#19

G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982

RAFAEL E. MANINANG and SOLEDAD L. MANINANG, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal and BERNARDO S. ASENETA, respondents.

FACTS

Clementia Aseneta died at Manila Sanitarium Hospital and left a holographic will stating therein that
all her real and personal properties be inherited upon her death by petitioner herein Dra. Soledad L.
Maninang and do not consider Nonoy (Bernardo Aseneta) as her adopted son.

Petitioner Soledad filed a petition to probate the Will of the decedent with the CFI of Quezon City
testate case. Meanwhile, herein respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the
sole heir of the decedent, and instituted intestate proceedings with the CFI of Pasig, Rizal intestate case.
The testate and intestate cases were ordered consolidated. Respondent Bernardo then filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was null and void because he, as the only
compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, intestacy should ensue. On the other hand, in her Motion to
Dismiss, petitioner Soledad averred that it is still the rule that in a case for probate of a Will, the Court's
area of inquiry is limited to an examination of and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will; and that
respondent Bernardo was effectively disinherited by the decedent.

Lower court ordered dismissal of the testate case and appointing Bernardo as the administrator of
the decedents estate. Petitioners Maninang resorted to a certiorari Petition before respondent CA alleging
that the lower Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the Orders of dismissal of the Testate Case.
However CA denied certiorari and ruled that the trial Judge's Order of dismissal was final in nature as it
finally disposed of the Testate Case and, therefore, appeal was the proper remedy, which petitioners failed
to avail of. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
WON Lower Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued orders of dismissal of the Testate
Case.

DECISION
YES. Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory. No will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The law enjoins the probate of the
Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole
world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory.

Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. The authentication of a will
decides no other question than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with
those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not determine nor
even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) of the provisions; these may be impugned as
being vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication. The que0stions relating to these points remain
entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been authenticated. Opposition to the
intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding
because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the
requirements of the law.

Suffice it to state that in view of the finding that respondent Judge had acted in excess of his
jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case, certiorari is a proper remedy. An act done by a Probate Court in
excess of its jurisdiction may be corrected by Certiorari. And even assuming the existence of the remedy of
appeal, we harken to the rule that in the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be
entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief. ***