Civil Action v. Special Proceedings in the Philippines PDF

**INTRODUCTION** **Civil Action v. Special Proceedings:** - Civil action is one where a party sues another for the enforcement of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. - Special proceeding is a remedy where a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact....

**INTRODUCTION** **Civil Action v. Special Proceedings:** - Civil action is one where a party sues another for the enforcement of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. - Special proceeding is a remedy where a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact. - Civil action involves at least two parties - Civil action is adversarial as it involves at least two parties and it is based on a cause of action - Special proceeding is non-adversarial as it is usually availed of by only one party. It becomes adversarial, however, if there be oppositors. \[In Re: Petition for Appointment of Guardian *Ad Litem* of Minors\] - Special proceeding is not based on cause of action. **RULE 72** **SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES** Section 1. *Subject matter of special proceedings*. --- Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases: **Section 2.** *Applicability of rules of civil actions*. --- In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. **Other Cases of Special Proceedings:** Rule 72 is not confined and absolute. - **Liquidation:** The Supreme Court declared that a petition for liquidation under Section 29 of the Central Bank Act is a special proceeding. [This classification affects the rules and timelines for appeals](https://batas.org/2024/02/08/g-r-no-109373-march-27-1998-case-brief-digest/). (Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Organization vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109373) - **Annulment of Marriage:** The Supreme Court ruled that **Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the annulment of marriages involving Filipino citizens, regardless of where the marriage was celebrated, based on the nationality principle.** The court validated the service of summons by publication due to the unknown whereabouts of the defendant, Chae Kyung Lee. The plaintiff, Lazaro Rayray, sought annulment on grounds related to the defendant\'s past relationships, but the court found the evidence insufficient. (Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee, G.R. No. L-18176) - Legal separation - Violence against women and their children and protection orders - Domestic adoption - *Writ of Amparo* - *Writ of Habeas Data* - *Writ of Kalikasan* - Arbitration Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. --- In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. - The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for **complaints and other initiatory pleadings.** - The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent **money claim** against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent\'s will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to certain exceptions. **Hence, herein petitioner\'s contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping; money claims are merely incidental.** (Sheker vs. Sheker, G.R. No. 157912) - Initiatory pleadings such as petition for granting letters of administration, petition for granting special admistration, or a petition for settlement of estate require a certificate against non-forum shopping **SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS** **RULE 73** **VENUE AND PROCESS** Article 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted **from** the moment of the death of the decedent. (657a)  **Mode of settlement of estate:** 1. **Judicial settlement** a. Summary settlement of estate of small value; b. Partition c. Testate and intestate proceedings 2. **Extrajudicial settlement** a. Self-adjudication **Compromise Settlement Requirement Not Required in Probate:** A petition for the **judicial settlement** of an estate is a **special proceeding**, **not an ordinary civil action.** Consequently, the provision requiring earnest efforts toward a compromise between family members does not apply. (Vda. de Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129242) **Estate Definition:** Refers to **all the properties, rights, and obligations** **left behind by a deceased person.** This includes both real properties (like land and buildings) and personal properties (like money, jewelry, and other personal belongings). The estate is subject to distribution among the heirs and may also be subject to estate tax. 1. **Components of an Estate**: - **Real Property**: Land, houses, and other immovable properties. - **Personal Property**: Cash, bank accounts, vehicles, jewelry, stocks, and other movable properties. - **Rights and Obligations**: Any debts or liabilities the deceased had, as well as any rights to receive income or benefits. 2. **Estate Tax**: - The estate tax is a tax on the right of the deceased person to transmit their estate to their lawful heirs and beneficiaries at the time of death. - [The tax is calculated based on the net estate, which is the value of the gross estate minus allowable deductions such as debts, funeral expenses, and medical expenses incurred before death](https://www.moneymax.ph/personal-finance/articles/estate-tax-philippines). 3. **Distribution of the Estate**: - If the deceased left a will, the estate is distributed according to the terms of the will. - [If there is no will, the estate is distributed according to the rules of intestate succession, which prioritize the spouse, children, and other close relatives](https://ralblaw.com/inheritance-law-philippines/) **VENUE AND PROCESS** **Section 1.** *Where estate of deceased persons settled*. --- If the decedents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. **Venue:** The decedent's place of residence or the estate's location. **Fact of residency and not fact of citizenship:** - If the decedent was not a resident at the time of his death, then his estate shall be settled in the province in which he had estate. - Section 1 of Rule 73 is about venue and not jurisdiction **The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts** - Precludes all other courts - This applies only to Philippine courts - As a general rule, once the court has assumed jurisdiction, it shall no longer be contested. As an exception, impropriety of venue may be raised on appeal in the original case and when the want of jurisdiction appears on the face. Is the venue jurisdictional? - No. impropriety of venue, when not raised, is deemed waived as it is not jurisdictional. **Residence defined** - Must be defined in its **popular sense** - **Not** tantamount to **a person's domiciliary with *animus manendi*** - **Physical or actual habitation** **How is the net estate of the decedent determined?** - By **deducting** all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the decedent at the time of his death. - All **donations** subject to collation will be added to it. **Jurisdiction over settlement of estate (which court):** - Municipal Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts are both empowered to take cognizance of estate proceedings. - **What determines which court has jurisdiction will depend on the gross value of the estate concerned.** - The **Municipal Trial Court** has exclusive jurisdiction to settle an estate if its gross value **does not exceed P2,000,000.00**. If it exceeds said amount, then the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. - For purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction in the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, neither residence nor citizenship is taken into account. - **No.** the Court ruled that the **probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement and distribution of a decedent\'s estate, including issues related to advancements made to heirs.** - A Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting in its general jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate matters that pertain to the settlement of an estate, such as determining advancements, as these require specific procedures outlined for special proceedings. - **The proper forum for resolving issues of advancement and other estate-related matters is the probate court**, which must follow established rules of procedure to ascertain the net estate and the legitime of compulsory heirs before making any determinations regarding donations or advancements. (Natcher vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133000). **Rule 73, Section 1 relates to venue, not jurisdiction:** - Actually, Rule 73, Section 1 provides for the venue of actions for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. - The RTC has jurisdiction over an action for the annulment of Deed of Sale with assumption of mortgage of the decedent's estate. \[binenta ni anak yung lupa ng tatay niya to settle the latter's debts. After the perfection of the Deed, narealize niyang naisama pala niya yung buong kalupaan na dapat half lang. Finile niya itong annulment sa ibang branch ng RTC. Sabi ng CA void daw yung judgment ng RTC na ito kasi it has no jurisdiction over it. Ang may jurisidiction daw is kung saan dininig yung probate. The SC held na may jurisdiction si subsequent RTC kasi yung reliance ng CA sa Sec. 73 ay for venue lang and not jurisdiction\] **A Valid Transfer of Venue Can Be Granted on Several Grounds:** 1. [**Improper Venue**: If the case was initially filed in a county that is not considered appropriate under the law, it can be transferred to the correct venue](https://42lawyers.com/legal-procedures-and-resources/court-procedures/filing-a-lawsuit/change-of-venue-motions-when-and-how-to-file.html) 2. [**Convenience**: If holding the trial in the current location would cause undue hardship or inconvenience for the parties or witnesses, a transfer can be requested](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/change-venue-criminal-case.html) 3. [**Impartial Trial**: If there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the current venue due to local prejudices or biases, a change of venue may be warranted](https://silblawfirm.com/litigation/venue-in-texas/). 4. [**Related Cases**: If there is a related case pending in another county, transferring the case can help consolidate proceedings and avoid conflicting judgments](https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-a-motion-for-change-of-venue.html) **Remedy for an improper venue:** - Through a motion to dismiss. If denied, Rule 65. (*Gacad, Jr. v. Corpuz*, G.R. No. 216107) - It is settled that courts may not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue. In *Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court (Dacoycoy),* We ruled that it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to take a procedural shortcut by dismissing the plaintiffs complaint on the ground of improper venue even before summons was served on the defendant therein, and **without any of the parties raising objections to the venue:** - Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the Courts of First Instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is deemed waived. - Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant\'s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. **Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceeding,** particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the Courts of First Instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is deemed waived. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised.** The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant\'s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by *motu proprio* dismissing the case.** **Venue Should Be Consistently Maintained Unless Under Compelling Reasons:** The venue of probate proceedings should remain consistent and should **not be transferred solely based on the** **reassignment or transfer of the judge handling the case.** Any transfer of venue must be justified by compelling reasons that serve the interests of justice and efficiency. The mere transfer of a judge to another court does not automatically justify the transfer of the case to the new court of the judge's assignment. The stability and consistency in the handling of probate cases are paramount, and any change in venue must be supported by specific and compelling reasons to avoid unnecessary delays and confusion (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Solidbank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Maria Luisa Madrigal Vazquez, G.R. No. 75017, June 3, 1991). **The Determination of Who the Heirs are Must be Made in the Special Proceedings:** - The Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over the estate of Magdaleno Ypon, who died intestate and childless. Gaudioso Ricaforte, claiming to be the **sole heir**, executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and transferred the properties to his name. The petitioners, collateral relatives of Magdaleno, sought the cancellation of these titles, alleging that Gaudioso w**as not a legitimate heir.** The court ruled that the determination of heirship should be made in a special proceeding, **not in an ordinary civil action, and upheld the dismissal of the petitioners\' complaint for lack of cause of action**. (Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte, G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013) \[what was filed was an ordinary action for the cancellation of title and reconveyance with damages\] - The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over a 1.1062-hectare parcel of land originally declared for taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. Lourdes Evero Pacana claimed sole ownership, asserting she inherited it from her mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero, the alleged only child of Juan Gabatan. The heirs of Teofilo Gabatan contested this, claiming Juan died single and without issue, and that the land was inherited by Juan\'s siblings. The court ruled that the determination of heirship should be made in a special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action, and emphasized the importance of proper venue and jurisdiction in such matters. (Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009) - In the more recent case of *Milagros v. Lourdes Reyes,* the Court reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. **Probate court has authority to:** a. determine the heirs; b. make a just and legal distribution of the estate; c. to approve the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospective heirs before final adjudication; d. **the recognition of a natural child;** e. the **status** of a woman claiming to be th**e legal wife** of the decedent; the legality of disinheritance of an heir by the testator; f. to pass upon the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights; g. matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate **May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedent's estate?** - The general rule is that a trial court, acting as an intestate or probate court, has jurisdiction only over matters related to the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills. [This jurisdiction does not typically extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings](https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2020/06/extent-of-jurisdiction-of-probate-intestate-courts.html) - **Exceptions:** - **For practical considerations:** However, there is a well-recognized exception to this rule. **An intestate or probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when the purpose is to determ**ine whether a property should be included in the inventory of the estate. [In such cases, the court's determination is merely incidental and provisional.](https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2020/06/extent-of-jurisdiction-of-probate-intestate-courts.html) This means that the court's decision on ownership is not final and binding but is made solely for the purpose of deciding whether the property should be part of the estate being settled. - **For the purpose of inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property** - **When there is consent of all the heirs, provided that third parties are not prejudiced.** - A trial court, acting as an intestate court, has limited jurisdiction and cannot resolve questions of ownership over properties claimed to be part of a decedent\'s estate. Such matters must be addressed in a separate action before a court of general jurisdiction. The intestate court\'s role is primarily to settle the estate and probate the will, not to adjudicate ownership disputes, which should be resolved through ordinary legal proceedings. This principle is rooted in the need for expeditious settlement of estate proceedings and the recognition that ownership claims can only be definitively determined outside the intestate proceedings. (Pacioles, Jr. v. Chuatoco-Ching, G.R. 127920) - See G.R. 230404, G.R. 156407 **Remedies for an impropriety of venue** ### **Ordinary Appeal (Rule 109)** ### **Example**: Suppose the probate court in Manila is handling a case, but the decedent was a resident of Cebu. The heirs believe the venue is improper. They can wait until the court issues a final decision on the probate case. After the decision, they can file an appeal to a higher court, arguing that the venue was improper and that the case should have been heard in Cebu. ### **Certiorari** **Example**: If the probate court in Manila is clearly not the proper venue because the decedent was a resident of Cebu, the heirs can file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. They would argue that the probate court in Manila acted with grave abuse of discretion by taking jurisdiction over the case, and request that the proceedings be transferred to the proper court in Cebu. - Deemed waived as venue is not jurisdictional. - The court **cannot *motu proprio* dismiss a case on the ground of improper venue.** **How then is \"residence\" defined for purposes of settlement of estate?** - It refers to \"actual or physical\" residence, as distinguished from \"legal residence\" or \"domicile.\" - One\'s personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be one\'s legal residence or domicile provided one resides therein with continuity and consistency. - Physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. - Thus, that fact that a deceased person\'s death certificate shows that he was a resident of Capas, Tarlac, did not stop the Supreme Court from upholding the jurisdiction of Las Piñas where he **actually resided.** *Cases:* - Roberts vs. Leonidas - A dispute over jurisdiction and venue arises in the settlement of a deceased person\'s estate, leading to a ruling that Courts of First Instance have exclusive jurisdiction over probate matters and that wrong venue is a waivable procedural defect. (Uriarte vs. CFI) **Where the settlement of estate was instituted in two courts, an intestate and a testate proceeding** - The question of jurisdiction was raised in both courts. The decedent's children by his first marriage instituted intestate proceedings in Cebu City, alleging that the decedent was a resident of Cebu at the time of his death. A week later, the decedent\'s second wife filed a petition for probate of his will in Quezon City. Upon learning of the existence of the intestate proceedings in the Cebu Court, the petitioner opposed the same and filed a motion to dismiss. The respondents questioned the Quezon City Court\'s jurisdiction, arguing that exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the Cebu Court when they instituted the intestate proceedings. The Supreme court held that since it deals with venue and comity between courts of equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction --- indicates that the court with whom the **petition is first filed, must also first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.** (Cuenco us. Court of Appeals) - In the case of Uriarte, there was a showing that **the petitioner in the probate proceeding had knowledge prior to filing the testate proceeding that an intestate proceeding was already pending.** In Cuenco, the petition for probate was filed without knowledge of an existing intestate proceeding, which was filed just a week earlier. **Extent of Jurisdiction of Probate Court:** - Limited jurisdiction as to the administration, liquidation, and distribution of the estate. - The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either summarily or through the process of administration. **The trial court has no authority to determine who the lawful heirs are** - The rule that the determination of a decedent\'s lawful heirs should be made in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the trial court, in an ordinary action for cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same. Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. **Where the trial court may take jurisdiction** - By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with **for the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but finally had been closed.** (Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA) Questions of title may be passed on provisionally, but the final determination of the ownership of the property must be threshed out in a separate civil action and not in the probate court (Pacioles, Jr. vs. Chuatoco-Ching) **May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedent\'s estate?** - NO. Questions of title should be ventilated in a separate proceeding. - The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises special and limited jurisdiction. - A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. - In such situations the adjudication is merely incidental and provisional. - RTC, acting as an intestate court would overstep its jurisdiction. - RTC's proper course should have been to maintain a hands-off stance on the matter. - When a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of the deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such question cannot be determined in the course of an intestate or probate proceedings. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a regional trial court. **Exceptions to probate's limited jurisdiction** 1. **Heirs as Interested Parties**: If all interested parties are heirs who have appeared in the proceedings, the probate court can determine ownership issues. [This is because the rights of third parties are not affected](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_156407_2014.html). 2. [**Consent of Parties**: If all parties involved consent, the probate court can pass upon the ownership of a property subject to the probate proceedings, provided that the rights of third parties are not impaired](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_156407_2014.html). **Situations Where Probate Court Can Resolve Ownership Issues (Aranas vs. Mercado):** - All Interested Parties are Heirs: If all parties involved in the dispute are heirs to the estate, the probate court can resolve the ownership issue. - Collation or Advancement: If the dispute involves collation (bringing back into the estate assets given to heirs during the decedent's lifetime) or advancement (gifts given in anticipation of inheritance), the probate court can decide on these matters. - Consent of Parties: If all parties consent to the probate court's jurisdiction, it can resolve the ownership issue. - No Impairment of Third-Party Rights: The probate court can decide on ownership issues as long as the rights of third parties (those not directly involved in the estate) are not affected. **Provisional Inclusion and Exclusion of Property in the Estate Proceedings by a Probate Court:** In Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (2018), the Supreme Court of the Philippines dealt with a dispute over a joint bank account between Anita Ong Tan and the heirs of Reynaldo Rodriguez. The probate court provisionally included the account in the estate inventory to facilitate the settlement process, emphasizing that this inclusion was not a final determination of ownership. The court reiterated that the final ownership should be resolved in a separate legal action, highlighting the principle that probate courts can make provisional rulings on property inclusion without making definitive ownership decisions. **Section 2.** *Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage*. --- When the **marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife**, the **community property** shall be inventoried, administered, and **liquidated**, and the **debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.** If **both** spouses have **died**, the **conjugal partnership shall be liquidated** in the testate or intestate proceedings of **either**. **Can the creditor sue the surviving spouse for the debt of the deceased spouse?** - No. The rationale behind it is that upon the death of his spouse, the surviving spouse had already lost his power to administer and is vested already in the administrator or executor. - The proper remedy is for the creditor to file a claim against the estate of the decedent. **The Debt of the Deceased Spouse Cannot be Proceeded Against the Surviving Spouse:** The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for a debt owed by the conjugal partnership of gains. The case involved Purita Alipio, who was sued for an unpaid balance on a sublease contract after her husband\'s death. The Court ruled that the claim must be filed in the estate settlement proceedings, not directly against the surviving spouse. This decision underscores the principle that debts of the conjugal partnership should be settled within the estate proceedings to ensure proper administration and distribution of the decedent\'s assets. (Alipio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134100) **Specific instances where legal action can be taken directly against the surviving spouse:** 1. **Community Property Debts:** If the debt was incurred during the marriage and is considered a conjugal debt, the surviving spouse may be liable for it. [This includes obligations that were part of the conjugal partnership of gains](https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/legal-rights-to-inherit-land-understanding-heirship-and-succession-in-the-philippines). (Arts. 121, 122 FCP) 2. **Contractual Obligations:** If the surviving spouse co-signed or guaranteed a debt, they can be held liable for fulfilling the contractual obligations. (Art. 2047, NCC) 3. [**Fraudulent Transfers:** If it is proven that the decedent transferred property to the surviving spouse to defraud creditors, the creditors can pursue the surviving spouse to recover the assets](https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/legal-rights-to-inherit-land-understanding-heirship-and-succession-in-the-philippines) (Art. 1381, NCC) 4. [**Joint Accounts and Assets:** Assets held in joint accounts or jointly owned property may be subject to claims by creditors, as the surviving spouse becomes the sole owner upon the decedent's death](https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/legal-rights-to-inherit-land-understanding-heirship-and-succession-in-the-philippines). (Banking Laws) **Section 3.** *Process*. --- In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Courts of First Instance **may issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses** or to carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by law. If a person **does not perform** an order or judgment rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the **apprehension and imprisonment** of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is released. **Section 4.** *Presumption of death*. --- For purposes of settlement of his estate, a person shall be **presumed dead if absent and unheard of for the periods fixed** in the Civil Code. But if such person **proves to be alive**, he shall be **entitled to the balance** of his estate **after payment of all his debts.** The balance may be **recovered by motion in the same proceeding.** **Article 390.** After an absence of **seven years,** it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he **disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years** shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. (n) **Presumption of Death for Estate Settlement (Art. 390, NCC):** **Periods for Presumption:** a. **Seven Years:** Generally, a person is presumed dead after an absence of seven years for all purposes except succession. b. **Ten Years:** For the purpose of opening succession, the absence must be ten years. c. **Five Years:** If the person disappeared after the age of seventy-five, an absence of five years is sufficient to presume death for succession purposes. d. **Four Yearss:** In danger when a person is on board a vessel that is lost; a person in the armed forces who has taken part in war; a person in danger of death under other circumstances. **RULE 74** **SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE** **Section 1.** *Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs*. --- If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filled in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent. The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the nest succeeding section; **but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.** 1. **Conditions/ Requisites for Extrajudicial Settlement**: - The decedent left no will and no debts. - All heirs are of legal age, or minors are represented by authorized legal representatives. 2. **Process**: - Heirs can divide the estate among themselves without securing letters of administration. - This division is done through a public instrument filed with the register of deeds. - If heirs disagree, they may pursue an ordinary action of partition. - A sole heir can adjudicate the entire estate to themselves via an affidavit filed with the register of deeds. 3. **Bond Requirement**: - A bond equivalent to the value of the personal property must be filed with the register of deeds. - This bond ensures payment of any just claims that may arise. 4. **Publication**: - The extrajudicial settlement must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. - The settlement is not binding on persons who did not participate or were not notified. **Judicial Administration Despite No Debt:** The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the necessity of judicial administration for the estate of Eustaquio Arcillas, who died intestate. Despite the absence of debts, the Court ruled that judicial administration was necessary to ensure proper management and distribution of the estate. The case involved a dispute among heirs, with Geronimo Arcillas seeking to cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the decedent\'s name and issue a new one for the heirs, while Aurelio Arcillas petitioned for letters of administration. The Court emphasized that heirs could choose judicial administration over extrajudicial settlement or ordinary partition, particularly when complexities or disputes required resolution. (Arcillas v. Montejo, 1968) ***Case:*** In a case involving **disputed heirship and property rights**, the Supreme Court rules that if **special proceedings are pending**, the **determination of heirship** should be raised and **settled in said proceedings**, but if **closed or terminated**, an **ordinary civil action** can be filed for the declaration of heirship and annulment of property distribution. The court grants the petition, sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings. (Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, Aug 16, 2005) **Prescriptive Period for Contesting a Title from Probate Proceedings on the Ground of Fraud is Four Years:** The Supreme Court ruled that the action to annul the title of Lot 6409 was barred by prescription. The plaintiffs, heirs of Asuncion Teves, filed the complaint on May 9, 1984, more than 12 years after the issuance of the transfer certificate of title in Asuncion Teves\' name on March 22, 1972. They claimed the title was fraudulently obtained. However, the Court emphasized that actions for reconveyance based on fraud must be filed within four years from the discovery of the fraud, and in any case, within ten years from the issuance of the title. Since the complaint was filed beyond this period, the action was dismissed. This case underscores the importance of timely filing actions to annul titles based on fraud, adhering to the prescriptive periods set by law. (Heirs of Asuncion Teves vs. Court of Appeals, GR 109963) **Is The Question of Residency Determinative of Jurisdiction of the Court?** No. It is determinative only of the venue. Hence, the institution of the proceeding in the province wherein the decedent neither had residence nor estate does not vitiate the action of the probate court. As venue may be waived, the submission of all affected parties to said proceeding is a waiver of objection to this error. However, if objection to venue is seasonably raised, the petition should be dismissed, and the proceedings should be instituted in the proper court. **Note on Self-Adjudication:** - For self-adjudication to be legal, there must be **no other persons claiming to be heirs** or having a just claim. There must be no doubt that he is the sole heir. - In an affidavit of self-adjudication, there should **only be one heir**, and that there is no will. - Extrajudicial settlement is a cost-efficient manner of settling the estate without court intervention - A bond is required only when personal property is involved. **If the Person Who had No Knowledge or Who Had Not Participated Therein Had No Notice Thereof, is He Bound by the Constructive Notice of Publication?** NO. Such publication **does not constitute constructive notice** as it is intended for the **protection of the creditors**, but never for the deprivation of heirs' lawful rights. **Constructive Notice** - When a person is notified without actual notice. - The rule of constructive notice states that registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world **May an heir opt not to receive any share of the inheritance?** - YES, by executing a **waiver renouncing or repudiating his or her share.** This repudiation must be made in a public or authentic instrument. - In practice, the repudiation or waiver is incorporated into the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. - The heir who repudiates his inheritance generally has no say in who receives the assets in his or her place. - Once an heir designates a person who will receive his or her share in lieu of himself, such designation partakes of a **donation** and will be **subject to the donor's tax.** **May an heir be excluded from participating in the estate of the decedent other than by voluntary repudiation?** In the 2018 case of Amparo S. Cruz, et al. vs. Angelito S. Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 211153, February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that the exclusion of heirs in the extra-judicial settlement of an estate renders it a "**total nullity" and not binding upon the excluded heirs.** **Can a property be sold while an extrajudicial settlement is pending?** - Yes. This is a common practice. When this is done, the document is usually called a **Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale.** - In a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale, **all** the heirs should participate. - A **void** deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate with absolute sale is **imprescriptible** as no rights have been transferred. ***Case:*** The evidence presented, such as birth and baptismal certificates, **did not bear Pablo\'s signature** acknowledging Maria Alicia as his natural daughter. There was also no document or writing, such as receipts or letters, naming Maria Alicia as Pablo\'s daughter. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish Maria Alicia\'s claim for recognition. (Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84647, May 23, 1991) **Summary Settlement of Estates Defined (Rule 74)** - A judicial proceeding wherein, **without the appointment** of executor or administrator and delay, the c**ompetent court summarily proceeds to value the estate of the decedent;** **ascertain his debts** and **order payment** thereof; **allow** his will if any; **declare his heirs**, devisee, and legatees; and **distribute** his net estate among his known heirs, devisees, and legatees, who shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the parts of the estate so awarded to them, respectively. **Can the heirs agree to oral partition?** - **Yes. No express provision that EJS must be reduced to writing.** - In fact, **the absence of a public instrument or affidavit does not affect the validity of the EJS as long as there are no creditors.** - Registration with the Register of Deeds is only for the protection of creditors. **It serves to notify third persons who wish the acquire the property.** **Consent of All Heirs Required in Co-Ownership:** The doctrine highlighted in the case of Tiro vs. Heirs of Cuyos is that any disposition of property involving co-heirs must have the consent of all co-heirs to be valid. This principle ensures that all heirs\' rights are protected and that no single heir can unilaterally dispose of inherited property without the agreement of the others¹. This doctrine underscores the importance of mutual consent in transactions involving inherited property to prevent disputes and ensure fairness. - Effect: Annulment of Sale **As a general rule, the probate courts cannot issue writs of execution. What are the exceptions?** a. To **satisfy the contributive shares** of the devisees, legatees, and heirs in possession of the decedent's assets; b. To enforce payment of the **expenses of partition**; c. To satisfy the **costs** when a person is **cited for examination** in probate proceedings. **Note:** These exceptions are EXCLUSIVE. **Should the petitioners institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before pursuing the case for annulment of property distribution?** - In a case involving disputed heirship and property rights, the Supreme Court rules that if special proceedings are pending, the determination of heirship should be raised and settled in said proceedings, but if closed or terminated, an ordinary civil action can be filed for the declaration of heirship and annulment of property distribution. The court grants the petition, sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings. (Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran) **Where ordinary courts can pass upon filiation and heirship:** 1. **Impracticality**: A special proceeding could be lengthy and not expeditious, especially when the estate consists of only one property. 2. **Cost and Expenses**: The costs and expenses associated with an administration proceeding would be burdensome to the estate. 3. **Superfluous Nature**: The parties involved in the civil case had already presented evidence before the trial court, which had assumed jurisdiction over the case and defined the issues during pre-trial. **Can the heirs enter into an oral partition of the decedent\'s estate notwithstanding the requisite that the extrajudicial settlement must be contained in a public instrument?** - Yes. The Supreme Court recognized the validity of an oral partition in Vda, de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals stating that there is nothing in Section 1, Rule 74 from which it can be inferred that a written instrument or other formality is an essential requisite to the validity of the partition. - The purpose of the public instrument or the affidavit of self-adjudication is really for the protection of the heirs. - **Failure to file the extrajudicial settlement or the affidavit of self-adjudication does not affect its validity when there are no creditors or when no rights of creditors are involved.** (Hernandez vs. Andal) **Extrajudicial Settlement --- On Whom Binding:** - Persons who did not participate nor had notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. - The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was noticed after the fact of execution. - The **requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors** and **was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent\'s estate.** **EJS is Void When One of the Heirs are Excluded:** An extrajudicial settlement by affidavit is not binding on heirs who did not participate in or were unaware of the settlement. If an heir is excluded, the settlement can be challenged and potentially nullified, as it fails to account for the rightful shares of all heirs. This ensures that all heirs receive their due share of the inheritance and that the settlement process is fair and just. (Sampilo vs. Court of Appeals) **Filing of Bond (only for personal property; if real, subject to lien in favor of creditors)** 1. **Extrajudicial Settlement Agreement**: The heirs must agree on how to divide the estate. This agreement is documented and signed by all heirs. 2. **Filing the Bond**: The heirs are required to file a bond equivalent to the value of the personal property in the estate. This bond acts as a financial guarantee to cover any valid claims that might arise within two years after the estate is distributed. 3. **Purpose of the Bond**: The bond ensures that if any creditors or other claimants come forward within two years, there are funds available to satisfy their claims. This protects the interests of potential claimants even after the estate has been settled. 4. **Certification Under Oath**: The value of the personal property must be certified under oath by the parties involved, ensuring the bond amount is accurate and reflective of the estate's value. **There is no legal obligation to file settlement of estate where all the requisites of EJS are present:** In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was not disputed, that Pedro died without a will, leaving his estate without any pending obligations. Thus, contrary to petitioner\'s contention, respondents were under no legal obligation to submit me subject properties of the estate to a special proceeding for settlement of intestate estate, and are, in fact, encouraged to have the same partitioned, judicially or extrajudicially. (*Spouses Villafria v. Plazo,* G.R. No. 187524) **Section 2.** *Summary settlement of estate of small value*. --- Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice to interest persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due; and such persons, in their own right, if they are of lawful age and legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. The court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings, and all orders and judgments made or rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of the clerk, and the order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, shall be recorded in the proper register\'s office. **Requisites of settlement of small value:** 1. The gross value **does not exceed P10,000.00** 2. **Bond** 3. Proper **hearing** with **publication** and **notice** **Rules to remember in settlement of estate of small value** - The gross value does not exceed P10,000.00 - Died testate or intestate (the determining factor is the gross value) - RTC has jurisdiction over person in interest - Publication once a week for three consecutive weeks - Notice  - Hearing not less than one month nor more than three months after the publication - Without the appointment of an executor or administrator - Court summarily grants the allowance of the will **EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT** **SETTLEMENT OF SMALL VALUE** -------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to court intervention **No court intervention** Court intervention (summary proceeding) As to applicability Applies only to **intestate** Applies to both testate and intestate succession As to debts Proper only when no outstanding **debts** Proper even if there are debts As to who may institute **Instituted** by agreement of all heirs May be instituted by any interested party even by the creditor without the consent of the heirs As to gross value **Gross value immaterial** The gross value must not be less than P10,000.00 As to bond **The amount of bond** is equivalent to the value of the personal property The amount of bond is determined by the court ***Case:*** A petition challenging the approval of a project of partition in the summary settlement of an intestate estate raises the question of whether the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in approving the **partition of a disputed property,** leading to a ruling that the **probate court is not the appropriate forum for resolving ownership claims and that such claims should be pursued in an independent action.** (Ermac vs. Medelo, G.R. No. L-32281, 1975) **Section 3.** *Bond to be filed by distributees*. --- The court, before allowing a partition in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, my require the distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a bond in an amount to be fixed by court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which may be filed under the next succeeding section. **Section 4.** *Liability of distributees and estate*. --- If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made. **Section 5.** *Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person*. --- If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after such disability is removed. **Extent of jurisdiction in probate proceedings** - Only up to the **extent of settlement and liquidation** of estates of the deceased either summarily or through the process of administration. - Controversies **involving the title of the property are not within the limited jurisdiction** of probate courts. - Any **question of ownership is an extraneous matter** which the probate court cannot resolve. The proper remedy then is to file a separate action thereof. **Powers and duties of a probate court** 1. Distribute shares; 2. Determine the legal heirs; 3. Issue warrants and processes to secure the attendance of witnesses \[the court may issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses. It may also issue a warrant of apprehension and imprisonment until the witness performs the order of the court (Rule 73, Sec. 3\]);  4. Determine and rile upon issues relating to the settlement of the estate, such as administration, liquidation, and distribution of the estate; and 5. Determine the following: **Heirs** of the decedent; **Recognition** of natural child; Validity of the **disinheritance** effected by the testator; **Status** of a woman who claims to be the **lawful wife** of the decedent; Validity of **waiver** of **hereditary heirs**; **Status** of each heir; Whatever property in inventory is the **conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse**; and **Matters incidental or collateral to the settlement** and distribution of the estate. **What are the two ways a father can recognize a natural child?** a. Voluntary Recognition - Can be made through a **public document**, such as a record of births, a will, or any other public instrument. b. Involuntary Recognition - Requires an **incontrovertible document** expressly recognizing the child\'s paternity or giving the child the status of a natural child of the father, justified by **direct acts of the father or his family.** - Acts of recognition, e.g., arranging for his baptism and visiting his son regularly. **Where a question of title is entertained in the probate court** - The Court emphasized that the general rule is that questions of title should be ventilated in a separate action, but there are exceptions justified by **expediency and convenience**. The probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion in or exclusion from the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. - The Court also noted that the **issue before the court is not one of title o**r ownership but the **determination** of which particular properties should be **included** in the **inventory** of the estate. The petitioners\' claim that the properties are conjugal and form part of their inheritance must be determined by the probate court, which has the jurisdiction to liquidate the conjugal partnership and distribute the estate to the heirs. (Romero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 188921, Apr 18, 2012) **Section 4.** *Liability of distributees and estate*. --- If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made. **Two-year Prescriptive Period** - It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debt if the creditors did not file letters of administration within 2 years from the time of the death of the decedent. - **The 2-year prescriptive period applies only against parties who had taken part in the extrajudicial proceedings, but not against third persons not parties to it.** - **There is nothing in Section 4, Rule 74, or in its source, which shows clearly a statute of limitations and a bar of action against third persons.** - So third persons can still pursue a claim against the settled estate. **Remedies of Aggrieved Parties After Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate** 1. The creditor may ask for **administration of enough property** of the estate sufficient to pay the debt, but the heirs cannot prevent such administration by paying the obligation; 2. Where the estate has been **summarily settled**, the unpaid creditor may, **within the two-year period, file a motion in the court wherein such summary settlement** was for the payment of his credit. **After the lapse of the two-year period**, an **ordinary action** may be instituted **against the distributees within the statute of limitations, but not against the bond**; and 3. The action to **annul a deed o**f extrajudicial settlement **on the ground of fraud** should be filed **within four years** from the **discovery** of the fraud. **What is the remedy of an heir who is deprived of one\'s share in the estate because one did not participate, take part, or had no notice of the settlement of estate?** - An heir may file an action for reconveyance within ten years, which is based on an implied or constructive trust. - This prescriptive period shall commence upon the issuance of a new title over the property in question, or from the time of actual notice in case of unregistered deed. - The Gerona doctrine was already abandoned - An invalid extrajudicial settlement of estate that was annulled on thr ground that the father was defrauded and excluded does not prescribe as there is no valid will to begin with. **How to determine if the action for reconveyance is imprescriptible or for 10 years:** 1. **Nature of the Action**: - The prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance depends on whether the action is based on an implied or constructive trust (usually due to fraud) or on a void or inexistent contract. - If the purchaser or possessor of the property is in bad faith, then the prescription of 10 years aplies. He has the obligation to return the property to the rightful owners. - If the purchaser is in good faith, reconveyance, in the first place, cannot be availed of because the purchaser is an innocent purchaser for value. - **Where the 10-year prescription was not applied because both the defrauder and the purchaser were in bad faith:** In addition, both DAA Realty and MLI may be deemed to have been constructively notified of the 1991 DOAS in favor of Petitioners, as it was duly annotated on Spouses Garcia\'s TCT No. T-77703. Hence, contrary to MLI\'s assertions, it may not be considered an innocent purchaser for value in this case. It must be noted that MLI filed a Motion for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses53 (Motion for Preliminary Hearing) invoking the defenses of prescription and lack of jurisdiction for failure of Petitioners to allege in their Complaint the assessed value of the disputed lot.54 In asserting these affirmative defenses, MLI hypothetically admitted the material allegations in Petitioners\' Complaint, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. (*Valdellon vs. MLI*, G.R. No. 22166, June 10, 2020) 2. An action for reconveyance based on a void or inexistent contract does not prescribe, as per Article 1410 of the New Civil Code. The dismissal of a complaint on grounds of prescription and laches requires a thorough examination of factual circumstances, which should be determined through a full trial rather than summary dismissal. \[in this case, the TCT was inexistent as it was burned in the RoD building. However, the land was transferred to another\] (Heirs of Tulauan v. Mateo, G.R. No. 248974, Sept. 7, 2022) 3. **Daclag v. Macahilig**: - Here, the court found that the action for reconveyance was based on a deed of sale that was null and void. Since the deed was an absolute nullity, the action was not subject to prescription. - According to Article 1410 of the Civil Code, an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. Therefore, an action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible. 4. **Forging the Signature of the Owner Constitutes Fraud, which is Imprescriptible:** - The complaint alleged that the deed of sale was simulated by forging the signature of the original registered owner. 5. The court ruled that the action for **reconveyance was imprescriptible** because it was essentially an action to declare the nullity of the certificate of title obtained through a fictitious deed of sale. (Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre) **Summary** - **Implied or Constructive Trust**: If the action for reconveyance is based on constructive trust, it is subject to a 10-year prescriptive period starting from the date of registration or repudiation of the trust. - **Void or Inexistent Contract**: If the action is based on a void or inexistent contract, it is imprescriptible, meaning it can be filed at any time. - **Reconveyance is within the exlusive jurisdiction of the RTC where the property is situtated regardless of the value of the property**. **RULE 75** **PRODUCTION OF WILL. ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY** **Section 1.** *Allowance necessary*. *Conclusive as to execution*. --- No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. **Will defined**: An act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed law, to a certain degree to control the disposition of his estate. **Probate of a will:** Probate of a will is a juridical act whereby an instrument is adjudged valid and ordered recorded. **Two kinds of will** 1. Holographic will  2. Notarial will **In case of uncertainty on the face of the will** - It shall be strictly interpreted in accordance with the testator's intention and last wishes. **Allowance of will is conclusive as to its due execution** - **Once admitted into probate, it conclusively establishes against the whole world the fact that a will was duly executed with the formalities prescribed by law and that the testator had the capacity to execute a will.** - Probate will is essential before the provisions of a will are carried out. **Nature of probate proceedings is *in rem*** - It cannot be dispensed with and substituted by another proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending public policy.  - It is **mandatory** as no will shall pass either real or personal property unless proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules.  - It is **imprescriptible** because it is **required by public policy** and the state could not have intended to defeat the same by applying thereto the statute of limitation of actions. - How does it bind the whole world? By publication (only binds those who participated or who had notice) - Unionbank, GR 1499926 **Is the doctrine of estoppel applicable in probate?** - No. The presentation and probate of a will are required by public policy as it involves public interest. **No publication is required in an amended petition of additional heirs due to the death of the original petitioner**: The court explained that a proceeding for the probate of a will is a **proceeding in rem**, meaning it is **directed against the whole world**. With the **publication** of the petition, the court\'s jurisdiction **extends to all persons interested** in the will or the settlement of the estate. Therefore, t**he fact that the amended petition named additional heirs did not require a new publication.** (IN RE: Abut vs. Abut, G.R. No. L-26743, May 31, 1972) **Probate is mandatory** - Where the decedent left a will, the heirs cannot validly partition the estate without having the will probated. - In case the decedent has no will, the heirs can validly partition it as they have two options of settling the estate if there be no will: (a) extrajudicial settlement; (b) ordinary partition. Probate is not required where the testator has not left a will. **Can the probate court be divested of jurisdiction?** - No. The probate court acquires jurisdiction over the proceeding from the moment the petition for settlement is filed with said courts. It cannot be divested of such jurisdiction by the subsequent acts of the interested parties such as by entering into an extrajudicial partition of the estate or by filing another petition for the settlement in a proper court of concurrent venue. **Any form of extrajudicial settlement is not allowed without probate** - A joint agreement purporting to be an extrajudicial partition before probate cannot be allowed by the court as it is divested of jurisdiction. **The probate court cannot inquire into the will's intrinsic validity** - That is the general rule - An exception is when practical considerations demand - Any inquiry into the intrinsic validity of the will is premature. - Probate only looks into the due execution of the will and the capacity of the testator. - When can the court inquire into its intrinsic validity? After the probate court has duly authenticated and accepted a will for probate. **Exception where the probate court can pass upon its intrinsic validity** - When the will is void on face value **Where intrinsic validity was inquired into by the probate court** - A holographic will is declared null and void due to preterition, as it completely omits the testatrix\'s parents as forced heirs, resulting in intestate succession. The Supreme Court held that in cases of probate, the court\'s inquiry is typically limited to the extrinsic validity of the will, such as due execution, testamentary capacity, and compliance with legal requisites. However, the parties in this case focused on the intrinsic validity of the will, specifically its nullity due to preterition. The Court decided to address this issue directly to avoid protracted litigation and additional anxiety. (Nuguid vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, Jun 23, 1966) **When can the court look into the will's intrinsic validity?** - After its admission into probate and authentication. - Nuguid vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA 449. \[this was a case of preterition of parents\] - Ajero us. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994, 236 SCRA - Maninang us. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. I-57848, June 19, 1982, 114 SCRA **Nature of probate:** In rem; binding against the whole world. **Effect of probate** - *Res judicata* applies - These facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore.   **Section 2.** *Custodian of will to deliver*. --- The person who has custody of a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will. **Custodian** - One who receives a will with the knowledge that he was receiving the will from the decedent. - Mere possession of the will is not tantamount to being a custodian. - The custodianship creates a bailee-bailor relationship. - The custodian, the bailee, has the duty to preserve and not reveal the contents of the will until the bailor dies. - Upon knowledge of the bailor's death, the custodian is obligated to deliver the will to the court or to the executor. **Section 3.** *Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust*. --- A person named as executor in a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testate, or within twenty (20) days after he knows that he is named executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator, present such will to the court having jurisdiction, unless the will has reached the court in any other manner, and shall, within such period, signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to accept it. **Section 4.** *Custodian and executor subject to fine for neglect*. --- A person who neglects any of the duties required in the two last preceding sections without excused satisfactory to the court shall be fined not exceeding two thousand pesos. **Section 5.** *Person retaining will may be committed*. --- A person having custody of a will after the death of the testator who neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the same, when ordered so to do, to the court having jurisdiction, may be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will. - Mandamus is not the proper remedy to compel the delivery of the will there being another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, fine or imprisonment. - GR 176831 **RULE 76** **ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL** **Section 1.** *Who may petition for the allowance of will*. --- Any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed. The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court for the allowance of his will. **When will may be probated** - Only after the death of the testator - In the case where the testator himself probates his will, it shall be during his lifetime. The rationale of why the court allows this is because it is easier for them to determine whether the testator has testamentary capacity or not. **Who may file petition for probate** - Heirs, legatees, devisees, and other person interested in the estate - The legatee or devisee need not be a relative of the testator - It is enough that such person filing a petition for probate stands to be benefited thereof **Cases:** - Maloles Il us. Phillips, G.R. No. 129505, January 31, 2000 - Sumilang us. Ramagosa, G.R. No. L-23135, December 26, 1967 - Heirs of Fran us. Salas, G.R. No. 53546, June 25, 1992 **Note:** The making of a joint will is prohibited but separate wills may be probated jointly. **Section 2.** *Contents of petition*. --- A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will, or the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed. **How jurisdiction acquired** The probate court acquires jurisdiction over the settlement proceedings in two ways: a. Attachment of a copy of the will to the petition; or b. Delivery of the will to the court. **Case:** Palaganas us. Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011. **Section 3.** *Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published*. --- When a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in, the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively, previous to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for probate has been filed by the testator himself. - Once a court of first instance has initiated estate proceedings, it retains exclusive jurisdiction over the case, even if the venue might be considered improper. This rule ensures that there is no conflicting jurisdiction and that the estate proceedings are handled efficiently by a single court. (The will was first delivered to Bulacan, then filed an intestate proceeding in Rizal \[residence of the testator\]) *Rodriguez v. De Borja*, GR 21993. **Section 4.** *Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally*. --- The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he be not the petitioner; also, to any person named as coexecutor not petitioning, if their places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at lest (10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing. If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will, notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs. **Section 5.** *Proof at hearing*. *What sufficient in absence of contest*. --- At the hearing compliance with the provisions of the last two preceding sections must be shown before the introduction of testimony in support of the will. All such testimony shall be taken under oath and reduced to writing. It no person appears to contest the allowance of the will, the court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the will was executed as is required by law. In the case of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of any such competent witness, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. **Section 10.** *Contestant to file grounds of contest*. --- **Anyone** appearing to contest the will must state **in writing** his grounds for opposing its allowance and serve a copy thereof on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate. **Section 11.** *Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will contested*. --- If the will is contested**, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in the case of wills** executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province where the will has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law. If a holdgraphic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3) witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. - Before the introduction of testimony of witnesses, notice must first be given to the proper parties **Required testimony if a will is uncontested** - One subscribing witness will suffice in a notarial will - One witness who knows the signature and handwriting of the testator in holographic - Expert testimony may be resorted to if no competent testimony in holographic **Required testimony if a will is contested** - All the subscribing witnesses and the notary public must testify in a notarial will - At least three witnesses in a holographic will - Expert testimony may be resorted to if no competent testimony in holographic - If the testator proves his will during his lifetime, no witness requirement is required in both instances. His affirmation of his signature and handwriting is sufficient. - If the testator proves his will during his lifetime, the one contesting it has the burden of proving it **Section 6.** *Proof of lost or destroyed will. Certificate thereupon*. --- No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the execution and validity of the same be established, and the will is proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded. - A lost notarial or holographic will may be proved by a **photocopy** of the same coupled with the **testimony** of the subscribing witnesses. **Section 7.** *Proof when witnesses do not reside in province*. --- If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing that none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the province, but that the deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere, the court may, on motion, direct it to be taken, and may authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made and to be presented to the witness on his examination, who may be asked the same questions with respect to it, and to the handwriting of the testator and others, as would be pertinent and competent if the original will were present. **Section 8.** *Proof when witnesses dead or insane or do not reside in the Philippines*. --- If the appears at the time fixed for the hearing that the subscribing witnesses are dead or insane, or that none of them resides in the Philippines, the court may admit the testimony of **other witnesses t**o prove the sanity of the testator, and the due execution of the will; and as evidence of the execution of the will, it may admit proof of the handwriting of the testator and of the subscribing witnesses, or of any of them. - Strangers are not allowed to contest a will - The insanity, death or non-residency of the subscribing witnesses are not material as long as the petitioner proves that the testator was sane at the time of the execution of his will **Section 9.** *Grounds for disallowing will*. --- The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: **Grounds for disallowing a will** 1. Legal formalities 2. Due execution 3. Testamentary capacity **Where the substantial compliance rule only applies** - In the absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence. - As long as it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with Article 805, any defect or **imperfection in the form of the attestation or in the language used shall not invalidate a testamentary privilege.** **Case:** Alvarado us. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695, September 14, 1993. **Section 12.** *Proof where testator petitions for allowance of holographic will*. --- Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will and no contest is filed, the fact that the affirms that the holographic will and the signature are in his own handwriting, shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due execution thereof. If the holographic will is contested, the burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution thereof shall be on the contestant. The testator to rebut the evidence for the contestant. **Section 13.** ***Certificate of allowance attached to prove will.** To be recorded in the Office of Register of Deeds*. --- If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed, that the will was duly executed, and that the testator at the time of its execution was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace, and undue influence, or fraud, a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge, and attested by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and the will and certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real estate and of certificate of allowance thereof, shall be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in which the lands lie. **RULE 77 (REPROBATE)** **Allowance of Will Proved Outside of Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder** **Reprobate** - It is a legal process of re-authenticating a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country. **Requisites of reprobate** a. A will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here. Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country according to its laws may be allowed, filed and recorded by the proper Regional Trial Court in the Philippines (*Sec. 1, Rule 77, RoC*); b. If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the court shall so allow it and a certificate of its allowance signed by the judge and attested by the seal of the court to which shall be attached a copy of the will shall be filed and recorded by the clerk and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such court (*Sec. 3, Rule 77, RoC*); c. When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary or letters of administration with the will annexed and such letters testamentary or of administration shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will so far as such will may operate upon it. The residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country (*Sec. 4, Rule 77, RoC*); d. If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed, that the will was duly executed and that the testator at the time of its execution was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace and undue influence or fraud, a certificate of its allowance signed by the judge and attested to by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and the will and certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real estate and of certificate of allowance thereof shall be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in which the lands lie (*Sec. 13, Rule 76, RoC*); e. The general rule universally recognized is that administration extends only to the assets of the decedent found within the state or country where it was granted so that an administrator appointed in one state or country has no power over the property in another state or country (*Leon v. Manufacturer's Life Insurance Co., GR L-3677. Nov. 29, 1951, 90 Phil. 459*). **Can the Philippine courts refuse to allow the probate of will of a foreigner executed in the Philippines?** - No. What governs the extrinsic validity is the law of the country where the will is executed. (Gaspi vs. Paci-Trinidad, G.R. No. 229010) **Can the Philippine courts refuse to allow the probate of will of a foreigner executed abroad?** - The Supreme Court held that **Philippine laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad, even if these wills have not been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.** - Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where the testator resides or according to the formalities observed in the testator\'s country. - Additionally, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allows the RTC of the province where the decedent has an estate to take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that any interested person may petition the court to have the will allowed, regardless of whether the will is in their possession or not, or if it is lost or destroyed. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution. - The Court clarified that the procedure for reprobate, which involves re-authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country, is different from the probate of a will presented for the first time before a competent court. Reprobate is governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court and does not apply to the present case. **Section 1.** *Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here*. --- Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines. **The petitioner must present evidence of the following before the reprobate of the will:** 1. Due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; 2. Testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; 3. The will has been admitted to probate in such country; 4. The fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court; and 5. The laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. **Note:** Rule 76, 3 and 4 apply because having a will reprobated is like probating it for the first time, so notice and publication are required **Cases:** - Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994. - Ancheta us. Guersey-Dalaygon, G.R. No. 139868, June 8, 2006. - ATCI Overseas Corporation vs. Etchin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010. **Section 2.** *Notice of hearing for allowance*. --- When a copy of such will and of the order or decree of the allowance thereof, both duly authenticated, are filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines, by the executor or other person interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance. **Section 3.** *When will allowed, and effect thereof. *--- If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the shall so allow it, and a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge, and attested by the seal of the court, to which shall be attached a copy of the will, shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proves and allowed in such court. **The following requisites must be shown before a will proved abroad may be allowed in the Philippines:** 1. The testator was **domiciled** in a foreign country; 2. The will has been **admitted to probate** in such country; 3. The **foreign court is**, under the laws of said foreign country, a **probate court** with jurisdiction over the proceedings; 4. **Proof of compliance** with the law on probate procedure in said foreign country; 5. The **legal requirements i**n said foreign country for the valid execution of the will have been complied with; 6. **Filing a petition** in the Philippines with copy of the will and of its decree of allowance; and 7. **Notice and hearing.** **Effect** - The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them. When the will is allowed, it **shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such court.** **Section 4.** *Estate, how administered*. --- When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. **What happens after the court has allowed the will then here comes the witness questioning the will and filed perjury?** - Not possible. Res judicata **RULE 78** **Letters Testamentary and of Administration, When and to Whom Issued** **Section 1.** *Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators*. --- No person in competent to serve as executor or administrator who: EXECUTOR ADMINISTRATOR -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appointment Designated by the decedent Designated by the court or the decedent, but is incompetent or refused to accept the trust Bond Decedent may exempt the executor from paying the bond Always required Obligation to present the will Always required Not required Amount of compensation Testator may make a provision for the executor's compensation Fixed by the court **Executor vs. Administrator** **Cases:** - Tan vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-35903, October 27, 1932. - Civil Code, Art. 1327. - G.R. No. L-4898, March 19, 1909; See Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001. - Sioca vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-20080, March 27, 1923. 1. Drunkenness; **Degree of drunkenness required** - Such degree which will impair his integrity and honesty. 2. Improvidence; - Ill-advised spending 3. **Want of understanding or integrity**; \- does not understand the nature of his obligation 4\. Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. \- not all crimes involve moral turpitude **Moral turpitude defined** - An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. **Section 2.** *Executor of executor not to administer estate*. --- The executor of an executor shall not, as such, administer the estate of the first testator. **Section 3.** *Married women may serve*. --- A married woman may serve as executrix or administratrix, and the marriage of a single woman shall not affect her authority so to serve under a previous appointment. **Section 4.** *Letters testamentary issued when will allowed*. --- When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trust, and gives bond as required by these rules. See Villanueva vs. Chavez, G.R. No. 7671 and G.R. No. 5436 **Section 5.** *Where some coexecutors disqualified others may act*. --- When all of the executors named in a will can not act because of incompetency, refusal to accept the trust, or failure to give bond, on the part of one or more of them, letters testamentary may issue to such of them as are competent, accept and give bond, and they may perform the duties and discharge the trust required by the will. **Section 6.** *When and to whom letters of administration granted*. --- If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted: i. Surviving spouse ii. Next of kin iii. Persons requested by the surviving spouse or next of kin iv. Principal creditors v. Other persons selected by court **RULE 79** **Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary. Petition And Contest For Letters Of Administration** **Section 1.** *Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for administration*. --- Any person interested in a will may state in writing the grounds why letters testamentary should not issue to the persons named therein as executors, or any of them, and the court, after hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of s