Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26615)
Facts:
Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia, Antonio Jesus de Praga, Maria Natividad de Jesus and Dr. Jaime Rosario v. Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez, et al., G.R. No. L-26615; G.R. No. L-26864; G.R. No. L-27200, April 30, 1970, The Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from the estate of Gliceria Avelino del Rosario, who died on September 2, 1965, leaving no descendants, ascendants, brothers or sisters and owning principally real property. During her lifetime two wills were shown: one dated June 9, 1956 (12 pages, in Spanish), and another dated December 29, 1960 (one page, in Tagalog). On September 17, 1965 Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla petitioned the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila to probate the 1960 instrument and asked to be appointed special administratrix pending regular administration.
Several groups of alleged heirs and legatees (including Rev. Fr. Lucio V. Garcia, Dr. Jaime Rosario and children, Antonio Jesus de Praga and Maria Natividad de Jesus, and multiple Narciso and Mauricio relatives) opposed probate and opposed appointment on grounds that the 1960 instrument was not the testatrix’s true will, that it was procured by undue influence and that formalities were irregular. After hearing, the probate court on October 2, 1965 appointed Consuelo Precilla special administratrix (bond P30,000) and later on August 25, 1966 admitted the 1960 will to probate and appointed her regular administratrix (bond P50,000); from that probate order the oppositors appealed to the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. L-27200).
During the proceedings oppositors filed several motions in the probate court: (a) an urgent motion (filed Sept. 30, 1965) to require the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank to report withdrawals from the decedent’s account (denied Oct. 22, 1965 as premature); (b) a petition (Dec. 14, 1965) to remove Consuelo Precilla as special administratrix alleging conflict of interest because her husband, Alfonso Precilla, allegedly received by a deed of sale (Jan. 10, 1961) three parcels of land of the decedent for an unconscionably small price; and (c) a motion (Dec. 17, 1965) to require deposit of certificates of title. The probate court denied removal (Sept. 13, 1966), reasoning the contested properties were no longer part of the estate and the dispute was among claimants rather than between estate and third parties; it also denied the motion to deposit titles. Those denials prompted two mandamus petitions directly to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. L-26615 and L-26864): L-26615 sought an order removing the special administratrix and appointing another; L-26864 sought an order compelling the Register of Deeds to annotate lis pendens on certain Torrens titles.
The factual record in probate showed the 1960 will was prepared and witnessed at the instance of Alfonso Precilla, who brought witnesses and residence certificates; the will’s text contained typographical and spelling errors and was densely crowded on the single page. Medical evidence from ophthalmologist Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis established that by August 1960 the decedent’s left eye had undergone cataract surgery and both eyes’ vision remained essentially for distance, not for near reading (right eye best corrected about 20/60 for distance; left eye poor, “counting fingers” at five feet). Witnesses testified the testatrix “read the instrument silently” before signing; oppositors disputed her ability to read the testament. It was also shown that new duplicates of certain owner’s duplicate certificates in the name of the decedent were issued on November 15, 1965 and that certificates in question were later cancelled and new titles (TCT Nos. 81735, 81736, 81737) were issued in the name of Alfonso Precilla, married to Consuelo Gonzales y Narciso.
The probate court concluded the 1960 will had been duly executed and that the oppositors had n...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of First Instance correct in admitting to probate the alleged December 29, 1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario?
- Did the probate court err in denying the oppositors’ petition to remove Consuelo Gonzales Vda. de Precilla as special administratrix for conflict of interest?
- Was the Register of Deeds required to annotate a notice of lis pendens on TCT Nos. 81735, 81736 and 81737 based on the mandamus ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)