This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
In Re Summary Settlement of the Estate of Melodia Ferraris Filomena ABELLANA DE BACAYO, petitioner-appellant, vs. Gaudencia FERRARIS, et al., oppositors-appellants. G.R. No. L-19382, August 31, 1965
FACTS: Melodia Ferraris lef t properties in Cebu City consisting of 1/3 share in the estate of her aunt Rosa Ferraris. Ten years hav e elapsed since the last time she was known to be alive, she was declared presumptively dead f or purposes of opening her succession and distribute her estate among heirs. Hence, a petition f or the summary settlement of her estate was f iled. Melodia left no surviving descendant, ascendant or spouse, but was survived only by collateral relatives: 1) an aunt and half -sister of decedent¶s f ather; and 2) her nieces and nephews who were children of Melodia¶s only brother of f ull blood who predeceased her. In the settlement proceeding, Filomena Abellana de Bacayo, who is the decedent¶s half -sister, was excluded as an heir pursuant to a resolution issued by the lower court. A motion f or reconsideration was denied hence this action. ISSUE: Who should inherit the intestate estate of a deceased person when he or she is survived only by collateral relativ es, to wit an aunt and the children of a brother who predeceased him? Or will the aunt concur with the children of the decedent¶s brother or will the f ormer be excluded by the latter. RULING: As an aunt of the deceased she is as f ar distant as the nephews from the decedent (three degrees) since in the collateral line to which both kinds of relatives belong, degrees are counted by first ascending to the common ancestor and descending to the heir (Art. 966, Civil Code). Appellant is likewise right in her contention that nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation unless concurring with brothers or sisters of the deceased, as provided expressly by Art. 975. Nev ertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the succession. This is readily apparent from articles 1001, 1004, 1005, and 1009 of the Civil Code.
Wills and Succession 2
Constantino C. ACAIN, petitioner vs. Hon. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 72706, October 27, 1987
FACTS: Constantino Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court a petition f or the probate of the will of his late Uncle, Nemesio Acain, on the premise that the latter died leaving a will in which the f ormer and his brothers and sisters were instituted as heirs. Af ter the petition was set f or hearing in the lower court, Virginia Fernandez and Rosa Diongson, a legally adopted daughter and the widow of the deceased respectiv ely, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) Constantino Acain has no legal capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter hav e been pretirited. Said motion was denied as well as the subsequent motion f or reconsideration. Consequently, Fernandez and Diongson f iled with the Supreme Court a petition f or certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction which was subsequently referred to the Intermediate Appellate Court. IAC granted Fernandez and Diongson¶s petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss the petition f or probate of the will. Due to the denial of Acain¶s motion f or reconsideration, he then filed a petition f or review on certiorari bef ore the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Virginia Fernandez and Rosa Diongson hav e been pretirited. RULING:
Article 854 of the Civil Code: The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testator¶s will of the f orced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned therein, or though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Insof ar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Howev er, the same thing cannot be said of the legally adopted daughter. Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and Youth W elf are Code, adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will and that both the adopted child and the widow were depriv ed of at least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child. The universal institution of Acain together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs without any other testamentary disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written.
Wills and Succession 3
Danilo ALUAD, et al., petitioners vs. Zenaido ALUAD, respondent G.R. No. 176943, October 17, 2008
FACTS: Petitioner¶s mother, Maria Aluad and respondent Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childless spouses Matilde and Crispin Aluad. Crispin was the owner of six lots of Pilar Cadastre, Capiz. Af ter his death, Matilde adjudicated the lots to herself and thereaf ter, she executed a Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos in f avor of Maria covering all the six lots. The Deed provided that such will become effective upon the death of the Donor, but in the event that the Donee should die before the Donor, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded. Provided, however, that anytime during the lifetime of the Donor or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of the land. Matilde sold one of the lots to Zenaido and subsequently, Matilde executed a last will and testament devising f our (4) of the lots to Maria and the remaining lot to Zenaido. Maria died a few months after Matilde¶s death. Thereaf ter, Maria¶s heirs (herein petitioners) filed bef ore the RTC a complaint f or declaration and recov ery of ownership and possession of the two lots conv eyed and donated to Zenaido, alleging that no rights hav e been transmitted to the latter because such lots hav e been previously alienated to them to Maria via the Deed of Donation. The lower court decided in f avor of the petitioners howev er, CA reversed said decision upon appeal of Zenaido which held that the Deed of Donation was actually a donation mortis causa, not inter vivos and as such it had to, but did not, comply with the f ormalities of a will. Due to the denial of the petitioner¶s Motion for Reconsideration, the present Petition for Review has been f iled. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Deed of Donation is donation inter vivos and whether or not such deed is valid. 2. If so, whether or not Matilde Aluad has the right to conv ey the lots in question to Zenaido Aluad. RULING: The Court finds the donation to Maria Aluad (petitioner¶s mother) one of mortis causa, it having the f ollowing characteristics: 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor, or what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (f ull or naked) and control of the property while alive; 2. That bef ore the death of the transferor, the transfer should be revocable, by the transferor at will, ad nutum, but revocability may be provided f or indirectly by means of a reserv ed power in the donor to dispose of the properties conv eyed; and 3. That the transfer should be void of the transferor should survive the transferee. The phrase in the earlier-qouted Deed of Donation ³to become effective upon the death of the DONOR´ admits of no other interpretation than to mean that Matilde did not intend to transfer the ownership of the six lots to petitioner¶s mother during the f ormer¶s lifetime. Further the statement, ³anytime during the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or even dispose of any or even all the parcels of land herein donated,´ means that Matilde retained ownership of the lots and reserv ed in her the right to dispose them. For the right
The phrase. said phrase could only hav e referred to the donor. as it was witnessed by only two. hence. the same had been validly sold by Matilde to Zenaido. It is void and transmitted no right to petitioner¶s mother. subject to the qualification that her will must be probated. ³anyone of them who should survive´ is out of sync.Wills and Succession 4 Case Digest to dispose of a thing without other limitations than those established by law is an attribute of ownership. But ev en assuming arguendo that the f ormalities were observ ed. since it was not probated. the formalities of a will should have been observ ed but they were not. not three or more witnesses f ollowing Article 805 of the Civil Code. For the Deed of Donation clearly stated that it would take effect upon the death of the donor. . Matilde thus validly disposed the lot to Zenaido by her last will and testament. With respect to the conv eyed lot. no right to the two lots was transmitted to Maria. The donation being then mortis causa.
they were validly executed. September 14. Cesar ALVARADO. he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who draf ted the will and codicil did so conf ormably with his instruction. If so. as the lawyer who draf ted the document read the same aloud in the presence of the testator.and that since reading required by Art. Rino who read it alound in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses and of the notary public. a Probate Order was issued from which an appeal was made to IAC stating that the probate of the deceased¶s last will and codicil should hav e been denied because the testator was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his ³Huling Habilin´ and the codicil thereto was executed. howev er. petitioner vs. whether or not the requirement of double-reading in said Article was complied with such that whether or not. Upon f ailure of Cesar to substantiate his Opposition. Cesar Alvarado. There is no evidence and Cesar does not allege that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. CA concluded that although Art. Since the deceased was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his ³poor. f or one reason or another.´ the day of the execution was not the first time that the testator had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draf t. the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. 808 was not f ollowed. On the contrary. it was Atty. it is essential to ascertain whether or not Art. RULING: Art. Ramon GAVIOLA G. As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses. the notary public and Cesar. 808. with respect to the ³Huling Habilin. ³Huling Habilin´ wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son. there can be no other course but to conclude that he comes within the scope of the term ³blind¶ as used in Art. to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate.´ or ³blurred´ vision. Unless the contents were read to him. This is especially true considering the f act that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known to the testator. there was. . are ³incapable of reading their wills. No. with f our persons f ollowing the reading word f or word with their own copies. Hon. ISSUES: 1. 808 was admittedly not complied with.´ ³defectiv e. 2. Whether or not Brigido Alvarado was blind within the meaning of Article 808 at the time his ³Huling Habilin´ and codicil were executed. it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents. Instead. While the testator¶s will was admitted to probate. 1993 FACTS: Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled. and expressly revoked a previously executed a holographic will at the time awaiting probate bef ore RTC.Wills and Succession 5 Case Digest In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado. Hence. 74695. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who. instead. 808 had been complied with. the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. Upon the testator¶s death. Atty Rino as executor f iled a petition f or probate of the notarial will which was in turn opposed by Cesar alleging that the will sought to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law. as substantial compliance. the testator did not read the f inal draft of the will. Moreov er. Atty. Rino. But the disinheritance and the revocatory clauses remained and as in the case of the notarial will.R. a codicil was subsequently executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash f or the testator¶s eye operation because he was then suffering from glaucoma.
. the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of will are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are nev er intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure authenticity of the will. when taken into account may only defeat the testator¶s will.Wills and Succession 6 Case Digest The spirit behind that law was serv ed though the letter was not. Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisf ied. the formal imperfection should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which.
The cause f or the institution heirs must be stated in the will. Subsequently. vs. The article quoted abov e is a positive injunction to ignore whatev er f alse cause the testator may hav e written in his will f or the institution of heirs. 1970 FACTS: Basilia Austria filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition f or probate ante mortem of her last will and testament which was opposed by Ruben Austria and others who are nephews and nieces of Basilia. L-23079. G. Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side. Bef ore the institution of heirs may be annulled under Art. and 3. ISSUE: Whether or not the institution of heirs would retain efficacy in the event there exists proof that the adoption of the same heirs by the decedent is f alse. Such institution may be annulled only when one is satisfied. February 27. that we could even vary the language of the will for the purpose of giving it effect. The cause must be shown to be f alse. that the testator clearly would not have made the institution of he had known the cause f or it to be f alse.R. Hon. respondents. Moreover. the petitioners filed bef ore the Supreme Court a petition f or certiorari praying f or the annulment of the lower court¶s orders restricting their intervention.Wills and Succession 7 Case Digest Ruben AUSTRIA et al. petitioners. The court then allowed the said intervention by petitioners which the court delimited to the properties of the deceased which were not disposed of in the will and disregarded the matter of the genuineness of adoption. 850.. et al. after an examination of the will. unless it appears from the will of the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause. et al. the f ollowing requisites must concur: 1. RULING: Article 850 provides: The statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written. .. hence they should be rendered mere strangers and without any right to succeed as heirs. Andres REYES. Her disposition of the free portion of her estate which largely f avored Cruz.) had not in fact been adopted by the testator in accordance with law. shows a perceptible inclination on her part to giv e to the respondents more than what she thought the law enjoined her to giv e to them. The words used in her will to describe the class of heirs instituted and the abstract object of the inheritance offer no absolute indication that the decedent would hav e willed her estate other than the way she did if she had known that she was not bound by law to make allowance f or legitimes. Howev er. Upon denial of two motions f or reconsiderations. It must appear from the f ace of the will that the testator would not hav e made such institution if he had known the f alsity of the cause. so compelling is the principle that intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the testator allowed to prevail. such opposition was dismissed and the probate was allowed af ter due hearing. Ruben and the other petitioners f iled in the same proceedings a petition in intervention f or partition alleging in substance that they are the nearest kin and that the f ive private respondents (Perfecto et al. 2. upon Basilia¶s death. The bulk of the estate was destined under the will to pass on the Perfecto Cruz and others whom had been assumed and declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted children. No. Perfecto was appointed executor in accordance with the provisions of the f ormer¶s will. especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.
Wills and Succession 8
In the Matter of the summary settlement of the Estate of the decease Anacleta Abellana Lucio BALONAN, petitioner-appellee vs. Eusebia ABELLANA, et al., oppositors-appellants. G.R. No. L-15153, August 31, 1960
FACTS: The last Will and Testament sought to be probated consists in two (2) typewritten pages. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and on the lef t margin appears the signatures of the three (3) instrumental witnesses. On the second page appears the signature of said witnesses, at the bottom of which appears the signature of the notary public and below said signature is his designation as notary public. On the left margin of the second page (last page of the will) appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the phrase, ³Por la Testadore Anacleta Abellana´ (For the Testate of Anacleta Abellana). The will is duly acknowledged bef ore the notary public. ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Juan Bello above the typewritten statement, ³Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana´ comply with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed. RULING:
Article 805 of the Civil Code provides: Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end there of by the testator himself or by the testator¶s name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The law requires that the testator himself sign the will, or if he cannot do so, the testator¶s name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. In this case, the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Bello. There is theref ore, a f ailure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. Hence, the will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana must not be admitted to probate.
Wills and Succession 9
Maria Gervacio BLAS, et al., plaintiffs-appellants vs. Rosalina SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratix of the Estate of the deceased Maxima Santos, et al., defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-14070, March 29, 1961
FACTS: Simeon Blas contracted a f irst marriage with Marta Cruz and had three children, only one of whom, Eulalio, lef t children namely: Maria Gervacio Blas (one of the plaintiff s), Marta Gervacio Blas (one of the defendants), and Lazaro Gervacio Blas. Lazaro died and is surviv ed by three legitimate children who are plaintiff s herein namely, Manuel, Leoncio and Loid. Subsequently after Marta¶s death, Simeon contracted a second marriage with Maxima Santos. At the time of second marriage, no liquidation of the properties of Simeon and Marta was made. A week bef ore Simeon¶s death, he executed a last Will and Testament, and he also ordered a preparation of a document (Exhibit A) because the properties he had acquired during his f irst marriage with Mart had not been liquidated and were not separated from those acquired during the second marriage. Such document contains promises by Maxima to respect the disposition of said will and to giv e one-half (1/2) of the properties she and her husband will leave to the heirs, legatees or benef iciaries named in the will. Pursuant to this document, the plaintiff s instituted an action against the administration of the estate of Maxima Santos to secure a judicial declaration that one-half (1/2) of the properties left by Maxima be adjudicated to them. Upon filing of opposition by the administratix, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the heirs of Simeon Blas and wife Marta Cruz can make any claim f or the unliquidated conjugal properties acquired during their marriage. 2. Whether or not ³Exhibit A´ is a valid and enf orceable contract. RULING: The heirs of Simeon Blas and his wife Marta Cruz can no longer make any claim f or the unliquidated conjugal properties acquired during said first marriage because the same were already included in the mass properties constituting the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and in the adjudications made by virtue of his will. Exhibit A appears to be the compromise def ined in Article 1809 of the Civil Code of Spain, in f orce at the time of the execution of such document, which provides as f ollows: Compromise is a contract by which each of the parties in interest, by giving, promising, or retaining something avoids the provocation of a suitor terminates one which has already provocation been instituted. The agreement or promise that Maxima Santos made in Exhibit A is to hold one-half of her share in the conjugal assets in trust f or the heirs and legatees of her husband in his will, with the obligation of conveying the same to such of his heirs or legatees as she may choose in her last will and testament. This kind of agreement pr promise is not void.
Wills and Succession 10
Wencesla CACHO, petitioner-appellee vs. John G. UDAN and Rustico G. UDAN, oppositors-appellants. G.R. No. L-19996, April 30, 1965
FACTS: Silvina Udan, single, died leaving a will naming her son Francisco and one W encesla Cacho as her sole heirs, share and share alike. Cacho then f iled a petition to probate the said Will which was opposed by the testator¶s legitimate brother, Rustico. Therafter, Francisco filed his opposition to the probate of the Will while Rustico withdrew his opposition. After Francisco¶s death, another legitimate brother of the testator, John, together with Rustico, f iled their respective oppositions. Consequently, Cacho filed a Motion to Dismiss the Oppositions filed by John and Rustico. CFI issued an order disallowing the two oppositions f or lack of interest in the estate. The subsequent Motions f or Reconsiderations were denied hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not John and Rustico Udan may claim to be heirs intestate of their legitimate sister, Silvina. RULING: It is clear from Article 988 and 1003 of the gov erning Civil Code of the Philippines, in f orce at the time of the death of the testatrix that the oppositor brothers may not claim to be heirs intestate of their legitimate sister, Silvina.
Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.
These legal provisions decree that collateral relatives of one who died intestate inherit only in the absence of descendants, ascendants, and illegitimate children. Albeit the brothers and sister can concur with the widow or widower, they do not concur, but are excluded by the surviving children, legitimate or illegitimate. Further, the death of Francisco does not improv e the situation of appellants. The rights acquired by the former are only transmitted by his death to his own heirs at law not to the appellants, who are legitimate brothers of his mother, pursuant to Article 992.
Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate fr om the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inher it the same manner fr om the illegitimate child.
Howev er, the hearing on the probate must still proceed to ascertain the rights of Cacho as testamentary heir.
and that the signature of the testator is not genuine. herein petitioners claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator. In the course of the hearing. respondents. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages. G. Whether or not the attestation clause complies with the substantial compliance pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil Code. one of the legatees named in the will. ISSUES: 1. Upon appeal to CA. Howev er. executed a last will and testament bef ore three attesting witnesses and he was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. should state: 1. 2. sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator¶s estate but due to his death. appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator¶s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution. No.. RULING: An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed bef ore them and to the manner of the execution of the same. he himself filed a petition bef ore the CFI seeking the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled hearings were postponed. May 28. COURT OF APPEALS and William CABRERA. such a clause. Under the 3rd paragraph of Article 805. he was succeeded by William Cabreara. among other things. It was declare therein that. Not long af ter. it giv es affirmation to the f act that compliance with the essential f ormalities required by law has been observ ed. the petitioners asserted that the will in question is null and void f or the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it f ails to specifically state the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. the testator was already in the poor state of health such that he could not hav e possibly executed the same. That the testator signed. the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is f atally defective such that whether or not it affects the validity of the will. Hon. 1993 FACTS: Mateo Caballero. and 3.Wills and Succession 11 Case Digest Tedoro CANEDA. et al. The number of pages used upon which the will is written. until the testator passed away bef ore his petition could finally be heard by the probate court.R. The probate court rendered a decision that such will is the Last Will and Testament of Mateo Caballero and that it was executed in accordance with all the requisites of the law. who was appointed by RTC which is already the probate court. all of whom do not appear to be related to Mateo. petitioners vs. as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero. 103554. Benoni Cabrera. and that the said witnesses also signed the will and ev ery page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. or expressly cause another to sign. 2. Due to denial of petitioners¶ motion for reconsideration. . CA affirmed the decision of the trial court ruling and ruling that the attestation clause in the Last Will substantially complies with Article 805 of the Civil Code. It is a separate memorandum or record of the f acts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses. the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will. hence this appeal bef ore the Supreme Court. that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to specific persons. a widower without any children.
That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way by which it can be read into the questioned attestation clause statement. ³Attestation´ and ³subscription´ differ in meaning. The attestation clause herein assailed is that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used. In such a situation. defects and imperfection in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805. forgery. or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence. while subscription is the act of the hand. . the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.Wills and Succession 12 Case Digest It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the f orm of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial compliance rule. that the attesting witness did actually bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will and ev ery page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. the defect is not only in the f orm or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil Code: In the absence of bad faith. These considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the f act that the attesting witnesses signed each and ev ery page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. or an implication thereof . Attestation is the act of sense. The absence of the statement required by law is a f atal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the f orm of the attestation or the language employed therein. What is then clearly lacking. Such defects or imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be prov ed that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805.
Such influence must be actually exerted on the mind of the testator in regard to the execution of the will in question. became acquainted with Rosario Lopez and had illicit relations with her f or many years. The burden is upon the parties challenging the will to show that undue influence existed at the time of its execution.L. No. even if illegitimate. if such disposition is voluntarily made.16763. it does not appear that her influence so ov erpowered and subjugated his mind as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his own. The rule as to what constitutes undue influence has been variously stated. is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will. There is no doubt that Rosario exercised some influence over the testator.December 22. ISSUE: Whether or not the influence exercised was of such a character to vitiate the will. Fermina Fernandez DEZA. Mere affection. either at the time of the execution of the will. And while the same amount of influence may become undue when exercise by one occupying an improper and adulterous relation to testator. 1921 FACTS: The testator. unless it is f urther shown that the influence destroys the testator¶s free agency. RULING: Mere general or reasonable influence ov er a testator is not sufficient to invalidate a will. et al.. a married man. vs. to hav e that effect. They begot an illegitimate son. the influence exerted must be of a kind that so ov erpowers and subjugates the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his own.Wills and Succession 13 Case Digest Pascual COSO. but the substance of the different statements is that. The testator¶s will gives the tercio de libre disposicion to the illegitimate son and also provides f or the payment of nineteen hundred Spanish duros to Rosario Lopez by way of reimbursement f or expenses incurred by her in talking care of the testator when he is alleged to hav e suffered from sev ere illness. or so near thereto as to be still operative. G. the mere f act that some influence is exercised by a person sustaining that relation does not invalidate a will. . ev en though it induces the testator to make an unequal and unjust disposition of his property in f avor of those who hav e contributed to his comf ort and ministered to his wants. Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as undue. if no imposition or fraud be practiced. to be sufficient to avoid a will. with the object of procuring a will in f avor of particular parties.R. the influence must be undue. The will was set aside on the ground of undue influence alleged to hav e been exerted ov er the mind of the testator by Rosario Lopez. While it is shown that the testator entertained strong affections f or Rosario Lopez. and it must result in the making of testamentary dispositions which the testator would not otherwise hav e made.
deceit. respondents. Agapita appealed by certiorari bef ore the Supreme Court. RULING: Of the three instrumental witnesses. To allow the notary public to act as third witness. misrepresentation and undue influence because the said instrument was executed without the testator having been f ully inf ormed of the content thereof . Howev er. No. 1973 FACTS: Agapita Cruz is the surviving spouse of the deceased Valente Cruz. The notary public bef ore whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge bef ore himself his having signed the will. the law would not be duly observ ed.R. To acknowledge bef ore means to avow. G. or admit his having signed the will in front of himself. or one of the attesting and acknowledging witnesses. Consequently. he would hav e to avow assent. . CRUZ. one of them is at the same time the Notary Public bef ore whom the will was supposed to hav e been acknowledged. Hon. ISSUE: Whether or not the supposed last will and testament was executed in accordance with law. L-32213. would hav e the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 805 requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear bef ore the notary public to acknowledge the will. This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two. November 26. if the third witness were the notary public himself. due to unf avorable decision. The Supreme Court is inclined to sustain the last will and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. Agapita filed bef ore the CFI an opposition for the allowance of the will of his late husband alleging that the will was executed through fraud.Wills and Succession 14 Case Digest Agapita N. In the circumstance. petitioner vs. Judge Guillermo P. VILLASOR and Manuel LUGAY. particularly as to what properties he was disposing and that the supposed last will and testament was not executed in accordance with law. The result would be that only two witnesses appeared bef ore the notary public f or or that purpose.
entered in 1939 by the Court of First Instance of Cebu (when the testator. Paula de la Cerna questioned f or the nullity of the joint will of Bernabe being prohibited in the Philippine law. The Court of First Instance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void.R. 669. old Civil Code). petitioners. the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs¶ intestate. or in f avor of a third party (Art. 2. The probate decree in 1989 could only affect the share of the deceased husband. their niece. has conclusiv e effect as to his last will and testament despite the f act that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills. the Court of Appeals rev ersed. a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. on the ground that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive on the due execution of the testament. Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca. A final judgment rendered on a petition f or the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. Whether or not the joint will is valid as to the share of Gervasia who died later than Bernabe.Wills and Succession 15 Case Digest Paula DE LA CERNA. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code. reexamined and adjudicated de novo. RULING: The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate. December 23. et al. 1964 FACTS: Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca. whether in f avor of the joint testators. Whether or not an error of law affects the conclusive effect of its decision. this appeal. L-20234. It could not include the disposition of the share of the wife.. vs. Theref ore. since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator. . precisely because her estate could not then be in issue. Gervasia Rebaca. No. and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. Bernabe de la Cerna. and ov er whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction. f or being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code but on appeal by the testamentary heir. unless some other valid will in her f avor is shown to exist. died). reciprocally. who was then still alive. and not exclusively to the testamentary heir. et al. ISSUES: 1. another petition f or the probate of the same will insof ar as Gervasia was concerned was filed by Manuela but the court dismissed it f or f ailure of Manuela to appear. Bernabe de la Cerna. or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia. must be.. Bernabe died and the will was probated in 1939 af ter due publication as required by law and there being no opposition. in so f ar as the estate of the wife was concerned. G. It follows that the validity of the joint will. Hence. Manuela REBACA-POTOT. executed a joint last will and testament whereby they willed that their two parcels of land acquired during their marriage together with all improvements thereon shall be giv en to Manuela Rebaca. respondents. on her death.
vs. RULING: Plaintiff-appellee being a mere grandniece of Pelagia de la Cruz. L-29192. 1971 FACTS: Pelagia de la Cruz died intestate and without issue. Necessarily. The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line. he stated that Gertrudes had no cause of action against him because the said agreement was void with respect to her. was estopped from raising in issue the right of the plaintiff to inherit from Pelagia. one of whom is defendant-appellant. Much less could plaintiff-appelle inherit in her own right. but never in the ascending. Hence. f or the reason that she was not an heir of Pelagia and was included in the agreement by mistake. it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters. could not inherit from the latter by right of representation. plaintiff-appellee. he must abide by the terms of the agreement.Wills and Succession 16 Case Digest Gertrudes De Los SANTOS. in addition to his share. saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. Gertrudes. In every inheritance. Article 962. Due to Maximo¶s f ailure to comply with his obligation. whether they be of the full or half blood. plaintiff-appellee. being a party to the extrajudicial partition agreement. a grandniece is excluded by law from the inheritance. is an heir of the latter. In Maximo¶s answer. hence. The lower court held that Maximo. on condition that the latter would undertake the dev elopment and subdivision of the estate which was the subject matter of the agreement. the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones. Maximo. Gertrudes f iled a complaint f or specific perf ormance. Article 972. . this appeal. defendant-appellant. who is Pelagia¶s grandniece. Maximo filed a Motion f or New Trial but was denied. They agreed to adjudicate three (3) lots to Maximo. February 22. ISSUE: Whether or not. In the present case. Maximo De La CRUZ.R. G. a grandniece of the decedent. She had a niece named Marciana who is the mother of herein defendant. and sev eral coheirs including Maximo. the relatives ³nearest in degree´ to Pelagia de la Cruz are her nephews and nieces. No. Gertrudes de los Santos. In the collateral line. entered into an Extrajudicial Partition Agreement purposely f or the distribution of Pelagia¶s estate.
et al. by virtue of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino. RULING: Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant. September 24. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional case. as his sole intestate heir. survived by his legitimate children and bu his wife (among the plaintiff s) and legitimate grandchildren. The latter died intestate survived by her husband Estacio Dizon and their two (2) legitimate children. No. the plaintiff s must be held without any right thereto because. During the lifetime of Romana. Dalisay. singled and without issue.. L-28032. her rights and interests in the land were inherited by her only child. three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of Toribia but as she had predeceased her f ather. or three-eights (3/8) of the said parcels of land. Faustino and Trinidad (mother of Dalisay) and leaving the said f our (4) parcels of land as the inheritance of the children in equal pro-indiviso shares. Whether or not all the relativ es of the propositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista.. the said three (3) parcesl of land devolv ed upon her two legitimate children. Eustacio died intestate survived also by his only legitimate child. in equal proportions. the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. she gratuitously donated f our (4) parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiff s). Rev ersion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on instestate succession. ISSUES: 1. the defendant appealed. vs. Dalisay and not long af ter. father of the plaintiff s and great grandf ather of Dalisay. Eustacio. 1986 FACTS: The plaintiff s are the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant. Subsequently. Faustino and Trinidad. Faustino died intestate. Not satisfied. defendants-appellants. or a brother or sister. the rules on intestate succession. who reserv ed the said property subject to a reserva troncal. Dalisay now owns onehalf (1/2) of all the sev en (7) parcels of land as her inheritance from Trinidad. since Article 891 does not specif y otherwise.R. Faustino and Trinidad in equal proinidiviso shares. et al. is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. which was inherited by Eustacio from Faustino. respectively. The lower court declared that the parties are entitled to one-half (1/2) of the sev en (7) parcels of land in dispute. but within that group. G. as reservatarios. Dalisay also claims the other half of the said parcels of land by virtue of reserva troncal imposed thereon upon the death of Faustino but the plaintiff s opposed such claim because they claim three-f ourths (3/4) of the one-half pro-indiviso interst in said parcel of land. When Trinidad died intestate. plaintiffs-appellees. 2. of . Whether or not the rights of the plaintiff s are subject to. and should be determined by. its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law. Dalisay. leaving his one-half (1/2) proindiviso share in the sev en (7) parcels of land to his father. Balbino died intestate. as aunt and uncles. In the partition of his estate. The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property should be returned. They have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister named Romana Tioco).Wills and Succession 17 Case Digest Francisca Tioco DE PAPA. Dalisay Tongko CAMACHO.
.Wills and Succession 18 Case Digest Faustino (the propositus).´ i. Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiff s. the property took a ³detour´ through an ascendant thereby govong rise to the reservation bef ore its transmission to the reservatario. there is no doubt that the plaintiff s would hav e been excluded by the defendant under the rules of intestate succession. . although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. There is no reason why a different result should obtain simply because ³the transmission of the property was delayed by the interregnum of the reserva. the defendant. they are excluded from the succession by his niece. Had the rev ersionary property passed directly from the propositus.e.
then his illegitimate child shall succeed to his entire estate (Article 988). the appellate court certified the case to Supreme Court that such involved purely legal questions. The lower court dismissed the petition. the deceased died intestate. DEL PRADO. . Eugenio then filed a complaint bef ore CFI to annul the deed executed by Aurea adjudicating to her son a parcel of land left by Anastacio alleging that he (Eugenio) was depriv ed of his rightf ul share in the estate of his brother. Anastacio cohabited with Aurea Santos (who was legally married) without the benef it of matrimony and they begot a son named Jesus del Prado whom Anastacio admitted as his son in Jesus¶ birth certificate. without legitimate descendants or ascendants. September 23. Where. Illegitimate children other than natural are entitled to successional rights (Article 287). vs. SANTOS. the new Civil Code applies (Article 2263). ISSUE: Who has the better right to the parcel of land? Is it the minor left by Anastacio or the latter¶s brother? RULING: Since Anastacio del Prado died in 1958. to the exclusion of appellant who is only a collateral relativ e. plaintiff and appellant.R. G. At the time of Anastacio¶s death.Wills and Succession 19 Case Digest Eugenio C. who died single and intestate. 1966 FACTS: Eugenio del Prado is a legitimate brother of Anastacio del Prado. No. a parcel of land in his name was adjudicated to Jesus del Prado. L-20946. and upon appeal to CA. legal guardian of the minor Jesus Santos del Prado. as in this case. Aurea S. defendant appellee.
Aside from Josef a. Gorgonio and the decedent Josef a.and f ull-blood siblings. and the de f acto adopted child (ampun-ampunan) of the decedents. Nazario. January 27. The Marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josef a Delgado but whether a marriage in f act took place is disputed. his nephews and nieces. nephews and nieces. all surnamed Delgado. with one Amparo Sagarbarria. all surnamed Delgado. and (2) the alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia. and grandnephews and grandnieces. Sev eral circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josef a Delgado. Luis and his half -blood siblings Nazario. respondents. Heirs of Marciana RUSTIA.R. Lucio Campo was not the first and only man in Felisa Delgado¶s life. Felisa Delgado was nev er married to Lucio Campo. Guillermo Rustia did manage to f ather an illegitimate child. The Alleged Heirs of Josefa Delgado The deceased Josef a Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio Campo. were her natural children. 2006 FACTS: Guillermo Rustia and Josef a Delgado died without a will. howev er. the intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia. Hence. Jacoba. Who are the lawf ul heirs of Josef a Delgado? 2. Edilberta. ISSUES: 1. During his life with Josef a. . The Lawful Heirs of Josefa Delgado It was f ound out that Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were nev er married. Jose. These children. his sisters. Jose. 155733. Jacoba. were what was known in the local dialect as ampun-ampunan. Bef ore him was Ramon Osorio with whom Felisa had a son. namely. particularly. Who are the lawf ul heirs of Guillermo Rustia? RULING: 1. Howev er. consisting of her half . nev er legally adopted by the couple. Edilberta. Whether or not the grandnephews and grandnieces of Josef a Delgado can inherit by right of representation? 3. G. Heirs of Luis DELGADO. hence. namely. Josef a and her f ull-blood siblings were all natural children of Felisa Delgado.Wills and Succession 20 Case Digest In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of the Deceased Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Delgado. and Gorgonio. No. The claimants of their estates may be divided into two groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josef a Delgado. all the children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo. his illegitimate child. Luis Delgado. The Alleged Heirs of Guillermo Rustia Guillermo Rustia and Josef a Delgado nev er had any children but they took into their home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nani e Rustia. Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. five other children were born to the couple. petitioners vs.
if there are no descendants. nieces and nephews. she may be entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity. it cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces. 2.Wills and Succession 21 Case Digest The abov e-named siblings of Josef a Delgado were related to her by f ull-blood. ascendants. the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other one-half. grandnephews and grandnieces of Josef a Delgado. Guillermo Rustia¶s estate (including its one-half share of Josef a Delgado¶s estate) shall be inherited by Marciana Rustia vda. their respectiv e shares shall pertain to their estates. Theref ore. The remaining half shall pertain to (a) the f ull and half-siblings of Josef a Delgado who survived her and (b) the children of any of Josef a Delgado¶s f ull. Consequently. also surviving at the time of her death. Considering that Marciana Rustia vda. The records not being clear on this matter. They hav e a v ested right to participate in the inheritance. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz are now deceased. 1972. illegitimate children. the petitioners in this case are already the nephews.or half -siblings who may hav e predeceased her. the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of Josef a Delgado. or their children who were still alive at the time of her death on September 8. except Luis Delgado. Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code. Sr. . they are entitled to inherit from Josef a Delgado in accordance with Article 1001 of the new Civil Code: Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower. it is now f or the trial court to determine who were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their children) of Josef a Delgado at the time of her death. Howev er. her half-brother. or surviving spouse. As such. Nonetheless. consisting of his sisters. the only collateral relatives of Josef a Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters. they were held legal strangers to the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit from them ab intestato. Accordingly. The Lawful Heirs of Guillermo Rustia Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose respectiv e shares shall be per capita) and the children of the late Roman Rustia. Theref ore. She f ailed to present authentic proof of recognition. (who survived Guillermo Rustia and whose respectiv e shares shall be per stirpes). nieces. the lawf ul heirs of Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants. The trial court is hereby ordered to determine the identities of the relatives of Josef a Delgado who are entitled to share in her estate. Under Article 972 of the new Civil Code. the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Theref ore. Together with Guillermo Rustia. all of them are entitled to inherit from Josef a Delgado. since they were all illegitimate. they may inherit from each other. Josef a Delgado¶s grandnephews and grandnieces are excluded from her estate. Together with Guillermina Rustia Rustia. the right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces).
the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother. beyond any doubt at all. He has. On the other hadn¶t. where the lands proceeded. He has the right to recov er it. RULING: A v ery def inite conclusions of law is that the hereditary title is one without a valuable consideration (gratuitous tile). in their possession. Pedro who inherited two parcels of land upon the death of his f ather. petitioner-appellant. 6878.Wills and Succession 22 Case Digest Marcelina EDROSO. this appeal. No. because they hav e no title of . either actually or constructively or f ormally. his f ather Victoriano. inherited from him the two parcels of land which he had acquired without a valuable consideration ± that is. Pedro died. the right reserv ed by law to them be recorded in the registration of each parcel. ascendant of Pedro Sablan. because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and hav e title to it. although under a condition subsequent. and to dispose of is to alienate. the legal title and dominion. vs. she is obligated to relatives within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez (parents of Victoriano). is under obligation to reserve what he has acquired by operation of law for the relatives who are within the third degree and belong to the line where the property proceeded. Subsequently. Whether or not Marcelina Edroso has the absolute title of the property to cause its registration. Whether or not the property in question is in the nature of a reservable property. or form a brother or sister. by inheritance from another ascendant. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application f or registration of her ownership. although under a condition. Pablo and Basilio Sablan (legitimate brothers of Victoriano) opposed the registration claiming that either the registration be denied or if granted to her. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant property which the latter acquired without a valuable consideration from another descendant. Clearly he has under an express provision of the law the right to dispose of the property reserv ed. unmarried and without issue. G. he can do anything that a genuine owner can do. f or he who acquires by inheritance giv es nothing in return for what he receiv es.R. ev en though under a condition. Having acquire them by operation of law. Pablo and Basilio SABLAN. 1913 FACTS: Spouses Marcelina Edroso and Victoriano Sablan had a son named. The conclusion is that the person required by Article 811 to reserv e the right has. opponent-appellees. the relatives within the third degree in whose f avor of the right is reserv ed cannot dispose of the property. moreov er. although a limited and revocable one. After the right required by law to be reserv ed has been assured. and it is so characterized in Article 968 of the Civil Code. September 13. the legal title and dominion. Article 811. In a word. reside in him while he liv es. Marcelina Edroso. The trial court¶s ruling that they partake of the nature property required by law to be reserv ed is theref ore in accordance with the law. and a v ery definite conclusion of law also is that the uncles are within the third degree of blood relationship. 2. ISSUES: 1. Hence. the rights to use and usufruct. The two uncles of Pedro. first because it is no way. The Court of Land Registration denied the registration holding that the land in question partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserv ed and that in such a case application could only be presented jointly in the names of the mother and the said two uncles. and moreover.
on the hypothesis that only when the person who must reserv e the right should die bef ore them will they acquire it.Wills and Succession 23 Case Digest ownership or of the fee simple which they can transmit to another. .
who revoked it bef ore a witness. Cornelio MAMUYAC. we are f ully persuaded that the will presented f or probate had been cancelled by the testator in 1920. this appeal. petitioner. and (c) that the said will was not the last will and testament of Miguel Mamuyac. and bef ore another person who witnessed the actual cancellation by the testator in 1920. vs.Wills and Succession 24 Case Digest Estate of Miguel Mamuyac. No. L-26317. The petition was denied upon the ground that Mamuyac had executed a new will on April 1919. Af ter a caref ul examination of the entire record. when last seen. An action was filed to secure the probation of the said new will. in the absence of other competent evidence. who typed the 1919 will of the testator. . In view of the f act that the original will of 1919 could not be f ound af ter the death of the testator and in view of the positiv e proof that the same had been cancelled. the conclusions of the lower court are in accordance with the weight of evidence. 1927 FACTS: Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament on July 1918 and almost 4 years later. Francisco Gago presented a petition in the CFI f or the probation of such will which was opposed by Cornelia Mamuyac et al. The opponents alleged (a) that the said will is a copy of the second will executed by Miguel. the presumption is. G. Hence.R.. et al. Francisco GAGO. that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The petition was then again denied upon the ground that the will of 1919 had been the cancelled and revoked based on the evidence adduced by the trial court that the 1918 will is a mere carbon of its original which remained in the possession of the deceased. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. January 29. opponents. ISSUE: Whether or not the will in question has been revoked and cancelled. (b) that the same had been cancelled and revoked during the lifetime of the testator. RULING: The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserv ed. Where a will which cannot be f ound is shown to hav e been in the possession of the testator. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be f ound af ter his death.
H. the testamentary heirs submitted a project of partition which was approv ed by the court. Obviously. A petition f or the probate of his will was f iled in CFI which was opposed by his legal heir. petitioners.. to ask f or the nullification of the final orders and judgments in those two cases. his brother Leon Hitosis and his nephews and nieces. they filed an action f or the annulment of the will of Florentino and f or the recov ery of the parcels of land. 1978 FACTS: Florentino Hitosis. Hence. they realized that the f inal adjudications in those cases hav e the binding force of res judicata and that there is no ground. his one-half share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia. and should Tecia predecease him. grew up under the care of Florentino and had treated Perdo as his f oster child. No. respondents G. June 21. the complaint was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. as was the case. Subsequently. Leon instituted an action against Pedro f or the recov ery of the sixty-one parcels of land alleging that the f ormer had been in continuous possession of said land howev er. The court admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as executor. this petition f or certiorari. Adolf o Fortajada. The private respondents did not ev en bother to ask for the annulment of the testamentary proceeding and the proceeding on partition. 28 years after the probate of the will. .R. Tecia Dollentas. a childless widower executed a will wherein he beaqueathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second wife. ARCANGEL. Florentiono likewise bequeathed his separate properties to his protégé. The decree of probate is conclusiv e as to the due execution or f ormal validity of the will. RULING: The lower court committed a grav e abuse of discretion in reconsidering its order of dismissal and in ignoring the testamentary case. L-29300. Tecia¶s son by her f irst marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents hav e a cause of action f or the annulment of the will of Florention Hitosis and f or the recovery of the parcels of land. thus confirming the heirs¶ possession of their respective shares. Ubaldo Y. nor it is timely. The testator¶s legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate and from the order of partition and distribution. is binding upon the whole world. It is evident from the allegations of the complaint that the action is barred by res judicata. a minor. Hon. the reason being that Pedro. vs.. et al. The decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in the testate proceeding f or the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis having been rendered in a proceeding in rem. Pedro filed f or the dismissal of the complaint but the respondent judge set aside his order of dismissal and granted trial. et al. GALLANOSA.Wills and Succession 25 Case Digest Pedro D. The legal heirs of the testator did not appeal from the order of dismissal instead.
the testimony of the subscribing or instrumental witnesses (and of the notary). vs. . if the ordinary will is lost. The evidence of presented by Gan is ref used to be credited.Wills and Succession 26 Case Digest Testate Estate of Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap deceased Fausto E. In the first. the only guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself. her surviving husband Ildef onso Yap asserted that the deceased had not lef t any will. the court ref used to probate the alleged will. GAN. Ildefonso YAP. 1858 FACTS: Af ter the death of Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap. the subscribing witnesses are available to authenticate. Gan tried to establish its contents and due execution by the statements of allegedly f our (4) witnesses to the execution of the alleged will. In addition to the dubious circumstance described in the appealed decision. RULING: The Rules of Court allow proof (and probate) of a lost or destroyed will by secondary evidence ± the testimony of witnesses in lieu of the original document. These could pester her into amending her will to give them a share. ISSUE: Whether or not a holographic will may be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who hav e allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator. we f ind it hard to believe that the deceased should show her will precisely to relative who had received nothing from it. Gan appealed. even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will. if she wanted so much to conceal the will from her husband. Opposing the petition. nor executed any testament during her lifetime. we think the evidence submitted by petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it f ails to measure up to that :´clear and distinct´ proof required by the Rules of Court. Yet such Rules could not hav e contemplated holographic wills which could not then be validly made here. G. L-12190. The difference between holographic wills and ordinary will lies in the nature of the wills. Af ter hearing the parties and considering their evidence.R. oppositor-appellee. August 30. why did she not entrust it to her beneficiaries? In fine. The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof . in the second. Fausto Gan filed a petition f or the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the f omer. Due to the denial of motion for reconsideration. petitioner-appellant. Further. No. or threaten to rev eal its execution to her husband. The will itself was not presented.
November 29. G. as required by section 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2) to certify that after the signing of the name of the testator by Atty. petitioner. Juliana LACUESTA. RULING: The attestation clause is f atally defective f or f ailing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. . It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. deceased. Rosario GARCIA. respondents. L-4067.R. this appeal. The testator was alleged to hav e written a cross immediately af ter his name. Javier at the f ormer¶s request said testator has written a cross at the end of his name and on the lef t margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at the end thereof 3) to certify that the witnesses signed the will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and of each other. 1951 FACTS: A will was executed by Antero Mercado wherein it appears that it was signed by Atty. vs. The cross cannot and does not hav e the trustworthiness of a thumbmark. et al.Wills and Succession 27 Case Digest In the Matter of the Will of Antero Mercado. the SC is not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark and the reason is obvious. Javier at the express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and each and ev ery one of the witnesses. Hence. No. The Court of First Instance f ound that the will was valid but the Court of Appeals rev ersed the lower court¶s decision holding that the attestation clause f ailed: 1) to certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause is valid.. Af ter mature reflection. Javier to write the testator¶s name under his express direction. Florentino Javiwe who wrote the name of Antero.
not only once but twice. 808. Art. Various parties opposed the petition contending that the 1960 will was not intended by Gliceria to be her true will and that there was a 1956 will executed by Gliceria were the oppositors were named as legatees. once. brother or sister thereafter. Conrado M. Tamesis an ophthalmologist testified that Gliceria¶s left eye suffered f orm cataract in 1960 which made her vision mainly f or viewing distant object but not f or reading prints. 1969 FACTS: Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried and leaving no descendants. Jesus V. De Precilla. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself. That the aim of the law is to insure that the dispositions of the will are properly communicated to and understood by the handicapped testator. by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. is to make the provisions of the will known to the testator. Garcia. Dr. L-26808. the will shall be read to him twice. the deceased Gliceria del Rosario was like a blind testator and the due execution of her will would hav e required observance of the provisions of Article 808 of the Civil Code. VASQUEZ. petitioner. G. is evidenced by the requirement that the will should be read to the latter. . ISSUE: Whether or not Article 808 regarding blind testator be f ollowed in the instant case to make Gliceria¶s will valid? RULING: For all intents and purposes of the rules on probate. so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. If the testator is blind. Father Lucio V.R. and that the witnesses hav e to act within the range of his (the testator¶s) other senses. niece of the deceased petitioned f or probate the alleged last will and testament of Gliceria dated December 1960 and that she be appointed as special administratrix. thus making them truly reflective of his desire. respondent.Wills and Succession 28 Case Digest Rev. No. Hon. ascendants. March 28. Gonzales Vda. by two different persons. vs. Consuelo S. Consequently.
The petition was opposed by Rizalina assailing that the will is not genuine and was not executed and attested as required by law. vs. No. petitioner. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page f our and at the left margin of all the pages. . May 25. There is no dispute that Isabel died as a widow and without issue. L-37453.Wills and Succession 29 Case Digest Rizalina Gabriel GONZALES. respondents. Rizalina filed a motion f or reconsideration but the same was denied. petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of the said witnesses. Moreover. Lutgarda filed a petition f or the probate of a will alleged to hav e been executed by the deceased and designated Lutgarda as the principal beneficiary and executrix. 1979 FACTS: Lutgarda Santiago and Rizalina Gonzales are nieces of the late Isabel Andres Gabriel. which findings of f act this Tribunal is bound to accept and rely upon. the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses f or they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the f ormalities attendant to said execution. Hence this present action. RULING: Article 820 of the Civil Code provides f or the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills while Article 821 sets f orth the disqualification from being a witness to a will. G. The will submitted consists of five (5) pages and includes the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The lower court disallowed the probate of said will and as a consequence. the finding that each and ev eryone of the three instrumental witnesses are competent and credible is satisf actorily supported by the evidence as f ound by the respondent Court of Appeals. Hon.R. And we agree with the respondent that the rulings laid down in the cases cited by petitioner concerning character witnesses in naturalization proceedings are not applicable to instrumental witnesses to wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines. In probate proceedings. COURT OF APPEALS and Lutgarda SANTIAGO. In the case at bar. ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed and attested as required by law. Lutgarda appealed to Court of Appeals rev ersed the lower court¶s decision and allowed the probate of the will.
Gonzalez. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication. Beatriz Legarda Gonzalez. filed a motion to exclude from the inv entory of her mother's estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter. The real properties left by Benito were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters. . Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all). L-34395. The reservation became a certainty when at the time of her death the reserv ees or relativ es within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. In the testate proceeding. Legarda. Legarda. Legarda. Benito. The lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. all surnamed Legarda. on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito.R. de Legarda. Mrs. the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason. Legarda executed two hand-written identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties. ISSUES: 1. et al. Whether or not the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal? 2. Undoubtedly. Mrs. petitioner. died and was survived by his widow. a daughter of the testatrix. de Legarda could dispose of the properties in question in her will in f avor of her grandchildren to the exclusion of her six children? RULING: The properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. nephews and nieces and her mother's estate f or the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs. No.. Filomena Legarda y Roces died intestate and without issue. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA. Her sole heiress was her mother. Gonzales appealed under Republic Act No. in f avor of the children of her sons. Whether or not Filomena Roces Vda. May 19. 5440 and contends that the lower court erred in not regarding the properties in question as reservable properties under article 891 of the Civil Code. Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children. which she inherited from her daughter. Benito F. Without awaiting the resolution on that motion. respondents. G. That motion was opposed by the administrator. Alejandro and Jose. and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were represented by Benito F. Legarda. She later died and her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will in the Court of First Instance of Manila which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. GONZALES. Filomena. Filomena Roces. vs. Mrs. Mrs. she was a reservor. 1981 FACTS: Benito Legarda y De la Paz. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter.Wills and Succession 30 Case Digest Beatriz L. Consuelo and Rita. Filomena Legarda. Gonzalez filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers. Filomena Roces Vda. and their sev en children. Legarda could not bequeath in her holographic will to her grandchildren to the exclusion of her three daughters and her three sons. sisters.
The reservable property bequeathed by the reservor to her daughter does not f orm part of the reservor's estate nor of the daughter's estate but should be given to all the sev en reserv ees or nearest relatives of the prepositus within the third degree.Wills and Succession 31 Case Digest Mrs. should go to Mrs. It should be repeated that the reserv ees do not inherit from the reservor but from the prepositus. Legarda could not conv ey in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not f orm part of her estate. of whom the reserv ees are the heirs mortis causa subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor. by operation of article 891. The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reserv ees survived the reservor. . Legarda's six children as reserv ees within the second degree from Filomena Legarda. The said properties.
the petitioners f iled an amended complained bef ore the RTC to recover possession/ownership of the five (5) parcels of land as part of the estate of Lino and Genoveva. the same was merely limited jurisdiction. The latter went to CA on a petition f or certiorari and prohibition seeking the annulment of the orders of the probate court. Sr. No.. When Consolacion died. Leonardo. Jr. while the CFI had jurisdiction. Lino acquired f ive (5) parcels of land in Salomague. Thereaf ter. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. Howev er. Res judicata does not exist because of the difference in the causes of actions.. petitioners. Lino contracted a second marriage with Genov eva Caolboy with whom he begot the sev en petitioners herein: Tomas. 2. This pronouncement no doubt applies with equal f orce to intestate proceedings as in the case at bar.Wills and Succession 32 Case Digest Tomas JIMENEZ. respondents. G. the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. filed a motion f or exclusion of his f ather¶s name and those of his uncle and aunts contending that they hav e already received their inheritance consisting of five (f) parcels of land. Virginia f iled a petition bef ore CFI praying to be appointed as administratix of the properties of the deceased spouses Lino and Genov eva upon which Leonardo Jimenez. Pangasinan. . 1990 FACTS: Leonardo (Lino) Jimenez married Consolacion Ungson with whom he begot f our (4) children. Leonardo Jimenez. Digno. the petition of Virginia wherein she included the said f ive (5) parcels of land in the inventory of the estate of spouses Lino and Genov eva. namely: Alberto. Private respondents moved f or the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by prior judgments and by prescription and laches. 75773. Hence. Hon. can only be settled in a separate action.R. April 17. Amadeo. The patent reason is the probate court¶s limited jurisdiction and the principle that questions of title or ownership. the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolv e with finality. this petition for review on certiorari. vs. The other action was f or the settlement of the intestate estate of Lino and Genov eca while the other one was an action f or the recovery of possession and ownership of the five (5) parcles of land. A motion f or reconsideration was denied as well as the petition f or certiorari and mandamus f iled bef ore the appellate court. Whether or not in a settlement procceding (testate or intestate) the lower court has jurisdiction to settle questions of ownership. Visitacion. After Lino and Genov eva¶s death. It has been held that in a special proceeding f or the probate of a will. Jr. The probate court ordered the exclusion of the five (5) parcels of land and denied the motion f or reconsideration filed by Virginia. Antonio. Modesto and Virginial. Whether or not the petitioners¶ present action f or the recov ery of possession and ownership of the five (5) parcels of land is barred by res judicata RULING: Petitioners¶ present action f or recovery of possession and ownership is appropriately filed because as a general rule. Consequently. et al. Moreov er. which result in inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property. Any pronouncement by said court as to title is not conclusive and could still be attacked in a separate proceeding. all surnamed Jimenez.. moved for the exclusion of these properties from the inventory contending that such parcels of land were already adjudicated to his f ather and to his uncle and aunts. Subsequently. During such marriage. Alejandra and Angeles. et al. of which the CA dismissed. Bugallon. ISSUES: 1. a probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally.
the grounds relied upon by private respondents in their motion to dismiss do not appear to be indubitable.Wills and Succession 33 Case Digest Indeed. Res judicata has been shown to be unavailable and the other grounds of prescription and laches pleaded by private respondents are seriously disputed. .
Kalaw as sole heir instead. petitioner. Natividad eventually changed the name on the will by crossing out Rosa¶s name and replacing it with Gregorio K. corrections. or cancellations. Gregorio contends that the mere f act that Rosa agreed to submit the will f or examination estoppes her from questioning the validity of the alteration and invoking Art. G. Rosa asserted that the will should be probated on its original content bef ore the alteration was made. without the proper authentication. Judge Benjamin RELOVA and Gregorio K. KALAW.Wills and Succession 34 Case Digest Rosa K. ISSUE: May the will. But that change of mind can neither be giv en effect because she f ailed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her f ull signature. Judge Benjamin Relova denied the probate on the will. Kalaw made a holographic will executed on December 24. Natividad f ailed to properly authenticate such alteration with her f ull signature. in case of alterations. 814 of the Civil Code. FACTS: Natividad K. cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein. Rosa now sought f or the probate on the will as to its original unaltered text. L-40207. respondents. Kalaw. and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature. 1968.R. when a number of erasures. this cannot be done. or cancellation. when as in this case. Howev er. As it is. . corrected or interlined. the parties decided to submit the holographic will f or an examination by the National Bureau of Investigation. vs. the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole. with the erasures. 1984. To state that the Will as first written should be giv en efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. Kalaw. Howev er. her real intention cannot be determined with certitude. Originally. cancellation. RULING: No. corrections. sister of Natividad. The Bureau¶s f indings confirmed that the original writings and those of the alterations were written by the same person. as the sole heir. the will named Rosa K. but at most only as respects the particular words erased. September 28. Further. Ordinarily. No. correction. Hon. the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked f or the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will af ter that which could remain valid. Rosa argued that the probate should be denied since the alteration on the will is invalid f or f ailing to comply with Art. be submitted f or probate as to the original content prior to such alteration. 814 which states that ³In case of any insertion. erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his f ull signature´. but which alteration did not carry the requisite of f ull authentication by the f ull signature of the testator. the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision. which was altered by substituting the original heir with another. Because of this.
in the absence of other sisters or brothers. brothers and sisters exclude all other collateral relatives in the order of intestate succession. correctly awarded the land to Jacoba Marbebe. Valentine and Bonificia had an only son. Jacoba MARBEBE. and that. and this is not the scenario in the giv en case. f or the lands in dispute were inherited by a descendant. regardless of whether or not the latter belong to the line from which the property of the deceased came. defendant-appellee. under the conditions therein set f orth. under this principle. his mother. Agatona Vda. who belong to the line from which said properties came. The Court of First Instance declared that the land is property of Jacoba being the half sister of Juan. G. ev en if only a half sister. they should go to his nearest relativ e within the third degree on the maternal line or to his aunt and cousins and not to Jacoba Marbebe f or she belongs to the paternal line." According to them. particularly Articles 1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Juan. ISSUE: Who has the better right to succeed Juan? RULING: The provision on reserv e troncal cannot be applied in this case. Agatona Vda. Valentine and Bonif acia died leaving three parcels of land to their only son Juan. No. April 29. she has. or of children of brothers or sisters. plaintiffs-appellants. the case should be based upon Article 891 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which establishes what is known as "reserva troncal. from an ascendant. Said legal provision is. not applicable in this case. theref ore. executed a power of attorney authorizing the sister of his mother or his aunt. accordingly. Juan died intestate and without any issue. the properties in dispute should pass to the heirs of the deceased within the third degree. Jacoba Marbebe has the better right to succeed Juan. as Juan Marbebe's half -sister. et al. a better right than plaintiff s herein to inherit his properties. or a brother or sister.R. bef ore his marriage with Bonif acia Lacerna. She contends that pursuant to Articles 1003 to 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. since Juan Marbebe inherited the land from his mother. excludes all other collateral relatives. then. Jacoba Marbebe. pursuant to which a sister. vs. howev er. Bonif acia Lacerna. was protested by Jacoba Marbebe. L-14603. Based on the f oregoing.. de Corcino take care of the disputed land. by an ascendant from a descendant. This. Juan Marbebe. The said decision is in accordance with the order prescribed f or intestate succession. de Corcino and the nephews and nieces of Bonif acia questioned the decision of the court. Eventually. intervenor-appellee. (Emphasis supplied. Thus. 1961 FACTS: Valentine Marbebe begot a daughter. In reserv e troncal. Agatona Paurillo VDA. the Trial Judge.) This article applies only to properties inherited. According to them. . the ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant. is obliged to reserv e such property as he may have acquired by operation of law f or the benef it of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. Juan. DE CORCINO.Wills and Succession 35 Case Digest RIcardo LARCERNA. Furthermore.
precede the direction f or the disposition of the marker's property. Jose S. It was a matter of taste or preference." While another in testator's place might hav e directed someone else to sign f or him. if he did ev er execute said will. in this case. . Again. The unnumbered page is clearly identified as the f irst page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second page. influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein. Liboro pointed out that the first page of the will. G. as page two contains only the two lines abov e mentioned. the unnumbered page contains the caption "TESTAMENTO. petitioner-appellee. Clemencia Lopez. oppositor-appellant. In the present case. The reason f or this was that the testator was suffering from "partial paralysis. It was also argued that the testator should hav e signed the will with his signature and not only with his thumb print if he indeed had the capacity to execute the will. and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses was incapacitated to act as such. and the herein proponent. Furthermore.R. the Don¶s sister. Both ways are good. Furthermore. 2) that his signature appearing in said will was a f orgery. and (5) that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick. A statute requiring a will to be "signed" is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark. By their meaning and coherence. Jose S. Agustin LIBORO. L-1787 FACTS: The will of Don Sixto Lopez was submitted f or probate by Jose Lopez and Clemencia Lopez. which was contained in two pages in all. The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud. ISSUE: Whether or not there was substantial compliance to qualify the will for probate. No. there is nothing curious or suspicious in the f act that the testator chose the use of mark as the means of authenticating his will. Lopez. The testator affixed his thumbmark to the instrument instead of signing his name. and to aff ord means of prev enting the substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. principally the testator's sister. The probate was opposed by Agustin Liboro who contended that the will is not valid due to the f ollowing grounds: (1) that the deceased nev er executed the alleged will. bef ore the attestation clause. if that be necessary. vs. was not numbered in letters or Arabic numbers as what should hav e been required by law. which starts at the bottom of the preceding page. the mark of the testator and the signatures of the witnesses. it was in Spanish. he was wanting in testamentary as well as mental capacity due to advanced age. it was not executed and attested as required by law. the attestation clause. is supplied by other f orms of identification more trustworthy than the conv entional numerical words or characters. as appellant contends should hav e been done. ² all of which.Wills and Succession 36 Case Digest Testacy of Sixto Lopez. RULING: There has been substantial compliance ev en in the presence of the averred irregularities. and it was procured by duress. in the logical order of sequence. the f irst and second lines on the second page are undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the testament. the will did not expressly state that the language used is a language which the Don understood. the other sheet can not by any possibility be taken f or other than page one. LOPEZ. (4) that. (3) that at the time of the execution of the will." the invocation of the Almighty. the omission to put a page number on the f irst sheet. and a recital that the testator was in f ull use of his testamentary f aculty.
there is no statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in the will itself.Wills and Succession 37 Case Digest As f or the question on the language of the will. It is a matter that may be established by proof aliunde. The will may theref ore be submitted f or probate. .
or 2. When presented bef ore the court. or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it. Atty. and by his express direction. Thus. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament. 76464. Panfilo MALOTO and Felino MALOTO. COURT OF APPEALS. or by some other person in his presence. may be conceded. and the fact of its unauthorized destruction. while the case was still in progress. yet that requisite alone would not suffice. By some will. or other writing executed as provided in case of wills. by the testator himself. The appellate court f ound out that the will was burned by the househelper of Adriana and was at the possession of the lawyer in because Adriana was seeking the services of the lawyer in order to have a new will drawn up. Upon denial of the trial court. Howev er. cancelling. the heirs executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana¶s estate which provides f or the division of the estate into f our equal parts among themselves. f or that is a state of mind. codicil. However. The will likewise giv es devises and legacies to other parties.. Aldina MALOTO CASIANO. If burned. vs. and the estate distributed in accordance therewith. while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke. No. By implication of law. cancelled. cancellation. The intention to . discov ered a document entitled ³KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento) and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. respondents. or 3. or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. RULING: Article 830. Panfilo and Felino) in this case who are her niece and nephews. tearing. In this case. the petitioners came bef ore the Supreme Court by way or petition f or certiorari and mandamus which were dismissed because they were not the proper remedies. a f ormer associate of Adriana¶s counsel. 1988 FACTS: Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs the parties (Aldina. Aldino and Constancio joined by other devisees and legatees filed a motion f or reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and f or the allowance of the will. the will may still be established. Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate that what they hav e received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement.Wills and Succession 38 Case Digest Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto. without the express direction of the testator. Constantcio. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: 1. Sulpicio Palma. G. said agreement was approv ed. ISSUE: Whether or not the will of Adriana Maloto had been efficiently revoked. Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will. or obliterated by some other person. Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements f or the effective revocation of a last will and testament. By burning. February 29.R. petitioners. the f our (4) heirs commenced an intestate proceeding f or the settlement of their aunt¶s estate which was instituted in the then CFI. three years later. et al. among them being the petitioners. and due execution. if its contents. torn.
There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For one. tearing. . the document or papers burned by Adriana¶s maid was not satisf actorily established to be a will at all. obliterating. the burning was not prov en to have been done under the express direction of Adriana and was not done in her presence. or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. For another.Wills and Succession 39 Case Digest revoke must be accompanied by the ov ert physical act of burning.
Narcisa RIMANDO. L-5971. 1911 FACTS: Rimando opposes the admission f or probate of a certain will on the ground that one of the subscribing witnesses therein was present in the small room where it was executed at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures. does not mean that the testator and the subscribing witnesses may be held to hav e executed the instrument in the presence of each other if it appears that they would not hav e been able to see each other sign at that moment. but whether they might hav e been seen each other sign. vs. had they chosen to do so. but that at that moment existing conditions and their position with relation to each other were such that by merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign. across which was hung a curtain which made it impossible f or one in the outside room to see the testator and the other subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument.Wills and Succession 40 Case Digest Beatriz NERA. No.. G. et al. The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign. without changing their relative positions or existing conditions. That time he was outside. This.R. . But it is especially to be noted that the position of the parties with relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature. of course. At the moment when a witness signs the document he was actually and physically present and in such position with relation to the other witnesses that he could see ev erything that took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so. The question whether the testator and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription by each of them. must be such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so. ISSUE: How may the requirement of the law f or all witnesses to subscribe to the will ³in the presence´ of each other apply to this case. defendant-appellant. considering their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature. in a large room connecting with the smaller room by a doorway. February 27. some eight or ten feet away. RULING: The will may be admitted f or probate. plaintiffs-appellees.
June 23. be considered to still be valid with respect to the free portion of the will? RULING: No. The CFI of Rizal decided in f avor of the parents and declared that there was indeed preterition of compulsory heirs. 1966 FACTS: Rosario Nuguid. Felix and Paz. The parents opposed on the ground of preterition. On May 18. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insof ar as they are not inofficious. filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on Nov ember 17. They . but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated.R. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line.C.Wills and Succession 41 Case Digest Remedios NUGUID. Lourdes and Alberto. This was opposed by the parents of Rosario. legitimate or illegitimate. But she left f orced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents. 17. Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs were simply ineffectively disinherited and that they are entitled to receive their legitimes. 1963. Surviving her were her legitimate parents.´ The deceased Rosario Nuguid lef t no descendants. Article 854 of the Civil Code states that ³(T)he preterition or omission of one. preterition has an effect of completely nullifying the will. Felix NUGUID and Paz Salonga NUGUID. do hereby give. ISSUE: May a part of the will. In witness whereof. being of sound and disposing mind and memory. and six brothers and sisters. oppositors and appellees. and bequeath all of the property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister Remedios Nuguid. testator in the holographic will. (Sgd. some 11 years bef ore her death. died single and without descendants." although the inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes. Remedios Nuguid. The will completely omits both of them.) Illegible T/ ROSARIO NUGUID Remedios prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her. Conrado. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born af ter the death of the testator. No. Federico. G. petitioner and appellant. residing with me at 38-B Iriga. 1951. 1951 I. shall annul the institution of heir. sister of Rosario. Q. legitimate or illegitimate. namely: Alfredo. some. L-23445. nineteen hundred and fifty-one. age 34. having amassed a certain amount of property. all surnamed Nuguid. ROSARIO NUGUID. I have signed my name this seventh day of November. vs. The will stated as f ollows: Nov. Remedios. Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. devise. when preterition has been declared.
Rosario Nuguid died intestate. no inference of disinheritance may be had. Such was not present. Also. The law requires that the institution of devisees and legatees must be expressly stated in the will. they were depriv ed of their legitime. Remedios¶ claim that the will should only be nullified as to the part of the legitime and that she should thus be considered a devisee or legatee is without merit. f or disinheritance to be proper.Wills and Succession 42 Case Digest thus receiv ed nothing by the testament. . the disinheritance should be clearly and expressly stated in the will. It cannot be gleaned in the will that any specif ic legacies or bequests are therein provided f or. neither were they expressly disinherited. tacitly. It is in this posture that the Supreme Court held that the nullity is complete. the omission of the parents in the will cannot be interpreted as a f orm of disinheritance as the law also requires that. Perf orce. This is a clear case of preterition. Absent that.
. petitioners. ORENDAIN. consequently. in violation of Articles 867 and 870 of the Civil Code. heirs of Hilarion Orendain. Clause 10 enumerated the properties to be placed in trust f or perpetual administration (pangasiwaan sa habang panahon). and Enrico Orendain. Clauses 11 and 12 directed how the income from the properties ought to be divided among. ISSUE: 1. Some of Doña Margarita Rodriguez¶s testamentary dispositions contemplated the creation of a trust to manage the properties and the income from her properties f or distribution to beneficiaries specif ied in the will. the f ollowing pertinent items in the will paint the desire of the decedent: 1. 2009 FACTS: On July 19. No. et al. At the time of her death. The will was admitted to probate. v. without regard to legitimes. Clause 24 instructed the administrators to provide medical support to certain beneficiaries. and Enrico ORENDAIN. Clause 2 instructed the creation of trust. Whether or not the named trustees may be considered as heirs to the estate. to be deducted from the f und deposits in the bank mentioned in Clauses 2 and 3. Whether or not a trust may be perpetual. Jr. 2. maintenance and operation of the high school. June 30.R. Sr. The trustees argued that the trust instituted may be perpetual citing the case of Palad. Doña Margarita Rodriguez. RULING: The general rule remains that upon the expiration of the twenty-year allowable period. 2. represented by Fe D. including the estate tax. the decedent. Trusteeship of the Estate of Doña Margarita RODRIGUEZ. 4. Jr. was completely free to dispose of her properties. died in Manila. which they argued had been in existence f or more than twenty years. Almost f our decades later. The Palad Case is not violative of such provision of the law by the trust constituted by Luis Palad because the will of the testator does not interdict the alienation of the parcels devised. which regards as void any disposition of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable f or more than 20 years. Clause 3 instructed that the remaining income from specified properties. the decedent left no compulsory or f orced heirs and. af ter the necessary deductions f or expenses. respondent. The will merely directs that the income of said two parcels be utilized for the establishment. 168660. and distributed to the different beneficiaries. who was mentioned in Clause 24 of the decedent¶s will. be deposited in a f und with a bank. 1960. 3. as provided in her will.Wills and Succession 43 Case Digest Hilarion. leaving a last will and testament. G. Gov ernor of Quezon Province where the trust holding the two estate of one Luis Palad was allowed to exist ev en af ter the lapse of twenty years. and 5. herein petitioners Hilarion. vs. Thus. mov ed to dissolv e the trust on the decedent¶s estate. the estate may be disposed of under Article 870 of the New Civil Code.
Apparent from the decedent¶s last will and testament is the creation of a trust on a specific set of properties and the income accruing therefrom. The herein testatrix¶s large landholdings cannot be subjected indef initely to a trust because the ownership thereof would then effectively remain with her ev en in the af terlife.Wills and Succession 44 Case Digest Said Article 870 was designed to giv e more impetus to the socialization of the ownership of property and to prevent the perpetuation of large holdings which give rise to agrarian troubles. Theref ore. unlike in the Palad case. In the present case. Nowhere in the will can it be ascertained that the decedent intended any of the trust¶s designated benef iciaries to inherit these properties. The trust involved in the Palad case cov ers only two lots. And the income derived therefrom is being devoted to a public and social purpose ± the education of the youth of the land. . howev er. the probate court must admit the case to determine the properties to be subject to intestate succession as well as the nearest relative of the deceased that may inherit the said properties under the perpetual trust. there is a different situation as the testatrix specifically prohibited the alienation or mortgage of her properties which were definitely more than the two (2) properties. The use of said parcels theref ore is in a sense socialized. which hav e not been shown to be a large landholding.
CUARTERO G. Said declaration in the will may not be taken lightly. The marriage of Rosa to Carlos had been duly established by testimonial and documentary evidence.Wills and Succession 45 Case Digest OZAETA vs. ISSUE: Whether or not the declarations in a valid Last Will and Testament may be admitted as conclusive evidence of an existence of a f act during the lifetime of the testator. 1956 FACTS: Maria Cuartero and Rosa Gonzales both claimed that they were married to Carlos Palanca Taguinlay in 1929 and 1945. which children according to him were legitimated by reason of their subsequent marriage. . as a statement of little significance. On the other hand. and property respectiv ely. Palanca executed his will and he made the solemn declaration in said document that since 1923 and f or some years thereafter he maintained amorous relations with Maria Cuartero and had by her six natural children whom. When he made said statement he was about 76 years old and must have felt that he had not many years left to live. RULING: Declarations in a valid Last Will and Testament may be admitted as conclusiv e evidence of an existence of a f act during the lifetime of the testator of the said Will. L-5597. He said nothing about having married Maria. on the contrary. he had liberally fed and supported.R. One of the pieces of evidence presented was the will executed by Carlos Palanca wherein he declared that he married Rosa Gonzales in which marriage they had eight children. he declared that f or grave reasons he regarded her unworthy of being the guardian of the persons and property of his children by her and so appointed Felisa Joson de Fernandez and the Philippine National Bank as guardians of their persons. May 31. according to him. respectiv ely. No. in the same will he spoke of his marriage to Rosa Gonzales and the eight children he had by her.
1958 FACTS: In an order. BALDOVINO G. The reservatarios who are nephews of the f ull blood are declared entitled to a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half -blood.R. . No. December 27. ³co-owners pro indiviso in equal shares of the parcels of land´ subject matter of the suit. Records are remanded to the court below f or f urther proceedings. without distinction. the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Special Proceedings declared all the reserv ees.Wills and Succession 46 Case Digest PADURA vs. L-11960. RULING: The appealed order was rev ersed and set aside.
The Order sought to be executed by the assailed Order of execution is the Probate Order allegedly resolved the question of ownership of the disputed mining properties. no hearing was held. Elena Achaval de PASTOR. FACTS: Spouses Alvaro Pastor. ATLAS was directed to remit directly to Quemada the 42% royalties due to decedent¶s estate.. of which Quemada was authorized to retain 75% f or himself as legatee. Instead. the 33% share of Pastor Jr. G. Jr. and Lewellyn QUEMADA. the SC dismissed the petition and remanded the same to the probate court af ter denying reconsideration. Sr. and Sofia on the ground of pendency of the reconv eyance suit. . Howev er. Pending motion. the probate court set the hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will but upon objection of Pastor Jr. who claimed to be the owners in their own rights. Lewellyn Quemada. Elena. Quemada instituted against Pastor Jr. ISSUE: Whether or not the Probate Order resolved with finality the questions of ownership and intrinsic validity. Further. not conclusive. Juan Y. Consequently. and/or his assignees was ordered garnished to answer f or the accumulated legacy of Quemada. Being ³immediately executory´. (Pastor Jr. L-56340. 1983. and/or his assignees until after resolution of oppositor¶s motion f or reconsideration. and an illegitimate child. the issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will. June 24. Quemada filed a petition f or the probate and allowance of an alleged holographic will of Pastor Sr. the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Hon. Not long after. resolving the question of ownership of the royalties payable by ATLAS and ruling in effect that the legacy to Quemada was not inofficious. the probate court required the parties to submit their respective position papers. The oppositors sought reconsideration thereof but in the meantime. Quemada succeeded in obtaining a W rit of Execution and Garnishment. No. RULING: In a special proceeding f or the probate of a will. petitioners.Wills and Succession 47 Case Digest Spouses Alvaro PASTOR. As a rule. Thereaf ter. Jr. Pursuant to said order. the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto. and his wife f iled with the CA a petition f or certiorari and prohibition with a prayer f or writ of preliminary injunction assailing the writ of execution and garnishment issued by the probat e court. with the CFI which contained only one testamentary disposition: a legacy in f avor of Quemada consisting of 30% of Pastor Sr. Hence.R. said petition was denied as well as their motion f or reconsideration. Pastor Jr. and Sof ia Bossio were survived by their two legitimate children Alvaro Pastor. whether or not cov ered or affected by the holographic will. the probate court ordered suspension of payment of all royalties due Pastor Jr. and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. While the reconv eyance suit was still pending in another court. REYES. all pleadings of both parties remained unacted upon. this petition f or review by certiorari with prayer f or a writ of preliminary injunction. f or the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties. The order was affirmed by CA and on petition f or review. and Ma. and not by inheritance. but such determination is provisional. respondents. vs. the probate court appointed Quemada as special administrator of the entire estate of Pastor Sr. The probate court issued an order allowing the will to probate. the probate court issued Order of Execution and Garnishment. Thus. Howev er. and his wife an action f or reconveyance of alleged properties of estate which included the properties subject of the legacy which were in the names of spouses Pastor Sr.) and Sof ia Pastor (Sofia). The COURT OF APPEALS. and Ma. For two years after remand of the case to the probate court.¶s 42% share in the operation by ATLAS.
the same having been duly authenticated pursuant to the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. and that. . For it confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the will. theref ore. and the need f or and propriety of appointing a special administrator. error f or the assailed implementing Orders to conclude that the Probate Order adjudged with f inality the question of ownership of the mining properties and royalties. considering that the issue of ownership was the v ery subject of controversy in the reconv eyance suit that was still pending. it is manifested therein that ownership was not resolv ed. premised on this conclusion.´ It declared that the intestate estate administration aspect must proceed subject to the outcome of the suit f or reconv eyance of ownership and possession of real and personal properties. Thus it allowed and approv ed the holographic will ³with respect to its extrinsic validity. It was. On the contrary. The Probate Court did not resolve the question of ownership of the properties listed in the estate inventory. the dispositive portion of the said Probate Order directed special administrator to pay the legacy in dispute.Wills and Succession 48 Case Digest nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of ownership of specific properties.
RULING: ART. Simeon R. a special proceeding was instituted by Simeon. A motion f or reconsideration was then filed by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and contending that the law requires that the Will should contain the day. there is no appearance of fraud. Andres R. de JESUS. ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code. petitioners vs. bad f aith. Jr. As a general rule. and year. dated. Simeon was then appointed administrator of the estate and consequently. L-38338. Howev er. Luz Henson. month and year of its execution. G. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written. the lower court issued an order allowing the probate which was f ound to have been duly executed in accordance with law. month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with. 1985 FACTS: Af ter the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus. and may be made in or out of the Philippines. The court then reconsidered its earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holographic will on the ground that the word ³dated´ has generally been held to include the month. and signed by the hand of the testator himself. one of the compulsory heirs f iled an opposition to probate assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in accordance with law. . No. he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana which was then set f or a hearing.R. Howev er. the ³date´ in a holographic will should include the day. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date ³FEB/61´ appearing on the holographic will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. day. It is subject to no other form. January 28. when as in the case at bar. ROXAS and Pedro ROXAS de Jesus. 810. brother of Bibiana.Wills and Succession 49 Case Digest In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. and need not be witnessed. probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance. De Jesus and Bibiana Roxa de Jesus.
thereby indicating the legislator¶s desire to promulgate just one general rule applicable to both situations. this appeal. RULING: Intestate proceedings in the New Civil Code¶s chapter on legal or intestate succession. where the widow or widower surviv es with only one child (exception). oppositors-appellees. 892 of the New Civil Code insisting that after deducting ½ from the conjugal properties (conjugal share of Perfecta). L-19281. the remaining ½ must be divided as f ollows: ¼ f or her and ¾ f or him. Claro. Claro then filed a motion to declare share of heirs and to resolv e conflicting claims of the parties invoking Art. Four years af ter Pedro¶s death. where the widow or widower survives with legitimate children (general rule). Hence. and the second. 996 was taken. Perfecta MIRANDA. Claro filed a petition f or letters of administration which was opposed by his mother and spouses Benito Miranda and Rosario Corrales. 996 of the NCC to another ½ of the remaining half. The court appointed commissioners to draf t a project of partition and distribution of all properties of Pedro. Perfecta Miranda and one son. G. After due notice and hearing. No. Our conclusion (equal shares) seems a logical inference from the circumstance that whereas Article 834 of the Spanish Civil Code f orm which Art. Perfecta claimed besides her conjugal half. June 30. ISSUE: The manner of division of share of the estate of an intestate decedent when the only survivors are the spouse and one legitimate child. the court held that Perfecta is entitled to ½ share and the remaining ½ share f or Claro after deducting the share of the widow as co-owner of the conjugal properties.R. petitioner-appellant. she was entitled under Art. 996 omitted to provide f or the second situation. Claro SANTILLON. contained two paragraphs gov erning two contingencies. the first. the only article applicable is Art. . Benito MIRANDA and Rosario CORRALES. 1965 FACTS: Pedro Santillon died without testament leaving his wife. vs. Art.Wills and Succession 50 Case Digest In the Matter of the Instestate Estate of Pedro Santillon. On the other hand. 996.
dated and signed by the hand of Sef undo himself. et al. Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause theref ore shall be specif ied. The document entitled. should hav e allowed the holographic will to be probated. Private respondents mov ed f or the dismissal of the probate proceedings on the ground that the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. In other words. and signed by the hand of the testator himself. the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in f avor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo. . is an act of disposition in itself . 2) Segundo executed a general power of attorney in favor of Virginia giving her the power to manage and exercise control and supervision ov er his business in the Philippines. Amor A. it is settled that testate proceedings f or the settlement of the estate of the decedent to take precedence over intestate proceedings f or the same purpose.R. ISSUES: 1. Alfredo and that the matter presents a sufficient cause f or the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code.Wills and Succession 51 Case Digest Dy Yieng SEANGIO. hence this present action. Whether or not the holographic will is valid. as an heir to his estate f or the reasons that he cited therein. It is subject to no other f orm. nonetheless. although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument. For disinheritance to be valid. The two petitions were then consolidated. and need to be witnessed. petitioners. Alfredo. In effect. SEANGIO and Virginia D. RTC then issued an order dismissing the petition f or probate proceedings. Secundo¶s document. Barbara and Virginia opposed the petition contending that: 1) Dy Yieng is still very healthy. SEANGIO. dated.. 3) Virginia is the most competent and qualified to serv e as the administrator of the estate. a petition f or the probate of the holographic will of Segundo was f iled by the petitioner and reiterating that the probate proceedings should take precedence ov er the petition f iled by the private respondents because testate proceedings take precedence and enjoy priority over the intestate proceedings. G. Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo. respondents. Alfredo SEANGIO. Nos. In view of the f oregoing. whether or not the disinheritance is valid. Howev er. RULING: A holographic will. REYES. Thereaf ter. Such that. taken as a whole. and may be made in or out of the Philippines. of which petitioners filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. November 27. Hon. Barbara D. and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter¶s property. vs. and 4) Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting one of the private respondents. petitioners Dy Yieng. With regard to the reasons f or the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document. theref ore. the Court believes that the incidents. Due to petitioner¶s denial of motion f or reconsideration. unmistakably showed Segundo¶s intention of excluding his eldest son. Kasulatan ng Pag-Alis ng Mana. must be entirely written. the disinheritance of Alfredo. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng Seangio. conf orms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. as provided under Article 819 of the Civil Code. An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument. 140371-72. It is written. 2006 FACTS: Private respondents f iled a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio and praying f or the appointment of private respondent Elisa D. 2. the trial court. can be considered a f orm of maltreatment of Segundo by his son.
CA issued a resolution ordering the legal heirs as well as spouses Sicad as appellants and denied the motion f or withdrawal of the appeal. Hence. More importantly. T16105 (the donor¶s title) and. the eight division of CA denied the separate motions f or reconsideration f iled by Montinola¶s legal heirs and the spouses Sicad. Montinola died and shortly thereafter. ISSUE: Whether the donation is one mortis causa or inter vivos. Indeed.R. the donation was void and could not effectively serv e as basis f or the cancellation of TCT No. Montinola later then drew up a deed of revocation and caused it to be annotated as an adv erse claim on TCT No. T-16622 in the name of the donees. et al.Wills and Succession 52 Case Digest Spouses Ernesto and Evelyn SICAD. While appeal was pending bef ore the CA. since it had not. COURT OF APPEALS. August 13.. They did not get poseession of the property donated. nothing of any consequence was t ransferred by the deed of donation in question to Montinola¶s grandchildren. RULING: The real nature of a deed is to be ascertained by both its language and the intention of the parties as demonstrated by the circumstances attendant upon its execution. was perfectly valid and efficacious. Montinola¶s secretary presented the deed f or recording in the Property Registry and the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 125888. Catalino VALDERAMA. In a donation mortis causa the right of disposition is not transferred to the done while the donor is still alive. The deed contained the signatures of the donees in acknowledgment of their acceptance of the donation. they did not acquire the right to dispose of the property ± this would accrue to them only after ten (10) years from Montinola¶s death. issued TCT No. the explicit provisions of the deed of donation ± reserving the exercise of rights of ownership to the done and prohibiting the sale or encumbrance of the property until ten (10) af ter her death ± ineluctably . until she transferred the same ten (10) years after her death. In the instant case. including. Howev er. T-16622 f ollowed by filing a petition f or cancellation of said TCT and the reinstatement of TCT No. All these circumstances. vs. 1998 FACTS: Aurora Montinola executed a ³Deed of Donation Inter Vivos´ in f avor of her grandchildren who are the private respondents herein. having f ully complied with the requirements theref or set out in Article 729 of the Civil Code. Afterwards. They did not acquire the right to the fruits thereof . Another motion was presented by the legal heirs of Montinoal declaring that they were not interested in pursuing the case and asked that the appeal be withdrawn howev er Montinola¶s counsel opposed the motion. this action. petitioners. The trial court decided that the donation was indeed one inter vivos and dismissed Montinola¶s petition f or lack of merit. T16105. The matter of its recovation was not passed upon. to repeat. respondents. G. T-16105 and the issuance in its place of TCT No. The donees opposed the petition averring that the donation was one inter vivos which. the spouses Sicad filed a Manifestation and Motion alleging that they had become the owners of the property covered by TCT No. Montinola retained the owner¶s duplicate copy of the new title as well as the property itself. in its place. Howev er. A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the done the right to dispose of the donated property during the donor¶s lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. or any other right of dominion over the property. the ostensible donees. They were theref ore simply ³paper owners´ of the donated property. they nev er ev en laid hands on the certificate of title to the same. T-16622. Her petition was granted on the ground that the donation was one mortis causa which thus had to comply with the f ormalities of a will. No. T-16622 in virtue of a ³deed of def inite sale´ and prayed that they be substituted as appellants and allowed to prosecute the case in their own behalf .
contemplating a transfer of ownership to the donees only af ter the donor¶s demise. .Wills and Succession 53 Case Digest lead to the conclusion that the donation in question was a donation mortis causa.
the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista. subject to the condition that the vendees would def initely acquire ownership. 1952. According to the cadastral records of Ayuquitan. and paid the taxes due thereon. he had f our children named Agaton. Said vendees demanded from Paulina and her husband. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died. (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserv e and (2) the survival. theref ore. it is also clear that the sale executed by the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso in f avor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory condition. Andrea Gutang died on December 13. single and without any descendant. as his sole heir. Paulina and Cipriana. his mother. 1951. and Lot 3368 (western portion) to Francisco. Because Francisco was a minor at the time. No. Cipriana Yaeso was still alive. vs.R. the properties lef t by Saturnino upon his death were left to his children as f ollows: Lot 3366 to Cipriana. the surrender of the OCT which was in their possession. of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. With his first wife. Lot 3375 to Agaton. et al. while with his second wife. Lot 3367 to Fernando. that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property. In connection with reservable property. The reserv e instituted by law in f avor of the heirs within the third degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property came. it is clear upon the f acts already stated. constitutes a real right which the . that he may alienate the same but subject to reservation. This Court has held in connection with this matter that the reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. only if the v endor died without being survived by any person entitled to the reservable property. 1961 FACTS: Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. thus giving rise to the filing of the corresponding motion in the cadastral. Fernando. at the time of his death. Lot 3377 (southern portion) to Paulina. namely. On the other hand. said alienation transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists. the weight of opinion is that the reserv e creates two resolutory conditions.00. executed the public instrument and sold the property in question to appellants in consideration of the sum of P800. which was denied. by virtue of the alienation. The sale made by Andrea Gutang in f avor of appellees was. the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous sale made by the f ormer in favor of appellants became of no legal effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in exclusiv e ownership to Cipriana. plaintiffs-appellants. the latter ref used. March 24. his mother administered the property f or him.Wills and Succession 54 Case Digest Constancio SIENES. ISSUE: Whether or not the reservable property in question is part of and must be rev erted to the estate of Cipriana Yaeso. When Francisco died at the age of 20. Fidel ESPARCIA.. the lone reserv ee surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13. As a result of the cadastral proceedings. that the land in question was reservable property. he had an only son named Francisco. defendants-appellees. L-12597. declared it in her name f or taxation purposes. RULING: As held by the trial court. Andrea Gutang. an OCT cov ering Lot 3368 was issued in the name of Francisco. Teresa Ruales. G.
we are not now in a position to reverse the appealed decision. Thus the f ormer became the absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's death. was still alive when Andrea Gutang. one of the reserv ees.Wills and Succession 55 Case Digest reserv ee may alienate and dispose of . the condition being that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the v endee only if and when the reserv ee survives the person obliged to reserv e. While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this ev ent. albeit conditionally. because the v endees did not appeal therefrom. the person obliged to reserv e. became effective because of the occurrence of the resolutory condition. In the present case. died. . in so f ar as it orders the rev ersion of the property in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso. Cipriana Yaeso.
In connection to this. issued two order directing the two banks to allow Marina to withdraw from the savings of Marcelina and Marilyn Suroza and requiring the custodian of the passbooks to deliver them to Marina. Judge Honrado issued on order probating Marcelina¶s supposed will wherein Marilyn was the instituted heiress. she and other occupants f iled a motion to set aside the order ejecting them. they reared a boy named Agapito who used the surname Suroza and who considred them as parents as shown in his marriage contract with Nenita de Vera. She executed a notarial will which is in English and was thumbmarked by her f or she was illiterate. Upon motion of Marina. Nenita filed in the testate case an omnibus petition ³to set aside proceedings. he was disabled and his wife was appointed as his guardian when he was declared an incompetent. Marcelina.Wills and Succession 56 Case Digest Nenita de Vera SUROZA. admit opposition with counter petition f or administration and preliminary injunction´ reiterating that Marilyn was a stranger to Marcelina. As there was no opposition. Marina Paje (alleged to be a laundrywoman of Marcelina and the executrix in her will) filed a petition f or probate of Marcelina¶s alleged will. Further. Later. Marilyn used the surname Suroza and stayed with Marcelina but was not legally adopted by Agapito. that he has a daughter named Lilia. and that Marilyn was not Agapito¶s daughter nor the decedent¶s granddaughter. Instead of appealing. as a v eteran¶s widow. Agapito and Nenita begot a child named Lilia and af terwards. No. In spite of such f act. Hence. that Nenita was Agapito¶s guardian. Nenita was then alerted to the existence of the testamentary proceeding hence. Judge Honrado issued another order instructing the sheriff to eject the occupants of the testatrix¶ house among whom was Nenita and to place Marina in possession thereof . Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to Marilyn. and that the thumbmarks of the testatrix were procured by fraud or trick. Nenita filed an opposition to the probate of the will and a counter-petition which was howev er. who was delivered to Marcelina Salvador Suroza who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter. that the will was not duly executed and attested. Howev er. ISSUE: Whether or not a disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge f or having admitted a will. alleging that the decedent¶s son Agapito was the sole heir of the deceased. When Mauro died. After her death. A. this complaint. December 19. Judge Reynaldo P. being a v eteran¶s widow accumulated some cash in two banks. Not contented with her motions. HONRADO and Evangeline YUIPCO. Nenita filed a case to annul the probate proceedings which was also dismissed. became a pensioner of the Federal Government. Judge Honrado appointed Marina as administratix and subsequently. The spouses Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child named Marilyn Sy. a woman named Arsenia de la Cruz (apparently a girlfriend of Agapito) wanted also to be his guardian howev er the court confirmed Nenita¶s appointment as guardian of Agapito. Agapito also became a soldier. Marcelina. which on its f ace is void. a corporal in the 45 Inf antry of the US Army (Philippine Scouts) married Marcelina Salvador but they were childless. complainant. vs.M. RULING: Disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge f or his improper disposition of the testate case which might hav e resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the decedent¶s th . respondents. dismissed. In that will. they questioned the probate court¶s jurisdiction to issue the ejectment order. Howev er. 1981 FACTS: Mauro Suroza. 2026-CFI. that the institution of Marilyn as heir is void because of the preterition of Agapito and that Marina was not qualif ied to act as executrix.
respondent judge. . ignorance and carelessness. Inefficiency implies negligence. prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service.Wills and Succession 57 Case Digest legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in the void will should hav e inherited the decedent¶s estate. on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate testatrix. could have readily perceiv ed that the will is void. A judge would be inexcusably negligent if he f ailed in the perf ormance of his duties that diligence. incompetence. In this case.
or cause some other person to write his name. each and every page thereof. G. under his express direction. No. the three motions filed by the petitioner were denied. the latter did not comply with the said order. and the second page contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the end of such clause by the said instrumental witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. Hon. on the left margin. Judge of Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte (Branch III. he filed a manifestation and/or motion ex parte praying for a thirty-day period within which to deliberate on any step to be taken as a result of the disallowance of the will and f urther. ISSUE: Whether or not the law requires that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one another. through Judge Pamatian. howev er. vs. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator¶s name written by some other person in his presence. The objects of attestation and of subscription were f ully met and satisfied in the present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the lef t margin of the sole page which contains all the . L-36033. Howev er. RULING: Article 805. November 5. ROSAL. and by his express direction. other than a holographic will.Wills and Succession 58 Case Digest In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of the Will of Dorotea Perez. Instead. denied the probate of the will f or want of f ormality in its execution and ordered Taboada to submit the names of the intestate heirs. Maasin) respondent. petitioner. it is our considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in a manner which f ully satisfies the purpose of identification. The trial court. hence this present petition. Meanwhile. Judge Rosal assumed the position. 1982 FACTS: In the petition f or probate filed with respondent court. Taboada filed a motion f or the appointment of special administrator. and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof. the motions could not acted upon by Judge Pamatian due to his transfer and thus. in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. Avelino S. Taboada attached the alleged last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez which was written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and consisting two pages: the f irst page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the lef t hand margin by three (3) instrumental witnesses. Subsequently. and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. shall also sign. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. except the last. as aforesaid. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will. Every will.R. he filed a motion f or reconsideration of the order denying the probate of the will. Insof ar as the requirement of subscription is concerned. Apolonio TABOADA.
There was no question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order. especially so when the will was properly identified by the subscribing witnesses. .Wills and Succession 59 Case Digest testamentary dispositions.
Raymundo and Lutgarda died. Their relative Julia Capiao predeceased the daughter. et al.R. COURT OF APPEALS. who then married Raymundo Zipagan. the latter leaving no will. RULING: Relativ es on the legitimate line. G.. et al. Being relatives on the legitimate line of Julia Capiao.. DE CRISOLOGO. The plaintiff s herein (relatives within the f ifth degree) were consequently instituted as Lutgarda¶s legal heirs to inherit all the properties which were hers by virtue of the extra-judicial partition. respondents. Lutgarda. 1985 FACTS: Julia Capiao had an extra-marital aff air with Victoriano Taccad. L-44051. they cannot inherit from her illegitimate daughter.It is clear from the records that the petitioners cannot inherit the properties in question because of Article 992 of the Civil Code. has to right to inherit from an illegitimate daughter. ISSUE: Whether or not the relatives of Julia may inherit from her illegitimate child Lutgarda. petitioners. June 27. named Lutgarda Capiao. No. with one child and/or f orced heir. vs. Raymundo and Lutgarda were childless. .Wills and Succession 60 Case Digest Eufracia VDA.
If there should be any stress on the participation of lawyers in the execution of a will. The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of an ordinary layman.. filed a petition f or the probate of the alleged will and testament as well as codicil of the late Eugenia Danila. the oppositors interposed an opposition to the motion to which the intervenors f iled their reply. that oppositors repudiated their institution as heirs and executors because they f ailed to cause the recording in the Register of Deeds the will and testament in accordance with the Rules and committed acts of ingratitude when they abandoned the testatrix and denied her support. respondents. the compromise agreement was disapprov ed except as regards to their lawf ul rights. There is no showing that the lawyers who participated in the execution of the will had been remiss in their sworn duty. the alleged will and codicil be probated and that she or any other person be appointed as administrator of the estate. it cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty as members of the Bar to uphold the lofty purpose of the law. et al. The petitioners herein filed a motion f or leav e to intervene as co-petitioners and f iled a reply partly admitting and denying the material allegations in the opposition to the petition and alleging among other things. and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. 1978 FACTS: Adelaida Nista claimed to be one of the instituted heirs. COURT OF APPEALS. and the original petition and amended opposition to probate of the alleged will and codicil stand. and that Adelaida is not competent and qualified to act as administration of the estate.R. the intervenors (petitioners herein) also filed a motion f or new trial and/or re-hearing and/or relief from judgment and to set aside the judgment based on the compromise agreement and consequently. Adelaida prayed that af ter due notice and hearing. the parties entered into a compromise agreement which was approv ed by the lower court. that the f ormalities required by law f or the execution of a will and codicil have not been complied with. RULING: There is ample and satisf actory evidence to convince the Supreme Court that the will and codicil were executed in accordance with the f ormalities required by law. No. L-40804. The oppositors herein appealed to the Court of Appeals set aside the order of allowing the probate. Marcelina (Martina) GUERRA. DE RAMOS.Wills and Succession 61 Case Digest Rosario Feliciano VDA. The latter filed a motion f or reconsideration but was denied. The lower court allowed and admitted to intervene the petitioners herein. this present action. Afterwards. petitioners. that the late Eugenia Danila had already executed her last will and testament was duly probated and not revoked or annulled during her lifetime.. that the purported will and codicil were procured through fraud and undue influence. other than an interested party. Consequently. Buenav entura and Marcelina. ISSUE: Whether or not the last will and testament and its accompanying codicil were executed in accordance with the f ormalities of the law considering the complicated circumstances that two (2) of the attesting witnesses testif ied against their due execution while other non-subscribing witnesses testif ied to the contrary. Hence. The lower court also denied the motion f or the appointment of a special administrator filed by the intervenors. the Court of Appeals f ailed to consider the presumption of regularity on the questioned documents. both surnamed Guerra. It appears positively and convincingly that the documents were prepared by a lawyer and the execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate and bef ore whom the deeds were also acknowledged. to avoid substitution of the will and testament. G. vs. There were no . January 31. The lower court then allowed the probate of the will although two of the instrumental witnesses testified that they did not see the testatrix sign the will. filed an opposition alleging among others that they are legally adopted children of the late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila. et al. The object is to close the door against bad f aith and fraud. Subsequently.
Neither it is disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will and codicil in the presence of each and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly acknowledged bef ore a Notary Public who was all the time present during the execution. . Similarly. There is no question that each and every page of the will and codicil carry the authentic signatures of Eugenia Danila and the three (3) attesting witnesses. the attestation claim far from being def icient were properly signed by the attesting witnesses.Wills and Succession 62 Case Digest incidents brought to the attention of the trial court to arouse suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence. no evidence was presented to prov e their occurrence.
who succeeds with other compulsory heirs. The settlement gav e fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the bank deposits of Estrellita and her daughters to Raf ael and the other fifty percent (50%) to Lauro. The private respondent herein is a brother of Estrellita. Lauro filed a motion f or reconsideration but was denied. by way of donation. Teresita (one of his children) instituted an instestate estate proceeding and prayed to be appointed Special Administratix of Raf ael¶s estate. February 11. In a consolidated order. Ramon stated that Lauro is one of Raf ael¶s children by right of representation as the widower of the deceased legitimate daughter. the car and the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property be collated. vs. RTC appointed Ramon as the guardian of Salud and Ricardo while Teresita was appointed as the Special Administratix of Raf ael¶s estate howev er. Estrellita purchased again from Premier Homes a parcel of land with improvements. which the trial court granted. Hence. Caloocan City and Ramon G. during the lifetime of the latter. Estrellita purchased from Raf ael a parcel of land which was af terwards sold to Amelia Lim and Natividad Chiu. COURT OF APPEALS.R. Estrellita. Estrellita is one of the f iv e children of spouses Raf ael Nicolas and Salud Gonzales. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. or any other gratuitous title. she sought to be appointed as Salud and Ricardo¶s guardian of which Ramon filed an opposition. NICOLAS. petitioner. Raf ael died and to settle his estate. ISSUE: Whether or not the Parañaque property is subject to collation. Branch 120. 118449.Wills and Succession 63 Case Digest Lauro G. he filed his own petition av erring that the legitime of Salud and Ricardo should come from the collation of all the properties distributed to his children by Raf ael during his lifetime. Private respondent filed another opposition alleging that Estrellita was giv en the Valuenzela property and subsequently. this action. G. Not long after. in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir. VIZCONDE. Lauro entered into an ³Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde with Waiver of Shares´ with his wife¶s parents. The car and the property were given to Lauro and to Estrellita¶s parents but the latter waiv ed all their claims. 1998 FACTS: Spouses Lauro Vizconde and Estrellita Nicolas had two children namely. an unf ortunate ev ent happened when Estrellita and her daughters were killed. rights. Further. despite this manifestation. Every compulsory heir. Thereaf ter. Ramon moved to include Lauro in the intestate estate proceeding and asked that the Parañaque property. respondents. RULING: Basic principles of collation: Article 1061. Consequently. No. and in the account of the partition. Carmela and Jennifer. Ramon was af terwards remov ed as guardian f or selling his wards¶ property without the court¶s knowledge and permission. . ownership and participation as heirs in the said properties. RTC then ordered Lauro to file any appropriate petition or motion related to the pending petition insof ar as the case is concerned and to f ile any opposition to any pending motion that has been filed by Ramon and Teresita. Howev er. Lauro fied a Manifestation stressing that he was neither a compulsory heir nor an intestate heir of Raf ael and he has no interest to participate in the proceedings. Lauro f iled a petition f or certiorari and prohibition bef ore the Court of Appeals but the same was denied. must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent.
the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property which may or may not be included in the estate proceedings. collation of the Parañaque property has no statutory basis. the probate court. howev er. W e note that what was transferred to Estrellita by way of deed of sale. 2) As a rule. 3) The order of the probate court subjecting the Parañaque property to collation is premature. nonetheless. The Parañaque property which Estrellita acquired by using the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property does not become collationable simply by reason thereof. The attendant f acts herein do not make a case of collation: 1) The probate court erred in ordering the inclusion of petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding. Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory heirs and involves property or rights receiv ed by donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the decedent. as well as the presence or absence of consideration. a son-in-law of Raf ael. 4) Even on the assumption that collation is appropriate in this case. is not one of the latter¶s compulsory heirs. so that the division may be made according to law and the will of the testator. Indeed. are matters outside the probate court¶s jurisdiction. It should be stressed that Estrellita died ahead of Raf ael. Such determination is provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolv e title. is the Valenzuela property. we note that the probate court went beyond the scope of its jurisdiction when it proceeded to determine the validity of the sale of the Valenzuela property between Raf ael and Estrellita and ruled that the transfer between the concerned parties was gratuitous. and 5) it is f utile for the probate court to ascertain whether or not Valenzuela property may be brought to collation. In the case at bench. . Petitioner. The interpretation of the deed and the true intent of the contracting parties. Records indicate that the intestate estate proceedings is still in its initiatory stage.Wills and Succession 64 Case Digest Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or other f orced heirs who intervene in the division of the inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass the property which they received from him. made a reversible error in ordering collation of the Parañaque property.