spec pro 31 pages

8/10/2019 Spec Pro 31 Pages

1/30

G.R. No. 16680 September 13, 1920

BROADWELL HAGANS, petitioner,!.ADOL"H W#SL#$EN%S, &'()e o* +ir!t #n!tn-e o* eb',E/ AL., re!pon(ent!.

JOHNSON, J.:

This is an original petition, presented in the Supreme Court, forwrit of certiorari. The facts alleged in the petition are admittedby a demurrer. The only question presented is, whether or nota udge of the Court of !irst "nstance, in #special proceedings,#is authori$ed under the law to appoint assessors for thepurpose of fi%ing the amount due to an administrator ore%ecutor for his ser&ices and e%penses in the care,management, and settlement of the estate of a deceasedperson.

The respondent udge, in support of his demurrer, argues thatthe pro&ision of 'ct No. ()* permit him to appoint assessors in#special proceedings,# The petitioner contends that no authorityin law e%ists for the appointment of assessors in suchproceedings.

The only pro&isions of law which authori$e the appointment ofassessors are the following+ a- Section /012 of 'ct No. ()*+b- sections (30(1( of 'ct No. ()*+ c- section 44 a- of 'ctNo. 21/+ d- section 24// of 'ct No. 2/((+ and e- section 2 of'ct No. 231).

Said section 44 a- of 'ct No. 21/ and section 24// of 'ct No.2/(( apply to the city of 5anila only. 'ct No. 231) pro&ides forthe appointment of assessors in criminal cases only. Sections/012 of 'ct No. ()* pro&ide for the appointment of assessorsin the court of ustice of the peace. Therefore, the onlypro&isions of law which could, by any possibility, permit theappointment of assessors in #special proceedings# are sections

(30(1( of 'ct No. ()*.

Section (4 pro&ides that #either party to an action may applyin writing to the udge for assessors to sit in the trial. 6pon thefiling of such application, the udge shall direct that assessorsbe pro&ided, . . . .#

"s a #special proceeding,# li7e the present, an #action#8 "f it is,then, the court is e%pressly authori$ed by said section (4 toappoint assessors. 9ut we find, upon an e%amination of section( of 'ct No. ()*, which gi&es us an interpretation of the wordsused in said 'ct, that a distinction is made between an #action#and a #special proceeding.# Said section ( pro&ides that an#action# means an ordinary suit in a court of ustice, while

#e&ery other remedy furnished by law is a :special proceeding.#

"n &iew of the interpretation gi&en to the words #action# and#special proceeding# by the ;egislature itself, we are dri&en tothe conclusion that there is a distinction between an #action#and a #special proceeding,# and that when the ;egislature usedthe word #action# it did not mean #special proceeding.#

There is a mar7ed distinction between an #action# and a#special proceeding. #'n action is a formal demand of one:slegal rights in a court of ustice in the manner prescribed by thecourt or by the law. "t is the method of applying legal remediesaccording to definite established rules.


2/30

that the trial court did not acquire urisdiction o&er the personsof the oppositors+ and 4- for the immediate inhibition of thepresiding udge.

On July 3*, ())3, the trial court issued an order=)?whichresol&ed, thusA

'. To admit the so0called Opposition filed bycounsel for the oppositors on July 2*, ())3, onlyfor the purpose of considering the merits thereof+

9. To deny the prayer of the oppositors for apreliminary hearing of their affirmati&e defensesas ground for the dismissal of this proceeding,said affirmati&e defenses being irrele&ant andimmaterial to the purpose and issue of thepresent proceeding+

C. To declare that this court has acquiredurisdiction o&er the persons of the oppositors+

B. To deny the motion of the oppositors for theinhibition of this D

KHD!OD, premises considered, it is respectfully prayedfor of this Honorable CourtA

a- That after due hearing, letters of administration

be issued to petitioner DO5O 5'N';O for theadministration of the estate of the deceasedTOD'B"O 5'N';O upon the gi&ing of a bondin such reasonable sum that this HonorableCourt may fi%.

b- That after all the properties of the deceasedTDO'B"O 5'N';O ha&e been in&entoried ande%penses and ust debts, if any, ha&e been paidand the legal heirs of the deceased fullydetermined, that the said estate of TDO'B"O5'N';O be settled and distributed among thelegal heirs all in accordance with law.

c- That the litigation e%penses o these proceedingsin the amount of


3/30

counterclaims for actual, moral and e%emplary damages, plusattorney:s fees and costs=()?in an apparent effort to ma7e out acase of an ordinary ci&il action an ultimately see7 its dismissalunder Dule (1, Section (- of the Dules of Court vis--vis,'rticle 222 of the Ci&il Code.

"t is our &iew that herein petitioners may not be allowed todefeat the purpose of the essentially &alid petition for thesettlement of the estate of the late Troadio 5analo by raisingmatters that are irrele&ant and immaterial to the saidpetition. "t must be emphasi$ed that the trial court, sitting, as a

probate court, has limited and special urisdiction=2*?

and cannothear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which maybe properly threshed out only in an ordinary ci&il action. "naddition, the rule has always been to the effect that theurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of anaction, is determined by the a&erments in the complaint andnot by the defenses contained in the answer. "f it wereotherwise, it would not be too difficult to ha&e a case eitherthrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simplestrategem.=2(?So it should be in the instant petition forsettlement of estate.

Herein petitioners argue that e&en if the petition in S


4/30

The ;and Degistration 'uthority ;D'-, which filedbefore the DTC its Deport=)?dated September 2/, ())3, statedthat after plotting


5/30

Sec. (4. Kho may apply. The followingpersons may file in the proper Court of !irst"nstance an application for registration of titleto land, whether personally or through theirduly authori$ed representati&esA(- Those who by themsel&es or through

their predecessors0in0interest ha&e beenin open, continuous, e%clusi&e andnotorious possession

and occupation of alienable anddisposable lands of the public domainunder a bona fide claim of ownershipsince June (2, ()4, or earlier.=2)? 6nderscoring supplied-

To thus be entitled to registration of a land, theapplicant must pro&e that a- the land applied for forms part ofthe disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the publicdomain+ and b- he has been in open, continuous, e%clusi&e,and notorious possession and occupation of the same undera bona fideclaim of ownership either since time immemorial orsince June (2, ()4.=3*?

'll lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within

pri&ate ownership are presumed to belong to the State, andunless it has been shown that they ha&e been reclassified bythe State as alienable or disposable to a pri&ate person, theyremain part of the inalienable public domain.=3(?

To pro&e that a land is alienable, an applicant mustconclusi&ely establish the e%istence of a positi&e act of thego&ernment, such as a presidential proclamation or ane%ecuti&e order, or administrati&e action, in&estigation reportsof the 9ureau of ;ands in&estigator or a legislati&e act orstatute.=32?

Khile petitioner presented a document denominatedas I2nd"ndorsement=33?issued by ;and 5anagement"nspector 'madeo 5ediran that the lots are Iwithin the

alienable and disposable $one under


6/30

The heirs of the deceased may beallowed to be substituted for the deceased,without requiring the appointment of ane%ecutor or administrator and the court mayappoint a guardian ad litemfor the minorheirs.

The court shall forthwith order said

legal representati&e or representati&es toappear and be substituted within a period ofthirty 3*- days from notice.

"f no legal representati&e is named by

the counsel for the deceased party, or if theone so named shall fail to appear within thespecified period, the court may order theopposing party, within a specified time, toprocure the appointment of an e%ecutor oradministrator for the estate of the deceasedand the latter shall immediately appear forand on behalf of the deceased. The courtcharges in procuring such appointment, ifdefrayed by the opposing party, may bereco&ered as costs. "talics in theoriginal+ underscoring supplied-

The failure of BomingoFs former counsel,'tty. "rineo '. 'narna of No.4 5adlansacay St.,


7/30

the decedent allegedly in the hands of third persons as well asto secure cash ad&ances from the Calamba Sugar


8/30

before Judge 5al&ar of the Court of !irst "nstance of ;aguna,and the annulment of the proceedings therein by the Court of'ppeals on January 3*, ()/. She manifested, howe&er, herwillingness to withdraw Sp.


9/30

arcia claims that, as appearing in his death certificatepresented by Eirginia . !ule herself before the Calamba courtand in other papers, the last residence of 'mado . arciawas at (( Carmel '&enue, Carmel Subdi&ision, Gue$on City.


10/30

widow, the herein petitioner, and their two 2- minor sons,5ariano Jesus, Jr. and Jesus Sal&ador, both surnamedCuenco, all residing at 1)


11/30

said orderof 3 5ay 34)' admitted to probatethe latesenator:s last will and testament as ha&ing been #freely and&oluntarily e%ecuted by the testator# and #with all formalities ofthe law# and appointed petitioner0widow as e%ecutri% of hisestate without bond #following the desire of the testator# in hiswill as probated.

"nstead of appealing from the Gue$on City court:s saidorder admitting the will to probateand naming petitioner0widowas e%ecutri% thereof, respondents filed a special ci&il action

of certiorariand prohibition with preliminary inunction withrespondent Court of 'ppeals doc7eted as case C'0.D. No.34(*40D- to bar the Di$al court from proceeding with case No.G0/@)@.

On 2( No&ember ()14, the Court of 'ppeals rendered adecision in fa&or of respondents petitioners therein- andagainst the herein petitioner, holding thatA

Section (, Dule /3, which fi%es the &enue in proceedings forthe settlement of the estate of a deceased person,co&ers bothtestate and intestate proceedings. Sp. , the writ of prohibition will issue, commandingand directing the respondent Court of !irst "nstance of Di$al,9ranch ", Gue$on City, and the respondent Judge Bamaso 9.Tengco to refrain perpetually from proceeding and ta7ing anyaction in Special


12/30

pro&ince. That this is ofmischievous effectin thepromptadministration of 9usticeis too ob&ious to require comment. Cf.Tanunchuan &s. By 9uncio Co., .D. No. 4@2*1, Becember3(, ()42- !urthermore, section 1** of 'ct No. ()*, (*pro&idingthat the estate of a deceased person shall be settled in thepro&ince where he had last resided, could notha&e beenintended as defining the urisdiction of the probate court o&erthe subect0matter, because such legal pro&ision is containedin a law of procedure dealing merely with procedural matters,and, as we ha&e said time and again, procedure is one thingand urisdiction o&er the subect matter is another. 'ttorney0

eneral &s. 5anila Dailroad Company, 2*


13/30

filing of the petition for its probate with the 5anila Court since'ugust 2@, ()12 when Juan 6riarte Qamacona filed a motionfor the dismissal of Special


14/30

be convertedinto a testateproceeding P when under theDules, the proper venuefor the testateproceedings, as per thefacts of record and as already affirmed by the Gue$on Citycourt is Gue$on City, where the decedent and petitioner0widowhad their conugal domicile.

"t would be an unfair imposition upon petitioner as the onenamed and entitled to be e%ecutri% of the decedent:s last willand settle his estate in accordance therewith, and a disregardof her rights under the rule on &enue and the law on urisdiction

to require her to spend much more time, money and effort toha&e to go from Gue$on City to the Cebu court e&erytime shehas an important matter of the estate to ta7e up with theprobate court.

"t would doubly be an unfair imposition when it is consideredthat under Dule /3, section 2, 2(since petitioner:s marriage hasbeen dissol&ed with the death of her husband, their communityproperty and conugal estate ha&e to beadministered andli1uidated in the estate proceedings of the deceased spouse .6nder the appealed decision, notwithstanding that petitionerresides in Gue$on City, and the proper &enue ofthe testateproceeding was in Gue$on City and the Gue$onCity court properly too7 cogni$ance and e%ercised e%clusi&eurisdiction with the deference in comity and consent of the

Cebu court, such proper e%ercise of urisdiction would benullified and petitioner would ha&e to continually lea&e herresidence in Gue$on City and go to Cebu to settle andliquidate e&en her

own community property and con9ugalestatewith the decedent.

(*. The Court therefore holds under the facts of record thatthe ebu court did not act without 9urisdiction nor with graveabuse of discretionin decliningto ta7e cogni$ance ofthe intestatepetition and instead deferringtothetestateproceedings filed ust a wee7 later by petitioner assur&i&ing widow and designated e%ecutri% of the decedent:slast will, since the record before it the petitioner:s oppositionand motion to dismiss- showed the falsityof the allegation in

the intestatepetition that the decedent had died withouta will."t is noteworthy that respondents ne&er challengedby certiorari

or prohibition proceedings the Cebu court:s orderof (* 'pril ()14 deferring to the probate proceedings beforethe Gue$on City court, thus lea&ing the latter free pursuant tothe Cebu court:s order of deference- to e"ercise

9urisdictionand admit the decedent:s will to probate.

!or the same reasons, neither could the uezon ity court beheld to have acted without 9urisdiction nor with grave abuse ofdiscretionin admitting the decedent:s will to probate andappointing petitioner as e%ecutri% in accordance with itstestamentary disposition, in the light of the settled doctrine thatthe pro&isions of Dule /3, section ( lay down only a ruleof venue, not of urisdiction.

Since respondents undisputedly failed

to appealfrom theGue$on City court:s order of 5ay (, ()14 admitting the will toprobate and appointing petitioner as e%ecutri% thereof, and saidcourt concededly has urisdiction to issue said order, the saidorder of probate has long since become final and can not beoverturned in a special civic action of prohibition.

((. !inally, it should be noted that in the Supreme Court:se%ercise of its super&isory authority o&er all inferior courts, 22itmay properly determine, as it has done in the case at bar,that venuewasproperly assumedby and transferredtothe uezon ity courtand that it is the interest of ustice and ina&oidance of needless delay that the Gue$on City court:s

e%ercise of urisdiction o&er the testate estate of the decedentwith the due deference and consent of the Cebu court- and itsadmission to probate of his last will and testament andappointment of petitioner0widow as administratri% without bondin pursuance of the decedent:s e%press will and all its ordersand actions ta7en in the testate proceedings before it beappro&ed and authori$ed rather than to annul all suchproceedings regularly had and to repeat and duplicate thesame proceedings before the Cebu court only to re&ert oncemore to the Gue$on City court should the Cebu court find thatindeed and in fact, as already determined by the Gue$on Citycourt on the strength of incontro&ertible documentary e&idence

of record, Gue$on City was the conugal residence of thedecedent.

'CCODB"N;>, udgment is hereby rendered re&ersing theappealed decision and resolution of the Court of 'ppeals andthe petition for certiorari

and prohibition with preliminaryinunction originally filed by respondents with the Court of'ppeals C'0.D. No. 34(*40D- is ordered dismissed. Nocosts.

Separate Opinions

9'DDBO, J., concurringA

" concur in the main opinion of 5r. Justice Teehan7ee.

" only want to stress that in my &iew, the failure of respondentsto question within a reasonable time the laying of the &enue inthe Gue$on City Court of !irst "nstance and the assumption ofurisdiction by that court, after the Court of !irst "nstance ofCebu deferred in its fa&or, in order to pre&ent the holdingtherein of any proceeding and trial, and their ha&ing filedtherein a formal opposition to the probate of the will, ma7esthem guilty of laches, for which reason they are not entitled to

the equitable relief prayed for in the present petition.

Separate Opinions

9'DDBO, J., concurringA

" concur in the main opinion of 5r. Justice Teehan7ee.

" only want to stress that in my &iew, the failure of respondentsto question within a reasonable time the laying of the &enue inthe Gue$on City Court of !irst "nstance and the assumption ofurisdiction by that court, after the Court of !irst "nstance ofCebu deferred in its fa&or, in order to pre&ent the holding

therein of any proceeding and trial, and their ha&ing filedtherein a formal opposition to the probate of the will, ma7esthem guilty of laches, for which reason they are not entitled tothe equitable relief prayed for in the present petition.

5on!errt ! #bne

Eicenta Salamanca died intestate lea&ing as heirs ( son and 4daughters. Damon son- filed in C!" ;agunaa petition for hisappointment as administrator of the properties of his deceasedmother. His sistersrespondents- opposed saying that they areall of age+ the debts and obligations of the estate hasalreadybeen paid+ that they did not want to be burdened with adminproceedings+ and that DamonFs remedy was to sue for partitionunder Dule /4 of DOC.Judge "bane$ issued an order statingthat in accordance with !ule & !ule the proper remedy shouldbe anaction for partition because all the heirs were of age andthere were no debts of the estate. He requiredthe sisters toinstitute partition proceedings and that the litigation begun byDamon will be held inabeyance.The sisters filed an action forpartition. Damon filed this special ci&il action alleging that therespondent udge had committed gra&e abuse of discretion. Heprayed for the court to proceed with the hearing of his petitionfor administration.


15/30

are superfluous and unnecessary.The creditors are protectede&en if, without benefit of the administration, the estate isdistributed in anaction for partition.Guestions as to whatproperty belonged to the deceased and to the heirs- mayproperly be &entilatedin the partition proceedings, especiallywhere such property is in the hands of one heir.The questionshe see7s to raise in the admin proceedings may equally dedecided in the partition suit.9esides, since the sistersconstitute 4L of the heirs. The maority interest usually gets toselect theadministrator.SC also said that the adminproceedings will be dismissed soon, inasmuch as the partition

suit hasalready been instituted, because the court has alreadyintimated that the proceedings will be suspendedpending thepresentation of the other suit.

G.R. No. L:19060. 5 20, 196.

#GNA#O GERONA, 5AR#A ONE"#ON GERONA,+RAN?SO GERONA n( DEL+#N GERONA, "etitioner!,. AR5EN DE G%$5AN, &OSE DE G%$5AN, LE5EN/EDE G%$5AN, +RAN#SO DE G%$5AN, R%S/#A DEG%$5AN, "A#/A DE G%$5AN, n( 4#/OR#A DEG%$5AN, Re!pon(ent!.

S>;;'96S

(. ST'T6D O! ;"5"T'T"ONS. P'n action for recon&eyance of real property based upon aconstructi&e or implied trust, resulting from fraud, may bebarred by the statute of limitations.

4. "B.+ "B.+ "B.+ B"SCOED> O! !D'6B CO6NTB !DO5D"STD'T"ON O! BB 'NB "SS6'NC O! NKT"T;S. P The action to annul a deed of e%traudicialsettlement upon the ground of fraud may be filed within fouryears from the disco&ery of the fraud. Such disco&ery isdeemed to ha&e ta7en place when said instrument was filed

with the Degister of Beeds and new certificates of title wereissued in the name of the respondents e%clusi&ely.

B C " S " O N

CONC


16/30

()4@, when said instrument was filed with the Degister ofBeeds and new certificates of title were issued in the name ofrespondents e%clusi&ely, for the registration of the deed ofe%tra0udicial settlement constitutes constructi&e notice towhole world Bia$ &. orricho, (*3 e Wi?? o*Leo(e)ri &'?in. +EL#C BALANA, &R., petitioner,

!. HON. AN/ON#O 5. 5AR/#NE$, &'()e o* t>e o'rt o*+ir!t #n!tn-e o* Do, Brn-> 4# A4EL#NA B. AN/ON#On( DEL#A B. LANABAN, re!pon(ent!.

'G6"NO, J.A

!eli% 9alanay, Jr. appealed by certiorari from the order of theCourt of !irst "nstance of Ba&ao dated !ebruary 2@, ()/4,

declaring illegal and &oid the will of his mother, ;eodegariaJulian, con&erting the testate proceeding into an intestateproceeding and ordering the issuance of the correspondingnotice to creditors Special Case No. (@*@-. The antecedentsof the appeal are as followsA

;eodegaria Julian, a nati&e of Sta. 5aria, "locos Sur, died on!ebruary (2, ()/3 in Ba&ao City at the age of si%ty0se&en. Shewas sur&i&ed by her husband, !eli% 9alanay, Sr., and by theirsi% legitimate children named !eli% 9alanay, Jr., '&elina 9.'ntonio, 9eatri$ 9. Solamo, Carolina 9. 5anguiob, Belia 9.;anaban and milia 9.


17/30

the petition for the allowance of the will. 'ttached to the motionwas a copy of a letter dated 5arch 2/, ()/4 addressed to 'tty.5ontaRa and signed by !eli% 9alanay, Jr., 9eatri$ E. Solamo,Carolina 9. 5anguiob and milia 9.


18/30

's aptly stated by 5r. Justice 9arredo, #the &ery e%istence of apurported testament is in itself prima facie proof that thesupposed testator has willed that his estate should bedistributed in the manner therein pro&ided, and it is incumbentupon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be gi&eneffect independent of the attitude of the parties affectedthereby# Desolution, Eda. de


19/30

'cting on the motion for reconsideration andLor clarificationfiled by petitioner in . D. No. ;03*4/), Constancio 5aloto, etal., &s. Hon. migdio E. Nietes, etc. et al., dated June ((, ()1),the Court resol&ed to BN> the motion for reconsideration,with the clarification that the matter of whether or not thepertinent findings of facts of respondent Judge in his hereinsubect order of No&ember (1, ()1@ constitute res adudicatamay be raised in the proceedings for probate of the alleged willin question indicated in the resolution of this Court of 5ay (4,()1), wherein such matter will be more appropriatelydetermined. @

Thereupon, the herein petitioners commenced SpecialTH TST'TD".

"". TH'T TH "NST'NT TNBD TH"S N6"N ;'ST K";; 'NB TST'5NT O!TH ;'T 'BD"'N' 5';OTO TH S69JCT O! er >'!bn( "EDRO B%#SON,re!pon(ent:ppe??ee!.

OQ'T', J.A

rnesto 5. ue&arra and Dosario ue&ara, ligitimate son andnatural daughter, respecti&ely, of the deceased Eictorino ;.ue&ara, are litigating here o&er their inheritance from thelatter. The action was commenced on No&ember (2, ()3/, byDosario ue&ara to reco&er from rnesto ue&ara what sheclaims to be her strict ligitime as an ac7nowledged naturaldaughter of the deceased 0 to wit, a portion of 423,4)2 squaremeters of a large parcel of land described in original certificateof title No. (1)( of the pro&ince of


20/30

' mi hio legitimo, rnesto 5. ue&ara, ciento ocho (*@-hectareas, ocho @- areas y cincuenta y cuatro 4- centiareas,hacia la parte que colinda al Oeste de las cien (**- hectareasreferidas en el inciso a- de este parrafo del testamento, comosu propiedad absoluta y e%clusi&a, en la cual e%tensionsuperficial estan incluidas cuarenta y tres 43- hectareas,&eintitres 23- areas y cuarenta y dos 42- centiareas que ledoy en concepto de meora.

' mi hia natural reconocida, Dosario ue&ara, &eintiun 2(-hectareas, sesenta y un 1(- areas y setenta y un /(-

centiareas, que es la parte restante.

Buodecimo. 0 Nombro por la presente como 'lbaceaTestamentario a mi hio rnesto 5. ue&ara, con rele&acion defian$a. > una &e$ legali$ado este testamento, y en cuanto seaposible, es mi deseo, que los herederos y legatarios aquinombrados se repartan e%traudicialmente mis bienes deconformidad con mis disposiciones arriba consignadas.

Subsequently, and on July (2, ()33, Eictorino ;. ue&arrae%ecuted whereby he con&eyed to him the southern half of thelarge parcel of land of which he had theretofore disposed bythe will abo&e mentioned, inconsideration of the sum of


21/30

The Court of 'ppeals too7 e%press notice of theserequirements of the law and held that a will, unless probated, isineffecti&e. Ne&ertheless it sanctioned the procedure adoptedby the respondent for the following reasonsA

The maority of the Court is of the opinion that if this case isdismissed ordering the filing of testate proceedings, it wouldcause inustice, inco&enience, delay, and much e%pense to theparties, and that therefore, it is preferable to lea&e them in the

&ery status which they themsel&es ha&e chosen, and to decidetheir contro&ersy once and for all, since, in a similar case, theSupreme Court applied that same criterion ;eaRo &s. ;eaRo,supra-, which is now sanctioned by section ( of Dule /4 of theDules of Court. 9esides, section 1 of Dule (24 pro&ides that, ifthe procedure which the court ought to follow in the e%ercise ofits urisdiction is not specifically pointed out by the Dules ofCourt, any suitable process or mode of procedure may beadopted which appears most consistent to the spirit of the saidDules. Hence, we declare the action instituted by the plaintiff tobe in accordance with law.

;et us loo7 into the &alidity of these considerations. Section (of Dule /4 pro&ides as followsA

Section (. %traudicial settlement by agreementbetween heirs. 0 "f the decedent left no debts and the heirs andlegatees are all of age, or the minors are represented by theirudicial guardians, the parties may, without securing letters ofadministration, di&ide the estate among themsel&es as theysee fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of theregister of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so inan ordinary action of partition. "f there is only one heir or onelegatee, he may adudicate to himself the entire estate bymeans of an affida&it filed in the office of the register of deeds."t shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if nocreditor files a petition for letters of administration within two

years after the death of the decedent.

That is a modification of section )1 of the Code of Ci&il


22/30

decedent by his will and attempts to nullify and circum&ent thetestamentary dispositions made by him by not presenting thewill to the court for probate and by claiming her legitime as anac7nowledged natural child on the basis of intestacy+ and thatin the face of e%press mandatory pro&isions of the lawrequiring her to present the will to the court for probate.

"n the subsequent case of Diosa &s. Docha ()21-, 4@


23/30

by us on certiorari. The Court of 'ppeals found that the moneywith which the petitioner repurchased the northern half of theland in question from Dafael


24/30

'nent appellant 5iguel Buran, he sought in his petition belowto #oin petitioner Cipriano Buran as co0petitioner in the latter:spetition . . . and incorporates herein by adoption all theallegations made in said petition.# Decord on 'ppeal, pp. 4041-. The same, therefore, amounted to a petition to inter&enein the settlement proceedings. 's aptly ruled by the court aquo, since there was really no settlement proceedings in thefirst place, the petition to inter&ene must be denied.

!inally, although Josefina Buran prayed to be appointedadministratri%, her doing so did not amount to ratification of the

petition for settlement under the ruling in usebio &. Ealmores,)/


25/30

9onilla Treyes %pedita 9onilla !rias and phraim 9onilla onthe following groundsA

(- 'ppellant was estopped from claiming that the deceasedleft a will by failing to produce the will within twenty days of thedeath of the testator as required by Dule /, section 2 of theDules of Court+

2- The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did notcontain a disposition of property after death and was notintended to ta7e effect after death, and therefore it was not a

will

3- The alleged hollographic will itself,and not an alleged copythereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce noeffect, as held in am &. >ap, (*4 eO%R/ O+ /AC A""EALS, re!pon(ent!.

%000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000%

G.R. No. L:11668 &n'r 28, 1961.

DO%GLAS +#SHER AND BE//#NA +#SHER, petitioner,

!./HE OLLE/OR O+ #N/ERNAL RE4EN%E, n( t>e

O%R/ O+ /AC A""EALS, re!pon(ent!.

9'DDD', J.A

This case relates to the determination and settlement of thehereditary estate left by the deceased Kalter . Ste&enson,and the laws applicable thereto. Kalter . Ste&enson born inthe


26/30

(- (// shares of stoc7 of Canacao state at


27/30

(- Khether or not, in determining the ta%able net estate of thedecedent, one0half [- of the net estate should be deductedtherefrom as the share of tile sur&i&ing spouse in accordancewith our law on conugal partnership and in relation to section@) c- of the National "nternal re&enue Code+

2- Khether or not the estate can a&ail itself of the reciprocitypro&iso embodied in Section (22 of the National "nternalDe&enue Code granting e%emption from the payment of estateand inheritance ta%es on the 2(*,*** shares of stoc7 in the5indanao 5other ;ode 5ines "nc.+

3- Khether or not the estate is entitled to the deduction of


28/30

force at the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficiente&idence to establish the e%istence of said law. "n line with this&iew, we find no error, therefore, on the part of the Ta% Court inconsidering the pertinent California law as pro&ed byrespondents: witness.

Ke now ta7e up the question of reciprocity in e%emption fromtransfer or death ta%es, between the State of California and the


29/30

6pon the other hand, we find merit in respondents: othercontention that the said shares of stoc7 commanded a lesser&alue at the 5anila Stoc7 %change si% months after the deathof Ste&enson. Through 'tty. 'llison ibbs, respondents ha&eshown that at that time a share of said stoc7 was bid for at only


30/30

spec pro 31 pages

Documents