ALFREDO HILADO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v.

CA
G. R. No. 164108, May 08, 2009

Facts:
Roberto S. Benedicto died intestate and was survived by his wife,
private respondent administratrix Julita Campos Benedicto and his only
daughter, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino. At the time of his death, there were
two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving first with petitioner
Alfredo Hilado as one of the plaintiffs therein and the second, with
petitioners Lopez Sugar Corporation and First Farmers Holding Corporation,
also one of the plaintiffs therein, both cases pending with the RTC of
Bacolod City, Branch 44.

Private respondent filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration in her favor. The Manila RTC issued an
order appointing private respondent as administrator of the estate of her
deceased husband, and issuing letters of administration in her favor. She
submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of Personal and Real Properties,
and Liabilities of the Estate of her deceased husband and included as
among the liabilities, the above-mentioned two pending claims then being
litigated before the Bacolod City courts.

Petitioners filed with the Manila RTC a Manifestation/Motion Ex

Abundanti Cautela, seeking reliefs that were denied by the courts a quo.
Private respondent opposed the manifestation/motion, disputing the
personality of petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings of her
husband.

The Manila RTC denied the manifestation/motion, on the ground

that petitioners are not interested parties within the contemplation of the
Rules of Court to intervene in the intestate proceedings. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition and declaring that the Manila RTC did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to allow petitioners to intervene in the
intestate proceedings. The allowance or disallowance of a motion to
intervene, according to the appellate court, is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court. The Court of Appeals cited the fact that the claims
of petitioners against the decedent were in fact contingent or expectant, as
these were still pending litigation in separate proceedings before other
courts.

Issue:
Whether the lower courts erred in denying petitioners the right to
intervene in the intestate proceedings of the estate of Roberto Benedicto.
Ruling:
No.

The Rules on Special Proceedings do not provide a creditor or any

person interested in the estate, the right to participate in every aspect of
the testate or intestate proceedings, but instead provides for specific
instances when such persons may accordingly act in those proceedings,
we deem that while there is no general right to intervene on the part of
the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs
from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the
prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate,
and there is no other modality under the Rules by which such interests
can be protected.

In this case, the ultimate disposition of the RTC and the CA is

correct. Nonetheless, petitioners should not be deprived of their
prerogatives under the Rules on Special Proceedings as enunciated. The
petition is denied but subject to the qualification that petitioners, as
persons interested in the intestate estate of Roberto Benedicto, are
entitled to such notices and rights as provided for such interested
persons in the Rules on Settlement of Estates of Deceased Persons
under the Rules on Special Proceedings.
 ADVINCULA v. TEODORO
G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956

Facts:
Petitioner Emilio Advincula was appointed, special administrator of
the estate of his deceased wife, Josefa Lacson Advincula, in special
proceeding No. 3245 of said court. After Advincula had qualified as such,
the brothers of the deceased, who left no issue, submitted to the court, for
allowance, a document purporting to be her last will and testament.

Respondent Enrique Lacson, one of the brothers of the deceased,

filed a motion praying that he be appointed administrator of said estate, in
lieu of petitioner herein, for the reason that said respondent is the executor
named in the aforementioned alleged will.

After hearing the argument of opposing counsel, the court ordered

the appointment of Emilio Advincula as administrator revoked and in his
stead, the oppositor, Enrique A. Lacson, appointed administrator of the
intestate estate, and same may qualify by filing a bond in the sum of P5,000
and taking and subscribing the corresponding oath of Office.

Thereupon, Lacson gave the requisite bond, letters of

administration was issued to him, and he tried to take possession of the
estate of the deceased. Petitioner instituted the present action for
certiorari, against Lacson and Judge Teodoro.

Issue:
Did the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in removing
Advincula and appointing Lacson as administrator of the estate of the
deceased Josefa Lacson Advincula?

Ruling:
Yes.

The discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and

testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of
the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died
intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already
issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has
been "proved and allowed by the court." Rule 83, section 1, of the Rules
of Court, is plain and explicit on this point.

"If after letters of administration have been granted on

the estate of a decedent as if he had died intestate, his will is
proved and allowed by the court, the letters of
 administration shall be revoked and all powers thereunder
cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrender the
letters to the court, end render his account within such time
as the court directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters
testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as
hereinbefore provided."

In this case also, the surviving spouse is not a stranger to the

estate of the deceased. At any rate, Advincula is not a stranger, either to
her or to her estate. What is more, he is prima facie entitled to one-half
of all property subject to the authority of the administrator of said
estate, apart from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the
deceased, for "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife". Lastly, Advincula has not been found guilty
of any specific act or omission constituting one of the legal grounds,
enumerated in Rule 83, section 2, of the Rules of Court, for the removal
of an executor or administrator.
 AZUELA v. CA
G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006

Facts:
Petitioner Felix Azuela, the son of the cousin of the decedent sought
to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. The will consisted
of two (2) pages and written in the vernacular Pilipino.

The three witnesses: Quirino Agrava, Lamberto C. Leano, and Juanito

Estrera, affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of
the will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause.

The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo who represented

herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of the
decedent. She claimed that the will is a forgery and also argued that the will
was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out
that decedent's signature did not appear on the second page of the will,
and the will was not properly acknowledged. These twin arguments are
among the central matters to this petition.

After due trial, the RTC was persuaded that the will in question is
authentic and had been executed by the testatrix in accordance with law.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of
the petition for probate. The Court of Appeals noted that the attestation
clause failed to state the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering
the will void and undeserving of probate.

Petitioner argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil
Code that "the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the
attestation clause" is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and thus
susceptible to what he termed as "the substantial compliance rule."

Issue:
Whether or not the will is fatally defective as it reveals critical defects
that should necessarily lead to its rejection.

Ruling:
Yes.

A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of

pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an
acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these
defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three defects is
just aching for judicial rejection.

In this case, an examination of the will itself reveals several

deficiencies. For one, the attestation clause was not signed by the
instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses
appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the
bottom of the attestation clause which after all consists of their averments
before the notary public. The signatures to the attestation clause establish
that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the
attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart
from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an
unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand
margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such
signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses' undertakings in the clause,
since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a
wholly different avowal.

Thus, the subject will cannot be considered to have been validly

attested to by the instrumental witnesses, as they failed to sign the
attestation clause.

Second, that all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters

placed on the upper part of each page. The will itself is not numbered
correlatively in letters on each page, but instead numbered with Arabic
numerals.

Lastly, the requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses"
has also not been complied with. The importance of this requirement is
highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated from the other
requirements under Article 805 and entrusted into a separate provision,
Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806 in this case is equally as
critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and should
be treated as of equivalent import.

In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista,

wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981
dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila." By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act
of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or
court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her
own free act and deed.