Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 411 views

    Juan Palacios vs. Maria Catimbang Palacios (1959)

    Uploaded by

    Kim Guevarra
    Juan Palacios executed a will in 1946 leaving his estate to his two natural children. In 1956, he petitioned the court to approve the will. Maria Catimbang opposed the petition, alleging she was Juan's acknowledged natural daughter but was excluded from the will. The trial court approved the will but found Maria was a natural child and annulled the will as it impaired her legitime share. Juan appealed. The Supreme Court held that Maria's opposition could not be entertained in the probate proceeding, as its sole purpose was to determine if the will was validly executed according to law. Questions over the will's provisions could only be raised after Juan's death in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Juan Palacios vs. Maria Catimbang Palacios (1959)

    Uploaded by

    Kim Guevarra
    411 views2 pages
    Juan Palacios executed a will in 1946 leaving his estate to his two natural children. In 1956, he petitioned the court to approve the will. Maria Catimbang opposed the petition, alleging she was Juan's acknowledged natural daughter but was excluded from the will. The trial court approved the will but found Maria was a natural child and annulled the will as it impaired her legitime share. Juan appealed. The Supreme Court held that Maria's opposition could not be entertained in the probate proceeding, as its sole purpose was to determine if the will was validly executed according to law. Questions over the will's provisions could only be raised after Juan's death in a separate case.

    Original Description:

    SpecPro Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Juan Palacios executed a will in 1946 leaving his estate to his two natural children. In 1956, he petitioned the court to approve the will. Maria Catimbang opposed the petition, alleging she was Juan's acknowledged natural daughter but was excluded from the will. The trial court approved the will but found Maria was a natural child and annulled the will as it impaired her legitime share. Juan appealed. The Supreme Court held that Maria's opposition could not be entertained in the probate proceeding, as its sole purpose was to determine if the will was validly executed according to law. Questions over the will's provisions could only be raised after Juan's death in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    411 views2 pages

    Juan Palacios vs. Maria Catimbang Palacios (1959)

    Uploaded by

    Kim Guevarra
    Juan Palacios executed a will in 1946 leaving his estate to his two natural children. In 1956, he petitioned the court to approve the will. Maria Catimbang opposed the petition, alleging she was Juan's acknowledged natural daughter but was excluded from the will. The trial court approved the will but found Maria was a natural child and annulled the will as it impaired her legitime share. Juan appealed. The Supreme Court held that Maria's opposition could not be entertained in the probate proceeding, as its sole purpose was to determine if the will was validly executed according to law. Questions over the will's provisions could only be raised after Juan's death in a separate case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE TITLE: Juan Palacios vs.

    Maria Catimbang Palacios


    CASE #: G.R. No. L-12207
    DATE: December 24, 1959
    PONENTE: Bautista Angelo, J.
    NATURE: Petition for approval of last will and testament.
    DOCTRINE: When the testator himself probates his own will, its purpose is merely to determine
    if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the law; therefore, no
    opposition can be entertained in the proceeding.
    FACTS:
    Juan Palacios executed his last will and testament on June 25, 1946. He filed on May 23, 1956
    before the CFI of Batangas a petition for its approval and he instituted as his sole heirs his
    natural children Antonio and Andrea C. Palacios.
    On June 21, 1956, one Maria Catimbang filed an opposition to the probate of the will alleging
    that she is the acknowledged, natural daughter of the petitioner but she was completely ignored,
    impairing her legitime.
    On July 6, 1956, the court issued an order admitting the will to probate. Another date was set for
    the hearing of the opposition relative to the intrinsic validity of the will, and after propert hereing,
    the court issued another order declaring oppositor to be the natural child of the petitioner,
    therefore annulling the will insofar as it impairs her legitime, with costs against the petitioner.
    Because of the said order, petitioner gave notice of his intention to appeal directly to the SC
    hence this case.
    ISSUES: WON the opposition of Maria Catimbang will prosper?
    HELD: No. Such opposition cannot be entertained in this proceeding because its only purpose
    is merely to determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the
    law. If the purpose of the opposition is to show that the oppositor is an acknowledged natural
    child who allegedly has been ignored in the will for issue, cannot be raised here but in a
    separate action especially so when the testator is still alive and has merely filed a petition for the
    allowance of his will leaving the effects thereof after his death.
    This is in line with our ruling in Montaano vs. Suesa, 14 Phil., 676, wherein we said: "The
    authentication of the will decides no other questions than such as touch upon the capacity of the
    testator and the compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the
    validity of a will. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency
    of the provisions; that may be impugned as being vicious or null, notwithstanding its
    authentication. The questions relating to these points remain entirely un-affected, and may be
    raised even after the will has been authenticated."
    On the other hand, "after a will has been probated during the lifetime of a testator, it does not
    necessarily mean that he cannot alter or revoke the same before he has had a chance to
    present such petition, the ordinary probate proceedings after the testator's death would be in
    order" (Report of the Code Commission, pp. 53-54).The reason for this comment is that the
    rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article
    777, new Civil Code.).

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy