SELF-TEST

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
BY: ATTY. SIMONETTE E. SIBAL-PULIDO

ANSWER COMPLETELY. CITE THE PERTINENT PROVISION OF THE RULES OF COURT AND
APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.

1. Which court has jurisdiction over a petition for judicial settlement of estate of an
inhabitant of the Philippines where the gross value of the estate is worth P1 Million?

According to Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the Regional Trial Court will have
jurisdiction over the settlement of estate of the decedent who is an inhabitant of the
Philippines. The Regional trial court of the place where he was a resident at the time of his
death will have jurisdiction over the same.

2. What are the requisites for an extrajudicial settlement of estate to be valid?

According to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, for an Extrajudicial Settlement of

estate to be valid, the following must concur:
a.) The decedent left no will;
b.) The decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid;
c.) The heirs are all of age or if they are minors, the latter are represented by their
judicial guardian or legal representative;
d.) The partition was made by means of public instrument or affidavit duly filed with the
Register of Deeds; and
e.) The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation.

3. If the testator files for the petition for the allowance of his holographic will, what
evidence is necessary to prove the its genuineness and due execution?

According to Section 12, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, when the testator himself files for
the petition for the allowance of his holographic will, and no contest was filed, the fact that he
affirms that the holographic will and signature are in his own handwriting shall be sufficient
evidence of its genuineness. However, if the holographic will is contested, the burden of
disproving the genuineness of the same shall be on the one contesting the will.
4. During his lifetime, A wrecked the car of B in a vehicular accident. A died as a result of the
accident. B had his car repaired for P100,000. Can B file a money claim in the intestate proceeding
of A for the reimbursement of the cost of the repair? Explain.

No, according to Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, only the following are the claims allowed to
be filed against the estate of the decedent; a. money claims, debts incurred by the deceased during
his lifetime arising from a contract; b. claims for funeral expenses; c. claims for expenses of the last
illness of the decedent; and d. judgment for money against the decedent. However, B will not be left
without recourse, according to Rule 87 section 1 of the Rules of Court, an action may be brought
against an administrator for the recovery of damages for any injury to person or property, real or
personal.

5. Jay and Ana were married and had three children, Arnie, Bea and Cris. Jay had an extra-
marital affair and left Ana and their children. Jay moved in with Amy at the latter’s condominium unit
in Alexandria, Pasig, where he stayed until his death. The children were so angry at their father so
they stopped communicating with him. Thirty years later, Jay suffered a heart attack and was rushed
to Makati Medical Center, where he died. After learning of his death, his wife, Ana and three
children , all of legal age, agreed to extra-judicially settle his estate. Since the three children were
already wealthy, they waived their inheritance in favor of their mother. Three years later, Lita, the
illegitimate daughter of Jay, found the Last Will and Testament of Jay and filed a petition for probate
of the will before the RTC of Pasig. In the will, Jay left his entire estate to Lita because Lita was the
only one who cared for him when he got sick.

5.1 Ana opposed the petition and moved to disallow the Last Will and Testament on the
ground that is void considering that it deprived Ana and her children of their compulsory legitime. If
you are the Judge, will you disallow the Last Will and Testament? 3 pts.

If I were the Judge, I will disallow the will. As a general rule the probate court does not have
jurisdiction to inquire about the intrinsic validity of a will, however this rule comes with an exception
laid down in the case of Morales vs Olondriz,G.R. No. 198994, when the Supreme court ruled that
when there is clearly a preterition, the probate of the will would be a futile exercise since the
institution of heirs would later be annulled if preterition is proved. Hence, as the judge, I will disallow
the will since there is a clear evidence of preterition on the presented will.

5.2 Ana moved to dismiss the petition for probate of the will on the ground of improper
venue and argued that the venue should be laid in Makati City where Jay died. Decide. 2 pts.

Ana’s contention to dismiss the petition on the ground of improper venue is without merit.
According to Section 1 of Rule 73, the decedent who is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of
his death shall be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of the place where he resides at
the time of his death. In the case at bar, Jay was a resident of Pasig during the time of his death,
hence, the petition for the probate of the will being filed in the RTC of Pasig should be deemed
proper.

5.3 Ana also moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the estate had already
been settled by way of extra-judicial settlement. Decide. 5 pts.

The contention is without merit. According to Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, an
extra-judicial partition without the knowledge or consent of the co-heirs shall not prejudice his/her
right. He/she shall have the right to vindicate the inheritance and satisfy the share he/she is entitled
to. The two-year prescriptive period shall not bar Lita from claiming her share because the two-year
period is only applicable to those heirs who had knowledge or consented to the extra-judicial
settlement. In the case at bar, Lita had no knowledge nor she consented to the extra-judicial
settlement, hence she should be entitled to her proportionate share.

6. Elsa was married to Kobe. They had one son, Mark. Mark married May and they
had one daughter Mary. Meanwhile, Mark had an affair with Tina and they had a love
child, Greg. Greg became the favorite of Elsa and Kobe. Mark died because of a car
accident. When Elsa learned of the death of Mark, she became so depressed, she
eventually died. Kobe then adopted Greg since he no longer had any living parent. Later
on, Mary the granddaughter of Elsa, filed a petition for settlement of estate of Elsa and
prayed that she be appointed as administratrix. Greg, being the favorite grandchild and
adopted son of Kobe, opposed the petition and argued that he should be the
administrator of the estate. Who should prevail? Greg or Mary? 5 pts.

Mary should prevail. According to Section 6(A), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the
spouse or the next of kin who requests to be appointed if willing and competent shall be
appointed as administrator of the estate of the deceased. In the case at bar, since Greg
and Mary are the ones requesting to be appointed, May should prevail over the Greg’s
claim since Mary is a legitimate next of kin of the deceased. As far as Elsa’s estate is
concerned, Greg is not the next of kin entitled to be administrator, since he was only
adopted after the death of Elsa, hence he is considered to be a stranger to the estate.
Given the circumstances, it is Mary who should be awarded the administration of the
estate of Elsa.

7. What is the extent of the jurisdiction of a court in a testate or intestate

proceeding?

According to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the court in a testate or intestate

proceeding is limited to the settlement and adjudication of properties of the deceased
and cannot extend to collateral matters. As a general rule, the probate court is also not
allowed to determine the issue on ownership, except when; a. Ownership may be
provisionally determined for the purpose of including property in inventory, without
prejudice to its final determination in a separate action; b. when all the parties are heirs
and they submit the issue of ownership to the probate court provided that the rights of
the third party are not prejudiced; or when question is one of collation or advancement.

8. A mortgaged a parcel of land comprising 1,000 square meters in Ayala Alabang

Village Muntinlupa to B to secure his debt amounting to P100 Million pesos. After the
debt fell due, A died. B received a notice to creditors from the probate court which had
jurisdiction over the settlement of estate of A. B learned that A has many other
properties in Ayala Alabang Village. If you were B, will you foreclose the mortgage?
 No. According to Section 7, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, a creditor holding a
claim secured by a mortgage or other collateral security may choose to abandon or
waive the security and prosecute his claim against the estate and share in the general
distribution of the assets of the estate. In the case at bar, since B learned that A has
many other properties in Ayala Alabang Village, it is the best option he can choose to
satisfy fully the payment of the debt incurred by A since this alternative will provide for
the most efficient way to guarantee payment of the debt, given that A has many other
properties in Ayala Alabang Village.