You are on page 1of 4

RULE 72: Subject Matter and Applicability of Rules

Case No. 4 Republic vs. CA (G.R. No. 163604)


Facts:
Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc, left by his spouse Clemente P. Jomoc for nine years,
seeks for the Declaration of Presumptive Death for the purpose of contracting a valid
subsequent marriage. The trial court granted the petition. However, the Republic,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to appeal the trial courts order by
filing a Notice of Appeal.
The trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal being that the present case is a
special proceeding and that there was no record of appeal that was filed and served
pursuant to Sec.2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and at the same time denied
the OSGs Motion for Reconsideration. The appellate court, likewise, denied the OSGs
petition based on procedural and substantive grounds.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition for declaration of the presumptive death of a person is
in the nature of a special proceeding.
2. Whether or not a summary proceeding be instituted for the purpose of contracting
a subsequent marriage and that technical rules should be strictly applied.
Held:
1. The Court finds that the instant petition is in the nature of a special proceeding and
not an ordinary action. The petition merely seeks for a declaration by the trial court
of the presumptive death of absentee spouse. It does not seek the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Neither does it involve
a demand of right or a cause of action that can be enforced against any person.
Hence, being in the nature of a special proceeding, the OSG should have filed, in
addition to its Notice of Appeal, a record on appeal in accordance to the rules.
2. As provided under the Family Code, the spouses present must institute a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for the
purpose of contracting subsequent marriage. In this case, Apolinaria Jomoc stated
in her petition her desire to contract a valid subsequent marriage. Ergo, a
summary proceeding shall be instituted. Given that this case should be in a
summary proceeding, Art. 238 of the Family Code provides that in all cases
requiring summary court proceedings, it shall be decided in an expeditious manner
without regard to technical rules. What the appellate court should have done was
to direct petitioner to comply with the rule and not deny the petition outright.
RULE 74: Summary Settlement of Estates
Case No. 1 Vda. De Reyes vs. CA (G.R. No. 92436)
Facts:
Gavino Reyes owned a parcel of land of approximately 70 hectares at Cavite. He
sought to bring said land under the operation of the Torrens System of registration of
property. Unfortunately, he died without the title having been issued to him. The
application was prosecuted by his son, Marcelo Reyes, the administrator.

In 1936, the property was surveyed and subdivided by Gavinos heirs, which was
evidenced by a subdivision plan. In 1941, the original certificate of title for the whole
property (OCT No. 255) was issued and kept by Juan Poblete, son-in-law of Marcelo
Reyes. Heirs of Gavino were not aware of this fact.
Rafael Reyes Sr., one of Gavinos children in which Lot No. 1-A-14 was assigned to,
sold the said parcel of land to Dalmacio Gardiola. The deed of sale, however, did not
specifically mention Lot No. 1-A-14.
In 1967, the heirs of Gavino Reyes executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate based on the subdivision plan. The lot intended for Rafael Reyes Sr., deceased,
was instead adjudicated to his son Rafael Jr. As a result, OCT No. 255 was cancelled and
in lieu thereof, several transfer certificates of title were issued in the name of respective
adjudicatees. One of them is TCT No. 27257 covering Lot No. 1-A-14 in the name of
Rafael Reyes Jr.
In 1983, upon obtaining the Transfer Certificate, the successors-in-interest of
Rafael Jr. filed for recovery of possession or, in the alternative, for indemnification,
accounting and damages, against Gardiola. They allege that upon knowing that they are
the rightful owner of the said lot, they were deprived of their rightful possession and
enjoyment of the property.
The respondents deny the averments of the petitioners and assert that they are
the owners of the lot in question, having bought the same from Rafael Reyes Sr.
Issue:
Whether or not Dalmacio Gardiola is the rightful owner of the lot in question considering
that there was a valid sale between him and Rafael Reyes Sr. pursuant to the subdivision
plan executed back in 1936.
Held:
The partition made in 1936, although oral, was valid. The requirement in Article
1358 of the Civil Code that acts which have for their object the creation, transmission,
modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in
public instrument is only for convenience and not for validity or enforceability as
between the parties themselves. Where no such rights are involved, it is competent for
the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution in a manner and upon a
plan different from those provided by law.
In the case at bar, the lot sold by Rafael Sr. to private respondent Dalmacio
Gardiola is his share in the estate of his deceased father, Gavino Reyes. The sale made
between Rafael Sr. and Gardiola is valid. Thus, Gardiola is then the rightful owner of the
lot.
RULE 75: Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary
Case No. 12 Ajero vs. CA (G.R. No. 106720)
Facts:
The herein petitioners instituted a special proceeding for allowance of Annie Sands
holographic will alleging that at the time of its execution, she was of sound and disposing
mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect
capacitated to dispose of her estate by will.
Clemente Sand, one of the devisees, opposed the petition on the grounds that
neither the testaments body nor the signature therein was in decedents handwriting

and wherein it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by the
decendent.
The trial court admitted the decedents holographic will to probate saying that the
requirements of that law that such should be entirely written, dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatrix has been complied with. However, on appeal, the decision
was reversed and the petition for probate of the decedents will was dismissed. It held
that the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity.
Issue:
Whether or not the decedents holographic will is valid, therefore be allowed.
Held:
What assures authenticity for holographic wills is the requirement that they be
totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to strictly observe
other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is
unquestionably handwritten by the testator.
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections and interlineations made by the
testator in a holographic will have not been noted under his signature, the will is not
thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such
changes.
RULE 77: Allowance of Will Proved Outside of the Philippines and
Administration of Estate Thereunder
Case No. 8 Alonzo vs. Ancheta (G.R. 139868)
Facts:
Spouses Audrey ONeil and Richard Guersay were American citizens who have
resided in the Philippines for 30 years, with an adopted daughter Kyle Guersay Hill.
Audrey died leaving a will which bequeathed her entire estate to Richard. The will was
admitted to probate before the Orphans Court of Baltimore, Maryland, USA, which
named James Phillips as executor and Atty. Alonzo Ancheta as the ancillary administrator.
In 1981, Richard married Candelaria Guersay-Dalaygon with whom he has two
children, namely Kimberly and Kevin. After a year, Audreys will was also admitted to
probate by the CFI Rizal.
On 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to
Candelaria, save for his rights and interest over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he
left to Kyle. The said will was admitted to probate before the Orphans Court of Baltimore,
Maryland, USA. In the same way, it was submitted to probate before RTC Makati. Atty.
William Quasha was appointed as ancillary administrator.
Atty. Ancheta filed in special proceeding a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as
heirs of Audrey wherein Richard is being apportioned with of the Makati property while
Kyle receives of which.
Candelaria opposed to the said motion citing that Audrey, in her will, devised her
entire estate to Richard and that under the law of the State of Maryland, a legacy
passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject of the
legacy.
Issue:

Whether or not the property in question should be governed by the national laws of the
decedent.
Held:
It is the national law of the decedent that is applicable. The national law of the
person who made the will shall regulate whose succession is in consideration whatever
the nature of the property and regardless of the country where the property maybe
found, as provided for under Art. 16 of the Civil Code.

You might also like