Case Digest (G.R. No. 76464)
Facts:
Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto, Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Purificacion Miraflor, Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Asilo de Molo v. Court of Appeals, Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto, G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arises from the death of Adriana Maloto on October 20, 1963. Her alleged heirs—Aldina Maloto‑Casiano and Constancio Maloto (petitioners) and Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto (private respondents)—initiated an intestate settlement in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo as Special Proceeding No. 1736, believing Adriana left no will. While that proceeding was pending, on February 1, 1964 the four executed an extrajudicial settlement dividing the estate into four equal parts; the CFI approved that settlement on March 21, 1964.
In March 1967 an attorney, Sulpicio Palma, produced a purported original will dated January 3, 1940, which he said he found among materials of the late counsel Atty. Eliseo Hervas; the document was submitted to the CFI clerk on April 1, 1967. The will favored Aldina and Constancio with larger shares and also bequeathed properties to other petitioners including Purificacion Miraflor, Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Asilo de Molo; Panfilo and Felino were still named heirs but with smaller shares.
On May 24, 1967 the proponents of the will (Aldina and Constancio joined by the other devisees and legatees) moved in Special Proceeding No. 1736 to reconsider and annul the intestate proceedings and to allow the will; the trial court denied the motion. The petitioners sought relief in this Court in G.R. No. L‑30479 by certiorari and mandamus, but that petition was dismissed with the advice that a separate probate proceeding be filed. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed Special Proceeding No. 2176 in the CFI for the probate of the will, opposed by Panfilo and Felino. The trial court dismissed the probate petition on April 30, 1970. The petitioners then sought this Court’s review in G.R. No. L‑32328; this Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for hearing on the merits.
After trial the CFI found the will had been revoked by the testatrix and denied probate; the petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (Court of Appeals). On June 7, 1985 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the will had been effectively revoked (finding animus revocandi based on all...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the action for probate of Adriana Maloto’s alleged will barred by res judicata because of the prior intestate settlement and related orders in Special Proceeding No. 1736?
- Was Adriana Maloto’s alleged will effectively revoked by burning (or other destructive act) such that probate must be denied under Art. 830...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)