Testate Estate of Maloto v. Maloto

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-32328. September 30, 1977.]
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO MALOTO: ALDINA

MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION
MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, and ASILO DE
MOLO , petitioners-appellants, vs. PANFILO MALOTO and FELINO
MALOTO , oppositors-appellees.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

led in Special Proceeding No. 1736 petitions for the allowance of the will of Adriana
Maloto. 6
Pan lo Maloto and Felino Maloto opposed the motion of Aldina Maloto Casiano
and Constancio Maloto.
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo, through Judge Emigdio V. Nietes, issued an
order dated November 16, 1968 denying the motion to reopen the proceedings on the
ground that the said motion had been led out of time. A motion for reconsideration of
said order was denied. Petitioners appealed from the order of denial. On motion of
Pan lo Maloto and Felino Maloto, the lower court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that it was led late. A motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was denied.
A supplemental order dated April 1, 1969 stating as additional ground that the appeal
is improper was issued.
The petitioners led a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme
Court docketed as G.R. No. L-30479. This Court dismissed the petition in a resolution
dated May 14, 1969 which reads:
"L-30479 (Constancio Maloto, et al, vs. Hon. Emigdio V. Nietes, etc., et al.)
— THE COURT RESOLVED to dismiss the petition for certiorari and mandamus,
without passing on the issue of whether or not the petitioners appeal from the
order of November 16, 1968 of respondent Judge was made on time, it appearing
that the more appropriate remedy of petitioners in the premises stated in the
petition is for petitioners to initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the
alleged will in question." 7
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
Thereupon, the herein petitioners commenced Special Proceeding No. 2176 in

the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the probate of the alleged last will and testament
of Adriana Maloto. 9
Pan lo Maloto and Felino Maloto led an opposition with a motion to dismiss on
the following grounds:
"I. THAT THE ALLEGED WILL SOUGHT TO BE PROBATED HAD BEEN
DESTROYED AND REVOKED BY THE TESTATRIX.
II. THAT THE INSTANT PETITION FOR PROBATE IS NOW BARRED BY

PRIOR JUDGMENT OR ORDER (OR RES JUDICATA).
III. THAT THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO HAD

ALREADY PASSED OUT OF EXISTENCE AND TITLE THERETO HAD ALREADY
VESTED IN THE DISTRIBUTEES OF THEIR ASSIGNS.
IV. THAT PETITIONERS ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO AND
CONSTANCIO MALOTO ARE NOW ESTOPPED FROM SEEKING THE REMEDY
UNDER THIS PROCEEDING, THEY HAVING CEASED TO BE INTERESTED
PARTIES." 1 0
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
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMITTEDLY

GENUINE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO (THE
SUBJECT OF PETITION FOR PROBATE - SPECIAL PROCEEDING NO. 2176, CFI
ILOILO) HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REVOKED BY HER (ADRIANA MALOTO).
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SAID PETITION (FOR

PROBATE OF THE AFORESAID LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE
ADRIANA MALOTO) IS NOW BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT. I. E., THAT THE
MATTER CONCERNED IS NOW RES ADJUDICATA.
III
THE LOWER COURT, THEREFORE, ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AFORESAID

PETITION FOR PROBATE OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE
ADRIANA MALOTO AND IN NOT, INSTEAD, GIVING IT (THE PETITION ABOVE-
CITED DUE COURSE." 1 2
The instant petition for review is meritorious.

The probate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of
the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in Special Proceeding No. 1736. Indeed, the motion
to reopen the proceedings was denied because the same was led out of time.
Moreover, it is not proper to make a nding in an intestate estate proceeding that the
discovered will has been revoked. As a matter of fact, the probate court in Special
Proceeding No. 1736 stated in the order of November 16, 1968 that "Movants should
have led a separate action for the probate of the will." 1 3 And this court stated in its
resolution of May 14, 1969 that "The more appropriate remedy of the petitioners in the
premises stated in the petition is for petitioners to initiate a separate proceeding for
the probate of the alleged will in question."
In view of the foregoing, the order of November 16, 1968 in Special Proceeding
No. 1736 is not a bar to the present petition for the probate of the alleged will of
Adriana Maloto.
WHEREFORE, the order dated April 13, 1970 dismissing the petition for the
probate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto is hereby set aside and the lower court is
directed to proceed with the hearing of the petition in Special Proceeding No. 2176 on
the merits, with costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 18.
2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 20-25.
3. Petition, p. 3, Rollo, p. 12.

4. Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 26-38.
5. Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 39-43.

6. Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 44-49.
7. Annex "L", Rollo, p. 103.
8. Rollo, p. 215.
9. Rollo, pp. 104-119.
10. Rollo, p. 120.

11. Annex "Q", Rollo, pp. 194-203.
12. Brief for the Petitioners-Appellants, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 233.

13. Rollo, p. 88.

Testate Estate of Maloto v. Maloto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testate Estate of Maloto v. Maloto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32328. September 30, 1977.]

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO MALOTO: ALDINA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

Thereupon, the herein petitioners commenced Special Proceeding No. 2176 in

II. THAT THE INSTANT PETITION FOR PROBATE IS NOW BARRED BY

III. THAT THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO HAD

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMITTEDLY

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SAID PETITION (FOR

THE LOWER COURT, THEREFORE, ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AFORESAID

The instant petition for review is meritorious.

3. Petition, p. 3, Rollo, p. 12.

5. Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 39-43.

10. Rollo, p. 120.

12. Brief for the Petitioners-Appellants, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 233.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like