This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Paula Conde, mother of natural children ose and !eofista Conde, "hom she states she had by Casiano Abaya, moved for the settlement of the intestate succession. !he deceased#s brother, $oman Abaya, opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as bein% the nearest relative of the deceased. $oman Abaya moved that, after due process of la", the court declare him to be the sole heir of Casiano Abaya, to the e&clusion of all other persons, especially of Paula Conde, and to be therefore entitled to ta'e possession of all the property of said estate, and that it be ad(udicated to him) Paula Conde asserts that the her ri%ht "as superior to that of $amon and prayed that she be declared to have preferential ri%hts to the property left by Casiano and that the same be ad(udicated to her. !he !rial Court ruled in favor of Conde statin% that: !hat the administrator of the estate of Casiano Abaya should reco%ni*e !eopista and ose Conde as bein% natural children of Casiano Abaya) that the petitioner Paula Conde should succeed to the hereditary ri%hts of her children "ith respect to the inheritance of their deceased natural father Casiano Abaya) and therefore, it is hereby declared that she is the only heir to the property of the said intestate estate, to the e&clusion of the administrator, $oman Abaya. $amon Abaya appealed the said decision. +ssue: ,hether or not Paula Conde should succeed to the hereditary ri%hts of her children "ith respect to the inheritance of their deceased natural father Casiano Abaya. -eld: .o. !he ri%ht of action that devolves upon the child to claim his le%itimacy lasts durin% his "hole life, "hile the ri%ht to claim the ac'no"led%ment of a natural child lasts only durin% the life of his presumed parents. +nasmuch as the ri%ht of action accruin% to the child to claim his le%itimacy lasts durin% his "hole life, he may e&ercise it either a%ainst the presumed parents, or their heirs) "hile the ri%ht of action to secure the ac'no"led%ment of a natural child, since it does not last durin% his "hole life, but depends on that of the presumed parents, as a %eneral rule can only be e&ercised a%ainst the latter. /sually the ri%ht of action for le%itimacy devolvin% upon the child is of a personal character and pertains e&clusively to him, only the child may e&ercise it at any time durin% his lifetime. As an e&ception, and in three cases only, it may be transmitted to the heirs of the child, to "it, if he died durin% his minority, or "hile insane, or after action had been already instituted. 0A$!. 1181 2o that, in order that it may constitute a portion of the child3s inheritance, it is necessary that the conditions and the terms contained in article 118 shall be present, since "ithout them, the ri%ht that the child held durin% his lifetime, bein% personal and e&clusive in principle, and therefore, as a %eneral rule not susceptible of transmission, "ould and should have been e&tin%uished by his death. !herefore, "here no e&press provision li'e that of article 118 e&ists, the ri%ht of action for
private respondents are duty7bound to comply "ith the provisions of Articles 1898 and 1899.hen the petitioners refused to leave. And under Art. 4oreover.o.o. . !he spouses :eminiano Pamplona and Apolonia . . "hich is transmitted on his death to his heirs. -eld: =es.hether or not petitioners are entitled to the full o"nership of the property sub(ect of liti%ation.hen 4onica died. their assi%ns and heirs.the ac'no"led%ment of a natural child is. Flaviano 4oreto and 4onica 4anie%a be not allo"ed to impu%n the sale e&ecuted by Flaviano 4oreto "ho indisputably received the consideration of P9@@. 1B11. para%raph 1. "hich is the obli%ation of the vendor of the property of deliverin% and transferin% the o"nership of the "hole property sold. 4oreto 0not CA1 Facts: 5urin% their marria%e.e" Civil Code. in principle and "ithout e&ception. /nder Article <<6. 1899 and so lot . .o. the inheritance "hich private respondents received from their deceased parents andAor predecessors7in7interest included all the property ri%hts and obli%ations "hich "ere not e&tin%uished by their parents3 death. 1896. :eminiano Pamplona. as the heirs of both 4onica 4anie%a and Flaviano 4oreto. respondents demanded from the petitioners to vacate the premises on the %round that Flaviano had no ri%ht to sell the lot as the same belon%s to the con(u%al partnership of Flaviano and his deceased "ife and the latter "as already dead "hen the sale "as e&ecuted "ithout the consent of the plaintiffs "ho are the heirs of 4onica.nte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1896 as Flaviano 4oreto. !he vendor Flaviano 4oreto and the vendee :eminiano Pamplona thou%ht all the time that the portion of <81 s6uare meters "hich "as the sub(ect matter of their sale transaction "as . Civil Code. the contract of sale e&ecuted by the deceased Flaviano 4oreto too' effect bet"een the parties. 1899 appears to be the sub(ect matter in the deed of sale althou%h the fact is that the said portion sold thou%ht of by the parties to be lot . the successors of both the deceased spouses. . . "ithout the consent of the heirs of his "ife and before any li6uidation of the con(u%al partnership . ?6uity commands that the private respondents. e&tin%uished by his death. pointed to it as the land "hich he sold to :eminiano Pamplona. includin% his children. 4ore than 6 years after the death of 4onica. Flaviano 4oreto and 4onica 4arie%a ac6uired several parcels of land777lots 1899. +ssue: .8989 and 1896.e" Civil Code. he had a perfect le%al and la"ful ri%ht to dispose of his share to the Pamplonas. at the time of the sale. and cannot be transmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child. Pamplona v. an action for the declaration of the nullity of the deed of sale as re%ard one7half of the property sub(ect matter of the said deed "as brou%ht by the respondents a%ainst the petitioners. the estate of the deceased became the property of the community of property bet"een the survivin% spouse Flaviano and his children "ith the deceased in the concept of co7o"nership. 2ps. . "ho are the . Flaviano e&ecuted a deed of absolute sale coverin% lot 1899 in favor of the petitioners.o.@@ and "hich he. 1899 is a part of lot . 2ince Flaviano "as entitled to > pro7indiviso of the entire land area as his share.hen Flaviano died intestate. benefitted from the same. the herein private respondents.
alle%ed that "itness Francisco 4analo is not reputed to be trust"orthy and reliable and that his "ords should not be ta'en on its face value. /mali. meters to the petitioners 0"hich "as the ori%inal obli%ation of their predecessor Flaviano 4oreto1 and not only one7half thereof. $ule 1B@. he stressed that said "itness has several char%es in court and because of his desire to have some of his cases dismissed.+CC2. he "as as'ed by the police investi%ators to %ive a statement on the manner and circumstances of ho" he "as able to purchase t"o 0D1 mari(uana foils from accused :loria /mali. !he instruction "as for 4analo to brin% bac' the prohibited dru% purchased by him to the police head6uarters. 2armiento. . or conviction of a crime unless other"ise provided by la". Chief of the +nvesti%ation 5ivision %ave him four 081 mar'ed P9.hether or not 4analo "as 6ualified to be a "itness. +n the absence of any sho"in% that the trial court had overloo'ed certain substantial facts.a detention prisoner "as touched by the appeal made to him by the policeman and a%reed to help in the identification of the source of the mari(uana. per(ury or false testimonyE are dis6ualified from bein% "itnesses to a "ill.AC CA. Fe" minutes there after.ith the consent of Francisco 4analo. !he phrase Econviction of a crime unless other"ise provided by la"E ta'es into account Article 8D1 of the Civil Code "hich states that persons convicted of falsification of a document. to the private respondents is transmitted the obli%ation to deliver in full o"nership the "hole area of <81 s6. Accordin%ly. . eto lan% relation sa . all persons "ho can perceive. Private respondents must comply "ith said obli%ation.E 0 2ince the "itness Francisco 4analo is not convicted of any of the above7mentioned crimes to dis6ualify him as a "itness and this case does not involve the probate of a "ill. 4analo returned "ith t"o 0D1 foils of dried mari(uana "hich he alle%edly bou%ht from the accused :loria /mali. Furthermore. shall not be a %round for dis6ualification. +n return he as'ed the policeman to help him in some cases pendin% a%ainst him. and indeed are bindin% even on this Court. he "as li'ely to tell falsehood. !hereafter. People v. +ssue: . Promise. Pfc. /mali7 C$+4+.e rule that the . $eli%ious or political belief. and perceivin% can ma'e 'no"n their perception to others may be "itnesses.private respondents herein. interest in the outcome of the case. -eld: =es. 2ection D@ of the $evised $ules of Court provides that: ?&cept as provided in the ne&t succeedin% section.@@ bills to buy mari(uana from sources 'no"n to him. said factual findin%s are entitled to %reat "ei%ht. CA2? to. Facts: Francisco 4analo.
in the absence of evidence that he "as actuated by improper motive. "hether the "ill in 6uestion is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the si%nature of the testator and of the three attestin% "itnesses are "ritten on the ri%ht mar%in of each pa%e of the "ill instead of the left mar%in. secondly. /pon the first point.hether or not the "ill should be admitted to probate re%ardless of the %rounds presented. "ithout producin% or accountin% for the absence of the other t"o) and. upon the proof of a sin%le attestin% "itness. From this (ud%ment an appeal "as ta'en in behalf of the persons contestin% the "ill. /pon the latter point the "itness "as corroborated by the person "ho "rote the "ill at the re6uest of the testator. the instrument no" before us contains the necessary si%natures on every pa%e. "hile it is undoubtedly true that an uncontested "ill bay be proved by the testimony of only one of the three attestin% "itnesses /pon the second point. !he testimony of a "itness should be %iven full faith and credit. namely. and the only errors here assi%ned have reference to the t"o follo"in% points. Avera v. /pon the date appointed for the hearin%. and that the testator "as at the time in full possession of disposin% faculties. contest "as made by 4arino :arcia and uan $odri%ue*. first. -eld: =es. "here opposition is made. Fy the mode of si%nin% adopted every pa%e and provision of the "ill is authenticated and %uarded from possible alteration in e&actly .fact that said "itness is facin% several criminal char%es "hen he testified did not in any "ay dis6ualify him as a "itness. -e accordin%ly admitted the "ill to probate. +ssue: . "hether a "ill can be admitted to probate. and the only point of deviation from the re6uirement of the statute is that these si%natures appear in the ri%ht mar%in instead of the left. in the absence of any evidence that "itness Francisco 4analo "as actuated by improper motive. the proponent of the "ill introduced one of the three attestin% "itnesses "ho testified that the "ill "as e&ecuted "ith all necessary e&ternal formalities. :arcia Facts: ?uti6uia Avera instituted for probate of the "ill of one ?steban :arcia. -ence. the trial (ud%e found that the testator at the time of the ma'in% of the "ill "as of sound mind and disposin% memory and that the "ill had been properly e&ecuted. the latter in the capacity of %uardian for the minors ose :arcia and Cesar :arcia.hen the proponent rested the attorney for the opposition introduced a sin%le "itness "hose testimony tended to sho" in a va%ue and indecisive manner that at the time the "ill "as made the testator "as so debilitated as to be unable to comprehend "hat he "as about. his testimony must be accorded full credence. . After the cause had been submitted for determination upon the proof thus presented.
!he controllin% considerations on the point no" before us "ere "ell stated In Re "ill of Aban%an 08@ Phil. supra. "here the court. Fut. any other interpretation "hatsoever. +n the case before us. leavin% blan's on the reverse sides. or alternate pa%es. 8<91. "ere si%ned and not each "ritten pa%e) for as observed in that case by our late lamented Chief ustice.. 2o "hen an interpretation already %iven assures such ends. !he same could not be said of a case li'e that of ?state of 2a%uinsin. also one must not lose si%ht of the fact that it is not the ob(ect of the la" to restrain and curtail the e&ercise of the ri%ht to ma'e a "ill. spea'in% throu%h 4r. 8<6. "here in%enuity could not su%%est any possible pre(udice to any person. in a case "here the si%natures "ere placed at the bottom of the pa%e and not in the mar%in. said: !he ob(ect of the solemnities surroundin% the e&ecution of "ills is to close the door a%ainst bad faith and fraud. on the other hand. !herefore the la"s on this sub(ect should be interpreted in such a "ay as to attain these primordial ends. . to avoid substitution o "ill and testaments and to %uarantee their truth and authenticity. useless and frustrative of the testator3s last "ill. "hich conceivably mi%ht have been filled in subse6uently. such deviation must be considered too trivial to invalidate the instrument. it "as possible that in the "ill as there ori%inally e&ecuted by the testratri& only the alternative pa%es had been used. must be disre%arded. that adds nothin% but demands more re6uisites entirely unnecessary.the same de%ree that it "ould have been protected by bein% si%ned in the left mar%in) and the resources of casuistry could be e&hausted "ithout discoverin% the sli%htest difference bet"een the conse6uences of affi&in% the si%natures in one mar%in or the other. "here only the leaves. ustice AvanceGa. as attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the la".