II.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SUBJECT MATTER OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS;
APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES
In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions shall
be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings [Sec. 2, Rule 72]
Rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible
and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. Provisions of the
ROC requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory
pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of
filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate
proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of
the estate of a deceased person in the present case [Sheker v. Sheker, G.R. No.
157912 (2007)]
Action vs. Special Proceedings
An action is a formal demand of one’s right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed
by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to
definite established rules. The term “special proceedings” may be defined as an
application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute
expressly so provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon
application or motion [Natcher v. CA, G.R. No. 133000 (2001)]
Cases governed; civil action v. special proceeding
 a. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special.
 b. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact.
[Sec. 3(a), 3(b), Rule 1]
General rule: Special proceedings are non-adversarial in nature
Exception: May become adversarial when there are oppositors to the petition [De Leon
& Wilwayco, Special Proceedings: Essentials for Bench and Bar (2015)]
A special proceeding has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of
a status, right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse party. [Montañer v. Shari’a
District Court, G.R. No. 174975 (2009)]

A. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED

PERSONS
MODES OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
 1. Extrajudicial (no will, no debts)
 a. If only one heir – Affidavit of Self-adjudication
 b. If heirs are all of age or the minors are represented, and all agree – Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement [Sec. 1, Rule 74]
 2. Judicial
 a. If no will, no debts, more than one heir, and should heirs disagree – Partition [Rule 69]
 b. Summary Settlement of Estate of Small Value [Sec. 2, Rule 74]
 c. Petition for Letters of Administration [Rule 79]
 d. Probate of a Will [Rules 75-79]
 i. Petition for Letters Testamentary or
 ii. Petition for Letters of Administration with the will annexed (if no named executor)
1. Which Court has Jurisdiction
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
shall lie with:

MTC if gross value of the estate does not exceed

Outside Metro P300,000

Manila If it exceeds such value, then
RTC

MTC if gross value of the estate does not exceed

In Metro Manila P400,000
Otherwise, RTC

[Sec. 19 and 31, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691; Maloles II v. Philips, G.R. Nos.
129505 and 133359 (2000); Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 124715 (2000)]
Exclusive jurisdiction
Sec. 1 of Rule 73 refers to courts in the Philippines and simply means that once a
special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a decedent is filed in one of such
courts, that court has exclusive jurisdiction over said estate and no other special
proceedings involving the same subject matter may be filed before any other court.
[Republic v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 117733 (1997)]
The ROC likewise provides that the Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of
the estate of the decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts.
There should be no impediment to the application of said Rules as they apply
suppletorily to the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, there being nothing inconsistent with
the provisions of the latter statute [Musa v. Moson, G.R. No. 95574 (1991)]
Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings of the same estate
[Sandoval v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-1723 (1949)]
Thus, if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance, it
is found that the decedent had left a last will and testament, proceedings for the probate
of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an
administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final
account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently
appointed. This, however, is understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged
will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy [Uriarte
v. CFI, G.R. No. L-21938 (1970)]
2. Venue in Judicial Settlement of Estate
Inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of death (citizen or alien)
Inhabitant of a foreign country at the time of death
Court of the province where decedent resided at time of death
Court of any province where decedent had estate
[Sec. 1, Rule 73]
Residence
In the application of venue statutes and rules, residence rather than domicile is the
significant factor. The word “resides” means personal, actual, or physical habitation of a
person, or his actual residence or place of abode. It does not mean legal residence or
domicile [Fule v. CA, G.R. No. L-40502 (1976); Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen, G.R. No.
189121 (2013); San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 and 134029 (2007)]
Even where the statute uses the word ‘domicile’, it must be construed as meaning
residence [Festin 16, 2011 Ed.]
Note: “Jurisdiction” as used in Rule 73 means venue.
If venue is improperly laid
General rule: Ordinary appeal
Exception: Certiorari may be resorted to in case of impropriety of venue (due to
residence or location of estate) appears on the record. [Sec. 1, Rule 73]
3. Extent of Jurisdiction of Probate Court
The probate jurisdiction relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the
estate and probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of
administrators, executors, guardians, and trustees [Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. (1989)]
General rule: A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed
to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties [Ignacio v.
Reyes, G.R. 213192 (2017)]
Exceptions:
 a. In a provisional manner to determine whether said property should be included or excluded
in the inventory, without prejudice to final determination of title in a separate action [Cuizon v.
Ramolete, G.R. No. L-51291 (1984)]
 b. With consent of all the parties, without prejudice to the rights of third persons [Trinidad v.
CA, G.R. No. 75579 (1991)]
 c. If the question is one of collation or advancement [Coca v. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-27082
(1978)]
 d. When the estate consists of only one property [Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No.
155555 (2005)]
The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of estate of a decedent, shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts [Sec. 1, Rule 73]
Jurisdictional facts
Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of
his death in the province where the court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the estate he left in such province [Palaganas v. Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144
(2011)]
Where estate is settled upon dissolution of marriage
Sec. 2, Rule 73 provides that when the marriage is dissolved by the death of the
husband or the wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or the intestate proceedings of the
deceased spouse, and if both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be
liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. In these settlement
proceedings, the probate court has the authority to determine if the property is conjugal
or community in nature, for purposes of liquidation [Agtarap v. Agtarap, G.R. Nos.
177099 and 177192 (2011)]
Presumption of death
Sec. 4, Rule 73 is merely one of evidence which permits the court to presume that a
person is dead after the fact that such person had been unheard from for the periods
fixed in the Civil Code. This presumption may arise and be invoked and made in a case,
either in an action or in a special proceeding, which is tried or heard by, and submitted
for decision to, a competent court. Independently of such an action or special
proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be invoked, nor can it be made the subject
of an action or special proceeding [Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 180863 (2009), citing In
re: Szatraw, G.R. No. L-1780 (1948)]
4. Powers and Duties of a Probate Court
It is the duty of courts of probate jurisdiction to guard jealously the estates of the
deceased person by intervening in the administration thereof in order to remedy or
repair any injury that may be done thereto [Dariano v. Fernandez Fidalgo, G.R. No. L-
4918 (1909)]
Ancillary powers of a probate court
 a. Issue warrants and processes to compel attendance of a witness and to carry into effect their
orders and judgments
 b. Issue warrant for apprehension and imprisonment of a person who refuses to perform an
order or judgment
 c. All other powers granted to them by law [Sec. 3, Rule 73].
B. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
General rule: The estate of the decedent should be judicially administered through an
administrator or executor.
Exceptions:
Law allows heirs to resort to
 1. Extrajudicial settlement of estate (decedent died intestate and left no debts) [Sec. 1, Rule
74]
 2. Summary settlement of estate (for estates of small value, when gross estate does not exceed
P10,000) [Sec. 2, Rule 74]
Recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has no debts is sanctioned
only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action for partition. Where
partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened with an
administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons [Sps. Villafria v. Plazo,
G.R. No. 187524 (2015)]
1. Extrajudicial Settlement by Agreement Between Heirs; When Allowed
Requisites
 a. Decedent died intestate
 b. Left no debts
 c. Heirs are all of age, or minors are represented by their legal or judicial representatives, and
 d. ALL heirs agree [Sec. 1, Rule 74]
Modes
a. If sole heir – Affidavit of Self-adjudication (of the whole estate)
b. If more than one heir –
 1. Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement is resorted to if there is no disagreement among the heirs
 2. If there is a disagreement, then they may resort to an action for partition (judicial)
Note: Both the Affidavit and the Deed are public instruments.
[Sec. 1, Rule 74]
The general rule is that when a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an
executor in his will or the executor so named is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails
to furnish the bond required by the Rules, then the decedent’s estate shall be
judicially administered and the competent court shall appoint a qualified administrator in
the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78. An exception to this rule is found in Sec. 1,
Rule 74 wherein the heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no debts due from his
estate, may divide the estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary action for partition
without submitting the same for judicial administration nor applying for the appointment
of an administrator by the court [Spouses Villafria v. Plazo, G.R. No. 187524 (2015)]
Where, in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate, heirs were excluded and minor heirs
were not properly represented, the settlement was not valid and binding upon them
[Neri v. Heirs of Spouses Yusop, G.R. No. 194366 (2012)]
Requirement of public instrument
No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be
valid. The requirement in Sec. 1, Rule 74 that a partition be put in a public document
and registered, has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the heirs themselves
against tardy claims. The requirement of Art. 1358 of the Civil Code is only for
convenience, noncompliance with which does not affect the validity or enforceability of
the acts of the parties as among themselves [Kilario v. CA, G.R. No. 134329 (2000)]
Note: The last sentence of the cited doctrine from Kilario implies that non-compliance
with Sec. 1, Rule 74 will be binding only as to the parties to the partition but not to non-
parties (e.g. creditors who did not know of the partition).
Procedure
Division of estate in a public instrument or affidavit of adjudication
↓
Filing of public instrument/affidavit with the proper Registry of Deeds and posting of a
bond if the estate has personal property (bond equivalent to amount of personal
property)
↓
Publication of notice of the fact of extrajudicial settlement once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice
to interested persons as the court may direct
The procedure outlined in Sec. 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly
states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial
settlement will not be bound thereby.
The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never
intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate [Benatiro v.
Heirs of Cuyos, G.R. No. 161220 (2008), citing Cua v. Vargas, G.R. No. 156536 (2006)]
Validity of compromise agreement
Such is valid, binding upon the parties as individuals, upon the perfection of the
contract, even without previous authority of the court to enter into such agreement
[Borja v. Vda. De Borja, G.R. No. L-28040 (1972)]
2. Two-Year Prescriptive Period
Heirs or other persons deprived of lawful participation in the estate may compel judicial
settlement of estate within 2 years from settlement and distribution [Sec. 1, Rule 74]
A lien shall be constituted on the real property of the estate and together with the bond,
it shall be liable to creditors, heirs or other persons for a full period of 2 years after such
distribution.
Such lien will not be cancelled before the lapse of two years even if a distributee offers
to post bond to answer for contingent claims [Rebong v. Ibanez, G.R. No. L-1578
(1947)]
Disputable presumption of no debt
It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for
letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent [Sec. 1,
Rule 74]
3. Affidavit of Self-Adjudication by Sole Heir
An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir of the
decedent. This is clear from the second sentence of Sec. 1, Rule 74 [Rebusquillo v.
Spouses Galvez, G.R. No. 204029 (2014)]
4. Summary Settlement of Estates of Small Value; When Allowed
When allowed
Whenever the gross value of estate of the decedent does not exceed P10,000
Procedural requirements
 a. Petition by an interested person alleging fact that estate does exceed P10,000
 b. Notice
 1. Published once a week for 3 consecutive weeks
 2. In a newspaper of general circulation in the province
 c. Other notice to interested persons as the court may direct
 d. Hearing
 1. Held not less than 1 month nor more than 3 months
 2. Counted from the date of the last publication of notice [Sec. 2, Rule 74]
 e. Bond in an amount to be fixed by court if personal property is to be distributed [Sec. 3,
Rule 74]
Upon fulfillment of the requisites, the court may proceed summarily without the appointment of
an executor/administrator and without delay –
 a. to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if there be any
 b. to determine who are persons legally entitled to participate in the estate, and
 c. to apportion and divide the estate among them after the payment of such debts of the estate
The persons legally entitled to participate in the estate,
 a. in their own right, if of lawful age, or
 b. if otherwise, by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified,
will be entitled to receive and enter into possession of the portions of the estate so
awarded to them respectively [Sec. 2, Rule 74]
Procedure
Death of the decedent
↓
Petition for summary settlement with allegation that the gross value of the estate does
not exceed P10,000
↓
Publication of notice once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province
↓
Giving of such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct
↓
Hearing held not less than 1 month nor more than 3 months from the date of the last
publication of notice
↓
Court to proceed summarily, without appointing an executor/administrator, and to
a. Grant allowance of will, if any
 (2) Determine persons entitled to estate
 (3) Pay debts of estate which are due
↓
Filing of bond when required by the court [Sec. 3, Rule 74]
↓
Partition of estate

Extrajudicial settlement Summary settlement

Court intervention not required Summary judicial adjudication needed

Decedent left no will (allowed only Decedent may or may not have left a will (died
in intestate succession) intestate/testate)

Decedent left no debts Decedent may have left debts

Heirs are all of age or minors are

No such requirement
represented

Instituted only at the instance and May be instituted by any interested party even by a
by agreement of all heirs creditor without consent of the heirs

Value of the estate is immaterial Gross value of the estate must not exceed P10,000

Bond filed with the Register of Deeds in an amount equal to the value of the personal
property of the estate
Bond filed with and amount to be determined by the court
Where the contention that the decedent’s estate is less than P5,000 rests on a
controversial basis and no evidence was adduced to ascertain the actual value of the
estate, the probate court is not precluded from proceeding with the intestate
proceedings [Intestate Estate of Sebial v. Sebial, G.R. No. L-23419 (1975)]
5. Remedies of Aggrieved Parties after Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
Within reglementary period of TWO YEARS
 a. Claim on the bond for personal properties [Sec. 4, Rule 74]
 b. Claim on lien on real property, notwithstanding any transfers of real property that may
have been made [Sec. 4, Rule 74]
 c. Judicial settlement of estate [Sec. 4, Rule 74]
 d. Action to annul settlement (fraud [4 years] or implied trust [10 years])
When applicable
If it shall appear at any time within 2 years after the settlement and distribution of an
estate that an heir or other person
 a. has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate
 1. He shall have a right to compel the settlement of the estate in the courts for the purpose of
satisfying such lawful participation.
 2. If annulment on the ground of fraud, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust must be filed within 10 years from accrual of the cause of action [Amerol v.
Bagumbaran, G.R. No. L-33261 (1987); Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380
(2014)]
 b. has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having
jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing
 c. settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation, and
 d. may issue execution against the bond or against the real estate belonging to the deceased,
or both [Sec. 4, Rule 74]
When not applicable
 a. To persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition
 b. When the provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly complied with (all persons or
heirs of the decedent have taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by
themselves or through guardians)
The buyer of real property the title of which contains an annotation pursuant to Sec. 4,
Rule 74 cannot be considered innocent purchasers for value [David v. Malay, G.R. No.
132644 (1999)]. The foregoing rule clearly covers transfers of real property to any
person, as long as the deprived heir or creditor vindicates his rights within two years
from the date of the settlement and distribution of estate. The effects of this provision
are not limited to the heirs or original distributees of the estate properties, but shall
affect any transferee of the properties [Spouses Domingo v. Roces, G.R. No. 147468
(2003)]
Additional period for claim of minor or incapacitated person
If on the date of the expiration of the period of 2 years after the settlement or distribution
of an estate, the person authorized to file a claim is
 a. a minor or mentally incapacitated
 b. in prison, or
 c. outside Philippines, he may present his claim within 1 year after such disability is removed
[Sec. 5, Rule 74].
Within the reglementary period, the judge of a probate court has the power to reopen
estate proceedings even after the issuance of an order approving a project of partition
and closing the proceedings. Rather than requiring an allegedly preterited party to air
his grievances in a separate and independent proceeding, he may, within the
reglementary period, claim his relief sought in the same case by reopening the same
even after a project of partition and final accounting had been approved. [Jerez v.
Nietes, G.R. No. L-26876 (1969)]
Even if the original motion did not afford legal standing to the three legitimate minor
children, under Sec. 5, Rule 74, such motion may be lodged with the court within one
year after the minors have reached majority [In Re: Francisco v. Carreon, G.R. No. L-
5033 (1954)]
OTHER REMEDIES
 a. Action for reconveyance of real property – based on an implied trust, reckoned 10 years
from issuance of title [Marquez v. CA, G.R. No. 125715 (1998)]
 b. Rescission – in case of preterition of compulsory heir in partition tainted with bad faith
[Art. 1104, NCC]
 c. Petition for relief – on ground of fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence. Within 60
days after petitioner learns of judgment or final order, or other proceedings to be set aside, and
not more than 6 months after such judgment or order is entered or taken [Rule 38]