Maloto vs. Maloto

Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, et al. vs. Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto

September 30, 1977 | Fernandez

Facts:

Adriana Maloto died on October 1963 in Iloilo City, her place of residence. On November 1963, Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto, niece and nephews respectively, of Adriana Maloto commenced an intestate proceeding in the CFI of Iloilo that was docketed as Spec. Pro. No. 1736. They executed an intestate proceeding and divided the estate in the proportion of one-fourth (1/4) share for each. The CFI judge approved the partition.

Subsequently, on April 1, 1967, a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana Maloto was delivered to the CFI of Iloilo. Aldina et al. were all named as heirs but Aldina and Constancio appeared to have bigger shares in the will than what they received in the extrajudicial partition. There were also dispositions in favor of Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.

Aldino and Constancio, along with the other devisees and legatees, filed a motion in S.P. No. 1736 for, among others, the allowance of the will of Adriana Maloto. The CFI judge denied the motion on the ground that the said motion had been filed out of time. The petitioners (Aldino et al.) filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the SC but it was denied on the ground of improper remedy.

The petitioners then commenced S.P. No. 2176 in the CFI of Iloilo for the probate of the alleged last will and testament. The probate court dismissed the petition on the basis of the finding of said court in S.P. No. 1736 that the alleged will sought to be probated had been destroyed and revoked by the testatrix.

Issue: Whether the dismissal of S.P. No. 2176 by the CFI of Iloilo was proper?

Held: No. The probate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in S.P. No. 1736. Indeed, the motion to reopen the proceedings was filed out of time. Moreover, it is not proper to make a finding in an intestate proceeding that the discovered will has been revoked. In fact, the probate court in S.P. No. 1736 stated in its order that “Movants should have filed a separate actionfor the probate of the will”. Even this Court, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, said that the more appropriate remedy is a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will.

Thus, the order of the probate court in S.P. No. 1736 is not a bar to the present petition for the probate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto.

Doctrine: It is not proper to make a finding in an intestate proceeding regarding the validity of an alleged will.