Monday, December 18, 2017

Special Proceedings

RULE 75
PRODUCTION AND ALLOWANCE OF WILL;
ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY

SECTION 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive  as to execution.
No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to the right to appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its execution.

Probate or allowance of wills
-          It is an act of proving in court a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a certain deceased person for the purpose of its official recognition, registration and carrying out its provision in so far as they are in accordance with law.

Concept and extent of DUE EXECUTION: FSDUG
1.       The will was executed in accordance with the strict formalities of the law;
2.       The testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will;
3.       Consent is not vitiated by any duress, fear or threats;
4.       The will was not procured by any undue influence from the beneficiary or by some other person for his benefit; and
5.       The signature of the testator is genuine.

Issues that may be brought before the probate court
1.       The determination of whether a property should be included in the inventory is within the jurisdiction of a probate court;
2.       The determination who are the heirs of the decedent;
3.       The validity of a waiver of hereditary rights;
4.       The status of each heir and all other matters incidental to the administration, settlement and distribution of the estate.

GR:         Probate court cannot decide a question of title of ownership.
XPN:
a.       The interested parties who are all heirs of the deceased consent thereto and the interests of third parties are not prejudiced;
b.       In a provisional manner, to determine whether said property should be included in or excluded from the inventory, without prejudice to the final determination of title in a separate action.

Principle of exclusionary rule in probate proceedings
-          When a probate court first takes cognizance and jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, it shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over the same to the exclusion of other courts.

Section 2. Custodian of will to deliver.
The person who has custody of a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will.
Section 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust.
A person named as executor in a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of the testator, or within twenty (20) days after he knows he is named executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator, present such will to the court having jurisdiction, unless the will has reached the court in any other manner, and shall, within such period, signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to accept it.

Section 4. Custodian and executor subject to fine for neglect.
A person who neglects any of the duties required in the two last preceding sections without excuse satisfactory to the court shall be fined out not exceeding two thousand pesos.

Section 5. Person retaining will may be committed.
A person having custody of a will after the death of the testator who neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the same, when ordered to do so, to the court having jurisdiction, may be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will.

Case:      Pacioles, Jr. vs. Chuatoco-Ching, 2005
-          A probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. The adjudication is merely incidental and provisional.

RULE 76
ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL

The following person may petition for the allowance of will:
1.       Executor
2.       Devisee
3.       Legatee
4.       Any other person interested in the estate
5.       Testator himself

Interested party
-          A party who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has claim against the estate like a creditor.

«  The petition for probate of the will is not subject to the statute of limitations and does not prescribe; as such petition may be filed at any time and is required by public policy.

The petition for the allowance of a will must show: (R76.2)
a.       The jurisdictional facts;
b.       The names, ages and residences of the heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator or decedent;
c.        The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
d.       The name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and
e.        If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.

Jurisdictional facts in probate proceedings:
a.       Death of the decedent;
b.       His residence at the time of his death
«  The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution.

Section 6. Proof of lost or destroyed will. Certificate thereupon.
No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the execution and validity of the same be established, and the will is proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded.

Requisites in order that a lost or destroyed will may be allowed:
1.       Execution and validity of the will must be established;
2.       The will must have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge;
3.       The provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.

Remedies: Order denying the probate of a will after the period to appeal has lapsed
a.       Petition for relief
-          Ground: Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
-          When: Within a period of 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order and not more than 6 months after such judgment or final order was entered.

The following are entitle to notice of time and place of probate proceedings (R76.4):
1.       Heirs
2.       Legatees
3.       Devisees
4.       Person named as executor, if he be not the petitioner
5.       Person named as co executor not petitioning
6.       Compulsory heirs, if the testator asks for the allowance of his own will.

Case:      Alaban vs Court of Appeals, 2005
-          Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules.
-          Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.

RULE 77
ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE THEREUNDER

Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here.
Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.

The proponent must prove the following during a reprobate proceeding:
a.       That the testator was domiciled in the foreign country;
b.       That the will has been admitted to probate in such country;
c.        That the foreign court was, under the laws of said foreign country, a probate court with jurisdiction over the proceedings;
d.       The law on probate procedure in said foreign country and proof of compliance therewith; and
e.        The legal requirements in said foreign country for the valid execution of the will.

The effects of allowance of a will
1.       The will shall be treated as if originally proved and allowed in Philippine courts;
2.       Letters testamentary or administration with a will annexed shall extend to all estates of the Philippines;
3.       After payment of just debts and expenses of administration, the residue of the estate shall be disposed as provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country.

Article 816, Civil Code
                The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

RULE 78
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED

The following may administer the estate:
1.       Executor
2.       Administrator

Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators.
No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who is:
a.       A minor;
b.       Not a resident of the Philippines; and
c.        In the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of drunkness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.

Executor
Administrator
A person named expressly by the deceased person in his will to administer, settle and liquidate his estate.
A person appointed by the intestate court to administer the estate of a deceased person who:
a.       Dies without leaving a will; or
b.       Did not name any executor even if there was a will; or
c.        if there be one named, he is incompetent, refuses the trust or fails to give a bond, or that the will subsequently, is declared null and void.

Section 2. Executor of executor not to administer estate.
The executor of an executor shall not, as such, administer the estate of the first testator.

Section 3. Married women may serve.
A married women may serve as executrix or administratix, and the marriage of a single woman shall not affect her authority so to serve under a previous appointment.

Letters Testamentary
Letters of Administration
It is an authority issued to an executor named in the will to administer the estate.
It is an authority issued by the court to a competent person to administer the estate of the deceased who died intestate.

Section 5. Where some co executors disqualified others may act.
When all of the executors named in a will cannot act because of incompetency, refusal to accept the trust, or failure to give bond, on the part of one of more of them, letters testamentary may issue to such of them are competent, accept and give bond, and they may perform the duties and discharge the trust required by the will.

Order of preference in granting Letters of Administration
R78.6. if
1.       No executor is named in the will
2.       The executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond
3.       A person dies intestate
Administration shall be granted:
a.       To surviving husband or wife, as the case 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 kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
b.       If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for 30 days after the death of the person to apply for administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
c.        If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select.

Rationale behind the rule on the order of preference
-          Those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly.

GR:         The court cannot set aside the order of preference
XPN:     
a.       Where justice and equity demand, depending on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case.
b.       When the preferred persons are not competent or are unwilling to serve.

RULE 79
OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

Section 1.

Next of kin
-          It refers to those relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees.

The following provisions allow “any interested person” or “any person interested in the estate” to participate in varying capacities:
1.       R79.1. Any person interested to oppose the issuance of letters testamentary and to file a petition for administration;
2.       R79.3. Mandates the giving of notice of hearing on the petition for letters of administration to the known heirs, creditors, and to any other person believed to have interest in the estate;
3.       R76.1. A person interested in the estate to petition for the allowance of a will;
4.       R87.6. Allows an individual interested in the estate of the deceased to complain to the court of the concealment, embezzlement, or conveyance of any assets of the decedent, or of evidence of the decedent’s title or interest therein;
5.       R85.10. Requires notice of the time and place of the examination and allowance of the Administration’s account to the persons interested.
6.       R89.7. Requires the court to give notice to the persons interested before it may hear and grant a petition seeking the disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the estate;
7.       R90.1. Any person interested in the estate to petition for an order for the distribution of the residue of the estate of the decedent, after all obligations are either satisfied or provided for.

GR:         The creditor or any person interested in the estate has no general right to intervene.
XPN:      If the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality under the Rules by which such interest can be protected.

Contents of a petition for letter of administration
1.       The jurisdictional facts;
2.       The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences of the creditors, of the decedent;
3.       The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
4.       The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed.

RULE 80
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR

Special administrator
-          A representative of the decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed.
-          When appointed: When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause, the court may appoint the same.

Role of special administrator
-          An officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and speedy settlement.


Regular Administrator
Special Administrator
When appointed
When a decedent died intestate or did not appoint any executor in his will or the will is subsequently disallowed.
When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administrator.
Obligation to pay debt of the estate
Yes
No
Remedy on appointment
Appealable
Interlocutory order: R65

The court may appoint special co administrators
1.       To have the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented;
2.       Where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estate of the deceased;
3.       Where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle;
4.       To have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and
5.       When a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the office.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Burgos vs Esperon GR No. 178497, February 04, 2014


Doctrine:
The Court emphasize that the Court’s role in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.

Facts:
          Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang have witnessed on that fateful day of April 28, 2007 the forcible abduction of Jonas Burgos by a group of about seven (7) men and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag Kainan Restaurant located in Quezon City.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos. The CHR finds that the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos had transpired and that his constitutional rights to life, liberty and security were violated by the Government have been fully determined. The CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. Regional Trial Court found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas’ disappearance.

Based on the finding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the Court of Appeals concluded that the present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The respondents have not appealed to the court, as provided under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Hence, the petitioner filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.

Issue:
          Whether or not the petitioner’s motion should be granted.

Ruling:
          No.
After reviewing the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner and considering all the developments of the case, including the Court of Appeal’s decision that confirmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the present case, the Court resolve to deny the petitioner’s Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.

The Court note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As the Court held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis the writ merely embodies the Court’s directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs. The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr., v. Tagitis, the Court defined what the terms “responsibility” and “accountability” signify in an Amparo case. The Court said: Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.

In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. The Court take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas’ disappearance.

The Court emphasize that the Court’s role in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.


As shown above, the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case with the CA’s final determination of the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before us.