Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Properties of Deceased
Uy vs Dizon-Capulong
Recit Recall:
There was an issue in the probate proceeding wherein an issue of title
was raised. The Judge ruled on it. Spouses Uy said, Sut! Hoy! Bawal
yan! CA ruled in favor of the Spouses Uy. However, Judge disregarded
the ruling of the CA. So now, she has been discharged as Judge and her
benefits are forfeited.
Doctrine:
Probate court has no authority to decide questions of ownership of
property, real or personal. The only purpose of the examination is to
elicit information or to secure evidence from persons suspected of
having knowledge of the property of the deceased.
FACTS:
Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong is an RTC Judge being charged
with gross icompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave
misconduct.
There was a case for the settlement of the estate of the late
Abrocio Pingco.
o Judge Dizon-Capulong presided over the estate
proceedings.
o Herminia Alvos was appointed as special administratrix.
o Alvos filed an urgent motion claiming that land belonging
to the decedent was sold to the Spouses Uy, and that the
sale was procured through fraud and forgery.
o Respondent Judge ordered the cancellation of the title of
Spouses Uy over the property.
Spouses Uy filed a petition in the CA to annul the orders of Judge
Dizon-Capulong in cancelling their titles.
o CA ruled in favor Spouses Uy.
The special administratrix was unconvinced of the CA ruling,
claiming that it is well within the powers of respondent Judge to
rule on the cancellation of titles.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Dizon-Capulong, presiding on a probate court,
may rule on the ownership or title in a property involved in the probate
proceedings?
RULING: HELL NO!!!
Doctrine:
Special administrators are officers of the court subject to supervision
and control of the probate court and are expected to work for the best
interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration, and its earliest
settlement.
FACTS:
Vitug died in NYC, leaving 2 wills (Holographic and Formal)
wherein, among the notable provisions, the husband was
disinherited for his immoral conduct which amounted to
concubinage, a ground for legal separation, and that Rowena
Corona was appointed as executrix.
o Corona filed a petition for the probate of the Wills and for
the appointment of Nenita Alonte as Administrator,
because Corona was working in NYC, hence, it will be
extremely difficult for her to comply with the duties.
o Nenita was allowed to be special administratrix after
posting of a P100,000 bond.
o Romarico, the unfaithful husband, opposed the allowance
of the wills as they have been procured through undue and
improper pressure and influence, and that the appointment
of Nenita as special administratrix should not be allowed,
because she has no interest to be protected and that she
was not related to the heirs.
o Probate Court set aside the order allowing Nenita to be
special administratrix and appointed Romarico in her stead
after posting a P200,000 bond.
o The probate court reasoned that the Rules of Court stated
that there is an order of preference for appointment of
administrator as he has interest in the estate, and that
disinheritance is not a ground to disqualify him.
Petitioner elevated the case to CA. Affirmed.
Now, theyre in the SC.
ISSUE: Whether the lower court was correct in resolving to appoint the
unfaithful husband as Special Administratrix?
RULING: Sadly, YES!
The court is of considered opinion that petitioners nominee, Nenita
Alonte, should be appointed as co-Special Administrator. The
executors choice of Special administration, considering her own
inability to serve and the wide latitude of discretion given her by the
testator is entitled to the highest consideration. Objections to Nenitas
appointment on the grounds of impracticality and lack of kinship are
overshadowed by the fact that justice and equity demand that the side
of deceased wife and the faction of the surviving husband be
represented in the management of the decedents estate.
Special administrators are officers of the court subject to supervision
and control of the probate court and are expected to work for the best
interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration, and its earliest
settlement.
Provisional Support
Santero vs CFI of Cavite
Recit Recall:
There were a number of motions for allowance coming from different
heirs of the deceased. All were allowed by the probate court. However,
the executor filed an opposition to all of it, contending that the heirs
requesting for allowance have already reached the age of majority and
some are in fact married already, hence, not entitled to the support.
Doctrine:
The fact that the heirs are of age, employed and married is of no
moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their
to allowance. While the rules of court limit the allowance to the widow
and minor or incapacitated children, the New Civil Code, gives the
surviving spouse and the children without distinction.
FACTS:
The order of the CFI of Cavite, sitting as a probate court, for the
granting of the Motion for Allowance filed by the heirs are being
questioned.
o It would appear that Pablo Santero had children with
Anselma Diaz and Felixberta Pacursa, both of which Pablo
did not marry.
o With Felixberta, they begot 3 children: Princesita, Federico
and Willy.
o The motion for allowance contained that Victor, Rodrigo,
Anselmina and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, filed thru
their guardian Anselma Diaz, are entitled to support which
included their educational, clothing and medical expenses.
Allowed.
o Respondents further filed another Motion for Allowance to
include Juanita, Estrelita and Pedrito, all surnamed Santero,
which was also allowed.
There is no reason why the trial court should disallow the examination
of the alleged transferees of the shares of stocks. This is only for
purposes of eliciting information or securing evidence from persons
suspected of concealing or conveying some of the decedents assets to
the prejudice of the creditors. Petitioners contention that the
transferees are the decedents assignees does not automatically
negate concealment of the decedents assets on their part. The
assignment might be simulated so as to place the shares beyond the
reach of the creditors.