Branch 20. Edward's Philippine estate
o Ethel was named special administratrix.  Maxine's one-half conjugal share in the
o Maxine admitted that she was notified of the estate should be reserved for her and
proceedings that would not be less than
 March 7, 1978 – Maxine presented the 2 wills for $1,500,000 plus the homes in Utah
probate before the 3rd Judicial District Court of and Sta. Mesa, Manila.
Tooele County, Utah, USA.  Computation of the "net distributable
o Juanita and Ethel were notified of the estate"
proceeding  Recognized that the estate was liable to
 March 11, 1978 – Maxine, through ACCRA, pay the fees of the ACCRA law firm
moved to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the  Pete, Linda, Ethel and Juanita "shall
ground that Edward’s wills were being probated share equally in the Net Distributable
in Utah. Estate"
 April 10, 1978 – Utah court admitted the 2 wills to  Ethel and Juanita should each receive
probate. at least 12-1/2% of the total of the net
 April 25, 1978 – COMPROMISE AGREEMENT distributable estate and marital share.
BETWEEN THE TWO CAMPS
  Included a supplemental  August 9, 1979 – Maxine, through a new lawyer,
memorandum also dated April 25, moved to defer approval of the partition (as per
1978 the Utah agreement ata). Court considered it
 May 23 and June 2, 1978 – Pursuant to the moot because the shares had already been
Compromise Agreement, CFI Branch 20 (intestate adjudicated in the July 27 order.
court) allowed Maxine to withdraw her  April 18, 1980 – Juanita moved for accounting of
opposition. Maxine, Pete and Ethel were the estate’s properties filed a motion for
appointed administrators of the estate. The court accounting to facilitate partition and close the
ignored the will already found in the record (I present intestate estate.
think it was there because it was submitted  June 10, 1980 – ACCRA filed appearance as
together with the compromise). collaborating counsel for Maxine
 March 21, 1979 – Maxine, Pete and Ethel, acting  Sep. 8, 1980 – Maxine, through Rogelio
as administrators, sold one of Edward’s Vinluan of ACCRA, filed the assailed petition
businesses (Palawan Pearl Project) for P75,000, to for probate of the 2 wills already probated in
a company named Makiling Management Co. Utah. The case was heard before Manila CFI
[whose incorporators were Ethel, her husband Branch 38
Rex Roberts and Maxine’s former lawyer William o ALLEGATIONS
Limqueco]  Maxine and her children were
o The admins also sold 193,267 shares of defrauded due to the machinations of
RFM Corporation to Joseph Server and the Roberts spouses
others for P1,546,136.  1978 Utah compromise agreement was
 July 27, 1979 – Branch 20 Judge Molina illegal
adjudicated to Maxine one-half (4/8) of the  the intestate proceeding is void
Edward's Philippine estate and one-eight (1/8) because Edward died testate
each to his four children or 12-1/2%. No mention  the partition was contrary to Edward's
at all was made of the will in that order. (anlabo wills
mo judge) o Petition also asked that:
  the 1979 partition approved by Br. 20  The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara vs.
be set aside and the letters of Guevara and Baluyot vs. Paño).
administration be revoked  It is anomalous that the estate of a person who
 Maxine be appointed executrix died testate should be settled in an intestate
 Ethel and Juanita be ordered to proceeding.
account for the properties received by  The intestate case should be consolidated with
them and to return the same to Maxine the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to
 Ethel moved to dismiss, Judge Leonidas denied. the testate proceeding should continue hearing
 Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition the two cases.
o RELIEFS SOUGHT:  Ethel may file her answer to the petition anyway.
 Dismissal of the testate proceeding, OR DISPOSITION: Petition denied, CFI affirmed.
 Consolidation of the two proceedings in
Branch 20
 That the matter of the annulment of NUGUID VS NUGUID
the Utah compromise agreement be GR L-23445 JUNE 23 1966
SANCHEZ J
heard prior to the petition for probate
FACTS
ISSUE (HELD): Can a petition for allowance of wills
Rosario Nuguid, died single without decendants,
and annulment of partition - approved in an intestate
legitimate of illegitimate. She was survived by her
proceeding by one branch of the CFI - be entertained
legitimate parents, and her 6 bros and sis. Remedios
by another branch (after a probate in the Utah district
Nuguid filed a holographic will allegedly executed by
court)? (YES)
the deceased 11 yrs before her demise. The oppositors
RATIO:
who are the legitimate father and mother of the
 A testate proceeding is proper in this case
deceased entered their opposition to the probate on
because Edward died with two wills and "no will
the grounds that by the institution of the petitioner as
shall pass either real or personal property unless
universal heir, they as the deceased heir in the direct
it is proved and allowed" (NCC 838; ROC 75, Sec.
ascending line were illegally preterited and that should
1).
is void.
CFI- the will is completely nullity and will perforce therein provided for. Hence the nullity is
intestacy of the estate of the decased. complete.
b) NO. because in disinheritance it should
ISSUE expressly stated in the will supported by a
a)WON the will is completely null and void? legal cause specified in the will. In preterition
b) WON the this is a case of ineffective it consist in the omission in the testator’s will
disinheritance than one of preterition hence art 854 of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
NCC does not applicable to the case at bar? because they are not mentioned therein or
c) WON the bequest made by the universal heir though mention they are neither instituted nor
must not entirely annulled but merely reduced ? expressly disinherited.
c)No. if it will be adopt it will result in complete of
HELD Article 814 and 851 of NCC. This theory is due to
a) Yes. It is completely null and void due to failure to distinguish institution of heirs from legacies
preterition. Art 854 the preterition or omission and betterments, and a general and special provision.
of one, some of all of the compulsory heirs in They treated separately and distinct not only they are
the direct line, whether living at the time of the different but the institution of heirs is a bequest by
execution of the will or born upon death of the universal title of the property that is undertemined.
testator, shall annul the institution of heir; Legacy refers to specific property bequeathed by
particular or special title.
In this case the deceased left no descendants,
legitimate of illegitimate. But she left forced
heirs in the direct ascending line the DOCTRINE :
oppositors and the will omits both of them, MANINANG VS CA
they are deprived of the legitime ; neither were GR L-547848 JUNE 19 1982
expressly disinherited as clear case of MELECIO-HERRERA J.
preterition. One sentence will here institutes
petition as the sole, universal heir-nothing FACTS
more. No specific legacies or bequests are
 Clementa Asenta single died, at the age of was properly disinherited. Responds that if where
81. She left a holographic will whereby she expressly practical considerations demand that the intrinsic
stated that all her personal properties shall be validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
inherited by Dra. Maninang as she found peace and probated, the court should meet that issue.
happiness during her lifetime stated also that she did
not considered the respondent as her adopted son the ISSUE
latter made her do things against her will.
a) WON the will is void due to preterition of a
compulsory heir which is the respondent?
Petitioner filed a petition for probate, the b) WON The probate court can look in to the
respondent instituted intestate proceedings.(was intrinsic validity of a will?
consolidated). Respondent file a MTD the testate case. HELD
He claimed that the holographic will was null and void a) NO. the court concludes that in the face of the
as he is the only compulsory heir, was preterited will itself the private respondent has not been
hence intestacy should ensue. preterited. Disinheritance is always voluntary
Respondent countered that as a rule in the case preterition is presumed to be involuntary.
of probate of a will court’s area of inquiry is limited to
an examination of and the resolution on the extrinsic In this case it clear in the will that the
validity of the will as such respondent was effectively respondent was expressly did not considered
disinherited by the decedent. as an adopted son by the testatrix because she
demanded to maKE things against her will on
LC- MTD file by respondent was meritorious. that grounds it can interpreted as
Petition for probate by Maninang Dismissed. disinheritance against respondent.

CA-Lower court exceeds its jurisdiction for b) NO. the argument of the respondent was
dismissing the testate case. The probate of a will is merely an exception rather that a rule, the
mandatory. Since the probate court does not look into phrase “ practical consideration so demand”
the intrinsic validity of a will hence the respondent whereby the intrinsic validity of a will was
 passed upon even before probate. And if the entitling the distributies the right to receive and entre
“meat of controversy” was the intrinsic validity into possession those part of the estate.
of the will; Not in this case where the probate
of the will is insisted by the petitioners and a Gloria, Joseph and Teresa filed their opposition
resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will alleging that the subj. lot belong to the conjugal
demanded. partnership of Joaquin and lucia and upon death of
Lucia they became the pro indiviso owners of the said
DOCTRINE: property. They oppose the appointment of Eduardo as
administrator on the grounds a) physical and mental
AGTARAP VS AGTARAP unfit b)his estates in the lots is minimal; c) he does not
GR 177099-192 possess the right to earn. Eduardo was appointed as
NACHURA J regular administrator. Dagoro filed an answer
intervention alleging that he and his daughter Cecile
FACTS survived her late wife Mercedes.
Eduardo filed before RTC verified petition for the
judicial settlement of the estate of his deceased father RTC- ordered the distribution of the estate of
Joaquin Agtarap who died intestate. The deceased Joaquin Agtarap minus the surviving spouse Caridad
contracted two mariages first with Lucia and second Garcia who died on Aug.25 1999.
with Caridad which the deceased had 6 children in - properties are acquire during the 2nd marriage which
both marriges. At the time of his death Joaquin left was failed to opposed by the oppositors. Eduardo
wow parcel of land with improvements. Joseph a made a financial and accounting report including
grandson had been leasing and improving the said income earn and received, incurred in the
land and appropriating money monthly. Eduardo administration, sustenance and allowance of widow.
prayed to be as special administrator to take
possession and charge of the estate assets and their MR to RTC- denied motions of Eduardo and Sebastian,
civil fruits. He prayed: a) declaring the named and granting that of joseph and Teresa. It also
compulsory heir who would be entitled in the estate;b) declared that the real estate properties belonged to the
allocating the heirs their aliquot shares in the estate;c) conjugal partnership of joaquin and lucia.
CA- dismissed for lack of merit.( filed by Eduardo and
Sebastian.)
3

ISSUE
HELD
DOCTRINE