Pastor v CA

Facts:

Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (PASTOR, SR.), a Spanish subject, died in Cebu City on June 5, 1966, survived by his
Spanish wife Sofia Bossio (who also died on October 21, 1966), their two legitimate children Alvaro
Pastor, Jr. (PASTOR, JR.) and Sofia Pastor de Midgely (SOFIA), and an illegitimate child, not natural, by
the name of Lewellyn Barlito Quemada QUEMADA PASTOR, JR. is a Philippine citizen, having been
naturalized in 1936. SOFIA is a Spanish subject. QUEMADA is a Filipino by his mother's citizenship.

On November 13, 1970, QUEMADA filed a petition for the probate and allowance of an alleged
holographic will of PASTOR, SR. with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I (PROBATE
COURT), docketed as SP No. 3128-R. The will contained only one testamentary disposition: a legacy in
favor of QUEMADA consisting of 30% of PASTOR, SR.'s 42% share in the operation by Atlas
Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) of some mining claims in Pina-Barot,
Cebu.

On November 21, 1970, the PROBATE COURT, upon motion of QUEMADA and after an ex parte
hearing, appointed him special administrator of the entire estate of PASTOR, SR., whether or not covered
or affected by the holographic will. He assumed office as such on December 4, 1970 after filing a bond of
P 5,000.00.

On December 7, 1970, QUEMADA as special administrator, instituted against PASTOR, JR. and his wife
an action for reconveyance of alleged properties of the estate, which included the properties subject of the
legacy and which were in the names of the spouses PASTOR, JR. and his wife, Maria Elena Achaval de
Pastor, who claimed to be the owners thereof in their own rights, and not by inheritance. The action,
docketed as Civil Case No. 274-R, was filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IX.

On February 2, 1971, PASTOR, JR. and his sister SOFIA filed their opposition to the petition for probate
and the order appointing QUEMADA as special administrator.

On December 5, 1972, the PROBATE COURT issued an order allowing the will to probate. Appealed to
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52961- R, the order was affirmed in a decision dated May 9, 1977.
On petition for review, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-46645 dismissed the petition in a minute
resolution dated November 1, 1977 and remanded the same to the PROBATE COURT after denying
reconsideration on January 11, 1978.

For two years after remand of the case to the PROBATE COURT, QUEMADA filed pleading after
pleading asking for payment of his legacy and seizure of the properties subject of said legacy. PASTOR,
JR. and SOFIA opposed these pleadings on the ground of pendency of the reconveyance suit with another
branch of the Cebu Court of First Instance. All pleadings remained unacted upon by the PROBATE
COURT.

On March 5, 1980, the PROBATE COURT set the hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will for March
25, 1980, but upon objection of PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA on the e ground of pendency of the
reconveyance suit, no hearing was held on March 25. Instead, the PROBATE COURT required the
parties to submit their respective position papers as to how much inheritance QUEMADA was entitled to
receive under the wig. Pursuant thereto, PASTOR. JR. and SOFIA submitted their Memorandum of
authorities dated April 10, which in effect showed that determination of how much QUEMADA should
receive was still premature. QUEMADA submitted his Position paper dated April 20, 1980. ATLAS,
upon order of the Court.

On August 20, 1980, while the reconveyance suit was still being litigated in Branch IX of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu, the PROBATE COURT issued the now assailed Order of Execution and
Garnishment, resolving the question of ownership of the royalties payable by ATLAS and ruling in effect
that the legacy to QUEMADA was not inofficious. [There was absolutely no statement or claim in the
Order that the Probate Order of December 5, 1972 had previously resolved the issue of ownership of the
mining rights of royalties thereon, nor the intrinsic validity of the holographic will.]

The order of August 20, 1980 found that as per the holographic will and a written acknowledgment of
PASTOR, JR. dated June 17, 1962, of the above 60% interest in the mining claims belonging to the
Pastor Group, 42% belonged to PASTOR, SR. and only 33% belonged to PASTOR, JR. The remaining
25% belonged to E. Pelaez, also of the Pastor Group. The PROBATE COURT thus directed ATLAS to
remit directly to QUEMADA the 42% royalties due decedent's estate, of which QUEMADA was
authorized to retain 75% for himself as legatee and to deposit 25% with a reputable banking institution for
payment of the estate taxes and other obligations of the estate. The 33% share of PASTOR, JR. and/or his
assignees was ordered garnished to answer for the accumulated legacy of QUEMADA from the time of
PASTOR, SR.'s death, which amounted to over two million pesos.

The order being "immediately executory", QUEMADA succeeded in obtaining a Writ of Execution and
Garnishment on September 4, 1980, and in serving the same on ATLAS on the same day. Notified of the
Order on September 6, 1980, the oppositors sought reconsideration thereof on the same date primarily on
the ground that the PROBATE COURT gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the question of
ownership of the royalties and ordered the payment of QUEMADA's legacy after prematurely passing
upon the intrinsic validity of the will. In the meantime, the PROBATE COURT ordered suspension of
payment of all royalties due PASTOR, JR. and/or his assignees until after resolution of oppositors' motion
for reconsideration.

Before the Motion for Reconsideration could be resolved, however, PASTOR, JR., this time joined by his
wife Ma. ELENA ACHAVAL DE PASTOR, filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for certiorari and
Prohibition with a prayer for writ of preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. No. SP- 11373-R). They assailed
the Order dated August 20, 1980 and the writ of execution and garnishment issued pursuant thereto. The
petition was denied on November 18, 1980 on the grounds (1) that its filing was premature because the
Motion for Reconsideration of the questioned Order was still pending determination by the PROBATE
COURT; and (2) that although "the rule that a motion for reconsideration is prerequisite for an action for
certiorari is never an absolute rule," the Order assailed is "legally valid. "

On December 9, 1980, PASTOR, JR. and his wife moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's
decision of November 18, 1980, calling the attention of the appellate court to another order of the Probate
Court dated November 11, 1980 (i.e., while their petition for certiorari was pending decision in the
appellate court), by which the oppositors' motion for reconsideration of the Probate Court's Order of
August 20, 1980 was denied. [The November 11 Order declared that the questions of intrinsic validity of
the will and of ownership over the mining claims (not the royalties alone) had been finally adjudicated by
the final and executory Order of December 5, 1972, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court, thereby rendering moot and academic the suit for reconveyance then pending in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, Branch IX. It clarified that only the 33% share of PASTOR, JR. in the royalties (less
than 7.5% share which he had assigned to QUEMADA before PASTOR, SR. died) was to be garnished
and that as regards PASTOR, SR.'s 42% share, what was ordered was just the transfer of its possession to
the custody of the PROBATE COURT through the special administrator. Further, the Order granted
QUEMADA 6% interest on his unpaid legacy from August 1980 until fully paid.] Nonetheless, the Court
of Appeals denied reconsideration.

Issues:

1) Whether or not the Probate Court’s decision on ownership is final?

2) Whether or not the liquidation Proceedings on his wife is pre-requisite for the settlement of
estate.

Held:

1. No. In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted to the
extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the
will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. (Rules of Court, Rule 75, Section 1;
Rule 76, Section 9.) As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the
Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain
property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court
may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is
subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. [3 Moran, Comments on the Rules
of Court (1980 ed.), p. 458; Valero Vda. de Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 540.]

2. No. The liquidation Proceedings on his wife will take place upon hearing on intrinsic validty of
the will. Here:

(a) When PASTOR, SR. died in 1966, he was survived by his wife, aside from his two legitimate
children and one illegitimate son. There is therefore a need to liquidate the conjugal partnership
and set apart the share of PASTOR, SR.'s wife in the conjugal partnership preparatory to the
administration and liquidation of the estate of PASTOR, SR. which will include, among others,
the determination of the extent of the statutory usufructuary right of his wife until her
death. * When the disputed Probate order was issued on December 5, 1972, there had been no
liquidation of the community properties of PASTOR, SR. and his wife.

(b) So, also, as of the same date, there had been no prior definitive determination of the assets of
the estate of PASTOR, SR. There was an inventory of his properties presumably prepared by the
special administrator, but it does not appear that it was ever the subject of a hearing or that it was
judicially approved. The reconveyance or recovery of properties allegedly owned but not in the
name of PASTOR, SR. was still being litigated in another court.

(c) There was no appropriate determination, much less payment, of the debts of the decedent and
his estate. Indeed, it was only in the Probate Order of December 5, 1972 where the Probate Court
ordered that-

... a notice be issued and published pursuant to the provisions of Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court, requiring all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the
office of the Branch Clerk of this Court."
(d) Nor had the estate tax been determined and paid, or at least provided for, as of December 5,
1972.

(e) The net assets of the estate not having been determined, the legitime of the forced heirs in
concrete figures could not be ascertained.

(f) All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not possible to determine whether the legacy
of QUEMADA - a fixed share in a specific property rather than an aliquot part of the entire net
estate of the deceased - would produce an impairment of the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

(g) Finally, there actually was no determination of the intrinsic validity of the will in other
respects. It was obviously for this reason that as late as March 5, 1980 - more than 7 years after
the Probate Order was issued the Probate Court scheduled on March 25, 1980 a hearing on
the intrinsic validity of the will.