Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

De Aranz v. CA

This case discusses the requirements for notice under Rule 76 of the Rules of Court regarding the allowance or disallowance of a will. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that personal notice to known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement for probating a will. Under Section 4 of Rule 76, notice must be sent personally to known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their known addresses. Even though the probate court knew the petitioners' addresses, it only published notice of the hearing and did not send personal notice. This failed to satisfy the notice requirement under the law. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Gain Dee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

De Aranz v. CA

This case discusses the requirements for notice under Rule 76 of the Rules of Court regarding the allowance or disallowance of a will. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that personal notice to known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement for probating a will. Under Section 4 of Rule 76, notice must be sent personally to known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their known addresses. Even though the probate court knew the petitioners' addresses, it only published notice of the hearing and did not send personal notice. This failed to satisfy the notice requirement under the law. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Gain Dee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SPECPRO Digest by M.

Dizon
Rule 76 – Allowance or Disallowance of a Will
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
De Aranz v. CA
G.R. No. 77047 | May 28, 1988 | Padilla, J.

Parties:

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

Joaquina R-Infante De Aranz Judge Nicolas Galing, RTC

Antonio, Carlos, Alfredo, Teresita, Ramon, Martin, Joaquin R-Infante


all surnamed R-Infante

Mercedes R-Infante De Lednicky, Florencia R-


Infante De Dias, Jose R-Infante Link, Joaquin R-
Infante Campbell

Doctrine:
Under Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the ROC, notice of the time and place of the hearing for the allowance of a
will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees and devisees residing in the
Philippines at their place of residences, if these places of residences are known. If the places of residences
are unknown, individual notice upon them is not necessary.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
• Joaquin filed a petition for the probate and allowance of the last will and testament of the late
Montserrat R-Infanta y G-Pola with the RTC. The petition specified the names and addresses of the
petitioners as legatees and devisees. The probate court set the petition for hearing on May 5, 1986
at 8:30AM, an order which was published in the “Nueva Era” newspaper of general circulation in
Manila for 3 weeks.
o On the date, no oppositor appeared, but the hearing was reset to May 12, 1986, wherein the
court issued the order designating the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner to receive
evidence ex-parte of the petitioner. On the same day, Joaquin presented his evidence ex-
parte and placed Arturo Arceo, a testamentary witness, on the witness stand. During the
proceedings, Joaquin was appointed executor.
• Petitioners filed a MFR of the May 12 order on May 14, 1986, alleging that no notice were sent to
them as named legatees, as required by Sec. 4, Rule [7]6 of the ROC and they prayed that they be
given a period of 10 days to file their position to the probate of the will. The probate court denied
this motion.
• Petiioners filed with the SC a petition for certiorari which was referred to the CA. The CA, on
January 13, 1987, dismissed the petition. Hence, the instant petition.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

1. W/N the CA erred in holding that personal notice of probate proceedings to the known legatees
and devisees is a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will, not merely a matter of
procedural convenience—YES.
● Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the ROC clearly states that the notice of the time and place of the hearing for
the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees and
devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residences, if such were known.
o The probate court knew of the residences of the petitioners. The petition for the allowance
of the will itself indicated their names and addresses. Despite such knowledge, the probate
court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to the petitioners.
o The requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by the mere
publication of the notice of hearing for 3 weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province.
o Joson v. Nable – if the true residence is not known, individual notice upon the heirs,
devisees and legatees is not necessary.
1
SPECPRO Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 76 – Allowance or Disallowance of a Will
o Re: Testate Estate of Suntay – it is a proceeding in rem and for the validity of such
proceedings, personal notice or by publication or both to all interested parties msut be
made.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING:
CA Decision annulled and set aside. Case is remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

You might also like