Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23135)
Factual Background
Hilarion Ramagosa executed a Tagalog-language will on February 26, 1949, appointing Mariano Sumilang sole heir. The testator died December 1, 1959. On July 5, 1960, Sumilang petitioned the Court of First Instance of Quezon for probate of that will. Two sets of oppositors contested the petition, alleging duress in execution and claiming that the will had been implicitly revoked by the testator’s subsequent sale of the devised lands.
Procedural History
After Sumilang presented his evidence and rested on February 16, 1961, the court scheduled oppositors’ proofs for July 14, 1961. On July 3, 1961, oppositors moved to dismiss the probate petition, contending that the will had been implicitly revoked because the testator had sold the properties bequeathed therein. Sumilang opposed and later moved (October 22, 1962) to strike oppositors’ pleadings for lack of legal standing and absence of any valid interest in the estate.
Lower Court Ruling
On October 18, 1963, the trial court denied oppositors’ motion to dismiss, finding their revocation theory irrelevant to the will’s extrinsic validity. It granted Sumilang’s motion to strike oppositors’ pleadings, concluding they were strangers to the decedent (no relationship within the fifth degree) and thus lacked personality to litigate the probate proceeding.
Scope of Probate Proceedings
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that probate proceedings determine only a will’s extrinsic validity—namely, testamentary capacity and compliance with formal solemnities. Questions of descent, distribution or intrinsic efficacy of the will’s provisions lie outside probate and must await separate proceedings.
Implied Revocation Argument
The Court held that an implied revocation by subsequent conveyance of devised property is immaterial to the grant or denial of probate. If a will is not probated, revocation questions are moot; if revoked, only the particular devise would fail, not the document’s formal validity. Thus, the trial court properly refused to dismiss the petition on revocation grounds.
Standing of Oppositors-Appellants
Citing settled jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that only those with an interest in the estate or will (heirs, devisee
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23135)
Relevant Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court Decision reported at 129 Phil. 636
- G.R. No. L-23135, promulgated December 26, 1967
- Petitioner (Mariano Sumilang) appealed an order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon
- The CFI had denied oppositors’ motion to dismiss the probate petition and struck out their pleadings for lack of standing
Factual Background
- Hilarion Ramagosa died on December 1, 1959
- A document in Tagalog, dated February 26, 1949, purported to be his last will and testament
- The will named Mariano Sumilang as sole heir
- Two groups opposed probate:
- Saturnina and Santiago Ramagosa claimed duress and asserted their own hereditary rights
- Enrique Pabella, Liceria Pabella, and Andrea Ravalo styled themselves “next of kin” and prayed only for disallowance
Proceedings in the Court of First Instance
- July 5, 1960: Petition for probate filed by Sumilang
- Petitioner presented evidence and rested on February 16, 1961
- Opposition evidence was set for July 14, 1961
- July 3, 1961: Oppositors moved to dismiss, alleging:
- Lack of jurisdiction because the will was implicitly revoked six years before testator’s death
- Testator sold the described lands to petitioner and his brother Mario, so no devise remained
- Petitioner filed oppositions on July 17 and August 14, 1961, plus a rejoinder on August 21, 1961
- October 22, 1962: Petitioner moved to strike out oppositors’ pleadings, arguing:
- Oppositors lacked legal standing and personality to oppose probate
- They had no valid claim or interest in th