Case No.

2
Dora Perkins Anderson (petitioner-appellee)
Perkins (oppositor-appellant)
GR L-15388
January 31, 1961
REYES, J.B.L., J.

vs.

Idonah

Slade

FACTS: On May 10, 1956, Dora Perkins Anderson filed a petition for the
probate of the supposed last will and testament of the late Eugene Arthur
Perkins who allegedly possessed of personal and real properties with a
probate value of P5,000.00 and Dora also filed an urgent petition for the
estate. On the same day, the court issued an order appointing Alfonso Ponce
Enrile as special administrator.
Idonah Slade Perkins, surviving spouse of the deceased, opposed to the said
probate and the special administrator submitted an inventory of the assets of
the deceased at the time of his death.
Two years later, the special administrator submitted to the court a petition
seeking authority to sell or give away to some charitable institution/s certain
personal properties. Court required the administrator to submit an inventory
of the properties and thus, he likewise submitted it. Idonah Perkins opposed
to the said proposed sale.
Plaintiffs contention:
The special administrator has the authority to sell the properties of the late
Eugene Arthur Perkins. That the special administrator claims that
oppositor/defendant should allege on the properties which she did not want
to sell and that her refusal to do so is an indication of her unmeritorious
claim.
Defendants contention:
Idorah Perkins contention was that the special administrator has no legal
authority to sell the properties because it was perishable in nature. That such
properties sought to be sold were conjugal properties of herself and her
deceased husband and the unauthorized removal of fine pieces of furniture
belonging to the estate had been made. because it was perishable in nature.
Lower courts decision:
The lower court approved the proposed sale and also authorized the Sheriff
of Manila to conduct the same. Despite of the defendants Motion for
Reconsideration, the lower court denies such MR. (Motion for
Reconsideration)
ISSUE: Whether or not the special administrator may sell the properties of
the late Eugene Arthur Perkins

RATIO: NO. The Supreme Court held that the special administrator can not
sell the property of the late Arthur Perkins.
It is true that the function of a special administrator is only to collect and
preserve the property of the deceased until a regular administrator is
appointed. Both the estate and and its value should be preserved.
Records show that up to the time the proposed sale was asked for and
judicially approved, no proceeding has yet been taken or even started, to
segregate the alleged execusive property of the defendant from the mass of
the estate supposedly left by the deceased or to liquidate the conjugal
partnership property.
It does not appear that defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to
point out in which items in the inventory she did not want to sold. Also, it did
not even show that an inquirty was made as to the validity of the grounds of
her opposition. Lower courts decision was set aside and with costs against
the special administrator.

Case No. 17
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased.
PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY,(executor)
MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, (oppositorsappellants)
vs.
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
G.R. No. L-23678
June 6, 1967
BENGZON, J.P., J.
FACTS: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his
death. He executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all
taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his
distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and
manner
a) $240,000.00 to his first wife MARY E. MALLEN
b) $120,000.00 to his three illegitimate childrenAMOS BELLIS, JR., MARIA
CRISTINA BELLIS, MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS,or $40,000.00 each, and
c) After foregoing the two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go
to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives EDWARD A.
BELLIS, HENRY A. BELLIS, ALEXANDER BELLIS, and ANNA BELLIS-ALLSMAN,
EDWARD G. BELLIS, WA LTER S. BELLIS, and DOROTHY E. BELLIS in equal
shares.
MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS filed their respective
oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived
of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of
the deceased.
The LOWER COURT issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving
the executors final account, report and administration, and project of
partition. Relying upon Article 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law
of the decedent, which in this case is which did not provide for legitimes
ISSUE: Which law must apply in executing the will of the deceased Texas
Law or Philippine Law?

RATIO: The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes under
the Texas Law(which is the national law of the deceased), there are no
legitimes. The renvoi doctrine cannot be applied. Said doctrine is usually
pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country and a domiciliary
of another. In the said case, it is not disputed that the deceased was both a
national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.
Article 16, Paragraph 2 of Civil code render applicable the national law of the
decedent, in intestate and testamentary successions, with regard to four
items: (a) the order of succession, (b) the amount of successional rights, (c)
the intrinsic validity of provisions of will, and (d) the capacity to succeed.
ART.16 Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country to where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary
successions, both with respect to the order of successions and to the amount
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is
under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

Case No. 32
FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA,
ESTEBAN P. RAMIREZ, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ALBAY
PROVINCE, (petitioners)
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO
BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO ALSUA, represented by his guardian,
CLOTILDE S. ALSUA and PABLO ALSUA, (respondents)
G.R. Nos. L-46430-31
July 30, 1979
GUERRERO, J
FACTS: Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doa Tinay, together with all their
living children, entered into a duly notarized agreement, (escritura de
particion extrajudicial/extra judicial partition) for the inventory and partition
of all the spouses present and existing properties. In the provision of said
extra judicial partition, each of the four children was allotted with the
properties considered as their share in the estate or as inheritance left by the
deceased where they will be the absolute owner of the properties assigned in
case of death of one of the spouses.
Don Jesus and Doa Tinay also separately executed holographic will with
exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with the executed extra
judicial partition naming each other as an executor without having to post
any bond. That in case new properties be acquired same shall be partitioned
one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal parts.
Spouses subsequently executed separately a codicil of exactly the same
terms and conditions, amending and supplementing their holographic wills
stating that they reserved for themselves the other half not disposed of to
their legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and
reciprocally bequeathed each other their participation as well all properties
which might be acquired subsequently. Doa Tinay died in effect Don Jesus
by order of the probate court was name as executor.

Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his
bookkeeper and secretary and instructed his lawyer to draft a new will. This
was a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows;
1. It expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his
holographic will and codicil.
2. It provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living
children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition Extra judicial.
3. It instituted his children as legatees / devisees of specific properties, and
as to the rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently acquired
in the future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo
naming Francisca as executor to serve without a bond.
ISSUE: 1.W/N oppositors to the probate of the will, are in estoppel to
question the competence of testator Don Jesus Alsua.
2.Whether testator Don Jesus can or cannot revoke his previous will.
HELD: 1.The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings
( case of Testate Estate of the Late Procopia Apostol Benedicta Obispo, et al
vs. Remedios Obispo, Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the
application therein of the rule of estoppel, when it will block the
ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy. Over and
above the interest of private parties is that of the state to see that
testamentary dispositions be carried out if, and only if, executed conformably
to law.
2. The court ruled that Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous
holographic will and codicil as such, would remain revokable at his discretion.
Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator
at any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void."
There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute freedom to
revoke his holographic will and codicil previously made. This would still hold
true even if such previous will had as in the case at bar already been
probated (Palacios v. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739). For in the first place, probate
only authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the
dispositions therein. And secondly, the rights to the succession are
transmitted only from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article 777,
New Civil Code). In fine, Don Jesus retained the liberty of disposing of his
property before his death to whomsoever he chose, provided the legitime of
the forced heirs are not prejudiced, which is not herein claimed for it is
undisputed that only the free portion of the whole Alsua estate is being
contested.

Case No. 47
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, (petitioner)
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR., in his
Official Capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and
PACITA PHILLIPS as the alleged executrix of the alleged will of the
late Dr. Arturo de Santos, (respondents)
G.R. No. 133359
January 31, 2000
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: In 1995, Dr. Arturo De Los Santos filed a petition for probate of his
will. He declared that he has no compulsory heirs and that he is naming as
sole devisee and legatee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. (ASF). The
named executrix is Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips. The petition was filed in RTC
Makati Branch 61. Judge Fernando Gorospe of said court determined that
Arturo is of sound mind and was not acting in duress when he signed his last
will and testament and so Branch 61 allowed the last will and testament on
February 16, 1996.
Ten days from the allowance, Arturo died. Thereafter, Pacita, as executrix,
filed a motion for the issuance of letters of testamentary with Branch 61. She
however withdrew the motion but later on refilled it with RTC Makati Branch
65.
Meanwhile, a certain Octavio Maloles II filed a motion for intervention with
Branch 61 claiming that as a next of kin (him being the full blooded nephew
of Arturo) he should be appointed as the administrator of the estate and that
he is an heir.

Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 issued an order transferring the motion filed
by Pacita to Branch 61. Judge Santos ratiocinated that since the probate
proceeding started in Branch 61, then it should be the same court which
should hear Pacitas motion. Branch 61 however refused to consolidate and
referred the case back to Branch 65. Branch 65 subsequently consolidated
the case per refusal of Branch 61. Eventually, Branch 65 allowed the motion
for intervention filed by Octavio.
ISSUE: Whether or not Octavio Maloles II has the right to intervene in the
probate proceeding.
RATIO: No. The Supreme Court first clarified that the probate of will filed in
Branch 61 has already terminated upon the allowance of the will. Hence
when Pacita filed a motion with Branch 65, the same is already a separate
proceeding and not a continuance of the now concluded probate in Branch
61. There is therefore no reason for Branch 65 to refer back the case to
Branch 61 as it initially did. Further even if the probate was terminated,
under Rule 73 of the Rules of Court concerning the venue of settlement of
estates, it is provided that when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction
over the case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion
of the other branches.
Anent the issue of Octavio being an heir, such contention has no merit. He is
not an heir. Arturo died testate. Next of kins may only inherit if a person dies
intestate. In this case, Arturo left a valid will which expressly provided that
ASF is the sole legatee and devisee of his estate.