G.R. No.
L-48840 December 29, 1943
ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO GUEVARA and her
husband PEDRO BUISON, respondent-appellees.
Primacias, Abad, Mencias & Castillo for appellant.
Pedro C. Quinto for appellees.
OZAETA, J.: chanrobles virtual law library
Ernesto M. Guevarra and Rosario Guevara, ligitimate son and natural daughter,
respectively, of the deceased Victorino L. Guevara, who appears to have executed a will
apparently with all the formalities of the law.
On September 27, 1933, Victorino L. Guevarra died. His last will and testament,
however, was never presented to the court for probate, nor has any administration
proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate. Ever since the death of
Victorino L. Guevara, his only legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara appears to have
possessed the land adjudicated to him in the registration proceeding and to have
disposed of various portions thereof for the purpose of paying the debts left by his
father.
In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father's last will and
testament in her custody, did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions
made therein in her favor, whereby the testator acknowledged her as his natural
daughter and, aside from certain legacies and bequests, devised to her a portion of the
large parcel of land described in the will. But a little over four years after the testor's
demise, she commenced the present action against Ernesto M. Guevara. It was only
during the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of
having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victirino L. Guevara had
acknowledged her as his natural daughter. Upon that proof of acknowledgment she
claimed her share of the inheritance from him, but on the theory or assumption that he
died intestate, because the will had not been probated, for which reason, she asserted,
the betterment therein made by the testator in favor of his legitimate son Ernesto M.
Guevara should be disregarded.
Both the trial court and the Court of appeals sustained that theory.
Issue: W/N the procedure adopted by the respondent Rosario Guevara was legal.
HELD: No, the procedure adopted by the respondent Rosario Guevara is a violation of
procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and disregard the last will and testament of
the decedent.
The pertinent provision of the Code of Civil Procedure enforced then are now embodied
in Rule 76 of the new Rules of Court which provides that the presentation of a will to the
court for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and
indispensable to its efficacy. Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any
question as to the authenticity and due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue
for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing its
allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that "no will
shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper
court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot
be dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial,
without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to
dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the
heirs and legatees under the will thru the means provided by law, among which are the
publication and the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees. Nor may
the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an action for
partition, which is one in personam, any more than it could decree the registration under
the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or
[Link] law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because
unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a
person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory, as is attempted to
be done in the instant case. Absent legatees and devisees, or such of them as may
have no knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of
some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among themselves to
the exclusion of others.
In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other than the present
litigants had received their respective legacies or that they had knowledge of the
existence and of the provisions of the will. Their right under the will cannot be
disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of
the custodian of the will to present it to the court for probate.
ROMAN OZAETA VS MARIA CUARTERO
[Link].L-5597, May 31, 1956
FACTS: On September 2 1950, Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay died leaving a large estate
and 3 sets of heirs. In 1884 he married Cesarea Gano, with whom he begot 3 children.
Cesarea died in 1907, and 1 year thereafter, lived unmarried with Rosa Gonzales and
came to have 8 children. While living with Rosa, Palanca also sustained relation with
Maria Cuartero, and by her he came to have 6 children. Realizing in his old age and
failing health that life’s end was fast approaching, he married Rosa Gonzales then later
made a will.
Designated in the will as substitute executor, Roman Ozoeta filed a petition in the
CFI of Manila asking for the probate of the will, for issuance of letters of administration
and for his appointment as special administrator pending probate. Maria Cuartero and
her 6 children filed their opposition, alleging that the will was not executed in
accordance with law, that it was procured by fraud and undue pressure and influence on
the part of some of the beneficiaries or some other person for their benefit, and that the
decedent’s signature thereon were procured through fraud and trickery, the same
having been affixed by him without any intention of making the document his will.
CFI of Manila allowed the probate of the alleged will.
ISSUE: W/N the will was obtained by undue influence and improper pressure on the
part of the beneficiaries.
HELD: No, the opposition to the probate of the will was unsupported by evidence. The
contention of the opposition that the will was obtained by undue influence or improper
pressure exerted by the beneficiaries of the will cannot be sustained on mere conjecture
or suspicion; as it is not enough that there was opportunity to exercise undue influence
or a possibility that it may have been exercised. There must be substantial evidence
that it was actually exercised.
