Scribd
Upload
180 views1 page

Probate Court Intervention Rights

- Domingo Florentino died in 1924 leaving an estate worth over P300,000. Jose Villanueva was named executor. - Roberta de Leon claimed she had lived with Florentino since 1888 and they had a partnership worth P1,000 each. She sued to be declared owner of half the estate. - De Leon alleged the executor undervalued the estate. The court ordered the executor to explain missing jewelry and tobacco from the inventory. - The issue was whether an alleged partner has interest to participate in approving accounts. The court ruled yes, finding it the duty of probate courts to scrutinize accounts and right of all creditors/distributees to contest them.

Uploaded by

Christine Montefalcon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
180 views1 page

Probate Court Intervention Rights

- Domingo Florentino died in 1924 leaving an estate worth over P300,000. Jose Villanueva was named executor. - Roberta de Leon claimed she had lived with Florentino since 1888 and they had a partnership worth P1,000 each. She sued to be declared owner of half the estate. - De Leon alleged the executor undervalued the estate. The court ordered the executor to explain missing jewelry and tobacco from the inventory. - The issue was whether an alleged partner has interest to participate in approving accounts. The court ruled yes, finding it the duty of probate courts to scrutinize accounts and right of all creditors/distributees to contest them.

Uploaded by

Christine Montefalcon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Montefalcon, Christine B.

3D

G.R. No. L-23726 – Villanueva vs. De Leon

FACTS:

Domingo Florentino died at Vigan, Ilocos Sur, on Jan. 16, 1924, leaving a considerable estate.
Shortly thereafter, the will of the late Florentino was admitted to probate and Jose Villanueva was named
executor. Villanueva qualified as executor by filing the necessary bond in the amount of P20,000. He was
granted the usual letters of administration. In the meantime, one Roberta de Leon had presented a motion
in which she prayed in effect that the court allow her to intervene in the proceedings. She alleged that she
and the deceased Florentino had been living together as husband and wife since 1888; that in that year
they formed a partnership to which each contributed P1,000 for the purpose of engaging in business; and
that the partnership was dissolved by the death of Florentino without having any liquidation. This motion
was denied by Judge Quintero as improper. In accordance with the suggestion of the court, Roberta de
Leon did in fact bring suit against Villanueva, in which she asked that she be declared the owner of ½ of
the property left by Florentino. Later, De Leon filed another motion alleging that the executor had made it
appear that the property of the deceased was worth only P50,000, whereas the same was valued at over
P300,000. Specific mention was made by her of jewelry and tobacco leaf. Accordingly, movant prayed
the court to order the executor to correct the inventory to the end that the true amount should appear in the
same. On October 31, 1924, Judge Mariano issued an order commanding the executor within 3 days to
give reasons under oath why the jewels referred to in one of De Leon's motions, should not be included in
the inventory, and to explain what had been done with the tobacco leaf. In the same order, the court ruled
that De Leon had the right to intervene in the settlement of the accounts. The contents of this order were
objected to by counsel for the executor and steps taken to perfect an appeal. In turn, counsel for De Leon
entered opposition on the ground that the executor had no right of appeal. The court admitted the appeal
in so far as it related to the right of De Leon to intervene, but denied the appeal in so far as it related to the
first order to the executor.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not an alleged partner of a deceased person has such interest in the estate of the
deceased as to allow her to take part in the approval of the accounts

RULING:

Yes. The action taken by the trial judge was correct and is affirmed. It is the duty of the probate
court to scrutinize carefully the accounts of executors and administrators and to correct all errors founded
in law or fact. It is the right of all the creditors and distributees of the estate to be present and, if so
disposed, to contest the account of the executor or administrator. Only a prima facie right at the time of
filing the petition is sufficient to entitle the applicant to intervene in the accounts of the executor or
administrator. It is for the trial court to determine whether the person seeking to participate in the
proceedings is a person interested within the meaning of the law, or is merely an intruder who should be
excluded from any further participation. The determination of this question must necessarily be largely
discretionary in the trial court. Any doubt as to the interest of the petitioner ought, however, to be
resolved in favor of the petitioner, and any doubt arising in the appellate court ought to be resolved in
favor of the action taken by the trial judge. Administrators and executors instead of opposing the
intervention of interested parties should welcome the participation of the same for their own protection.

You might also like