Title
Maloles II vs. Pacita de los Reyes Phillips
Case
G.R. No. 129505
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2000
Dr. Arturo de Santos' will probate contested by nephew Octavio Maloles II, claiming creditor status. Courts ruled no intervention rights, upheld executrix Pacita Phillips' appointment, dismissed forum shopping claims, affirmed jurisdiction split between RTC branches.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129505)

Petitioner

Octavio S. Maloles II, sole full-blooded nephew and alleged creditor of Dr. Arturo de Santos, seeking to intervene in the estate settlement and obtain letters of administration.

Respondent

Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, named executrix in the will of Dr. De Santos, petitioning for letters testamentary; Court of Appeals and RTC branches as respondents in certiorari petitions.

Key Dates

• July 20, 1995: Dr. De Santos files petition for allowance of his will (Sp. Proc. No. M-4223, Branch 61).
• February 16, 1996: RTC Branch 61 allows the will.
• February 26, 1996: Testator’s death.
• April 3, 1996: Maloles files motion to intervene.
• June 28, 1996: Branch 65 appoints respondent as special administrator in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343.
• August 26–28, 1996: Branch 61 denies intervention; Branch 65 transfers case to Branch 61.
• September–October 1996: Jurisdictional tug between Branch 61 and Branch 65.
• November 4, 1996: Branch 65 grants intervention; later set aside by CA (Feb 26, 1997); CA also upholds denial of intervention in M-4223 (Feb 13, 1998).
• January 31, 2000: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial power vested in courts); B.P. Blg. 129 (RTC jurisdiction thresholds); Civil Code Arts. 838 (probate during lifetime), 842 (testamentary freedom), 887 (executor’s capacity); Rules of Court Rules 73 (venue in estate settlement), 76 (allowance of wills), 78 (letters testamentary), 79 (opposition to letters testamentary).

Procedural History

Dr. De Santos, having no compulsory heirs, petitioned during his lifetime for allowance of his will naming the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. as sole devisee and Pacita Phillips as executrix. Branch 61 conducted a hearing, found the will valid, and issued an order allowing it. After the testator’s death, Phillips withdrew her letters-testamentary motion in Branch 61 and filed anew in Branch 65. Maloles moved to intervene in both proceedings; Branch 61 denied intervention. Branch 65 initially transferred the case back to Branch 61 but then retained cognizance and granted Maloles’s intervention, later reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Issues

  1. Did RTC-Makati Branch 61 lose jurisdiction after allowing the will?
  2. Did Branch 65 validly acquire jurisdiction over the petition for letters testamentary?
  3. Does Maloles, as nearest kin and creditor, have a right to intervene?
  4. Did Phillips engage in forum shopping?

Jurisdiction of RTC-Makati Branch 61

• Allowance of a will under Art. 838 and Rule 76 terminates probate proceedings save for issuance of the certificate of allowance (Rule 73).
• After allowance during lifetime, further estate settlement waits until testator’s death; petitioner should have manifested for letters testamentary rather than file a new petition.
• Branch 61 retained exclusive authority to issue the certificate of allowance but no longer handled letters testamentary.

Jurisdiction of RTC-Makati Branch 65

• Venue provisions (Rule 73) govern convenience, not subject-matter jurisdiction.
• All RTC branches within Makati constitute one court; jurisdiction vests in the court, not individual branches.
• Under B.P. Blg. 129, RTCs handle estates above threshold values; any branch may hear related petitions upon proper allocation or transfer orders.
• Branch 65 validly assumed jurisdiction over Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 to issue letters testamentary.

Right to Intervene and Oppose Letters Testamentary

• Rule 79 allows “interested persons” (those with direct, material interest such as heirs or creditors) to oppose issuance of letters testamentary.
• Maloles, as a collateral nephew, is not a compulsory heir under Civil Code Art. 842 and cannot inherit while the will disposes of the entire estate.
• His belated creditor claim lack



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.