Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULE 77 and 78 1
RULE 77 and 78 1
CASE LIST: extract was taken was printed or published under the
authority of the state of West Virginia as provided in the
RULE 77: Code of Civil Procedure; nor was the extract from the law
attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of
1. Fleumer vs. Hix, 54 Phil 610 the original. In addition, the due execution of the will
2. Suntay vs. Suntay, 95 Phil 500 was not established. The only evidence on this point is to
3. Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil 867 be found in the testimony of the petitioner. Aside from
4. Leon and Ghezzi vs. Manulife, 90 Phil 459 this, there was nothing to indicate that the will was
5. Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon, GR No. 139868, 8 acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two
June 2006 competent witnesses, of that these witnesses subscribed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other
RULE 78: as the law of West Virginia seems to require. It is to be
noted that the application for the probate of the will in the
1. Guerrero vs. Teran, 13 Phil 212 Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the
2. Navas Sioca vs. Garcia, 44 Phil 711 proceedings in West Virginia appear to have been initiated on
3. Mercado v. Vda De Jaen, 64 Phil 75 June 8, 1929. These facts are strongly indicative of an
4. Ozaeta v. Pecson, 93 Phil 416 intention to make the Philippines the principal
5. Uy vs. CA, GR No. 167979, 16 March 2006 administration and West Virginia the ancillary
6. De Guzman vs. Limcolioc, 68 Phil 673 administration. However this may be, no attempt has
7. San Luis vs. San Luis, GR No. 133743,February been made to comply with Civil Procedure, for no
2007 hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to
8. Angeles vs. Maglaya, GR No. 153798, 2 September have been proved and allowed in West Virginia has been
2005 requested. There is no showing that the deceased left any
9. Johannes vs. Harvey, 43 Phil 175 property at any place other than the Philippine Islands and no
contention that he left any in West Virginia.
RULE 77:
ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF THE II. SUNTAY vs. SUNTAY
PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATION OF
ESTATE THEREUNDER Statement of Facts: On Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen
and resident of the Philippines, died in the city of Amoy,
Fookien province, China, leaving real and personal
I. A.W. FLUEMER vs. HIX. properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy and 9
children by the first marriage had with the late Manuela
Statement of Facts: The special administrator, A. W. T. Cruz and a child named Silvino by the second
Fleumer, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix filed marriage had with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who
petition for the probate of the purported last will and survived him. Intestate proceedings were instituted in the
testament of Edward Randolf Hix, deceased.Judge Court of First Instance of Bulacan and after hearing
Tuason of the Court of First Instance denied the letters of administration were issued to Apolonio Suntay.
petitionA. W. Fleumer appeals the said decision. It is After the latter's death Federico C. Suntay was appointed
alleged that since the will was executed in West Virginia administrator of the estate. On 15 October 1934 the
by a resident therein, West Virginia law should govern. surviving widow filed a petition in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan for the probate of a last will and
Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will may be testament claimed to have been executed and signed in
probated in the Philippines. the Philippines on November 1929 by the late Jose B.
Suntay. This petition was denied because of the loss of
Ruling of the Court: The courts of the Philippines are not said will after the filing of the petition and before the
authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the hearing thereof and of the insufficiency of the evidence to
various States of the American Union. Such laws must be establish the loss of the said will. After liberation,
proved as facts. Here the requirements of law were not claiming that he had found among the files, records and
met. There was no showing that the book from which an
2|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
documents of his late father a will and testament in if the testator should otherwise provide. Hence, Andre
Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased Brimo can inherit.
on 4 January 1931 and that the same was filed, recorded But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said
and probated in the Amoy district court, Province of testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the
Fookien, China, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any
intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the
executed in Amoy, Fookien, China. matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they
are presumed to be the same as those of the
Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will executed in Philippines.The orders appealed from are modified and it
Amoy, China may be probated in the Philippines. is directed that the distribution of this estate be made in
such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre
Ruling of the Court: The will executed in Amoy, China Brimo as one of the legatees, and the scheme of partition
cannot be allowed. Silvino was unable to adduce the submitted by the judicial administrator is approved in all
necessary proof under the Rules of Court in order to other respects
probate the will in the Philippines, specifically:
IV. LEON AND GHEZZI vs. MANUFACTURERS LIFE
a. The due execution of the will in accordance with INSURANCE CO
the foreign laws;
b. The testator had his domicile in the foreign Statement of Facts: The case involves the estate of Basil
country and not in the Philippines; Gordon Butler,formerly a resident of the Philippines,
c. The will has been admitted to probate in such died in Brooklyn, New York City, in 1945, leaving a will
country; which was duly probated in New York County and of
d. The fact that the municipal court of Amoy is a which James Ross, Sr., James Madison Ross, Jr. and Ewald
probate court; E. Selph were named executors. The estate having been
e. the procedural law of China regarding probate of settled, the proceedings were closed on July 17, 1947. The
wills. will contained this residuary clause bequeathing the
remaining estate to Mercedes de Leon who is to receive
III. MICIANO vs. BRIMO an amount sufficient for her current needs. James
Madison Ross was appointed as trustee. Ross bought an
Statement of Facts: Miciano, as the administrator of the annuity from the Manufacturer's life Insurance Co. at its
estate of Joseph Brimo, filed a petition for the partition of head office in Toronto, Canada, paying in advance
the estate in accordance with the will of the deceased. $17,091.03 as the combined premiums. The contract
Andre Brimo, brother of the deceased opposed the stipulates for a monthly payment of $57.60 to Mercedes
partition because the will itself was not executed in Benz during her lifetime. De Leon has been receiving the
accordance with the laws of Turkey, in violation of Article stipulated monthly allowance through the Insurance
10 of the Civil Code. The trial court approved the petition Company's Manila Office. To get hold of the entire
for partition, hence this action. amount, de Leon presented the will for probate in CFI,
Manila with Ghezzi as administrator. After having
Statement of Issue: Whether or not the partition is valid. qualified, the administratrix filed the motion to demand
accounting from Manulife which Judge Amparo has
Ruling of the Court: The Court decided that although denied.
Andre Brimo opposed his brother’s intention to have
Philippine laws apply he was not deemed to have Statement of Issue:Whether or not De Leon can demand
contested the legacy, because the choice of law clause in accounting from Manulife.
the will was contrary to law. Our laws apply the lex
nationalii of decedent to determine intrinsic validity of a Ruling of the Court: Section 4 of Rule 78 of the Rules of
will and this law was purposefully disregarded by Court provides:
decedent. The Court considered this clause as not
imposed and shall in no manner prejudice the heir even
3|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
Estate, how administered.-When a will is thus allowed, the to Richard, then the Makati property should be wholly
court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of adjudicated to him and since Richard left his entire estate,
administration with the will annexed, and such letters except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors,
testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the Inc., to respondent, then the entire Makati property
estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after should now pertain to respondent. The Court of Appeals
the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, annulled the questioned orders.
shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such
will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be Statement of Issue: Whether or not the project of
disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the partition filed by the ancillary administrator is valid.
Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of
another state or country. Ruling of the Court: Petitioner’s failure to proficiently
manage the distribution of Audrey’s estate according to
It is manifest from the facts before set out that the the terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law
funds in question are outside the jurisdiction of the amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence, the annulment of
probate court of Manila. Having been invested in an project of partition was valid.
annuity in Canada under a contract executed in the Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court states:
country, Canada is the suits of the money. The party Estate, how administered.-When a will is thus allowed, the
whose appearance the appellant seeks is only a branch or court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of
agency of the company which holds the funds in its administration with the will annexed, and such letters
possession, the agency's intervention being limited to testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the
delivering to the annuitant the checks made out and estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after
issued from the home office. There is no showing or the payment of just debts and expenses of administration,
allegation that the funds have been transferred or shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such
removed to the Manila Branch. 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
V. ANCHETA vs. GUERSEY-DALAYGON Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of
another state or country.
Statement of Facts: Spouses Audrey and W. Richard While foreign laws do not prove themselves in
Guersey were American citizens who have resided in the our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
Philippines. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle. When judicial notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary
Audrey died, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard. administrator of Audrey’s estate, was duty-bound to
The will was admitted to probate in Maryland, U.S.A, introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of
which named James N. Phillips as executor. The court Maryland.
also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta as ancillary
administrator. Audrey’s will was also admitted to RULE 78:
probate in the Philippines (CFI-Pasig). Later, Richard LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF
married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon with whom he ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED
has two children- Kimberly and Kevin. When Richard
died, he left a will bequeathing his entire estate to
respondent, save for his rights and interests over the A/G
I. GUERRERO vs. TERAN
Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was
admitted to probate in Maryland, U.S.A. Richard’s will
was then submitted for probate before the Regional Trial Statement of Facts: CFI of Albay appointed Maria Muñoz
Court of Makati. Petitioner filed a motion to declare as guardian for minors Maria Manuela and Maria del
Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey. Petitioner also filed Carmen Muñoz; Maria Muñoz gave the required bond
a project of partition of Audrey’s estate, between Richard Maria Muñoz was not a resident of the Philippine Islands
and Kyle. These were approved by the trial court. at the time of her appointment. She was removed as
Respondent sought annulment of the project partition guardian – but still responsible for mismanagement; from
made arguing that since Audrey devised her entire estate the time of her acceptance of appointment up to the time
of her removal Doña Maria Muñoz y Gomez was, as
4|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
above indicated, removed upon the theory that her Espina being the parish priest in Cebu Central). The will
appointment was void because she did not reside in the was submitted for probate before the CFI Cebu. It was
Philippine Islands. allowed and duly probated. Fr. Mercado, as the executor
named in the will, was confirmed by CFI Cebu and he
Ruling of the Court: There is nothing in the law which
filed a bond of 5000. The Heirs opposed the order
requires the courts to appoint residents only as
administrators or guardians. (Civil Code took effect appointing Fr Mercado as executor and prayed for
August 30, 1950). Notwithstanding that there is no suspension of said order.
statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to
the appointment of persons as administrators and HEIRS: They alleged that even if Fr. Mercado is named as
guardians who are not personally subject to the executor in the will, there is no need to appoint him
jurisdiction of our courts here. because the heirs are already of age and the estate has no
debts. Mercado is also incapable as executor because he is
II. NAVAS SIOCA vs. GARCIA partial since his parish, San Nicolas was named as one of
the legatees in the will.
Statement of Facts: “A probate court cannot arbitrarily
disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse ISSUE: WON the court is bound to appoint Mercado as
to the administration of the estate of a deceased person; executor since he is the named executor in the will.
but if the person enjoying such preferential rights is
unsuitable the court may appoint another person.” CFI RUILING: Yes. Under Section 641 of Act no. 190 (An Act
Samar appointed Jose Garcia, administrator of the estate Providing a Code of Procedure in Civil Action and
of the deceased Geronima Uy Coque. Navas Sioca is the Special Proceedings in the Phil – now Section 4, Rule 78),
surviving spouse of the deceased and maintains that the once a will is probated, the court is bound to issue letters
court erred in not appointing him administrator instead testamentary thereon to the person so named as executor
of Jose Garcia. Lower Court based its ruling on the fact of the will provided he accepts the trust and files the
that it appeared from the records that the appellant had required bond. While it may be true that such should not
adverse interest in the estate of such a character as to be strictly interpreted, for the court may be deprived of
render him unsuitable as administrator. Unsuitableness its power to appoint another should the executor so
may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility named is incapacitated, it is also true that incapacity must
to those immediately interested in the estate. be manifest and real and not merely imaginary.
Fr. Mercado was found to be fit as an executor for the
Ruling of the Court: A probate court cannot arbitrarily estate. He further alleged that the parish of San Nicolas is
and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential not the legatee but the poor people of San Nicolas.
rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the When Gorordo chose Mercado as executor of his estate
estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying after his death, he must have had good and sufficient
such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may reasons and as such, his will must be respected.
appoint another person.
IV. OZAETA vs. PECSON
III. MERCADO VS VDA DE JAEN
Statement of Facts: Carlos Palanca died, leaving a will
named former SC associate justice Ozaeta, as executor if
FACTS: Gorordo is a retired bishop of Cebu. When he
General Manuel A. Roxas fails to qualify. Gen. Roxas
died he left a will naming his heirs and executor. The predeceased Palanca; Ozaeta filed petition for probate of
respondent De Jean is the sister of Gorodo who is named Palanca’s will, prayed that he be appointed
as universal heirs including his nieces, Telesfora and administrator. Heirs of Palanca opposed; Court
Cesorea Gorordo . The petitioner Fr Mercado was named appointed Phil Trust Co. as administrator. Judge had
some personal issues regarding Ozaeta
in the will as the executor and in his absence, Fr. Espina
(Mercado being the parish priest in San Nicolas, Cebu and
5|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
Ruling of the Court: The choice of his executor is a WILSON UY: The trial court cannot re-open the issue of
precious prerogative of a testator, a necessary the appointment of an administrator without removing
concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the the incumbent administrator. (bec. The letter of admin
manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should was already given to him, appointment of Johnny cannot
desire to appoint one of his confidence, one who can be be bec. there is res judicata)
trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of his estate.
The curtailment of this right may be considered as a ISSUE: WON the appointment of co-admin rules out the
curtailment of the rights to dispose. And as the rights order of preference in Rule 78, Sec 6.
granted by him will take effect from the time of his death
(Article 777, CC), the management of his estate by the RULING: No. There is no question that petitioner was
administrator of his choice should be made as soon as appointed as regular administrator of the estate of the
practicable, when no reasonable objection to his deceased Jose K. C. Uy on June 9, 1998. However, private
assumption of the trust can be interposed any longer. respondent in his motion to intervene sought to be
It has been held that when a will has been admitted to appointed as administrator as he is not only the brother
probate, it is the duty of this court to issue letters of the decedent but also a creditor who knows the extent
testamentary to the person named as executor upon his of the latter’s properties. Thus, the trial court, while
application. It is the testator that appoints his executor, retaining petitioner as administrator, appointed private
as the question as to his peculiar fitness for such position respondent as co-administrator of the estate.
or his want of ability to manage the estate cannot be
addressed to the discretion of the county judge. In the instant case, the order of preference was not
disregarded by the trial court. Instead of removing
V. UY vs CA petitioner, it appointed private respondent, a creditor, as
co-administrator since the estate was sizeable and
FACTS: Jose K.C. Uy (Deceased) died intestate on August petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it
20, 1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and alone. In fact, petitioner did not submit any report
his five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian regarding the estate under his administration.
S. Uy-Garcia , Lilen S. Uy and Wilson S. Uy (Petitioner).
An intestate proceeding was instituted and Hofileña was Thus, petitioner’s argument that the trial court
appointed as special administrator of the estate of the cannot re-open the issue of the appointment of an
deceased. Uy opposed the appointment so the probate administrator without removing the incumbent
court revoked Hofilena’s institution as administrator and administrator is erroneous. In probate proceedings,
the letter of admin. was given to Wilson Uy. Johnny K. H. considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in
Uy (Private Respondent) filed a motion to intervene, modifying or revoking its own orders as long as the
praying that he be appointed as administrator of the proceedings are pending in the same court and timely
estate in lieu of petitioner. He alleged that he is the applications or motions for such modifications or
brother and a creditor of the deceased, and has revocations are made by the interested parties.
knowledge of the properties that should be included in
the estate. Johnny Uy was appointed as co-administrator. SUPPLEMENT: . Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of
Wilson Uy now asked the court to order Johnny to bring Court, the preference to whom letters of administration may be
into the estate properties belongin to the deceased in granted are as follows:
which Johnny complied. Wilson again moved for
Johnny’s removal but was denied by the probate court SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration
and CA. granted. – If no executor is named in the will, or the executor
or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
CA: The appointment of private respondent was justified; bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
that the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of
the Rules of Court does not rule out the appointment of (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case
co-administrator. may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or
to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of
6|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to such administrator. If there is another who has more
serve; interest therein than the surviving spouse, the preference
established in the latter's favor becomes untenable.
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case Proceso acquired properties during 1st marriage; none
may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be acquired during 2nd marriage; Children of 1st marriage has
incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next more interest.
of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person
to apply for administration or to request that administration be VII. SAN LUIS vs SAN LUIS
granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more
of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve; Facts: The case involves the settlement of the estate of
Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime,
willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage
court may select. was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar,
Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia
The order of preference in the appointment of an predeceased Felicisimo. Five years later, on May 1, 1968,
administrator depends on the attendant facts and Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he
circumstances.In Sioca v. Garcia,this Court set aside the order had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry
of preference, to wit: Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce
before the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of
It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily Hawaii, United States of America (U.S.A.), which issued
and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding
of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the Child Custody on December 14, 1973.
deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent
rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. The Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos at Los
determination of a person’s suitability for the office of Angeles, California, U.S.A. He had no children with
administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of respondent but lived with her for 18 years from the time
the court exercising the power of appointment and such of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992.
judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal
affirmatively that the court below was in error. partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo’s
estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for
x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court
of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the of Makati City, docketed as SP. Proc. No. M-3708.
estate. x x x.(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Issue: Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to
file the subject petition for letters of administration.
VI. DE GUZMAN vs. LIMCOLIOC
Held: The issue of Felicidad’s legal personality to file the
Statement of Facts: Proceso de Guzman died without petition for letters of administration, we must first
leaving a will. Proceso married Agatona and had four(4) resolve the issue of whether a Filipino who is divorced
children. When Agatona died, he married Angela by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under
Limcolioc with no kids. CFI Rizal appointed Nicolasa de the Civil Code.
Guzman, child, as judicial administratrix; Limcolioc
opposed. With respect to such issue, records of the proceedings of
the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of
Ruling of the Court: Preference of widow as Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation
administrator is not absolute. The principal consideration where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as
7|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net
spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer with him was validly performed under the laws of the
married to the Filipino spouse. U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under
Article 144 of the Civil Code.
Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin This provision governs the property relations between
to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn parties who live together as husband and wife without
case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from
a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree the beginning. Any property acquired during the union
validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through
Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is their joint efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the
capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. co-owners shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary
is proven
Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the
divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of
absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have both the divorce and the marriage, the applicable
vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the provision would be Article 148 of the Family Code
present petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. which has filled the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil
However, the records show that there is insufficient Code by expressly regulating the property relations of
evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by couples living together as husband and wife but are
Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and incapacitated to marry. In Saguid v. Court of Appeals, we
Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. held that even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of
property occurred before the Family Code took effect,
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to Article 148 governs.
marry respondent in 1974, nevertheless, we find that the
latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition In view of the foregoing, we find that respondent’s legal
for letters of administration, as she may be considered capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that administration may arise from her status as the
were acquired through their joint efforts during their surviving wife of Felicisimo or as his co-owner under
cohabitation. Article 144 of the Civil Code or Article 148 of the Family
Code.
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that letters
of administration may be granted to the surviving VIII. ANGELES vs. MAGLAYA
spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79
thereof also provides in part: Statement of Facts: Maglaya filed a petition for letters of
administration of the intestate estate of his father –
SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. – A opposed by Belen Angeles, father’s wife Francisco died
petition for letters of administration must be filed by an intestate leaving behind four (4) parcels of land and a
interested person and must show, as far as known to the building Petitioner opposed the petition; she wants to be
petitioner: x x x. the administratrix of Francisco’s estate. Maglaya: Angeles
is not the daughter of Francisco because the birth
An “interested person” has been defined as one who certificate was not signed by him; and Angeles is not the
would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one only child of Francisco, they adopted Concesa Maglaya
who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. (daughter) has not even presented a witness to testify that
The interest must be material and direct, and not merely her putative parents really held themselves out to the
indirect or contingent. public as man-and-wife – no legal presumption of
In the instant case, Felicidad would qualify as an legitimacy which should flow from a lawful marriage
interested person who has a direct interest in the estate between Francisco and Genevova.
of Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the
existence of which was not denied by petitioners. If she
proves the validity of the divorce and Felicisimo’s
capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage
8|RULE 77 & RULE 78: SPEC PRO net