G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955
LEONOR P. REYES, assisted by her husband, AGUSTIN ARCON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and Dr. AURELIO CRISOSTOMO, Special Administratrix in Special Proceedings No. 563, respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceedings No. 563 for the probate of the last will and testament of Juan Reyes Panlilio, petitioner Leonor P. Reyes filed an opposition. The special administratrix (proponent of the will) objected to petitioner’s personality and right to contest the will, requesting the court to resolve this issue before the hearing. The court issued an order stating that the question of personality should be resolved in the full hearing of the matter. Both counsel understood this as allowing the oppositor to intervene, with her personality to be resolved later. During the probate hearing, petitioner offered evidence to prove her alleged filiation as a recognized natural child of the testator. The administratrix objected. The trial judge, respondent Bonifacio Ysip, ruled that only the probate of the will was at issue and that evidence on petitioner’s filiation was out of place. Petitioner’s counsel moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Counsel then sought suspension of proceedings and filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the respondent judge to permit her to prove her alleged filiation.

ISSUE

In the hearing of a petition for the probate of a will, is the court obliged to accept or receive evidence of the filiation of an oppositor to the probate, or may the court postpone the reception of such evidence to a later stage?

RULING

The court may postpone the reception of evidence regarding the filiation of an oppositor to a later stage. The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge’s order did not prohibit petitioner from taking part in the probate hearing but was motivated by a desire to avoid a multiplicity of issues and to limit the hearing to the execution and validity of the will. The determination of persons entitled to inherit is made at a later stage, after payment of debts and expenses, as provided by the rules. Submission of evidence on filiation during probate would inject matters different from the issues involved in probate (such as execution, pressure, influence, or forgery). Any evidence on filiation submitted during probate would only be prima facie to justify intervention and would not be decisive of the right to inherit, as the final decision would be made in the hearing for the declaration of heirs. The court did not deprive petitioner of any right nor abuse its discretion. Considerations of convenience and expediency support the ruling.