Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41171)
Facts:
Inestate Estate of the Late Vito Borromeo, Patrocinio Borromeo‑Herrera, Petitioner, vs. Fortunato Borromeo and Hon. Francisco P. Burgos, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch II; G.R. No. L‑41171; G.R. Nos. 55000, 62895, 63818, 65995; July 23, 1987; Supreme Court Third Division; Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from Special Proceedings No. 916‑R in the then Court of First Instance of Cebu concerning the estate of Vito Borromeo, who died on March 13, 1952, a widower without issue and owning extensive properties in Cebu. A one‑page document offered for probate in April 1952 purporting to be his last will was tried and the probate court found it forged on May 28, 1960; that disallowance was affirmed by this Court in Testate Estate of Vito Borromeo (19 SCRA 656). The matter thereafter proceeded as intestate administration (SP No. 916‑R).
Multiple petitions for declaration of heirs were filed between 1967 and 1968 by various descendants and relatives of Maximo Borromeo and Hermenegilda Galan (Vito’s parents). After joint hearings the trial court, invoking Art. 972 of the Civil Code, on April 10, 1969 declared nine persons as the intestate heirs and grouped the estate shares into 4/9 and 5/9 parts. The heirs (except Patrocinio B. Herrera) executed an Agreement of Partition on April 21 and 30, 1969, which the trial court approved on August 15, 1969; the court ordered the administrator to partition and also directed a segregation of 40% of the market value of the 4/9 and 5/9 shares to cover attorneys’ fees.
On August 25, 1972, Fortunato Borromeo (respondent) filed a motion asserting he was an illegitimate son of Vito and thus a forced heir; later he relied on a purported Waiver of Hereditary Rights dated July 31, 1967, allegedly signed by several declared heirs assigning their hereditary rights to him. The trial court, after hearing, concluded on December 24, 1974 that the five signatories of the waiver had lost their rights and declared Fortunato entitled to 5/9 of the estate. A motion for reconsideration was denied July 7, 1975.
Multiple proceedings ensued. Petitioners (various declared heirs and administrators) attacked the December 24, 1974 ruling as void and contended the waiver was ineffective because executed before a valid acceptance or declaration of heirs; they also questioned the probate court’s jurisdiction over such a waiver and the propriety of segregating 40% of the estate for attorneys’ fees. Separate petitions reached appellate courts on different procedural grounds: (a) G.R. No. 55000 involved certification by the Court of Appeals on questions of law from an appeal; (b) G.R. No. 62895 arose from a denied petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel Judge Francisco P. Burgos to close the estate administration; (c) G.R. No. 63818 challenged the denial of a m...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the probate court have jurisdiction to act on the purported waiver of hereditary rights and declare Fortunato Borromeo entitled to 5/9 of the estate?
- Was the July 31, 1967 "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" valid and effective to transfer the heirs’ rights to Fortunato Borromeo?
- Was the disqualification/inhibition of Judge Francisco P. Burgos by the Intermediate Appellate Court proper, and is that issue now moot?
- Should the trial court’s order segregating 40% of the estate’s market value for attorneys’ fees be sustained, or...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)