Pasno v. Ravina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gabina Labitoria executed a will. Two appeals arose from the proceedings concerning her estate. The first appeal involved the validity of Gabina Labitoria's will, contested by oppositors Fortunata Ravina and Ponciana Ravina. The second appeal concerned the Philippine National Bank's right to foreclose a mortgage on property belonging to Gabina Labitoria's estate, which was under the custody of a special administrator. Procedural History: The trial court admitted Gabina Labitoria's will to probate, finding that an erroneous date on the will did not invalidate it. In the second matter, the Philippine National Bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on three parcels of land executed by Gabina Labitoria during her lifetime. The mortgaged property was in the possession of a special administrator appointed during the probate proceedings. The lower court granted the special administrator's motion to prevent the sheriff from selling the mortgaged properties and denied the Philippine National Bank's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The oppositors appealed the probate of the will. The Philippine National Bank appealed the order preventing the foreclosure of the mortgage.
Issue(s)
Whether a will with an erroneous date is valid. Whether a mortgagee can extrajudicially foreclose a mortgage on property in custodia legis under a power of sale stipulation, or if an ordinary court action is required.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision in both appeals. The will of Gabina Labitoria was admitted to probate. The Philippine National Bank's right to foreclose the mortgage was suspended, requiring an ordinary court action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the will with an erroneous date: The Court held that a will with an erroneous date is not invalidated. The stenographic notes were not available, but the trial judge found that the error in dating the will was due to its reproduction from a prior will, inadvertently retaining the earlier date. Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, prescribes the requisites for a valid will and does not mandate that a will must be dated. Therefore, a will without a date is valid, and an erroneous date will not defeat it. The trial judge was correct in admitting the will to probate. On the right of the mortgagee to foreclose property in custodia legis: The Court ruled that while the power of sale in a mortgage survives the death of the mortgagor, the foreclosure of a mortgaged property that is in custodia legis must be done through an ordinary court action, making the special administrator a party defendant. The mortgage contract referenced Act No. 3135, which regulates sales under special powers but does not provide for sales of property in custodia legis. In such circumstances, the general provisions of Philippine law, specifically Section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure, govern. Section 708 provides three alternatives for a creditor holding a secured claim against a deceased person: abandon the security and prosecute the claim as a general debt, foreclose by ordinary action making the executor or administrator a party, or rely solely on the security and foreclose within the statute of limitations without participating in the distribution of other assets. The Philippine National Bank invoked the second remedy by seeking to sell the property, but it failed to initiate an ordinary action in court. The Court reasoned that requiring foreclosure by ordinary action safeguards the estate's interests by providing notice and ensures orderly administration without jeopardizing the mortgagee's rights, merely suspending the power to sell temporarily. A contrary holding would be inconsistent with the laws governing the settlement of estates of deceased persons.
Main Doctrine
A will with an erroneous date is not invalidated if the law does not require a date for its execution. Furthermore, a mortgagee's right to foreclose a mortgage with a power of sale, even if the mortgaged property is in custodia legis, must be exercised through an ordinary court action, making the special administrator a party defendant, to safeguard the interests of the estate and ensure orderly administration.