Octavio Maloles II vs Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips

G.R. No. 129505 / G.R. No. 133359 – 381 Phil. 179 – 324 SCRA 172 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – Probate of Will – Probate and Issuance of Letters Testamentary are distinct remedies – Probate Court; Jurisdiction 

In 1995, Dr. Arturo De Los Santos filed a petition for probate of his will. He declared that he has no compulsory heirs and that he is naming as sole devisee and legatee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. (ASF). The named executrix is Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips. The petition was filed in RTC Makati Branch 61. Judge Fernando Gorospe of said court determined that Arturo is of sound mind and was not acting in duress when he signed his last will and testament and so Branch 61 allowed the last will and testament on February 16, 1996.

Ten days after the allowance, Arturo died. Thereafter, Pacita, as executrix, filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61. She however withdrew the motion but later on re-filed a petition for issuance of letters testamentary with RTC Makati Branch 65.

Meanwhile, a certain Octavio Maloles II filed a motion for intervention with Branch 61 claiming that as a next of kin (him being the full blooded nephew of Arturo) he should be appointed as the administrator of the estate and that he is an heir. His motion was denied on the ground that the probate proceedings already terminated.

Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 issued an order transferring the Pacita’s petition to Branch 61. Judge Santos ruled that since the probate proceeding started in Branch 61, then it should be the same court which should hear Pacita’s petition. Branch 61 however refused to consolidate and referred the case back to Branch 65. Branch 65 took cognizance of the case but noted that it is only doing so to expedite the proceedings. Eventually, Branch 65 allowed the motion for intervention filed by Octavio.

ISSUE: Whether or not Octavio Maloles II has the right to intervene in the probate proceeding.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court first clarified that the probate of will filed in Branch 61 has already terminated upon the allowance of the will. Hence when Pacita filed a petition for issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 65, the same is already a separate proceeding and not a continuance of the now concluded probate in Branch 61. There is therefore no reason for Branch 65 to refer back the case to Branch 61 as it initially did. Further even if the probate was terminated, under Rule 73 of the Rules of Court concerning the venue of settlement of estates, it is provided that when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of the other branches (Note: RTC Makati is but one court but with different branches).

Anent the issue of Octavio being an heir, such contention has no merit. He is not an heir. Arturo died testate. Next of kins may only inherit if a person dies intestate. In this case, Arturo left a valid will which expressly provided that ASF is the sole legatee and devisee of his estate.

But may Octavio oppose the petition for letters testamentary since he is a creditor of De Los Santos?

No. Firstly, the wishes of De Los Santos appointing Pacita as the executor must be respected. It also appears that Pacita has all the qualifications and none of the qualifications. Octavio’s allegation that his opposition must be granted simply because he is a creditor and his general averment that Pacita is unfit to be an executor/administrator is not sufficient. Only if the appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the court appoint other persons to administer the estate. None of these circumstances is present in this case.

Read full text.