Facts:

In the case of In the Matter of the Testate Estate of the Late Agustin del Valle, G.R. No. L-11609, petitioner Antonia Ventura appeals an order from the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, dated September 24, 1959, which dismissed her petition for the probate of her deceased husband Agustin del Valle's will. Agustin del Valle passed away on May 19, 1955, in Paniqui, Tarlac. Following his death, Antonia filed Special Proceedings No. 912 on June 7, 1955, seeking to probate a document she claimed was his last will. The court scheduled a hearing, and on July 15, 1955, Antonia indicated that the heirs named in the will had agreed on how to partition the deceased's estate and sought to terminate the proceedings. The court consented to this, provided Antonia submitted a signed copy of the partition deed, which she did within the two-day deadline. Consequently, the court ordered the proceedings to be closed, finalized, and archived on June 19, 1955.

However, on May 9, 1956, Anton

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Petitioner: Antonia Ventura, the widow of Agustin del Valle, who died on May 19, 1955, in Paniqui, Tarlac.
• Appellees: Maura Ventura, Milagros P. Ventura, Deogracias P. Ventura, and Jacinta P. Ventura, who are relatives and, as argued, beneficiaries under the will and subsequent partition arrangements.

Initial Proceedings and Extra-Judicial Partition

• Shortly after the death of Agustin del Valle, on or about June 7, 1955, Antonia Ventura instituted Special Proceedings No. 912 in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with a petition for the probate of a document claimed to be the last will and testament of her deceased husband.
• On July 15, 1955, prior to the hearing, petitioner filed a motion stating that all heirs named in the will had agreed to an extra-judicial partition of the estate in accordance with its provisions.
• The court, on the same day, accepted the motion subject to the submission of a signed copy of the extra-judicial partition deed within two days.
• After compliance, the court ordered that Special Proceedings No. 912 be “terminated, closed, and archived” by an order dated June 19, 1955.

Subsequent Petition and Motion to Dismiss

• On May 9, 1956, Antonia Ventura filed a new petition for the probate of the alleged last will and testament, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 970.
• At the hearing set on June 22, 1956, appellees moved to dismiss pursuant to the argument that the new petition was merely an attempt to reopen the previously terminated Special Proceedings No. 912.
• They contended that since the estate had already been partitioned extra-judicially and the previous proceedings were definitively closed, the present petition was unnecessary and superfluous.
• The lower court granted the motion to dismiss, basing its ruling on the notion that it no longer possessed jurisdiction because reopening closed proceedings would contradict the final closure order of Special Proceedings No. 912.

Procedural and Legal Context

• The lower court’s decision leaned on the assertion that the earlier order “terminated, closed and archived” the proceedings, rendering any subsequent petition redundant.
• Appellees argued, supported by prior jurisprudence, that an extra-judicial partition, once approved, transforms into a judicial partition, thus precluding the need for probate of the will.
• However, it was noted that the extra-judicial partition in this case had not been judicially approved (i.e., still referenced as “extra-judicial”), thereby raising the question of whether probate was legitimately dispensed with.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of Special Proceedings No. 970 on the ground that it was an attempt to reopen Special Proceedings No. 912 was legally tenable.

• Does the closure order of the initial proceedings constitute a res judicata effect or bar a subsequent petition for probate?
• Is the previous extra-judicial partition, lacking judicial transformation, sufficient to dispense with the probate requirement?

Whether the application of procedural rules, particularly Rule 30 (Section 1) and Rule 73 (Section 2) of the Rules of Court, mandates the court to entertain the petition for probate despite the previous termination order.

• Is the dismissal order by the lower court invalid because it misinterpreted the “without prejudice” nature of the earlier order?
• Is the court duty-bound to give effect to the mandatory probate of a will, in light of public policy safeguarding the testator’s intent and the rights of heirs?

• Whether the public policy considerations and statutory requisites governing the probate of wills require a determination on the status of the deceased’s will, notwithstanding the existence of an extra-judicial partition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)