Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

          The facts show that on June 27, 1987, Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will naming as his heirs his only son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted daughter, private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and his three granddaughters, private respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline, all children of Edmond Ruiz.

 

          The testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, personal and real properties and named Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate.

 

         On April 12, 1988, Hilario Ruiz died. And immediately thereafter the estate of Hilario Ruiz was distributed in accordance with his will. Then Edmond Ruiz as the executor do nothing in accordance with the holographic will of his father Hilario Ruiz.

 

          Then Four (4) years after the death of Hilario Ruiz, private respondent Pilar Ruiz filed a petition for the probate of will of the decedent but Edmond Ruiz opposed the same on the ground that the said will was executed under undue influence. Then the properties of the estate was leased by Edmond Ruiz to third person specifically a house and lot.

 

         Then the probate court order Edmond Ruiz to deposit the One (1) year rental of the said estate to the court, the total value of the rental paid was P540,000.00 but he only deposited P348,583.56 the deficiency of the amount deposited was for the maintenance and repair of the estate. Then Edmond Ruiz move for the release of fund for the amount of Fifity Thousand (Php 50,000.00) pesos for the payment of Real Estate Tax but the court only released a 7,722 pesos.

 

          After some years, Edmond Ruiz withdrew his opposition to the probate of will of his father. Then the trial court admitted to probate the will and issued letters of testamentary to Edmond Ruiz with condition of filing fifty thousand (Php. 50,000) pesos Bond.

 

          After sometimes, Edmond Ruiz filed an “Ex-Parte Motion for the Release of Fund” he prayed for the release of the deposited rental payment but  it was opposed by Pilar Ruiz Montes, the respondent, and concurrently filed a "Motion for Release of Funds to Certain Heirs" and "Motion for Issuance of Certificate of Allowance of Probate Will." In favour of the Three (3) respondents Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline the Valle Verde Property and the Blue Ridge Apartment.

 

          Then the probate court granted the motion of Edmond Ruiz but it is only limited to "such amount as may be necessary to cover the expenses of administration and allowances for support" and also the probate court granted the possession and released of title of the bequeathed property in accordance with the holographic will.

 

ISSUE:

          Whether or not the probate court, after admitting the will to probate but before payment of the estate's debts and obligations, has the authority to grant possession and released of title of the bequeathed property in accordance with the holographic will.

 

RULINGS:

The court ruled in the negative

 

Under Rule 90:

 

             Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. — When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.

 

          No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above-mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.

 

           In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties can only be made:

        (1) after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; or

         (2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations.

 

        In the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release of the titles to the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of six months from the date of first publication of the notice to creditors. The estate tax is one of those obligations that must be paid before distribution of the estate. If not yet paid, the rule requires that the distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said tax obligation in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance. Notably, at the time the order was issued the properties of the estate had not yet been inventoried and appraised.

 

        It was also too early in the day for the probate court to order the release of the titles six months after admitting the will to probate. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution and extrinsic validity and settles only the question of whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed it in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. Questions as to the intrinsic validity and efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or legacy may be raised even after the will has been authenticated.