Testate Estate of Maloto v. Maloto
Testate Estate of Maloto v. Maloto
Ramon C. Zamora, Lorenzo E. Coloso, Jose L. Castigador, Arthur Defensor & Sixto
Demaisip and Flores, Macapagal, Ocampo & Balbastro for petitioners-appellants.
Nacianceno G. Rico & Felipe G. Espinosa for oppositors-appellees.
DECISION
FERNANDEZ , J : p
This is a petition to review the order dated April 13, 1970 of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, in Special Proceeding No. 2176 dismissing the petition for
the probate of a will. 1
One Adriana Maloto died on October 20, 1963 in Iloilo City, her place of
residence.
Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Pan lo Maloto, and Felino Maloto,
niece and nephews, respectively, of Adriana Maloto, in the belief that decedent died
intestate, commenced on November 4, 1963 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an
intestate proceeding docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1736. In the course of said
intestate proceeding, Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Pan lo Maloto and
Felino Maloto executed an extrajudicial partition of the estate of Adriana Maloto on
February 1, 1964 whereby they adjudicated said estate unto themselves in the
proportion of one-fourth (1/4) share for each. 2 The Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
then presided by Judge Emigdio V. Nietes, approved the extrajudicial partition on
March 21, 1964. 3
On April 1, 1967, a document dated January 3, 1940 purporting to be the last will
and testament of Adriana Maloto was delivered to the Clerk of Court of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo. 4 It appears that Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto,
Pan lo Maloto, and Felino Maloto are named as heirs but Aldina Maloto Casiano and
Constancio Maloto allegedly have shares in said will which are bigger, different and
more valuable than what they obtained in the extrajudicial partition. The said will also
allegedly made dispositions to certain devisees and/or legatees, among whom being
the Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor. LibLex
On May 24, 1967, Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto led in Special
Proceeding No. 1736 a motion (1) for reconsideration; (2) annulment of the
proceedings; and (3) for the allowance of the last will and testament of Adriana Maloto.
5 The Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Puri cacion Mira or also
Acting on the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and clari cation, this Court
issued a resolution dated July 15, 1969 which reads:
"Acting on the motion for reconsideration and/or clari cation led by
petitioner in G. R. No. L-30479, Constancio Maloto, et al., vs. Hon. Emigdio V.
Nietes, etc. et al., dated June 11, 1969, the Court resolved to DENY the motion for
reconsideration, with the clari cation that the matter of whether or not the
pertinent ndings of facts of respondent Judge in his herein subject order of
November 16, 1968 constitute res adjudicata may be raised in the proceedings for
probate of the alleged will in question indicated in the resolution of this Court of
May 14, 1969, wherein such matter will be more appropriately determined." 8
In an order dated April 13, 1970, the probate court dismissed the petition for the
probate of the will on the basis of the nding of said court in Special Proceeding No.
1736 that the alleged will sought to be probated had been destroyed and revoked by
the testatrix. The probate court sustained the oppositors' contention that the petition
for probate is now barred by the order of November 16, 1968 in the intestate estate
proceeding, Special Proceeding No. 1736. 1 1
The herein petitioners allege that the probate court committed the following
errors:
"I
III
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 18.
2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 20-25.
8. Rollo, p. 215.
9. Rollo, pp. 104-119.