CASE DIGEST: Maloles II v. Philips; G.R. No. 129505; 31 January 2000

Maloles II v. Philips

G.R. No. 129505          

31 January 2000

Mendoza, J.:

 

Doctrine: The probate court loses its jurisdiction to proceed with the proceeding upon its issuance of an order allowing the will. Thus, it does not continue to exercise jurisdiction until the entire estate had been partitioned and distributed.

 

Facts:

Dr. Arturo de Santos filed a petition for the probate of his own will before the RTC (branch 61). He alleged that he had no compulsory heirs and he had named in his will the Arturo de Santos Foundation as sole legatee and devisee. Further named the private respondent as execrutrix. Then RTC approved the allowance of his will.

 

Thereafter, Dr. Arturo died. Subsequently, the petitioner moved to intervene claiming that he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos being the only child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister). Likewise, alleged that he is a creditor of Dr., Arturo.  While the private respondent refiled her petition for the issuance of letters testamentary in another branch (65). Where she was appointed as special administrator of the testator’s estate. But the petitioner moved to intervene and wanted to set aside the said appointment.

 

However, petitioner’s motion to intervene was denied. On appeal such denial was upheld. Later, Respondent Judge Abad granted the petitioner’s motion for intervention. Thus, the private respondent moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.

The private respondent was prompted to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

 

Issue: Whether Regional Trial Court (branch 61), acting as probate court, has lost jurisdiction to proceed with the probate proceedings upon its issuance of an order allowing the will of Dr. Arturo de Santos.

 

Ruling: Yes. The RTC, acting as probate court, lost jurisdiction upon proceedings upon its issuance of an order allowing the will.

In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.

Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so much so that, after approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of the testator.

Thus, after the allowance of the will of Dr. De Santos there was nothing else for the probate court (branch 61) to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of the will pursuant to Rule 73, §12 of the Rules of Court.

The fact that the will was allowed during the lifetime of the testator meant merely that the partition and distribution of the estate was to be suspended until the latter's death. In other words, the petitioner, instead of filing a new petition for the issuance of letters testamentary, should have simply filed a manifestation for the same purpose in the probate court.

xxx

Further, the Supreme Court explains that the petitioner is not an heir or legatee under the will of the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has already been probated and disposes of all his properties the private respondent can inherit only if the said will is annulled. His interest in the decedent's estate is, therefore, not direct or immediate.

His claim to being a creditor of the estate is a belated one, having been raised for the first time only in his reply to the opposition to his motion to intervene, and, as far as the records show, not supported by evidence.

Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be considered an "heir" of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will.